Query: Can charity exist in this era of “entitlement”?

Charity, from the Latin caritas, means to act without self-interest, to act disinterestedly for the good of others.

Charity by definition is unmerited; no one is entitled to the disinterested beneficence of another. Because God has shown unmerited love toward them, Jews and Christians are commanded to show charity to others.

Intentionally or not, the federal government since FDR’s administration has critically undermined the concept of charity. First, it has re-characterized any need as deserving of alleviation. During the Great Depression, FDR’s administration was careful to characterize its massive, redistributive programs as “entitlements” rather than charity: if you were willing to work, you were entitled to a job; if you had worked most of your life, you were entitled to a retirement income (i.e., social security). LBJ’s “Great Society” programs in the late sixties extrapolated this notion of entitlement, suggesting merit, to any need. If you need food, you are entitled to it; if you need housing, you are entitled to it; if you need medical care, you are entitled to it. Hence, food stamps, low-income housing, and Medicaid.

Second, the federal government since FDR’s administration has undermined the concept of charity by increasingly substituting government programs for private charitable enterprise. Individual citizens no longer need to seek ways to show charity, to alleviate the suffering of others—government does it for us. Those of us who support such government efforts feel a certain self-congratulation: we are charitable by proxy. We pay our taxes, and government does the rest.

Two problems: First, we set up what in formal debate is known as a “straw man”: the notion that those who do not support such government efforts are un-charitable—they are selfish and greedy; they have no desire to feed the hungry, shelter the homeless, etc. Second, while moral benefit certainly accrues to those who give of their resources to help others, no such benefit accrues to those who force someone else to use his resources to help others. Voting to increase taxation on others to fund government redistributive programs confers no moral benefit on the voter.

Avenues for further exploration: 1) the moral effect of entitlement on recipients of assistance; 2) whether supporting government redistributive programs causes moral harm to the voter.

Free Speech, So Long as You're Liberal

In Obama's America, the First Amendment is alive and well -- provided, that is, you tow the Obama line. Deviate from it, though, and watch out. The full weight and force of the Obama establishment will come crashing down on you.

Do we need anymore proof than what is happening with Rush Limbaugh? The DNC has put him front and center in its coordinated campaign, hand-and-glove with Obama, to paint Limbaugh as a babbling, dangerously extreme idiot who represents (in fact is the leader of) the Republican party. Why, Limbaugh even had the audacity to express hope that Obama's socialistic policies would fail (never mind that James Carville and 51% of Democrats expressed the same hope about Bush in 2001). The goal, of course, is to convince enough gullible people that Limbaugh is so subversive that his views and radio show warrant censorship or better yet silencing altogether with an archaic, anti-free speech law that Congress ditched 20 years ago -- the misnamed "Fairness Doctrine." That doctrine would essentially spell the end of conservative talk radio to the delight of Obama and his liberal ilk.

One might chalk the liberal's efforts to partisan politics (overlooking, of course, the sheer irony that a "liberal" would advocate for speech censorship). But what is so infuriating is the complicity of the liberal media in this brazen effort to curtail free speech. Look no further than this week's cover of Newsweek. Across an unflattering, almost frightening picture of Rush Limbaugh is inscribed in big, bold letters the word: "Enough!"

Is free speech on the verge of extinction in this country? If so, isn't it time that every man, woman and child in this country take a stand and themselves say "Enough" to the Obama silence machine? The time to act is now. Enough truly is enough!

Obama's America: Scary and Getting Scarier

My sister, Kenda, forwarded to me the following e-mail that is making its rounds. It's by the author of Atlas Shrugs, Pam Geller. Through this short article, Geller makes her point in a very powerful, clear, persuasive way, and should motivate patriot, God-fearing Americans everywhere to take a stand now before it's too late:

"Something of Historic Proportion is Happening" by Pam Geller

I am a student of history. Professionally, I have written 15 books in
six languages, and have studied it all my life. I think there is
something monumentally large afoot, and I do not believe it is just a
banking crisis, or a mortgage crisis, or a credit crisis. Yes, these
exist but they are merely single facets on a very large gemstone that is
only now coming into a sharper focus.

Something of historic proportions is happening. I can sense it because
I know how it feels, smells, what it looks like, and how people react to
it. Yes, a perfect storm may be brewing, but there is something
happening within our country that has been evolving for about 10 - 1 5
years. The pace has dramatically quickened in the past two.

We demand and then codify into law the requirement that our banks make
massive loans to people whom we know can never pay back? Why?
We learned just days ago that the Federal Reserve, which has little or
no real oversight by anyone, has "loaned" two trillion dollars (that is
$2,000,000,000, 000) over the past few months, but will not tell us to
whom or why or disclose the terms. That is our money. Yours and mine.
And that is three times the $700B we all argued about so strenuously
just this past September.

