Poor poor Jesus

I have lived in Denver part time during the last year and recently discovered posters in the downtown mall area suggesting that people not give handouts to street people, instead making contributions to organized charities. Subsequently I have read about a law in Oregon making it an offense to give food to street people. Now I read about a similar law in Las Vegas. And these are all cities located in christian communities. I'm not that familiar with the new testament, but I thought that Jesus's teachings were of charity to all and a universal brotherhood(of all as well, not just of so-called "good people".) If so, where is the public outcry from those christian sects that profess the gospel to be the true teachings of Christ. Poor Jesus should certainly view these acts as blasphemy and be insulted that they are perpetrated by people professing to be christians.
As far as giving to "established" charities so that these gifts would be used to directly benefit those in need, I tried to locate one after the tsunami in Indonesia. I checked out those recommended on internet sites who claimed to give the largest percent in direct (material) aid to those who had suffered. After checking out one of the "recommended" organizations I found the following. Out of approximately $60 million collected, a maximum of $65 thousand dollars went directly to provide material aid to those poor and starving people(somewhere around one tenth of one percent). The rest was spent on salaries and the considerable travel and living expenses of the administrators and employees. These people apparently felt that just their presence was enough to alleviate the tsunami's effects. Now, after learning of these new programs denying direct aid to people who are definitely suffering and in need of support(the street people), I returned to the quest for an organization who would "wisely" provide just this support.
I picked out a suggested organization from another internet site providing assistence in finding a"worthy"charity. The organization I selected was CARE, which it was claimed only spent approximately 9 percent for administration and fund raising and the rest as direct aid. After reviewing CARE's government- mandated Form 990 for fiscal year 2005, I found the following: Out of approximately $600 million collected, more than $100 million went for employee salaries alone( a whopping 16 percent ); the 8 highest-paid administrators in their Atlanta office were receiving an average of $180 thousand per year and one was apparently receiving money for education. You'd think that a seniior person making that sort of money would already be trained, but apparently not. The only money that could have been spent directly on any beneficiaries was a lump sum grant of $94 million, and who knows how much of that really reached someone in need(the recipient had his own "administrative" expenses I am sure). One last item, a $74 million disbursement of agricultural commodities looked as if (finally) CARE actually shelled out something substantive. It turned out that this "gift in kind" actually came directly from the U.S. government. CARE did not deign to purchase anything else of this nature to suppliment the government gift, apparently determined to keep their record clean.
If you check out all the other so-called reputable charities you will find somewhat the same. These organizations are just one more type of charties for the rich.