Jesus’ Little Glenn Beck Problem

Posted by politicalpartypooper on February 21, 2010

All the believers were together and had everything in common.

Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need. Acts 2:44,45

Do you know where I’m going with this?

If you watched Glenn Beck’s CPAC speech, you probably have a pretty good idea.

I believe in calling a spade a spade, and I’ve not seen such a spade of Christian hypocrisy in a very long time, than when I watched Glenn Beck tell CPAC that the Republican party had yet to have its “Jesus moment”.  Only Beck didn’t mean a conversion to faith, or a sudden realization about what the life of Christ represented.  What he meant was that Republicans were headed toward socialism; big Government and big spending.

Get a load of his gems:

“Progressivism is the disease here in America,” he said. “It’s in both
parties. It’s eating the Constitution. It’s designed to.”

“We believe in the right of the individual,” Beck said. But he added, “We
don’t have a right to health care, housing or handouts.” He said that the
government does not have the power to give individuals their rights, “God

You are absolutely right, Mr. Beck.  We don’t have a “right” to any of that stuff.  Instead, according to Christ, we have a RESPONSIBILITY.  It’s funny how people like Beck always forget that part of Christ’s message.

Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?”

“Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments.”
“Which ones?” the man inquired.
Jesus replied, “‘Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony,
honor your father and mother,’ and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’
“All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?”
Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”Matthew 19: 16-21

Oh my God!!!  Jesus was a…a…PROGRESSIVE!!!

Mr. Beck, the message of Christ, which you proclaim to believe in, is showing you to be a hypocrite.  Focus, then, not on what they do not have, but on what you have; and which is your responsibility as a follower of Christ, to visit the lonely, to feed the poor, and to care for the sick.

No one is calling for a Communist Dictatorship.  What we call for is that you live out your life in Christ, rather than your life as a wealthy man who has forgotten what it is to be in  need.  Maybe God can help you with that some day, Glenn.  Should I pray for it?

40 Responses to “Jesus’ Little Glenn Beck Problem”

  1. mbuna said

    A “Come to Jesus moment” even mentioned by Glenn Beck is in this instance a metaphor referring to the need for brutally honest introspection and admission of past failings. Also, Jesus didn’t say give your possessions to the “State” so the “State” could in turn take care of the needy. He was explicit in his admonition that the “individual” has a responsibility towards the “individual”. As the State grows larger the individual becomes smaller.

    • politicalpartypooper said


      Well said, it sounds right, and yet…

      It’s not. Of course Jesus never told us to give our money to a “state”. But having read that Bible almost a dozen times, I feel safe in saying that Christ wouldn’t have cared what method you used to get the job done, just so long as it got done. Using a fear of “socialism” is merely the latest excuse for not doing what we, as followers of Christ, ought to be doing. If you watched Beck speak, he made no mention of charity, whatsoever, and it would follow, of course, because in Beck’s world, charity is a punishment to him for doing well.

      Republicans are on the wrong side of this issue. If they proclaim their faith, that they are followers of Christ, they should be first in line doing the hard work of solving these social issues. Instead, they try to hide America behind a fear of socialism, and try to protect their money from those less fortunate. I don’t think Jesus would agree with the Republican view on these matters. Being the “doer” that he was, he would have insisted that getting the job done was the most important thing first; where the money or service came from would be a secondary issue. Beck and a whole nation full of Republicans and conservatives would argue with him over this.

      My point is, we can do all of these things, and we can even use the state to do it, if that is what is necessary, without fear of becoming a socialist state. Democracy isn’t a set of written rules. It’s a dream, an idea, a philosophy of a way of life. You can’t change it just by offering help to those less fortunate. I believe you enhance it when you give that help.

      • Jonah said

        Jesus wasn’t into stealing other prople’s money to spread the wealth. He expected an individual to freely donate his own wealth to help other people

      • Jonah said

        BTW it’s a documented fact that ‘Republicans’ donate more of their earnings, blood, and time than your beloved liberal friends.

      • mbuna said

        “Christ wouldn’t have cared what method you used to get the job done, just so long as it got done.”

        “he would have insisted that getting the job done was the most important thing first; where the money or service came from would be a secondary issue.”

        “Saul,Saul,Why do you persecute me?
        “the ends justify the means”– S.A.

        “My point is, we can do all of these things, and we can even use the state to do it, if that is what is necessary, without fear of becoming a socialist state.”

