POLITICS AND THE SPIRIT OF CHRISTMAS

The socialistic welfare state is extolled by liberal-socialistic-progressives as more Christian then Christianity, because the welfare state purports to help the needy. So did Hitler’s National Socialism.

Traditional Christmas spirit, depicted in Charles Dickens’s A Christmas Carol, was the warmth of family gatherings, friendship, and loving kindness to everyone.

Today, however, many people insist that socialism IS Christianity. It’s certainly true that the early churches established by the Apostle Paul grew rapidly, because people found there the Christian love and fellowship, as well as support for the poor, sick, elderly, and disabled, that was available nowhere else.

The socialist political state, however, is expressly atheistic and materialistic. There can therefore be no identity between Christianity and socialism, simply on the superficial basis that they nominally espouse some of the same objectives.

The collectivized compulsion of the socialistic state is exemplified by bureaucratic rules mandating certain conduct, described in tens of millions of regulations.

The spirit of Christmas is written in every individual human heart. We must soften our hearts and listen to God’s commands. We must look inward and ask ourselves what is the right thing to do. Going to the Federal rule books is no substitute.

From the purely practical viewpoint, there is also the historical fact that, before the New Deal in this country, those sorts of social needs were better cared for by families, churches, emigrant societies, the mutual-support organizations found in every community, and local governments, without the vast social destruction of the welfare state. Before 1933 there was, for example, no society-wide illegitimacy or single-parent problem and no vast horde of people who, for three of four generations, never sought work, preferring to make living on welfare their life’s career.

Caring for the poor, elderly, sick, and disabled ought to be individual Christian responsibilities of families, churches, emigrant societies, and local governments (towns preferably, but no higher than the state level). Caring should flow from the desire of every individual to love God and therefore to reflect God’s love in dealings with everyone else.

Caring concern for others, a central aspect of our Judeo-Christian heritage, ought to be an every-day matter. It should be especially prominent in our minds at Christmas time.

In the past, such things were moral responsibilities. Today they are political issues, made so by the socialistic political state. It becomes too easy for people to shirk their moral responsibilities by objecting sourly that they’ve “already given at the office” via confiscatory taxes.

The socialistic welfare-state is no substitute for the spirit of Christmas.

—

Thomas E. Brewton is a staff writer for the New Media Alliance, Inc. The New Media Alliance is a non-profit (501c3) national coalition of writers, journalists and grass-roots media outlets.

His weblog is THE VIEW FROM 1776 (http://www.thomasbrewton.com)

IMMIGRATION INSANITY

This headline should shock everyone:

Hispanic Groups Call for Moratorium on Work Raids

Here’s what the article says:

U.S. Hispanic groups and activists on Thursday called for a moratorium on workplace raids to round up illegal immigrants, saying they were reminiscent of Nazi crackdowns on Jews in the 1930s. They accused the Department of Immigration and Customs Enforcement of “racial profiling,” or selective enforcement against Hispanics, for arresting 1,300 workers on immigration violations in December 12 raids at meatpacking plants in six states.

These activist groups jumped the shark by equating enforcing existing laws with Hitler’s Germany. Do these activists realize that they’ve just marginalized themselves? Something that I’m wondering is whether this fits into the legislation that Pelosi and Conyers plan on introducing on CAIR’s behalf.

“We are demanding an end to these immigration raids, where they are targeting brown faces. That is major, major racial profiling, and that cannot be tolerated,” said Rosa Rosales, president of the League of United Latin American Citizens, at a news conference. “This unfortunately reminds me of when Hitler began rounding up the Jews for no reason and locking them up,” Democratic Party activist Carla Vela said. “Now they’re coming for the Latinos, who will they come for next?”

Saying that ICE uses racial profiling in making the raids is stating the obvious. Should ICE profile white-skinned Europeans in looking for illegal aliens? Or should they target African-Americans? Or should they just use random searches like they use in airports so that Hispanics aren’t targeted? What tools should ICE use in going after illegal aliens? Or are these groups asking that the borders not be enforced at all?

I’ll be interested in seeing how the 110th Congress will handle this issue. It’ll tell us alot about how serious they are on law enforcement and national security issues. If the Democrats in Congress include Hispanics in their legislation against profiling of all sorts. If they are, then it’s important that Republicans step forward to say that that isn’t acceptable. It’s important that Republicans filibuster such legislation.

