Where Do We Get Our Values?

Harlingen, Texas, February 20, 2008: If you make your home in Texas, you can’t escape them.  They are everywhere these days, hurriedly promising bounty to all within range of their voices. Even their printed matter is filled with pledges of greater public funding.  The Democrat contenders for the Oval Office will GIVE everyone healthcare.  They will GIVE everyone a meaningful education.  They will GIVE those who are about to lose their homes, protection. They will GIVE those on the border and across the nation security.  They will GIVE the illegal alien his or her unearned path to citizenship.

The only thing wrong with all these wonderful gifts is they are not the property of political office seekers to pass out as if they were door prizes.  What they want to give away is not theirs.  It is a redistribution of every hard working American’s wealth.

The reality is, those who march on the secular left, while parroting compassion and reaching out to the poor and underserved with grandiose monetary rewards, rarely give anything from their own personal treasuries.  They speak of change and hope, but what they really mean is they hope to give their followers your change…along with the folding money from your wallets.

Where do people find their values?  For me, I guess it was spending many years wearing the Eagle, Globe and Anchor of the Marine Corps.  It was my family.  It was obtaining college degrees after I learned the difference between education and indoctrination.  It was dedicating my post-military years to laboring in the non-profit sector.  But, most of all, those important life molding values came from the church.

Coming from such a background also makes me to look upon political candidates with great suspicion and causes me to develop particular distain for those who trumpet a socialist agenda. These same politicos also anger me because they treat the public purse as if it were their own private piggy bank.

I wonder why a political party that is blatant in socialistic pronouncements can’t be honest about the party name. Those who advocate socialism should be proud of their heritage and not hide it behind the title of Democrat.  Because their agenda is liberal and left, why do they hide this fact and label themselves Progressive?  Most of all, when they claim to be loving and giving and caring about those who are less fortunate, why do they not display these feelings with the generous giving of themselves and their bounty?

This final thought actually brings me to the heart of this commentary.  When defined by the left, conservatives, particularly religious conservatives are always portrayed as uncaring people who lack generosity.  These observations are far from factual. According to Dr. Arthur C. Brooks of Syracuse University, religious conservatives are among the most caring and giving people in America.

In his book, “Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatives” Dr. Brooks finds that “religious conservatives are far more charitable than secular liberals, and that those who support the idea that government should redistribute income are among the least likely to dig into their own wallets to help others.”

The professor, who is politically independent, claims that religious people gave about three and a half times as much each year as secular people.  Their giving rate was $2,210 for each $642 given by those who never attended a religious service.  Even when giving to their church or temple was subtracted, and giving to religion based charitable organizations were set aside, Brooks found that the religious conservatives still gave $88 a year more to non religious charities than secular people.  His research also noted that when viewing the giving trends of the twenty-five most generous states, the greatest charitable totals came from 24 states, which we would call Red, or conservative.

What else did Brooks find?  When he started his research, the professor of economics assumed those who favor a larger role for government and a greater redistribution of wealth would also be the most generous to charities.  He found just the opposite was true.  He says, “In essence, for many Americans, political opinions are a substitute for personal checks.”

He found that conservative and religious people are more likely than liberal donors to give to charities such as colleges and hospitals.  His data shows that religious people, on average give 54% more per year than secular people to human welfare charities. 

When he looked at religious working poor, he found that in households of equivalent income, those who had jobs gave three times more than the households of welfare recipients.  He further noted that the very act of receiving welfare seemed to make the recipients more liberal – “and hence less likely to give.”

Other findings included registered Republicans were seven percentage points higher in charitable giving than registered Democrats.

Conservative Americans were more likely to give blood each year and did so more often.  If liberals and moderates gave at the same level, our blood supply would almost double.

Though most of the data in his research dates back several years, up to 2004, most observers find the various liberal vs. conservative giving trends remain relevant today.  For example young liberal Americans, those under 30, are perhaps the most vocally dissatisfied political body in the country.  They are also one of the least generous groups noted by the study.  The young secular liberals belong to one-third fewer organizations in their communities.  They are 12% less likely to give to charities and one third less likely to give blood.  Young liberals were also significantly less likely than young conservatives to express a willingness to make sacrifices for their loved ones.

