CHARITABLE GIVING -- WHO REALLY CARES?

Year-end is time for reviewing many things, one of which, for many, is their charitable giving for the year. So who do you think gives more--Liberals or Conservatives?
According to research conducted by Arthur C. Brooks*, the answer is Conservatives--by a significant margin. Conservative Republicans give over 30 percent more than Liberal Democrats.
Another finding of Mr Brooks was that people who are religious tend to give much larger amounts than those who are not--to both religious and non-religious orgainzations.
Its all about personal responsibility verses government as Robin Hood.

* See his book "Who Really Cares"

THE LIMITS OF UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE

Editorial published by the Orange County Register (December 30, 2010). To view it, see "PAGES" on the right side of the screen and select "REALITY BITES". Let me know what you think, I appreciate all comments.

BIG SISTER GOVERNMENT

This editorial, published in the Orange County Register Nov. 30th, describes our self-initiated and growing financial dependence on government.  To read it, see "PAGES" on the right margin of the screen, and click on "BIG SISTER GOVERNMENT", or go to the OC Register web site.

BUYER BEWARE

In a free society, in any society, there are plenty of unscrupulous businesses out there. However, to protect us from yet more government control (and less individual freedom) we need to take personal responsibility for our choices. Fortunately, there are many private organizations that exist so that we can make good choices without government interference. At this time of the year many people donate to charities and are not informed about the distribution of their money-how much goes to the organization and to the administrative costs. There are more than 2 million charities asking for a donation this year due to the economy. Carefully check them out before sending a donation. Two good Web sites are: CharityNavigator.org and GuldeStar.org. Online networks: NetworldforGood.org and JustGive.org offer local, national & international charities.

TAXES AND JOBS--A DISTRESSING TRADE-OFF

Please read the following and tell me what you think.
According to the Heritage Foundation, the consequences of ending the Bush tax cuts will include of the following over the next ten years:

New taxes raised:  $277.81 billion
Jobs lost:  6,930,000
Income lost due to job losses:  6,930,000 x $47,000 (ave. wage per US job) = $327.69 billion

THUS:  EACH DOLLAR IN NEW TAXES IS PROJECTED TO RESULT IN $1.18 IN LOST INCOME DUE TO THE RESULTANT LOSSES IN JOBS!

For a discussion of why taxes cause such a heavy loss of jobs, see "PAGES" on the right side of this page and click on "WHY TAXES COST JOBS"

The above numbers were taken from a highly credible report prepared by The Heritage Foundation--"Obama Tax Hikes: The Economic and Fiscal Effects" September 20, 2010. This report is available on their web site: heritage.org

This is such an important issue that I will continue to research it and provide updates as I uncover new evidence, pro or con. If you have any suggestions, please let me know.

PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT--ALL IN FAVOR SAY "I"

Governors of 35 states have filed suit against the Federal Government for imposing unlawful burdens upon them. It only takes 38 (of the 50) States to convene a Constitutional Convention.

This is an idea that we should address.

For too long we have been too complacent about the workings of Congress. Many citizens had no idea that members of Congress could retire with the same pay after only one term, that they specifically exempted themselves from many of the laws they have passed (such as being exempt from any fear of prosecution for sexual harassment) while ordinary citizens must live under those laws. The latest is to exempt themselves from the Healthcare Reform that passed... in all of its forms. Somehow, that doesn't seem logical. We do not have an elite that is above the law. I truly don't care if they are Democrat, Republican, Independent or whatever. The self-serving must stop.If each person that receives this will forward it on to 20 people, in three days, most people in The United States of America will have the message. This is one proposal that really should be passed around.

Proposed 28th Amendment to the   United States Constitution: "Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States ." 

REAL HUMOR FROM A TRUE MASTER

Click on this:

http://www.casttv.com/video/72dkchn/bill-cosby-understanding-sou

DOES $1 OF TAXES TAKE $1 AWAY FROM A PRIVATE SECTOR JOB?

PART ONE--
This is an incredibly complex issue to answer. Let me start with some basics:
Indeed, a larger US government sector will result in a smaller number of employed persons. Many very sophisticated, highly regarded economic studies have concluded this to be the case.

