Monday, February 17, 2014

“We live in a Gestapo age.”

Using the IRS for political oppression


Anonymous said...

I encourage everyone to get on the band wagon to comment on the IRS proposed rules for non-profit groups. Here are the comments I made. You are welcom to sue them or any part thereof: PArt 1

This comment on the proposed regulations is pursuant to our
Republican Form of government guaranteed by Article IV Section4 of the United States Constitution. As an agency of the federal government this is applicable.
1.) The proposed regulation does not prohibit political speech and participation, it interferes with a Constitutional mandate upon the federal government: Organizations singled out for proposing that the Constitution be followed and promoting definitive statements pursuant to this agenda cannot be attacked by regulation prohibiting such. The position of the Internal Revenue Service to enact such regulation violates Article IV Section 4. The position is contrary to the Supreme Law of the land.

2.) The IRS has a mandate to guarantee a republican Form of
Government. The IRS being an administrative agency of the federal
government, the United States; See Hooven Allison v Evatt Tax Commissioner of Ohio for the meaning of United States.

3.) By categorically labeling the organizations so situated
as "political" the IRS creates a "fiction of law". Organizations singled out for their position to pursue the constitutional requirements and its mandate upon government have an agenda that promotes "lawful" government. It is not a statement of politics, it is a statement of what is lawful and what is not. Conforming to the mandate of the constitution is one of a legal and lawful basis and does not present a political position. The Constitution cannot be changed by whim, political process or even judicial decision, See Marbury v Madison. It must be changed by the "lawful" process, through the amendment process.

4.) By referencing the term "Political" in the proposed regulations the IRS "switches the burden of proof". Merely calling a thing political does not make it so. There is no test in the proposed regulations to preserve the due process of the applicants. By refering the term "political" and categorizing the citizens and groups of citizens as such, the regulations pervert the "lawful" mandate on government to ensure a Republican form of government is guaranteed.

5.) By switch the burden the proof on a group, the IRS would
present a chilling effect to free speech and association protected by the First Amendment. Lawfully acting groups promoting the due course of law, a limited government, the following of the "powers delegated that are few and defined" are not engaged in political speech or activism, the are envolved in their duty as citizens to promote the lawful activities of

6.) The actions of the IRS in proposing such regulation that prohibit the lawful expression of limited government following the defined authority delegated by the people while allowing groups who openly advocate the
unlawful expansion of government, political activism to promote government activity outside the lawful amendment process and subvert the Constitution are not authorized. The "actions" by the IRS are in distinct opposition to the constitutional mandate to guarantee a Republican form of government. By the violation of Article
IV Section 4 and the targeting of groups that promote proper constitutional application, the IRS becomes a political arm of other political groups that use politics and pressure to circumvent proper constitutional processes and the rule of law. The agency will thus
violate its mandate pursuant to Article IV Section 4. No authority in the
Enabling Statute that created the agency or that has been thus enacted, that will pass constitutional review, empowers the IRS or the Department of the Treasury to ignore constitutional mandate.
If enacted, the proposed regulations would become "constructive
intent" to violate the authority creating the agency.

Anonymous said...

PArt 2

7.) The IRS is mandated to follow the Constitution; it has a duty to ensure a Republican form of government. The IRS Should be challenging any and all groups who advocate unlawful process contrary to constitutional mandate. Subversive groups that promote acts or
actions designed to circumvent the constitutional process, frustrate the rule of law, frustrate the regular activity required for the proper exercise of government and deny to the citizens of the United States a Republican form of government.

8.) The actions of the IRS will formant unlawful activity, undue burdens upon the government and place the agency in positions that will result in need less litigation. By violating the citizen’s right to participate and associate to promote a lawful government, the IRS opens itself up to needless litigation. Ellis v Blum types of actions for 42 USC 1983 and Bivins type Constitutional Torts will likely be commenced. Obvious constitutional and legislative overreaching by the agency will surely result in citizens protecting their rights to due process and their constitutionally mandated guarantee to a Republican form of government. The cost of litigation, the harassment and subsequent cost on both the government and its citizens is not condoned by any statute or lawful authority delegated to government, Period!

Anonymous said...

Everyone knows what is being done here. We have historical proof which cannot be overlooked or ignored except by those who refuse to use their wits.

The clock ticks and they control the levers and people necessary to their ends.

It comes and it is black, in context and character, in meaning and deliberation and it wears a smile which cannot hide the guile and hate it feels for any but it's own.

There is no doubt now. It comes.

Anonymous said...

read the LVRJ article. Sippenhaft.

Matt Bracken said...

I don't know how catchy this is, or if it will catch on at all, but I like how DHStapo looks in print. In my mind I pronounce it "Destapo."

Anonymous said...

Mr. Bracken,
If DHStapo is going to appear in one of your books, I think it would fit in extremely well. I have not heard that term before, and find it very appropriate.

Anonymous said...

If they did not constantly try to tyranise anf repress us - how else would we know that they cared?