The Gospel Truth

Why Conservatives Hate the Poor

May 31, 2011
3 Comments

Democrats and other leftists say that Republicans hate poor people and even the elderly.  They run ads that are reminiscent of Richard Widmark’s sinister portrayal of a killer in The Kiss of Death.

Republican operative?

Republicans don’t really hate the poor.  In fact surveys and polls have proven that conservatives are more generous to charities that actually help real poor people.

Remember how frugal the Clintons were when they used to deduct Bill’s old jockey shorts.   Or were they boxers?

View Image

Tax write-off?

And when they finally struck it rich after his eight years in office, most of their donations went to their favorite charity–his presidential library

And Al Gore, a near-billionaire,  gave just over $300 to charity one year.

But the matter is not so much about conservatives hating the poor–what they really hate is poverty.

They know that big government is one of the leading causes of poverty in this country because it kills the inborn trait of incentive that directs us to try to better our own conditions.

Just as the young bird wants to fly on his own, people naturally want to provide for themselves.

But when the mama bird does everything for the young bird, it cripples his spiritual wings and he never leaves the nest.

View Image

Government's favorite species

It’s the same principle behind the axiom–give a man a fish and you feed him for a day.  Teach him to fish and he can feed himself forever.

Conservatives’ love is the tough love of self-discipline and direction.

Liberals love the crippled poor, who can never do anything for themselves and become perpetual wards of the state.

They love the poor so much they want everyone in this country…except their closest friends and donors–to be poor.

View Image

Feels government's love

Whether they know it or not the so-called poor, the amorphous category of unfortunate Americans who the politicians trot out before each election have become the pawns in a high-stakes chess game.

The left uses the largesse of all the money they have confiscated from the wealthy to pay for our needs…within reason of course from cradle to grave.

Since they control the purse strings, they get to decide who gets to sleep in the cradle…and doesn’t even get a cradle.

We must not forget their friends at the caring Planned Parenthood Health Center.

They also get to decide which people go to the grave more quickly than maybe God or nature intended.

It is a grave responsibility.  But someone has to do it.

To insure that more people become poor they have consulted their favorite writers.  No, not Jesus or even Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

View Image

Not on the socially preferred list

Instead they have Nico, Karl, Vladimir, Antonio and Sol.  These fellows knew how to make people join the largest club in the world–the growing ranks of the poor.

To do this all they have to do is follow the formula.

First of all, they must remove religion from their schools.  This is best done by having the government provide their education.

Then they can separate the churches from the governments.  Do this they can protect society from religion, instead of protecting the churches from the government.

Make God a totally private matter and then legislate to remove most of the private areas.

The schools can also get the kids mixed up in sexual activity as quickly and as early as they can.

These same godless schools also show them how to put a condom on a banana.

View Image

Of great educational value

That is a great educational skill that can come in handy as they get older.  It will also get them to eat more fruit.  I am not certain if a condom would fit over other fruits, like apples and watermelons.

They can also teach them all about the different varieties of sexual expression.

It will take away all the hang-ups their parents had and any sense of shame about their bodies will quickly disappear with their inborn sense of modesty.

And if they should be punished with a pregnancy, such as our fearless president fears for his own daughters, the country is fortunate that we have  those friendly faces at Planned Parenthood.

To prevent this situation Obama has taken great pains to ensure that his friends at the  local clinic will make certain that his daughters are relieved of any punishment thanks to millions of taxpayer dollars.

Of course those unfortunate girls who don’t listen to the president will be happy to know that their out-of-wedlock babies will enhance the certitude of their ability to join the ranks of the poor.  Then the president can take care of them for life.

They will have to drop out of school and most likely become working moms at the local grocery store or local mall.

Millions of these women, who were seduced by the call of nature, had their futures taken away from them because of their teachers, friends and a sexually saturated culture that has forced God to the sidelines.

Had they followed the rules of morality, instead of the seductions of nature and friends, they might have avoided the ranks of the poor.

This is not an endorsement of the president’s warning…only the statement of the fact of how liberal government is always working for their love of the poor.

