Regular readers understand that one of the issues that drives me nuts are the Liberals that are slowly redefining the word charity (here and here for starters) . In their eyes, no longer is it the case that charity is an individual act of will and kindness that drives a person, or a voluntary grouping of people, to give of their time and / or money to help another person or a particular cause. Charity is that I decide when I give to someone else – it is my decision and not dependent on anyone else.
Liberals love to do charity too. Problem, they have no moral problem in taking money from you and I involuntarily to give to others. They believe that they have the moral mandate, via government taxes, to carry out their choice of charity work, regardless of my feelings towards their causes.
Think I’m kidding? Our friend Maggie over at Thurber’s Thoughts has the scoop of a Democrat spilling the beans:
Redfern explained that America needs to tax people to provide charitable services through the government because, without forcing people through taxation, most Americans wouldn’t help take care of the ‘least among us.‘ When Fred pointed out that Don would be happy to help ‘the least among us’ if government weren’t taking so much of his money first, Redfern said:
"I suspect Don would, but unfortunately, most Americans would not – and if we remove that kind of support, strategem, then you remove the entire reason for having any kind of projects, programs, initiatives…"
Got that? The Chairman of the OHIO DEMOCRATS believes that Americans, the most generous people in the world, are skinflints. He believes that Democrats have the moral right to force you, via taxes, to involuntarily give charity. Which, by definition, is no longer charity. And that you should then feel good about it.
And then let’s slip that if "Don" was able to keep more of his money and donate it as he would want to, there’d be no need for government horning in on charitable organizations.
Listen to the clip here.
Go to Maggie‘s where she rightly castigates the moral equivalence of Redfern trying to compare the Constitutional mandate to keep the country safe militarily at the national level and local mandates to provide safety and infrastructure to all of the charitable actions he wants government to usurp.
And why Redfern is wrong.