Connect with us

Everything

Get your compassion out of politics and start helping people

Published

on

The media are acting like overturning DACA is an affront to small children, or even those who came to the US as small children, which is not necessarily true.

I don’t give money to panhandlers, for several reasons. Number one, I grew up with a retired cop and private detective for a father who knew firsthand that many supposedly destitute beggars made more money than he did.

My dad has a famous family story about being approached by a panhandler who, after my father insisted he empty his pockets first, turned out to have an enormous wad of cash and stormed off grumbling. And concerning those beggars who might actually be in need, my dad told me more than once, “There are plenty of places that people in that situation can go to for help — I donate to some and pay taxes for more.”

I once gave money to a woman after buying into a sob story that a few weeks later proved to be entirely false. I’ve given food to people who claimed to be starving, only to be treated with contempt and anger for not giving them the money they’d asked for. And as a missionary in South America, I accompanied a homeless man to a little market to buy him bread, and as I was leaving, I saw him return the bread and buy alcohol with the money.

I’ve learned that giving to panhandlers might not be the best way to meet the financial needs of the less fortunate, so I donate regularly (as Republicans tend to do) to organizations I trust to allocate relief funds more wisely than I can.

On the flip side, I know others who, despite having similar knowledge and experiences as mine, continue to give alms to beggars, reasoning that even if they’re only truly helping one person in need for every nine frauds, it will be worth it. I deeply admire this generosity, although I think there are better ways to manifest it.

But here’s the question: which of us — those who give to panhandlers and those who donate to relief groups — is more charitable? Which of us is more compassionate to the plight of those in need?

If you’re a somewhat rational person, I’m sure you can see that while the methods might not be identical, there’s no difference in the heartfelt intent of each group: give aid to the poor and needy as best as you know how. Show love, kindness, and service toward your fellow man. Different route, same destination. One might be more effective than another, but that doesn’t mean that one is less compassionate.

Unfortunately, vocal members of the Left don’t seem to accept this duality of pure intent, instead painting anyone who disagrees with them as an evil racist bigot homophobe who wants people to die. If you don’t support “common sense” gun reform, then you don’t love the Sandy Hook victims enough. If you’re concerned with threats facing Europe and want increased vetting for refugees, you just want starving orphan children to suffer. And now, if you wear the wrong shoes to board a plane, you don’t really care about the people of Houston.

This is nonsense, and I want to believe that most people recognize it as such. But I can’t blame you if this is what you’ve come to believe if you listen to the beloved Leftist media.

We need to remember that people on both sides don’t see themselves as the bad guys; they want to be charitable and compassionate. They just want to do the right thing the right way, and they disagree on what that is.

One perfect example is the breaking news that Trump might now put an end to Obama’s DACA — Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals — order after hinting a few months ago that young immigrants “shouldn’t be very worried” about the program’s future. Trump alluded to DACA’s safety and added, “I do have a big heart.”

But that’s the problem: DACA and illegal immigration in general are not about compassion or the size of your heart. Emotion sells, but it clouds our ability to make sound judgment.

However, if the Left continues to push issues based on compassion, they have to realize that it goes both ways.

There’s nothing compassionate about dismissing the millions of legal immigrants who have respect for our laws and went through the laborious process of gaining citizenship the right way. There’s nothing compassionate about taking their jobs and their benefits or making them feel second class for obeying our nation’s laws.

There’s nothing compassionate about encouraging lawlessness. There’s nothing compassionate about risking American well-being.

The media are acting like overturning DACA is an affront to small children, or even those who came to the US as small children, which is not necessarily true. This bill includes those who arrived as high school students who are now in their late 30’s, and most importantly, it doesn’t mean all illegals will be deported — just that authorities can deport if they feel that they must. There’s nothing compassionate about lying to your audience and striking unfounded fear in their hearts.

Overall, everyone wants to be empathetic toward those who simply want a better life for their family. We want to show love to our neighbor. But just because someone may disagree with you on how to accomplish those things, that doesn’t make them heartless.

The same goes for any issue. There’s nothing compassionate about destroying liberty, restricting free speech, threatening religious exercise, killing babies, stealing other people’s money, or, as Matt Walsh so aptly points out, promoting behavior that will incur God’s wrath. But I don’t want our politics to automatically jump there with every disagreement because there’s nothing productive about framing everything in terms of compassion.

