Debunking the lie: Christian Principles = taking from the rich and giving to the poor

After the Truckers Ride for the Constitution and the Vets March to Washington October 11th-13th, 2013 I saw thousands of men who were willing to stand up, speak out and demand a change in our nation. I couldn't be more proud of these men, many of who already fought for our freedom and shouldn't have to be doing it again,                                              
but are. I see valiant men and women doing whatever they can to not sit quietly and will be able to say before God, "I did all I could to save Your country." But I also know that many of us are ill-equipped to answer some of the seemingly rational sounding lies that get thrown up in conversations like the following:


"If you don't want your tax dollars to help the poor then stop saying you want a country based on Christian principles, because you don't."

The "left" here (no pun intended... okay maybe a little) is an image a friend of mine posted on Facebook. How fine those words sound, how righteous and good... and misleading. It causes people to look at themselves- in a matter of seconds- and question their own goodness. "I am a good person. I want to help the poor, I am a Christian, and I want a nation founded on Christian principles just like our founding fathers did... so could I be wrong?" After that short self reflection, you have now begun to believe the lie that Christian principles say that it is Godly to take from one person without their permission and give it to someone less fortunate.

So I realized, someone needs to start getting the answers into the hands of these men and women who are going on the front lines, as it were, standing to retain the integrity of this great nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

The first thing you need to know is that when it comes to finding out exactly what Christian principles are there is only one place that you can go: the Bible. Throughout (from the Old Testament to the New) you find a loving God, but also a just God. You will find that God always fights for the "under-dog" and does often take from wicked people to give to the less fortunate. But wait, did I just say God "took" from someone to give to the poor? Why, yes, yes I did. But what part are we missing class? Anyone know the answer? He took from the wicked, not from people simply because they had more than someone else.

In the book of Mark, chapter 10, starting in verse 17, Jesus has a rich young ruler come to him and ask him what he needed to do to get into heaven. Jesus told him ^"You know the commandments, ‘Do not murder, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and mother.’”  And he said to Him, “Teacher, I have kept all these things from my youth up.”  Looking at him, Jesus felt a love for him and said to him, “One thing you lack: go and sell all you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.” 


The above scripture is what people would like to use to back up the Jimmy Carter quote. But wait, did I miss the part where Jesus actually took the rich young ruler's things, sold them and gave them to the poor? Maybe that's what really happened and it just got left out of scripture... NO- it's not. Jesus understood that you have to give people the choice to do good or not. "So what you're telling me is that all these people in government who want to help the poor so badly have sold everything that they have and given to the poor!? Sweet!" Um, no, they haven't, but they are more than happy to take your money, give to the poor and then have it look like they are the ones personally sacrificing to do so.

Allow me to give you my absolute favorite history lesson. Many of you may not know of one of our greatest presidents, "the honest" Grover Cleveland because he didn't accomplish any huge changes. However, he wasn't out to make any changes, he was out to defend the constitution from those who would try to usurp it.
"Cleveland derived his devotion to limited government from his reverence for the U.S. Constitution. An honest man—an extraordinarily honest man for a politician—he took seriously his oath to “preserve, protect, and defend” that document." Why Grover Cleveland vetoed the Texas Seed Bill

Now, in 1886-1887 Texas had a massively debilitating drought and in early 1887 a bill was proposed that $10,000 be sent down to the farmers in counties that had suffered from the drought. Now, even at the time $10,000 wasn't that much money and the government could have easily sent it without making much of a dent, but Cleveland vetoed the bill. Why? Was he just a mean, selfish, spiteful man who hated farmers? No, listen to what he says, "I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution; and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadily resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that, though the people support the Government, the Government should not support the people."
 

"Wait Michelle, so are you saying he did nothing to help those poor farmers!?" I'm not saying that at all, listen here to what he says next  "The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood. It is within my personal knowledge that individual aid has, to some extent, already been extended to the sufferers mentioned in this bill. The failure of the proposed appropriation of $10,000 additional, to meet their remaining wants, will not necessarily result in continued distress if the emergency is fully made known to the people of the country." And here is the real kicker! Further, he suggested that if members of Congress really wanted to send seed to the suffering Texans, the congressmen might personally carry out this charitable transfer by using the seed routinely provided to all members for distribution to their constituents (at an expense of $100,000 in that fiscal year). Read Grover Cleveland's Entire Response to the bill here

Whoa, whoa, whoa. He suggested that they  personally give up some of the grain that would go to their constituents who were not suffering from a drought that would have equaled 10x's that of what was needed and would have amounted to everyone giving up less than 10%!? This is what is lacking in government today: the willingness of not only government officials, but the people to give up what they have in order to help others. Now, I understand why the people don't want to give what they have- Why? Because they already gave! They've been taxed to death! But what about the officials, they have no excuse. They actually don't care for the poor as much as they would have you believe. They only care insomuch as being able to have the power and control over who, what, where, when and how your money gets donated. Thus they are

saying that you don't know how to give and that you wouldn't give even if you could because you are inherently selfish. What!? Yes. That is exactly what they are saying. They are saying that the American people would not give on their own if left in charge of their own money, when in fact, the opposite is true. I would like to translate one of the Cleveland quotes from above into layman's terms. When you give federal aid not only does it encourage the expectation of paternal care (which the government was NEVER set up to give) it takes away what he refers to as an indulgence of kindness to give. Which he says "strengthens the bonds of common brotherhood". Meaning, we are stronger, we are closer, we are more firmly knit together as a country when we come together out of the kindness and goodness of our own hearts to give and help those in need, without being forced. 

