Republican Operative Dr. Michael Brown Defending the Rich in the Name of Jesus - by Rev. Anthony Wade

Found here. Our comments in bold.

---------------------

The choleric Rev. Wade has been unusually productive of late, churning out verbiage at a prodigious rate. Quantity doesn't equal quality, of course. Rev. Wade has never been one to provide quality.

Today he takes aim at a favorite target, Dr. Michael Brown. A previous Rev. Wade attack on Dr. brown was analyzed last month. 

Rev. Wade rarely gets things right, including the title. Dr. Brown did not invoke the name of Jesus to defend the rich. Dr. Brown wrote an opinion piece about a political/economic topic, which apparently he isn't allowed to do. Why, we don't know.

Rev. Wade has nonsensical objections to the points Dr. Brown raises, all based on his political leftism. Yes, rev. Wade is a leftist, though he tries to disguise it to maintain credibility among the Doctrinal Police. And he is a shill for his politics while simultaneously criticizing Dr. Brown for doing the same.

We should remind the reader that we are not here to defend Dr. Brown, we intend to only analyze Rev. Wade's nonsense.

Lastly, we note that once again Rev. Wade cannot bring himself to quote Scripture, except for a single unattributed snippet.

---------------------
As for the rich in this present age, charge them not to be haughty, nor to set their hopes on the uncertainty of riches, but on God, who richly provides us with everything to enjoy. They are to do good, to be rich in good works, to be generous and ready to share, thus storing up treasure for themselves as a good foundation for the future, so that they may take hold of that which is truly life. - 1Timothy 6:17-19 (ESV)

Click Here

New Apostolic Reformation (NAR) operatives routinely defend their masters, the Republican Party in America. One might even argue most do so unconsciously. The problem is that they spend so much time conferring righteousness to the GOP, which they never earned, that they convince themselves they simply must always be right. When dealing with political matters that have a moral tinge they can sound pious but when they stray into blatantly political arenas they just come off sounding as political whores. One such area that the Republicans are often defending is the very rich in this country. George W. Bush once quipped that the one percent was his "base." They are constantly trying to pass tax cuts the primarily benefit this one percent under the failed voodoo economic theory known as "trickle down economics." Decades of data have proven that rich people do not share their wealth with the poor and giving them more money does not result in any trickling down. (Not a single thing is this paragraph is true, let alone relevant. But the last couple of sentences are the real whopper.

Notice first how perfectly Rev. Wade parrots leftist talking points, using their rhetoric and even hostile labels. However, tax cuts do not "primarily benefit the one percent." And "trickle down economics" is a pejorative phrase invented by the Left to disparage their political opponents.

But more to the point, whether rich people share their wealth or not is none of Rev. Wade's business. No one is under any obligation to share their wealth, regardless of how wealthy they are. This is a point of morality, not law. Sharing is not about taxation, it is about the moral imperative Christians have to be generous and take care of the poor. This is not a government function.

Further, wealth does indeed "trickle down." Only people who have money can hire and pay workers. Only people who have money spend money. Only people who have money distribute their money, and they do it as they see fit, not as Rev. Wade sees fit.

Lastly, the wealthy are not being given money via tax cuts. Their money is being taken from them by taxation, and the government deciding to take less is not "giving them more money.") 

With that as the backdrop, the above linked article is interesting from both a carnal and Christian perspective. It is written by the primary gatekeeper for the NAR, Dr. Michael Brown. Dr. Brown does like to weigh in more on politics than the gospel but this topic seems to stray far away from anything remotely resembling a Christian discussion. Essentially, Brown's argument is that we should not be trying to always "tax the rich." This of course has precious little to do with Christianity or the gospel but Brown tries anyway to shoehorn it in. (As we noted, Rev. Wade seems to think that Dr. Brown shouldn't be allowed to express a political opinion. And that is what he did. There is a bit of Bible discussion at the end of his article, but it is a political opinion piece, and Rev. Wade doesn't like his opinion.)

Let us reason once more together. (There will be precious little reasoning contained here.)

