A right way of doing good for the poor

Benevolent thoughts to ponder, in a context of 'health care reform'

For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: "If a man will not work, he shall not eat." 2 Thessalonians 3:10

I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer. There is no country in the world where so many provisions are established for them; so many hospitals to receive them when they are sick or lame, founded and maintained by voluntary charities; so many alms-houses for the aged of both sexes, together with a solemn general law made by the rich to subject their estates to a heavy tax for the support of the poor. Under all these obligations, are our poor modest, humble, and thankful; and do they use their best endeavours to maintain themselves, and lighten our shoulders of this burthen? On the contrary, I affirm that there is no country in the world in which the poor are more idle, dissolute, drunken, and insolent. The day you passed that act, you took away from before their eyes the greatest of all inducements to industry, frugality, and sobriety, by giving them a dependence on somewhat else than a careful accumulation during youth and health, for support in age or sickness. In short, you offered a premium for the encouragement of idleness, and you should not now wonder that it has had its effect in the increase of poverty. Benjamin Franklin, "The Encouragement of Idleness," 1766

"He who has been stealing must steal no longer, but must work, doing something useful with his own hands, that he may have something to share with those in need." Ephesians 4:28

"All hard work brings a profit, but mere talk leads only to poverty." Proverbs 14:23

Then Mary took about a pint of pure nard, an expensive perfume; she poured it on Jesus' feet and wiped his feet with her hair. And the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume.

But one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, who was later to betray him, objected, "Why wasn't this perfume sold and the money given to the poor? It was worth a year's wages!" [He did not say this because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief; as keeper of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it.]

"Leave her alone," Jesus replied. "It was intended that she should do this... You will always have the poor among you, but you will not always have me." John 12:3-8

Statistics to ponder

79 percent -- the number of absent African American fathers after four decades of supposedly kind social programs. 30 percent -- the number before such deadly 'help.'

2 out of every 5 -- the number of African American babies that will be aborted this year, targeted by social programs.

Selah.

A dead giveaway

When someone says they love our country, yet work frantically to destroy its very fabric, it's not America they love.

When someone says they care for the poor, yet mandate programs that destroy the poor, it's not the poor they care about.

When someone uses dark means, backroom deals, bribes, kickbacks, bullying and lies to pass 'health care,' is it really the poor they care about?

When someone uses moral language to create a 'benevolence program' that sets up voracious, taxpayer-funded centers of power, is it really the poor they are helping -- or themselves?

No. When you hear such people use language about helping the poor, hear the parenthetical statement of John 12:6, loud and clear: He did not say this because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief; as keeper of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it.

They don't say these things because they love the poor. It's something else they love...

Selah.

European eugenics, Victor Frankl & Obamacare

Orwellian bioethics & "true believer" psychosis

W originally killed the "End of Life" counseling pamphlet/questionnaire created for the VA which apparently has just been rolled out by the Obama Administration for use against the borderline VA patient population of veterans.

What remains too often unstated is not the impact of the questions, but the damage done by the process itself which requires the target to submit obediently to the process of confessing their deepest fears and darkest self-effacing doubts to a dominating third-party who sits in judgement; a third party whose purpose and implicit goal is to accelerate the death of the human target of such questionnaires.

Admittedly, my familiarity with the invaluable work of Victor Frankl predisposes me to a deep bias against the european eugenics traditions which have infiltrated and corrupted our medical schools under this Orwellian ruse they call "Bioethics." Rudy Rummel's work on Democide speaks volumes to the morbid productiveness of such political largesse. These "enlightened" medical and political professionals pushing Obamacare are more of the same old crowd, all they way down to the true believer psychosis that's whispers in their ear how they indeed are doing the right thing.

Quoted from a thoughtful comment here.

The new ruling czars of America

Answerable to one man, unelected and unaccountable to the people. A de facto destruction of representative government? Click pic for InstaCzar Glenn Reynolds' discussion.

The state of affairs in economy

A long term reckoning on the way

Robert Samuelson comments on the current state of affairs, and the runaway welfare state of America [note: italics mine, hat tip Instapundit]:

In theory, expanding public welfare could offset eroding private welfare. President Obama’s health-care proposal reflects that logic. The trouble is that the public sector also faces enormous cost pressures, driven by an aging population and rising health costs. The Congressional Budget Office projects the federal debt will double as a share of the economy (gross domestic product) to 82 percent of GDP by 2019.

Any sober examination of figures like these suggests that the system has promised more than it can realistically deliver. We are borrowing not to finance investment in the future but to pay for today’s welfare — present consumption. Sooner or later, the huge debt will weaken the economy. Nor would paying for all promised benefits with higher taxes be desirable. Big increases in either debt or taxes risk depressing economic growth, making it harder yet to pay promised benefits.

The U.S. welfare state is weakening; insecurity is rising. The sensible thing would be to decide which forms of public welfare are needed to protect the vulnerable and to begin paring others. Our inaction poses another dreary parallel with GM. It was obvious a quarter-century ago that GM the auto company could not support GM the welfare state. But the union wouldn’t surrender benefits, and the company acquiesced. Inertia prevailed, and the reckoning came.

The same cycle, repeated on a national scale with sums many multiples higher, would be correspondingly more fearsome.

With these underlying realities, it gives new light to the congressional threats Obama used in order to pass his budget and stimulus, and the subtle way he gifted unions in the auto takeovers. Take another look at the debt proposed by this administration -- what is now appearing as a best case scenario:




The best economists are saying even this untenable offer is going to be much worse. One has to ask: Are we are witnessing a collective will to destruction in America?

Is there a way to reverse this decline?

What does revelation say?

Selah.