If you have ever had a conversation about taxes with a liberal, you've inevitably heard the refrain: "Well, I don't mind giving more to the government."

In my column today, I respond, "then why don't you give more?"

Any answer from my liberal friends would be highly appreciated.

You have probably heard of Larry Sabato, the director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, and oft-quoted [liberal] expert on politics. I recently saw a piece he wrote about changing the electoral system and will quote him here not for his political expertise, but for his thought process as a liberal:

More than two centuries later, despite the many storms that have engulfed presidential elections, the Twelfth Amendment still marks the most significant change to the Electoral College in all of American history--a fact that alone suggests that some rethinking may be in order.

In other words, we should change the Constitution not because it is creating unforeseen problems, or because it has demonstrably failed. No - regardless of the Constitution's merits, we should change it for the sole reason that it's old.

I'm not taking a position on the issue tackled in his article here. Regardless of one's position on that issue, it should be considered asinine to reject the Constitution simply for its age. But I suppose it's no wonder the [liberal] media loves to quote him.

Earlier this year, the National Journal ranked all U.S. Senators by ideology according to their votes. You may have noticed the Obama people in every media outlet since trying to convince us that these rankings don't matter, etc. etc.

Well, you can go see for yourself. Obama did vote on the liberal side of bills at a rate higher than anyone else in the Senate. He is the most liberal Senator, end of story.

But I do love how liberals take such offense at being called, well, liberal. It says something.

The good folks over at FreedomWorks found a MoveOn gas protest and decided to join its ranks... sort of. Check out the stories and the pictures here.

In keeping with my higher academia theme of the last couple of days, here is a long article from the New York Times discussing how some of the paper's best ideological allies, meaning university professors whose formation years were in the nutty 1960s, are finally getting to that age where they are retiring from the institutions they should have never gotten hired to in the first place.

We can only hope that the next generation of professors doesn't teach students to chain themselves to trees and to embrace socialism, as some of my 1960s Cornell professors did (check out my latest column for the details on that).

First, the Spanish socialists turn their back on Iraq and withdraw their contribution to Iraqi human rights.

Then, they turn around and gives those same rights of "life" and "freedom" to apes in Spain.

What insanity.

Even though the Pope and other high authorities in the Vatican have said that Catholic politicians who support abortion should not receive communion, at least three of them did in DC (images by Christendom College's Tom McFadden, and from LifeSiteNews.Com):

John Kerry received communion.
 
So did Chris Dodd:

And even though original pictures showed Ted Kennedy remaining in his seat during communion, which at first made me somewhat respect him for it, it turns out he actually did receive communion at his seat. From LifeSiteNews:

"Two of my sons and I attended the Papal Mass yesterday. We were seated in section 216, directly above the section in which Ted Kennedy was seated. Several minutes prior to the general distribution of communion a priest walked down to Ted Kennedy and gave him communion. There was some discussion amongst we in our section about the inappropriateness of his reception of the Host. Be certain, he remained seated not out of some self-enforced respect for the sacrament, but rather out of respect for his girth and mobility."

Good news out of the Italian elections - conservatives are on top again. The left, particularly the far left, was absolutely destroyed, and the alliance of right-leaning parties secured a comfortable majority.

In November, I wrote about the trend of our allies overwhelmingly voting in conservative leaders. Looks like we're still on the "right" track.

George Will discusses "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism," a book by Arthur Brooks of Syracuse University. Some key findings:

-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

-- People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.

I've heard liberals argue that if government wasn't a primary avenue for charity, then orphans and the sick and the homeless would all die because there would be no one forcing individuals to help them out. First of all, that's not true, because people are still donating on top of the third of their income that they are losing to the government (imagine how much more they would donate if they were able to keep more of their money). But even if the argument was legitimate, then the problem lies with tight-fisted liberals, and not conservatives, as we are constantly made to believe.