Guest Blogger: The thrill of tyranny.
Lois Lerner may be gone, but her legacy looms large in the minds of Marxist tyrants pretending to be Democrats.
The Internal Revenue Servicehas revoked the tax-exempt status of a conservative charity for making statements critical of Hillary Rodham Clinton and John Kerry, according to a USA Today report.
The Patrick Henry Center for Individual Liberty, based in Manassas, Va., “has shown a pattern of deliberate and consistent intervention in political campaigns” and made “repeated statements supporting or opposing various candidates by expressing its opinion of the respective candidate’s character and qualifications,” according to a written determination released Friday by the IRS.
The IRS said the center acted as an “action organization” by publishing alerts on its website for columns written by its president, former FBI agent Gary Aldrich, the Washington Free Beacon reported.
The IRS pointed out a column that appeared to be published by Townhall on April 2, 2004, in which Mr. Aldrich wrote, “if John Kerry promises otherwise ill-informed swing-voters lower gas prices at the pump, more than a few greedy, registered ignoramuses will follow him anywhere,” the Free Beacon reported.
Another article cited by the IRS was a 2005 piece titled “Stop Hillary Now!,” which rallied “Clinton haters” to inform voters of Hillary Clinton’s “atrocious conduct,” USA Today reported.
IRS Commissioner John Koskinen said in an interview with The Washington Post last week that the IRS and Treasury Department are likely to rewrite controversial draft guidelines to better define “candidate-related political activities.”
“My bottom line is that it’s in everyone’s interest to have clarification,” he said. “My position since I started more than four months ago is that we ought to have clarity, and that any rule that comes out ought to be fair and easy to administer.”
Conservatives have argued that the proposals are just another way for the Obama administration to target right-leaning groups.
A Fox News poll published last week revealed that 49 percent of American voters believe the IRS intentionally targeted conservative organizations.
What is important to note here, is that at this particular point in time, neither John F’ing Kerry nor Hillary Clinton are declared candidates for anything. Thus rending the IRS act’s preemptive at best, and an illegal suppression of free speech at the barest of minimums. In short, this action by the IRS is nothing less than a expansion of the tyrannical overreach of the federal government that the Obamanation Administration has nurtured. Just as with the recent case witnessed in Nevada at the Bundy Ranch, these actions fly in the face of every word written by America’s Founding Fathers, not only in the Constitution itself, but in every one of their written documents in which they went to excruciatingly pains to make their position crystal clear on.
Oh, and just in case anyone thinks that the dust up in Nevada is a one off exception to the rule event for the BLM, think again.
After the recent Bundy Ranch episode by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Texans are becoming more concerned about the BLM’s focus on 90,000 acres along a 116 mile stretch of the Texas/Oklahoma boundary. The BLM is reviewing the possible federal takeover and ownership of privately-held lands which have been deeded property for generations of Texas landowners.
Sid Miller, former Texas State Representative and Republican candidate for Texas Agriculture Commissioner, has since made the matter a campaign issue to Breitbart Texas.
“In Texas,” Miller says, “the BLM is attempting a repeat of an action taken over 30 years ago along the Red River when Tommy Henderson lost a federal lawsuit. The Bureau of Land Management took 140 acres of his property and didn’t pay him one cent.”
Miller referred to a 1986 case where the BLM attempted to seize some of Henderson’s land. Henderson sued the BLM and lost 140 acres that had been in his family for generations. Now the BLM is looking at using the prior case as a precedent to claim an additional 90,000 acres.
Congressman Mac Thornberry (R-TX) represents the ranchers in this region of north Texas. According to Thornberry’s legislative analysts, the issue of the ownership of this land dates back to the Louisiana Purchase of 1803. When the BLM made the claim on Henderson’s land, their position was that Texas never had the authority to deed the land to private parties and therefore it would fall under federal control.
