Monday, November 30, 2009

Liberals Aren't Giving Og Their Money,But Conservatives Put Their Money Where Their Mouth Is

 Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism." The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than conservatives.

If many conservatives are liberals who have been mugged by reality, Brooks, a registered independent, is, as a reviewer of his book said, a social scientist who has been mugged by data. They include these findings:
-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).
-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.
-- Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.
-- Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.
-- In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.
-- People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.
Brooks demonstrates a correlation between charitable behavior and "the values that lie beneath" liberal and conservative labels. Two influences on charitable behavior are religion and attitudes about the proper role of government.
The single biggest predictor of someone's altruism, Willett says, is religion. It increasingly correlates with conservative political affiliations because, as Brooks' book says, "the percentage of self-described Democrats who say they have 'no religion' has more than quadrupled since the early 1970s." America is largely divided between religious givers and secular nongivers, and the former are disproportionately conservative. One demonstration that religion is a strong determinant of charitable behavior is that the least charitable cohort is a relatively small one -- secular conservatives.
Reviewing Brooks' book in the Texas Review of Law & Politics, Justice Willett notes that Austin -- it voted 56 percent for Kerry while he was getting just 38 percent statewide -- is ranked by The Chronicle of Philanthropy as 48th out of America's 50 largest cities in per capita charitable giving. Brooks' data about disparities between liberals' and conservatives' charitable giving fit these facts: Democrats represent a majority of the wealthiest congressional districts, and half of America's richest households live in states where both senators are Democrats.
While conservatives tend to regard giving as a personal rather than governmental responsibility, some liberals consider private charity a retrograde phenomenon -- a poor palliative for an inadequate welfare state, and a distraction from achieving adequacy by force, by increasing taxes. Ralph Nader, running for president in 2000, said: "A society that has more justice is a society that needs less charity." Brooks, however, warns: "If support for a policy that does not exist ... substitutes for private charity, the needy are left worse off than before. It is one of the bitterest ironies of liberal politics today that political opinions are apparently taking the place of help for others."
In 2000, brows were furrowed in perplexity because Vice President Al Gore's charitable contributions, as a percentage of his income, were below the national average: He gave 0.2 percent of his family income, one-seventh of the average for donating households. But Gore "gave at the office." By using public office to give other peoples' money to government programs, he was being charitable, as liberals increasingly, and conveniently, understand that word. And if you think Al Gore is a hypocrite self-centered narcissist take a look at how little Barack Hussein Obama and Joey Biden gave over the last 10 yrs. Liberalism is a religion that takes from society. While conservatives tend to have a religion and they give freely. If the liberals gave like the conservative gave most of the countries problem would be solved. But they want what they want and they want you to pay for it for them.  It has been proven time and time again how fake the liberals compassion is and now is the time to start taking these narcissist to task for acting like they are better then conservatives. Liberals are the serpants of the political world and they will say anything to get what they want.
 Bidens has been amazingly tight-fisted when it comes to their charitable giving.  Despite income ranging from $210,432 - $321,379 over the ten-year period, the Bidens have given only $120 - $995 per year to charity, which amounts to 0.06% - 0.31% of their income:
It is jarring that a couple earning over $200,000 per year would give as little as $2 per week to charity.  This giving compares very unfavorably to John McCain, whose tax returns show that he gave 27.3% - 28.6% of his income to charity in 2006-2007.  During the same period, the Obamas' tax returns show that they gave 5.8% - 6.1% of their income to charity.
Perhaps the Obama-Biden campaign needs a new slogan:  "Change You Can Believe In (As Long As Someone Else Pays For It)"
Update: Independent Sector reports that 89% of American households contribute to charity, with an average contribution of $1,620 -- 3.1% of income. 
IRS statistics reveal that the average taxpayer with AGI over $200,000 makes over $20,000 of charitable contributions:
  • $15,000-$30,000 AGI:  $1,916 average charitable deduction
  • $30,000-$50,000 AGI:  $2,158 average charitable deduction
  • $50,000-$100,000 AGI:  $2,703 average charitable deduction
  • $100,000-$200,000 AGI:  $4,057 average charitable deduction
  • $200,000 or more of AGI:  $20,434 average charitable deduction


  1. The liberals are selfrighteous and they say we are. Pathetic. They are all mouth and no action. Keep talking like you libs are the righteous and the conservatives are the mean ones. And liberals are a miserable group when it comes to being happy. If your idealogue makes you unhappy then give it up. If your not happy with your political party then give it up. Conservatives are a proud group as they know they are the ones that made America great. We need to get back to our Constitutional roots of what made this country the greatist country the world has ever known. America is one of the greatest nations ever when it comes to charitable giving. We made the Iraqi people dance in the streets when we the people came to give them freedom. Women in Iraq have more freedom now then ever before. The old liberal dictatorships have been overthrown and a free Iraq remains.

