Charity vs. Entitlements

Today's American Thinker has an article, by Roger Banks entitled Obama and Charity that expresses very well what I was trying to say in a one sided debate with my wife yesterday. Go read the whole thing, then come back.

Read it? Good.

Continuing his lament over what he calls an "erosion of civility in the public square," President Obama chose the setting of this year's national prayer breakfast to admonish his ill-mannered opponents. "Surely you can question my policies," he said, "without questioning my faith."


However noble the spirit to rebel against a directive that so brazenly chills the content of political speech -- scolding those who "poison the well of public opinion" while seeking to purge from that well opinions not to the liking of the lords of decorum -- responding impulsively proves unnecessary.


It's unnecessary because Obama himself, in the same speech, raises the question for us, by linking his faith to his policies. "God's grace," he said, "is expressed through ... the efforts of our entire government."

This little attempt at rhetorical blackmail conflates government entitlements with true charity, and does not reflect God's grace, but rather pure power politics. Let's take a look at it shall we? Every time Obama sends out a check for a welfare payment, he uses taxes. Taxes are payments taken out of the hands of productive citizens at the point of a gun. Oh, sure, some may give it up "voluntarily", but if they did not, you can be sure that force would be used to obtain it anyway, so that the analogy of a gun is indeed appropriate. If anyone else obtained funds from a person by arms, or the threat of arms, that person would be considered an armed robber, and be accused of theft. So, Obama uses stolen money to pay off some of the electorate for votes, then accuses the productive citizens who rightly complain of being uncharitable. Worse still, Obama now claims credit for being charitable, while using stolen money from other people to do it. I think I have read this before...oh yes, it was called Robin Hood.

And what of the person receiving such payments? Are they grateful? Are they inspired to change their ways, pull themselves up by their boot straps, and become productive citizens themselves? Sadly, the answer is often, no. You see, these welfare payments are not marketed as "charity" but rather as entitlements, something owed to these people, for what is never said. Nobody wants to hurt any one's feelings by calling it charity, you understand. Thus, by making welfare an entitlement, Obama creates a permanent dependency class, while denying people the opportunity to realize their dependency and do something about it.

Now, compare that to true Christian charity. In Christian charity, the giver gives of his own free will and accord, from his own substance, after praying and deciding for himself how much to give, and to whom. The giver could have used those funds for anything, but chooses to give to the particular person or program, so feels his money is well spent. The person receiving the funds is grateful, precisely because the person giving could have spent his funds elsewhere. Interestingly, the one who gives is also grateful for having had the opportunity to have the kind of wealth that makes giving possible in the first place. Gratitude generates more good will, which causes more giving.

Perhaps, Mr. Banks sums it up best:

At best, entitlements are based not on faith, but on fear -- fear that love and charity are not enough. Yet for people to give more, government must tax less. Now, there's a policy that really would require faith...even faith in the miracle of Scrooge on Christmas morning.

Sen. Ihofe Demands DOJ Investigation of Climategate

Pajamas Media brings news that Sen. Inhofe is asking the DOJ to investigate climategate. As many of the commenters note, no one expects the DOJ to take Inhofe seriously, nor do they expect to see AlGore defending himself before Congress. But there is value none the less in taking official notice of Climategate. The MSM in this country has buried the story, hoping to proceed as if nothing happened. By raising a stink in the Senate, the story will get out after all, making it harder to keep ignoring it.

Meanwhile, the American Thinker today has a piece by Edward R. Long entitled
Pending American Temperaturegate which reports that some fancy shenanigans have been going on over at NASA with the temperature data reported for the United States. Seems they may have been systematically adjusting the data upwards. Dr. Hansen seems to have some 'slainin to do.

Finally, again at the American Thinker today, Rex McBride explains why Al Gore is Lying low. Mr. McBride outlines the civil, and criminal cases that may await AlGore if investors in his "green" companies lose money due to Climategate. Mr. Gore could face civil RICO suits.

I usually dismiss big conspiracy theories out of hand. The Truther theory, for instance, has too many people involved, and the rewards are too small. But the Goofball Wormening "conspiracy" is different. The money to be made if it could be pulled off amount to trillions of dollars over the next 100 years. The money was expected to be stolen from ordinary people all over the world through their fuel and anything that used energy. But that wasn't the worst; no. Worse was that Americans were lectured that this was necessary because they were personally destroying the earth by driving SUVs. So, they put a big guilt trip on everyone, then offered to smooth things over if only we would hand them some of our hard earned money. It was a classic blackmail scheme. And they nearly sold it. That we were spared is not because of our doing, but in all probability because the Russians didn't want this either. It is time the Climate politicians/scientists and those that facilitated the lie face up to justice.

Mike Adams on the Van Gorder letter

Mike Adams has an excellent read today at Townhall.com entitled Ideology to Die For. It's been a while since Mr. Adams did an article on guns, but when he does, he generally hits a home run. This article is no exception. A quote:

It is a truism to say that there are many anti-gun ideologues among our educational elites. But few are as honest as Doug Van Gorder – a math teacher at Brockton High School. He admits that he would rather lose a child than exercise his right to defend himself with a gun. In the wake of a recent school shooting, he wrote this in a Letter to the Editor of the Boston Globe:

Some propose overturning laws that made schools gun-free zones even for teachers who may be licensed to securely carry concealed firearms elsewhere. They argue that barring licensed-carry only ensures a defenseless, target-rich environment.

