“What do you expect when you target the President?” This is what an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) agent allegedly said to the head of a conservative organization that was being audited after calling for the impeachment of then-President Clinton. Recent revelations that IRS agents gave “special scrutiny” to organizations opposed to the current administration’s policies suggest that many in the IRS still believe harassing the President’s opponents is part of their job.

As troubling as these recent reports are, it would be a grave mistake to think that IRS harassment of opponents of the incumbent President is a modern, or a partisan, phenomenon. As scholar Burton Folsom pointed out in his book New Deal or Raw Deal, IRS agents in the 1930s were essentially “hit squads” against opponents of the New Deal. It is well-known that the administrations of John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson used the IRS to silence their critics. One of the articles of impeachment drawn up against Richard Nixon dealt with his use of the IRS to harass his political enemies. Allegations of IRS abuses were common during the Clinton administration, and just this week some of the current administration’s defenders recalled that antiwar and progressive groups alleged harassment by the IRS during the Bush presidency.

The bipartisan tradition of using the IRS as a tool to harass political opponents suggests that the problem is deeper than just a few “rogue” IRS agents – or even corruption within one, two, three or many administrations. Instead, the problem lays in the extraordinary power the tax system grants the IRS.

The IRS routinely obtains information about how we earn a living, what investments we make, what we spend on ourselves and our families, and even what charitable and religious organizations we support. Starting next year, the IRS will be collecting personally identifiable health insurance information in order to ensure we are complying with Obamacare’s mandates.

The current tax laws even give the IRS power to marginalize any educational, political, or even religious organizations whose goals, beliefs, and values are not favored by the current regime by denying those organizations “tax-free” status. This is the root of the latest scandal involving the IRS.

Considering the type of power the IRS excises over the American people, and the propensity of those who hold power to violate liberty, it is surprising we do not hear about more cases of politically-motivated IRS harassment. As the first U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall said, “The power to tax is the power to destroy” – and who better to destroy than one’s political enemies?

The United States flourished for over 120 years without an income tax, and our liberty and prosperity will only benefit from getting rid of the current tax system. The federal government will get along just fine without its immoral claim on the fruits of our labor, particularly if the elimination of federal income taxes are accompanied by serious reduction in all areas of spending, starting with the military spending beloved by so many who claim to be opponents of high taxes and big government.

While it is important for Congress to investigate the most recent scandal and ensure all involved are held accountable, we cannot pretend that the problem is a few bad actors. The very purpose of the IRS is to transfer wealth from one group to another while violating our liberties in the process. Thus the only way Congress can protect our freedoms is to repeal the income tax and shutter the doors of the IRS once and for all.

Ron Paul is a former U.S. Congressman from Texas and leader of the pro-free market movement in the United States.

Redirect Notice

In the wake of the ongoing IRS scandal, which used taxation powers to threaten opposing political organizations and individuals, former Congressman Ron Paul on May 20 spoke on this abuse of power, and reiterated that the agency’s actions were not new, and have been used for nearly a century to transfer wealth from the people, and violate the very liberties given to us by the founding fathers.

As scholar Burton Folsom pointed out in his book New Deal or Raw Deal, IRS agents in the 1930s where essentially “hit squads” against opponents of the New Deal. It is well-known that the administrations of John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson used the IRS to silence their critics. One of the articles of impeachment drawn up against Richard Nixon dealt with his use of the IRS to harass his political enemies. Allegations of IRS abuses were common during the Clinton administration, and just this week some of the current administration’s defenders recalled that antiwar and progressive groups alleged harassment by the IRS during the Bush presidency.

The very purpose of the IRS is to transfer wealth from one group to another while violating our liberties in the process, thus the only way Congress can protect our freedoms is to repeal the income tax and shutter the doors of the IRS once and for all. – Texas Straight Talk

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) was established at the same time the 16th Amendment was passed, allowing for a national income tax to be imposed on the citizens of the United States. Prior to that time, government revenues were accumulated through tariffs, permits and licenses, and other forms of corporate taxation. Subsequently, the Federal Reserve bank was created in the same year, and all three institutions became intrinsically tied to one another, where taxation on the people would go to the privately owned Federal Reserve to be collateral for government borrowing, and the IRS would be the collection arm of this monetary triangle.