People who live in conservative states volunteer more than people who live in liberal states.  Data from 2003 revealed that in the top conservative states people were 51% more likely to volunteer than in the bottom five liberal states.  The conservatives also volunteered an average of 12% more hours.  They were twice as likely to volunteer for religious organizations and more than twice as likely to volunteer their time to help the poor. “Can it be”, says Brooks, “that charitable givers are the most tolerant people in America, expressing warm feelings toward every minority group in the land – including union members, feminists, and homosexuals?” How can this be, “if these charitable givers are also disproportionately right-wing?”

About the only statement of defense liberals can offer would be that religious conservatives have more money to use for charitable purposes.  This argument falls short of the mark when collected data reveals that secular liberal households have incomes that average 6% higher than their religious conservative counterparts.

The final word from Dr. Brooks should dispel forever the myth that those who practice conservative politics care little for their fellow Americans.  He says, “There is not one measurably significant way I have ever found in which religious people are not more charitable than nonreligious people.  The fact is if it weren’t for religious people in your community, even the PTA would shut down.”

[0] Trackbacks   [0] Pingbacks

Political Parties and Angry Men

Harlingen, Texas, February 18, 2008: Those of the political elite just don’t get it.  They all think they can play the same old games, wave the banner of party loyalty…and everyone will fall in line.  They fail to realize large bodies of those who vote in our national elections are just plain fed up with the political party game.

In the name of party loyalty, those in leadership positions demand that we champion the candidates they endorse as suitable to carry either the Elephant or Donkey banners.  What they fail to make note of is people are becoming increasingly more aware of the traditional party prattle.  The signs of this awareness are clear in the march of Democrats to the new Obama drumbeat.  The signs are even more telling in the reluctance of Republican voters to accept the conservative credentials of McCain.  Many from both camps are questioning the reasons why they should continue to follow the recommendations of political party leaders.

Even in the days of our Founding Fathers there were voices that spoke out against our attraction to political parties.  George Washington had serious concerns as he remarked that political parties…”may now and then answer popular ends.” However, he said …”they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which lifted them to unjust domination.”

Washington, in that far distant past, was able to gaze into the future and see our monster in the making.  He warned us against other potential hazards, issuing a strong warning about the dangers of regionally oriented political parties.  “I have already intimated to you the danger of Parties by State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations.” But, we failed to pay heed to his wisdom and now have a country filled with what everyone calls the Red and Blue states.

He spoke of the “Spirit of the Party” a term he used with complete distain.  Washington claimed that political parties serve…”always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration.” A Party, he continues, “agitates the community with ill founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one person against another, and foments occasionally riot and insurrection.  It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption. Which find a facilitated access to government itself through party passions.  Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.” These words we have all seen become a reality two centuries after the Father of Our Country went to his final rest.

To follow up on this theme of wariness when it comes to political parties, a well known author and friend Charles Henderson recently sent out copies of an editorial from the Aspen Times.  Written by Gary Hubbell, and published on February 9th, it is titled “In Election 2008, Don’t Forget Angry White Men.  Henderson comments the title should really read “Angry Working Men”.

A few words from this article tell the story:

“His last name and religion don’t matter.  His background might be Italian, English, Polish, German, Slavic, Irish, or Russian, and he might have Cherokee, Mexican, or Puerto Rican mixed in, but he considers himself a white American.

He’s a man’s man, the kind of guy who likes to play poker, watch football, hunt white tailed deer, call turkeys, play golf, spend a few bucks in a strip club once in a blue moon, change his own oil and build things.  He coaches baseball, soccer and football teams and doesn’t ask a penny.  He’s the kind of guy who can put an addition on his house with a couple of friends, drill an oil well, weld a new bumper for his truck, design a factory or publish books.  He can fill a train with 100,000 tons of coal and get it to the power plant on time so that you can keep the lights on and never know what it took to flip that light switch.”

