Get government out of the charity business ~ By Star Parker

Star Parker to lawmakers: Don't try to fix programs, just end them

According to a 2012 Congressional Research Service report and the staff of Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., who commissioned the report, combined annual federal and state spending on anti-poverty programs exceeds $ 1 trillion. About 75 percent comes from the federal government.

These funds, which include programs such as welfare, food stamps, low-income housing programs, child-care assistance, etc. are programs that mostly came onto the American scene with the War on Poverty and, in that they are focused on helping the less fortunate, are what it is usually considered charity.

These programs are notoriously wasteful and are too often counterproductive and motivated by political gain rather than genuine desire to really help people.

Funds extracted from taxpayers, dispensed by bureaucrats, under rules and conditions designed by other bureaucrats, remove personal responsibility from both the giving and receiving ends of the equation.

Without any doubt in my mind, Star Parker explains what the problem is, and how to solve it, all in one column.  Poverty itself is not the problem.  Handing out entitlements has only enabled the recipients to bring about generational poverty.  The ambition to get oneself off of the poverty train by their own efforts has been replaced by a willingness to accept handouts. 

Our Founding Fathers understood that concept.  They had no intention of creating a government so willing to become the charity for the people.  The Founders understood the true concept of charity where people who have prospered would willingly contribute to the well-being of all citizens in need.  They knew that real charity was not a forced-giving program through taxes confiscated from a portion of income.  Americans, they knew, had love in their hearts, and wouldn't let people simply starve to death.

By all means, the statement by the farmer to Davy Crockett was what should have been remembered: “You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and favoritism and corruption, on the one hand, and robbing the people on the other.” That's an intelligent analysis by the farmer, but I wish he would added,"But once the government becomes a charity, it will never be able to be reversed, just like the income tax. (Not even with a Republican Congress!?)"

As Star so aptly put it a week ago:

One of President Ronald Reagan’s most famous quips was that the nine most terrifying words in the English language are “I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.”

It is indeed sad that America today is plagued, indeed threatened, by the very institution it invented to protect its own citizens:  Government.

It wouldn't be so dismal to think about the future of America if a few more people were aware of this.  There could still be hope, but I'm not holding my breath, not even with the Republican landslide in the 2014 Midterm election  Just sayin'...

*    *    *    *

Get government out of the charity business

Star Parker

By Star Parker

Published: December 12, 2014

From wnd.com Commentary

The story is told that when Tennessee frontiersman Davy Crockett served in the U.S. Congress (between 1827 and 1835) he voted for a bill appropriating $20,000 for relief for victims of a fire that broke out in Georgetown.

When he returned home, a constituent farmer chastised him for supporting the bill and for “giving what is not yours to give.”

The farmer told Crockett the Constitution does not grant Congress the power to give charity, and if it did, “You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and favoritism and corruption, on the one hand, and robbing the people on the other.”

We are far from those days. Supreme Court decisions over the years have opened the door for rationalizing just about anything under the spending authority of the Congress.

Those who crafted the U.S. Constitution did not intend limitations on the federal government’s role out of mean-spiritedness. They did so out of a sense of what would best serve the public.