One simple case study is a comparison of the US and Europe (the European Union=EU):
In 2004 (a representative year), US government spending amounted to 36 percent of the total economy compared to 48 percent of the EU's economy. The unemployment rate in the US was 5.5 percent compared to a rate of 8.5 percent for the EU. A US umemployment rate of 8.5 percent would have meant that there would have been about 5 million fewer employed persons in the US that year.

In addition, from 1995 to 2005, the US economy expanded at an average rate of 3.2 percent, compared to a rate of 2.1 percent for the EU. Without exception, economic growth generates proportional job growth. Thus, a large government sector means declining job opportunities over time.

More to come...

JOBS VS. "SAFETY NET"

Regarding my editorial "WE CANNOT HAVE IT ALL" the question has been raised: Does $1 allocated to an entitlement program result in $1 of lost wages in the private sector? In other words, is the ratio 1:1?
That is a very good and important question which I will endeavor to answer within a day or so.

JOBS VERSUS GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE

Editorial published in the Orange County Register Nov. 16th. You can read the editorial by looking under "PAGES" on the right margin of this page and clicking on "WE CANNOT HAVE IT ALL"

HOW CAN WE GET OUT OF THIS MESS?

For starters, click here: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Projects/Solutions-for-America?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell

ARE YOU AN "ORIGINALIST"?

An originalist is one who believes that the U.S. Constitution should be interpreted according to the indent of those who composed and adopted it.
Want to know more? Go to the "ORIGINALISM" page provided on the right margin of this page.
Or click here:  http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2009/09/The-Originalist-Perspective

THE MORNING BELL NEWSLETTER

If you don't already, I highly recommend that you subscribe to the free e-newsletter published by The Heritage Foundation. It's called THE MORNING BELL. To subscribe, click this link: mailto:morningbell@heritage.org?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell and give them your e-mail address. Or go to The Heritage Foundation site and click on "Newsletters" at the bottom of the main page.  http://www.heritage.org/

OBAMACARE--THE STARK REALITY

Please check out this video about government's control of Dr.s and their treatment under Obamacare.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HnkxIh62dQ

WILL LIBERALS "GET IT"?

With the success of the Republican party in the mid-term elections, I am noticing articles questioning whether or not Obama and the Democrats will "get it". The answer is no, they will never get it because they are working, and will always be, to achieve policies that are fully opposed to conservative values. Democrats will "get it" only as far as they are forced to get it.

From others comes the question of whether or not our legislators will now stop bickering and begin to work together. The answer is that THEY SHOULDN'T. There is no middle ground between true conservatives and the Democratic agenda. The end result of compromising with Democrats is a continuation, albiet at a slower rate, of the relentless parade of freedom-squelching legislation. Now that the Republicans have greater power, they ought to turn up the heat and attempt to block virtually all legislation proposed by Democrats in Washington.

GOVERNMENT SPENDING STUNTS ECONOMIC GROWTH

Editorial on the effect of a growing government sector on the health of the economy published in the Orange County Register October 29, 2010. To read the article, see "PAGES" on the right margin of this page and click on "OUR ECONOMIC LEGACY".

YOUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK

Check out the (solitaire) computer screens.

YOUR GOVERNMENT AT WORK

OBAMACARE

HOW MANY NEW GOVERNMENT JOBS WILL BE NEEDED TO ADMINISTER ALL OF THIS?

GOVERNMENT AND THE ECONOMY

Many highly regarded economic studies have been conducted that have shown that the larger the size of the government sector, the slower the pace of economic growth. The reason is clear, government cannot create economic resources so they must take them from private individuals and businesses. Hence, the greater the proportion of our nation's scarce resources that are devoted to the government sector, the smaller the amount of resources that is available to the private sector. The U.S. government's share of the total economy has grown from 25% in 1948, to 35% in the early-'90's to nearly 45% today. The inescapable result: rising unemployment and slowing economic growth.

OUR SUPREME ECONOMIC LEADERS

TEA PARTY AND RELATED SITES

Interested in the upcoming elections and who the conservative candidates are? Check out the sites on the right margin of this web page under "CHECK OUT THESE SITES"

BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR

IT'S FINALLY HERE!

After what has seemed an interminable wait, my novel "The Eve of Destruction" has arrived. Anyone interested in purchasing a signed copy, please send me an e-mail (dwdmp@yahoo.com). The price for a signed copy is $20 (same price for an unsigned copy), shipping is free.
To learn more about the novel, click here:  http://www.tatepublishing.com/bookstore/book.php?w=978-1-61663-837-5
You can buy the book from the publisher, but is cheaper and faster to get it directly from me (plus I'll sign it).