  2. Not only that Chris, but check out what the liberals are up to now: trying to ban churches from feeding the poor!

  3. Greedy, Racists, Hypocrites, Liars... boy, those libs have it all! They've really cornered the market on misanthropes.

  4. I had been teaching two young friends of mine how to deer hunt and today one of them got a 7 point buck. I had to run up to our hunting spot and teach them how to gut it. I cooked up the tenderloins on the grill for them. It was great. These two young men are hooked on hunting now. They are quick studies. I have been teaching them about the medicinal plants and edibles.

  5. Wow Matthew, that is typical liberal govt intervention. Didn't Obama put a cap on charitable contribution for the wealthy? Why would he do that?

  6. The storyline is hauntingly familiar: terrorist detainees were moved to a major city to await trial. While there, fellow Islamic terrorists decided to make a daring and dastardly attempt to gain their release, not by attacking the well-protected courtroom or the heavily guarded detention facility (they are bloodthirsty but they are not stupid), but by going for a more tantalizing target.

    Thirty-five bomb-laden Muslim terrorists stormed a crowded middle school full of parents, teachers, and children. By doing so, they immediately gained what they desired most: the eyes of a watching world paralyzed with fear at what they might do. And the world had reason to fear. Over the course of this three-day massacre, the terrorists barricaded doors and tied up authorities in "negotiations" that were used only to buy them the time they needed to coldly execute the stronger men hostages, rape young girls in front of their watching mothers, and rig explosives throughout the complex to ensure that when the authorities stormed the building there would be massive casualties.

    This horrific drama played out in the quiet Russian town of Beslan just five short years ago. In the end, 394 lay dead (over half of them children) with another 704 injured.

    And stunningly, Barack Obama has just invited the same carnage to our shores.

    When the President's Attorney General Eric Holder announced the administration's breathtakingly ignorant decision to bring 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed (KSM) and five compatriots to New York City to stand trial in civilian court for their act of war, there was undoubtedly a collective gasp in the small towns outside New York. The citizens there surely must recognize that the high-profile status of KSM alone is enough to tempt every terror cell this side of Basra to consider making their rural middle schools the stage for Beslan: Act Two.

    Why any president sworn to protect the lives of his fellow citizens would take such an outrageously absurd and completely unnecessary risk is unfathomable. And make no is unnecessary. KSM and his fellow terrorists were already being tried by military commissions far away from American children and out of the international spotlight that they so desperately crave. Many, including KSM, had already pled guilty and requested execution.

    But Barack Obama halted these commissions when he came into office, apparently more concerned with bolstering his image as a "citizen of the world" than protecting his own people. He then passed the buck to Eric Holder who announced that the terrorists would be brought to one of America's largest cities for the trial of the century.

    The negative consequences of this decision are plentiful. From endangering innocent Americans to gift-wrapping a perfect propaganda opportunity for the terrorist world, this decision is inexcusable. And considering that the choice to try these monsters in civilian courts was to supposedly ensure that justice would be done, this decision becomes incomprehensible. (How, for instance, will these show trials result in any better or more just outcome than a guilty plea and execution sentence – something that the military commission had all but secured?)

  7. In short, this is about to be a circus. Obama and Holder have now given constitutional "rights of the accused" to these terrorists (something that has never been done throughout all of American history). And if you don't think that their lawyers are going to bring up the manner of their detainment, the circumstances surrounding their capture, any perceived threats or mistreatment, any notion of coerced confessions, their lack of immediate access to attorneys, demand for relocation, complaints about a biased jury, calls for mistrials, and the need for an extensive appeals process, you aren't thinking...sort of like the Obama administration.

    With a decision this bad – one that is receiving scorn across the country from angry Americans of all political backgrounds – one might hope that Team Obama would come to its senses and reverse course. Not likely.

    When announcing this preposterous decision Holder stated, "To the extent that there are political consequences, I'll just have to take my lumps."

    Frankly, sir, the grisly images of Beslan are a little too fresh in our minds to be overly concerned with your personal political consequences. We're a bit more concerned about the potentially deadly consequences this ragingly incompetent administration may have just brought on innocent American citizens.