CALLING OUT A COWARD

That’s essentially what Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz is doing in this Boston Globe op-ed about Jimmy Carter’s unwillingness to debate Dershowitz about Carter’s most recent book “Palestine Peace Not Apartheid.” Here’s the opening paragraph of Professor Dershowitz’s op-ed:

YOU CAN ALWAYS tell when a public figure has written an indefensible book: when he refuses to debate it in the court of public opinion. And you can always tell when he’s a hypocrite to boot: when he says he wrote a book in order to stimulate a debate, and then he refuses to participate in any such debate. I’m talking about former president Jimmy Carter and his new book “Palestine Peace Not Apartheid.”

Carter has been exposed repeatedly by both liberal Jews and by conservative Christians but few have flayed him as thoroughly as has Professor Dershowitz. Carter’s fear of debating Dershowitz is understandable considering the indefensible statements that he made in his book, not to mention having to defend those statements against a debater of Professor Dershowitz’s caliber.

Dershowitz continues, saying:

The next week Carter wrote a series of op-eds bemoaning the reception his book had received.

He wrote that his “most troubling experience” had been “the rejection of [his] offers to speak” at “university campuses with high Jewish enrollment.” The fact is that Brandeis President Jehuda Reinharz had invited Carter to come to Brandeis to debate me, and Carter refused. The reason Carter gave was this: “There is no need to for me to debate somebody who, in my opinion, knows nothing about the situation in Palestine.”

As Carter knows, I’ve been to Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza, many times, certainly more times than Carter has been there, and I’ve written three books dealing with the subject of Middle Eastern history, politics, and the peace process. The real reason Carter won’t debate me is that I would correct his factual errors. It’s not that I know too little; it’s that I know too much.

While it’s true that Carter wants nothing to do with debating anyone about this book, the bigger truth is that he doesn’t want his lies to be exposed to the public because it will be a public humiliation that will forever sink what little is left of his presidential legacy. Carter tried making provocative statements with hopes of them just being accepted as fact. When that didn’t happen, he started backpedaling and obfuscating about what he wanted the book to be.

AHMADINEAJD: IRAN NOW NUCLEAR POWER

I just read the scariest headline I never wanted to read. Here’s that headline:

Ahmadinejad: Iran Now Nuclear Power

If that isn’t enough to get your undivided attention, then nothing will get your undivided attention. Here’s the gist of the article:

During a speech delivered in the Western Iranian province of Javanroud, Ahmadinejad said: ” The Islamic Republic of Iran is now a nuclear power, thanks to the hard work of the Iranian people and authorities.” The announcement of Iran as a “nuclear power” is bound to significantly escalate tensions between the West and Iran, and marks a dramatic stage in the Islamic Republic’s nuclear campaign.
In recent days, the US military has begun to build up forces around the Gulf, in what is being seen as as a warning to Iran. Ahmadinejad was also reported to have announced that “Iranian young scientists reached the zenith of science and technology and gained access to the nuclear fuel cycle without the help of big powers.” The Iranian president began the speech by saying that “the powerful Iranian nation resists bullying powers and will defend its rights, including the right to pursue peaceful nuclear technology,” the IRNA said.

Here’s a newsflash for Sen. Kerry, Justice O’Connor, Rep. Hamilton, SecState James Baker, etc: You can’t negotiate with a nut like that. If ever there was proof of these people’s lack of wisdom, this should suffice. This group didn’t learn Reagan’s lesson of negotiating from a position of strength. They’re just a bunch of ’surrendering realists’ who think that talking endlessly is a solution to every situation. Shame on them for thinking that.

It’s worth reviewing Reagan’s principle on negotiation. The Reagan principle teaches that you don’t negotiate until you scare the daylights out of the people you’re negotiating with. It’s only at that time that they’re willing to make significant, long-lasting concessions. Furthermore, the Reagan Principle teaches us that there shouldn’t be a time when the United States can’t get to the position of superiority to negotiate from.

Gorbachev didn’t make the concessions that he did because of his benevolence. He made them because he knew that Reagan wasn’t someone to be messed with and because Reagan’s policies and actions scared him into making concessions.

Right now, we don’t scare Ahmadinejad. That must stop. IMMEDIATELY. We need to put the fear of God into him. We need to help him feel like Qaddafi felt after Reagan bombed Qaddafi’s home.

In a clear rejection of all diplomatic attempts to prevent Iran from going nuclear, Ahmadinejad added in his speech that “the Iranian nation will continue in its nuclear path powerfully and will celebrate a nuclear victory soon.”

It’s time that we put some serious pressure on Iran with a multi-front, multi-faceted policy that makes them wish they’d never started this escalation.

That can’t happen soon enough.