In fact, like the Federal Reserve, which is owned by shareholder banks, many of which are foreign based entities, the IRS is believed to be a privately owned corporation, incorporated in Delaware, and run out of Puerto Rico as a holding company.

The power to control money is the power over economies, businesses, and even citizens themselves. As seen throughout its history, the IRS can and has been used by Presidential administrations to coerce, cajole, and even destroy political opposition, or businesses who do not conform to the policies of that leadership. President Richard Nixon was impeached in part due to his abuse of the public through the IRS, and as the growing scandal under President Obama escalates, it appears that the current administration has taken that illegal power to new levels.

Ron Paul knows that the IRS is simply one side of the three way triangle of monetary control tied to the Federal Reserve and the income tax. With all three being formed in 1913, in opposition to the original articles of the Constitution, and with the goal of usurping America through control of its money, the agency has emerged not just as a monetary arm of the executive branch, but as a political one as well.

WASHINGTON, May 20, 2013 ― Since leaving the House of Representatives, former 12-term representative and presidential candidate Ron Paul has not slowed down. He has released a new educational curriculum for homeschoolers, opened a new Institute that focuses exclusively on foreign policy, and continues to speak across the country at college campuses to students eager to hear his philosophy of liberty.

SEE RELATED: DE GRACIA: The reason Millennials like Ron Paul

Kevin Kelly: Discuss your homeschooling curriculum and undertakings. Why is homeschooling important to you?

Ron Paul: I have always supported the right of individuals to “opt-out” of the government education system. Our public education system is failing, and homeschooling is one of many options for parents to have more control over their children’s education. My homeschool curriculum emphasizes individual liberty and responsibility, ideas that are often lost in traditional public schools.

SEE RELATED: The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity

Kelly: You recently announced the opening of a new Institute that deals exclusively with foreign policy. Why have you decided to undertake a project like that?

Paul: Foreign policy has always been an important issue for me. Our military is stretched too thin around the globe, and our constant interference in the affairs of other countries actually makes us less safe. I have always advocated the same foreign policy that our founders did: non-interventionism. We must promote free trade with other nations but not get involved in their internal affairs. The Institute will help me actively promote this type of restrained foreign policy, which I believe growing numbers of Americans are looking for from their leaders after years of war.

SEE RELATED: Obama and Congress should follow Ron Paul’s example on elected pay

Kelly: I’d like to discuss some issues that specifically deal with foreign policy. Following the death of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez there has been some discussion on future Venezuelan/America relations. What was your reaction to the death of Chavez, what are your thoughts on the new government led by Maduro, and what is your reaction to the suggestion that America is still trying to destabilize Venezuela?

Paul: A humble, non-interventionist foreign policy defends the United States and doesn’t get involved in the internal affairs of other nations. My prescription for Venezuela follows these guidelines: I believe we should stay out of it and mind our own business.

Kelly: What are your thoughts on the new claims made by the Obama Administration that the Syrian government has chemical weapons?

Paul: Politicians in Washington are advocating arming the Syrian rebels, yet we don’t even know who these individuals are! There is evidence the Syrian rebels are associated with al-Qaeda. They could end up being worse than Assad and causing more destruction for their own people. Getting involved will likely turn out badly; plus, we simply don’t have the money.

Kelly: President Obama claimed once again that he will attempt to close Guantanamo Bay. What was your reaction to his comments and what are your thoughts on the ongoing hunger strikes?

Paul: I have always thought that Guantanamo Bay was a bad idea. President Obama ran on closing it, but has yet to do so. Now he says again that he is going to close it. Personally, I will believe it when I see it. We should not be keeping anyone indefinitely locked up without charges and without a trial. If they are accused of terrorism, then they should be charged and tried.