    Vice President Joe Biden once criticized Barack Obama's lack of preparedness for the serious responsibilities associated with the job of president by saying that the presidency was "not something that lends itself to on-the-job training." God forbid that we're about to see just how right he was.

  8. The Blind Side is a beautiful new film based on a magnificent and heartwarming true story.

    But I hope that the many who see it do not simply walk out all aglow. It should also produce concern.

    This story about hopelessness transformed into achievement should be a typically American story. We should be concerned that, increasingly, this is not the case -- that this is the exception that should be the rule.

    Michael Oher's story has already received much attention. How a homeless black 15-year-old winds up in a Christian private school and how a white Christian couple adopted him and helped him develop to get the grades to stay in school, become a star athlete, an All-American football player and a multimillion-dollar NFL draft pick.

    Our wake-up call should be that the factors that saved and transformed Michael Oher's life stand in stark contrast to the government solutions we hear from Washington about dealing with our problems relating to poverty and education.

    Oher's story is about private individuals, about personal choices and responsibility, and about Christians.

    And it's not just about white Christians. The decision that started the chain of events that changed Oher's life came from a black Christian woman.

    Oher, fatherless, with a drug-addicted mother, bounced from one foster home to another, and then moved from one private home to another, sleeping on friends' floors in a Memphis, Tenn., ghetto.

    While Oher was sleeping on the floor at "Big Tony" Henderson's place, Henderson's mother died. Her dying wish was to get her grandson, Steven, out of the public school where he was enrolled and into a "Christian school."

    The film opens with Tony making his pitch at the Briarcrest Christian School (called Wingate in the film) in Memphis to enroll his son. And, to also admit his son's friend "Big Mike."

    Steven's acceptance wasn't problematic, because he had good grades. But Oher, with a 0.6 GPA, demanded all the Christian grace the admission team could muster. It came through.

    Michael Lewis' book, on which the film is based, discusses Oher's public-school experience before Briarcrest, which the film skips over.

    He'd been in 11 different schools. The public schools were pushing him through to get rid of him, not to educate him.

    His records showed that in ninth grade he missed 50 days of school, yet he was passed.

    The film also ignores the IQ issue, which in the book is an eye opener.

    Shortly after his enrollment at Briarcrest, Oher, struggling to make it, met Sean and Leigh Anne Tuohy, a self-made couple of means. They took him in and soon adopted him.

    By his senior year, making a final push to get his grade-point average to meet NCAA standards for college admission, they took him to psychologists for intelligence testing.

    They found, incredibly, that in his few years at Briarcrest, his IQ increased almost 30 points. When he was admitted, his IQ measured 80. Now tests showed him as between 100 and 110. This, according to Lewis, "wasn't supposed to happen. IQ was meant to be a given, like the size of one's feet." The psychologists were dumfounded.

    Michael Oher achieved this. But he couldn't have done it without a Christian school and his caring Christian adopted parents who loved him and respected his uniqueness.

    President Barack Obama's $4.5 billion in new education spending will not fix our education crisis. Government and moral relativism never has been the answer and will not be.

    School choice and traditional values are the answers. It's freedom, not bureaucrats, that produces miracles. Michael Oher may be an exceptional individual, but his story need not be an exceptional story.

  9. Some major news has been hitting global financial markets hard over the last day or so: there is a prospective default by Dubai World, which is an investment vehicle operated by the second-largest of the seven United Arab Emirates.

    It appears that a total of about $80 billion in debt is now at risk. About $10 billion of that is subject to rollover in the very short term, and may not be fully repaid. Major holders of the assets include HSBC, the London-based banking giant; the Royal Bank of Scotland; Japan’s Sumitomo; and others. None of these organizations is in a position to sustain another big hit to capital. RBS, in particular, has been all-but-nationalized by the UK government.

    Until the financial crisis got really bad a year ago, Dubai had been on an ambitious campaign to become a global center for finance and high-end real estate. The original funding came from oil-rich Abu Dhabi, the largest emirate in the UAE. (Dubai has no oil of its own.) There are stories that Abu Dhabi decided to pull the plug on what is now not looking like a good investment story.

    I’m still trying to figure out what the real impact is here, a process which may take some time because many people won’t be in the office today. $80 billion is a relatively small default in the grand scheme of things, but it is a sovereign default, and if it results in any kind of sizable loss-recognition by Dubai’s bankers, then that’s a hit to capital, and no one needs that right now.

