Finding this topic in the opinion section of the New York Times is good news to be sure:
I call it the charity industry.
An analysis of the NYT article naturally reaffirms the NYT as a mouthpiece for more liberalism:
Everything in the NYT piece is only saying that the charity industry should be run more effectively. That is the same crap that presidential wannabes campaign on when they promise reform: “I can run the government more efficiently by eliminating waste and fraud.” The Chicago sewer rat basically meant reform when he promised to change and transform the country. His change and transform rhetoric worked so well in 2008 he squeezed a second term out of it. I do not have to detail how his reforms worked out to date.
Nobody in the media ever challenges the inherent fraud in every “reform.” Every time something is reformed it does more harm after reform is instituted. That is why I am gripped by the cold hand of fear whenever I smell reform in the air. Reform charities; reform the United Nations; reform campaign finance; reform the IRS; reform the tax code; reform Wall Street; reform law enforcement; reform the government and so on. There is no end to the things political hustlers can reform. Reforming the charity industry will be the worst of all.
Parenthetically, the charity industry is an institution no different than a corporation. The main business of a corporation is taking in huge incomes for its owner(s) and executives. Different charities within the industry are slightly different in that most of them do not have owners —— a few have been in business for centuries.
In one sense the Clintons own their charity. Obviously, newly established charitable foundations and endowments are created by original owners in the same way that corporation are created by owners. And just like a business a charity is eventually run by executives after the original owner dies. And just like any corporation, quasi-owners run the business for their own enrichment. Research the salaries the top people take down in any charity if you want an eye-opener.
Halloween
United Nations charity hustlers even had kids collecting money for them. UNICEF has been at it a long time, but I remember when UNICEF began giving away little cardboard boxes on the Internet? The boxes have a coin slot in them like a piggy bank. Trick or treaters were encouraged to ask people to donate money to UNICEF. The filthy UN bums could not let little kids have their trick or treat fun. Naturally, UN dirt-bags had a story to justify their B.S.
The fact is that it was not only the money. UN bums planted the idea in the heads of five year olds that the UN is good. Parents who do that to their own children should be ashamed of themselves. Halloween is about candy and scary costumes —— not sick United Nations brainwashing.
I’m not sure if the UN is still hustling kids with their Halloween boxes, but if I had little gumps out there trick or treating, I would let them collect for the UN —— but only after instructing them to keep the money because the UN sucks.
Institutional charity versus the Good Samaritan. All charity is local —— is another way of defining the conflict between greed and compassion.
It is impossible to shutdown the compassion that drives a Good Samaritan, but it is possible to shutdown a corrupt industry; not easy to do but still possible. The problem is: Shutdown one industry and every powerful financial institution will fight tooth and nail to protect one of their one threatened with extinction. Try to imagine these three standing silent while the charity industry goes down the tubes; the United Nations, the federal government, the media.
Funding for a corrupt industry
The NYT will never admit that the entire charity industry is dependant upon the XVI Amendment. Indeed, the charitable tax deduction is America’s economy, and it is built on the income tax. If the XVI Amendment cannot be repealed at this time:
1. Begin with eliminating the charitable tax deduction altogether.
2. Get the government out of coerced charity —— foreign and domestic. (When charity is coerced it is not charity.)
3. Dismantle as much of the welfare state as possible until the XVI Amendment can be repealed.
4. Legally define the charity industry as a business.
Say it with music
Over the years I’ve often suggested Rhythm Is Our Business as a perfect theme song for the United Nations. There is no reason it cannot become an industry theme song. Sing the word charity instead of rhythm:
Finally, I would sue for slander if anyone accused me of being a regular New York Times reader. It was the headline on Lucianne.Com that attracted me to the topic of charity:
LAST week federal authorities disclosed that four cancer charities had bilked tens of millions of dollars from donors. Questions continue to surface about the lack of transparency at the Clinton Foundation. Philanthropy, we’re learning, is a world with too much secrecy and too little oversight. Despite its increasing role in American society, from education to the arts to the media, perhaps no sector is less accountable to outsiders.
I call it the charity industry.
An analysis of the NYT article naturally reaffirms the NYT as a mouthpiece for more liberalism:
Philanthropy reform should aim to achieve four broad goals. The first is bringing more transparency to charitable donations.
Second, and related, we should end the charade that all philanthropy is somehow charitable. Donors should get varying levels of tax exemption, or none at all, . . .
Third, foundations and other philanthropic funds should have to give away tax-exempt dollars at a faster rate.
