LIAR LIAR!

Obama has been a member of Wrights church since 1992 and he's going to try to claim that the CRAP that Wright spews is something NEW??? This says one of two things to me -

1 Obama's denunciation of Wright is fake. He did not mean a word of it - that he agrees whole heartedly with Wright and is only denouncing him to further his Presidential bid. Obama sat in wrights church - a church that Wright BUILT from a small congregation into a mega church - and he's going to try to convince us that he did not know what the man believed??

2 Obama's experience with Wrights church was purely political expediency. Wright's sermons did not mean anything to Obama because Obama was not listening from the start. If this is the case then we must admit that his "conversion" is suspect. His Christianity is also suspect. Perhaps the claims that Obama is really a muslim are not as far fetched as the once seemed.

The poor need afordable housing - just not in my neighborhood!

TYPICAL LEFTIST PROGRESSIVE HYPOCRITES!!

Homeless housing plans at Fort Lawton ruffle Magnolia residents

By Sanjay Bhatt

Seattle Times staff reporter

Many residents in Seattle's affluent Magnolia neighborhood are fuming over plans to house homeless people near Discovery Park at soon-to-be-closed Fort Lawton.

At one community meeting, some residents wondered whether homeless housing at the fort would attract wife-beaters, sex offenders and crack addicts. They rolled their eyes when city officials asserted that such housing increases property values. They worried about the impact on schools and scoffed at the idea of homeless people shopping at the closest grocery — which sells pheasant-and-rosemary pâté for $9.99 and ground coffee for up to $18 a pound.

"We're the ones who live here, and we want to have a nice, safe neighborhood to live in," Donald Raz, a King County deputy prosecutor and Magnolia resident, said later.

CONTINUED

It's okay to put these developments in YOUR neighborhood - but NEVER in the neighborhoods of these hypocrites. BTW - they want to take your money to pay for these developments. Rest assured that they will be spending their money to protect the endangered polar bear and the screech owl and loads of microbes that live in mud puddles.

Obama's latest endorsement

from: http://michellemalkin.com/2008/04/21/the-littlest-bush-hater/

If this doesn't scare you - you need to get checked out.

Is Compassionate Conservatism an Oxymoron?

The conventional wisdom runs like this: Liberals are charitable because they advocate government redistribution of money in the name of social justice; conservatives are uncharitable because they oppose these policies. But note the sleight of hand: Government spending, according to this logic, is a form of charity.

Let us be clear: Government spending is not charity. It is not a voluntary sacrifice by individuals. No matter how beneficial or humane it might be, no matter how necessary it is for providing public services, it is still the obligatory redistribution of tax revenues. Because government spending is not charity, sanctimonious yard signs do not prove that the bearers are charitable or that their opponents are selfish. (On the contrary, a public attack on the integrity of those who don’t share my beliefs might more legitimately constitute evidence that I am the uncharitable one.)

To evaluate accurately the charity difference between liberals and conservatives, we must consider private, voluntary charity. How do liberals and conservatives compare in their private giving and volunteering? Beyond strident slogans and sarcastic political caricatures, what, exactly, do the data tell us?

The data tell us that the conventional wisdom is dead wrong. In most ways, political conservatives are not personally less charitable than political liberals—they are more so.

First, we must define “liberals” and “conservatives.” Most surveys ask people not just about their political party affiliation but also about their ideology. In general, about 10 percent of the population classify themselves as “very conservative”; and another 10 percent call themselves “very liberal.” About 20 percent say they are simply “liberal,” and 30 percent or so say they are “conservative.” The remaining 30 percent call themselves “moderates” or “centrists.” In this discussion, by “liberals” I mean the approximately 30 percent in the two most liberal categories, and by conservatives I mean the 40 percent or so in the two most con­servative categories.

So how do liberals and conservatives compare in their charity? When it comes to giving or not giving, conservatives and liberals look a lot alike. Conservative people are a percentage point or two more likely to give money each year than liberal people, but a percentage point or so less likely to volunteer.

But this similarity fades away when we consider average dollar amounts donated. In 2000, households headed by a conservative gave, on average, 30 percent more money to charity than households headed by a liberal ($1,600 to $1,227). This discrepancy is not simply an artifact of income differences; on the contrary, liberal families earned an average of 6 percent more per year than conservative families, and conservative families gave more than liberal families within every income class, from poor to middle class to rich.

If we look at party affiliation instead of ideology, the story remains largely the same. For example, registered Republicans were seven points more likely to give at least once in 2002 than registered Democrats (90 to 83 percent).

The differences go beyond money and time. Take blood donations, for example. In 2002, conservative Americans were more likely to donate blood each year, and did so more often, than liberals. If liberals and moderates gave blood at the same rate as conservatives, the blood supply in the United States would jump by about 45 percent.

The political stereotypes break down even further when we consider age: “Anyone who is not a socialist before age thirty has no heart, but anyone who is still a socialist after thirty has no head,” goes the old saying. And so we imagine crusty right-wing grandfathers socking their money away in trust funds while their liberal grandchildren work in soup kitchens and save the whales. But young liberals—perhaps the most vocally dissatisfied political constituency in America today—are one of the least generous demographic groups out there. In 2004, self-described liberals younger than thirty belonged to one-third fewer organizations in their communities than young conservatives. In 2002, they were 12 percent less likely to give money to charities, and one-third less likely to give blood. Liberal young Americans in 2004 were also significantly less likely than the young conservatives to express a willingness to sacrifice for their loved ones: A lower percentage said they would prefer to suffer than let a loved one suffer, that they are not happy unless the loved one is happy, or that they would sacrifice their own wishes for those they love.

The next time some self-righteous leftie tells you how selfish conservatives are - tell them to get a copy of this book written by an admitted liberal. Better still - pull out your own copy and show them the stats yourself. :)

Thought for the day

Saw a bumper sticker and I wanted to share it as a THOUGHT for the day:

A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man,
which debt he proposes to pay off with your money.