    Stock markets are down 3+ percent overseas. That’s a pretty strong reaction. The 2-year Treasury note, which We The Taxpayers sold at 0.802% earlier this week, has leapt upward to yield only 0.65% this morning. The dollar and yen are stronger, gold is down 2%, and oil is down a whopping 5%. As I write, the impact on markets is easing up a bit, but we should still see at least a 200-point decline in New York stocks when they open later this morning.

    The overall viewpoint that I’m taking at this point in the situation is that it’s going to trigger a big spike in volatility across many markets. That reinforces the point that the emerging-market rally (which we know has been fueled by cheaply-borrowed dollars) isn’t based on fundamentals. The Chinese have gone on an investment boom, and that is perhaps the only fundamental positive in the world economic picture, but of course they’re taking a big risk that customers for their new production capacity will actually materialize.

    Meanwhile, Congress, the Treasury and the Fed are continuing their overall policy strategy, which is reflation. Some people call it “pretend and pray.” In other words, we’re making it possible for everyone (from Wall Street to large banks to homeowners) to avoid recognizing losses on their assets. A big burst of volatility from Dubai ought to show everyone just how dangerous that strategy really is.

    Governments can lie about the true level of global capital and economic activity, and markets will believe the lies as long as it’s advantageous to do so. But not forever.

    For more information, listen to my podcast on Dubai at The New Ledger this morning.

  10. Thanks to the liberals of the world we are in bigger trouble then ever. We need to have a revelution in this country. The military doesn't respect B.Hussein Obama and most of America don't approve of him either. There is nothing worse then a liberal Republican other then a liberal Democrat. I've started a group out in SF,Cal. and we are planning on doing to the liberals what they have done to us. We are 500 strong and we will get in the faces of these liberal pigs and push them to action.

  11. These New York TERRORIST trials are a Pay back to BUSH Administration and that is simply the TRUTH. WHY else have them cause these Terrorist who MURDERED 3000 Citizens were to PLEAD GUILTY in Military COURT!

    This Administration KNOWINGLY has put Thousands of Citizens in HARMS way for Political MANURE and if God Forbid New York City has Terrorist Problems it will be ENTIRERLY on fthis Administration. Holder was ASKED what would happen if these MURDERS are found NOT GUILTY in Criminal Court. His response was the Terrorist would not be RELEASED! Question Why have these Civilian Trials? POLITICS plane and simple.

    Please LIBS no CRAP regarding these Terrorist Rights. They have the SAME rights that they gave the 3000 they KILLED,and WHO gives at Rats ASS what Global Community thinks!

  12. It is sick what the White House is doing to this country. I don't know anyone that still admits they think he is a good president. We need to do more protests to stop this out of control spending.

  13. Chris,

    "Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven. Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth: That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly."

    Ohhh, how you modern day phariscees like to pronounce your goodness and judge everyone else. You seek only the glory of Man, especially that of your fellow rightwing phariscees.

    So please pat yourself on your back for me and take all your worldly pleasure in feeling like a better person than us.

    How unlike Christ you act some times.

  14. JoeC aren't you the one casting out judgment? Doesn't that make you the phariscee? You really do think you are better then us doen't you? JoeC are you getting so selfrighteous on us again? I thought those are the things you called us? Are you saying you are without sin JoeC? It sure sounds like it. I have made it as clear as my blue eyes that I am a sinner. You on the other hand act just like the pharisees. The pharisees called everyone bad that didn't do things the way they did. That is the liberal pharisee. Oh, by the way as an ex-Lutheran you should know that every one of us is,"unlike Christ..." For all have fallen short of the glory of God. I know you find it hard to believe in your selfpious opinion of yourself. Is it so bad that a sinner like me quotes the Bible and has a different opinion then you? You liberals think so highly of yourselves and that is fine. What isn't fine is how lowly you look down on us sinful Christians. That is how the slave traders look down on blacks. And how Christians and Jews alike have been persecuted by people just like YOU. I'll give it to you JoeC since you want it sooooo bad. You, JoeC and all liberals are better then us lowly sinning Christians and Jews. You are right JoeC you are better then us because you don't claim to be a practicing Christian. Thus you are not held by the same golden rules we Christians and Jews. In what way should I and other sinful Christians be punished for TRYING to follow Gods Laws? You obviously know a lot about the Old Testement Laws and like to use them as a weapon. JoeC when you come up with a suetable punishment for my sins don't forget I'm a Christian and not a Jew. I know how you libs like to go all Old Tesement on us and forget the parts that Christ died for our sins which all Christians believe the do. I know you must think you are too good for "religion" and too smart to fall for any of that dumb stuff. Or maybe you just found it hard to belive that God is more forgiving then you. Toughen up my liberal friends as this is going to be a long hard ride for you. Oh, and try not to project yourself onto others it's a dead giveaway as to what you truely believe.

