Obama: Jesus Would Tax the Rich

The Politico reports that Obama the theologian has sorted through the reams of teaching of fiscal policy written and footnoted by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and come to the conclusion that Jesus said "Tax the Rich."
President Barack Obama on Thursday tied his proposal to raise taxes on wealthy Americans to his faith, telling leaders gathered for the National Prayer Breakfast that Jesus’s teachings have shaped that conclusion.

The rich should pay more not only because “I actually think that is going to make economic sense, but for me as a Christian, it also coincides with Jesus’s teaching that ‘for unto whom much is given, much shall be required,’” Obama said at the Washington Hilton, delivering remarks at an annual event that every president has attended since Dwight D. Eisenhower.

“We can all benefit from turning to our Creator, listening to him,” Obama said. “Avoiding phony religiosity. … This is especially important right now when we’re facing some big challenges as a nation.”
Jesus is a Keynesian. Just like Obama. Who'd a thunk it?

I personally had no idea Jesus spoke often on matters of economic policy. It's a shame that Jesus didn't have anything to say about killing babies or harming others or anything like that because then Obama would listen because he's all Christiany, you know.


  1. I guess Jesus would force Catholics to pay for other folks contraceptives too.

  2. O-bah-muhh gave about 1% to charity prior to running for president. Biden still gives less than 1% to charity.

    Aunt Zeituni is living on the public dole, but the Bible says, 'But if any provide not for his own, and specially for thos of his own house, he hath denied the faith and is worse than an infidel.'(1Tim 5:8)

  3. Reading the Bible passage in context would be helpful, Mr O-bah-muhh. The passage quoted came at the end of a parable that obviously went over O-bah-muhh's head. (Ever hearing, but never understanding; ever seeing, but not perceiving.His heart is calloused, he's dull of hearing, and has closed his eyes: Lest he see with his eyes, hear with his ears, understand with his heart, and turn and be converted/healed.)
    The servant to whom much responsibility is given is required to faithfully do much and to him who has been entrusted much, more will be demanded of him.
    This applies to preachers teaching and preaching God's Kingdom, and in the world, it can be applied to our elected officials.
    Mr. O-bah-muhh has been given much/ entrusted with much, so much is demanded of him/ required of him.

  4. He said we should avoid "phony religiosity."

    Was he doing standup comedy at that prayer breakfast?

  5. Since when did Obama know anything about Jesus? He bows to Mecca 5x per day!

  6. @ Anon 11:31 I wouldn't insult Muslims that way. If The O bows 5x/day it's probably only to the god in his mirror.

  7. I'll probably get hammered for using the "H" word, but I don't think even Hitler was so presumptuous, or spoke in such a way. The current POTUS is truly scary.

  8. Apparently since Obama thinks he may be President in 10 years, (even though it is against the law), he can do whatever he wants. Watch this link where he says "Presumably" he won't be President in 10 years.

  9. I believe that this is a gross distortion of Scripture by Obama. He and many liberals are dead wrong on the issue of taxing some to redistribute unto others, particularly as it relates to Christianity. In some cases these types of liberal views reflect a lack of belief in God, and in others, they reflect a grave misunderstanding of charity. In addition to the effects that it most often leads to, income redistribution (which is what you have when some of the population receive benefits that are paid for via taxes from others) is immoral in and of itself.

    As a friend of mine puts it, "Christ calls us to give of our wealth. He doesn't call us to give of OUR NEIGHBORS' wealth." This is precisely what liberal policy amounts to - taking from another person to give to a third person. There are those who fail to understand how Christians, of all people, could possibly be conservative and/or Republican when it is the Democratic / liberal policies that call more for supposed "giving" to those in need. The problem is, they have a funny definition of the term "giving." What they define as "giving" is actually legalized theft. I'll put it this way: If I were to steal $1,000 from you and pass it to a homeless person or to a soup kitchen, would you commend me for my generosity? Unless you are deranged, you absolutely would not; it wouldn't be my own money that I gave. But this is precisely what occurs with income redistribution schemes conducted by the government through various tax policies. The government takes money from some by force, and then doles that money out to others. It's theft, not charity. This is where many liberals get confused without realizing it. Charity does not equate to taking from someone else in order to redistribute that person's money away. It doesn't equate to me stealing $1,000 from you and then sending it to a soup kitchen, and it doesn't equate to the government forcibly taking money from some to redirect to others. Charity inherently requires the giver to give WILLINGLY; otherwise it's not "giving" at all. So when liberals applaud politicians who pass such income redistribution tax measures, it's akin to applauding someone who sends $10,000 to a hospital that he defrauded from a someone in a scam.

    And income redistribution, as with socialism in general, robs a person of his ability to image God. By taking money by force from someone, you rob that individual of the ability to give that money freely and image God's love. Undoubtedly, many would argue that unless the money were taken by force, the person would never part with it of his own accord. But the problem is that this isn't for us to judge. We don't have the authority to judge whether or not we believe a person would donate his money to charity if it weren't taken from him by force; and even if we knew the person would not donate it, it still doesn't change the fact that taking it from him by force is theft. And while on the topic of Scripture, let us not forget the numerous references in that Book to one particular type of sinful individuals: tax collectors.

    (continued below...)

  10. (continued from above)

    To be clear, I believe strongly in charitable giving and providing to those in need. It is what we are called to do, after all. However, this is not the case with income / wealth redistribution, though many fail to see the difference. There is also a tendency by many to view the government as some sort of a “cleansing” entity – that so long as the money is redistributed by the government, it somehow cleanses the act of theft so that it is no longer theft. Many liberals feel that the government is entitled to tax as much as it wants, and that if money is taken through government taxation, then it isn't theft. They believe that "legal" automatically equals "moral." It could be argued that this attitude amounts to a type of faith in government which violates the First Commandment – having a false God, or replacing God with government. This could also be compared to a government committing any number of other sins, but believing that it is okay so long as it is the government that is doing it, or as long as it's "legal."

    Many believe that those of us against forced income redistribution are being uncharitable and/or greedy. This may be true in some or even many cases. However, for others like me, I am against it not simply because theft is forced on myself, but because it is forced on others. If I want to give my own money - and I do - that is fine. But if I support government-forced income redistribution, I am not simply supporting the redistribution of my own money; I am also supporting the forcible taking of money from others. We can decide what to do with our own money; we CANNOT, however, dictate what should happen with the money of others.

    I believe that as a Christian, I simply cannot support a measure which advocates taking money from one person and giving it to another, as I am supporting theft by doing so, which is obviously immoral. I don't believe it is acceptable to support something which would result in legalized theft anymore than I believe that it is acceptable to support a measure which would lead to any other sin. The fact that a sinful act is brokered by the government, or legal, does not justify the act.

  11. I won't say our Chief Executive is conceited but when it thunders he takes a bow.

  12. Maybe he gets theology lessons from jeff bethke, the I hate religion viral video guy.


Post a Comment