We all want a better, cleaner, safer, happier, and kinder world. Compassion is a motive, not a method. And when making policy that affects everyone, you have to think from your head and not just your heart, or you’ll end up hurting one group at the expense of another. Framing every position as one of empathy does more harm than good. If you really want to help people, then stop demagoguing the issues and start creating solutions.

Get your compassion out of politics and start helping people.

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 *

Opinions

It isn’t Never-Trump or Always-Trump destroying conservatism, it’s Sometimes-Trump

Published

on

One of the craziest—or should I say laziest—accusations leveled against me by Trump’s die-hard loyalists whenever I dare to call him out for breaking a campaign promise, getting caught in a lie, or promoting unconstitutional non-conservative ideas, is that I’m a liberal. Sometimes, they go so far as to accuse me of working for George Soros.

As I’ve said many times in response, I don’t work for Mr. Soros, but since money’s been a little tight at the Strident Conservative lately, if anyone has his number, I’d appreciate it if you’d send it my way.

It’s a sad reality that these pathetic taunts are what passes for political discourse in the Age of Trump. Gone are the days when differences could be civilly discussed based on facts instead of emotion.

Another sad reality of this behavior is that it’s a sign that the end of conservatism is near, as Trump’s small army of loyal followers attempt to rebrand conservatism by spreading the lie that he is a conservative and, using binary logic, accusing anyone who opposes him of being a liberal.

This rebranding effort has had an impact. Last week, RNC Chair Ronna McDaniel warned Republican hopefuls that anyone who opposed Trump’s agenda would be “making a mistake.”

McDaniel’s threat was issued following the GOP primary defeat in South Carolina by conservative Mark Sanford after he was personally targeted by Trump himself. Sanford’s crime? Disloyalty to the NY Liberal.

Another source of damage to conservatism has come from evangelicals and the so-called conservative media. In the name of self-preservation, they choose to surrender their principles by promoting the lie that Trump is a conservative. Some of these voices have taken to labelling conservatives who oppose Trump as Never-Trump conservatives, or worse, branding them as liberals and/or Democrats, as was recently written in a piece at TheFederalist.com:

“Trump may be an unattractive and deeply flawed messenger for contemporary conservatism. But loathe though they might be to admit it, what’s left of the Never-Trump movement needs to come to grips with the fact that the only words that currently describe them are liberals and Democrats.”

Then there are those who have adopted a Sometimes-Trump attitude about the president, where everything Trump does is measured using a good Trump/bad Trump barometer. While it has become fashionable for Sometimes-Trump conservatives to stand on their soap boxes condemning both Never-Trump conservatives and Always-Trump faux conservatives, I believe that this politically bipolar approach to Trump is the greatest threat of all to Constitutional conservatism in America.

Sometimes-Trump conservatives have accepted the lie that it’s okay to do a little evil in exchange for a greater good. Though they may fly a conservative banner, their lukewarm attitude about Trump is much like the attitude we see in the Laodicean church mentioned in the Book of Revelations (3:15-16).

“I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth.”

Trump is a double-minded man unstable in all his ways (James 1:8). When lukewarm Sometimes-Trump conservatives choose to overlook this reality, they end up watering-down conservatism to the point that it has no value or power to change America’s course.

As lukewarm Sometimes-Trump conservatives point to the Always-Trump and Never-Trump factions as the reason for today’s conservative divide, remember that it’s the unenthusiastic, noncommittal, indifferent, half-hearted, apathetic, uninterested, unconcerned, lackadaisical, passionless, laid back, couldn’t-care-less conservative imposters in the middle who are really responsible.

Originally posted on The Strident Conservative.

 


David Leach is the owner of The Strident Conservative. His daily radio commentary is distributed by the Salem Radio Network and is heard on stations across America.

Follow the Strident Conservative on Twitter and FacebookSubscribe to receive podcasts of radio commentaries: iTunes | Stitcher | Tune In | RSS

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Video Double play: Busting the gun grabber’s musket myth.

Published

on

By

Gun confiscation bingo

Two videos that eviscerate the Liberty Grabbers ‘One shot’ musket myth.

It is a bedrock principle (if they have any) of the Liberty grabber Left that back during the ratification of the US Constitution the only weapons in existence were flintlock musket that took 5 minute to reload. Thus there wasn’t any school violence because it would have taken too long for the perpetrator to kill anyone.