  15. Oh yeah Joey, you're doing all your charity in the shadows. Spare me. The point is the hypocrisy of the liberals, who are awfully free with spending other people's money on the charity that they deem worthy, but are quite the tightwads when it comes to spending their own. Looks to me like Chris' post hit a little close to home you hypocrite. The point is quite clear, liberals are full-on hypocrites.

    Thank you Chris for all that you and your church do. I know you have stated several times that you are a sinner and do not claim to be Christ, or able to achieve that perfection, however you keep trying. Which is more than can be said about the liberals like Joey.

    Joey, don't be afraid to contribute your money or more importantly your time to charitable pursuits. Your problem is that you are projecting your stinginess and greed on others, others who obviously have no problem giving time and money to charities. You liberals think that everyone thinks like you do, because you are narcissists. So you think that people must be forced to give. Tragic. If everyone were like you and Bruce, Joey, this would indeed be a frightening world.

  16. Joe would you be upset if your healthcare plan at the UAW was taxed 40% to help pay for the people that don't have as good of coverage healthcare insurance? I'm sure you don't mind spreading your wealth a little too,right Joe?

  17. Chris,
    You gotta see this, I neither endorse nor dismiss this,but interesting viewpoint to be sure;

    (h/t to Heli Gunner Tom,'Toms Journal' @

    cruise on over and visit Tom sometime)

  18. Chris,
    your i'm a sinner plea is hollow and meaningless next to your blog about how great the right is for charity. Talking out both sides of your ass again. You put this blog up castigating the left and praising your side and then act all meek and mild and i'm nothing more than a lonely little sinner and your rightwing slappies all pile on. what a crock of two-face shit.

    John, your problem is your constantly putting words in my mouth and deflecting. All of my charity work is non-deductable. So no it doesn't appear in any studies as its all done with the UAW or Ford Motor. And i don't donate to church, which shouldn't be considered charity, after all how much goes to needy people and how much goes to the church (80 percent to the church). I'm neither stingy nor greedy. I'll bet i spent more time working on charitable work this year than you.

    Chris's post didn't hit anywhere except that he's a hypocrite and pathetic. When he gets called on how his blog is not very Christlike he falls back on the poor me, i'm just a sinner, i can't help myself. aww, lets have apity party for the littl guy, he's just a sinner. One that likes to talk shit in his blogs and then whine like a bitch when he gets shown up.

    Herb, you and your righty friends like to act we liberals only use your money. I pay the same taxes you do, so its my money too. Would i like to have my benefits taxed for healthcare? No. I want a single payer system. I don't buy the bullshit reform with the vultures of private insurance.

  19. Where Joey? Where have I put words in your mouth? Where am I "deflecting"? Just because you say your bullshit doesn't make it true Joey.

    What have you done Joey, charity-wise? You are so full of shit you squelch when you walk. Apparently you need somebody to donate their time to tutor you on how to read Joey, because Chris' whole article was about donations to charity, apples-to-apples Joey, and you liberals are greedy as hell. Unless it comes to spending SOMEONE ELSE'S money, then you are real spend-thrifts.

    Where has Chris "talked shit"? Chris is one of the fairest people I know, I've never seen him "talk shit" like you do Joey. Where is your proof little guy? I freely admit I talk shit, before you try to use that straw man. But my shit is backed up with facts dog. Unlike you.

    By the way Joey, you would lose your bet. If you want to compare charitable time and money giving then bring it on. Just because you donate $1 from each paycheck to the United Way doesn't mean shit to me, loser. And organizing a UAW get-together doesn't really constitute a charity either, does it? You are the biggest scumball of them all Joey; one who claims to give to charities but is a total liar.

  20. Here's a classic; this is so spot-on I half-expected the author to call Joey by name:

    Veteran psychiatrist calls liberals mentally ill
    Publishes extensive study on 'Psychological Causes of Political Madness'

    WASHINGTON – Just when liberals thought it was safe to start identifying themselves as such, an acclaimed, veteran psychiatrist is making the case that the ideology motivating them is actually a mental disorder.

