Publicani

It is not generally accepted and it is not well understood that the income tax is the greatest threat to freedom facing Americans. It’s bad enough that the income tax is stealing - after all it is a forced removal of property from an individual. The main argument for the income tax, as far as I understand, is that it is done for the good. The cost of civilization. I am vehemently opposed to the “end justifies the means” concept, but apparently the majority of Americans are not.

The inherent problem of “the End Justify the Means” is in the question “Who decides?” Who decides what kind of end justifies the means? Who decides what are the appropriate means to achieve this end? And who decide whether the means for such end are justifiable?

If you or your government steals money from a few and give it to many, does the end justify the means? Should we make a law taking all the money from Warren Buffet and giving it to “the poor,” or “the children?” I don’t think you agree even though Buffet is all for income tax.

And another, not so apparent evil of the income tax is the fact that along with laws assaulting individual freedom by forcefully taking property from people, there come laws taking individual freedoms from people receiving government handouts of pieces of such properties. Yes, people who benefit from income tax pay the price of getting in bed with the government by their freedoms. The current Obama-Wright Fight of the Titans offers one illustration for this point.

But first, in order to give some background, let’s put some light on the IRS shadow behind our election process. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The Bill of Rights puts the freedom of religion and freedom of speech in the same amendment, emphasizing inseparable nature of civil liberties. The IRS finds a way to separate them. This is what the IRS said:

However, for their organizations to remain tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3), leaders cannot make partisan comments in official organization publications or at official organization functions, including official church publications and functions.

A charitable organization may invite a political candidate to speak in his or her individual
(non-candidate) capacity if the organization takes steps to ensure that:
• The candidate speaks only in a non-candidate capacity,
• Neither the candidate nor any representative of the organization makes any
mention of the election or candidacy of the individual, and
• No campaign activity occurs in connection with the candidate’s attendance.

The IRS threatens:

If the IRS finds a section 501(c)(3) organization engaged in prohibited campaign
activity, the organization could lose its tax-exempt status and it could be subject to an
excise tax on the amount of money spent on that activity.
In cases of flagrant violation of the law, the IRS has specific statutory authority to make
an immediate determination and assessment of tax. Also, the IRS can ask a federal
district court to enjoin the organization from making further political expenditures.
In addition, contributions to organizations that lose their section 501(c)(3) status
because of political activities are not deductible by the donors for federal income tax
purposes.

Obama’s pastor Jeremiah Wright stood behind Obama, exercising his freedom of speech. He believed in certain “12 percepts and covenantal statements” of Black Ethics. The 11th of such percepts states:

11. Pledge allegiance to all Black leadership who espouse and embrace the Black Value System

Apparently Obama espoused and embraces the Black Value System, and that is why Wright risked everything he had and built by openly promoting Obama over Hillary:

“Barack knows what it means to be a black man living in a country and a culture that is controlled by rich white people,” “Hillary can never know that.”

Wright was probably instrumental in helping Obama give a speech to 10,000 people at a church conference in June ’07 in Hartford, Connecticut, in which Obama mentioned his candidacy and part of his platform. According to the Wall Street Journal,

“Trinity’s national parent, the United Church of Christ, recently disclosed that it’s being investigated by the Internal Revenue Service for this speech.”

Imagine the drama of Wright, who, because of the income tax laws, might have sacrified his church for his freedom of speech. Imagine the drama of Obama, almost the president of the United States, who is not able to defend his pastor against the IRS for speaking and allowing Obama to speak not on terms preapproved by the IRS. And imagine the drama of the American people whose election may be affected by the IRS deciding who should be talking about what and how.

I fully sympathize with Obama problem, Wright problem, and the American voter problem.

But my greatest sympathy is with the American taxpayer whose money was forcefully removed to subsidize all this drama.