THE ROCK RIVER PATRIOTS AND THE IRS (continued…)

As we have noted before, the ROCK RIVER PATRIOTS have been targeted by the IRS in our pursuit of tax exempt status.  Having decided to withdraw our application after getting the run around, we are now faced with paying the taxes we owe.  It is no suprise how much of a run around we have gotten while trying to get this cleared up.  After having our application delayed by the IRS for over a year (close to a year and a half), we are now faced with all the interest and late fees which are almost as much as the taxes we were supposed to pay.  Coincidentally, we filed our 2011 and 2012 taxes to the IRS as a pending tax exempt entity while waiting to hear about our status.

Once again, this should be a wake-up call to everyone.  It’s time to repeal the 16th Amendment and abolish the IRS.  Why don’t we have any Republicans talking about this?

Matt Kittle from the Wisconsin Reporter has an article with an update on our story, part of which is shared below with a link to the full story on their website.

Vicki McKenna spoke with Matt Kittle about this issue on her show on Tuesday 01/07/14: Vicki McKenna podcast Tuesday 01/07/14 Hour 3.

‘Out-of-control government’ still hitting conservatives

By M.D. Kittle| Wisconsin Reporter

MADISON, Wis. — If you think the Internal Revenue Service’s persecution of conservative organizations has faded into an “inappropriate” past, the folks from theRock River Patriots would like to set the record straight.

“We are being totally overrun by an out-of-control government,” said Marvin Munyon, a director of the southern Wisconsin tea party group.

The Rock River Patriots, like so many other limited-government organizations applying for tax-exempt status, was given the administrative runaround for more than a year before Munyon, exasperated and “threatened,” threw up his hands and dropped the group’s pursuit of 501(c)(4) status.

Not only has the revenue agency demanded the small, grassroots organization pay hundreds of dollars in taxes owed while the Rock River Patriots worked through the onerous tax-exempt application process, the IRS is charging nearly as much in late payment fees, penalties and interest.

Do We Have A 1st Amendment Anymore?

This bill was signed in secret by the President in March of 2012.  When we say we have all of the pieces in place for a “turn-key dictatorship”, this is further proof.  Have we become a third world nation where despots control what is seen and heard?

Let’s see who voted for this terrible piece of legislation: HR 347 Vote Tally

All of the WI Congressional Reps voted for this bill.  The U.S. Senate passed the bill by unanimous consent, so there is no record of how they voted on it.  However, all it would have took was for a Senator to object and ask for a roll call vote.

This is disgraceful!!!

Wisconsin
Yea   R   Ryan, Paul WI 1st
Yea   D   Baldwin, Tammy WI 2nd
Yea   D   Kind, Ronald “Ron” WI 3rd
Yea   D   Moore, Gwen WI 4th
Yea   R   Sensenbrenner, James WI 5th
Yea   R   Petri, Thomas “Tom” WI 6th
Yea   R   Duffy, Sean WI 7th
Yea   R   Ribble, Reid WI 8th

Pat Buchanan: Who Wants War With Iran?

Who Wants War With Iran?

By Patrick J. Buchanan

On Sept. 21, 1976, as his car rounded Sheridan Circle on Embassy Row, former Chilean ambassador Orlando Letelier was assassinated by car bomb. Ronni Moffitt, a 25-year-old American women who worked with Letelier at the leftist Institute for Policy Studies, died with him.

Michael Townley, an ex- asset in the hire of Chile’s intelligence agency, confessed to using anti-Castro Cubans to murder Letelier, in what was regarded as an act of terrorism on U.S. soil.

Which raises a question: Are not the murders of four Iranian scientists associated with that nation’s nuclear program, by the attachment of bombs to their cars in Tehran, also acts of terrorism?

Had the Stalin- or Khrushchev-era Soviets done this to four U.S. scientists in Washington, would we not have regarded it as acts of terrorism and war?

has accused the United States and of murder. But emphatically denied any U.S. complicity: “I want to categorically deny any United States involvement in any kind of act of violence inside .”

“The United States had absolutely nothing to do with this,” added National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor, “We strongly condemn all acts of violence, including acts of violence like this.”

Victoria Nuland, Clinton’s spokeswoman at State, denounced “any or attack on an innocent person, and we express our sympathies to the family.”

The assassinated scientist was a supervisor at the Natanz uranium enrichment facility that hosts regular inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency. If is building a bomb, it is not at Natanz.

U.S. denial of involvement leaves as the prime suspect. has not denied it, and this comes at a sensitive time in U.S.-Israeli relations.

In Foreign Policy magazine, author and historian Mark Perry, claiming documentation, alleges that agents in London posed as agents and contacted Jundallah, a terrorist group, to bribe and recruit them to engage in acts of terror inside .