        You have fundamentally misunderstood the role of the State in America as it was laid out by the founders. It is not your caregiver no matter how compassionate it sounds. Charity is YOUR responsibility. I will not allow the State to usurp my obligation.
        If you are hungry and need a loaf of bread and I have the ability to give you one, do you want me to bring it directly to you or should I send it to the State first to then be redistributed to you. How much bread do you think you’ll actually end up with? Why so little you ask? Well the breadhandlers have got to eat too you know? They work hard at what they do and deserve some of my bread intended for you. Now for me to be able to actually send you enough bread to sustain yourself during your time of need I now have to work twice as hard in the fields simply to help you. Only the breadhandlers and their keepers would vote for such an arrangement.

        Are there people or groups of people who do not give? Of course. But to somehow think that by legislating charity and giving a central government the ability to enforce those laws you will be able to remedy this problem is foolhardy at best. History is littered with those who had good intentions.

        The American idea, dream, or philosophy is prefaced by “We The People.” Can you come up with a current solution that doesn’t involve the moral hazard of giving more power to the State over our lives?

      • politicalpartypooper said


        History…our history, ALSO shows that between 1946 and 1980, the “progressive” policies of the New Deal grew our economy and made America’s middle class the envy of the world. Families were able to support themselves on one breadwinner. Retirements were far more secure. American education was world class, our colleges affordable, our factories filled, and Wall Street, while speculative, at least operated under decent regulation.

        With the massive tax cuts that reversed New Deal progressivism, and with deregulation of Wall Street, a curious trend was started. America’s wealth began to drift toward the upper class, while the Middle Class was left behind. More and more families needed to work two jobs to stay ahead, and the class of American poor grew. College became more and more expensive. Our factories closed down. Wall Street imploded three times, with four bear markets in twenty years (87, 01, 02, 08), and the, if not destruction of, then permanent damaging to the average American’s dream of retirement. Wall Street, one large insurer, and many banks were bailed out, and the entire mess of 2008 was known to have been caused by relaxed regulation and by Bush’s “Ownership society” (which Democrats gave their blessing).

        We gave our largest institutions welfare bailouts because somehow, without proper regulation, they became so huge that if any one of them failed, they would take the world’s economy with them. Did I fundamentally misunderstand the role of the State in that, Mbuna? Why did we not just let these institutions fail and with it, the world’s economy? After all, the founding fathers would never have gone for using taxpayer dollars to bailout private concerns. You bemoan social help to the People and yet you have no complaint against the welfare state we have created for private institutions?

        Here is what I want, and you can call it whatever you want:
        1: The Glass Steagal Act to be re-instituted, and so-called “Banks-too-big-to-Fail” to be broken apart as the Glass Steagal act intended that no one private institution should carry that much risk within its house.
        2: A tightening of the tax code, a return to Reagan’s first tax code, where he cut taxes on the wealthy to 50% of income on anything earned above $300,000. I don’t care if you like that or not. America’s middle class thrived between 1946 and 1980, and no one called our economy “socialism” while we were under that system. It’s time to return opportunity to the middle and lower classes, to give American families the chance to allow one spouse to remain in the home and care for our children, to return America to the values that made us great. Two earners and Day Care isn’t getting it done. America’s youth is suffering for it. And it is the wealth redistribution from the middle class to the wealthy that caused it. It’s time to reverse that trend.
        3. Tougher Wall Street regulations. Sorry, but no private institution has greater rights than an individual. We are all but allowing banks and wall street to operate without law. No society can withstand lawlessness, and our financial sector is no exception, as has been proven to our regret so recently. If they don’t like it, fuck ’em.
        4. A return to a system that rewards hard work, rather than demanding more and paying less. It has been proven beyond satisfaction that when you put money into the hands of the wealthiest Americans, they hoard it, rather than creating economic stimulus with it. There has been so much wealth redistribution from the middle class to the wealthy over the last 30 years that the gap has widened to the point where the wealthiest Americans earn 400 times more than the average American. It’s time to reverse that trend, and if you call that wealth redistribution..I’ve got news for you, it’s always been wealth redistribution, only the last 30 years has seen our wealth redistributed from the Middle Class to the wealthy.

        No one called America a socialist state between 1946 and 1980 when the Middle Class grew, and returning to the system that we had back then will not suddenly make us a socialist state now. Those who would call it that expose themselves as rhetoric driven plutocrats.

        Here’s the deal. We can either return to it, or at some point, the Middle and poor classes will rise up, revolt, and grab their money back in a different way. The only difference will be that there will be a whole bunch of dead rich people afterward, because in America, the majority rules, no matter what the few wealthy believes. The wealth redistributors of the upper class would do well to remember our history. If they don’t, Americans will make them remember it the hard way.