We don't give out of compulsion, or else it's not a gift at all. And when you take away a man's right to give how he sees fit, you take away the reward that goes along with it: pride and joy. That pride and joy that comes from giving is contagious, it's addicting, it leaves you wanting more. It truly is more blessed to give

than to receive, but it most certainly is not blessed to have something taken from you and given to someone else. Where is the pride in that? 

When I was a child, and my mom asked me to do the dishes, I would do them and she would be happy. But, the times that I chose to do the dishes on my own, without being asked, she was over the moon! That was reward enough for me, and left me wanting to do more without being asked! That is what Christian principles are all about. 2 Corinthians 9:6-7 says, "...whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows bountifully will also reap bountifully. Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver." And BAM! There you go. The next time someone tries to use the Jimmy Carter quote in your face, you come back with the WORD! That right there is the Christian principle on giving, that is how God would have us give.

I would like to end this with something for you to chew on. We'll call it practical application of what we just learned. We DO need to help the poor, we DO need to help single mothers and take care of the elderly. So if the government doesn't do it, who will? We will! "Okay, I'm all for it, how do we make the change!?" We start by using a phrase that has been thrown around very popularly as of late, "privatization." We have to start by privatizing charity. Charity isn't charity at all if it's funded through stolen money. That is called socialism. I propose an experiment. Take 100 families out of the government taxation system, rich and poor alike, that live in the same locale. The rich don't pay exorbitant taxes and the poor receive NO government handouts. You make each family well aware of the needs of the others and let them know that if they don't personally help out each other, then they will go without needs such as clothing, food, shelter, education etc... Now, I don't have to actually perform this experiment to tell you exactly how this would play out. Sure, you will have a few of the wealthy families who won't care and just be glad to have their own money in their pockets, but most of the wealthier families will see to it that the poor are taken care of. Not only that, but let me tell you what else will happen. Not only will those poor families have food, clothing and shelter, but the rich will take an interest in those families, they will take them to their places of work, be it at an office, or on a family farm and they will help those families get back on their feet so that they don't have to depend on others for help. They will take the single moms into their

families and give them value so that they don't have to seek it from dead beat men. Sure, a few will fall through the cracks, but giving breeds giving! The poor will start helping out other poor people, the elderly will be taken in by their families instead of going to nursing homes. The family unit will be valued again and ALL of this love and giving will lead to one thing and one thing only: Jesus. 

I challenge the American government to implement this experiment, to see if I am correct. But they will not, I will let you in on a little secret as to why: they actually don't want you to be independent. They don't want you freely giving to your fellow man, in charge of your own resources. They want the poor dependent upon them, to keep them "under" them, ill-educated, and unable to stand up against them. They are hungry for power and it's time we took it back. We don't need them to perform this experiment because it's already been done. It's what was done successfully in our country for 150 years until the government slowly stepped in, despite men like Grover Cleveland trying to hold it back, and said, "I am your parent, and I tell you what you can and cannot do." But just as Cleveland said, "the people support the government, not the government the people." We need to remember that we are the parent for the government and WE tell it how they can spend the money that we freely give them. Not money that was stolen from us. We the people support the poor and needy, not the government. Why? Because we are selfish, we actually want that good feeling that comes from giving freely to a single mom out of our own pocket, and they have stolen that good feeling from us! Lets take it back!

Thanks yall!! ~Michelle (P.S. for more on this subject, see Leah's Blog- The government cannot tax you to make you care for the poor.   )   

 

How to "Honestly" Teach your children about Halloween & Santa Claus!

All American's should have one of these:

This is the real Santa Clause dressed in Red and White

This is the real America:  red,  white, & blue

Godly Teaching Shows God's Blessings in the Form of a Farm

Absolutely not one of these:

Below is 

Halloween:  A Nightmare

This  is the "dishonest" Santa Clause, in a red suit and red sled with reindeer.

            Government (Public) schools gives you an Apartment. Government Housing puts children in the absolutely worst place to learn and grow- this is the government's gift- isolation from fresh air, fresh food, grass, trees. If you need housing help you will most likely be stuck in one of these "projects" for the rest of your life.

Confucius says:             Words      of         Wisdom

“Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.”