And while all their teenagers are getting it on and hooking up in the love-dominated co-ed dorms of our leading universities, their mothers and fathers…especially those in conservative households are disrupted to the point of distraction.

To find evidence of this, one need only go to the local mall to see the flood of teens strutting around in attire that would not be fit for even a beach.

I can often feel and even smell the sexual energy that accompanies these public demonstrations of hormonal overload.

And many of them have just attended or are going to the late show that can visually show them dozens of new circumstances and stimulations that will push those electric impulses from their brains rights into their pelvic regions.

Moms and dads may coalesce but none want to see their babies turn into the chemical zombies I see at these malls.

Liberals also think that Americans, especially those who worked long and hard to make a lot of money are too foolish to know what to do with that money…so the friendly tax man must take as much of it as he can get away with.

I think that’s what 19th century thinker, Frederic Bastiat called organized plunder.

View Image

Was opposed to big government

The progressive income tax has been a boon to big government and liberals since Karl Marx and Frederick Engels promoted it along with the death tax, and the public school in their 1848 pamphlet, The Communist Manifesto.

They also promoted a central bank or what we call the Federal Reserve system to help relieve people of their wealth I presume but that’s more an issue for Ron Paul.

Private property and wealth are great buffers against poverty.

Liberals hate these buffers because when people have money, property and wealth they won’t be poor and therefore the Democrats can’t love them and overwhelm them with their goodness, decency and compassion.

Selfish people like this are the bane of a great society and an obstacle to the kind of paradise that will eventually replace the pie in the sky kind of fanaticism that had dominated most of the country’s religious traditions until now.

So to recount the enemies of poverty and the poor are the conservative traditions of religion, the family and private property.  That makes them the enemies of liberalism.

According to socialists, these institutions are the vehicles of hate for poor people and must be eliminated.

View Image

Enemies of the poor

We can rest assured that our fearless leaders in DC are doing  everything in their enormous power to move religion out of the public marketplace, break-up the family and confiscate as much wealth from their rightful owners as the law will allow and then some.

The future of poverty depends on it.

In case you missed my article, The Wimp Factor for RenewAmerica, here is the site:

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/borst/110514 


Fighting for our Rats

January 1, 2010
1 Comment

In the epic movie, Gettysburg, based on the late Michael Shaara’s highly acclaimed novel The Killer Angels, a young Union officer asked a group of prisoners why they were fighting the bloody war.  The most vocal of the trio said that “we’re figthin’ for our rats!”  He probably perceived the Northern invasion of their sovereign territory as a violation of the South’s limited definition of human rights.

I would wager that Johnny Reb’s lack of education caused him to miss the irony of his words. No mention was made of the injustice of slavery or the fact that he was standing in Pennsylvania when he said his powerful words.

America’s founding fathers probably would have agreed with the Confederate soldier about his “rats.”  Many would have approved of the South’s reasons for succession.

Jefferson, Madison et al were very clear as to what the rights of the individual meant.  After a great deal of debate they settled on three basic human rights that each person born into this country would enjoy under the new American form of republican democracy.

These rights were the right to life, followed by the right to liberty and finally the right to own property.  Without these rights no human being can be totally a free agent.

Thomas Jefferson later broadened the property right because ownership was not yet widespread.  He thought the pursuit of happiness covered all his bases and implied that a free people would pursue happiness by the acquisition of property in time.

The passing of time has also made the idea of individual “rats,” as Johnny Reb phrased it, an elusive concept that has been further clouded by the last three generations of legal and political obfuscation.

“Rats” for most Americans today conger a meaning of an entitlement without any concomitant responsibility.

The pursuit of happiness now means more like a guarantee of happiness…by the Federal government. It was FDR who gave us the notion of the “guarantor state” that dominates our politics today.

The semantics have further distorted the meaning of “rats.” Most people think they have a “rat” to drive or a “rat” to vote.  These are not rights but privileges that they had to qualify for.  They did not come with their birth certificate as natural rights do.

