Charity begins at home, not in DC

image
IndyIndy
Published: 14 Jan, 2010
3 min read

Before the Roosevelt's “New Deal,” Americans lived in smaller, more tightly knit communities. Neighbors helped each other.  Communities took care of their own.  After the Depression, “The People” decided that increased Government involvement and support was the answer to coping with difficult economic times.  Perhaps this was a naïve and short-sided view, but life in the United States at that time was flavored with the after-taste of desperation.

Americans began trading away their Freedom in the name of security.  Benjamin Franklin once said, “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”  Abraham Lincoln said, “Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves.” For the last century, "The People” have been giving away their Liberties in exchange for small, temporary security.  Government sponsored work programs, meal programs, Welfare, Social Security, etc. offer the illusion of security, but at what price? 

When you give the responsibility for your life, well-being and happiness over to someone or something (such as your government), your Liberties, are reduced to what “they” consider “best” for you.  Your ability to pursue happiness will be restricted to an arbitrary condition set by others. This flies in the face of the inalienable rights guaranteed by our Constitution. An extreme example is prison. The system is responsible for food, clothing and shelter and the prison warden dictates what you eat, wear... where you live and with WHOM.  

Ask yourself - do you want to be taken care of ("for your own good”) or do you want free access to your Constitutional provisions?

Do you want to claim the ability to reap the rewards or the consequences of your actions?

Are you willing to embrace personal responsibility?

What happens when the support you have grown accustomed to receiving is reduced? What happens when a benefit provider changes the “qualifying requirements?"  What happens when you no longer meet existing requirements? What if you exceed the time or monetary allotment? You will have no recourse. You cannot ask for a meeting and ask for more.  You have none, nada, zero control over the benefits doled out.  It is for your own good. "They" know what is best for you. You are an account or file number and do not exist in any human way.

That is not the country I grew up in, nor is it the country that I want to leave for my children. I want a country that holds dear the founding principles of the Constitution and the freedoms it provides. I want to be able to put in an honest day's work for an honest day's pay - without excessive Government regulations and taxes. I want to be able to support my family, my friends and others as I choose. I want to live in a country where I reap the rewards of my efforts and not live off the effort of others. When I have more, I give more, as do most Americans.

Stop and think how many needy families you could help if up to 40% of your earnings were not stripped from your grasp in the name of taxes. Consider how you and a couple of your neighbors could band together to assist the family down the street, or help a teenage mother, or create a college fund for neighborhood kids. Consider how this would create a stronger community, a stronger country. Consider that we could rely on we the people, not the government.

IVP Donate

I am free today to help others as I see fit, but will I be free tomorrow?


 

You Might Also Like

Proposition 50 voter guide
California Prop 50: Partisan Power Play or Necessary Counterpunch?
November 4 marks a special election for what has become the most controversial ballot measure in California in recent memory: Proposition 50, which would circumvent congressional districts drawn by the state’s independent redistricting commission for a legislative-drawn map....
01 Oct, 2025
-
9 min read
court gavel.
Virtual Discussion: The Fight for Equal Independent Voting Rights Makes it to SCOTUS
Every major voting rights movement in U.S. history – whether successful or not – has intertwined with landmark litigation. This was the case for women’s suffrage. It was the case for civil rights. And it is the case in the ongoing effort to protect the right of all voters to have equal participation in taxpayer-funded elections – something millions of independent voters are denied across the U.S....
29 Sep, 2025
-
2 min read
Supreme Court building
SCOTUS Considers Challenge to Closed Primaries -- Here's Why It Is Such a Big Deal
In a dramatic step forward for litigation challenging closed primaries, the U.S. Supreme Court has indicated they are going to conference to discuss whether to grant a writ of certiorari to Polelle v. Florida Secretary of State; a case challenging Florida's closed primaries that Open Primaries has supported since its inception....
26 Sep, 2025
-
2 min read