Kelly: Why do you believe that whenever anyone attempts to explain why our overseas interventions have the potential to trigger future blowback against the United States they’re personally attacked?

Paul: Blowback is a very real phenomenon that even our CIA admits exists. It happens when the United States’ involvement in the affairs of other countries generates an adverse reaction against the U.S. by the people of that country. Iran provides one example. In the 1950s, we overthrew their leader and replaced him with a dictator who was terrible to the people. The reaction came in 1979 with the taking of our hostages. Those who support these types of interventions do not want to believe they cause people in other countries to resent us, because they know that if the American people understood blowback, they would be less supportive of our interventionist foreign policy. However, I believe that more and more Americans are realizing that an interventionist foreign policy breeds hostility. As these wars drag on, they’re coming to see that we can no longer afford to be the world’s policeman.

Kelly: Shifting to civil liberties, what were your thoughts concerning the revelation that the Boston bombing suspect was denied his Miranda rights after he was arrested?

Paul: It sets a dangerous precedent anytime a suspect, especially an American citizen on U.S. soil, is not immediately read his Miranda Rights.

Kelly: You’ve publically spoken out against the detention of Army Private Bradley Manning who leaked thousands of classified documents to Wikileaks. What are your thoughts on his continuing imprisonment, and what do you believe will be the future of Julian Assange and Wikileaks?

Paul: I am greatly concerned about Private Manning’s long imprisonment. The government argues that his actions created a national security threat, but refuse to let the American people know any details of the case.

Kelly: Finally, with so much uncertainty in the world, what advice would you give to the young people of this nation/generation?

Paul: My visits to college campuses give me the most hope for the future of the country. I am often overwhelmed by the number of young people who are passionate about liberty, and I encourage them to get involved and stay involved. Even if it is just at the local or county level, there are always opportunities to promote liberty in your community. 

This article is the copyrighted property of the writer and Communities @ WashingtonTimes.com. Written permission must be obtained before reprint in online or print media. REPRINTING TWTC CONTENT WITHOUT PERMISSION AND/OR PAYMENT IS THEFT AND PUNISHABLE BY LAW.

 WASHINGTON – JUNE 22: U.S. Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) (L) talks to his father Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) (R) during a news conference June 22, 2011 on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC. A number of Republican congressional members joined The Cut, Cap, Balance Pledge Coalition at the news conference “to oppose any debt ceiling increase unless a ‘Cut, Cap and Balance’ plan is passed.” (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)  

As Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul considers a 2016 run for president, the political world wonders how his father, former Republican Texas Rep. Ron Paul, will figure into his campaign. The Daily Caller has exclusively obtained a recent email exchange between father and son.

The exchange is reprinted here for the first time, in its entirety, and without comment.

FROM: Sen. Rand Paul
TO: Dr. Ron Paul
DATE: May 8th, 2013

Dear Dr. Paul,

While I appreciate your interest in helping me launch my presidential campaign, we need to talk about some of these staffers you’ve sent over. I understand they’re all committed loyalists and friends of the family but, at the suggestion of my political team, I’ve decided to let them go. I need your help doing this, as they don’t “recognize my authority” and are now squatting in my Louisville office while they await your instructions.

The security personnel all appear to be members of a biker gang, and I think the speechwriter you sent over is an honest-to-God sea pirate. This is all impossible to verify, however, as none of them will give me their real names.

Also, the press secretary you hired on my behalf — whom I know only as “Colonel Sven” — refuses to trim his beard or wear anything but an old Rhodesian army uniform. I worry about the message this appearance will send to reporters and voters, particularly if current demographic trends continue.

These men have set up some kind of bartering system in the office, and I have come to believe that at least one of the bikers is selling drugs during my speeches, which is attracting an undesirable element to public events. And while I appreciate their refusal to be paid in fiat currency, our finances at this point preclude us from paying anyone in Dutch krugerrands or clean needles.

Please call me as soon as possible so we can work this all out.

Sincerely,

Sen. Rand Paul

It appears that Obama appointed U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice is at the top of the list for the post of National Security Advisor, according to a report on The Cable Wednesday.

