Who Really Cares about the Children of the Poor?

Wouldn't the Democrats say this child would
be better off if she were killed by abortion?

Democrats love to preen and puff out their feathers like a peacock on the make. They love the poor and those evil Republicans want them all to starve and freeze to death. Strange -- from a party that thinks killing tiny babies is not only a right but a positive good and favors killing them after birth if they manage to survive the first attack.

Crisis Magazine has a great article by Regis Nicoll about the hypocritical "party of the poor" and the obligations of government vs. local communities and churches.

Let's face it. Poverty is big business. Many bureaucrats who administer these programs make six-figure salaries. According to the GAO, BILLIONS of dollars in fraud happens EVERY YEAR in the government MEDICAID program. Fraud and embezzlement unfortunately are rampant. A lot of people enrich themselves off the poor!

Oh, I'm sure there are Democrats who truly care about the poor. But, I ask you, can you imagine Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid or Michelle Obama or Bill Clinton or Debbie Wasserman Schulz picking lice out of a poor child's hair or ladling soup at a shelter? If they were, it would be for the photo op. Click on the article below. The author hits the nail on the head.


The Party of the Poor? An excerpt:

"...when Jesus taught about duty to the poor, he was not speaking to government officials or their political bodies, he was speaking to his disciples—sometimes privately—indicating that the care of the needy is their responsibility as Christians.

"For nineteen hundred years, their followers did just that, individually, and through the collective of the Church, caring for each other and their neighbors by establishing hospitals, orphanages, food distribution systems, and houses for the poor and aged.
Although exceptions can be found on both sides of the political aisle, Republicans do not care any less about the poor than Democrats. They just differ on how and by whom it should be given. 

St. Elizabeth of Hungary caring for lepers.
Esteban Murrillo 1617-1682

"In short, they believe that care is best handled at the local level by individuals and “mediating” institutions like churches, faith-based charities, civic groups, and othervolunteer associations. They reject programs that encourage a culture of idleness and dependence, in favor of those that help the able-bodied poor become employable and self-reliant so that they can have the dignity of earning a living and providing for their families.

"Republicans do not deny a role for government in cases of deep, widespread need (e.g., The Great Depression) or in the wake of severe local emergencies (e.g., hurricane Katrina). They just believe that the state’s involvement should be limited and temporary—augmenting, not usurping, the responsibilities of neighbors and mediating organizations."

Before the destruction of the Church in England, that's exactly how poverty was handled. The monasteries provided hospitality, medical treatment, food and shelter, and other care to the poor. They also allowed their fields to be used for grazing their own flocks and those of the local peasant farmers. The horrors described in the works of Charles Dickens were almost unknown in England prior to the Protestant Revolution.

If you want to read an interesting work that encompasses this see William Cobbett's, A History of the Protestant Reformation. Cobbett was a Protestant pamphleteer who favored Catholic emancipation and was honest enough to know how much the Church served the people before the suppression of the faith. His book is a real eye-opener.

Liberals and liberalism use the poor for political ends. With one hand they distribute other people's money; with the other they hold a scalpel or suction catheter to kill the children of the poor. It's a bad deal!