In 1922, the U.S. Supreme Court attempted to settle the boundary dispute in Oklahoma v. Texas and declared the boundary to be defined by wooden stakes set on the river bank. That boundary apparently lasted no longer than anyone could expect wooden stakes to last in the shifting sands of a meandering river. In 2000, Texas and Oklahoma’s legislatures agreed to a “Red River Boundary Compact” which defined the border between the states as the southern vegetation line. However, Congress must ratify agreements of this kind between the states according to Article 1, Section 10 (Clause 3) of the U.S. Constitution. Congressman Thornberry introduced House Joint Resolution 72 during the 106th Congress to codify the compact into U.S. Law.
The matter became somewhat of a national question drawing the attention of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, “The U.S. Supreme Court has tried twice to settle this dispute, which at one point brought the governor of Oklahoma to the border in a tank…However, true to the slogan ‘One Riot, One Ranger,’ the good governor of Oklahoma and his tank was held off by a lone Texas Ranger on his horse.”
Tanks aside, the Texas Farm Bureau has produced a video that explains the problems left open by the current border definition from north Texas ranchers’ perspectives. This issue reportedly centers on Oklahoma’s definitions on the various forms of movement with the river.
Is is really any wonder, with the Federal government consistently acting with such a blatant disregard for the United States constitution, that so many American’s are getting fed up? And then, to add insult to injury, we have a Senate Majority Leader calling those who object to the Federal governments illegal and unconstitutional action “Domestic Terrorists”?
OKLAHOMA CITY – A land dispute in Nevada between rancher Cliven Bundy and the federal government began decades ago.
The Bureau of Land Management says Bundy was allowing his cattle to graze illegally which triggered a round-up of about 400 head of cattle last week.
Bundy claims his family’s cattle have grazed on the land since 1870 without interference from the government.
However, the Bureau of Land Management says Bundy hadn’t paid his grazing fees since 1993.
Over time, officials say those fees have amounted to more than $1 million.
As authorities herded the cattle, a standoff was sparked with members of the militia.
Organizers with the Oklahoma Militia say they have members in Nevada who claim Bundy’s cattle were unlawfully herded by the bureau.
The Oklahoma Militia says it is made up of nearly 50,000 volunteers.
Members say they are taking Bundy’s side and fear this practice could spread to the Sooner State.
Scott Shaw said, “Evidently in America we don’t actually own the property anymore if you ever did.”
Shaw says Oklahoma Militia members are ready to take up arms against the federal government if needed.
He said, “It’s up to the feds. The ball’s in their court! You can do this legally or if you want to try to do a land grab violently, you can do that. We’re going to resist you!”
Shaw says the militia has not had to defend Oklahoma from the government yet but members are becoming concerned.
Shaw said, “Just look around the country, they are doing it everywhere. If they can do it in Nevada, they can do it in Colorado, Texas. I mean, what’s to stop them from coming to Oklahoma? The only thing to stop them is ‘We the People’.”
However, not everyone agrees.
Sen. Jim Inhofe said, “You’ve got a bunch of people there trying to take the law into their own hands and they shouldn’t be doing that. And the Bureau of Land Management is not government-owned, it’s publicly owned. There’s a big difference there. I blame both sides.”
I should like to point out the blatantly and painfully obvious to Scott Shaw, the moment any State enacts a property tax, it has illegally seized all privately held property in that state, since the penalty for failure to pay a property tax is seized and forced sale of the property in question the act of enacting a property tax instantly transforms the property owner into a tenant leasing or renting the property from the State.
As to Sen. Jim Inhofe’s bullshit, it is really no surprise to see a member of America’s self anointed Aristocracy aligning himself with the Federal governments Brown shirts against the average American citizen, while simultaneously berating American’s for being offended by the acts of a tyrannical government that has long since lost it’s moral or legal authority to govern.
That Congress can and does pass legislation that violates the United States Constitution and then uses the judicial branches and various Law Enforcement Agencies to apply it’s monopoly on violence to enforce those Unconstitutional laws is nothing new. Slavery was after all once legal as were all of the Jim Crow and Blue Laws.
What is relatively new, is the American People standing up and saying, NO, you have gone to far.
(Cross Posted @ The Wilderness of Mirrors)