Follow by Email

Monday, July 21, 2014

The Mark of a Conservative: a Sandwich Board, Not a Sandwich

Conservatives. We are not all the same. We do not all look the same. We do not all act the same way. We do not all defend conservatism in the same manner. And thank God that we don't.

Today, "M Catherine Evans" offers what she seems to believe is a scathing criticism of conservatives - namely Glenn Beck, Dana Loesch, Rep Louie Gohmert, and Sen Ted Cruz - who had the gall to offer humanitarian aid to illegal children. She criticizes their efforts in helping to feed and clothe the children who are being used as political pawns, and why? Because they weren't standing on overpasses holding anti-immigration signs.

Wait, what? You mean that if every conservative in America did nothing but stand on overpasses with signs we would win? If you believe that, I'd like to offer you a great deal on the overpass upon which you so valiantly protest.

Don't get me wrong: there is a time and a place for protests. I have participated, along with my children. So have *gasp* Dana Loesch, Glenn Beck, and I'd imagine the same goes for Sen Cruz and Rep Gohmert.

But let's think about this in broader terms.

Government in general wants one thing: to grow.  Government can grow larger in two basic ways. First, it can usurp power. We see that in the passage and support of laws like the Affordable Care Act, Executive Orders that are designed to circumvent Congress, and other extra-Constitutional actions taken by the government. And second, we the People can cede power. We can vote for people who we know will take actions that will limit liberty and grow government. We can vote for laws that restrict the freedoms of others because we don't like the way they exercise those liberties (gun control, for example). Or we can criticize those who engage in private charity because we don't like the charity they choose to support.

Conservatives in general want one thing: smaller, more limited government. We can restrict the growth of government in several ways as well. First, we can vote for people and initiatives that either stop the growth or shrink the size of government. And second, we can use private charity to limit the need for government growth. 

You'll notice that I did not at any point mention "standing on overpasses with signs."

When private entities offer humanitarian aid, they eliminate the need for government to drain resources from taxpayers. And make no mistake, the federal government wants nothing more than to drain those resources from taxpayers. 

Tell me, M Catherine Evans, do you really believe that the government would send those children back? Do you believe that the government would hesitate to take your money to feed them? When Dana Loesch went to the border, she went on her own time and her own money. When Glenn Beck went to the border, he went with his own money and the money from his own private charity. When Rep Gohmert and Sen Cruz went to the border, they went because it is their home state which is being overrun invaded. How many of them took your money to support their efforts? Dare I say NONE of them? Why do you believe you have the right to criticize what they choose to do with their own time and money? That's not conservatism that's progressivism.

If you choose to support conservatism by standing on an overpass with a sign, then by all means, do so. But realize that there is a need for conservatives who are willing to fight the battles on the ground, and let them do it. Because if they don't, recognize that your posterboard and sharpie fund will be next on the block when the government takes over the charity for us.

Oh, and I almost forgot: #amnestysandwiches


  1. "When private entities offer humanitarian aid, they eliminate the need for government to drain resources from taxpayers. And make no mistake, the federal government wants nothing more than to drain those resources from taxpayers."

    This is idiotic. Are Beck, Loesch, Cruz and Gohmert going to personally fund 290,000 illegal alien kids, their food, healthcare, school lunches, for life? Of course not. BUT WE ARE. 77% of these illegal alien "families" will be on welfare FOR LIFE. Because 99.5% of them will NEVER be deported. Evans is right and the author and Beck & Co. are dead wrong. This is a panderfest, for which Beck has become sadly well known, in order to expand his audience. It's too bad the others were duped into the empty gesture.

  2. Ok. Of course the four individuals mentioned are not capable of caring for /funding 290,000 illegals. Does that mean that they should not help ANY? You say that we are going to fund them, and you are right. But every dime that comes from a private charity is a dime the taxpayers don't get billed.

    You are right that they may never be deported. But if you look at recent legislation proposed by Senator Cruz and the public stances taken by Loesch and Beck regarding amnesty (spoiler: they are completely against it), deportation is what they are pushing for. Whether or not deportation happens cannot be controlled by private citizens outside the voting booth. Are you saying that because Glenn Beck can't personally airlift children back to their home countries (and you can be for damn sure that he would if the federal government would let him) that he should be discouraged from feeding a few kids so that they suffer less in the meantime?

    You can call it an empty gesture. But to a scared kid in a foreign country who is being used as political pawn and doesn't even know it, a smile and a sandwich is probably the least empty gesture to which he has been exposed.