Elephants On Bicycles…With Fish.

[DrLove]

12. Getting the correct information to those most in need of same, black and white, is severely limited due to the fact that they don’t read.

“Liberals don't read books – they don't read anything … That's why they're liberals. They watch TV, absorb the propaganda, and vote on the basis of urges.” Coulter





A number of black authors speak the truth….but their voices are lost to the practiced illiteracy.

View attachment 499483


Losing the Race explores the three main components of this cultural virus: the cults of victimology, separatism, and anti-intellectualism that are making blacks their own worst enemies in the struggle for success.

Amazon product



As long as there is the party of prevarication, the Democrats, telling the underclass that all of their problems are caused by others, by whites, and that they need not have a father in the home, there is no hope for change.

Sadly, we couldn’t all become prolific readers like Trump

 

[DrLove]

4. Brooks finds that households with a conservative at the helm gave an average of 30 percent more money to charity in 2000 than liberal households (a difference of $1,600 to $1,227). The difference isn't explained by income differential—in fact, liberal households make about 6 percent more per year.

I think difference is explained by income differential. My experience has been that poorer people, regardless of their politics, are more generous as a percent of their income than richer people. Secretaries tended to give as much, in actual dollars, as their bosses when I ran our office charity collection.

Not to fear......I provide your education:


Independent Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders donated just over 1% of his total income last year, and Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren donated 5.5% according to her tax information.” UVa Student Asks Beto Why He Gave Less To Charity Than A College Student

Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) released 15 years of tax returns on Sunday, showing that she and her husband earned $1.9 million last year and gave $27,000 to charity — or 1.4 percent. Harris reported no charitable giving at all during her first three years as California’s attorney general.

Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and her husband donated $6,600 of their $338,500 income to charity last year, or just under 2 percent,

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) and her husband made $215,000 last year and gave $3,750 to charity, also just under 2 percent.

When Mitt Romney finally relented under pressure and released his tax returns in 2012, they showed that he and his wife had given away $4 million out of the $13.7 million they took in during the previous year, or 29.4 percent. Romney didn’t even deduct $1.8 million of donations that year so that he could live up to his statement that he’d always paid an effective tax rate of at least 13 percent. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...85bd448/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.f47f35fb184e







Looking at the ten-year total of Biden’s giving, one percent would have been $24,500. One half of one percent would have been $12,250. One quarter of one percent would have been $6,125. And one eighth of one percent would have been $3,062 — just below what Biden actually contributed.

“The average American household gives about two percent of adjusted gross income,” says Arthur Brooks, the Syracuse University scholar, soon to take over as head of the American Enterprise Institute, who has done extensive research on American giving. “On average, [Biden] is not giving more than one tenth as much as the average American household, and that is evidence that he doesn’t share charitable values with the average American.”
Byron York 9/15/08 NR



Although liberal families’ incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227). RealClearPolitics - Articles - Conservatives More Liberal Givers



Obama and his wife, Michelle, earned $181,507 to $272,759 each year from 1998-2004.

Their income jumped to $1.6 million in 2005, Obama's first year in the Senate, with the rerelease of his first book, “Dreams from My Father.” They made nearly $1 million in 2006, half of it from his second book, “The Audacity of Hope.”

The Obamas' charitable giving also increased with their newfound wealth.

From 1998-2004, they gave between $1,050-$3,400 each year. In 2005, they gave $77,315, including donations to literacy and anti-poverty campaigns and their church. In 2006, they gave $60,307 to charity.


Up until recent years when their income increased sharply from book revenues and a Senate salary, Obama's family donated a relatively minor amount of its earnings to charity. From 2000 through 2004, the senator and his wife never gave more than $3,500 a year in charitable donations -- about 1 percent of their annual earnings.(Sam Stein Huffington Post) Obama Tax Returns: Low On Story Lines And Charity Donations



According to their tax returns, in 2006 and 2007, the Obamas gave 5.8 percent and 6.1 percent of their income to charity. I guess Michelle Obama has to draw the line someplace with all this "giving back" stuff. The Bidens gave 0.15 percent and 0.31 percent of the income to charity.

No wonder Obama doesn't see what the big fuss is over his decision to limit tax deductions for charitable giving. At least that part of Obama's tax plan won't affect his supporters.

