Posted on 08/20/2008 3:32:19 PM PDT by Free ThinkerNY
As if Barack Obama didn’t do enough damage with his “above my pay grade” response on abortion at the Saddleback Church presidential forum on Saturday, Jay Ambrose finds another revealing nugget in a different answer Obama gave Rick Warren. When asked about his own shortcomings, Obama gave an initially touching response in identifying a “fundamental selfishness” in his youth that led to destructive behaviors. Unfortunately, Obama then expanded on his statement to accuse Americans of a lack of charity:
“Americans’ greatest moral failure in my lifetime,” he said, “has been that we still don’t abide by that basic precept in Matthew that whatever you do for the least of my brothers, you do for me.”Obama’s allegation echoes that of then-UN Undersecretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs Jan Egeland in December 2004. In the immediate aftermath of the Asian tsunami disaster, Egeland commented that America was “stingy” (as well as other Western nations). He called on the US to take more money in taxes so that the funds could get redirected to the UN relief funds:Sorry, but he can hang that one up. Whatever the case is with his own selfishness, the evidence of an internationally superior American generosity is impressive, beginning with the numbers on our charitable giving. We give twice as much as the British per capita, and according to The American magazine, seven times as much as the Germans and 14 times as much as the Italians.
Even in inflation-adjusted dollars, the amount given each year just keeps getting larger, and meanwhile, we do far more volunteer work than in other industrialized countries.
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
“. . . we still don’t abide by that basic precept in Matthew that whatever you do for the least of my brothers, you do for me.”
You said it, Barry.
Were you thinking of your biological brother George, living hand-to-mouth in a shack in Kenya? Embarrassed to admit he’s kin to you?
Obama’s point is that our charity isn’t Government driven “charity”, it tends to be religious affiliation driven!
This nutjob limosine liberal is making Carter look competent. This anti-American ass-clown just keeps showing what and who he is....NOTHING but trouble for America.
Looks like he’s ready for some tea-bagging.
I don't disagree with Mr. Hussein Obama's basic statement - but let's dig into it a bit deeper:
A) When Big Government takes over the function of neighbor helping neighbor - what do you expect? People get desensitized with respect to giving. And those receiving get desensitized to the fact that they are receiving charity. Charity becomes an 'entitlement'.
The godless welfare state gets people addicted to being dependent on the government as caretaker - and when some event like Katrina happens -- we see how wonderfully this works out.
B) And (A) aside we (America) still gives more through charitable causes throughout the world. When that tsunami hit in Indonesia -- Who opened their pockets the most?
C) The Gospel is intended to bring people to an understanding that they are sinners in desperate need of a Saviour - which is Only through Christ Jesus. It is not to be used as a tool to promote one's ideal of political nirvana and social welfare.
Mr. Obama should stick to quoting from Karl Marx if he is promoting his particular brand of social engineering.
Would like to know Obambi’s personal record of charitable donations through the years — is he like the Gores, giving only 1% or less of his income in most years?? (at least until recently - once the Gores and Obamas became millionaires they might have upped the % a bit).
It’s OK, brother George, ‘cause Obama doesn’t believe too much in charity for anyone else either. Or, he never did believe too much in charity until he decided to run for President, when his donations conveniently jumped upwards (although his largest “charity” donations were to the Rev. Wright Church-of-Hate):
http://friendsofatr.blogspot.com/2008/03/barack-obama-just-call-me-ebenezer.html
Below is the percentage of the Obama’s adjusted gross income that went to charity for each year (and this even includes Rev. Wright’s church-o-hate):
2006: 6.1%
2005: 4.7%
2004: 1.2%
2003: 1.4%
2002: 0.4%
2001: 0.5%
2000: 0.9%
At least he had the good sense to start giving a laugh-test amount once he decided to run for President. But c’mon, Barack! This is the audacity of cheapness. Even I’m not this stingy.
Thanks - and I also searched and found the info posted in my #8
Your post gave a nicely laid out list of Obama’s contributions.
Obama doesn’t know anything but PC, and he counts on people being stupid enough to think it is intelligence.
Charity is an unknown concept under socialism.
The individual attitude becomes: “I gave at the office.”
“Obama’s point is that our charity isn’t Government driven “charity”, it tends to be religious affiliation driven!”
It doesn’t count unless the government or the UN gets to distribute the money. That’s the only way to know for sure that people aren’t being selfish.
That is absolutely true. And when God told us in Leviticus, and Jesus repeated in the Gospels, to 'Love thy neighbor as thyself' - we have collectively gotten callused because we have this 20 ton leach sucking 50%+ of our paycheck for taxes (Fed, State, Social Security, Sales, Fees, etc...) - and we abdicate this responsibility/love to 'the leach'...
Even so, when compared to the rest of the World, America fights this 'not my job' disease and does open their pockets for many causes. Not as much as we should, but more than most...
Liberals only count charity that is directed into their own pockets (or the pockets of their friends at the U.N.)
Inside Barak's brain: The government has so much money to spend on frivolous things like defense -- it should fund charities so I can pay for my wife's ear rings.
You've summed it up, very nicely.
Remember in November.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.