Jundallah has conducted attacks in Sistan-Baluchistan province, killing government officials, soldiers, and women and children.

According to Perry, when George W. Bush learned of the agents posing as while recruiting terrorists, he “went totally ballistic.”

Yet Meir Dagan, head of at the time, denies it, and, ironically, has called any Israeli attack on ’s nuclear facilities “the stupidest thing I have ever heard.”

Who is telling the truth? We do not know for sure.

What we do know is that “Bibi” Netanyahu is desperate to have the United States launch air and missile strikes to stop Teheran from becoming the world’s ninth nuclear power. And he is echoed not only by U.S. , but candidates save .

Nor should we be surprised.

To bring America into its war with Germany, Winston Churchill set up William Stephenson, “A Man Called Intrepid,” with hundreds of agents in New York to engage in everything from bribery to of U.S. senators to get the United States to enter the war and pull England’s chestnuts out of the fire.

This is what desperate countries do.

And while America First kept us out of the European war until Adolf Hitler invaded Russia, ensuring that Russians, not Americans, died in the millions to defeat him, eventually America was maneuvered into war.

Whoever is assassinating these Iranian scientists, be it homegrown Iranian terrorists, Jundallah at the instigation of , or , the objective is clear: Enrage the Iranians so they strike out at America, provoking a U.S.-Iranian war.

Is such a war in America’s interests? Consider.

While U.S. air and naval power would prevail, Iranian civilians would die, as some of their nuclear facilities are in populated areas. Moreover, we cannot kill the nuclear knowledge has gained. Thus we would only set back their nuclear program by several years. And a bloodied and beaten would then go all-out for a bomb.

The regime, behind which its people would rally, would emerge even more entrenched. U.S. bombing did not cause Germans to remove Hitler or Japanese to depose their emperor. And we lack the ground troops to invade and occupy a country three times the size of Iraq.

All U.S. ships, including carriers in that bathtub the Persian Gulf, would be at risk from shore-based anti-ship missiles and the hundreds of missile boats in Iran’s navy. Any sea battle would send oil prices to $200 and $300 a barrel. There goes the eurozone.

Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Shia of the Saudi oil fields and Bahrain, home port to the Fifth Fleet, and Iranian agents in Afghanistan and Iraq could set the region aflame.

As America started up the road to Baghdad in 2003, Gen. David Petraeus is said to have asked, “Tell me how this ends.”

Before some agent provocateur pushes us into war with Iran, Congress should debate the wisdom of authorizing President Obama, or anyone else, to take America into her fifth war in a generation in the Middle and Near East.

Strings #3

From Pat Buchanan’s Blog: Marco Rubio vs. Rand Paul

Here is some very interesting analysis about entangling alliances by Pat Buchanan…and contains information about two of the neocons running for president.

Marco Rubio vs. Rand Paul

By Patrick J. Buchanan

In August 2008, as the world’s leaders gathered in Beijing for the Olympic games, Georgian President , hot-headed and erratic, made his gamble for greatness.

It began with a stunning artillery barrage on Tskhinvali, capital of tiny South Ossetia, a province that had broken free of Tbilisi when Tbilisi broke free of . As Ossetians and Russian peacekeepers fell under the Georgian guns, terrified Ossetians fled into .

Saakashvili’s blitzkrieg appeared to have triumphed.

Until, that is, Russian armor, on ’s orders, came thundering down the Roki Tunnel into Ossetia, sending Saakashvili’s army reeling. The Georgians were driven out of Ossetia and expelled from a second province that had broken free of Tbilisi: Abkhazia.

The Russians then proceeded to bomb Tbilisi, capture Gori, birthplace of Joseph Stalin, and bomb Georgian airfields rumored to be the forward bases for the Israelis in any pre-emptive strike on .

The humiliation of Saakashvili was total, and brought an enraged and frustrated running to the microphones.

“Today, we’re all Georgians,” bawled McCain.

Well, not exactly.

President Bush called Putin’s response “disproportionate” and “brutal,” but did nothing. Small nations that sucker-punch big powers do not get to dictate when the fisticuffs stop.

What made this of interest to Americans, however, was that Bush had long sought to bring Georgia into . Only the resistance of Old Europe had prevented it.

And had Georgia been a member of when Saakashvili began his , U.S. Marines and Special Forces might have been on the way to the Caucasus to confront Russian troops in a part of the world where there is no vital U.S. interest and never has been any U.S. strategic interest whatsoever.

A U.S with — over Georgia, Abkhazia and South Ossetia — would have been an act of national criminal insanity.

Days later, there came another startling discovery.