Fourth, and most challenging, there needs to be a better accounting of whether philanthropic dollars are effectively spent.
XXXXX
Second, and related, we should end the charade that all philanthropy is somehow charitable. Donors should get varying levels of tax exemption, or none at all, . . .
XXXXX
Third, foundations and other philanthropic funds should have to give away tax-exempt dollars at a faster rate.
XXXXX
Fourth, and most challenging, there needs to be a better accounting of whether philanthropic dollars are effectively spent.
Everything in the NYT piece is only saying that the charity industry should be run more effectively. That is the same crap that presidential wannabes campaign on when they promise reform: “I can run the government more efficiently by eliminating waste and fraud.” The Chicago sewer rat basically meant reform when he promised to change and transform the country. His change and transform rhetoric worked so well in 2008 he squeezed a second term out of it. I do not have to detail how his reforms worked out to date.
Nobody in the media ever challenges the inherent fraud in every “reform.” Every time something is reformed it does more harm after reform is instituted. That is why I am gripped by the cold hand of fear whenever I smell reform in the air. Reform charities; reform the United Nations; reform campaign finance; reform the IRS; reform the tax code; reform Wall Street; reform law enforcement; reform the government and so on. There is no end to the things political hustlers can reform. Reforming the charity industry will be the worst of all.
Parenthetically, the charity industry is an institution no different than a corporation. The main business of a corporation is taking in huge incomes for its owner(s) and executives. Different charities within the industry are slightly different in that most of them do not have owners —— a few have been in business for centuries.
In one sense the Clintons own their charity. Obviously, newly established charitable foundations and endowments are created by original owners in the same way that corporation are created by owners. And just like a business a charity is eventually run by executives after the original owner dies. And just like any corporation, quasi-owners run the business for their own enrichment. Research the salaries the top people take down in any charity if you want an eye-opener.
Halloween
United Nations charity hustlers even had kids collecting money for them. UNICEF has been at it a long time, but I remember when UNICEF began giving away little cardboard boxes on the Internet? The boxes have a coin slot in them like a piggy bank. Trick or treaters were encouraged to ask people to donate money to UNICEF. The filthy UN bums could not let little kids have their trick or treat fun. Naturally, UN dirt-bags had a story to justify their B.S.
The fact is that it was not only the money. UN bums planted the idea in the heads of five year olds that the UN is good. Parents who do that to their own children should be ashamed of themselves. Halloween is about candy and scary costumes —— not sick United Nations brainwashing.
I’m not sure if the UN is still hustling kids with their Halloween boxes, but if I had little gumps out there trick or treating, I would let them collect for the UN —— but only after instructing them to keep the money because the UN sucks.
Institutional charity versus the Good Samaritan. All charity is local —— is another way of defining the conflict between greed and compassion.
It is impossible to shutdown the compassion that drives a Good Samaritan, but it is possible to shutdown a corrupt industry; not easy to do but still possible. The problem is: Shutdown one industry and every powerful financial institution will fight tooth and nail to protect one of their one threatened with extinction. Try to imagine these three standing silent while the charity industry goes down the tubes; the United Nations, the federal government, the media.
Funding for a corrupt industry
The NYT will never admit that the entire charity industry is dependant upon the XVI Amendment. Indeed, the charitable tax deduction is America’s economy, and it is built on the income tax. If the XVI Amendment cannot be repealed at this time:
1. Begin with eliminating the charitable tax deduction altogether.
2. Get the government out of coerced charity —— foreign and domestic. (When charity is coerced it is not charity.)
3. Dismantle as much of the welfare state as possible until the XVI Amendment can be repealed.
4. Legally define the charity industry as a business.
Say it with music
Over the years I’ve often suggested Rhythm Is Our Business as a perfect theme song for the United Nations. There is no reason it cannot become an industry theme song. Sing the word charity instead of rhythm:
Charity is our business
Charity is what we sell
Charity is our business
Business sure is swell
Charity is what we sell
Charity is our business
Business sure is swell
Finally, I would sue for slander if anyone accused me of being a regular New York Times reader. It was the headline on Lucianne.Com that attracted me to the topic of charity:
Who Will Watch the Charities?
By DAVID CALLAHAN
MAY 30, 2015
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/31/opinion/sunday/who-will-watch-the-charities.html?
By DAVID CALLAHAN
MAY 30, 2015
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/31/opinion/sunday/who-will-watch-the-charities.html?
Last edited:
