Jesus Ain’t ‘Down’ With Feeding Lazy, Drug-Addicted Poor, Claims Fox News Host (VIDEO)

Bill O'Reilly on Fox: Jesus 'not down' with feeding lazy drug addicts

Yo. Fox’s Bill O’Reilly says Jesus ain’t ‘down with’ food stamps for the poor, because they’re lazy drunks and drug addicts. Merry Christmas!

Here’s the thing that really bugs me about conservatives. They can’t stop being mean, even during the winter holiday season. Despite all their whining about “the war on Christmas,” these right-wingers are the Grinch-iest folks ever. Take Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly, for instance. He really has it in for people who receive food stamps. In Oct. 2012, Bill O’Reilly claimed that Obama wanted food stamps for “illegal aliens.” In March, 2013, he raged against “food stamp fraud” that doesn’t exist. In Aug., 2012, he called them “parasites.”

Bill O’Reilly insists that Jesus Christ wouldn’t feed hungry people and their children, because it’s their fault for being poor.

Now, in Bill O’Reilly’s latest rant, he claims that Jesus Christ wouldn’t be “down with” having a “nanny state” that feeds the hungry via food stamps. If our fellow Americans are too poor to feed themselves and their children, it’s “their fault” for being a bunch of lazy, drunk, drug addicts. Never mind that two thirds of people on food stamps are senior citizens and children who are too old or young to work; that nearly 60% of working age adults on food stamps have jobs; and that 87% were employed within the past 12 months [SOURCE: The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities]. Never mind that O’Reilly’s fellow right-wingers in Congress refuse to raise the minimum wage so the working poor can make a decent living.

Watch Bill O’Reilly trash Congressman Jim McDermott (D-WA) and Pope Francis.

As always, Bill O’Reilly launches into his Dec. 3rd, 2013 “Unresolved Problems” segment of The O’Reilly Factor with a wholly biased viewpoint, as he announces his current topic.

The Nanny State vs. Christianity. This topic is being hotly debated as being used by some left-wing politicians.

Bill O’Reilly’s loaded for bear, and this time, he’s got Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA) and Pope Francis in his sights. First, he cuts to news footage with the Democratic House rep telling reporters:

We’re the richest nation in the world, and, when Jesus had those five loaves and two fishes, He didn’t charge food stamps. He didn’t ask how much money they had. He fed them, because they were hungry.

And, alas, not even the Pope is sacred to Bill O’Reilly, even though he claims to be a Christian. A photo of Pope Francis with the caption “criticizing economic inequality” — as if that’s a bad thing for a Christian leader and follower of Jesus Christ to do — appears, and O’Reilly adds:

Also, last week, Pope Francis said that income inequality is immoral, but he didn’t get very specific on that.

Bill O’Reilly claims that feeding the hungry ‘hurts’ the rich.

Bill O’Reilly then introduces the guests he’s brought in for his rigged ‘debate’ on whether Jesus Christ wants us to feed the hungry. Joshua Dubois is a pastor, spiritual advisor to Barack Obama, acclaimed author, and religious columnist for Newsweek. Father Gerald Murray is some lame Catholic priest who has no Wikipedia entry and appears to do nothing but appear on Fox and say what they want him to say. Given the low public opinion of Catholic priests these days, you think the folks at Fox would keep this guy under wraps.

Bill O’Reilly lets Father Murray go first, and tosses him a loaded question that implies that feeding the hungry hurts rich people.

Congressman McDermott trying to convince people by saying Jesus would feed the poor… He would, we all know that. But would he impose a system that hurts one group to help another group?

Father Murray, of course, plays along … even though he’s supposed to follow his Pope’s lead.

Not at all. In fact, to say that big government was the goal of Jesus’ preaching and miracles would be absurd.

Because Jesus doesn’t really want the hungry to be fed. He just sees giving to charity as an important way for human being to be “spiritual.” Bill O’Reilly expands on his bizarre thesis that Jesus wouldn’t be “down with” feeding the poor if it would “hurt” the rich. But of course, he doesn’t directly say paying taxes for food stamps would make the one percent’s wallets screech in pain. Instead, he does what right-wingers always do: pits the poor against the slightly less-poor and the middle class.

The problem I have, as I stated is that you’re helping one group by hurting another group and a bigger group, and so I don’t know if Jesus is going to be down with that.

Jesus would be down for the poor, insists Pastor Dubois.

Even though Pastor Dubois must have known that when a liberal appears on Fox, it’s their job to serve as a sacrificial lamb, he put up a good fight. He refused to go along with the sick and twisted idea that Jesus would refuse to feed hungry people so that rich people can avoid paying taxes.

Jesus would be down for the poor. He would want to make sure every single person in this country had enough food to eat. And the bottom line is if you add up every single private charitable dollar that feeds hungry people in this country, it’s only 10 percent of what we would need to make sure everyone has food in their stomachs. The rest comes from the federal government.

And here’s where Bill O’Reilly goes in for the kill.

You’re making a powerful argument, but there is one huge mistake in it. And that is that some of the people who don’t have enough to eat, it’s their fault they don’t have enough to eat. Particularly with their children.

Of course, if you actually read the New Testament, it’s crystal clear that Jesus Christ expects us to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and take care of the poor. Period. I don’t know what bible Bill O’Reilly and his fellow right-wingers have been reading, but it has nothing to do with any of the things their beloved Savior actually taught and said.

If you’ve got a strong stomach and want to watch the whole thing, here’s the video:


For more like this, please like me on facebook.Related articles: