6 Remember this: Whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows generously will also reap generously. 7 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. 8 And God is able to bless you abundantly, so that in all things at all times, having all that you need, you will abound in every good work. 9 As it is written:
"They have freely scattered their gifts to the poor; their righteousness endures forever."
2 Corinthians 9:6-9 (NIV)
Ann Coulter explains why Conservative Christians give more money to charities than secular liberals. Liberals try to cite the Bible "to demand the redistribution of income by government force." And what the liberals don't bother to tell you is that our taxes don't really go to "the poor." Actually, our taxes end up going mostly "to government employees who make more money than you do."
Scrooge was a liberal
 |
| ANN COULTER |
By Ann Coulter
December 22, 2010 ~ 5:51 pm Eastern
© 2010
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.
READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com
Henry Lamb discusses the reality of people in the federal government actually suggesting regulations on broadcasters that "dictate the content broadcasters are required to air." And of course, he's talking Obama appointees, FCC Commissioner Michael Copps and regulatory information czar, Cass Sunstein.
As Henry writes:
In a free society, it is not the job of government to decide what people should hear. In a socialist, communist or other dictatorial society, deciding what people should hear is the first priority of government.
That would seem to be a no-brainer, but what is even more obvious to us that love America and freedom is the last few lines of Henry's column:
It's hard to imagine a more effective way to destroy a free society than to empower government to control the flow of information available to its citizens. The crowd now in power in Washington seems to want this power – badly. They will take it, unless they are stopped. They can be stopped only by making sure that the president who appoints these bureaucrats honors, respects and abides by the Constitution. (emphasis my own)
Hands off the 1st Amendment!
 |
| HENRY LAMB |
By Henry Lamb
December 11, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern
© 2010
"Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press …," but the progressives on the Federal Communications Commission think their job is to do just that – regulate the speech of individuals and of the press. Speaking to the Columbia School of Journalism, FCC Commissioner Michael Copps spelled out his idea for a "community values test" to be applied to media outlets with every license-renewal application.
This is not a new idea from Copps. In 2007, at a Walter Cronkite Awards dinner, he told journalists that license holders should be required to meet a laundry list of standards the FCC dictates. What happened to the idea that in a free market, consumers set the standards? If the market does not like what the broadcaster is producing, the broadcaster will soon be out of business.
The FCC's only legitimate function is to see that broadcasters comply with laws enacted by Congress. It is certainly not the function of the FCC to dictate the content broadcasters are required to air. Copps is also bent out of shape because there are not as many black and Latino owners of broadcast stations as he thinks there should be. He wants the licensing process to insure that the distribution of ownership opportunities meets his requirements, even if it means taxing successful broadcast stations to provide a subsidy for new minority operators.
Could it be that Copps believes that the FCC is not limited by the First Amendment? Could it be that Copps thinks that requiring broadcast outlets to present content dictated by the FCC is not really "abridging" the freedom of the press? Or, could it be that he just doesn't give a damn what the Constitution says?
READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com
It's bad enough that the Republican Party can't prevent Democrats from voting in its primaries and saddling us with the New York Times' favorite Republican as our presidential nominee. If the Republican Party can't protect an election won by the incumbent U.S. senator in Minnesota, there is no point in donating to the Republican Party.
The day after the November election, Republican Sen. Norm Coleman had won his re-election to the U.S. Senate, beating challenger Al Franken by 725 votes.
Then one heavily Democratic town miraculously discovered 100 missing ballots. And, in another marvel, they were all for Al Franken! It was like a completely evil version of a Christmas miracle. [Continue reading]
digg story, submitted by viejoverde
The Minnesota recount situation gets worse all the time. Their secretary of state is not even doing his recount consistently anymore -- or rather, the only consistency is in getting more votes for Franken.
read more |
digg story, submitted by Temlakos
Posts