"There's no need to pile even more scorn on Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez's "Tax the Rich" dress worn to a $35,000 per head gala. Social critics like Piers Morgan have already done this, joined by a chorus of conservative commentators and others online, such as on Breitbart. Instead, I want to focus here on the whole "tax the rich" idea. When have we heard this before?" - Dr. Michael Brown

No, keep on piling on your scorn doc. That was entirely what Ocasio-Cortez was aiming for when she trolled you with that dress. The sad thing is you connected the irony of wearing a tax the rich dress while at a fundraiser attended by rich people without correctly divining intent. What is sad however is your constant use of discredited sources as your support. (Dr. Brown cited no sources. Rather, he cited other critics.)

Piers Morgan? The guy who couldn't take the heat recently regarding a debate about Meghan Markle so he stormed off the set? Breitbart? Seriously? Some fact checking sources designate a separate page of their website for the lies and disinformation of Breitbart alone! (Dr. Brown was not appealing to these sources as legitimate, trustworthy, or even in an approving manner. He simply noted they had criticized AOC, something she richly deserves as a clueless socialist who can't argue her way out of a paper bag. Much like Rev. Wade, in fact.

As far as fact checking, the mere existence of fact checkers does not mean Piers Morgan or Breitbart are factually challenged, it only means that there are political opponents doing their level best to discredit opposing views. Again, much like Rev. Wade.

More importantly, our blog has fact-checked Rev. Wade numerous times, which by his own criteria should mean that Rev. Wade is discredited.)

'Although the phrase is common enough, especially during political seasons (which, these days, seem to be constant), when I hear those words, my mind immediately races back to 1971. That's when the rock band Ten Years After, led by singer and guitarist Alvin Lee, released its hit song, "I'd Love to Change the World." The lyrics began with this opening stanza, followed by the refrain:

Everywhere is freaks and hairies

Dykes and fairies, tell me where is sanity

Tax the rich, feed the poor

'Til there are no rich no more?

I'd love to change the world

But I don't know what to do

So I'll leave it up to you

For those who remember that era (and I certainly do, having seen Ten Years After perform four times back then during my hippie, rock drummer days), that was the spirit of the age. America needs changing, we thought, and we will lead the way in bringing about that change. Materialism must go. The American dream must be abandoned. Military might must be renounced. In the words of John Lennon, we simply needed to declare peace: "Declare it," he said. "Just the same way we declare war. That is how we will have peace... we just need to declare it."' - Dr, Michael Brown

While Alvin Lee was an amazing guitarist, I prefer to not take my overall political advice from 1970's hippies as much as I would avoid taking it from 2021 NAR gatekeepers. (Snark. No one is taking advice from 1970's hippies. And Dr. Brown is not offering advice.)

That aside, is it so wrong to say materialism should go? (Yes. Because "materialism" is a code word for new age spirituality.)

Didn't Jesus Himself say to not store up your treasure on earth where it will rust and decay? (Let's actually quote the passage. Mt. 6:19-21:

Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. 20 But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. 21 For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

So is Jesus saying that you should have no savings? That having cash is bad? That a person shouldn't invest? No, He's contrasting two kinds of treasure, and pointing out where one's attention should be focused.)

Why is Brown conflating military might with the American dream? (We can read Dr. Brown's words for ourselves. Dr. Brown is recounting the philosophy of hippies. Any reader can plainly see this. He's not conflating anything, he's listing what he used to believe.)

As for Lennon, who had his own issues with Jesus, I think the point he was making here was that peace should be as intentional as war. Maybe that is too wild-eyed idealistic but is it not a hopeful message?(Ho-boy. Rev. Wade defends John Lennon's song "Imagine." Let's quote the lyrics of this puerile and naïve song:

Imagine there's no heaven

It's easy if you try

No hell below us

Above us only sky

Imagine all the people

Living for today...

Imagine there's no countries

It isn't hard to do

Nothing to kill or die for

And no religion, too

Imagine all the people

Living life in peace... 

