Conservative leader launches charity to care for Barack Obama's impoverished half-brother
By DUKE CHESTON
October 2008
Driving around UNC-Chapel Hill, you are likely to see small econo-box cars sporting bumper stickers that read “Republicans for Voldemort.”
The implication, for those who have not had a chance to read “Harry Potter,” is that Republicans are so mean that they would support politicians as evil as Harry’s arch nemesis Voldemort, who goes around killing non-magical folk (“muggles”).
Of course, like most cliché liberal beliefs, this portrait of Republicans does not stand up to the test of reality. In fact, an objective look at the facts reveals that the truth is much closer to the opposite of that aforementioned assumption.
Consider George Hussein Onyango Obama, half-brother of presidential candidate Barack Obama, who lives in a six-by-nine foot hut in a slum outside Nairobi, Kenya. “I live here on less than a dollar a month,” he told Vanity Fair magazine. “If anyone says something about my surname, I say we are not related. I am ashamed.”
George Obama has met his famous half-brother twice. Barack Obama, the elder of the two, described George Obama in his autobiography in just one paragraph as a “beautiful boy with a rounded head.” This shines an especially damaging light on Barack Obama’s statement at the Saddleback Forum on Aug. 16, 2008: "I think America’s greatest moral failure in my lifetime 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.”
Logically, Barack Obama is either a total hypocrite or he does not see the act of contributing to “America’s greatest moral failure” as objectionable.
Keep in mind that Barack Obama has recently been raking in millions from sales on a book written about himself.
If Vanity Fair is not a reliable enough source, CNN also tracked down George Obama to do a report. Despite trying to cover up for the presidential candidate, the report denies none of the information reported by the magazine. It is clear to anyone viewing the pictures that he is stuck in the worst of African poverty.
Barack Obama could send him a twenty dollar bill and double his annual income, helping George Obama fulfill his goal of going to technical school to become a mechanic, but as of yet he has sent absolutely nothing.
In striking contrast to such hypocrisy is conservative icon Dinesh D’Souza, best-selling author and fellow at the Hoover Institution, who set up (at his own expense) the George Obama Compassion Fund to help alleviate his grinding poverty. So far he has raised over $2,000, which is enough to keep George Obama above the Kenyan poverty level ($100/year) for twenty years.
D’souza was recently confronted by a reporter from The Nation, Kenya’s leading newspaper. Asked if he was doing this to embarrass Barack Obama, D’Souza replied, “Absolutely! He deserves to be embarrassed.”
Nor is this an isolated event. Despite the liberal assumption that Republicans are mean, the facts point the other way.
Nearly two years ago, Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse, published “Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism.”
His data shows, for instance, that the average conservative-headed household gives 30 percent more to charity than its liberal counterpart, even though the average liberal family’s income is 6 percent higher.
In 2004, George W. Bush swept 24 of the 25 most generous states. In the ten reddest states (based on percent that voted for Bush), the average portion of income donated to charity was 3.9 percent. In the ten bluest states, the average was just 1.9 percent.
Furthermore, individuals who rejected the idea that “government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality” gave an average of four times more than those who accepted the proposition. Dr. Brooks’ study reveals that the two major factors that influence charitable giving are religion and beliefs about the proper role of government.
Conservatives tend to regard charity as a personal responsibility, while liberals consider it a governmental one.
The latter approach is potentially much more dangerous to the poor, however, than the former, as elucidated by Brooks.
He warns, “If support for a policy that does not exist ... substitutes for private charity, the needy are left worse off than before. It is one of the bitterest ironies of liberal politics today that political opinions are apparently taking the place of help for others.”
It would appear that conservatives have the moral high ground, after all, unless you consider support for an as-of-yet non-existent government program to be a charitable contribution.
Government programs, needless to say, do not help the poor, but discourage the charitable giving that does. Furthermore, taxes that strip people of their hard-earned income to pay for such government programs eliminate the ability of individuals to help their fellow man.
However, this does not prove that conservatives would never support Voldemort. It merely reveals that if they did send money to Voldemort, it would most likely be to help pay for a badly-needed nose job rather than promoting his political agenda.
Contributions to the George Obama Compassion Fund of $5, $10 or $25 (or whatever you can spare) can be sent to P.O. Box 3384, Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067. Make your checks to "George Obama."