Like many other totalitarian regimes, the Obama administration has become adept at using propaganda to mold public opinion. In previous articles, I have referred to how the left distorts the English language to intentionally mischaracterize issues in order to mislead the general populace. This subterfuge is regularly used to influence public opinion and elicit desired reactions, which differ from responses that would have been given had the information been presented fairly and accurately. After all, the goal of the propagandists is to sway opinion, not to actually provide factual information.
They regularly attach some choice, poll-tested phrases or words like “common sense” or “fair” into a sentence and then assign a totally different meaning to the statement that has nothing to do with common sense or fairness. The American people are fed an endless diet of outright lies, half-truths, or meaningless truisms.
Take the phrase, “We need common sense gun control,” for example. After all, who could be against common sense? His statement could mean we need to control our guns, by not pointing them at anyone we don’t plan to shoot. Or it could mean keeping guns secure and away from kids or criminals. It could mean 100 things we agree with. However, we know Obama means something totally different. He means that the Federal Government should restrict gun access for law-abiding citizens, although the Constitution clearly prohibits such action by the Federal Government. But many low-information voters only hear the words “common sense” and fail to evaluate the actual impact such policies would have.
“We must do it if, it saves one person,” is another phrase we hear often from the left in their war on the 2nd amendment. Like so many of their statements, this is pure nonsense when taken to its logical conclusion.
First the argument ignores all the lives that are saved because of gun owners who are able to protect themselves and others from criminals because they have a gun.
Second, if they really believed that everything that could result in the death of one person should be restricted or banned by the Federal Government, then almost everything could be banned. They would restrict the right to own swimming pools because hundreds of lives are lost in pools every year. They would also restrict the right to own cars because thousands of lives are lost every year in cars. Thousands of lives would be saved if cars were outlawed, but not one politician has proposed banning cars or pools. In fact, to actually eliminate the possibility of even one person being killed or injured, the entire populace would have to be locked up and kept away from the public. So that argument is clearly absurd.
“Everyone should pay their fair share” is an example of a statement that when taken literally makes a lot of sense. Yet Obama has assigned a different meaning to this sentence. The Tea Party agrees that there should be a one-tier flat or fair tax, with everyone paying the exact same percentage. If we all paid the same percentage, then we would all pay our fair share. Under a 10% flat tax, someone making $1 million would pay $100k, and someone else making $50k would pay $5k. That is indisputably fair. Higher earners pay more because they make more but never at a greater percentage.
The same level of fairness can be achieved through a fair tax, often called a consumption tax. Under this system the IRS would be abolished as unnecessary because there would be no federal income tax. All federal taxes would be collected at the point of sale. If we had a 10% fair tax, then all would pay 10% on purchases made. Again totally fair.
However, Obama’s definition of “pay your fair share” is that Peter pays all and Paul pays nothing, which is not actually fair at all. His crony administration happily supports zero taxes for their favored large Wall Street corporations like GE, hundreds of other large corporations focusing on green energy, big donors, and companies who can afford to lobby. But most other businesses are drowning in taxes because we don’t have the resources to lobby Washington or the millions to donate to politicians for special favors.
The fact that the top 20% of taxpayers pay 84% of all federal income taxes obviously means they are paying much more than their fair share. And the fact that the bottom 50% of taxpayers not only pay no federal income taxes, but actually get money back from the top 50%, means they are not paying their fair share at all.
So there is nothing fair at all about Obama’s tax policies, and they do the opposite of promoting everyone paying their fair share.The reality is that fiscal conservatives like the Tea Party really do support everyone paying their fair share, and liberals do not. But the GOP has done a terrible job taking back this issue because they have not been good at messaging. Far too often they even buy in to the language of the left and even use it themselves.
Allen Tharp is President of the San Antonio Tea Party.
This content is published under the Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license. Please honor attribution.