Who has this money? Why do they have it? Why are the terms
unavailable to us? Who asked for it?

Who authorized it? I thought this was a government of "We the People,"
who loaned our powers to our elected leaders. ... Apparently not.
We have spent two or more decades Intentionally de-industrializing our
economy. Why?

We have intentionally dumbed down our schools, ignored our history, and
no longer teach our founding documents, why we are exceptional, and why
we are worth preserving. Students by and large cannot write, think
critically, read, or articulate. Parents are not revolting, teachers
are not picketing, school boards continue to back mediocrity. Why?

We have now established the precedent of protesting every close election
(now violently in California over a proposition that is so controversial
that it wants marriage to remain between one man and one woman). Did
you ever think such a thing possible just a decade ago?
We have corrupted our sacred political process by allowing unelected
judges to write laws that radically change our way of life, and then
mainstream Marxist groups like ACORN and others to turn our voting
system into a banana republic. To what purpose?

Now our mortgage industry is collapsing, housing is on the verge of
collapse, Social Security is nearly bankrupt, as is Medicare and our
entire government.. Our education system is worse than a joke ( I teach
college and know precisely what I am talking about.) The list is
staggering in its length, breadth, and depth. It is potentially 1929 x
10. And we are at war with an enemy we cannot name for fear of
offending people of the same religion who cannot wait to slit the
throats of your children If they have the opportunity to do so.. And now
we have elected a man no one knows anything about, who has never run so
much as a Dairy Queen, let alone a town as big as Wasilla , Alaska. All
of his associations and alliances are with real radicals in their chosen
fields of employment, and everything we learn about him, drip by drip,
is unsettling if not downright scary (Surely you have heard him speak
about his idea to create and fund a mandatory civilian defense force
stronger than our military for use inside our borders? No? Oh, of
course. The media would never play that for you over and over and then
demand he answer it. Sarah Palin's pregnant daughter and $150,000
wardrobe is more important.)

Mr. Obama's winning platform can be boiled down to one word: Change.
Why?
I have never been so afraid for my country and for my children as I am
now. This man campaigned on bringing people together, something he has
never, ever done in his professional life.

In my assessment, Obama will divide us along philosophical lines, push
us apart, and then try to realign the pieces into a new and different
power structure. Change is indeed coming. And when it comes, you will
never see the same nation again. And that is only the beginning.
I thought I would never be able to experience what the ordinary, moral
German felt in the mid-1930s. In those times, the savior was a former
smooth-talking rabble-rouser from the streets, about whom the average
German knew next to nothing. What they did know was that he was
associated with groups that shouted, shoved, and pushed around people
with whom they disagreed; he edged his way onto the political stage
through great oratory and promises.
Economic times were tough, people were losing jobs, and he was a great
speaker. And he smiled and waved a lot. And people, even newspapers,
were afraid to speak out for fear that his "Brown Shirts" would bully
them into submission. And then he was duly elected to office, with a
full-throttled economic crisis at hand [the Great Depression].

Slowly but surely he seized the controls of government power,
department by department, person by person, bureaucracy by bureaucracy.
The kids joined a "Youth Movement" in his name, where they were taught
what to think. How did he get the people on his side? He did it
promising jobs to the jobless, money to the moneyless, and goodies for
the military-industrial complex. He did it by indoctrinating the
children, advocating gun control, health care for all, better wages,
better jobs, and promising to re-instill pride once again in the
country, across Europe, and across the world.
He did it with a compliant media - Did you know that? And he did this
all in the name of justice and ...change.

And the people surely got what they voted for. (Look it up if you think
I am exaggerating. ) Read your history books. Many people objected in
1933 and were shouted down, called names, laughed at, and made fun of.
When Winston Churchill pointed out the obvious in the late 1930s while
seated in the House of Lords in England (he was not yet Prime Minister),
he was booed into his seat and called a crazy troublemaker. He was
right, though. Don't forget that Germany was the most educated,
cultured country in Europe. It was full of music, art, museums,
hospitals, laboratories, and universities. And in less than six years -
a shorter time span than just two terms of the U. S. presidency - it was
rounding up its own citizens, killing others, abrogating its laws,
turning children against parents, and neighbors against neighbors. All
with the best of intentions, of course. The road to Hell is paved with
them.

As a practical thinker, one not overly prone to emotional decisions, I
have a choice: I can either believe what the objective pieces of
evidence tell me (even if they make me cringe with disgust); I can
believe what history is shouting to me from across the chasm of seven
decades; or I can hope I am wrong, close my eyes, have another latte and
ignore what is transpiring around me.