     I woke to a nightmare this morning.   A thought:  When communism fell most of their people lived in high rise  apartments.   They were forced off their own land and put in these apartments and had to "get a job",  they had to get an "education".  But not one of them knew how to provide for themselves according to the proverb above.   

People starved. 

They would wait days 

for just one loaf of 

bread.

Government (Public) schools gives you an Apartment.

Godly Christian teachings gives you a farm.

Matt

can

People starve when their  fellowman, 

their leaders do not 

teach them how to fish.  

All human beings, children, can say, 

"I have the right to learn 

how to fish." 

Future CEO's of their own Property! They will be fed for a life time.

It is the duty of society to  teach children how to fish.

Elementary training of a child should teach a child how to provide 

for themselves.  It is so easy.

Reading books should be about eggs, bacon, wheat, barley 

rye,  etc., a child's breakfast. Children  need to be able to answer 

Where did it come from? How is it made? Then, they need to be 

shown how to grow it, to be taught- This is how you make this. 

Then children need to start doing it for themselves,  never stop. 

(Childhood should add responsibility upon responsibility as the child grows up. It makes children stronger every day. Like a boy who lifts a calf every day ten times a day eventually he'll be able to lift the whole cow.)
Just like going fishing.

      A child is taught to fish then they fish.  


      This is a good education. This is how we as a society know we 

have taught our children well.   This socializing!

         

Children graduate when they can run the farm and household without any help from their parents.  Proving themselves worthy, responsible, and mature enough to set out on their own and have the right to get married and have their own farm. 

Did you know during colonial America boys would "graduate" anywhere between 12-14 yrs old and then go on to either University or apprenticeship? Did you know that in order to be excepted into Harvard or Yale, or any college at the time, the average 13 yr old had to be able to speak Latin and read and write Greek and know all the classical writers. Ask a 13 yr old to speak and write Latin and they'll look at you like you are crazy. 

Right now someone else has an agenda and 

they want to break down a child's natural 

defenses, using pornography.  Children 

are being  sexually assaulted by their 

teachers starting in Kindergarten.

 This is Pornography!

I dare you to do a google search: Teacher accused. Then come back and tell me we don't have a problem of epidemic proportions! 



       Can you think of what kind of person would  want to do such a

 thing to  children?  Individuals from the 1 to 3 percent of the population that is sexually attracted to the same sex are committing up to one-third of the sex crimes against children   The Family Research Council Gives Sexual Abuse Statistics

  
        We hear about it all the time.  Child Molesters expose 

children to pornography to break down their natural defenses.     

     A human being, a child, has the right to be taught and learn 

momorals; and how to provide for themselves  by society. 



Society doesn't have the right to teach children the ways of 

immoral people to accept them!

       So that the American people do not end up in 

a bread line, because they were never taught how 

to fish.

                                             
                                 THE END                              

PS:  This is your government.

What is important to your 

Government in education? 

It's to teach children the 

most immoral, the most degrading 

sexually perverted material. So our schools and 

government are all run by psychopaths, deviant 

perverts!

psy·cho·path  (sk-pth)

n.

A person with an antisocial personality disorder, manifested in aggressive, perverted, criminal, or amoral behavior without empathy or remorse.

In January 2008, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed that public school teachers in Massachusetts have the constitutional right, not only to instruct their students regarding the alleged normalcy of homosexuality, but to do so without notifying parents (Parker v. Hurley, 2008). Circuit Judges Lynch, Stahl, and Howard ruled in favor of the Lexington, Massachusetts public school system, and upheld an earlier ruling of U.S. District Judge Mark Wolf, who believes “it is reasonable for public schools to attempt to teach understanding and respect for gays and lesbians” (Unruh, 2008), and to do so without teachers needing to consult parents. If first grade teachers in Massachusetts want to read books about Daddy’s Roommate or Jack and Jim to their six- and seven-year-olds, they not only have every legal right to do so, but are even encouraged by the state to promote such materials. According to both the judicial system and the Lexington, Massachusetts school system, if teachers want to read a book about a prince who rejects all of the princesses who wish to marry him, and instead, chooses to marry another prince (shown kissing on the last page of King and King), teachers are free to expose youth to such material. Parents can “quibble” and Christians can object, but such is the way of life in Massachusetts’ public schools. [NOTE: Amazingly, the plaintiffs in Parker v. Hurley were not even challenging the use of “nondiscrimination curriculum” (i.e., books that depict and celebrate homosexual marriages), but simply “the school district’s refusal to provide them [parents—EL] with prior notice and to allow for exemption from such instruction” (Parker v. Hurley, 2008, emp. added). But, since Massachusetts courts believe that reading books about men kissing and marrying men is not a “human sexuality issue” or “indoctrination,” parental notice is said to be unnecessary.]

PRESIDENT OBAMA’S “SAFE SCHOOLS” CZAR

In May 2009, President Obama appointed Kevin Jennings, “who has advocated promoting homosexuality in schools” (Lott, 2009), as director of the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools (i.e., “safe schools”