Take the “right to choose,” which has enveloped a nation in a culture war that makes no promise of ever ending.

In America no right is absolute but the “right to choose.”  A person can forfeit his life by taking or trying to take the life of another.  Millions are incarcerated in American jails and prisons for violation the laws of the land and the country’s tax laws give government an inordinate claim on a man’s property.

In politics, the right to choose is a code word for the privilege of a woman to kill her unwanted unborn child. No human can have an inborn right to kill another human being.  If the rights come from outside, they are not “rats.”   They are privileges.

But according to many American politicians, especially our current president, the right to choose to kill her unborn children must be available to every woman and paid for by those who are opposed to it.

In truth abortion is a privilege given to women by men for the benefit of men.

All rights swim in the pool of morality.  The morality of choice is determined by what is chosen, not by the act of choosing.  A man may freely choose to kill another.  That is an evil choice,

In reality choice is also not an absolute.  Everyone has the right to choose.  But not every choice is a moral one.  Laws and moral reasoning often temper or nullify many of our free choices.

This all brings me to health care.  My Catholic Church has been saying that health care is a “rat” that has to be protected and even paid for by the government. One may argue that access to health care is a derivative of the right to life.  No hospital can legally turn away any patient.  It’s the law!

Therefore why should the taxpayer be legally or morally obliged to pay to see that everyone is medically insured in this country?

Associated with every human right is the corresponding obligation to work and provide for one’s own health care.

Food, lodging, clothing and even education are also derivatives of the right to life.  This does not mean that the dwindling base of American taxpayers has to pay for the food, clothing etc. of those who for whatever reason cannot or do not want to pay for their needs.  Americans are not their “brothers keep” in that sense.

Of course there are many, who are mentally ill or indigent, who have fallen through the cracks of society.  They need to be helped but not because it is their “rat” to the nation’s largesse but out of Christian charity and human kindness.  This is NOT something that Americans owe to the least of their brethren.

Churches used to preach charity as their main means of helping the poor and saving souls.  Now most religions have tethered themselves to the federal government’s limitless pipeline to the pockets of the American taxpayer.

It is as if the Church’s responsibility to the poor has been delegated to the federal government, which exploits the poor and homeless to garner votes and power.

The government’s only function in life is perpetual rule at the expense of our “rats.”  Since this money has been confiscated from the taxpayers, it has not been freely given and allots them no spiritual benefit.

If high octane ObamaCare becomes the law of the land in 2010, the unborn will not be the only endangered group fighting for their “rats.”

HAPPY NEW YEAR


About author

After graduating from Holy Cross, Bill Borst earned an MA in Asian History from St. John's University and a Ph.D in American History from St. Louis University. (1972) A former New Yorker, he taught for many years in the St. Louis area, while also hosting a weekly radio show on WGNU from 1984-2006. He currently is a regular substitute for conservative Phyllis Schlafly on KSIV radio. (1320) He is the author of two books on social history, "Liberalism: Fatal Consequences," and "The Scorpion and the Frog: A Natural Conspiracy." He just retired as the Features editor of the Mindszenty Foundation Monthly Report. In his 11 years from 2003-2013 he wrote nearly 130 essays on Catholic culture and world affairs. Many in St. Louis also know him as the "Baseball Professor," because of a course that he offered at Maryville College from 1973-74. It was arguably the first fully-accredited baseball history course in the Midwest.The author of several short books on the old St. Louis Browns, he started the St. Louis Browns Historical Society in 1984. In 2009 his first two plays were produced on the local stage. "The Last Memory of an Ol' Brownie Fan," ran six performances at the Sound Stage in Crestwood and "A Perfect Choice" ran for two performances at the Rigali Center Theater in Shrewsberry. His third play, "A Moment of Grace," ran six performances at DeSmet High School in January of 2011with First Run Theater in January of 2011. He is currently working on a 4th play, "A Family Way," which is a comedy about a happy dysfunctional family. He can reached at bbprof@sbcglobal.net

Search

Navigation

Categories:

Links:

Archives:

Feeds