Some people scoff at me; others laugh or think I am foolish, naive, or
both. Perhaps I am. But I have never been afraid to look people in the
eye and tell them exactly what I believe - and why I believe it. I pray
I am wrong. I do not think I am.

"Do not suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your liberty by any
pretenses of politeness, delicacy or decency. These, as they are often
used, are but three names for hypocrisy, chicanery, and cowardice." John
Adams, 1789

Charities Step Aside: Government to the Rescue.

There can be no doubt now what Barack Obama stands for: a large, expansive government that, if not socialistic, certainly seems that way. Obama's $3.5 trillion proposed budget makes real the whole "Joe the Plumber" scenario from the campaign: shift wealth from the haves and give it to the have nots. But there is another very disturbing provision within the proposed budget that should have every charitable American up in arms. Obama's budget proposes reducing, if not phasing out, the tax deductions available for contributions to private charities by any American currently in the 33% to 38% tax brackets (which soon will include a whole lot more of us). The obvious result, of course, will be a reduction in the amount of money funding America's private charitable organizations. Can this leave any doubt that Obama's ultimate goal is to progressively increase overall dependence on the federal government?

A lesson for today

If you read one article today, let it be this one by Ed Kaitz at American Thinker. It's titled: How Democracies become Tyrannies.

I have to say that American Thinker is slightly reactionary, even for me. However this article rings true as it contrasts Plato's Republic to the rise of socialism in America, with inferences to our current President.

It's a sober story and worth reading.

Silence is complicity

This week, I've read two articles that are particularly chilling and I'm at a loss as to what to do.

The first is this opinion piece by former President Jimmy Carter. Found in The Washington Post and titled: "An Unnecessary War," the article starts thus:

"I know from personal involvement that the devastating invasion of Gaza by Israel could easily have been avoided.

After visiting Sderot last April and seeing the serious psychological damage caused by the rockets that had fallen in that area, my wife, Rosalynn, and I declared their launching from Gaza to be inexcusable and an act of terrorism. Although casualties were rare (three deaths in seven years), the town was traumatized by the unpredictable explosions. About 3,000 residents had moved to other communities, and the streets, playgrounds and shopping centers were almost empty. Mayor Eli Moyal assembled a group of citizens in his office to meet us and complained that the government of Israel was not stopping the rockets, either through diplomacy or military action. "

The article then spends the next nine paragraphs explaining how Israel is totally to blame for the current hostilities in Gaza. If I have seen such a maniacal screed by someone of the stature of a former president of the United States, I cannot recall it. I have read Carter's writing in the past; this one has me floored.

My question is: "How do common citizens respond to things like this?" Do we simply whine about the crazy old man in the corner, hoping that no one is paying attention? Do we write the author and newspaper in order to try to set the record straight? Do we send emails to our friends in the media and ask them to write a rebuttal? At this point, none of this feels as if it's enough.

So, this blog post is one small way to not be silent.

The second article that absolutely stopped me in my tracks is a blog post from Melanie Phillips at the website of The Spectator. Very bad things are happening in Europe in regard to the rise of anti-Semitism. Ms. Phillips includes eye witness accounts of violent demonstrations in England. She ends her post with this:

"For silence is complicity, as once gentle, decent, civilised Britain changes before our horrified eyes into something very ugly indeed."

In a trip to Europe this summer, my husband and I visited the Anne Frank House in Amsterdam. The visitors to the museum slowly and silently made their way through the different levels of the home, going from the normalcy of Anne's father's business that was run from the lower floors of the building to the betrayal of the Frank's, their friends, and the whole of the Jewish population of Europe in the 1940's.

I doubt that one person in that building on that day believed it could happen again.

I do believe that we are close to it happening again.

And we cannot be silent.

How conservative thoughts can be refined

When I was invited to contribute to this blog, I was a bit hesitant because I feel that I'm less than eloquent in expressing political ideas. However, there are some conservative writers that have helped refine my conservative thinking. Although I've not always agreed with every word they've said, these are my favorites:

Victor Davis Hanson
Jeff Jacoby from the Boston Globe
Charles Krauthammer from the Washington Post

None of these men can be considered hard-right in their thinking. Rather, they provide a center-right view that balances liberty with compassion.

And while Christopher Hitchens can certainly not be considered "conservative" or "liberal," he, too, is one of my favorites. Mr. Hitchens understands the threat of terrorism and what it means to our freedoms.

If you're not familiar with these writers, click on the links above. They are sure to provide some very good food for thought.