Charitable Giving in America: Liberals Talk the Talk. Christian Conservatives Walk the Walk.

American Freedom

This time of year, Americans’ thoughts and hearts turn toward helping those who are less fortunate.

We are reminded of the plight of others every time we pass by a volunteer at a Salvation Army Kettle,

And, that got me to thinking, Who actual gives more to charity, the Vocal Minority, America’s Liberals…or the Silent Majority, Christiam American Conservatives?

I have noticed over the years, that when a Christian American Conservative, such a myself, writes a Blog concerning Christianity in America, Liberals jump up on their hind legs and start complaining that Conservatives ARE the problem with Christianity in America, and, that Christian Conservatives are the least charitable, least caring of Americans.

A pretty silly statement, when you think about it. One that is so blatantly false, it’s laughable. posted the following article by George Wills on March 27, 2008,  featuring information gathered by Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, who published “Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism”…

— 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.

Last Friday, The Christian Post published the following article about a very familiar Christian American Conservative, a man who is carrying on his father’s legacy of touching people all over the world in the name of Jesus Christ and who, coincidentally, has been banned by President Obama and His Administration from speaking to our Armed Forces at Christmas.

Franklin Graham, president of nonprofit Samaritan’s Purse, joined project organizers, local families and survivors of Hurricane Sandy at one of New York City’s major airports this week to personally send off more than 60,000 gifts to some of Typhoon Haiyan’s most vulnerable victims in the Philippines.

“Do you know what these gifts are going to mean to these kids? It means that somebody loves them, it means they haven’t been forgotten. It will mean everything in the world. It will give these little kids hope,” Graham told more than 300 attendees at Thursday’s event.

The evangelist and son of the Rev. Billy Graham was flanked by young singers of the Christian Heritage Academy and a loaded Boeing 747 over his shoulder as he thanked participants during the send-off ceremony at Hangar 19 at John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK).

“It’s about letting the children of the world to know that God loves them and God hasn’t forgotten them,” Graham added in his interview with The Christian Post. His Samaritan’s Purse international relief organization has been delivering emergency aid to the Philippines after Typhoon Haiyan forced more than 3.9 million residents to flee their homes. The powerful Nov. 8 typhoon has killed at least 6,000 people and injured more than 27,000 others.

The organization’s annual Operation Christmas Child outreach will be delivering shoe boxes stuffed with goodies and essentials to thousands of Filipino children to let them know that Christians on the other side of the world are praying for them and contributing to their needs.

The other day, at Mandela’s Funeral, I noticed that, when former President George W. Bush got up to speak, Mandela’s faithful booed, and gave him a poor reception, after greeting President Obama as “a true son of Africa”. Very curious. 

Per CNN, in the four years following the unprecedented creation in 2004 of the funding mechanism known as PEPFAR (President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief), Bush sent some $19 billion to Africa and other hard-hit parts of the world.

On the other hand,last year,the Obama Administration unveiled a budget that reduces AIDS funding globally by roughly $214 million, the first time an American president has reduced the U.S. commitment to fighting the epidemic since it broke out in the 1980s during the Reagan administration.

Illuminating, isn’t it?

Until He Comes,


Barack Obama and the $5,000,000 Selfie

Obama SelfieYesterday morning, the world watched as Liberals, Communists and Former U.S. President George W. Bush spoke at the Funeral of Former South African President and Leader of the bloody ANR, Nelson Mandela.

The 44th President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama was welcomed as a “True Son of Africa” and after receiving thunderous applause for a rain-soaked crowd of 35,000 South Africans, preceded to lecture…err…eulogize the late Communist Leader.

Mandela showed us the power of action; of taking risks on behalf of our ideals. Perhaps Madiba was right that he inherited, “a proud rebelliousness, a stubborn sense of fairness” from his father. And we know he shared with millions of black and colored South Africans the anger born of, “a thousand slights, a thousand indignities, a thousand unremembered moments…a desire to fight the system that imprisoned my people,” he said.

