Connect with us

Culture and Religion

Ebenezer Scrooge: A miser, not a crook

Published

on

Ebenezer Scrooge A miser not a crook

Marley was dead, to begin with. But worst of all, he was in chains.

We all know the story of the parsimonious Scrooge. His name and his “humbug!” have become synonymous with selfishness, greed, and the vitriol of the cheerless soul. Prior to his miraculous rebirth, Ebenezer Scrooge was not a good man. He was cold, resentful, and unpleasant.

But in one thing, Scrooge was absolutely right: his money was his alone, and no one else had any right to it.

Scrooge’s clerk, Bob Cratchit, had a right to his wages only insofar as he had entered into a contractual agreement with Scrooge, who had promised to provide them subject to Cratchit’s labor. By their conversation, it appears that paid holiday for December 25th was not technically part of the agreement, which is why Cratchit had no right to demand it, merely submitting, “If quite convenient, sir.”

Scrooge obviously decided to grant Cratchit the holiday anyway, and while this hardly qualifies as an act of laudable compassion, it is essential that we distinguish what is right, and what is his right. Scrooge had every legal and natural right to demand Cratchit’s fulfillment of contractual labor by requiring his unnecessary presence on Christmas. But as we all know, including miserly Scrooge, he would have been morally wrong to do so.

Two things can be true at once. Scrooge was in danger of Marley’s fate, but he was well out of reach of the prisons he so eagerly sponsored. Scrooge was wrong, but within his rights.

I’m not a fan of the line that Leftists only seek to subsidize the poor and needy in order to buy their votes. This is almost certainly true at the highest levels, but among the grassroots, I believe in the sincerity of the my compatriots to the Left, misguided though their good intentions may be.

Most people, whether religious or simply conscience-driven, understand the essential moral duty of the haves to give to the have-nots. This is why, unsurprisingly, religious people are far more likely to give to charity, some estimates suggesting that “faith motivates as much as 75 percent of all charity in the United States.”

What I fail to understand, though, is the leap that those on the Left make from “we have a moral duty to provide for the welfare of others,” to “it is the government’s job to force you to provide for the welfare of others.” I’ve asked many of my Left-leaning friends this question, yet none has given me a logical answer. At most, the sentiment resembles, “Because we need to help them.” But that’s not what I asked. Of course “we need” to help those around us, but only in a moral sense — how does “we” become “the government” and “need” transform into a legal obligation?

As charity is defined in scripture as “the pure love of Christ,” one can hardly discuss charitable giving without invoking He who gave everything for us. Despite what some may tell you, His command to “render therefore unto Caesar the things that be Caesar’s” is not an endorsement of high taxes or of despotic rulers, any more than His insistence that His “kingdom is not of this world” should be interpreted as a call to abolish all earthly governments and establish a global Christian theocracy. In truth, Christ advocated for compliance with the law, both temporal and spiritual, but He never suggested the compulsion of law, neither temporal nor spiritual.

As my friend Dalane England once said, the purpose of charity is to change us, to make us more like our Father in Heaven. This effect of charity cannot be accomplished at the point of gun.

Make no mistake, any government action must ultimately be enforced at gunpoint. Just try not paying your taxes and see how long it takes before a government official pulls out a gun (note: don’t actually try this). Once the government comes to arrest you, just try resisting (note: never try to resist). At some point, the guns come out. The government is not a charity; it is a giant gun-pointing machine.

And charity at the point of gun is not compassion; it is compulsion.

If good-hearted Leftists want to give more of their own money either to charity or to the government, they have every right to do so. But to compel sacrifice in the name of supposed morality is a breach of at least three of the Ten Commandments: it turns a duty to God into a duty to government, replacing God with government in violation of the first; stealing someone else’s money at gunpoint is a clear violation of the eighth; and the obsession with the property of others and how it can benefit your agenda is a flagrant dismissal of the tenth.

Men and women like the unrepentant Ebenezer Scrooge have rightly formed a “ponderous chain,” but they should not fear the shackles of a man-made cell. Their bondage is to a higher power, or in this case a much lower one, and they must answer only to God for their neglect of the downtrodden.

That is the lesson of Dickens’s classic. That is the reason why Scrooge sought a personal transformation of his soul. And that is the kind of reformation we need if we want to incite greater charity and compassionate care.

Government does not make men more compassionate. Government only makes us more spiteful, more suspicious, more secluded.

If anything, government makes us more like Scrooge.

Richie Angel is a Co-Editor in Chief of The New Guards. Follow him and The New Guards on Twitter, and check out The New Guards on Facebook.