You may say I'm a dreamer

But I'm not the only one

I hope someday you'll join us

And the world will be as one

Imagine no possessions

I wonder if you can

No need for greed or hunger

A brotherhood of man

Imagine all the people

Sharing all the world... 

You may say I'm a dreamer

But I'm not the only one

I hope someday you'll join us

And the world will live as one

It's a new age fantasy, utopian nonsense. 

Lennon seemed to become a Christian in the late 70's but quickly fell away:

When asked in 1980 about his response to Dylan’s conversion, John was less than honest. He said he was surprised that “old Bobby boy did go that way,” but “if he needs it, let him do it.” His only objection, he said, was that Dylan was presenting Christ as the only way. He disliked this because “There isn’t one answer to anything.”… In what can now be seen as an allusion to his own born-again period, which hadn’t yet been made public, he said, “But I understand it. I understand him completely, how he got in there, because I’ve been frightened enough myself to want to latch onto something.

Rev. Wade's approving rhetoric regarding John Lennon bolsters his leftist bonafides.)

'"The problem, of course, was that life is not so simple, capitalism is not all evil, and life on a hippie commune was not everything it was cracked up to be. As for the American dream, the truth be told, the hippies quickly learned to be just as greedy, carnal, and materialistic as their much-despised parents. Of course, there were wrong things that the hippie generation rejected, such as our increasingly pointless presence in Vietnam. And we were unsettled by the turmoil of the times, including the assassinations of JFK in 1963 and RFK and Dr. King in 1968. There was also a recognition that there was more to life than going to school, getting a job, and having a family so your kids could repeat the same process. To what end? It's just that, as Alvin Lee sang, "I'd love to change the world. But I don't know what to do." It's the exact same thing today. Not all the goals of social justice warriors are bad. Not all the ideas on the left are absurd. It's just that, the moment your goal becomes equality of outcome for all, you open the door to disappointment, pain, and even tyranny and death. And you end up with the Marxism of Animal Farm or the "equality" of N. Korea. It simply will not work, and "taxing the rich" is never the simple solution to society's problems (although it makes for a perennially good political slogan and helps to divide and conquer).' - Dr. Michael Brown

Not sure why the man claiming to be the Christian source seems enamored with the American dream of greed, carnality and materialism, as he describes it. (well, that simply isn't the case. Rev. Wade redefines the American dream, capitalism, and what Dr. Brown wrote, and proclaims that Dr. Brown is enamored with greed, carnality, and materialism. This is simply dishonest.)

As we will now see, Brown presents this as a counterpoint to what his real point has been. How sad that Brown seemingly dismisses the notion of equality of outcome for all. (Sad, because equality of outcome for all is a central talking point of the Left. And like most leftist dreams, the notion of equal outcome for all is the manifestation of socialism as the equalizer, forcing its version of equality on the populace whether they want it or not.

It is an idea worthy of dismissal as antithetical to freedom, the Gospel, and the American system as a representative republic.)

This is the cold harsh view of true capitalism. (No, it's a caricature, a creation of the Left, agitprop constructed by marxists to effect the overthrow of the American system.)

That some will succeed and be rich beyond their dreams of avarice while others will wallow in poverty and die as miserably as they lived. (No, capitalism is the willing, legal exchange of value. It has nothing to do with outcomes, or coldness or harshness. 

Outcomes are the eventualities of choices, skills, opportunities, as well as other factors. None of these things are indictments of capitalism. Except of course if you're a leftist like Rev. Wade, who take great pains setting up and reinforcing a marxist caricature of socialism, conveniently ignoring the misery and atrocity perpetrated by that political/economic system.)

Not exactly a Christian message. (Dr. Brown has not been discussing Christianity.)

The theocracy God set up for His people (Yes, for His people. Not America. Not a government style. Not Marxism. A Kingdom with His people. At least the Reverend can something right, but he doesn't bother to understand the ramifications of this. 

Rev. Wade is opposed to dominionism, yet wants his own brand of dominionism. As is typical, irony is lost on the ironic.)

included always taking care of the least in society and even the erasure of debts every 50 years. I can only imagine how much Brown would be against such an idea in America today. (Rev. Wade wants his version of Christianity installed in our governmental system. Separation of church and state appears to have gone out the window.)

