Drug Test For Welfare Check?

This is the topic of a poll question that has been making the rounds on Facebook lately.  Several of my friends have answered that yes, they would want welfare recipients to pass a drug test before receiving money.

My comment to one friend on Facebook was that I if I could change the question, I would not want anyone to receive welfare at all.  This prompted a number of responses from others, so I thought I might elaborate on why I said such a thing.

First of all, we must acknowledge that there are people in need.  Some have disabilities, others may just be down on their luck.  And yes, some may have alcohol and/or drug addiction problems.

When I say that they should not receive a welfare check, I am not saying they should not receive help.

Having experience working in a Rescue Mission, I encountered a wide range of people in need.  Some were welfare recipients, some had addiction problems, some were homeless, others were families going through hard times and needed help filling their kitchen pantry for the week.

The organization I worked with did a good job stretching resources to the maximum extent possible.  It survived on the genorosity of the community, through donations and also through funds raised through thrift stores.  (I worked in the industrial and thrift store operations that the Mission had.)  The Mission did not take any government or United Way funds.  They did not want the conditions that come with grants.  They were seen as infringements on the religous freedoms enjoyed by the staff and volunteers working there.

Government programs are by their very nature more wasteful and inefficient than private enterprise.  Faith based addiction recovery programs have a significantly higher success rate that secular ones.  The ability to make spending decisions on a localized basis ensures resources go to where they are most needed.  Allowing people of faith to express their beliefs openly is something our founding fathers would not have objected to.

However, in the modern era, we have large numbers of people turning to government for answers to everyday problems.  Government workers are prohibited from saying that they believe in Jesus, Allah, Buddha, or any other religious views they may have.  Spiritual needs go unmet.  These same government workers are prohibited from telling someone to go away and sober up before they come and ask for aid.

Many homeless shelters ask the residents to help cook and clean, or to attend devotional or life skills classes in order to stay there.  This helps cover the cost of operation for the shelter, as well as offers oppurtunities to teach the residents things that will hopefully get them to a better place in life.

Government programs offer aid with little or no conditions.  Seldom are welfare recipients required to work for the aid they receive.  These are not good life lessons to teach.

Another issue I have with welfare is that it forcibly takes money from productive members of society (the taxpayers) and gives it to those who are not contributing.  This is morally wrong.

I support my local church, thrift stores, shelters, and other charities by choice.  I resent it when the government takes money from my check and gives it away on programs that are wasteful, ineffective, or conflict with my personal values and beliefs.

These are just a few of the reasons I am opposed to giving someone a welfare check.  However, we in America have a long tradition of helping those in need.  I believe it should be done outside of the government, especially the Federal government.

About these ads

Obama Will Be A One Term President

Prediction: Obama will be a one term President.

According to Rasmussen Reports Obama’s approval rating is down to 51% (his lowest yet) and continuing to fall.  New jobless numbers are not helping him.

His gaff prone VP Joe Biden recently said that they “misjudged” the employment situation in the economy.  Really?  You mean the government stimulus and takeover of private industry is not having the outcome you thought it would?

On the other hand, some purist kool-aid drinkers are still in denial and saying we should allow more time for all the economic wizardry to work.  Right!  We should just have government continue to take over private industry (healthcare) and tax our very act of breathing (carbon tax), destroy our standard of living, and expect things will get better?

For freedom loving Americans, the prospect of Federal home inspectors coming into our houses without a warrant to check the energy efficiency of our windows is just a bit too much!  4th amendment anyone?

Another bill that will take away freedom of Americans if passed is HR 45.  It would require EVERY individual to have a FEDERAL firearms license in order to buy or sell a firearm!  This bill and others like it are attempts at gun control.  How many people with guns have a FEDERAL firearms license?  Not very many.  2nd amendment anyone?   What part of “shall not be infringed” do Obama and Congress not understand?

U.S. News and World Report is now reporting that Obama’s aids are saying that a second stimulus “might eventually be needed”.  Let’s see, the first stimulus was passed with Nancy Pelosi saying we would lose 500 million jobs if it did not become law!

We now have unemployment nearing double digits.  Some say we could add 5-10% to the unemployment figure if we don’t count newly created government jobs, and also the number of people looking for jobs that have accepted part-time employment.  That means the true unemployment figure could be as high as 15-20%.  What’s more disconcerting, is that the jobless numbers continue to increase!