FEELIN' LUCKY?

http://www.flixxy.com/lucky-day.htm

CAN THE CONSERVATIVE PHOENIX ARISE?

Maybe, but it won’t be easy.
Every day the US is becoming more politically liberal--and less conservative. Is there anything a conservative can do to stop, even slow, this movement? Is conservative America doomed?

Someone once said that as soon as the majority of the populace among a democracy realizes that they can get countless freebees by voting in a particular person or party, then that society is doomed for failure, it’s only a matter of time. The US passed that threshold many years ago. Now only the conservatives continue to hold their fingers in the dike.

So what is one to do? Vote the straight Republican ticket (or Tea Party candidate, even better), and encourage others to do the same.

I know, I know, I know, I feel the same. I hate what the party has become. I’m frustrated, cynical, disappointed, depressed, angry, fatigued, alarmed, offended, heart broken, anguished, and as a result I have constant migraines and athlete’s foot.

However, let’s discuss reality:

• Life is hard, very hard.
• Politics is all about power.
• We have a two party system (all other parties are powerless).
• The Democratic Party has the power.
• Only the Republican (and Tea) Party has any hope for effective opposition.
• The Republican Party is more conservative than the Democratic Party.

A vote for any candidate other than a Republican weakens the party and, thus, effectively strengthens the Democratic Party.

If the Republican Party can regain power, then its members can work for change within the party. As long as the Republican Party is less powerful than that other party, there will be resistance for Republican leaders to promote conservative ideals because the prevailing opinion will be that the party must appeal to moderates in order to be successful.

First comes success (power), then comes change within.

I know, I know, you hate what I’m saying, but—well think about it.

PS--Voting “for the person” is chic and sounds smart, but if that person is not a Republican, it’s an option that, ultimately, will only facilitate the further liberalization of America.

LIBERALS DON'T LIKE AMERICA--the proof

Part 2—The Proof

To prove that Liberals don’t like America, America must first be defined. Without a clear definition it’s all mumbo jumbo. My definition of America is based on things as they were in the 1950’s.

Hold on, my ears are burning and I know why. “That’s not fair!” I can hear someone saying. Nay, but it is fair. America in the ‘50’s was far more similar to how American had been for its first 180 years of existence than what it looks like today. Defining America as it is today would be using an example that has been around for only 30 years or so—an America altered by five decades of Liberal change. Anyway, the point is that Liberals didn’t like America then, they don’t like it today, and they never will like it fully.

  America in the 1950’s                 What Liberals Want Instead

  Limited Government                    Always More Government
  Abortion is Illegal                        Legal Abortion
  Strong States Rights                    National Policies (i.e., weak states rights)
  Balanced Federal Budget            Large Budget Deficits (to fund programs)
  Private Medical Care                  Government Health Care
  Strong National Defense             Friendly Diplomacy
  Mixing of Religion and State*      Separation of Religion and State
  Capitalism                                   Government Control of Business
  Equality of Opportunity               Equality of Outcome

* In 1956, Congress made “In God We Trust” the US national motto ordered that it be put on US currency, and they added “under God” to the pledge of allegiance.

Although the above is not an exhaustive list, you get the idea: 
                       LIBERALS DON’T LIKE AMERICA

Note: Missing from the above lists is "personal freedom." This issue is very complex and will be addressed separately.

THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

PLEASE WATCH THIS VIDEO!  It starts slow and has slow parts but stick with it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlfEdJNn15E

LIBERALS DON'T LIKE AMERICA (and I can prove it)

Part 1--continued

Okay, where was I, oh yeah, Liberals are for “change.” But who isn’t after all. The problem is that in every instance their “change” means more government--every time, no exceptions.

In fact, Liberal ideology insists upon, even demands constantly growing government. According to Alan Wolfe, a widely respected liberal spokesman, liberals should “insist upon reform; not only in the public and political sense, but in the private and human one.” That is, if you don’t think and act like they want you to, they’ll continue to develop new government programs that will work toward changing your behavior, like it or not. All this is justified because liberals know best. And who will pay for these programs? Why you of course.

Get this, according to Alan Wolfe, “social institutions...must be constructed so as to produce the kind of individuals each society wants.” Only liberals, he explains, know the kind of individuals our society wants. Therefore, it is the responsibility of liberals to continually create new “social institutions” that work to change American's actions and thought patterns until they become like “society wants.”