But like other early giants of the ANC — the Sisulus and Tambos — Madiba disciplined his anger and channeled his desire to fight into organization, and platforms, and strategies for action, so men and women could stand up for their God-given dignity. Moreover, he accepted the consequences of his actions, knowing that standing up to powerful interests and injustice carries a price. “I have fought against white domination and I have fought against black domination. I’ve cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and [with] equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve. But if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die.” (Applause.)

Mandela taught us the power of action, but he also taught us the power of ideas; the importance of reason and arguments; the need to study not only those who you agree with, but also those who you don’t agree with. He understood that ideas cannot be contained by prison walls, or extinguished by a sniper’s bullet. He turned his trial into an indictment of apartheid because of his eloquence and his passion, but also because of his training as an advocate. He used decades in prison to sharpen his arguments, but also to spread his thirst for knowledge to others in the movement. And he learned the language and the customs of his oppressor so that one day he might better convey to them how their own freedom depend upon his. (Applause.)

Mandela demonstrated that action and ideas are not enough. No matter how right, they must be chiseled into law and institutions. He was practical, testing his beliefs against the hard surface of circumstance and history. On core principles he was unyielding, which is why he could rebuff offers of unconditional release, reminding the Apartheid regime that “prisoners cannot enter into contracts.”

Actually, Mandela’s early release hinged on him renouncing all violence, which he refused to do….as victims of he and his wife’s favorite execution method of “necklacing” would attest to…if they were still here to do so.

Anyway, do you know how much the Obama’s attendance at Mandela’s Funeral cost us, boys and girls?

$5,000,000 of OUR MONEY was spent for Scooter and Mooch’s little jaunt, during which he shook the hand of Cuban President Raul Castro, another Marxist Leader who is running his country straight into the ground, continuing the mission of his brother Fidel.

And, as you saw by the picture in the upper left corner of today’s blog, he used this solemn occasion to pose for a “selfie” with the beautiful Blonde Prime Minister of Denmark, and the Liberal Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, David Cameron.

That’s a torqued-off Michelle Obama, sitting in the background. Whether she’s P.O’ed about the inappropriate “Selfie” or the pretty blonde, I don’t know.

Although, knowing her usual disposition, it’s probably both.

As the late, great American Patriot and America’s Clown Prince, Red Skelton used to say, speaking about his wife, in an aside to the audience,

I’m not saying she’s mean…but, where she spits…grass never grows again.

Most Americans, in a moment that will never come again, had the same reaction to Obama’s stupid stunt as Mooch did.

And, guess what, the rest of the world agrees with us.

In a story about the inappropriate self-aggrandizement by the Manchurian President, the Denmark Dish, and Scooter’s bud Cameron, the London Daily Mail asks,

Is this REALLY time to take a selfie, Dave?

So, in the spirit of that question, allow me to ask what Obama’s MSM Lackeys won’t…

Does your Family Tree not fork, Barry?

As if the entire world was not laughing at us already for being stupid enough for electing a lightweight like you twice, now you have to act like a 14 year-old stuck in a church service he did not want to attend.

I swear, Scooter.

You must think “decorum” is something Mooch’s Staff does to a room in the White House  and “class” is something you skipped in Hawaii to go chooming with your buds.

You are an embarrassment. A President of the United States is supposed to represent his country with dignity at a State Funeral.

Not act like he is hanging out with his fellow 9th Graders at the local Chicago Pizzeria.

Yesterday, Comedian and Political Observer Dennis Miller quipped,

“Obama is a Selfie”.

He is right. And, a dangerous, immature, petulant “Selfie” at that.

Until He Comes,


Obama, Mandela, and Thatcher: “When the Legend Becomes Fact, Report the Legend.”

MandelaMichelleIt has been announced that President Barack Hussein Obama, his wife, Michelle, and two former American Presidents will be attending the Funeral of Former South African President, Nelson Mandela.

This diplomatic show of respect comes 7 months after Obama’s Presidential snub of the funeral of one of the most pivotal figures in the war against Communism in the 1980s, British  Prime Minister and staunch ally of America, the “Iron Lady”,  Margaret Thatcher.

On April 13, 2013, National Security Analyst K.T. McFarland posted the following Opinion Piece on

Former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was laid to rest today in Great Britain. The “Iron Lady” died last week at age 87.