Susan Rice
Image/U.S. State Dept.

Sources told The Cable that Rice is the likely successor to the position currently held by Tom Donilon, ”It’s definitely happening. She is sure she is coming and so too her husband and closest friends.”

Although she initially caused an ire with Congressional Republicans after her bogus talking points on five Sunday morning political shows last year, it appears that fervor is not where it once was.

However, the Executive Director of the newly formed Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity,  Daniel McAdams, has not forgotten all the other things Rice did during her service, as he writes in a post on the Institute’s website.

Calling Rice, one of the architects of the Left-neocon favorite regime change tool, the “humanitarian intervention,” McAdams says the erroneous talking points are the least of the violations she has committed.

“Rice’s real crime is her extreme enthusiasm over the use of force to “liberate” the oppressed masses in countries where the US has conveniently decided a regime change is in order, McAdams writes.

“She was a main force behind the UN subterfuge that led to a green light for US bombing of Libya, assuring the president that she could push through a UN Security Council resolution authorizing “all necessary measures” to be used against Libya.”

He continues, “She happily spread the lies and war propaganda to coerce support for an invasion, and she had her own “mushroom cloud” moment when she peddled the lie to fellow diplomats behind closed doors that Gaddafi was issuing Viagra to his troops so that they may carry out mass rape.”

“Libya is a total disaster two years after its “liberation” by NATO bombs.” On the potential Rice promotion, he states, “Rice belongs in the big house, not in the White House.”

Check out The Global Dispatch Facebook page here

Follow The Global Dispatch on Twitter here

Redirect Notice

Former Republican presidential contender Ron Paul has criticized both the Obama administration and the GOP for their handling of the Benghazi issue, calling the whole discussion “a sideshow.”

“Each side seeks to score political points instead of asking the real questions about the attack on the US facility, which resulted in the death of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans,” he wrote in a column posted on the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity website.

“It appears that the Administration scrubbed initial intelligence reports of references to extremist Islamist involvement in the attacks, preferring to craft a lie that the demonstrations were a spontaneous response to an anti-Islamic video that developed into a full-out attack on the US outpost,” said the former Texas congressman, a longtime libertarian and vocal critic of military intervention overseas.

“Who can blame the administration for wanting to shift the focus?” asked Paul, who retired from Congress at the start of the year.

“The Islamic radicals who attacked Benghazi were the same people let loose by the US-led attack on Libya. They were the rebels on whose behalf the US overthrew the Libyan government. Ambassador Stevens was slain by the same Islamic radicals he personally assisted just over one year earlier.”

At the same time, Paul wrote, Republicans are trying to shift the blame. “They supported the Obama Administration’s policy of bombing Libya and overthrowing its government,” he said. “They also repeated the same manufactured claims that Gaddafi was ‘killing his own people’ and was about to commit mass genocide if he were not stopped. Republicans want to draw attention to the President’s editing talking points in hopes no one will notice that if the attack on Libya they supported had not taken place, Ambassador Stevens would be alive today.”

Paul said the “real lesson of Benghazi will not be learned because neither Republicans nor Democrats want to hear it,” Paul concluded.

“But it is our interventionist foreign policy and its unintended consequences that have created these problems, including the attack and murder of Ambassador Stevens. The disputed talking points and White House whitewashing are just a sideshow,” he said.

© 2013 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Could President Obama have read this op-ed by Ron Paul before his joint press conference with British Prime Minister David Cameron this morning? The president’s assessment of the Benghazi scandal was remarkably similar to that of the former congressman. Both men called the controversy a “sideshow.”

While Obama primarily went after Republicans for trying to politicize his administration’s response to the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya last September, Paul chose a more equal opportunity approach in his article, published this morning on the website of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity.

“Congressional hearings, White House damage control, endless op-eds, accusations, and defensive denials. Controversy over the events in Benghazi last September took center stage in Washington and elsewhere last week. However, the whole discussion is again more of a sideshow. Each side seeks to score political points instead of asking the real questions about the attack on the US facility, which resulted in the death of US Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans.”