        You’re damned right it’s wealth redistribution, and it’s about time that the Middle Class took back what belonged to them to begin with.

      • Jonah said

        Technology and ingenuity built the middle class, not the government.
        The government takes and spends Trillions a year now, 44 times what it
        spent in 1955, as inflation has only increased by a factor of 7.

        For some odd reason you tend to dismiss this information in favor of more.

      • Jonah said

        BTW that is money that’s taken from the middle class.

      • Jonah said

        Well, 60% of it is…

      • politicalpartypooper said

        this isn’t a discussion of Federal Government asininity, which speaks for itself. You know damn well I can’t stand the waste we have in government…the monuments of marble and granite, fifty private Congressional jets, the fact that a hammer still costs $500, all of that speaks for itself.

        This is something completely different.

      • Jonah said

        Well thank you for the acknowledgement, you know very well that industry didn’t leave New York State because they don’t demand enough tax revenue.

  2. Jonah said

    Who Really Cares

    Arthur Brooks’s first foray into the limelight was in 2006 with Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth about Compassionate Conservatism.[4] Originating in his research on philanthropy and drawing on survey data, he articulates a charity gap between the 75 percent of Americans who donate to charitable causes and the rest who do not. Brooks argues that there are three cultural values that best predict charitable giving: religious participation, political views, and family structure. Ninety-one percent of people who identify themselves as religious are likely to give to charity, writes Brooks, as opposed to 66 percent of people who do not. The religious giving sector is just as likely to give to secular programs as it is to religious causes. Those who think government should do more to redistribute income are less likely to give to charitable causes, and those who believe the government has less of a role to play in income redistribution tend to give more. Finally, people who couple and raise children are more likely to give philanthropically than those who do not. The more children there are in a family, the more likely that a family will donate to charity. One of Brooks’s most controversial findings was that political conservatives give more, despite having incomes that are on average 6 percent lower than liberals.

    Brooks adopts what he calls a “polemic”[1] tone when offering recommendations, urging that philanthropic giving not be crowded out by government programs and that giving must be cultivated in families and communities. He admits being surprised by his conclusion: “These are not the sort of conclusions I ever thought I would reach when I started looking at charitable giving in graduate school, 10 years ago. I have to admit I probably would have hated what I have to say in this book.”[4]

    Who Really Cares was widely reviewed and critiqued. Many commentators thought that Brooks played up the role of religion too much, arguing that a charity gap is largely erased when religious giving is not considered. Eugene Volokh writes, “Although the liberal v. conservative split is the hook for the book, the data are not nearly as stark as the hype surrounding the book might indicate.”[5][unreliable source?] In February 2007, after the release of Who Really Cares, Brooks briefed President George W. Bush and first lady Laura Bush on his findings.[6] Later that year, Brooks joined the American Enterprise Institute as a visiting scholar.

  3. Jonah said

    Deny it all you wish…

    Gross National Happiness

    Brooks’s findings were controversial. Conservatives, he writes, are twice as likely to call themselves “very happy” than liberals. Those with extreme political beliefs, right or left, tend to be happier than moderates—although their provocations lower happiness for the rest of society. Devout people of all religions are much happier than secularists. Parents are happier than the childless, even though their children often upset them. But child-rearing, Brooks writes, offers “meaning” to life, a sort of deep happiness that Aristotle called eudaimonia. Balancing freedom and order also brings optimal happiness, Brooks writes, because “too many moral choices leave us insecure and searching, unable to distinguish right from wrong, and thus miserable.”

    The second section of the book is dedicated to the economic dimensions of happiness. Opportunity breeds happiness, Brooks writes, and “efforts to diminish economic inequality–without creating economic opportunity–will actually lower America’s gross national happiness, not raise it.” Opportunity allows for good jobs, and “job satisfaction actually increases life happiness.” Brooks argues that work makes people happy because they are creating value, a theme he explored in a textbook also released in 2008 on “social value creation.”[8]

    To the extent that happiness can be “bought,” it is with charity: giving—of effort, time, and money—makes people much happier, says Brooks, and it correlates with many other characteristics of the happy. Brooks, identifying himself as a libertarian, writes that the government does a poor job of making us happy but that “the government can help us pursue happiness.”

    • politicalpartypooper said


      You ought to buy that book for Beck and friends, who believe that charity is a punishment against them. Since 75% of all religious people give, it’s safe to assume that the vast majority of these givers are middle class Americans…yet another example of the middle class bearing the weight of responsibility, while the wealthiest Americans enjoy redistributing America’s wealth amongst themselves.

