Replies

The truth is, the work of piling up money is often a great deal better for the world than the subsequent donation of that money to "charity."

The Rockefellers are a good example. The first Rockefeller built Standard Oil. The leftists attacked him as a selfish capitalist. Later generations of Rockefellers spent their lives giving money away to charities, unfortunately mostly destructive charities like Population Control and abortion.

They decided that the best way to deal with the numerous poor was to kill them off. Then there wouldn't be so many poor people around.

You could even say that about the Kennedys. Joe Kennedy did less damage to the world smuggling liquor during Prohibition than his children have done using the inherited money for leftist causes.

Is it their money? Sure. Can they spend it as they like? Sure. But that doesn't mean it's a good thing.

"But that doesn't mean it's a good thing."
Actually, it is irrelevant - good, not so good, bad, or otherwise. What it does mean [to me at least] is that instead of entering into consideration of their charitable activities I need to loudly say "none of my business!!" [and of anyone's else, too]. This also complies with the injunction that in the works of charity the left hand ought not know whose pocket the right hand is picking.

The part I can't figure out is, with all the 'planned parenthood' and abortions, how is it that most of the world still reproduces like rabbits?