Our recession will be more like the “Great Depression” the more the government tries to manipulate markets.  However, just like Mikhail Gorbachev, Obama and Congress seem hell-bent on maintaining this suicidal course.  Gorbachev was the last President of the Soviet Union.  He knew his country’s economy was bad.  However, he felt that if they just implemented the right kind of government reforms and programs they could fix it.  He was wrong.  His country collapsed, totally.

We know from history that government run centrally planned economies don’t work.  We also know, from our own history, that a free market capitalism can bring prosperity to our people.

I predict the expansion of government and accompanying efforts to take away American freedoms will drive Obama out of office at the end of his first term.  Time will tell…

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

This is how the Declaration of Independence starts.  This is the pivotal event that marks the reason for celebration today.  The signers of this document pledged more than just their signatures to this document.  By signing it, they pledged their entire lives and property to their beliefs.

By their willingness to give everything they had for their values, a new nation was born.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

The crafting of this document was not like circulating a petition, or signing on for a voter initiative in modern society.  The signers of the Declaration were openly and defiantly challenging the government of their day, and declaring that their rights were not granted from their government, but derived from Natural Law.  Our rights are God-given.

Does revolutionary blood course through your veins?  Do you believe, as I do, that men (and women) have rights by virtue of their Creator, and that these rights exist whether written down in documents like the Declaration, or the Bill of Rights, or not?

As we sit back with our beverage of choice, enjoying barbecue, or a fireworks show, please join me in thanking our fore-fathers for giving us our separate and equal station among all the peoples of the world.

God Bless America!

Reference:

The National Archives: The Declaration of Independence

 

FEMA Tells Monroe, WA Mobile Home Residents To Move

Just a couple of quick notes here:

  • If you choose to live in a flood plain, that is a bad decision on your part.  Why do you expect the U.S. taxpayer to pay for your bad decisions?
  • We have spider-web like planning commissions, boundary-review boards, boards of adjustment, zoning ordinances, permitting procedures, and other bureaucratic hoops to jump through to before ever building any type of home at city, county, and state levels of government.  How do homes ever get built in a flood plain to begin with?
  • Why do local governments expect a Federal agency to come to their aid, after allowing homes to be built in a flood plain?

About 100 people live in a mobile home park on the Snohomish River in Monroe.  The Federal Emergency Management Agency is telling them they need to move.  The mobile homes are in an area that floods EVERY year.

Developers should exercise some responsibility and not build in flood prone areas.  The local government has a responsibility to exercise some common sense before allowing said developers to build in flood prone areas.

Why in the world is the United States Government involved in what is clearly a LOCAL issue???

Folks, we don’t need Uncle Sam to take care of us.  Given FEMA’s track record on emergency response, why would anyone want their assistance?

We can make decisions for ourselves.  If we make bad decisions, we should not expect someone else’s tax dollars to pay for our mistakes.  We need to take responsibility for our own personal decisions, as well as our own local government decisions.

The federal government offers flood insurance to people who choose to live in flood plains, as well as those that live in beachfront homes.  Those people should live with the consequences of their decisions, and not expect a government bailout.  There is a reason why the private flood insurance companies would not write policies in these areas.  The government takeover of flood insurance is not justified as a response.  Also, as these Monroe residents are finding out, a helping hand is also a controlling hand.

The founding fathers did not want this type of centralized government control over the everyday lives of individual Americans.  Where you choose to live is your personal choice.  At most, local government, if necessary, can regulate development within its jurisdictions.

We can and should make decisions on development at a local level.  We don’t need FEMA, HUD, FAA, EPA, Department of the Interior, Department of Agriculture, Transportation, Commerce, Department of Education, or Homeland Security approval for development decisions.

Reference:

The Seattle Times: FEMA: Monroe mobile homes in flood plain must go

Carbon Is Natural And Necessary

Carbon is both natural and necessary for our survival.  We are carbon based life forms.  Plants breathe carbon dioxide and depend on it for their survival.  There is a carbon cycle necessary for life on our planet to continue.

The new cap and trade carbon tax scheme recently passed by the U.S. House of Representatives is an insidious tax plan, and a huge government power grab.  The statists, primarily Democrats with a handful of Republicans, want to insert more government control over your lives.