      Also, be careful about where that charitable giving is going. If it’s a Christian giving it, much of that is going to the corporate church “tithe”, which no longer cares for the poor, but builds magnificent temples instead. I know, I belong to a church that does it, and I regularly ask why we need to build a Taj Majal while people in our community are suffering.

      • Jonah said

        Our church did that too, yet also provides a Good Samaritan fund to anyone in need. I know, I needed it at one time, while working my way out of the dot com hole back in 2000.
        I was unemployed for 20 months.

      • Jonah said

        They no longer care for ther poor? really?

        Yet you actually think our government does?

        Man, what have you been drinking?

      • Jonah said

        $13 BILLION to perform the census…..

        and you whine about a church building? Do they keep their lights on 24/7 light government buildings do, and they charge YOU when the utility bills arrives?

      • politicalpartypooper said

        Our government isn’t allowed to care for the poor. The second they do, conservatives like you accuse them of being socialists.

      • Jonah said

        Who started SCHIP?

        Almost a TRILLION dollars is spent annually on people that need healthcare.

        That’s about $10,000 annually for each and every person enrolled.

        Ungrateful people like just like to degrade others and complain.

      • Jonah said

        Here’s an interesting stat for you…

        The top 1% pays 40% of the income taxes…

        Just like me, when I recieved a $6,000 bonus. The federal government
        recieved a $1800 bonus, the state recieved a $483 bonus.

        I really got $3800 out of it, of course all that I buy gets 8% taxed on.

        From $6000 down to $3800.

        Who’re the greedy ones? Me?

      • politicalpartypooper said

        No, Jonah, you’re not the greedy one. You didn’t get a $17 Million dollar bonus. You are not the problem. The top 1% pay just 40% of the income tax? That’s it? (It’s actually 37%, but who is counting?)

        That top 1% earns 20% of all US wages. And that’s without counting Capital Gains, which aren’t counted as wages, and are only taxed at 15%. Warren Buffet earns all of his “income” in Cap Gains, and he has said it himself, that he should be taxed at a higher rate.

        Jonas, no one is screwing the rich. Their top rate is 37%, down from 70% in the seventies (don’t quote me on that…I think it was the 70’s). That they earn sooo much money as to be able to pay for 40% of all of our taxes should tell you everything you need to know about how much out of whack the pay scale in the US is. I have heard of millions of US workers who would love to pay higher taxes if they were paid more.

      • Jonah said

        In the 1970’s the top 1% paid 29% of the taxes.

        Listen PPP, if Warren wanted to pay more, he certainly is free to.
        For those only paying Capital Gains taxes, they are living in a
        risk based environment. Would you like to raise Capital Gains taxes
        so that you could get more from them, along with all the other people
        that invest in the markets but make there living on salary?

        I have heard of millions of US workers who would love to pay higher taxes if they were paid more.

        What load a crap. You’ve lost it.

        Half the country pays NO income taxes. If your statement was true, why the resistence to the flat/fair tax?

      • politicalpartypooper said

        I was talking about the actual tax rate, as in percentage. All throughout the 70’s, the lowest that rate ever got was 70% on income above $212,000. As late as 2008, it was as low as 35% on income above $357,000.

        That 70% is something you could complain about. 35%? Not so much. Incidentally, both conservatives and liberals kept that high tax rate up because they saw it as the best way to destroy poverty, and to grow the middle class. And from 1946 until 1979, the American middle class was able to grow in personal income, support a family with one wage earner, and retire with a decent pot of gold at the end of their working years. Personal savings rates were at or around 10% consistently, and the need for revolving credit was almost unheard of.

        Ron Reagan cut that rate to 50%, believing that if he got more money into the hands of the wealthy, they would create more jobs. As far as I can see, that 50% rate seems to be about the rate at which the American economy grows steadily, where the middle class wage does not suffer, and where jobs are plentiful.

        No one is talking about jacking the rate up to 70%, or even to 50%. But when Reagan cut that rate to 50%, he had no desire to go lower. But with the approach of a presidential election in 1988 and what Republicans saw as a chance to win Congress, he was convinced in 1987 to drop that rate even lower, to an effective rate of 33%. It was at that point that the difference between what the wealthy earn, and what the average earn exploded. By the end of Bush I’s term, America was already in another recession, wages had been cut, good paying jobs were moving out of America, and the wealthy just kept getting greedier and greedier.

        If you are against a normal American earning a higher wage, I can only assume that you truly do support a plutocracy. No executive is worth 500 times what the average American earns. No executive is worth eighty times what POTUS makes, and no executive is worth more alone than what POTUS and the entire Senate earn combined. There is no defense for that. You can try, but all you end up sounding like is a plutocrat.