McCain foreign policy adviser Randy Scheunemann had been paid $290,000 by the Saakashvili regime, from January 2007 to March 2008, to get Georgia into , and thus acquire a priceless U.S. guarantee to fight on Georgia’s side in any clash with .

What makes this history relevant today?

Last week, Sen. Marco Rubio, rising star of the Republican right, on everyone’s short list for VP, called for a unanimous vote, without debate, on a resolution directing President Obama to accept Georgia’s plan for membership in at the upcoming summit in Chicago.

Rubio was pushing to have the U.S. Senate pressure Obama into fast-tracking Georgia into , making Tbilisi an ally the United States would be obligated by treaty to go to to defend.

Now it is impossible to believe a senator, not a year in office, dreamed this up himself. Some foreign agent of Scheunemann’s ilk had to have had a role in drafting it.

And for whose benefit is Rubio pushing to have his own countrymen committed to fight for a Georgia that, three years ago, started an unprovoked war with ? Who cooked up this scheme to involve Americans in future wars in the Caucasus that are none of our business?

The answer is unknown. What is known is the name of the senator who blocked it — , son of Ron Paul, who alone stepped in and objected, defeating Rubio’s effort to get a unanimous vote.

The resolution was pulled. But these people will be back. They are indefatigable when it comes to finding ways to commit the blood of U.S. soldiers to their client regimes and ideological bedfellows.

Back in 2008, however, as Bush was confining himself to protesting the excesses of ’s response, his ex-U.N. ambassador was full of righteous rage and ready for military action.

In the London Telegraph, Aug. 15, 2008, John Bolton declared that Russia had conducted an “invasion,” that Georgia had been a “victim of aggression,” that America had “fiddled while Georgia burned,” that we had played the “paper tiger”when faced by the snarling Russian Bear.

As for the European Union, in bringing about a ceasefire, it had achieved results “approaching Neville Chamberlain’s moment in the spotlight at Munich.”

But did not Georgia launch the attack that started the war?

“This confrontation is not about who violated the Marquis of Queensbury’s rule in South Ossetia,” scoffed Bolton. Russia planned this “rape” because brave little Georgia refused to be “Finlandized.”

Restoring America’s credibility, said Bolton, now requires “drawing a clear line for Russia” in the Caucasus and elsewhere.

And who is John Bolton?

told two groups Wednesday he intends to name Bolton secretary of state.

With Newt appointing as America’s first diplomat an uber-hawk who makes Dick Cheney look like Gandhi, and Mitt Romney’s foreign policy team crawling with neocons primed for war with , a vote for the GOP in 2012 looks more and more like a vote for war.

Like the Bourbons of old, the Republican Party seems to have learned nothing and forgotten nothing.

 

From The 10th Amendment Center – “Aborting Guns?”

Below is a very good article on State vs. Federal power.  This applies to so many issues that are happening today and speaks to why we have an out-of-control federal government.  This is also due, in part, to the national media.  There is a vested interest by the national news media in having a strong central government.  Not only does this increase the “importance” of their coverage, but also allows for easier coverage.  Most of the media focus only needs to be spent in one place, Washington D.C, instead of the coverage being spread throughout the 50 State Capitals of our nation.

The Framers set up our constitutional republic as a system having the power “decentralized”.  Many of the most contentious issues like abortion, I believe, will never be solved on a national level.  To truly solve these issues the States need to re-assert their sovereignty.

Pro-Life advocates, for example, have a much better chance to stop abortion on a State level.  As the article points out, if a person doesn’t like how their respective State is handling this issue, they can work to change it and/or “vote with their feet” to another State with whose laws they agree with.

Aborting Guns?

by John Lambert

Recently, the National Right-to-Care Reciprocity Act of 2011 passed overwhelming in the House of Representatives.  One thing that stood out, there were some on the left that cited the 10th Amendment as justification for it being Unconstitutional.

As much as I’m an avid gun-rights advocate, I have to admit that this criticism is valid.

Currently, forty states have some form of concealed permit reciprocity, so is the power for the Federal Government really necessary for the final ten states?

The question becomes, does the expansion of liberty by this law outweigh the growth of power in the Federal Government?  The problem is…  yes, they can pass this bill which on some level I like, but what is stopping the Federal Government using this tactic on something I don’t like?

A Different Take on Abortion-Part 1

I know abortion is a touchy issue with a lot of people.  I just ask you give me some latitude here to make my point, and I will make you a promise.  I will not endorse one side or another or even state my position on abortion.  Since it is such a divisive issue, it allows me to make a particular points.