It stands to reason that bureaucrats spending other people’s money – funds taken by force – is not going to produce good results.

~~~ READ MORE on wnd.com Commentary ~~~

*    *    *    *

As an additional feature here on Blogging In Our Time 2 Escape, this blog will be including videos that have been posted on the johnny2k's America Facebook page! Videos can sometimes say more than what can be expressed in text.  Be sure to visit the archive with hundreds of videos to peruse.

*     *     *     *

Don't be afraid!

WE the PEOPLE

are the MOB
ONE NATION UNDER GOD

YOU ARE NOT ALONE!
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear

*     *     *     *

Liberals give till it hurts (you) ~ By Ann Coulter

Let me start you out with the introduction to the column. Ann writes:

Liberals never tire of discussing their own generosity, particularly when demanding that the government take your money by force to fund shiftless government employees overseeing counterproductive government programs.

They seem to have replaced "God" with "Government" in scriptural phrases such as "love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind" (Matthew 22:37).

This week, we'll take a peek at the charitable giving of these champions of the poor.

In her column this week, Ann Coulter explores the charitable giving habits of the very politicians that so compassionately desire your money to help the poor. I've skipped through all of the details of who (Democrats) gave how much money in the paragraphs that I've excerpted, but I promise, it is in her column that you can read in full.

UPDATE, December 30, 2010:

This segment with John Stossel was on Fox & Friends this morning, just hours after I had posted this column.

John Stossel: Who does the charitable giving? It might surprise you!

Video provided by TheREALjohnny2k

Liberals give till it hurts (you)

ANN COULTER

By Ann Coulter

December 29, 2010 ~ 5:58 pm Eastern

© 2010

The only way to pry a liberal from his money is to hold ticker-tape parades for him, allowing him to boast about his charity in magazines and on TV.

Isn't that what Jesus instructed in the Sermon on the Mount?

"So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do. ... But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you" (Matthew 6:2-4).

In my Bible, that passage is illustrated with a photo of Bill Gates and Warren Buffett.

At least the hypocrites in the Bible, Redmond, Wash., and Omaha, Neb., who incessantly brag about their charity actually do pony up the money.

Elected Democrats crow about how much they love the poor by demanding overburdened taxpayers fund government redistribution schemes, but can never seem to open their own wallets.

The only evidence we have that Democrats love the poor is that they consistently back policies that will create more of them.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Scrooge was a liberal ~ By Ann Coulter

6 Remember this: Whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows generously will also reap generously. 7 Each of you should give what you have decided in your heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver. 8 And God is able to bless you abundantly, so that in all things at all times, having all that you need, you will abound in every good work. 9 As it is written:

"They have freely scattered their gifts to the poor; their righteousness endures forever."

2 Corinthians 9:6-9 (NIV)

Ann Coulter explains why Conservative Christians give more money to charities than secular liberals. Liberals try to cite the Bible "to demand the redistribution of income by government force." And what the liberals don't bother to tell you is that our taxes don't really go to "the poor." Actually, our taxes end up going mostly "to government employees who make more money than you do."


Scrooge was a liberal

ANN COULTER

By Ann Coulter

December 22, 2010 ~ 5:51 pm Eastern

© 2010

It's the Christmas season, so godless liberals are citing the Bible to demand the redistribution of income by government force. Didn't Jesus say, "Blessed are the Health and Human Services bureaucrats, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven"?

Liberals are always indignantly accusing conservatives of claiming God is on our side. What we actually say is: We're on God's side, particularly when liberals are demanding God's banishment from the public schools, abortion on demand, and taxpayer money being spent on Jesus submerged in a jar of urine and pictures of the Virgin Mary covered with pornographic photos.

But for liberals like Al Franken, it's beyond dispute that Jesus would support extending federal unemployment insurance.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the Bible, but it does nicely illustrate Shakespeare's point that the "devil can cite Scripture for his purpose."

What the Bible says about giving to the poor is: "Each of you should give what you have decided in your heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver" (2 Corinthians 9:7).

Being forced to pay taxes under penalty of prison is not voluntary and rarely done cheerfully. Nor do our taxes go to "the poor." They mostly go to government employees who make more money than you do.

The reason liberals love the government redistributing money is that it allows them to skip the part of charity that involves peeling the starfish off their wallets and forking over their own money. This, as we know from study after study, they cannot bear to do (unless they are guaranteed press conferences where they can brag about their generosity).

Syracuse University professor Arthur Brooks' study of charitable giving in America found that conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than liberals do, despite the fact that liberals have higher incomes than conservatives.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

The right to nothing ~ By Patrice Lewis

Just yesterday, I had posted a column by Robert Ringer. In that column, Robert was explaining the difference between private charity and government entitlements. Robert expounded on the difference between compassion through free will (private charity) and forced compassion (government entitlements we are forced to pay for with taxes). It is highly recommended reading to go along with this column by Patrice.

What I really liked about this column was that Patrice was able to provide an absolutely perfect example of the good ol' "Give a man a fish and he eats for a day; teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime" adage. As you will find out, it is also the perfect application of the principles as Robert Ringer had explained.  When it comes to compassion for homeless people, it is definitely not helpful for them to receive government entitlements for perpetuity without "teaching them to fish," and enabling them to continue their actions without suffering the consequences. That is NOT compassionate.  Just sayin'...