Some commentators have expressed surprise that President Obama did not send a high-level official delegation to her funeral. I’m way beyond surprised. I’m ashamed….and angry.

After all, it is standard operating procedure for the Vice President or First Lady or, at a minimum the Secretary of State, to attend funerals of foreign leaders, even those from lesser nations.

Shame on you, Mr. President. You and your administration look cheap, small and petty.

It goes without saying that when one of the longest serving leaders of America’s closet and most enduring ally dies, the United States should send a large and distinguished delegation of America’s leaders, past and present.

Not this time.

The White House offered a lame excuse — all the senior Obama administration officials are way too busy to take 24 hours out of their hectic schedules to pay respects to the woman who helped win the Cold War, turn around the British economy, and shatter the glass ceiling of the English-speaking world.

Vice President Biden, for example, was presiding over a series of votes on gun control in the Senate, late Wednesday afternoon. Okay, understood. But that doesn’t excuse the fact that no senior administration official could spare the time or make the effort to head ‘across the pond’ for a few hours.

One suspects something else is at play besides busy government executives struggling to get through their long work days, staggering under the weight of their official responsibilities.

Could it be that Margaret Thatcher was a Tory? That she battled British Trade Unionists and won? That she worked hand-in-hand with Ronald Reagan, the incarnation of evil for many left-wing Democrats?

It used to be American politics stopped at the water’s edge, and that American

President’s honored foreign leaders, regardless of their political persuasions or party.

No longer.

By failing to send even one senior level official to Mrs. Thatcher’s funeral, this President has shown that partisan politics now extend beyond the grave.

Shame on you, Mr. President. You and your administration look cheap, small and petty.

Former Secretaries of State Kissinger, Shultz and Baker did attend Mrs. Thatcher’s funeral. Kissinger opened relations with China and hammered out the first Middle East peace agreements in the 1970’s. Shultz negotiated the first arms reduction agreements with the Soviet Union in the 1980’s. Baker helped bring down the Berlin Wall, push the Soviet Empire to the point of collapse, and won the first Gulf War in the 1990’s. But while they were giants in their day, they are not part of your team. The snub to the British was palpable – only yesterday’s men could be spared.

And frankly, Mr. President, this makes you look foolish as well.

Perhaps if you had sent some senior members of your administration as part of the American delegation, they could have pulled aside those former leaders to ask for a little advice. Because, Mr. President, in case you’ve been too busy to notice, your reset with Russia is a failure, your Middle East peace efforts are going nowhere, and North Korea has just become a nuclear power.

Back to the Present. Are you aware that President Obama ordered all American Flags at Government Installations to be flown at half-mast to honor Nelson Mandela?

Who was Nelson Mandela?

He was a transformative figure, to be sure. But, he was not the saint that Obama, his administration and their media lackeys are portraying him as.

Back in 1990, Tim Graham of the Media Research Center wrote the following for their newsletter, MediaWatch, on the occasion of Mandela’s trip to the United States. He recently re-posted the information on

Communism. In their rush to proclaim him a symbol of freedom, none of the networks covered Mandela’s ideology or the relationship between Mandela’s African National Congress (ANC) and the South African Communist Party (SACP). In his own handwritten manuscript How To Be A Good Communist, Mandela wrote “Under a Communist government, South Africa will become a land of milk and honey.” With the exception of NBC’s Bob Kur and Mike Jensen, no reporter even mentioned Mandela’s support of economic nationalization. With Mandela’s ideas and “loyal and disciplined” membership in the ANC, would South Africa become a multi-racial democracy or a one-party Marxist state like its neighbors? No one asked.

Political Prisoner. “The former long-time political prisoner will address Congress,” Dan Rather announced when Mandela arrived. TV reporters called Mandela a political prisoner eight times, but never referred to Mandela as a saboteur or terrorist, even though Amnesty International declared in 1985 that “Mandela had participated in planning acts of sabotage and inciting violence, so that he could no longer fulfill the criteria for the classification of political prisoners.” Network reporters did report Mandela’s refusal to renounce violence in 14 stories, but most referred to it only in the context of fighting apartheid, not in the context of the ANC’s involvement in black-on-black violence or the indiscriminate killing of innocent civilians.