But as a progressive, I would sooner lay my child to rest than succumb to the belief that the use of a gun for self-defense is somehow not in itself a gun crime.

Morally speaking, I have no problem with anti-gun ideologues who wish to place themselves in peril by waiving their rights of self-defense. You almost have to respect someone who is willing to die for his beliefs. But when he decides that others should also die for his beliefs the real trouble begins.

I had seen Mr. Van Gorder's letter to the editor earlier, and wondered if he was temperamentally suited to teaching at a high school. I would not like to know that my grand kids were in his hands. I would always be wondering whether they would be safe, or whether they would be sacrificed on the alter of his evidently pacifist beliefs should a situation arise. But Mr. Adams makes the larger point that these people want to impose their ideology on everyone else too.

Under our Constitution, you have certain rights guaranteed. You have, for example, the freedom to keep and bear arms. Unstated, but corollary to that right is the right NOT to keep and bear arms, or not to use them even if you do bear them. All of our rights work in the same way. You have freedom of speech, which includes the right not to speak. You have freedom of religion, which includes the right to not practice a religion. Do you begin to see the genius of our Founders in framing our Constitution. My neighbor and I can have totally different beliefs, and can live according to those differences in peace. Under Mr. Van Gorder's ideology, only one side can live according to their beliefs, the other side can not.

Update 2/25/2010: According to Kurt Hoffman, this letter to the editor was a satire. Sorry to get everyone riled up over it.

Glenn Beck at CPAC

Glenn Beck gives the Keynote Speech at this year's CPAC. It is really worth watching it. The talk about what the Statue of Liberty really represented to the French moved me to tears. Go and watch the whole thing.

Call to Prosecute the Warmistas

Another calls for criminal prosecution of the Climategate hoaxsters. Selwyn Duke explains in the American Thinker article today entitled Time to Turn Up the Heat on the Warmistas just what fraud they have committed:

Yet, amidst this exposition of fact and exposure of fiction, one point never changes: We have been had. And one question remains: Will justice be done?


Let us be clear on the gravity of the Climateers' crime: They have used billions of our tax money to fund fraudulent science. And why?


For the purposes of promoting policies that would steal billions more.


And what happens now? Do they just get to say "Oops" and slink away?

It appears they may at that. If that happens, it becomes incumbent on the rest of us to ostracize and shame them at every opportunity. They can not be allowed to just slink away.

Guns to be allowed in National Parks Again

Daniel White has a good piece on the change over to the new regime of allowing concealed carry of handguns in National parks if the State allows concealed carry in State parks. His article can be seen here. White of course is talking about Ohio, where State law permits guns in parks, similar to Virginia and several other States. Here in North Carolina, not so much. Among the seemingly endless list of prohibited places is, amazingly, State parks. The reasoning behind including State parks on the list is a mystery, though in all probability you will find some similar type of thinking:

"The big problem is that park visitors will now be forced to rely on the judgment of those carrying weapons in our parks for our safety . . . and that's not an ideal recipe," she said.

Let's take apart this little pack of lies and deceit, shall we?

First of all, her "safety" has always relied on her own awareness and wits to keep her safe. The police will help, I'm sure, if they can, and they happen to be there. But the chances of them being there are incredibly small. That she does not know these things says more about her than about any licences concealed carrier she happens to encounter while in the park. Along similar lines is the notion that somehow licensed concealed carriers endanger the children in a park, rather than serving as a first line of defense against those who might kidnap and abuse children. Personally, I'd rather have a few armed parents floating about keeping an eye on their kids and my grand kids.

Then there is the fact that outside the park, she still has to rely, as she says, on the "judgement of people carrying weapons" if she doesn't see to her own defense. How do these people carrying weapons go from being no threat on the street, to becoming a threat after crossing the boundary of the park? Does the park have a magnetizer beam that changes people into monsters inside its boundary? Of course, that is not true. The truth is that criminals have always carried, even in National parks. Only the good guys have been disarmed by this policy. The new policy simply levels the field a bit.

Then there is the nature of a park like Cuyahoga Valley National Park. This is a sprawling park, were people actually live, and some do business within it's boundaries. Some roadways go through the park, and it is difficult to avoid crossing through, even if you do not have business in the park itself. Do people who live in the park have to give up a Constitutionally guaranteed right? What of business owners? What about the concealed carrier who happens to take one of the roads through the park? Do they become felons?

Go read the whole thing. Each time there is a loosening of gun rights, there are always predictions of the return of the Wild West, and of blood in the streets. These things never happen, but that doesn't stop the gun grabbers from claiming it anew each and every time. It is high time that folks started laughing at them each time the hysteria starts.

Do Peaceniks Really Want Peace?

"What is it about peaceniks that makes them so violent?" is the question asked today over at the American Thinker in a piece by Henry Percy entitled Killing Republicans is OK for the Left?

I have pondered this interesting phenomenon with respect to anti-gunners. But of course, a peacenik is almost 99% guaranteed to also be an anti-gunner. My thoughts? These people are barely in control of their own emotions and impulses most of the time. They then make the classic mistake of projecting onto everyone else these same shortcomings in personality. Since they can't trust themselves with a gun, they assume they can't trust you with one either.

What they don't realize is that just as the knowledge of the lethal power of an automobile causes most of us to operate it carefully to avoid mayhem and death to ourselves and others, so the knowledge of the lethal power of a weapon causes most of us to behave in a manner such that we won't have to use it.