Hubbell goes on to say, “Women either love him or hate him, but they know he’s a man, not a dishrag.  If they’re looking for someone to walk all over, they’ve got the wrong guy.  He stands up straight, opens doors for women and says “Yes, sir” and No, ma’am”, He might be a Republican and he might be a Democrat; he might be a Libertarian or a Green.  He knows his wife is more emotional than rational, and he guides the family in a rational manner.”

The writer further contends there are millions of these men, including more than four million who are members of the National Rifle Association.  These men are angry about job sites flooded with illegal workers who don’t pay taxes and suppress wages.  They are angry about jobs shipped overseas and the lawmakers that allowed that to happen.  They are angry about computer tech reps from India that speak unintelligible English.  They are angry about rallies seeking reparations for slavery.  They are angry about children charged with crimes for bringing toy guns or jack knives to school, or perhaps hugging a classmate. They think those in education or law enforcement who take such actions are idiots.

This angry working man is not a racist, but he is enraged at those who display the worst stereotypes of their respective races.  This is a man who wants everyone to have a fair chance, work hard and play by the rules.  Hubbell doesn’t mention political parties by name, but says his angry men believe the Constitution is to be interpreted literally and that it is not a “living document” that can be interpreted as judges or politicians see fit.

There is much more detail in the analysis of the angry man and readers should search out the editorial for a complete picture of American working class rage.

The final thought on this topic is…those who pander to the groups who display a “poor me” attitude and view Washington as their own piggy bank should take notice.  Political parties that think instructions from Washington will lead voters in lock step to the polls had better rethink the party game plan.  The American working man…along with many working women are angry…and they often vote their anger.

[0] Trackbacks   [0] Pingbacks

GOP Candidates and Office Holders Beware!

Harlingen, Texas, February 14, 2008:  If the GOP candidates and office holders don’t wake up and face reality soon, the party will be able to hold next year’s convention in a telephone booth.  For the past six years those wearing the party brand name in Congress have ignored those principles that helped them win office.  They have pandered to the special interests, lobbyists and congressional elitists to the point where grass roots Republicans have turned away in disgust.

Those who failed to listen to calls from a return to solid conservative principles now see the handwriting on the wall.  They will not win reelection in November.  Instead of admitting the error of their ways and promising to return to the winning ways of past GOP election victors, we now have a mass exodus of those who abandoned traditional party values. We are fast approaching three dozen members of Congress who are no longer willing to face voters and defend their dismal record of non-achievement.

There is one hard fact that is impossible for those seeking office to ignore.  When those claiming to be Republicans operated as conservatives they won time and time again.  When they accepted the guidelines established during the Reagan Revolution, they won time and time again.  When they signed the pledge to support the Contract with America they won in a landslide.  Then, once in office long enough to be tainted by the elitism that contaminates most of Congress, they fell from grace…and the party has been losing, losing, losing.

Last week the GOPUSA Eagle published what it calls the Contract with Conservatives.  It lists those principles of governance that have won for the GOP in the past, and will again in the future, if candidates can honor the words of that document.  The GOPUSA Eagle also placed a petition online to have conservatives sign.  The number of signatures is growing daily.  In brief, it says that those conservatives will support the presidential nominee and other candidates for high office, only if they uphold the Contract for Conservatives.

That contract calls for Immigration Reform that will secure America’s borders, enforce employment laws, and not grant amnesty to those who are in the United States illegally.

It calls for tax reform including making the Bush tax cuts permanent, reducing taxes for business and individuals, and simplifying the tax code by moving toward a fair tax or flat tax.

The size and scope of the federal government is addressed.  The contract calls for reducing the size of the federal government, reforming entitlement programs, respecting states rights and limiting the reach of the federal government as stated in the Constitution. It charges candidates to cut spending, support a balanced budget amendment, eliminate ear-marks and support stand-alone spending bills.