AL-QAEDA'S HOLIDAY MESSAGE

Al-Qaeda's #2, Ayman Al-Zawahiri has made a new tape and is weighing in on possible elections in the Palestinian territories. He says elections would only lead to defeat and that the only way to really win was armed struggle. Now you know what goes on inside the mind of an Islamic terrorist. And Democrats think we should negotiate with these people. Can't we all just get along?

This is the problem with sitting down and talking with people like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Bashar Al-Assad. To them, the enemy is not the United States...or even democracy. The enemy is the non-believers...anyone who is not a Muslim. To the Islamic extremist, anyone who does not worship Allah must be either converted, subjugated or exterminated. Zawahiri's tape also exposes another lie: that the "Palestinians" actually want peace.

They don't now and never have. Even if Israel was driven into the sea, they would find something else to fight over. All you need for evidence of this is the Camp David summit in 2000...where Ehud Barak offered Yasser Arafat everything he wanted, and Arafat still turned him down. Peace in the Middle East has nothing to do with resolving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, despite what Jimmy Carter says.

Don't you think it's rather interesting that NOBODY in the middle east particularly wants to have anything to do with the Palestinians ...except to use them as cannon fodder in their war against the West?

So there you have it....Al-Qaeda's Christmas message. He sounds upset...maybe we need to send the Iraq Study Group to talk to him.

'RELIGIOUS NUTS' OUT GIVE LIBERAL SECULARISTS

Are you tired of your secular, leftist friends claiming a monopoly on compassion? Ready to see if irreligious Democrats who mocks the “religious right” put their money where their mouths are?

It wasn’t too long ago that Al Gore called supporters of Oliver North, a largely Christian group, “the extreme rightwing, the extra-chromosome right wing”. Howard Dean, the Democratic Committee Chairman, said, “You know, the Republicans are not very friendly to different kinds of people. They’re a pretty monolithic party. Pretty much, they all behave the same, and they all look the same. … It’s pretty much a white Christian party.'’

Interesting. Here are what some studies referenced by the Heritage Foundation’s familyfacts.org have found about the generosity of churchgoers:

Religious individuals are 57% more likely than non-church goers to help a homeless person at least once a month.

Committed religious give to the poor more than nominally religious (in name only).

Of the 25 states that had the highest number of houses of worship per capita, 19 had levels of households’ charitable donations that were above the national average. Conversely, 19 of the 25 states with the lowest number of houses of worship per capita had household levels of charitable giving that were below the national average.

The average donation given to non-religious charities by weekly churchgoers is 14% higher than donations given to non-religious charities by…ahem… non-religious people.

People who say religious beliefs are important were 19% more likely to volunteer (51% vs. 32%) than those who say religious beliefs don’t matter as long as one is a good person.

Regular churchgoers are 11% more likely to donate to causes related to the 9/11 terrorist attacks than their secular counterparts.

It’s also worth pointing out that in 2005, the Catalogue for Philanthropy, the National Generosity Index for 2005 reported the most generous states for charitable giving in the US were “Red States” (Republican states that voted for Bush) and Bible Belt states. The most miserly states were “Blues States” (Democratic states which voted for Kerry). Mississippi, which is also one of the lowest income states, tops the list as the #1 most generous whereas New Hampshire comes in dead last at #50. Massachusetts comes in at #49, New Jersey at #48, Rhode Island, Wisconsin and Connecticut rounding out the bottom 5.

But what about compassion?

Howard Dean said on Meet the Press last year that:

I’m a committed Christian. And the fact of whether I go to church or not, people can say whether I should or shouldn’t, I worship in my own way. It came out in the campaign that I pray every night. That’s my business. That’s not the business of the Pharisees who are going to preach to me about what I do and then do something else.

You know, I care about values a lot. And one of the reasons that I care a lot is because of my upbringing. And it was a–I grew up in a Christian household. Now, because I grew up–I’m a congregationalist. People say, “Well, those are liberals.” Well, since when do Christians get tagged liberal or conservative? You either believe in the teachings of Jesus or you don’t. I do.

Actually, it;s not just about believing, it’s about believing and doing. While liberals love hoarding the compassion of Christ without stepping foot into a Church, or occasionally visiting a liberal Church that flies in the face of basic Christian teaching of morality while maintaining a platform hostile to religion, the truth is a Christian must both believe and do the teachings of Christ. St. James called it “faith and works”, the evidence of faith.

The proof is in the giving. The litmus test of compassion is giving to others who cannot repay. Apparently religious faithful are rising to the task; are secularists? Apparently not.