---

An Open Letter to Jim Wallis and the Sojourners Movement
...I must say that I could not agree more with what you have written – and wish only that you agreed with it, too. Yes, you are speaking about the prisoners at Guantanamo and men like Jose Padilla, who are basically being held incommunicado without being charged with anything. But you are not alone in your denunciations of these acts of government lawlessness; both James Bovard and Jacob Hornberger have written eloquent – and intellectually consistent – articles on this same subject and, unlike what I read in Sojourners, they do so while demonstrating that the all-powerful state is the culprit behind these acts.

There is a real difference between what Bovard and Hornberger write and what you put in Sojourners, however. You may write about the rule of law, but you do not believe it, or, to put it another way, you want rule of law for people like Padilla, but not for the Martha Stewarts of this world.

A few years ago, in the wake of the Enron scandals, you had a field day. The problem, you wrote, was the lack of government regulation, as though the securities industry were a laissez-faire wonderland. You were in your element, since the central theme of Sojourners from day one (including the days when you were in Chicago and called your publication Post-American) has been anti-capitalism. When Janet Jackson bared her breast during the 2004 Super Bowl, you immediately blamed capitalism; when refugees were fleeing Vietnam in the late 1970s, many perishing in the open seas, you blamed capitalism and condemned the refugees for leaving and declared that they were nothing more than "consumerists" who were "in search of a fix." You said those words; I have not put them into your mouth.

You see, I agree with your assessment of what the Bush Administration is doing in Iraq, and with your call for rule of law. However, where were you when the government was passing laws that criminalized free speech (McCain-Feingold) and eviscerated the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth amendments of the U.S. Constitution (Sarbanes-Oxley)? When McCain-Feingold passed, Scott Harshbarger wrote in your publication: "Passage is a triumph of faith in our democracy, our government by the people. We all showed we can win a fight, even against the concentrated power of great wealth."

(By the way, Harshbarger was a prosecutor in Massachusetts and gained fame by his wrongful and malicious prosecutions of people falsely accused of sexually molesting children. Harvey Silverglate, who is a friend of liberty was involved with some of those cases; you may want to contact him to hear what he has to say about Mr. Harshbarger. I can give you his email and his website address if you would like. Mr. Harshbarger apparently does not believe in rule of law, so you can understand why I become suspicious when you give a man like that space in your publication.)

Yes, McCain-Feingold managed to impose the rule of the impervious state over the rule of law, and you treated it as a triumph of theological Truth. And what about your reaction to the passage of Sarbanes-Oxley? Since you claim to champion the rule of law, I would suspect that you would have seen through this as a scheme to destroy rule of law.

Oh, sorry, I was mistaken. In reaction to that law and its anti-Constitutional components, you declared: "Amen to that. Corporate CEOs, no less than everyone else, have a responsibility to the common good, not just to the bottom line." To put it another way, this goes along with your theme (and I must admit you have been consistent) that the law needs to apply one way to the wealthy and another way to the poor. Since you are fond of quoting the Bible, perhaps you should remind your readers of the truths found in Leviticus 19:15. Yes, I know you probably don’t like that verse; it says that one should neither defer to the rich nor the poor, but rather justice should operate on one standard....

...I remember when Jesse Jackson, a U.S. Presidential candidate in 1984, released his tax returns. It seems that in 1983, he and his wife earned about $115,000 of income – and gave $500 to churches and charity. In other words, the Jacksons were not willing to give of themselves in dealing with the needs of others, deferring to the welfare state instead. I make this point because you openly endorsed Jackson that year.

Of course, there is John Kerry. Yes, in the name of Christ, you basically served as a political operative for the Kerry campaign, yet I find it amusing that you were able to find a way to package your radical politics into the candidacy of an extremely wealthy person. It is interesting how you have used your pages to condemn people who started from near nothing and built large business enterprises. Remember your attacks on the founders of Amway? Yes, Rich DeVos and Jay Van Andel are wealthy men who also claim to confess Christ; that was unacceptable, you wrote, as the Bible says people should not amass great wealth.

Yet, Kerry lives on millions and millions of dollars that other people earned, being that all of his wealth either comes from inheritance or from his current spouse and ex-wife. He and Mrs. Kerry own five mansions and a personal jet, and live lives of unimaginable luxury. Yet, according to you, he was an advocate for the poor and someone we should emulate. No, you are not a prophet, just a political operative....