On judicial appointments, the contract calls for those holding office to vigorously nominate, and support the confirmation of judges who follow the law and not those who legislate from the bench.  It further calls upon them to wage a real fight against left wing attempts to block judicial nominations.

On life issues it calls for respect of the rights of the unborn and to promote laws, which will protect innocent human life.  It calls for overturning Roe vs. Wade and block any efforts to fund or promote embryonic stem cell research.

Finally, on free speech the contract calls for those in office to repeal the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Act and embrace First Amendment rights.

Candidates, including John McCain and Mike Huckabee will need to sign this contract and accept these solid conservative principles if they are to stand a chance of success.  Even though it is now presumed McCain will win nomination, he will not see a party energized enough to help him win the Oval Office, should he decline to accept the Contract for Conservatives or the basic principles it contains.  The same obligation should be placed on every candidate running under the GOP banner.
They ignore the contract words at the risk of seeing a huge body of conservatives ignoring them in November.  The Democrats are already seeing twice the number of people at their primary elections as Republicans are bringing to the polls.  A repeat of such a turnout in November will see a future for Republicans that is no more than a shadow on the wall in Washington D.C.

[0] Trackbacks   [0] Pingbacks

Our Rough Men Get Rough Treatment

Harlingen, Texas, February 10, 2008: While the Young Lions of our military stand ready to defend, banners protesting them are held high at political rallies.  Their own countrymen picket and march against them outside the nation’s Capitol and in front of the White House.  In San Francisco and Berkeley, they are maligned by cities that bend to the will of Code Pink.  In Toledo a disrespectful mayor stops their training in that city.  These are but specks from a mountain of degradation heaped upon the young men and women who wear the uniform of America.

These screams of rage and condemnation against our military personnel come from organized activist members of a major political party, which has some of its own members disavowing the multiple leftist actions.  Still, the candidates of the Democrat Party seeking the highest office in the United States are pandering to the socialist and fascist elements of their party by spewing out their own versions of anti-war rhetoric.  Both the Clinton and Obama campaigns are camouflaging their words in terms such as “redeployment”, or “mission correction”, but they are really saying they will accept defeat in war and pull our forces out of combat at the earliest possible time, once either of them gains the Oval Office.

This comes about because of the leftist misguided premise that military force is never acceptable and all of the violence is making other nations of the world angry at America.  Their distorted logic claims if we would be nicer, just talk to people and understand the enemy point of view…all would be well in the world.  To accomplish their objective of being “nice” and more “understanding”, they refuse to understand or be nice about anything when it comes to their conduct toward American military personnel.

It is a sad fact of life, that to be a pacifist or an anti-war, anti-military activist is an easy position to assume in a democracy.  Attempting to use the same words or actions in any place outside the Land of Liberty would earn participants extended stays in government operated, barred and locked detention facilities.

Just think about it for a minute.  While those misguided people from Code Pink keep Marines from filming television commercials in downtown San Francisco, while the City Council of Berkeley tells recruiters they are not welcome in their town, while the mayor of Toledo bans Marines from conducting a training mission that has been repeatedly held in that city…. these same men and women are in uniform to protect the right of people to denigrate soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines in public.

As for being nice and talking to the enemy, how would that be put into practice?  Would talking to the former leadership of Iraq have saved those thousands upon thousands of that country’s citizens from mass graves?  Would talking to the enemy have saved those Afghan girls and their teachers from being murdered in their schools?  Would talking to the enemy have stopped them from placing bombs in mosques filled with worshipers?  Would talking to the enemy have kept them from sending mentally handicapped women into a crowded marketplace wearing bombs under their robes?

While the Democrats continue their anti-war and anti-military diatribes across the United States, it can be said that they are not only benefiting themselves…but, the enemy.  In October 2006 Brooks Mick, writing for The Conservative Voice said it best. “If one’s actions give aid to the enemy and make it more likely for the enemy to achieve his objectives, then one is pro-enemy, logically.”

Using that analogy, if one is anti-war, anti-military and pro-enemy, is he or she really a person who should be leading our nation?