Richie Angel is a Co-Editor in Chief of The New Guards, Co-Host of The New Guards Podcast, lifelong fan of the Anaheim Ducks, and proud Hufflepuff. He graduated Magna Cum Laude in English from Brigham Young University in 2017. One day later, his wife gave birth to a beautiful daughter. Richie is a constitutional conservative and doesn't see any compassion in violating other people's rights.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Culture and Religion

In a violent world, it’s time to do the right thing “for the children”

Published

on

In the never-ending assault on liberty, Progressive Democrats and Republicans often resort to using children as a type of political cover for their otherwise unpopular agenda. We are witnessing this right now as they work to dismantle the Second Amendment following the Florida high school shooting.

But let’s face it; who can say “no” to an agenda when it’s “for the children?”

Clearly, this ploy has paid huge dividends for big-government Progressives. One need look no further than the recent budget negotiations where the obsolete Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) was renewed for 6 years. Or the recent suggestion to use Social Security to finance big-government’s newest entitlement—Ivanka Trump’s Paid Family Leave.

Quite honestly “for the children” has been so successful that I’ve decided to adopt it myself. While Progressives use it to destroy freedom, I will use it to defend the Constitution.

For example, as I mentioned earlier, Progressives are using the Florida tragedy to void the Second Amendment to keep children safe. But I will defend gun rights because it’s the only way we can keep them safe. Unarmed Americans in gun-free zones will only lead to more tragedies like Florida, not fewer.

Additionally, I will defend the First Amendment “for the children.” What future awaits the next generation if liberty is destroyed due to being raised on political correctness and spending their time in safe-spaces?

In fact, I will defend the entire Constitution “for the children.” What future will the next generation have if tyranny replaces freedom?

I will also fight for the Convention of States‘ goal for a balanced budget amendment “for the children.” What kind of future will they have if they are forced to pay for our fiscal irresponsibility? And I will fight to end abortion “for the (unborn) children,” because they are deprived of even having a future when they are deprived their right to life.

While there will certainly be more issues to fight for, it’s time to get ready America. The Strident Conservative is going to be more strident than ever because, after all, it’s “for the children.”

Originally posted on The Strident Conservative.

 

David Leach is the owner of The Strident Conservative. His politically incorrect and always “right” columns are featured on RedState.com, NOQReport.com, and TheResurgent.com.

His daily radio commentary is nationally syndicated with Salem Radio Network and can be heard on stations across America.

Follow the Strident Conservative on Twitter and Facebook.

Subscribe to receive podcasts of radio commentaries: iTunes | Stitcher | Tune In | RSS

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Let’s Just Say It: The Socialist-Left Doesn’t Really Care About Protecting Children.

Published

on

By

The Socialist Left cares more about gun confiscation than any common sense ideas that will really protect kids.

Once again, we are witness to the nation’s Socialist-Left blithely assuming the unearned mantle of moral superiority because they supposedly care for ‘the children’. Allegedly ‘objective’ journalists are falling all over themselves to promote a nascent campaign to destroy our common sense civil rights to the exclusion of steps that will really ‘Do Something’.

It is not without a hint of irony that the nation’s Socialist-Left does not care about children before they are born.  But soon after they become a precious commodity that must be protected at all costs – including everyone’s fundamental human rights. Those who are merely a cluster of cells or some other humanity denying pejorative in the womb, suddenly become children to be exploited for political gain upon their full emergence into the world.

Gun Control Doesn’t Work – If it did, Chicago would be the safest city in the nation.

Before the nation’s Socialist-Left is celebrated by the world with the laurels protector of children par excellence, shouldn’t we check their alleged solutions as to whether they work? For if gun control doesn’t work, then they are merely setting up next the mass murder tragedy, and for another round of attacks on our civil rights.

Examine their much ballyhooed utterances over the past few days: The national socialist left is promising a little temporary safety exchange for a mere pittance of our essential liberty. Of course, if they are pressed on the point, they will respond with some sort of meaningless boilerplate about cutting down the carnage. Even so, such vague promises are hardly worth the loss of liberty it would entail.

So what are we getting for the low-low cost of our freedom? How do their ‘solutions’ fair in the real world? Do they actually protect people? Or do they make the situation worse – far worse?

Well, we already know that very much like it’s tyrannical half-sister socialism, Gun control doesn’t work. Just ask the good people of Chicago or Caracas whether or not depriving the innocent of their means of self-defence will protect them. Parenthetically speaking, if gun control actually worked in some mythical Utopia, we would be hearing it about 24/7. This fantasy world doesn’t exist, but there are other steps that can be taken to save at least one life – and isn’t that the standard by which such things are measured?

Commonsense steps that will really protect children and their Civil Rights.

