Obama admits that taxation is slavery, by calling a tax break 'spending'.

Obama admits that taxation is slavery, by calling a tax break 'spending', instead of what it really is: a refund to the person who earned the money. More proof that Obama is an unrepentant socialist with dreams just like the dreams of his father: the redistribution of all wealth just like Karl Marx would prescribe.

The Most Offensive Line in the State of the Union

Filed under: General — Aaron Worthing @ 9:47 pm

[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here.]

Update: See this follow up post showing the Beatles v. the Taxman.

He said it in the prepared text and in the speech itself:

The bipartisan Fiscal Commission I created last year made this crystal clear. I don't agree with all their proposals, but they made important progress. And their conclusion is that the only way to tackle our deficit is to cut excessive spending wherever we find it – in domestic spending, defense spending, health care spending, and spending through tax breaks and loopholes.

(emphasis added).

You got that?  When you are allowed to keep your money, that is considered "spending" by the Federal Government.  Because in reality all of the fruits of your labor belong to us, the government.

Is it wrong to say it almost the attitude of a master toward his slaves?  Consider this passage from Jeffrey Rogers Hummel's history of the Civil War, Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men, which I have to cut and paste from a screen cap:

And consider this too, after a discussion about some of the terrible unquantifiable costs of slavery:

In other words, from a purely economic point of view, slavery is exactly like as if every day you worked, and every day you were paid at the end of the day, but also every day a thief set upon you and took your money.  As George Harrison said of the Taxman: "You're working for no one but me."  And Obama thinks that is a good thing.

An income tax is barely tolerable in a free society.  It is arguably a necessary evil, but it is definitely an evil.  A government that fails to recognize that this is your money it is taking, is intolerable.

Consider also this, before I sign off. In 1855, a man named George Fitzhugh wrote a book called Sociology for the South or, the Failure of Free Society. It is not hyperbole to say that it was the closest thing to Mein Kampf ever produced on American soil, denying the value of Declaration of Independence, asserting the essential inequality of people of specific races, and advocating for slavery as "the oldest, the best and most common form of Socialism."  He also provided this chilling comparison between free labor and slavery:

In the 1850's, abolitionists and people merely opposed to the spread of slavery (such as Abraham Lincoln) entertained the theory that there was a slave power conspiracy—that is a conspiracy to extend slavery over the whole of the United States and to many classes of whites, as well. Lincoln himself entertained that theory in his famous "House Divided" speech.  In it he discussed the recent decision in Dredd Scott, and how it interacted with Stephen Douglas' "Nebraska Doctrine" that the people of Nebraska and Kansas were free to vote for or against slavery, subject only to the constitution:

The several points of the Dred Scott decision, in connection, with Senator Douglas's "care not" policy, constitute the piece of machinery, in its present state of advancement. This was the third point gained. The working points of that machinery are:

First, That no negro slave, imported as such from Africa, and no descendant of such slave, can ever be a citizen of any State, in the sense of that term as used in the Constitution of the United States. This point is made in order to deprive the negro, in every possible event, of the benefit of that provision of the United States Constitution, which declares that "The citizens of each State, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States."

Secondly, That "subject to the Constitution of the United States," neither Congress nor a Territorial Legislature can exclude slavery from any United States territory. This point is made in order that individual men may fill up the Territories with slaves, without danger of losing them as property, and thus to enhance the chances of permanency to the institution through all the future.

Thirdly, That whether the holding a negro in actual slavery in a free State, makes him free, as against the holder, the United States courts will not decide, but will leave to be decided by the courts of any slave State the negro may be forced into by the master. This point is made, not to be pressed immediately; but, if acquiesced in for awhile, and apparently indorsed by the people at an election, then to sustain the logical conclusion that what Dred Scott's master might lawfully do with Dred Scott, in the free State of Illinois, every other master may lawfully do with any other one, or one thousand slaves, in Illinois, or in any other free State.

Auxiliary to all this, and working hand in hand with it, the Nebraska doctrine, or what is left of it, is to educate and mould public opinion, at least Northern public opinion, not to care whether slavery is voted down or voted up. This shows exactly where we now are; and partially, also, whither we are tending.

It will throw additional light on the latter, to go back, and run the mind over the string of historical facts already stated. Several things will now appear less dark and mysterious than they did when they were transpiring. The people were to be left "perfectly free," "subject only to the Constitution." What the Constitution had to do with it, outsiders could not then see. Plainly enough now, it was an exactly fitted niche, for the Dred Scott decision to afterward come in, and declare the perfect freedom of the people to be just no freedom at all. Why was the amendment, expressly declaring the right of the people, voted down? Plainly enough now: the adoption of it would have spoiled the niche for the Dred Scott decision. Why was the court decision held up? Why even a Senator's individual opinion withheld, till after the Presidential election? Plainly enough now: the speaking out then would have damaged the perfectly free argument upon which the election was to be carried. Why the outgoing President's felicitation on the indorsement? Why the delay of a reargument? Why the incoming President's advance exhortation in favor of the decision? These things look like the cautious patting and petting of a spirited horse preparatory to mounting him, when it is dreaded that he may give the rider a fall. And why the hasty after-indorsement of the decision by the President and others?

We cannot absolutely know that all these exact adaptations are the result of preconcert. But when we see a lot of framed timbers, different portions of which we know have been gotten out at different times and places and by different workmen — Stephen, Franklin, Roger and James, for instance — and when we see these timbers joined together, and see they exactly make the frame of a house or a mill, all the tenons and mortices exactly fitting, and all the lengths and proportions of the different pieces exactly adapted to their respective places, and not a piece too many or too few — not omitting even scaffolding — or, if a single piece be lacking, we see the place in the frame exactly fitted and prepared yet to bring such a piece in — in such a case, we find it impossible not to believe that Stephen and Franklin and Roger and James all understood one another from the beginning, and all worked upon a common plan or draft drawn up before the first blow was struck.

I do not today believe that there was any such conspiracy.  But when you read the writings of men like George Fitzhugh, you can fully and deeply understand why some people did believe that one existed.  And you might consider that when you judge people like Glenn Beck.  I think he is on the paranoid side, but its not like he has no reason to be.

After all, our president thinks that when you keep the fruits of your labor, that this is federal spending.  And that should bother any person who believes in individual liberty.

—————————

P.S.: By the way, this is not the first time people have made that claim.  And would anyone be surprised to learn that this previous assertion that a failure to tax is equivalent to spending was in a Ninth Circuit opinion, joined by Judge Reinhardt?

Update: Ugh, how could I forget that the LA Times and the aptly-named, Congressman Wiener said this?  And that even Charles Krauthammer flirted with the concept?

[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]