Meanwhile, in 1991, 1992 and 1993, George W. Bush had incomes of $179,591, $212,313 and $610,772. His charitable contributions those years were $28,236, $31,914 and $31,292. During his presidency, Bush gave away more than 10 percent of his income each year.

For purposes of comparison, in 2005, Barack Obama made $1.7 million -- more than twice President Bush's 2005 income of $735,180 -- but they both gave about the same amount to charity.

That same year, the heartless Halliburton employee Vice President Dick Cheney gave 77 percent of his income to charity. The following year, in 2006, Bush gave more to charity than Obama on an income one-third smaller than Obama's. Maybe when Obama talks about "change" he's referring to his charitable contributions.

Liberals have no intention of actually parting with any of their own wealth or lifting a finger to help the poor. That's for other people to do with what's left of their incomes after the government has taken its increasingly large cut.

As the great liberal intellectual Bertrand Russell explained while scoffing at the idea that he would give his money to charity: "I'm afraid you've got it wrong. (We) are socialists. We don't pretend to be Christians."
Ann Coulter Are ‘hope’ And ‘change’ Still Tax-deductible? - Ann Coulter



The convenient cliché propagated by many people is that those who truly care about the needy will be supportive of new or expanded government programs. Those who oppose this approach of throwing endlessly increasing sums of money at social programs are commonly labeled as heartless and lacking in compassion. That is not only a false label but it shows a lack of knowledge about American history as well as a lack of understanding about how the incentives created by many large government programs are fundamentally flawed.



Coerced "charity" via government taxation has several corrosive effects:

Anchor Rising: "Who You Gonna Call?" The Little Platoons

www.anchorrising.com

Democrats/Liberals lie about everything.

And Dear Leader not only gave squat to charity, he ran a bogus charity that he was forced to close and pay a 2 million dollar fine.
Stop lecturing people - It’s boring.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-promised-millions-to-charity-we-found-less-than-10000-over-7-years/2016/06/28/cbab5d1a-37dd-11e6-8f7c-d4c723a2becb_story.html

 

[PoliticalChic]

12. Getting the correct information to those most in need of same, black and white, is severely limited due to the fact that they don’t read.

“Liberals don't read books – they don't read anything … That's why they're liberals. They watch TV, absorb the propaganda, and vote on the basis of urges.” Coulter





A number of black authors speak the truth….but their voices are lost to the practiced illiteracy.

View attachment 499483


Losing the Race explores the three main components of this cultural virus: the cults of victimology, separatism, and anti-intellectualism that are making blacks their own worst enemies in the struggle for success.

Amazon product



As long as there is the party of prevarication, the Democrats, telling the underclass that all of their problems are caused by others, by whites, and that they need not have a father in the home, there is no hope for change.

Sadly, we couldn’t all become prolific readers like Trump

And look what the cat dragged in......another lying low-life who expects to be treated like a normal person.



Exhibit one:

I asked this liar if there were any lies in the chart…..



You lied of course:

“Yes - ALL LIES”

https://www.usmessageboard.com/thre...stand-with-nazis.898333/page-28#post-27159952 #551



All of your subsequent posts should be viewed through this prism, you're a liar.

 

[DrLove]

/thread

 

[PoliticalChic]

/thread

I told you to get lost.


At least stand down wind.

 

[alang1216]

C

And which one did you vote for for President????

Deflect much? I might have voted for Bloomberg but I think he quit the primary before I got a chance. Biden is not a billionaire but Trump is. I didn't see Trump's name on the list but I do seem to recall his 'charity' being involved in legal issues and losing its status as a charity.

as


Deflect????


The issue was charity and you voted for free loaders who never gave even 1° of their income in charity.


How about you?

It seems your math skills are as weak as your honesty. Bloomberg gave 20% of his networth to charity. How about you?

 

[PoliticalChic]

C

And which one did you vote for for President????

Deflect much? I might have voted for Bloomberg but I think he quit the primary before I got a chance. Biden is not a billionaire but Trump is. I didn't see Trump's name on the list but I do seem to recall his 'charity' being involved in legal issues and losing its status as a charity.

as


Deflect????


The issue was charity and you voted for free loaders who never gave even 1° of their income in charity.


How about you?

