Dear Bob Beckel, Nowhere in the Bible does it say, "You must rob from one group to give to another."

Where in the Bible does it say that the government shall rob from the people in order to promote the cause of Liberalism?

If there is a poor man among your brothers in any of the towns of the land that the LORD your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward your poor brother. ~ Deuteronomy 15:7

There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your brothers and toward the poor and needy in your land. ~ Deuteronomy 15:11

Borrowing a phrase from a pastor from Tacoma, Washington:

"When we want something that God has not yet chosen to provide in our life, and we want it bad enough to steal for it, we have made that thing into an idol."

Exactly the kind of thought process in the Liberal mindset (Liberals want it bad enough to steal for it under the guise of taxes).  Their idol is money...money stolen (under the guise of taxes) from hardworking individuals and given to people willing to vote for the guy that gave them the free stuff (in other words, selling their souls to the devil).  Most recipients of taxpayer benefits (stolen money) are able-bodied individuals capable of earning an income on their own.  There is nowhere in the United States Constitution that says the government should take care of the poor...that's the job God has assigned to each an everyone of us. ~ Norman E. Hooben

PS: The problem with Liberals they do not understand the following: (And it's so simple!)

To remedy these wrongs the socialists, working on the poor man's envy of the rich, are striving to do away with private property, and contend that individual possessions should become the common property of all, to be administered by the State or by municipal bodies. They hold that by thus transferring property from private individuals to the community, the present mischievous state of things will be set to rights, inasmuch as each citizen will then get his fair share of whatever there is to enjoy. But their contentions are so clearly powerless to end the controversy that were they carried into effect the working man himself would be among the first to suffer. They are, moreover, emphatically unjust, for they would rob the lawful possessor, distort the functions of the State, and create utter confusion in the community.

It is surely undeniable that, when a man engages in remunerative labor, the impelling reason and motive of his work is to obtain property, and thereafter to hold it as his very own. If one man hires out to another his strength or skill, he does so for the purpose of receiving in return what is necessary for the satisfaction of his needs; he therefore expressly intends to acquire a right full and real, not only to the remuneration, but also to the disposal of such remuneration, just as he pleases. Thus, if he lives sparingly, saves money, and, for greater security, invests his savings in land, the land, in such case, is only his wages under another form; and, consequently, a working man's little estate thus purchased should be as completely at his full disposal as are the wages he receives for his labor. But it is precisely in such power of disposal that ownership obtains, whether the property consist of land or chattels.

Socialists, therefore, by endeavoring to transfer the possessions of individuals to the community at large, strike at the interests of every wage-earner, since they would deprive him of the liberty of disposing of his wages, and thereby of all hope and possibility of increasing his resources and of bettering his condition in life. (circa 1891)

_____________________________

____________________________

Just a reminder... (this video was originally posted some time ago)