RELATED COLUMN:

Progressives' perversion of compassion ~ By Robert Ringer

... Progressives believe the Constitution guarantees that everyone should have everything equally (hence their love of redistribution). They don't believe people should be limited to what they can provide for themselves. Equal outcome is not the same as equal opportunity.

What the progressives fail to admit is that we have literally millions of people who unnecessarily "need" government assistance because they've been trained through multiple generations to be dependent, to have their bad habits (drugs, alcohol, sexual proclivities) reinforced and enabled, and never to suffer consequences of their actions. Government entitlements are nothing more than fish dinners. They teach nothing. They improve nobody.

Private charities aren't like this. They can't afford to enable peoples' bad choices in perpetuity. Instead, they take those who've hit rock bottom and give them their lives and dignity back by teaching them to fish. Once peoples' lives and dignity are restored, they can take advantage of their true rights.

Remember, if something costs taxpayers money, IT IS NOT A RIGHT. It is an unconstitutional entitlement.

By Patrice Lewis

Posted: July 24, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

Recently, I heard conservative radio talk-show host Michael Medved interviewing, with considerable patience, the director of a national advocacy organization that benefits the homeless (I'll call him John). John was full of righteousness about the necessity of supporting his organization via Your Tax Dollars because his work was so important.

While I admired John's passionate dedication to ending homelessness, he seemed unaware of the connection between homelessness and government dependency. And he was vocal about a whole new set of "rights" that I never knew existed.

A homeless person, apparently, has a right to a home. And food. And medical care. And transportation. And a (public sector) job. It doesn't matter that he hasn't earned these things. As long as he's homeless, he's entitled. Naturally, these "rights" are provided at the point of a gun by you and me, the overburdened taxpayer.

Medved tried to steer John into a better understanding of the limitations of government involvement in individual hardships, to no avail. Any criticism of his cause was dismissed as heartless. Medved asked whether any of these homeless people ever became independent private-sector employees. The answer was, essentially, "No." But to John, that was OK. His program to "end" homelessness succeeded as long as people were off the street, living in government-subsidized housing, working at low-paying government jobs, and receiving government-funded health care and food stamps. Forever. No wonder his organization needed more funding.

About now some of you may be wondering what kind of heartless monster I am. After all, there are a lot more homeless people now than two years ago. In this economy, millions are just one paycheck away from living on the streets. Surely I could loosen my moral compass just a little and agree with John that the homeless have a right to all these things?

No. A thousand times no.

Remember this clear and easy definition of what constitutes a right: Rights don't cost anyone anything. They are not achieved by picking someone else's pocket. They are not granted by government largesse through entitlement programs.

If a government program operates under the principle that the homeless have a "right" to food / shelter / jobs / education / transportation / medical care / etc., these can only be obtained through our tax dollars. With few exceptions, government-funded solutions do not allow people to become contributing members of society independent of government assistance. It merely creates a perpetual dependent class receiving endless "rights."

It's the ol' "Give a man a fish and he eats for a day; teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime" syndrome. Government entitlements hand out fish galore, but it doesn't teach anyone to fish. Almost by definition, it can't.

Whereas private charities can.

I had a delightful chat with a man named Dave Wall with the Union Gospel Mission in Spokane, Wash. This particular branch of UGM has been around since 1950 and is 100 percent privately funded. It takes no government money whatsoever. Aside from private donations, they operate thrift stores that provide transitional training and employment to their clients as well as fund their mission work.

They minister to the homeless through a three-tiered program: Rescue (emergency needs), Recovery (12 to 18 months of treatment and counseling to overcome the issues that brought them to the Mission) and Restoration (integration back into the community and becoming contributing members).

"Government money always comes with strings attached," Mr. Wall stated. "There are always conditions. It fosters dependency and sustains the poor lifestyle choices that led toward homelessness."

The UGM's goal is to help people through their brokenness. "We understand what brings them here," Mr. Wall says. "They've been wounded, damaged, misdirected, or made poor choices that led them to the streets. Sometimes it's through no fault of their own, and sometimes it is. But it takes more than just rescue. Rescue merely enables."

The government-funded group provides false "rights" (entitlements) by forcibly removing money and resources from one segment of the population and distributing to another. This enslaves the first segment by not allowing them to keep the rewards of their hard work; and it enslaves the second into eternal dependency.

Groups like UGM provide assistance to those in need through voluntary donations, bestowing people with dignity and providing them with the skills and resources necessary to become independent, contributing citizens.

A number of readers will doubtless misinterpret this column to mean I'm coming down on those who are unemployed due to the economy. Please, folks, you should know better. The unemployed aren't the ones involved in a lifelong dependency on government (cough) "rights" – they're just trying to find another job and get back on their feet.

And progressive readers are now reaching for their keyboards to tell me why I'm a cold-hearted witch who wants to see homeless people die in the street (yeah right). This is because progressives don't believe people are capable of rising and achieving independence without government assistance. They don't believe charities are big enough or numerous enough to help everyone who needs it.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Safety Net: Personal responsibility and charity should matter