If we are honest with ourselves, the heart of this issue comes down if you believe or not that the unborn child has natural rights or not.  Obviously, the Pro-Choice and Pro-Life crowds have different views whether life begins at conception or birth.

Personally, I can make compelling arguments for both points of view.  A Pro-Choice individual will naturally argue that a woman has the right to her own body.  Her body is her property and the state can’t claim it.  She can choose what to eat, drink, or even who shares her bed.  This isn’t the function of the state.

A Pro-Life individual will state the unborn child has rights and should be defended.  If a man beats his wife who is pregnant and she loses the child as the result, he should be punished for the loss of the child, right?  If so, we are saying as a society that the unborn child has rights on some level.  So how can an individual have partial rights?

If we are honest, we really can’t refute either argument.  We can intellectually disagree but all we can do is form some conclusion that seems morally right to us.  I do know one thing about the abortion issue.  No matter which side I come down on, there are a significant number of people in this country who will disagree with me.

When this topic comes in conversations, I will state my view, but I will also make a case that I do understand the arguments from the other side.  One time, a Pro-Choice friend of mine made the case that she felt the Fourteenth Amendment justified her position.  However, I pointed out to her that to a Pro-Life individual would argue that the Fourteenth Amendment would also apply to the unborn child and they are defending those same rights.  She never really considered this point of view.

I don’t demonize those who disagree with me on this issue.  My goal when the topic comes up is to share my understanding on this issue in hopes they don’t demonize individuals as well.

Since this is such a divisive issue, I believe I don’t have the authority to force my view on those who disagree with me through the power of Washington DC.

A Different Take on Abortion- Part 2

Let us pretend there are three islands close together.  The first island is settled by Catholics who want to practice their faith in peace.  There are about the same number or settlers living on the second island, but they are atheists.   Both of these islands are roughly the same size and have similar resources.

The last island is larger and is occupied by head hunting cannibals.  (I know this sounds like a Gilligan’s Island plotline, but just bear with me.)  This island has superior resources they often attack the smaller islands.

Representatives of the first two islands discuss working together to fight off the cannibals.  They form a council to discuss their issues with the cannibals. They agreed that they will trade among themselves and defend each other, but will stay out of each other’s internal affairs.

The Catholic island because of their faith have abortion illegal.  The atheists could care less about the issue and thus not illegal.

Do the atheists have the right to force the Catholics to allow abortions?  Do the Catholics have the right to force the atheists to ban abortions?  Isn’t this determination up to the people who live on these islands?

However, what if one of the following happens: a Catholic comes to the conclusion that abortions shouldn’t be banned?  Or one of the atheists starts thinking that abortions are morally wrong?

Each of these individuals have the natural rights to do one of the following:

1) They can just accept their circumstance and do nothing.

2) They can use their natural right of Free Speech and try to persuade those around them to their point of view.

3) They have natural right of traveling to the other community who shares their viewpoint.

Federal versus National

This concept is what our Founders had in mind with the creation of a Federal and not a National system.  The states are themselves sovereign and should control most of their internal issues.

The “conventional wisdom” has been that the Federal Government needs to maintain a check on States who may abuse their power.  Again who will maintain a check on the Federal Government?  The Supreme Court?

The Supreme Court went from 1937 to 1995 without ruling a Congressional Act as Unconstitutional.  Really????   You mean that every law during this time frame was totally Constitutional?  I sincerely doubt it.

There is no debate that States themselves will abuse power.  Well, they are government institutions after all.  However, there is a check on the states.  If a state becomes too oppressive, people and companies will leave the state and move to another one.  The State will then lose tax revenue and the quality of life will decline in the state.

Or if a State creates a bold plan for its citizens something like a state run healthcare system.  If successful, other states will study and copy the program.  If it fails, the impact is only felt by said state.

However if the Federal Government passes a bold program, the failure of the program affects everyone.  A citizen can’t avoid it by just moving to another State.

We have acknowledge the importance of competition in the marketplace for our dollars.  There are several shops or manufactures will sell you a hammer if you need one.  Why not force the states in the position to compete for your citizenship and tax dollars?

This is the check on the States and demonstrates why a lot of what Federal Government does isn’t necessary.  There is also the problem of the Federal Government abusing the states doing things that they believe are right.

Like the Republicans who supported the National Right-to-Care Reciprocity Act.

John Lambert [send him email] is the Outreach Coordinator for the Texas Tenth Amendment Center.

Stewart Rhodes On Alex Jones Talking About Senate Bill 1867 – The National Defense Authorization Act of 2012

This bill has passed the Senate.   Call your Representative and tell them to vote against this bill until the provisions that will give clear congressional support and authorization for indefinite military detention and military trial of American citizens is removed from the bill.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 966 other followers