When you believe that the only achievable equality is the false equality found in North Korea, (Again Rev. Wade misrepresents Dr. Brown. Dr. Brown was not discussing the possibilities of equality, he was criticizing social justice warriors for their desire to implement equality of outcome enforced by government edict.)

it becomes obvious you are shilling for a political ideology and not for Christ. (Which is perfectly acceptable, since Rev. Wade is doing the same thing himself. Again, this is an opinion piece about politics, not a doctrinal treatise.)

Brown regurgitates the stale GOP taking point about how people who dare to question the rich are dividing. (Which is another misrepresentation of what Dr. Brown wrote. We can read it for ourselves: ...taxing the rich" is never the simple solution to society's problems (although it makes for a perennially good political slogan and helps to divide and conquer). Dr. Brown clearly did not defend the rich as being immune from questioning. He plainly states that "tax the rich" is rhetoric intended to divide people, which is a central tenet of marxism, the proletariat rising up against the bourgeois.)

The reality is the poor are already divided from the rich throughout society. That is not an anti-capitalism sentiment - just a fair observation. (No, it's not a fair observation. Dr. Brown is not referring to any sort of divide between the rich and the poor, he is dealing with encouraging the envy the rich by the poor as a basis to divide them and foment uprising.)

"The reality is that "the rich" are already paying their share of taxes - and more. As reported by the Heritage Foundation, "The latest government data show that in 2018, the top 1% of income earners those who earned more than $540,000 earned 21% of all U.S. income while paying 40% of all federal income taxes. The top 10% earned 48% of the income and paid 71% of federal income taxes." As for those earning lower incomes (under $43,600 annually), they make up 50 percent of the population, account for 12 percent of all income, and pay 3 percent of all taxes. The rich, then, are already being taxed, quite substantially at that. And it's a really bad idea to tax the rich even more to feed the poor - going back to the Ten Years After song - "'til there are rich no more." In the end, if you get rid of these large money makers, you'll end up with even more poor people." - Dr. Michael Brown

Wow. Why on earth is someone claiming to be a minster for Jesus Christ defending the notion of wealthy people retaining their wealth? (Rev. Wade provides no Scriptural documentation that the rich should not retain their wealth.)

This is what happens when you have completely compromised yourself with NAR dominionism. You confuse what your role and responsibilities are. As for the statistics, Brown of course uses the ultra-conservative Heritage Foundation. Heritage is run by the wealthy elite for the sole purpose of keeping them elite. (Rev. Wade impugns the Heritage Foundation, whose great sin is to quote true government figures. Of course he does not dispute the figures, he simply tries to Poison the Well.)

The great thing about statistics is you can make anything sound like it supports your argument. (Then your obligation, Rev. Wade, is to point out where these figures are incorrect. He will not do that, but instead will divert to an irrelevant issue as if this rebuts Dr. Brown.)

In the 1950's, a time often viewed by conservatives with yearning and nostalgia, the top tax bracket rate was 91% and yet no one had any issues with taxing the rich back then. (No one paid 91%, because there were many exemptions, deductions, and credits. And "tax the rich" was not a mantra of the Left back then, so no one had to defend against something that didn't yet exist.)

The notion that the rich are taxed enough is a position only held by the rich. (This is false. This is a matter of clear economic philosophy. The rich are demonized for a political purpose, the discontent of the lower classes. This is classic marxism. The agenda is overthrow.

Everyone should be against demonization of the rich, because if the rich can be demonized, then the line can be redrawn at any time. Rev. Wade might find himself above that line, being richer than 90% of the world's population. Richness is in the eye of the one drawing the line and possessing the power.)

The more compelling and disturbing point here is that Dr. Michael Brown is not an economist. (What training, education, or experience does Rev. Wade have in economics? Should we preemptively dismiss his pontifications on that basis? Can people only express opinions if they are professionals in the field? This is a nonsense dismissal.)