Progress and social justice at one time may have been a good thing... That is until politicians that they could use it to expand government, and eliminate the need for personal responsibility and charity. So, on that theme, I ended up writing this column. While I give Glenn Beck the credit for helping me to arrive on these thoughts, it took some effort on my part to arrange it into this conclusion.

So, if people continue to be dependent on government and not learn personal responsibility, those rude awakenings of not having a true “safety net” to protect them will hit ground… I mean, home. And on the other hand, those that are charitable will be ready and willing and able to help those that are unable to help themselves.

Honestly, in my humble opinion, the only true safety net will be when personal responsibility and charity both matter.

By John Kubicek

May 7, 2010

© 2010

There will always be those that fail. It’s a fact of life. I understand it, because I’ve been there, done that. Anyone that has ran GM, Chrysler, Fannie and Freddie, or Goldman-Sachs understands that. Anyone who is a fan, or has who played for the Chicago Cubs, understands that. … but I digress.

But here is the real kicker: Some that fail are bailed out, and some aren’t. That is just SOOO unfair (said in total sarcastic tone)! Is there a way to ever justify that agenda? Obviously not, at least as far as Conservatives are concerned. Because in the case of bail-outs of the failures, responsibility doesn’t seem to count anymore. It seems clear that now, only those that grease the palms and make the largest contributions to politicians can get away with it. And for those that can barely afford a peanut butter sandwich or a small container of Mac & Cheese, how are they going to ever (afford to) make a difference? Financial contributions would not seem to be an option for many people. Are there any other options? We’ll talk about that here, but stick with me for a bit.

Voluntary charity – funds given freely to the institution of choice – should actually be the ONLY kind of bail-out available for individuals. For businesses, let the free market determine whether businesses succeed or fail.

But for now, the safety net depends on an ongoing progressive affair with government assistance. The key word is actually “dependence.” The tendency is to be a big enough part of a “victimhood,” so that if there are enough of you in a voter’s block, and anything you want or need will be taken care of by those wonderful guys and gals representing us in DC. Do the words, “Too big to fail” ring a bell?

There are two words that are the biggest enemies of liberty: “government” and “dependency.” Our Founding Fathers were quite obviously aware of this. They set up the architecture of the government via the Constitution as they did for a reason. Their intention was to make it very difficult to change the form of our government (aka “transformation”). Unfortunately, as technology progressed, so did the knowledge of the one hole in the idea that our founders warned us about. And I am not sure you will be ready or receptive to this information, but it was through the Church. It was a good thing at one time: Social Justice. The very first effort that was mostly GOD-lead was the abolition of slavery in America. The social justice movement kept on rolling along, quite well I might add, to give us the Civil Rights Act. Nothing to be ashamed of, America!

However, there was a dangerous undercurrent to go along with the positive waves of progress. (PS – William Ayers is NOT my ghost writer. Thought I better mention that being that I used an allusion to the murky, oily sea of change…) To accomplish many of these objectives that went along with social change (justice), the progressives learned how to be more aggressive than what we may have really desired. We were being transformed, but it was a very slow process. People that thought of social justice weren’t satisfied with just equal opportunity for all. Now, they insist on equal outcomes. Those are the people that first infested the universities; that lead to the public school institutions where the teachers are unionized and lead by the radicals that were taught by the progressive professors. They used indoctrination. It didn’t take long for the infestation to spread to the entertainment industry. And folks, we are still talking about what happened in the late 1800’s to the early 1900’s! From there, it has only gone down hill.

READ FULL STORY at BreakdownofAmerica.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Profits derived from your purchases
will help me to attend tea party rallies!

Too proud for charity ~ By Patrice Lewis

Commentary from WorldNetDaily

By Patrice Lewis Posted: January 16, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2010 "Mom," asked my older daughter this week, "what does 'surreal' mean?" "It means something is so wild and crazy that it's hard to grasp," I replied, and used the following example to illustrate. A couple of weeks ago, I posted an article by James Turk on my blog that was one of the best analyses of socialism I've ever read. Ever. It was lean, no-frills, easy to understand, and absolutely true. The article prompted an English reader to post the following comment: "I am not sufficiently familiar with U.S. politics to know exactly what aspects are worrying James Turk. If he has in mind the president's proposals for health care, it is surely not 'socialism' to help poor people with insurance payments. I would call it charity." The comment left me sputtering. To me, this reader's definition of "charity" was surreal – something so wild and crazy that I could barely grasp how anyone could believe it. Naturally other readers couldn't let this comment go. "Charity requires the money being spent to be volunteered, not forcibly removed from the donators," someone replied. In other words, if a thug points a gun at you in a dark alley to steal your money for someone else, are we supposed to congratulate him on his charity because he didn't keep the money for himself? The English reader added: "I would say it is a democratically elected government acting charitably on your behalf. The population of the U.S. acted charitably en masse by voting in a government who had this particular policy. Don't you approve of democratic government?" (I feel compelled to point out that the U.S. is not a democracy, which is governed by mob rule; but a republic, which a smart reader defined as "a government of representatives of the people bound by a law higher than themselves." But don't worry, politicians don't know this either.) READ FULL STORY >