Well, this is what I find offensive about it is the attempt to attach virtue to poverty. It’s an unfortunate thing, and they need care and attention and so forth. There’s the right kind of compassion, too, which is aimed at getting them up and out of it. Not maintaining them there with constant, never-ending sympathy so that they all vote for you. The whole notion that Obama’s got a direct line to Jesus and Jesus would agree with doing everything we can to see to it that people don’t work and that we just “take care of” those who don’t work? This attaching virtue to this… It’s a typical liberal trick.

You know, at Christmas back in the eighties and in the early nineties, when homelessness was all the rage, guess who were the poster people for homelessness? Mary and Joseph! Mary and Joseph. Every one of us was just a paycheck away from being Mary and Joseph. They were “homeless.” They were trundling through the Middle East. They were desperately looking for the inn. They didn’t guarantee their reservation with the American Express Card. They got there, their room had been given away to the mules, and they were in trouble. But they were the modern equivalent of the homeless. They were the modern equivalent of Mary and Joseph. So the left always tries these kinds of things. It’s highly offensive. I totally understand. And this is from a guy who has a brother living in a six-by-nine-foot hut, by the way! Don’t forget that. Not even a sign that says “Home, Sweet Hut” anywhere.

Continue reading on www.rushlimbaugh.com