        I can only assume that you are very wealthy, Jonas. Because, I just can’t see you defending a system that is fucking you, if you aren’t wealthy. The fact is, it doesn’t matter what the tax rate is, if the average American’s wages do not start increasing a great deal in the next decade. Because, if they don’t, you are going to get that welfare state you fear so much.

        And the wealthy will have no one to blame but themselves.

        Jonas, there is, by now, no way that you can deny that middle class wealth has been redistributed to the wealthy, and that it has been happening for a long time.

      • Jonah said

        Isn’t it interesting that in 2005 the IRS recieved the most annual tax revenue it’s ever recieved?

        You want to credit the high tax rate of the 70’s with the generation of the middle class?


      • Jonah said

        And PPP, try as you may to pin this “you are against a normal American earning a higher wage” crap on me, it doesn’t stick.

        I started my career mowing lawns and washing dishes. I paid for my college education, which took me 7 years to complete. I started at the bottom of the ladder and worked my way up and after decades of that, through employment and
        unemployment, I, at the age of 45, was able to buy a nice home.

        The only enterprise that I found to be a resistance to my success, was….guess….
        You know the ones, thy’re always there when I was paid, telling me I need to help
        someone else….

      • Jonah said

        I’ve working on assembly lines for years, tv tubes, swtches, ect, I’ve been the ‘chip boy’ in the machine shop, spinning out rotary lathe oil, and I’ve cleaned asbestos off boilers in coal burning power plants, as well and other industrial jobs. Bob Cesca ever do things like that? LOL. right….

      • politicalpartypooper said

        Then I would say, Jonah, that in all that time, you were underpaid. Why are you defending a system that redistributes wealth to the wealthy? It wasn’t always like this, Jonah. Before 1980, the middle class was doing decently. They aren’t anymore.

      • Jonah said

        Underpaid? Please. It’s the government that’s overpaid. You seem to have
        a blind spot as to the waste, graft, and fraud perpetuated there, while you
        focus on what may well be less than 5 thousand people that get lucky, just
        like a 20 million a movie film star, or athlete.

      • Jonah said

        PPP do you know of any corporation that spends $10 Billion a year on it’s collection agency?

      • Jonah said

        and that’s just the federal collector. many states have them toooo.

  4. Jonah said

    How many temples do you think the government has?

  5. Jonah said

    Nice try, run along now, try again tomorrow…

    • politicalpartypooper said

      Tell me Jonah…what do you think of the first two lines of my post. What does that sound like?

      • Jonah said

        It sounds like what Joe Stack refered to:

        The communist creed: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

        Unfortunatley, if people didn’t have anything else to sell, they would then
        be dependent upon whom?

      • politicalpartypooper said

        Just saying Jonah…those two lines are a direct quote from Acts. They are also a direct contradiction of the Conservative ideology, who claims to follow Christ more closely than all others.

      • Jonah said

        Well congratulations, you must be smarter than all of them.

        The author of Acts was Luke, with words spoken by Peter. A man, a man with his own ideas.

        Or did you think it was Jesus?

        Is this what you prescribe? I doubt it –

        They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. 43Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. 44All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need. 46Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, 47praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.

  6. Jonah said

    Either you are fooled, or you’re trying to fool others.

  7. Jonah said

    i’m sure Bob Cesca’s invited too….

  8. apostaterebel said

    “Well congratulations, you must be smarter than all of them.

    The author of Acts was Luke, with words spoken by Peter. A man, a man with his own ideas.

    Or did you think it was Jesus?

    Is this what you prescribe? I doubt it –

    They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. 43Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. 44All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need. 46Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, 47praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.”

    So, Jonah. I assume you are a Conservative Christian. I’ll go out on a limb and say evangelical??? If that is true, then isn’t the Bible inspired by God? Are you one of those Christians like the ones who, for example, think that evil “faggots and dykes” deserve to go to hell, because your God says that is an abomination? Yet, those same Christians choose to ignore the passages very close by that make it clear that wearing mixed blend fabrics and eating shell-fish is also evil?

    So, here in Acts, we see a group of Christians that we can assume were the first church, getting together, sharing everything, and yet you seem to say that doing that is Communism? You cannot have it both ways. Either believe your Holy Book, and practice what it says, OR, shut the **** up and quit telling us “evil” liberals how we should live.

  9. The Glenn Beck Review said

    Glenn Beck is not just a liar and a hypocrite. I found him with his “pants down.” Find out more at The Glenn Beck Review.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: