Henrietta Hughes lives with her family out of a small car. She's unemployed and homeless. She told Barack Obama about it. Michelle Malkin is some kind of so-called conservative (conserving greed, violence, and depravity). Michelle complained about Hughes asking for a kitchen and bathroom for her family so they don't have to live out of the car in parks.
Malkin said the following:
Hughes didn't explain the cause of her financial turmoil. Obama didn't ask. And if we conservatives dare to question the circumstances — and the underlying assumption that it is government's (that is, taxpayers') role to bail her out — we'll be lambasted as cruel haters of the downtrodden.
. . .
Well, pardon my unbending belief in fairness and personal responsibility, but why should my tax dollars go to feed the housing-entitlement beast?
"...government's role to bail her out"? If the people want the people's government to help the unemployed as one of their own (love your neighbor as yourself), then that's what will happen. If Malkin doesn't like it, then she can.... What would the "conservatives" say — move to some more conservative country, such as Saudi Arabia. Actually, the Saudis might take better care of an unemployed, homeless family than happens in the U.S., not that the Saudis have it right or even close. Malkin certainly doesn't have it right or even close though regardless.
What is Malkin, an atheist? She sounds like an atheist. She doesn't sound like a Christian anyway. That's for sure.
So, here's Malkin saying don't use her tax dollars to help Hughes' family. Is Malkin consistent in this? What about people who don't want tax dollars used for the Pentagon?
This economic meltdown is really exposing the worst in people such as Malkin, Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and their ilk. They really are Scrooges before Scrooge saw the light.
"...personal responsibility," Malkin says. Is Malkin personally responsible? Then when a gang decides to rape her, the publicly funded (taxpayer funded) police don't need to ride to the rescue. Malkin will rely on herself to handle the situation. After all, we might question the underlying cause of her sexual turmoil. She may have brought it on herself by being, well, female or something. Mustn't be that, just the way Hughes' family mustn't be human beings where things happen beyond their control, like businesses shuttering across the country on account of not socialist regulators but hyper-greedy capitalists.
Really, who thinks the Federal Reserve is socialist? It may be crony capitalism, but it isn't socialism. The real socialists want to rip the Fed to shreds. They want to rip all banks to shreds. Ah, but then the individual won't be able to use his or her own genius to start an innovative business, etc. Hogwash!
There is no rule that says that socialism or communism has to be top-down, central planning. It can definitely be, and should be, and will be level. I'm talking Christ's saving vision here. The chief is the one who serves the way Malkin's maid serves Malkin. Malkin has it upside down and in a pyramid shape with Malkin on top. Malkin though is actually at the bottom from the real, New Highest Heaven's perspective. She's getting her reward right now at the expense of others. The system is rigged. Who doesn't know it?
Hughes though should have employment and a kitchen and bathroom. Her whole family can work directly for the people. There's nothing wrong with that.
The people don't need banks or Federal Reserve Notes that bear interest. The people don't need commercial, for-private-profit corporations. All they need is to decide in groups on whatever size they see fit what is consistent with the Golden Rule and to do it. That rule means consulting with others and changing to what's better always. That rule means unselfishness first and foremost always — no selfishness. Think about never being on the receiving end of someone else's selfishness but rather always and only unselfishness. Wow! That would be Heaven, wouldn't it? Yes, it would be Heaven come to Earth.
Malkin, Limbaugh, Beck, ... don't want that though. They like Hell. Well, they're going to get plenty of opportunity to spend plenty of time there especially after they finally come to realize and regret.
But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. (Matthew 8:12 KJVR)
It's almost as if Michelle Malkin read my post yesterday on Glenn Beck, but she simply anticipated the Christian reaction to anyone who is a pre-converted Scrooge. Well, we don't want to give up on Scrooge. He did finally remember who he was before he hardened his heart as a result of abuse and neglect.
Michelle Malkin wants to know what caused Henrietta Hughes situation. Michelle wants to know what bad choices Henrietta made so Michelle can excuse herself from coming to the aid of her sister.
Well, what happened to Michelle that she is so hardhearted? Was she abused? Of course she was abused. There's no such thing as a hardhearted, conservative who hasn't suffered abuse and been brain damaged by it so that now he or she thinks with the lesser evolved portions of the brain as a sociopath. Michelle doesn't spend much time in her frontal and temporal lobes where the unbroken and those who have overcome spend their time.
Michelle, do some soul searching. Have the long night of the soul. You need it. It will be better for you to turn now than to wait until you've gone down another whole level or more in Hell. Stop hating Jesus, Michelle. He isn't the one ruining things.
(See: "," by Cara, Feministe. AlterNet. February 16, 2009.)
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)