He is a Christian author and radio show host and he has now staked a position that you should not consider taxing the rich anymore even if it would help feed the poor. (Well, Dr. Brown never said any such thing. And based on the clear evidence of history, taxing the rich has never fed the poor.)

Not exactly the gospel message is it? (Again Rev. Wade wants to install Christianity in government...)

"For good reason Alvin Lee confessed that he didn't know what to do. Would that more of our politicians would make a similar confession. The Heritage article cites economist William McBride, who "found that 'nearly every empirical study of taxes and economic growth published in a peer-reviewed academic journal finds that tax increases harm economic growth.'" And a bad economy is bad for everyone. To be sure, the biblical prophets railed on the sinfully rich, meaning, those who got rich at the expense of the poor. They also rebuked the greedily rich, meaning, those who lived in splendor but failed to help the needy. That message is always relevant, which is why Paul gave these instructions to Timothy regarding rich Christians: "Command those who are rich in this present world not to be arrogant nor to put their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain, but to put their hope in God, who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment. Command them to do good, to be rich in good deeds, and to be generous and willing to share. In this way they will lay up treasure for themselves as a firm foundation for the coming age, so that they may take hold of the life that is truly life" (1 Timothy 6:17-19). As for the "tax the rich" slogan, it is as useless as it was out of place on AOC's dress. If we really want to change the world, this is not the way." - Dr. Michael Brown

Of course, the Heritage Foundation would seek out quotes that agree with their predisposed position. (Which never happens on the Left.)

Economic growth is irrelevant to people who cannot access or benefit from it. (Economic growth is not bad because someone doesn't benefit.)

I understand why the rich would hold the position that tax increases hurt the economy but that does not make their position right. (But they are right.)

A bad economy might indeed be bad for everyone but a great economy that is only great for the few is not better in the eyes of those left behind. (More leftist nonsense. By definition a great economy is a great economy. Who it benefits is irrelevant. If only the rich benefit, then by definition it isn't a great economy. Rev. Wade is dissembling.)

Dr. Brown is correct about the key verses today. (Rev. Wade cedes his argument.)

God is very specific when it comes to dealing with the rich. He instructs them to not be haughty because they naturally are arrogant. (Everyone is naturally arrogant.)

Beloved this devotional is not a commentary on economic policy or practice. (It's not a devotional, it's a political screed directed at a single unfortunate man who had the temerity to disagree with Rev. Wade. And yes, it is quite clear that it is a commentary on economic policy or practice.)

It is a sad commentary on the state of the NAR taking over the church of Jesus Christ because most church attenders would probably agree with Michael Brown. (Fully half the country, Christian or not, probably agrees with Dr. Brown.)

The poor are looked down upon with a certain level of disdain and derision by the church. (No, they are not. The Church is devoted to caring for the poor.)

That is because the modern apostate church is like the church at Laodicea, who Jesus rebuked as being poor but believing they were rich. Dr. Michael Brown knows better. He knows that the riches of this world with rust and fade away with time. (Of course he does.)

He knows the riches of the kingdom far outweigh in value and importance the carnality of this world. (Of course he does.)

Yet despite knowing these facts, he stands for the forces of the world who value the baubles and trinkets of this earth over anything eternal. (No, he has a common view of taxes and economics.)

Like or dislike AOC and her politics but her position is vastly close to scripture than Michael Browns. (Whaaaaaat? that is a howler of a statement. AOC's  position has nothing at all to do with Scripture. She is a devotee of government and its power to coerce people into doing what she wants them to do. She is a marxist, a bomb thrower, and a radical who is concerned about nothing besides accumulating power.)

Taxing the rich? Who cares? Feeding the poor? Jesus certainly cares about that. The reason why Alvin Lee did not know what to do is because this world cannot be changed. It is passing away and Jesus will be coming back for His bride and to establish a new earth. Until then we would be wise as Christians to be about the Father's work and stop defending any of the systems or sickness of this dying world. (Except those systems Rev. Wade prefers, of course.)