Government is not God
The clueless O wants to ban guns … except when he has the power to point them at you and me. He told a “joke” at a recent rally that goes like this:
McCain has “called me a socialist for wanting to roll back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans so we can finally give tax relief to the middle class,” Obama said. “I don’t know what’s next. By the end of the week he’ll be accusing me of being a secret communist because I shared my toys in kindergarten.”
Clearly, the man doesn’t understand that there is all the difference in the world between those two scenarios. The difference called Free Will. The difference called Choice. When the government takes from you or me at gunpoint in order to give to somebody else — we are not giving; we are not sharing; the government is taking by force.
And don’t quibble about my use of the word “gun.” If I refuse to pay my taxes, no, I will not be shot. But I will be sent to prison, and my children will be parceled out to foster homes under government supervision. And my friend, that is one HELL of a big GUN pointed at my head, and my children’s heads, you betcha.
Keep in mind … Jesus told us to give to the poor. He did NOT tell anyone to take in the name of the poor and distribute by way of bureaucracy. Jesus said to give to God what is God’s, and to give to Caesar what is Caesar’s. He did not say that Caesar should take what is God’s from us and give it to God in our stead. He said we should do it, and He left it up to us to do it. So those of you who believe in high taxes as a spiritual notion have never actually read that Bible. Don’t depend on the Rev. Wrong to give you an accurate interpretion, folks — go read it for yourself.
Now, let’s take a little closer look at O’s own toy sharing charity giving practices, shall we? TaxProf does us the favor of summarizing the data. Notice how O’s and Michelle’s income prior to 2005 skates around that $250,000 figure he defines as “rich.” And their charitable giving floats around a paltry 1%. Can you say chintzy?
But I betcha O and Michelle never felt that they were “rich,” until those book profits started rolling in ($1.2 million in 2005 — wowza what a gravy train!). I mean, remember how Michelle was whining about paying for summer camp and the burden of their Ivy League student loans? No attitude of gratitude there, hey, where’s Oprah to help? But I digress.
After they became rich and O started to look toward the White House, well, lookee there what happened — all of a sudden, their charitable impulses became stronger and their percentage charitable giving began to ramp up. Reminds me of how O practiced pay inequity against women employees of his Senate office until he was in the presidential spotlight. I guess that spotlight showed him the light, eh? But I digress again.
TaxProf comments that O may have donated to worthy causes that weren’t tax-deducible, but I’m skeptical. In order to be tax-deductible, a charity must not benefit private interests, and it may not lobby legislators or participate in election campaign activities. I can’t think of any worthy charitable activities that would violate those rules — those would be political organizations, not charity.
Remember, Jesus told us to give to the poor. Not to politicians.
So when O talks about “sharing the wealth,” and “being charitable,” he does not mean it. What he really means is taking your belongings away from you and giving them to someone else of HIS choice; you have no choice in the matter. It is not sharing. It is not charity. Obama is not Jesus. Government is not God.
Read John Hood’s comments from The Corner also.