This doesn’t simply evoke Big Brother, this IS Big Brother. The published objective of liberals is to BE Big Brother—and we ought to thank them for it.

(Tomorrow I will prove that Liberals don't like America)

MOVIE CRITIC

http://oldfortyfives.com/thoseoldwesterns.htm

BOARDER WAR ESCALATES

HOLY EMBEZZELMENT BATMAN

Of course there is the $10 billion dollars that illegal immigrants cost California tax payers each year (according to the Center for Immigration Reform), but believe it or not, that’s not even the half of it. Little known and, virtually never mentioned, are the billions of dollars being siphoned out of the California economy by Mexicans. Last time I looked, in 2008, approximately $13 billion dollars were being sent back to Latin America (mostly Mexico). That money is a direct, unrecoverable loss to the state’s economy. But there’s more, much more: a dollar paid in wages is then spent and re-spent approximately two times each year (i.e., the “velocity of money”). So the $13 billion dollars actually translates to $26 billion per year of lost economic activity in California. A large portion of this lost money is due to illegals.

In 2008, California’s entire economy amounted to about $1.85 trillion, so the loss of $26 billion (1.4%) in economic activity is no trivial matter. Particularly, when you consider that the state would be lucky to sustain an average growth rate of 1.0 percent per year (but probably won't).

Isn’t the $30 billion that the US sends to Mexico in foreign aid enough already?

Personally, I have never read or heard any mention of these well documented facts. If you have, please let me know.

CALIFORNIA PROPOSITION 8: A BRIEF HISTORY OF MARRIAGE

For roughly 3,000+ years, give or take a year, “marriage” was defined as the formal union between a man and woman (husband and wife).
At different times and places, more than one wife was deemed acceptable (I haven’t researched whether wives ever had multiple husbands), but the term “marriage” always defined a union between a man and a woman.
In recent years, in the name of “equal rights,” many are demanding that the definition of marriage be changed to exclude either the man or the woman (but not both) in the relationship and replace them with the opposite sex.
That brings to mind two questions:
1) Why can’t we keep the definition for marriage as it has been for a few thousand years, and come up with a new term for those other types of sexual unions. Then, grant those other types of unions “equal rights”?
2) If gay couples deserve “equal rights,” why don’t polygamists deserve equal rights? And what about a man and a woman who are in love but one (or both) of which is under 18 years of age, why are they being denied their rights?
Humm...

CORRUPTION IS A ZERO SUM GAME

Most people are honest, some are not.
Most people in private industry are honest, some are not.
Most people in the government are honest, some are not.
Corruption among the public and private sectors is a zero sum game.
Government agencies formed to stop corruption in private industry do not decrease corruption they simply shift it from the private sector to the public sector.
The resources taken in the form of taxes from private citizens in order to fund the new government agency shifts workers and money from private industry to government, with no net change in the total amount of corruption.
Examples of corruption in private industry are many and well known.
Examples of corruption in government are equally as many.
Resources spent on bureaucracies are generally non-productive while resources spent in private business are generally productive.
As resources are increasingly shifted from the private to the public sector, the economy stalls ever more.

PEOPLE ARE STRANGE

In the 1960's, the emerging young liberals were loudly and unceasingly denouncing the conservative "Establishment" for repressing and even trying to block their free speech rights.

In 2010, those young liberals have grown up, risen to power, and become the new "Establishment". Now it is they who are constantly working to supress, and even block where they can, the free speech rights of conservatives.

THE GROUND ZERO MOSQUE

The battle over the mosque that is proposed to be built near Ground Zero highlights one of the basic problems with present day politics. Many conservatives, of which I am one, are upset that such a strong symbol of the Islam religion might emerge so close to the site of the horrendous al-Qaeda-inspired terrorist attack. However distasteful, or “obscene” as some have called it, that the existence of a mosque at that location would be, the real issue is that of property rights.

Strong support for private property rights has long been an important principle of conservative ideals—or so I’ve been told by conservative leaders. Thus, if the builders of the mosque are within their legal rights, conservatives should be defending those rights to develop the property as the owners see fit.

As I stated, this debate points up one of the major problems with politics today. Both Republicans and Democrats are quick to set aside their foundational “beliefs” to protest any situation that does not suit their tastes at that moment—particularly if they see an opportunity for political gain.

