They seem to have replaced "God" with "Government" in scriptural phrases such as "love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind." (Matthew 22:37)
This week, we'll take a peek at the charitable giving of these champions of the poor.
In 2009, the Obamas gave 5.9 percent of their income to charity, about the same as they gave in 2006 and 2007. In the eight years before he became president, Obama gave an average of 3.5 percent of his income to charity, upping that to 6.5 percent in 2008.
The Obamas' charitable giving is equally divided between "hope" and "change."
George W. Bush gave away more than 10 percent of his income each year he was president, as he did before becoming president.
Thus, in 2005, Obama gave about the same dollar amount to charity as President George Bush did, on an income of $1.7 million -- more than twice as much as President Bush's $735,180. Again in 2006, Bush gave more to charity than Obama on an income one-third smaller than Obama's.
In the decade before Joe Biden became vice president, the Bidens gave a total -- all 10 years combined -- of $3,690 to charity, or 0.2 percent of their income. They gave in a decade what most Americans in their tax bracket give in an average year, or about one row of hair plugs.
Of course, even in Biden's stingiest years, he gave more to charity than Sen. John Kerry did in 1995, which was a big fat goose egg. Kerry did, however, spend half a million dollars on a 17th-century Dutch seascape painting that year, as Peter Schweizer reports in his 2008 book, "Makers and Takers."
To be fair, 1995 was an off-year for Kerry's charitable giving. The year before, he gave $2,039 to charity, and the year before that a staggering $175.
He also dropped a $5 bill in the Salvation Army pail and almost didn't ask for change.
In 1998, Al Gore gave $353 to charity -- about a day's take for a lemonade stand in his neighborhood. That was 10 percent of the national average for charitable giving by people in the $100,000-$200,000 income bracket. Gore was at the very top of that bracket, with an income of $197,729.
When Sen. Ted Kennedy released his tax returns to run for president in the '70s, they showed that Kennedy gave a bare 1 percent of his income to charity -- or, as Schweizer says, "about as much as Kennedy claimed as a write-off on his 50-foot sailing sloop Curragh." (Cash tips to bartenders and cocktail waitresses are not considered charitable donations.)
The Democratic base gives to charity as their betters do. At the same income, a single mother on welfare is seven times less likely to give to charity than a working poor family that attends religious services.
In 2006 and 2007, John McCain, who files separately from his rich wife, gave 27.3 percent and 28.6 percent of his income to charity.
In 2005, Vice President Cheney gave 77 percent of his income to charity. He also shot a lawyer in the face, which I think should count for something.
In a single year, Schweizer reports, Rush Limbaugh "gave $109,716 to 'various individuals in need of assistance mainly due to family illnesses,' $52,898 to 'children's case management organizations,' including 'various programs to benefit families in need,' $35,100 for 'Alzheimer's community care -- day care for families in need,' and $40,951 for air conditioning units and heaters delivered to troops in Iraq."
(Rush also once gave $50 to Maxine Waters after mistaking her for a homeless person.)
The only way to pry a liberal from his money is to hold tickertape parades for him, allowing him to boast about his charity in magazines and on TV.
Isn't that what Jesus instructed in the Sermon on the Mount?
"So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do ... But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you." (Matthew 6:2-4)
In my Bible, that passage is illustrated with a photo of Bill Gates and Warren Buffett.
At least the hypocrites in the Bible, Redmond, Wash., and Omaha, Neb., who incessantly brag about their charity actually do pony up the money.
Elected Democrats crow about how much they love the poor by demanding overburdened taxpayers fund government redistribution schemes, but can never seem to open their own wallets.
The only evidence we have that Democrats love the poor is that they consistently back policies that will create more of them.
The reason liberals claim that the private sector cannot begin to assist those in need anywhere near as well as the government can, is because liberals are PART of the private sector and think that since they do squat everyone else does squat minus-1.
The insanely stupid Hollywood types and rock stars do enjoy getting their faces on the news for "supporting" one inane feed-the-world's-children scam or another, but the list of hungry kids seems to grow in direct proportion to Hollywooders holding telethons for them.
Lots more. And since said dictators and warlords and penny-ante thieves have tons of support and protection from actors and singers, and U.N. types, as well as stupid ass Fudds, they grow ever stronger, and the stronger they grow the poorer the kids become.
Funny thing in a tragic way; there are more hungry kids in China and North Korea than anywhere else in the world. Which is one of the reasons why, when the Chinese and Nork poor finally find the stones to ask for their fair shares, there won't be enough of them left to make a difference. Both are shrinking at a prodigious rate and the single thing that MIGHT save them...and the world itself for that matter...is the entertainers figuring out how to actually feed a kid or two without killing three of four in the process.