Does Conservatism promote economic Freedom?

The answer depends entirely on what your definition of economic freedom is.

If your idea of economic freedom is free college, government handouts and the like, Conservatism is not for you.

If however you believe in hard work, voluntary charity and personal empowerment, you immediately knew the correct answer to the above rhetorical question……Heck yeah it does!

Status Quo

Why would an independent vote for Ron Paul or Michelle Bachman over Obama but choose Obama over Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich? Many independents are not ideologues. They pledge no allegiance to either liberty or progressiveness. They would like to see dramatic change and are skeptical of politicians in general.

Possibly they are drawn to candidates that represent a stark contrast from the status quo.
Michelle Bachman, Herman Cain and Ron Paul are perceived as outsiders who might turn the whole corrupt system on its ear.

Romney and Gingrich resemble politics as usual; only slightly less horrible than the Democrats. Even though independents recognize that Big O is in over his head, they like him. He’s the kind of guy they would hang out with if only they were billionaires.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/03/herman-cain-politico-lawsuit_n_1075169.html

“I wonder why Cain's accusers won't come out of the shadows. Perhaps they are eager to steer clear of any investigation into their character. I'm curious to know what relationships

­ the accusers have with each other if any.

Also I would be interested in knowing how many settlement­s they've received over the span of their careers and whether they would prove credible under scrutiny.

If the anonymous accusers are concerned about what may come to light I don't blame them for great reluctance­.”

The Pragmatic Libertarian Coalition

The battery of government is coercion. Without coercion a government cannot collect taxes, protect its citizens from foreign invasion or perpetrations from within. The distinguishing characteristics from one government to another have everything to do with the extent and severity force is executed and the circumstances in which force is applicable.Government sanctioned force is arguably the cause of most human suffering today and since before the days of old. Historic accounts from varying perspectives support the notion that governments are the most dangerous institutions known.
Governments however, play a vital role protecting and maintaining civilized life. Without government everyone (instead of just most people) would suffer at the hands of unregulated warlords and thieves. It seems that civilization is caught in a hardcore catch 22.
Indeed government is perhaps the most feared criminal institution known to humankind. It is also true that government, armed to the teeth, is absolutely essential.Can we agree then that government is a necessary evil? If so would it be fair to say that government should exist but be severely restrained and regulated? Who has the greatest potential to cause much harm - groups or individuals?Certainly individuals are capable of causing harm, but causing great harm often requires conspiracy and collusion, also basic elements of government institutions. True representative governments must restrict their size and scope. When a government becomes so big that it diverts from the people, taking on a life of its own and seeking its own ends, it has become malevolently corrupt. At that point it's time to throw off the old government and start anew.

One Nation & New Immigrants

The following is a letter that came across Poffrono's desk in Tempe. Originally it was sent to actual media outlets who (not surprisingly) did not print it. Poffrono thinks it's beautiful and strongly advised that we post it forthwith



Dear Editor:

So many letter writers have based their arguments on how this land is made up of immigrants. Ernie Lujan for one, suggests we should tear down the Statute of Liberty because the people now in question aren't being treated the same as those who passed through Ellis Island and other ports of entry.

Maybe we should turn to our history books and point out to people like Mr. Lujan why today's American is not willing to accept this new kind of immigrant any longer.

Back in 1900 when there was a rush from all areas of Europe to come to the United States , people had to get off a ship and stand in a long line in New York and be documented. Some would even get down on their hands and knees and kiss the ground. They made a pledge to uphold the laws and support their new country in good and bad times. They made learning English a primary rule in their new American households and some even changed their names to blend in with their new home.

They had waved good bye to their birth place to give their children a new life and did everything in their power to help their children assimilate into one culture. Nothing was handed to them. No free lunches, no welfare, no labor laws to protect them. All they had were the skills and craftsmanship they had brought with them to trade for a future of prosperity.

Most of their children came of age when World War II broke out. My father fought along side men whose parents had come straight over from Germany , Italy , France and Japan . None of these 1st generation Americans ever gave any thought about what country their parents had come from. They were Americans fighting Hitler, Mussolini and the Emperor of Japan.

They were defending the United States of America as one people. When we liberated France , no one in those villages were looking for the French-American or the German-American or the Irish- American. The people of France saw only Americans. And we carried one flag that represented one country. Not one of those immigrant sons would have thought about picking up another country's flag and waving it to represent who they were. It would have been a disgrace to their parents who had sacrificed so much to be here.

And here we are in 2006 with a new kind of immigrant who wants the rights and privileges. Only they want to achieve it by playing with a different set of rules, one that includes the entitlement card and a guarantee of being faithful to their mother country. I'm sorry, that's not what being an American is all about.

I believe that the immigrants who landed on Ellis Island in the early 1900's deserve better than that for all the toil, hard work and sacrifice in raising future generations to create a land that has become a beacon for those legally searching for a better life. I think they would be appalled that they are being used as an example by those waving foreign country flags.

And for that suggestion about taking down the Statute of Liberty, it happens to mean a lot to the citizens who are voting on the immigration bill. I wouldn't start talking about dismantling the United States just yet.

Signed) Rosemary LaBonte

Nation Of Immigrants?

Click here and then scroll down to find Ernie Lujan's (BS)letter that did get printed.