There have been plenty of suggested initiatives that will help reduce these terrorist attacks, from containing the contagion by reducing the killer’s media profile to providing better security. Not to mention restoring basic discipline and a moral underpinning to our children, or simply letting people defend themselves getting rid of the insanity of so-called “Gun Free” zones.

But instead of discussing steps that will actually work, the Socialist-Left ridicules them.  Or they insanely advocate we go further in removing God from the public square or decree them to be a redirection from their real obsession.

The Takeaway

To be perfectly blunt about it: The most disgusting aspect of this whole cycle is that it won’t do a thing to protect children and we will be back here doing the very same thing in a few weeks or months. That is what is sickening about this whole affair, and just crediting the Socialist-Left with just a modicum of basic intelligence will show that they know this as well.

To the nation’s Socialist-Left, getting to their ultimate goal gun confiscation is far more important than the lives of children they supposedly want to protect. They care more about depriving people of the means to resist [how’s that for a word?] to their Marxist tyranny than everyone’s safety, and they are willing to climb over the bodies of children to get there. If the nation’s Socialist-Left really cared about protecting children they would advocate what works instead of what brings them power.

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Media: Please stop bringing Fame to mass murderers with the Gratuitous use of their Names and Imagery.

Published

on

By

It is time that we stop glamorising killers with unnecessary media fanfare    #NoFame4Killers

Saying that the Socialist-Left wants a certain level of violence to push gun control will always result in a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth. Still, it’s hard to shake that conclusion when it comes to the idea of refusing to bring fame to mass murderers. Studies have shown that these killers inspire others to copy their horrid acts, so it’s only logical that cutting down their media exposure would help alleviate the problem.

Proving the point is the report in the Miami Herald that: There have been threats of violence at 12 U.S. schools, at least, since Fla. Shooting, Including an arrest of a high school student who threatened ‘Round 2’ of Florida Shooting as reported at Tme.com

Consider a 2015 study from researchers at Arizona State University and Northeastern Illinois University reported in the PLOS journal, concluding that:

We find significant evidence that mass killings involving firearms are incented by similar events in the immediate past. On average, this temporary increase in probability lasts 13 days, and each incident incites at least 0.30 new incidents (p = 0.0015). We also find significant evidence of contagion in school shootings, for which an incident is contagious for an average of 13 days, and incites an average of at least 0.22 new incidents (p = 0.0001).

To make it perfectly clear, we are not talking about keeping this information secret or censoring the media. The data should be available in certain places in the media – a dispassionate recitation of the facts of the crime, to keep conspiracy theories and other such nonsense at bay. But there is no logical reason to make a mass murderer famous for the sake of clicks or ratings.

Nor is this a call for government intervention, this is more like a “gentlemen’s agreement” (or gentlewoman’s as the case may be) to stop gratuitously promoting these killers. It’s about denying fame to cowardly murderers who are the worst of the worst, nothing more, nothing less.

Consider that the experts in the field have detailed the extensive planning and preparation these mass murderers that proceeding through five distinct phases. This article published in PoliceOne.com detailed these stages: 5 phases of the active shooter: A tactical reload

1. Fantasy Phase
2. Planning Phase
3. Preparation Phase
4. Approach Phase
5. Implementation Phase

Are we to believe that the “Columbine effect” doesn’t factor in these stages?
In addition, are we to believe that in the Left’s magical “Gun-Free” Utopian fantasy land, that criminals of this type wouldn’t find alternative methods of mass murder?

Both sides of the political aisle have championed this have idea. It was extensively discussed on the Glenn Beck Radio program: Logic and Reason Needed, As well as the publication ‘Mother Jones’.  While we loathe to link to them, they did offer some useful tips to alleviate this deadly problem:

Report on the perpetrator forensically and with dispassionate language. Avoid terms like “lone wolf” and “school shooter,” which may carry cachet with young men aspiring to attack. Instead use “perpetrator,” “act of lone terrorism,” and “act of mass murder.”

Minimise use of the perpetrator’s name. When it isn’t necessary to repeat it, don’t. And don’t include middle names gratuitously, a common practice for distinguishing criminal suspects from others of the same name, but which can otherwise lend a false sense of their importance.

Keep the perpetrator’s name out of headlines. Rarely, if ever, will a generic reference to him in a headline be any less practical.

Minimize use of images of the perpetrator. This is especially important both in terms of aspiring copycats’ desire for fame, and the psychology of vulnerable individuals who identify with mass shooters.

When both ends of the political spectrum agree on something that is so basic and eminently obvious, everyone should take notice. But then again, maybe there are those who really want a certain level of violence, who would prefer to tilt at the windmill of gun control and never really solve anything.

 

 

 

 

 

Continue Reading

NOQ Report Daily

Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2017 NOQ Report.