    "Based on strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions, modern liberals relentlessly undermine the most important principles on which our freedoms were founded," says Dr. Lyle Rossiter, author of the new book, "The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness." "Like spoiled, angry children, they rebel against the normal responsibilities of adulthood and demand that a parental government meet their needs from cradle to grave."

    While political activists on the other side of the spectrum have made similar observations, Rossiter boasts professional credentials and a life virtually free of activism and links to "the vast right-wing conspiracy."

    For more than 35 years he has diagnosed and treated more than 1,500 patients as a board-certified clinical psychiatrist and examined more than 2,700 civil and criminal cases as a board-certified forensic psychiatrist. He received his medical and psychiatric training at the University of Chicago.

    Rossiter says the kind of liberalism being displayed by both Barack Obama and his Democratic primary opponent Hillary Clinton can only be understood as a psychological disorder.

    "A social scientist who understands human nature will not dismiss the vital roles of free choice, voluntary cooperation and moral integrity – as liberals do," he says. "A political leader who understands human nature will not ignore individual differences in talent, drive, personal appeal and work ethic, and then try to impose economic and social equality on the population – as liberals do. And a legislator who understands human nature will not create an environment of rules which over-regulates and over-taxes the nation's citizens, corrupts their character and reduces them to wards of the state – as liberals do."

    Dr. Rossiter says the liberal agenda preys on weakness and feelings of inferiority in the population by:

    creating and reinforcing perceptions of victimization;
    satisfying infantile claims to entitlement, indulgence and compensation;
    augmenting primitive feelings of envy;
    rejecting the sovereignty of the individual, subordinating him to the will of the government.
    "The roots of liberalism – and its associated madness – can be clearly identified by understanding how children develop from infancy to adulthood and how distorted development produces the irrational beliefs of the liberal mind," he says. "When the modern liberal mind whines about imaginary victims, rages against imaginary villains and seeks above all else to run the lives of persons competent to run their own lives, the neurosis of the liberal mind becomes painfully obvious."

  21. Joe I just gave the facts about the liberal hypocricy on charity. How is that hollow and meaningless? Joe how am I doing anything any different then you libs? Wow you have some major issues little buddy. Take a look in the mirror before you start going all crazy on this blog. You are not as pious as you try to portray. It isn't fun when the right fight back is it. You like all liberal bullies don't like a fair fight. That is why you pick on Christians and conserv atives because they rarely fight back. And Joe if mine and others post didn't hit close to home why are you going postal? I think it hit real close and you are acting out like a typical liberal child. We are only 10 months into this buffoonfest and you are already this far over the edge?

  22. Joe I see you don't want to pay 40% tax on your cadillac health care plan like Herb ask. You want everyone else to pay and you want to get the credit. And Joe going to the UAW club house and drinking beer isn't charity either. And I will take you up on both money given to charity and time spent serving others less fortunate then me and my family. In fact if you would like I am helping out the homeless in Macomb during the week befor Christmas if you would like I can tell you where and when. But I'm sure you motto is "charity starts at home". Now stop whining and calling names and stop acting like your crap doesn't stink. I know Joe the truth hurts and it is painfully obvious that we told the truth and it hurt you. Just read your reaction and you will see. Now you have to ask why did the truth hurt. Good luck finding happiness as I can see you have that liberal rage going on.

  23. Christopher, I have to think on that web site you sent. We should always be prepared for the end of the world.It is a cool thing to think on though. Thanks for the info. And I have been on gunners blog. The right wing are doing some great things on these blogs. Both Christopher and Doug have great blogs. I like looking at the other blogs that are followers and posters. Every one of those blogs make mine look retarded. We need to get the public to read these blogs and to follow what is happening in the world. There is just too much info out there now a days and it takes a lot of blogs to get it out there. I would like to hear others thoughts on these posts. As you can see I don't care if you don't agree with me so let me have it. We have followers from all over and I would like to know what they think. And if you have any info about events and news please share. Even if it is pro Democrat things.

  24. Funny how a Sodomite is calling me a Pharisee. And we all know how God felt about the Sodomites.

  25. A Libs outlook is it is MUCH easier taking from SOMEONE else and GIVE it to Somebody than it is to PRY the Money out of Their Wallet to GIVE!

  26. By the way they talk you would think they are the most generous people on the planet. There selfrighteous piose demeaner is what is amazing. And they go around saying we conservatives are the selfrighteous ones. That is their MO. Blame us for what they are and do.


Please keep it clean and nice. Thank you for taking the time to post you thought. It means a lot to me that you do this.