A few decades ago, political parties and their candidates had clearly stated platforms that delineated their core beliefs. If not directly stated, it was at least inferred that the actions of the parties and their candidates would mirror those beliefs. These days, however, political platforms are incomplete, dreadfully vague, and undergoing constant alteration--if they exist at all. This is because the platforms (should) dictate the behavior of their followers, thereby, greatly cramping the style of politicians today who prefer to base their actions on the potential for short-term political advantage, with little or no regard for one’s so-called core beliefs.

Such it is, it seems, for many conservatives and the mosque.

ANIMITERRA: The Heartland

Its 2025, and the central US states have seceded from the union: thirteen US states from Alaska in the north down through Montana and the Dakotas and ending with Texas on the gulf. With low income taxes and no corporate tax, businesses are moving to Animiterra by the thousands. And for internet businesses in particular, this move can be made in a matter of days.

The US Government is in an uproar because Animiterra is "stealing" a major portion of its tax revenues. Its seemingly infinite goldmine of taxable resources is shrinking at an intollerable rate.

It was not economics, however, that was the primary motivation for the formation of Animiterra but freedom--religous and otherwise. The policies of the US government increasingly led to the stifling of individual freedoms and to the disparagement of religion, particularly Christianity. When the secession of the states and formation of Animiterra had appeared imminent, there was a trememdous migration of Christians to those 13 states. This migration was the final pillar that made Amimiterra a reality. The rapid growth of the new country's economy came afterwards, fueled by the freedoms that the country's capitalist system offered, cheap enerty (relatively), and by the low taxes.

"The economy is not a zero sum game." Robert H. Bork

What this means is that just because Bill Gates is unimaginably rich doesn't mean that everyone else needs to be correspondingly poorer. On the contrary, most all productive activity contributes to lifting everyone up economically.

ANIMITERRA

I'm designing a new virtual country called "Animiterra", roughly translated "the heartland". Help me design it. It is a country based on:
1. Capitalist economic system
2. Strong, high profile Christian social fabric
3. Rule of Law based on the Bible
4. English is the official language
5. Republican form of government
6. Strong states rights
7. Very limited federal government w/ strong national defense
8. Low taxes
9. Maximum personal freedoms
10. Powered primarily by nuclear, oil, natural gas, and coal
11. School voucher system

Comprehensive, widely accepted, sound doctrine is essential for a stable and just society.

This explains much of the social and economic problems that the USA is experiencing today. Rather than any accepted doctrine or ideology for social and economic cohesion, our society promotes just the opposite: relativism, secular humanism, radical individualism, multiculturalism (opps, I should say diversity), and narcissism (opps, I should say self-esteem).

So how do we as a country come to agree upon and institute sound doctrine? It starts by the voters demanding that political leaders construct a comprehensive, explicitly stated social and economic ideologies. Then, when elected, we must weigh their every action for consistency with what they stated and promised in their ideological statements. Explicit political ideologies have been largely dismissed by politicians for the very reason that the doctrine makes them accountable.

Liberty necessarily leads to inequality: all peoples have a unique set of physical and mental skills (and limitations). Given complete freedom of opportunity, the number of resulting outputs would be as diverse--and unequal--as those skill sets.

Though they can never be fully attained, both equality of opportunity and equality of result are admirable goals. Although on the surface these goals seem to be closely realted, in fact, they are not. The two conditions are wholly incomparable, producing radically different results and requiring radically different policies to advance.

Equality of outcome can only be achieved through the coersion of a powerful, omnipresent, controling government, the policies of which would necessarily result in a universal decimation of individual liberty.

Equality of opportunity, on the other hand, is the natural outcome of a capitalist, free enterprise system in which all participants were nonprejudicial. The "nonprejudicial" requirment is, of course, the major stumbling block in this system's superstructure. This major flaw can only be overcome by a citizenry that has a highly moral character. Hence the need, in a society that emphasizes individual freedom, for a social order in which morality is central.

"A nation's moral life is the foundation of its culture." Robert H. Bork

That is not to say that any nation must abide by a strict moral code, only that the nature of its moral character will be a major defining component of its culture. The USA, as with all nations, is experiencing that truth today.
Each US citizen ought to recognize that they are responsible for their portion of the nation's collective moral order.