As it typical of the lore of the national socialist Left, this is a lie of the first order. A previous video celebrated the “Assault Weapon” tricentennial, which was bit of the tongue in cheek variety since there were other repeating “Military Style” weapons in existence before this time period. These will be detailed in future articles. Meanwhile we present two videos that also bust the ‘Musket Myth’, one a short presentation from the Royal Armouries on the Jover and Belton “Flintlock breech-loading superimposed military musket”

Royal Armouries
Published on Aug 30, 2017
Curator of Firearms, Jonathan Ferguson, gives us a peek at the Flintlock breech-loading superimposed military musket, by Jover and Belton (1786)

This is a very relevant piece since the inventor Joseph Belton corresponded with the Continental Congress in 1777:

May it Please your Honours,
I would just informe this Honourable Assembly, that I have discover’d an improvement, in the use of Small Armes, wherein a common small arm, may be maid to discharge eight balls one after another, in eight, five or three seconds of time, & each one to do execution five & twenty, or thirty yards, and after so discharg’d, to be loaded and fire’d with cartridge as usual.

“It was demonstrated before noted scientists and military officers (including well known scientist David Rittenhouse and General Horatio Gates)”

This destroys the mythology that the founders had no knowledge of this type of repeating firearm technology that existed already.

The second is a humours dissertation on the subject from video raconteur Steven Crowder https://www.louderwithcrowder.com/

from a few years ago that also eviscerates this bit of Leftist mythology.

Published on Feb 10, 2015
People have been telling us for years that the 2nd amendment was written in a time of Muskets, and that it doesn’t apply to the evolved weapons of today. Is it true?

So why is this important?

Two primary reasons. One that these factual examples demonstrate that the founding fathers knew of these technological advances. Therefore, they destroy any Leftist pretences that the 2nd amendment be confined to muskets. Second that, school violence is something other than an issue of guns.

Continue Reading

Immigration

House proposal makes DACA permanent and grants citizenship to illegals

Published

on

When Donald Trump issued an executive order in Sept. 2017 rescinding the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) order issued by Barack Obama, he was cheered by his adoring fans for appearing to keep one of his campaign promises regarding the illegal immigration problem. However, as the old saying goes, appearances can be deceiving.

The reason I call it deceiving is because Trump’s order was merely a technicality—sort of a Rescind-In-Name-Only moment—used to buy the time necessary to make DACA permanent, which has been his “big heart” goal from the beginning.

Of course, any permanent legislation needs to come from Congress, which should have been problematic for Republicans who campaigned for years against Obama’s handling of illegal immigration. But in today’s Republican party—owned and operated by Trump—such commitments have become secondary to the requirement to please Dear Leader.

For example, just days after Trump’s deceptive order, Mitch McConnell went on record in support of negotiation with Democrats and the president—but I repeat myself—to save DACA and create an amnesty plan and eventual citizenship for approximately 1.8 million DREAMers.

Though past attempts have failed, election-season fever is sweeping Washington, so Trump and Republican party loyalists are making another push to get the job done.

After conducting several days of Nancy Pelosi-style meetings behind closed doors, Paul Ryan released an immigration plan yesterday that will legally protect DREAMers while also providing over $23 billion for another Trump promise—a border wall.

Wait a minute! I though Trump promised us that Mexico was going to pay for the wall. I suppose that’s just another in-name-only moment for the New York liberal.

Back to the House proposal. DREAMers can apply for “nonimmigrant status” which is essentially a newfangled way to say visa. The extra visas necessary to handle these requests will be available due to new restrictions that will lower the number of legal immigrant applications, which means legal immigrants will be effectively moved to the back of the line.

But that’s not the worst part.

Once obtained, these visas become the first step on a pathway to citizenship, which means that years down the road, 1.8 million illegals—probably more—will have jumped the line to US citizenship ahead of legal immigrants, despite the rhetoric from Trump and the GOP claiming otherwise.

Though this proposal may or may not pass, making DACA permanent and creating a pathway to citizenship are broken promises. But as I wrote a few days ago, breaking promises has become a job requirement in the age of Trump and today’s GOP.

Originally posted on The Strident Conservative.

 


David Leach is the owner of The Strident Conservative. His daily radio commentary is distributed by the Salem Radio Network and is heard on stations across America.

Follow the Strident Conservative on Twitter and FacebookSubscribe to receive podcasts of radio commentaries: iTunes | Stitcher | Tune In | RSS

Continue Reading

NOQ Report Daily

Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2017 NOQ Report.