When Christian Voters With Little Money Decide They Want Your Money, We Will Get This.
Gary North - March 27, 2013
I am writing a detailed critique of one of Jim Wallis's fans. She is a professor of law. She wants the rich to pay for the welfare state. She thinks 70% of their income is about right. She calls herself a moderate.
I am serious. She really thinks 70% is reasonable. But so did Kennedy. He lowered the top bracket from 91% to 70%. This was heralded as a low-tax reform.
The woman finally got around to reading it, although I told her it would be posted the next day. She is incensed.
Tonight I finally got back to your website to read what you wrote:
You see this badge, boy? You see this gun? Get out your wallet. Jesus sent me. I am here to get you to help the poor. I am paid $80,000 a year to do this. Do I tithe? That's none of your business. What I do is to make sure that you tithe. Not to the church. To the state. And when I say "tithe," I mean it figuratively. I don't mean 10 percent. I mean closer to 30 percent.
Now then, you go get your wallet. The Bible says you owe this to the poor, by way of the state. What's that? You say you never read this in Scripture? You've been reading the wrong Scripture. I mean the real Scripture: the Internal Revenue Code. That's what Jesus wants you to read very carefully -- you and your accountant.
Mr. North, this is what you do: you re-phrase what someone says to be what you WANT the person to say, so that you may insult and criticize in order to make your point. The above paragraph is what you make my position out to be, but it is not even CLOSE to what I said. You don't even know me; if you did, you wouldn't say that the above narrow-minded statements define what I believe in. I don't make $80,000 a year. I make less than $30,000 a year as a musician and I am proud of what I do. I don't go around trying to get people to give money to things, except for volunteer singing for community fundraisers, which usually are not related to the church at all and therefore Jesus is not mentioned. Your words are insulting and it is no wonder that I had never heard of you before. You and your work are likely to sink into oblivion because you don't care much for truth, and you sure don't seem to care much about the majority of people of the world.
It's very fortunate for you that Jim Wallis doesn't debate you publicly. His position is strong and based on compassion, while yours is weak and based on greed, backed up by your own hypocritical interpretation of the Bible. Sure you have studied his positions for years, most likely with your mind already made up about everything in the Universe. Wallis' positions, well-stated, would likely make your own beliefs look pretty shoddy.
You have a very high opinion of yourself and your interpretation of Scripture. I don't intend to ever go back to your website again - it is singularly uninspiring. Sharing what we have with the poor is not a political stance, although it can be. It is simply the right thing to do - whether Biblical or not - and I intend to continue to do it. But I wouldn't expect you to care anything about that, because it might mess up your shiny shoes.
Oh, sorry - I made a snap judgment. I have never even seen your shoes; maybe they are not shiny after all.
Here is a musician who earns little money. Fine; it's her life. But she wants you and me to pay for her choices. This is the heart of the welfare state. Those who make bad choices financially want subsidies from those who made good choices, and who reaped their reward from paying customers.
This woman thinks that I am in some way threatened by her refusal to remain a free rider on my site. These people really do overestimate their value to producers who are seeking a profit by meeting the demand of paying customers. They are free riders in life, and they think the rest of the voters owe them comfortable lives. We don't.
She says that I re-wrote her words. She meant nothing like this. Really? She apparently does not think that tax collectors are not backed up by people with badges and guns. She lives in a self-imposed fantasy land -- a fantasy land run by this ethical principle: "Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote."
I talk about badges and guns. Why do I do this? Because it's about badges and guns.
I spell out the implications of what people are really saying in order to make it clear what they surely are saying. They do not want to admit to themselves and others what they really are saying -- the inescapable implications of what they are saying. I help others to see it. The people who promote these policies sugar coat them with their good intentions. "Badges are good. Guns are good. Jesus wants guns pointed at the bellies of people who have money. People like you. Greedy people."
I am doing my best to make it clear to their targeted victims what is coming if these people ever get a majority. In some states, they have it. In Europe, they have it. These European nations are dying off. The welfare state produces falling birth rates. The future is clear: national bankruptcy. But these people do not care. They want to live comfortably at the expense of others until they die. "After us, the deluge."
Margaret Thatcher was right. Socialism works until the state runs out of other people's money.
At some point, people must grow up. If they refuse, they will grow poor. So will their political victims.
On what this icon
means, and how it
can help you, click here