Arafat, Castro, Qaddafi. Without Ted Koppel’s June 21 “town meeting” with Mandela, the tour might have escaped controversy completely. Questioners asked Mandela to explain his praise for Yasser Arafat, Fidel Castro and Moammar Qaddafi. The questions were prompted by Mandela hailing Castro’s Cuba in May: “There’s one thing where that country stands out head and shoulders above the rest. That is in its love for human rights and liberty.” A week later in Libya, he praised Qaddaf’s “commitment to the fight for peace and human rights in the world.” These statements, which appeared in The New Republic, were never quoted on the networks when he said them, or when he visited here.

The networks barely reported Mandela’s ABC remarks until Jewish and Cuban groups and print outlets made them an issue, mentioning the controversy in 26 stories. ABC, which taped the Koppel special in the afternoon on June 21, didn’t find the remarks worth including in a story on that night’s newscast summarizing the “town meeting.”

The next morning, Good Morning America did one story on the remarks, but left it out of its three other newscasts. NBC’s Today aired three stories without mentioning the remark. Harold Dow left it out of the one story on CBS This Morning. In fact, NBC and CBS dropped the Mandela story from its morning news for the next two days. On the Evening News, CBS gave the remarks brief mentions on June 22, 25, and 28. NBC Nightly News spent 45 seconds on the remarks on June 22, and included brief mentions on June 24 and 26. But the show ignored Mandela from June 27 to 29, when Mandela was greeted by thousands of protesting Cubans in Miami.

ABC’s World News Tonight was the only newscast to question Mandela’s contentions. Reporter James Walker noted: “Many find it a paradox that Mandela asks Americans to involve themselves in South Africa’s internal affairs while he refuses to pass judgment on the internal affairs of Libya or Cuba, or to involve himself in America’s racial problems.” But Peter Jennings dampened the impact with his remark on Castro: “The Cuban President has long been a leading supporter of liberation movements in southern Africa.”

Puerto Rican Assassins. The networks never reported some other terrorists Mandela praised. He welcomed to his Harlem speech platform three of the four Puerto Rican terrorists who shot and wounded five U.S. Congressmen in 1954. “We support the cause of anyone who is fighting for self-determination, and our attitude is the same, no matter who it is. I would be honored to sit on the platform with the four comrades you refer to.” The quote appeared in the early local edition of The New York Times June 25, but the Times dropped it from later local editions and the national edition.

ANC Antics. The networks have repeatedly failed to report recent events that give the Mandela legend a less lyrical ring. When a South African court implicated his wife Winnie in the beating and murder of a 14-year-old, only CNN PrimeNews briefly noted the incident. ABC, CBS and NBC have ignored it. On June 11, ANC members murdered Sipho Phungulwa in apparent retribution for Phulungwa’s public allegations that the ANC tortured and killed dissident members. The networks have never mentioned it.

ABC’s Don Kladstrup was the only reporter to put Mandela’s importance in South Africa in context: “Mandela is not the undisputed leader of all South African blacks.” Kladstrup reported that more than six black organizations are fighting apartheid, and interviewed black activists who said “Heaven help us if the ANC takes over here” and “If you do not go along with them, they will run roughshod over you.” Kladstrup reported: “Many complain: why does Nelson Mandela talk with President de Klerk, but refuse even to meet with Chief Buthelezi, leader of South Africa’s Zulus?” Kladstrup wondered whether a multi-racial democracy would emerge: “Many fear not until blacks remove the wall of intolerance that now divides them.”

I’m not saying that we should not have representatives at Mandela’s Funeral.  He was a noted World Leader. However, as Reporter Maxwell Scott said in the John Wayne/Jimmy Stewart Classic, “The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence”

This is the West, sir. When the legend becomes fact, print the legend.

Mandela is an iconic figure to the American Left, and is thus being portrayed as such by the Obama Administration and the MSM.

I predict that t-shirts honoring him will soon be as popular as those honoring Che, and, for the same dubious reason.

A final observation: I thought that Barack Hussein Obama was supoosed to be the “First Post-Racial President”?

Until He Comes,