Have you ever noticed how liberals always think that everyone else's money is theirs?

Liberal CEOs of companies like Starbucks aren't content with contributing some of their own massive salaries to the political causes they like; they have to use their shareholders' money, too. 

The Starbucks CEO said that backing the redefinition of marriage to suit the whims of the 2% of Americans who are gay wasn't an economic decision.  He admitted that even though it hurt the company, he'd decided that the morality he liked should be backed.

A responsible CEO wouldn't declare that people he disagree with about redefining marriage shouldn't buy Starbucks stock, because his job is to increase shareholder value.  Further, a responsible CEO wouldn't throw the company he runs into the middle of a highly controversial moral issue because he knows that both the shareholders and the company's customers aren't of one mind on the issue.

Of course, by hurting his own company to help his causes, he earns accolades from liberals who aren't impacted if Starbucks loses money.  As a result, when other liberals talk about how overpaid executives are, they don't talk about the ones who misuse their authority to advance liberal causes.

Imagine if a marriage backer had done something similar.  Oh, wait – we don't need to.  The CEO of Mozilla was forced to resign because he gave his own money, not the company's, to support a proposition defending marriage – a proposition that went to an overwhelming victory, garnering massive voter support.

That CEO made no public statement linking the company he led to a particular political stance, unlike the Starbucks CEO, yet liberals lionize the Starbucks CEO for effectively expropriating value from his shareholders while they condemn the Mozilla CEO for his private beliefs.

Liberal CEOs are just following the lead of their brethren in government.

The behavior of liberal CEOs is just a further example of liberals declaring themselves "caring" by using other people's money.  Liberals think raising taxes on other people so they can hire more government workers and even trickle down a few dollars to the poor makes them philanthropists.

Since FDR, liberals have viewed the government as their own little agent of change.  Liberals believe that all tax dollars exist to further the liberal agenda not to improve the lot of Americans in general.

That's why our tax dollars fund National Public Radio and the National Endowment for the Arts.  Both organizations are nothing more than cash cows for liberal propaganda.  Hardworking Americans are forced under threat of imprisonment to give their money over to their liberal masters to fund the programming liberals like.

That's why huge amounts of taxpayer money goes to buy the votes of various supporters of liberal politicians.  Whether it's obscene teachers' salaries in Chicago, which are used to buy the support of the teachers and their union in spite of the teachers' total inability to educate minority children, or increasing welfare spending even though 64% of the "poor" in America have either satellite or cable TV, the liberal bureaucrats in D.C. view your hard-earned money as their property to be used to advance their causes.

Liberals go even farther and declare that the government lets this or that person keep his money by not taxing it, which is a bold proclamation that everything belongs to the government, in direct opposition to the Constitution.

It's time that we started making liberals fund their causes with their own money.

I listen to a Catholic radio station, and it is supported entirely by listener donations.  There is no reason that liberals, or Protestants, should be compelled to fund that station any more than there is a reason I should be compelled to fund NPR.

I don't think liberals should be forced to pay to put stained glass windows in the church I attend, just as I shouldn't be compelled to fund a Crucifix in a jar of urine.

Defunding NPR and the NEA would be great first steps in emptying the swamp.  Not only would the taxpayers save money, but a bunch of artsy-fartsy liberal yahoos will have to find honest work.

Similarly, defunding Planned Parenthood will not only help keep minority babies alive, since PP targets minorities, but take money out of the Democrat machine.  Over the past five years PP has funneled $22,000,000 to its PAC.  While that money supposedly isn't from the federal government, denying PP government money will force it to choose between lavish salaries – the head of PP makes $590,000 a year – and helping Democrats.

Given the love affair most big money managers have with liberals, as is shown by their support for Hillary, it'll be hard to put much pressure on liberal CEOs who abuse their position so long as their companies don't take a nose dive – or maybe even if they do.  (Witness the Target story.)

But with Trump in office and the Republicans controlling the Congress, it's time to make liberals fund their own causes.

Given that most liberal policies don't have broad backing and that liberals aren't too willing to part with their own money, shutting down the flow of taxpayer dollars to liberal causes will help end the amount of liberal propaganda, which is far larger than the number of liberals in America would justify.

You can read more of Tom's rants at his blog, Conversations about the obvious, and feel free to follow him on Twitter.