It's the Christmas season, so godless liberals are citing the Bible to demand the redistribution of income by government force. Didn't Jesus say, "Blessed are the Health and Human Services bureaucrats, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven"?
Liberals are always indignantly accusing conservatives of claiming God is on our side. What we actually say is: We're on God's side, particularly when liberals are demanding God's banishment from the public schools, abortion on demand, and taxpayer money being spent on Jesus submerged in a jar of urine and pictures of the Virgin Mary covered with pornographic photos.
But for liberals like Al Franken, it's beyond dispute that Jesus would support extending federal unemployment insurance.
This has absolutely nothing to do with the Bible, but it does nicely illustrate Shakespeare's point that the "devil can cite Scripture for his purpose."
What the Bible says about giving to the poor is: "Each of you should give what you have decided in your heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver." (2 Corinthians (9:7)
Being forced to pay taxes under penalty of prison is not voluntary and rarely done cheerfully. Nor do our taxes go to "the poor." They mostly go to government employees who make more money than you do.
The reason liberals love the government redistributing money is that it allows them to skip the part of charity that involves peeling the starfish off their wallets and forking over their own money. This, as we know from study after study, they cannot bear to do. (Unless they are guaranteed press conferences where they can brag about their generosity.)
Syracuse University professor Arthur Brooks' study of charitable giving in America found that conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than liberals do, despite the fact that liberals have higher incomes than conservatives.
In his book "Who Really Cares?" Brooks compared the charitable donations of religious conservatives, secular liberals, secular conservatives and "religious" liberals.
His surprising conclusion was ... Al Franken gave the most of all!
Ha ha! Just kidding. Religious conservatives, the largest group at about 20 percent of the population, gave the most to charity -- $2,367 per year, compared with $1,347 for the country at large.
Even when it comes to purely secular charities, religious conservatives give more than other Americans, which is surprising because liberals specialize in "charities" that give them a direct benefit, such as the ballet or their children's elite private schools.
Indeed, religious people, Brooks says, "are more charitable in every measurable nonreligious way."
Brooks found that conservatives donate more in time, services and even blood than other Americans, noting that if liberals and moderates gave as much blood as conservatives do, the blood supply would increase by about 45 percent.
They ought to set up blood banks at tea parties.
On average, a person who attends religious services and does not believe in the redistribution of income will give away 100 times more -- and 50 times more to secular charities -- than a person who does not attend religious services and strongly believes in the redistribution of income.
Secular liberals, the second largest group coming in at 10 percent of the population, were the whitest and richest of the four groups. (Some of you may also know them as "insufferable blowhards.") These "bleeding-heart tightwads," as New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof calls them, were the second stingiest, just behind secular conservatives, who are mostly young, poor, cranky white guys.
Despite their wealth and advantages, secular liberals give to charity at a rate of 9 percent less than all Americans and 19 percent less than religious conservatives. They were also "significantly less likely than the population average to return excess change mistakenly given to them by a cashier." (Count Nancy Pelosi's change carefully!)
Secular liberals are, however, 90 percent more likely to give sanctimonious Senate speeches demanding the forced redistribution of income. (That's up 7 percent from last year!)
We'll review specific liberals next week.
Needless to say, "religious liberals" made up the smallest group at just 6.4 percent of the population (for more on this, see my book, "Godless").
Interestingly, religious liberals were also "most confused" of all the groups. Composed mostly of blacks and Unitarians, religious liberals made nearly as many charitable donations as religious conservatives, but presumably, the Unitarians brought down their numbers, making them second in charitable giving.
Brooks wrote that he was shocked by his conclusions because he believed liberals "genuinely cared more about others than conservatives did" -- probably because liberals are always telling us that.
So he re-ran the numbers and gathered more data, but it kept coming out the same. "In the end," he says, "I had no option but to change my views."
Every other study on the subject has produced similar results. Indeed, a Google study of philanthropy found an even greater disparity, with conservatives giving 50 percent more than liberals. The Google study showed that liberals gave more to secular causes overall, but conservatives still gave more as a percentage of their incomes.
The Catalogue for Philanthropy analyzed a decade of state and federal tax returns and found that the red states were far more generous than the blue states, with the highest percentage of tightwads living in the liberal Northeast.
In his book "Intellectuals," Paul Johnson quotes Pablo Picasso scoffing at the idea that he would give to the needy. "I'm afraid you've got it wrong," Picasso explains, "we are socialists. We don't pretend to be Christians."
Merry Christmas to all, skinflint liberals and generous Christians alike!
ANN COULTER ON 'DON'T ASK DON'T TELL'
“Fiano was, as were we, opposed to the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. But she’s right to call out people like the ‘expert’ commentator from the professional right who suggested that as many as half a million service members might quit as a result of repeal. And she’s right to lambaste the writer—a self-proclaimed admirer of the U.S. military—who argued that he now has no choice but to ‘actively encourage men and women to leave—in droves.’
“Fortunately, and needless to say, our men and women in uniform will ignore such ‘encouragement.’ They’re made of much sterner stuff than some of their self-proclaimed admirers seem to think…
“President Obama said last week, speaking ‘to all Americans’: ‘Your country needs you, your country wants you, and we will be honored to welcome you into the ranks of the finest military the world has ever known.’ Our fine servicemen and women won’t quit, they won’t whine, they won’t fret, and they won’t cause a scene. Conservatives owe it to them to conduct ourselves with the same composure and dignity.”
“Former United States Deputy Undersecretary of Defense Jed Babbin told TheDC that the repeal raises more questions than it answers about America’s ability to execute the War on Terror effectively.
“‘Can gays serve as military advisers to Muslims?’ he asked in an e-mail to TheDC. ‘What about Provincial Reconstruction Teams in Afghanistan? Will gays be able to be out among the Muslims and how much will that drive Muslims away from the nation-building effort?’…
“Indeed propaganda is something to keep in mind, according to Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, president and founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD). Jasser told TheDC that, while the AIFD did not take a position on the repeal of DADT, there is a good probability that jihadi propagandists will likely use the presence of gays in uniform against the United States.
“‘It will be used in order to paint American secularism as against their Islamic values, so it will be no different than other stereotypes about the West –as being anti-religious, anti-Islam — that have been used in the past to feed the anti-American military propaganda,’ Jasser said, noting that the real world impact will be unknown until the policy is actually implemented.”
Via Mediaite.
No comments:
Post a Comment