It seems your math skills are as weak as your honesty. Bloomberg gave 20% of his networth to charity. How about you?

Did you vote for Bloomberg?



Actually, I did.

Let's cut to the chase: who actually supports charity, Liberals or conservatives?

 

[alang1216]

Did you vote for Bloomberg?

Actually, I did.

Let's cut to the chase: who actually supports charity, Liberals or conservatives?

So you voted for Bloomberg and (I presume) Trump. Which more strongly supports charity, that liberal or that conservative?

 

[danielpalos]

Fishsticks!

 

[PoliticalChic]

Actually, the proof is in: fish do need a bicycle. I’ll get to the elephant part.




1.In dozens of ways we have seen the failure of the Left’s pronouncements and promises, from the French Revolution, to the Soviet and Maoist versions, and to our ersatz communist party, the Democrats.

Today’s example is the central doctrine of the feminist version of Leftism….you may recall their battle cry: Dunn coined the famous catch phrase: "A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle," which was subsequently popularized by Gloria Steinem and became a popular slogan among feminists. (Wikipedia).

Nowhere is the failure of that claim more poignant, more stark, than in the black community, where it is actually unusual for a child to be brought up in an intact nuclear family….thanks to the Democrats.



2. I’ve documented elsewhere the terrible results for children as a result of accepting the anti-biblical values advanced by the Left, the end of marriage and the destruction of the nuclear family.

The Democrat's Risen Yahweh, the one they called god, Jesus, and the messiah, said this:

" But if we are honest with ourselves, we’ll admit that what too many fathers also are is missing – missing from too many lives and too many homes. They have abandoned their responsibilities, acting like boys instead of men. And the foundations of our families are weaker because of it.

You and I know how true this is in the African-American community. We know that more than half of all black children live in single-parent households, a number that has doubled – doubled – since we were children. We know the statistics – that children who grow up without a father are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime; nine times more likely to drop out of schools and twenty times more likely to end up in prison. They are more likely to have behavioral problems, or run away from home, or become teenage parents themselves. And the foundations of our community are weaker because of it."

Obama’s Father’s Day Remarks (Published 2008)

www.nytimes.com

Where are any of those conditions attributable to 'white privilege' or that bogus 'racism'?
Nope.



3. Which brings us to an essay by a real Liberal, not the Fascist variety we have leading the Democrat Party, Wm. Raspberry, writing in the Washington Post a decade before Bezos destroyed the paper:

“The Elephants' Tale

…crisis: the unexplained slaughter of white rhinos, an endangered species. Young bull elephants were harassing the rhinos, for no apparent reason -- throwing sticks at them, menacing them, chasing them over great distances, and finally stomping them to death.

Moreover, these now teenage members of the group that had been transported from Kruger were being led by a handful of particularly bad actors. One of these, dubbed Tom Thumb by the rangers, accumulated the game park equivalent of a videotaped rap sheet: several instances of chasing white rhinos, marauding, aggressive interaction with a tourist vehicle.

...the rangers and scientists detected a pattern: The young sexually active bulls, "suffering from an excess of testosterone," were becoming increasingly violent. Indeed, it seemed for a time that more of them might have to be killed.



Then last year someone got the bright idea of bringing some older, mature bulls to Pilanesberg (there was, by then, the technology to transport the bigger animals). Perhaps the bigger, stronger males could rein in the teenagers.
The gamble paid off, for reasons both obvious and subtle. The bigger bulls, establishing the natural hierarchy, became the dominant sexual partners for the females. The resulting reduction in sexual activity on the part of the young bulls also lowered their testosterone levels and reduced their violent behavior.

But it wasn't just a matter of size-based intimidation. The young bulls (after a few early and futile skirmishes with the "Big Daddies") started following the older bulls around -- obviously enjoying the association with the adult males, yielding to their discipline and learning from them proper elephant behavior.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...ts-tale/808019f9-5004-4426-96db-c9441134ca11/




You gettin' this????

But......It may be too late to get enough bicycles for the needy fish, and there may not be enough bull elephants.

No society lasts forever….and the Democrat poison has had a lasting effect.

Black Poverty is Associated with Leftism, Not Racism

 

[danielpalos]

Black poverty is due to unequal protection of the laws; affirmative action was a "work around" attempt at a solution.