Paul accused Republicans of smelling “political opportunity over evidence that the Administration heavily edited initial intelligence community talking points about the attack to remove or soften anything that might reflect badly on the president or the State Department.” But he also went after Democrats for offering “the even less convincing explanation for Benghazi, that somehow the attack occurred due to Republican sponsored cuts in the security budget at facilities overseas. With a one trillion dollar military budget, it is hard to take this seriously.”

“Neither side wants to talk about the real lesson of Benghazi,” Paul wrote. “Interventionism always carries with it unintended consequences.” He repeated his disdain with both sides of the argument in his conclusion:

“The real lesson of Benghazi will not be learned because neither Republicans nor Democrats want to hear it. But it is our interventionist foreign policy and its unintended consequences that have created these problems, including the attack and murder of Ambassador Stevens. The disputed talking points and White House whitewashing are just a sideshow.”

Paul’s son, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), has been far less even-handed in his public remarks on the Benghazi controversy, recently saying the events should “preclude” Hillary Clinton from holding political office.

Read Ron Paul’s full article here.

–

>> Follow Matt Wilstein (@TheMattWilstein) on Twitter

Ron Paul on Monday dismissed both Republican and White House claims about Benghazi as a “sideshow” and said GOP criticisms on the issue politically motivated.

“Republicans smell a political opportunity over evidence that the Administration heavily edited initial intelligence community talking points about the attack to remove or soften anything that might reflect badly on the president or the State Department,” Paul, a libertarian-leaning former Republican congressman and presidential candidate, charged in a column posted on Monday.

Continue Reading

His comments came as reports indicated that official talking points about the deadly Sept. 11 attacks on the U.S. outpost in Benghazi, Libya, had been stripped of references to terrorism. President Barack Obama, for his part, on Monday rejected criticism over the talking points as a “sideshow.” Paul, too, used that word — but in a very different context.

“The real lesson of Benghazi will not be learned because neither Republicans nor Democrats want to hear it,” he concluded. “But it is our interventionist foreign policy and its unintended consequences that have created these problems, including the attack and murder of Ambassador Stevens. The disputed talking points and White House whitewashing are just a sideshow.”

Paul, a vocal critic of “interventionist” foreign policy, noted that many Republicans had supported the Obama administration’s 2011 military actions in Libya that contributed to the fall of Muammar Qaddafi. Those steps, he argued, helped facilitate last fall’s attacks in Benghazi which killed the American ambassador, Chris Stevens, as well as three other Americans.

“Who can blame the administration for wanting to shift the focus?” Paul (R-Texas) wrote. “The Islamic radicals who attacked Benghazi were the same people let loose by the US-led attack on Libya. They were the rebels on whose behalf the US overthrew the Libyan government. Ambassador Stevens was slain by the same Islamic radicals he personally assisted just over one year earlier.”

Former Texas Rep. Ron Paul says the United States is “making progress” in rejecting the failed war on drugs by loosening state drug laws.

Mr. Paul, a 2012 presidential candidate and libertarian icon, said on his weekly radio podcast that people will eventually wake up and realize that “prohibition doesn’t work.”

“Many states now are expressing themselves, passing laws in defiance of the federal government, … and they should have the right to legalize marijuana or whatever they want,” Mr. Paul said.

Mr. Paul said that he does not endorse the use of drugs, but that it is the job of parents — not the federal government — to prevent kids from using drugs.

Colorado voters passed an amendment in November legalizing marijuana for recreational use by adults and this week state lawmakers there passed bills that set the taxes and regulations for marijuana sales. Voters in Washington also passed an amendment last fall legalizing marijuana.

Mr. Paul estimated that the federal government has spent upwards of $3 trillion waging the war on drugs and said that the nation has little to show for it.

He said the prisons are filled with drug users convicted of nonviolent crimes and that black Americans are disproportionately affected by strict drug laws.

“The prisons are filled with minorities for drug use,” Mr. Paul said, “but for some reason there are not too many people that want to talk about this.”