There is an Orwellian quote that many have heard and it succinctly explains that the way to have a peaceful world is to win conflicts against vicious forces is by using even greater force or violence.  “We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm.”

It might help some of our Democrat friends if they would take time to read a poem written by Russ Vaughn of the 101st Airborne Division back in 1965, in a place called Vietnam.  A few lines from his writings read:

The faint-hearted, who fear, whose reaction is flight
Have no comprehension of those who will fight.
To hide their own trepidation they attempt to demean
The rough men who defend them, as barbaric, obscene
Yet rough men stand ready, hard weapons in hand
To put placaters behind them, draw a line in the sand
To preserve for the peaceniks what they won’t defend
So their own unearned freedom won’t perish, won’t end.

[0] Trackbacks   [0] Pingbacks

A Look At Our Alien Nation

Harlingen, Texas, February 4, 2008:  In the science fiction thriller Alien Nation, people from another planet make their home on Earth and merge with the human society.  Their complete agenda is unknown and always in question.

When we look at our own nation, peoples from other countries are violating our laws and our borders to enter the United States and mingle with the national population.  Many of them also have a variety of agendas, which are suspect.

This is a time when we face the threat of worldwide Islamic terrorism. It is a time when our own government has failed us so completely that and estimated 12 million illegal aliens are now residing in the United States.  It is a time when our Boarder Patrol still remains understaffed and Homeland Security is more of a very bad joke than a national protective agency.  Perhaps it is also a time when only the individual states can resolve what the federal government seems to think is an unsolvable problem.

If our federal government keeps coming up with lame excuses for its inaction, along with ridiculous phony solutions such as border fences that have failed in the past and will fail again in the future, a different course of action must be taken.  It is the individual states that must ensure the safety and economic security of their citizens.

Almost every egoistic windbag in Washington constantly preaches that we cannot possibly round up 12 million illegal aliens (not immigrants) and send them home.  But, individual states and cities are already in the process of taking corrective action.  They are making sure that the transportation, hiring and in some cases the providing of social services to illegal aliens are in themselves illegal activities that can result in severe punishment.

Arizona and Oklahoma have passed laws, which have already had major impact on the illegal population.  At the heart of their legislation are the penalties placed upon businesses that knowingly hire those without documentation of legal residency.  Those who violate the law can find their business licenses suspended, lose licenses to operate and in some cases face heavy fines.

Does this process work?  Ask the folks in the two states taking the severest of actions.  They will tell you that those who have been working without proper documentation are leaving the states in huge numbers.  The food industry, construction and various services related businesses are reporting they have lost more than 30% of their work force.

Unfortunately, most of the illegal workers are moving into Texas.  The Lone Star State has always had a welcoming attitude, particularly toward people from Mexico.  So, they are leaving Oklahoma and Arizona in huge numbers and heading for cities such as San Antonio, Houston and Dallas. But, these moves are still not resolving the plight of undocumented workers.  They have left jobs where they were allowed to work 40, 60, 80 hours a week, if they so desired.  Many claim that in Texas they can only find work two or three days a week.  This is a huge loss of income.

The relocation of this illegal work force from Arizona and Oklahoma will soon add to the economic woes of Texas.  As the economy slows and work becomes difficult to obtain, Texans will start demanding that their state leaders resolve, what is quickly developing into a serious problem.  Texans too, may call for legislation that takes actions similar to those already law in two states.

This may also translate into a states rights movement that could signal the national leadership to take serious note of what is happening right now, as they continue to do less than little about the immigration epidemic.

We all know that Democrats view illegal aliens as future supporters of their political party.  Republicans also share the guilt of this border security bungling.  The GOP has always bowed to business interests that want cheap labor and get it from the undocumented market.  Both parties are already hurting as their failed immigration and border policies become major national concerns.

If the fifty states all had laws similar to Oklahoma, there would be no concern about 12 million illegals hidden throughout our country.  If there was no work, no housing, no social benefits…they would all seek greener pastures elsewhere.

[0] Trackbacks   [0] Pingbacks