Trading Iron for Velvet

America, home of the free?

One must marvel at the delicious irony of having our first black president as an aspiring slave master. Usually such story lines are reserved for works of fiction, but Obama is swiftly climbing the stairs to the throne.

With food stamp use at record levels, and "Obama phones" scattered across our urban landscape, people are giddily trading the iron shackles of the cruel slavery of the past for the velvet handcuffs of alleged "compassion" today. Both, however, are designed to enslave the people in one form or another.

Since 2009, when Barack Obama was sworn in as 44th President of the United States, food stamp enrollment is up 70%, according to the Washington Times, with little hope that those numbers will drop significantly in the near future. With Obamacare set to kick in in earnest next year, it is likely that unemployment will continue to rise and demand for government assistance to rise in tandem, creating an increasing population of willing slaves.

Haven't we seen this before? When someone helps you out a bad situation and seeks no thanks, that is a selfless act. When someone constantly reminds you of their compassion as they help, beware the warning signs of eventual tyranny. Wasn't Hitler going to help the people of Germany, and didn't they clamor for it? Stalin was an alleged champion of "the people", as was Mao Tse Tung. How did the people under their rule fare after the "assistance" of government?

In the old days, when philanthropy was the primary source of assistance for the genuinely poor, there was also the benefit of tax deductions for the donor. Some would say that is the same thing as a government handout, and that the government is simply cutting out the middleman by delivering aid to the poor directly. A clever argument, but fallacious nonetheless. By the government directly offering aid to the poor, they take not just from those with the means to easily absorb the costs, but also from those who are barely above the line where they themselves would need help.

The tax cost of a charitable deduction is also far below what the philanthropist donates. In other words, a 15% deduction on ten thousand dollars costs the government coffers only fifteen hundred dollars. The philanthropist is happy with this trade off, so why stop him? The answer may surprise you.

For starters, our government is now run by a collection of narcissists who simply cannot abide by the poor being helped by anonymous sources and therefore, must inject itself into the role of ultimate benefactor for the masses, not caring what the cost may be because none of it is borne by them. As the behemoth has grown over the centuries, our Federal Government cares less about our rights and privacy and more about our gratitude for saving us, from what, God only knows.

Further, the government knows that the borderline middle class taxpayer will eventually be devoured by the loss of employment and thus, be forced to succumb to the largess of government. And the former, wealthy philanthropist will ultimately be brought to his knees and be forced to come to Obama -- or whoever his chosen successor may be -- with hat in hand, no longer able to withstand the ravages of a government out of control.

Industry, with no one left to afford the personal expense, will be taken over by the State, and the conquest of the free American people is complete. We will have traded green pastures for the gray, lifeless landscape of the former Soviet Union.

We will have traded iron for velvet, both restraints equally evil and sinister.

Sphere: Related Content