Do you use electricity in your home?  You will pay more for it.  Do you use gasoline or diesel in your vehicles or farm equipment?  You will pay more for it.  Do you buy food and other products at a retail store?  You will pay more for the lights to be on at the store, and more for the freight to get products there.

Has your home been inspected and rated by government environmental regulators?  Under the new cap and trade plan, you will not be able to sell your home unless your drafty windows and doors have received a seal of approval from a political appointee.

I believe in the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  After securing the fundamental right to exist, the next thing I want is for government to simply leave me alone.  I don’t want your inspectors telling me what I need to do in order to sell my home.  Let me work out a deal with a prospective buyer.  If there are any deficiencies, I am sure the buyer will ask for a discounted price.  That is how negotiations are done, deals are made, and contracts written.  Between the buyer and the seller.  It does not require a political appointee to insert himself in the middle.

The proposed cap and trade system of government carbon credits will benefit the politcally well connected.  Wall Street will make money on transaction fees from the “trading”.  Companies that are given credits (in a political process, not a market process) will do well.  Those that can buy enough credits to continue doing business may survive.  The rest will cease to exist.  Despite this, the politicians that passed this are saying it will actually create jobs!

The author, Thomas Woods, recently said that cap and trade will create jobs in the same sense that burning down every other house in the neighborhood will: claiming that the reconstruction will spur growth in the economy while ignoring the cost.

Hopefully the Senate will kill this bad bill.  Cap and trade has not produced the promised results when it was implemented in Spain, and it won’t here either.

Watch the new Heritage Foundation video about Cap and Trade:

13 Year-Old To Get Chemotherapy After All

Daniel Hauser is a 13 year-old boy from Minnesota.  According to the news stories I have been reading, he has been diagnosed with cancer, and will probably die without chemotherapy treatment.  The story has been making the news because his parents resisted this course of treatment.  A judge ordered that the boy be given chemo against the parents wishes.  The mother apparently took him, and went into hiding.  After being threatened with arrest, and the decent possibility that she would never see her son again, she agreed to go back and allow the doctors to treat the boy with chemo.  A great victory for government, or yet another example of how your body belongs to the state, and not you?

In Washington, voters have approved the so-called “death with dignity” initiative that allows doctors to prescribe lethal doses of medicine to patients.  This allows patients to kill themselves, foregoing the pain and discomfort of failing health, and as the saying goes “die with dignity”.  (I am personally opposed to this initiative and practice, as I feel it violates the doctor’s oath to “do no harm”.)  Here is my question: what if a judge ordered a patient to get a lethal dose of medication, in order to “die with dignity”?

This is not as far fetched as you might think.  Even now, a movement is afoot to nationalize healthcare.  All medical decisions will be vested with a small group, a politburo if you will, in Washington D.C.  They will make all decisions on healthcare.  If chemo is deemed too expensive, then you can “die with dignity”.  The courts, and government officials are, after all, acting in the public’s best interest.  A cost/benefit analysis of your treatment will be done in a government office, where political favors and bribes will influence the outcome.  All in the name of “free” healthcare.

It does not have to be this way.  Historically, courts have held that individuals have the constitutional right to refuse treatment.  Apparently, that right does not exist for the 13 year-old and his family in Minnesota.  In years gone by, medical decisions were between the doctor and patient.  Now we have insurance companies, courts, and government officials messing it up.

Many terminally ill patients decide that they do not want to go into a hospital, and prefer instead to die at home under hospice care, or with family.  Usually, the people making these decisions have lived a good number of years.  In the case of the 13 year-old cancer patient, I think the boy and his family should be given the same options.  It’s their body, their life, and their decision to make.  It should not be up to the government to decide for the people.

Just because their decision would run counter to what most of us would choose, does not give us the right to take away their freedom.

I am praying that Daniel Hauser makes a healthy recovery from his illness.  I am also praying that the government never interferes with, or mandates, what course of treatment that I, or any family member, receive from our doctors.

Reference:

CNN: Judge orders chemotherapy for 13-year-old cancer patient

Socialism versus Freedom

“If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there’d be a shortage of sand.”
-Milton Friedman

 

Happy Birthday, President Reagan!

I just realized today is Ronald Reagan’s birthday.  Happy birthday President Reagan!

Here is the Gipper talking about Freedom:

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,976 other followers