Letter to Glenn Beck

In your stories on Anita Dunn and her citing Mao Tse-Tung and Mother Teresa as her favorite philosophers, you have said Chairman Mao is bad but not Mother Teresa. I agree that Mao, a mass murderer, is bad, but I would like to challenge your sheltering of Mother Teresa. She is the apotheosis of the selfless person, a person who toiled day in and day out to destroy the essence of life – valuing. If you notice, the entire socialist idea requires the selfless person – the person who has no worth as an individual and only as a cog in the wheel of the collective.

Yesterday (Monday, October 19) on the show, you mocked the idea of service – volunteerism – work without pay. But Mother Teresa was devoted to such service. She is exactly the kind of person that the Obamas want to populate this country.

If America is having trouble getting its feet on the ground, it is this moral idea, that we should be our brothers’ keeper and give what we earn to our neighbor, that is the source of the problem. This "Christian" tenet is providing the moral octane for Obama’s message. Until it is clarified that every individual has a right to his life and owns every second of it, and that it in no way, not an inch, not a minute, belongs to the government nor Barack nor Michelle nor anyone, this issue is not going to get settled. No one has the right to expect that anyone would want to, let alone ought to help his neighbor. It's true that most people are generous and do help their neighbors and those they value when they can. But that is their choice. One is not required to be selfless in the matter. Unless each of us is able to stand for our right to decided for ourselves about this matter, we are not going to be able to access the moral fire to fight this socialist juggernaut.


(By the way, read Christopher Hitchens' book The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice to get a bead on Mother Teresa. She cashed in on the unearned guilt that the Catholic Church disseminated in its teachings. People gave her millions of dollars. But, she did not use it to ameliorate the suffering of the dying destitute, her ministry. When they were in pain near the end of their lives or were suffering from unbearable Bengali heat, she did nothing. No air conditioning. No pain relief. Why? "Suffering", she said, "is the access to everlasting life." All she would advocate is forgiveness. Forgiveness was her answer for everything. After her death it was learned that she sought psychological counseling within the Catholic Church for 50 years because all she could experience was a terrible bereftness. Her life is such an anathema of what a successful happy life is about that she should be given no consideration except as a phenomenon of irrationality carried to the extreme.)

For me, associating with other people in any way is my choice. To be forced, cajoled or driven by an unearned guilt (my fault if I accept the unearned guilt) to associate with someone abrogates the basis on which it could ever be declared a good thing. If one cannot choose a particular course, then it cannot be deemed good or bad. The moral assessment of good or bad applies only if one has a choice.

Rather than seeing the current Administration as concerned for the poor and those less fortunate, I see them as sore-pickers. Practically ever speech starts with warts, lost futures, broken legs and every form of human malady. (See the relationship to Mother Teresa yet?) These people thrive on sores and build their whole lives on supposedly helping the victims of such circumstances. The truth is they do little and whatever they do do is because of the strong. Individual freedom has done more to raise the standard of living for all the poor in the world than any other thing. And Obama is out to punish that. So which direction do you think the world is going?

People have not yet seen how evil the Obama Administration really is. Although cloaked in a largely unquestioned conventional goodness, I see it as everything but. Holding to the standard of political freedom and individual rights, it is not difficult to see how his every action augurs for the collectivization of society and the doing away with the concept of the individual and his life as an end in itself. To the extent his policies are carried out, we are all going to pay in terms of increasing hardship. A sore-picker sends up the red flag for me every time.