- Text smaller
- Text bigger
This week I posted an essay on my blog aimed at clarifying what may be the key question for navigating the maze of lies Barack Obama, Hilary Clinton, Susan Rice and other Obama faction officials are erecting to deceive the American people about what was really involved in attack on the United States in Benghazi, Libya. Given the fact that “everything about Barack Obama, and the faction spawned by his political success, has been cut from a fabric of deceit,” I find it hard to mimic the posture of surprise and umbrage some commentators have assumed as they join the hue and cry for some accountability. As I say in my blog post, “where the fatal Benghazi debacle is concerned … we should thoroughly examine the nature of their lies in order to ascertain and think through the ultimate purpose they served.”
Barack Obama is a deceiver. Hilary Clinton is a deceiver. So are the whole skulk of politicians and public figures who have steadfastly refused to demand true evidence and convincing argumentation to prove that Obama is even constitutionally eligible for the office he now occupies. So are those who refuse to acknowledge his lifelong commitment to an anti-American communist ideology, which makes a mockery of his twice foresworn oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution. So are the “useful idiots” who pretend that his painstaking implementation of the elitist faction’s malign deconstruction of America’s strength is the fruit of well-intentioned incompetence, not well-orchestrated malice. So are the wide-eyed cowards who refuse to notice the design for despotism in the disparate elements of Obama’s constitutionally abusive decisions and actions.
When scanned in light of his lifelong ideological commitment, the clownish comedy of Obama’s occupation of the White House morphs into a fatal tragedy for America’s constitutional republic; an HD mini-series that depicts the systematic overthrow of self-government, of by and for the American people. The motivation evident in every scene is an abiding will to discard the institutions of God-endowed individual, family and constitutional right that are the indispensable foundation of our character, our liberty and our material success.
Now comes the revelation of politically motivated IRS abuses aimed at discouraging and suppressing the organizational efforts of grass-roots political activists determined to defend these institutions. Given the timing of these revelations, it’s not hard to understand people who are suspicious of the elitist faction media’s sudden willingness to spotlight wrongdoing on Obama’s watch. Is it just a ploy intended to distract from the impeachable offenses that may be involved in the cover-up of the truth about the Benghazi assassinations? By engaging their self-defensive passions, is it intended to preoccupy the most vocal grass-roots opponents of the elitist faction’s push for regime change in the United States?
This is certainly worth pondering. But as we do, we should keep in mind that the administrative regime connected with the federal income tax is not just being abused. In the context of fundamental unalienable and constitution rights, it is inherently abusive. Despite the myth of “voluntary compliance,” the implementation of the income tax requires that people surrender the immunity from compulsory self-incrimination established by the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment. The income-tax law demands that they answer the question “What was your income last year, from whatever source derived?” They feel compelled by law to answer it, even though their answer may be used as evidence against them. Once their answer is on file, they can be cross-examined as to its veracity, on the assumption that until they prove otherwise, it is incomplete and deceptive. They are guilty until proven innocent, a situation that stands on its head the presumption of innocence necessarily connected with the claim of God-endowed unalienable right America’s system of government is supposed to respect.
Where government exists to secure each individual’s God-endowed unalienable rights, the government can stop an individual from acting (arrest him) only when there is cause to believe that individual is engaged in some wrongful act. Otherwise the government’s action denies and disparages that individual’s unalienable right to liberty, which logically includes the liberty to follow his own conscience. Since, in this respect, each is the judge of his own action, it is logical to presume that the decision to act reflects an affirmative conclusion as to the rightness of the action. Hence, the presumption of innocence.
The government is logically authorized to intervene only when the particular action in question violates the standard of right from which the right to liberty derives, which is a standard based ultimately in an authority (that of the Creator) that takes account of obligations that bind all individuals, together, in the common and reciprocal will for justice that constitutes their society as a whole.
In and of itself, making a living for oneself and one’s family (i.e., doing what is necessary to preserve and perpetuate one’s life and that of the species) is, by the standard of the Creator’s will, inherently right. Given that the aim of government is to secure unalienable rights, unless the government can positively show that an individual’s action or activity in respect of their living violates that standard, the individual’s conscientious exercise of his or her liberty naturally takes precedence over the government’s subsequently derived authority.
Because it overturns the priority of natural right over humanly instituted authority, the administrative regime connected with the federal income tax intrinsically subverts the logic of constitutional self-government in the United States. It represents the institution of a regime in which the will and priorities of those who control the power of government define and determine right, so that any action that resists or contradicts their will not only ceases to enjoy the protection of the law, it becomes a violation which the law aims to discourage, suppress or eliminate.
Simply put, the income tax regime represents the establishment of unconstrained tyranny over the people of the United States. Given the role that Obamacare assigns to the IRS (aided and abetted by Chief Justice Robert’s speciously anti-constitutional assertion that the federal government’s taxing power is not subject to constitutional constraint), the agency can and will become the chief means of enforcing the tyrannical edicts of the corporate socialist dictatorship with which the anti-republican elements of the elitist faction mean to replace America’s representative self-government. The IRS abuses are not just evidence of a threat to the Obama faction’s political opponents. The lies about Benghazi may portend a deployable crisis. Once that crisis has achieved its aim, is the IRS slated to become the compatible mechanism the despots of elitist tyranny will use to routinize the deployment of crisis into the lives of their subjects, everywhere, every day, in every walk of life?