The IRS targets constitutional-loving groups—this is tyranny and exactly what the Declaration of Independence revolted against.
Wrote by Judge Andrew P. Napolitano:
Here’s an example you’ve heard before. You’re sitting at home at night, and there’s a knock at the door. You open the door, and a guy with a gun pointed at you says: “Give me your money. I want to give it away to the less fortunate.” You think he’s dangerous and crazy, so you call the police. Then you find out he is the police, there to collect your taxes.
The framers of the Constitution understood this. For 150 years, the federal government was run by user fees and sales of government land and assessments to the states for services rendered. It rejected the Hamiltonian view that the feds could take whatever they wanted, and it followed the Jeffersonian first principle that the only moral commercial exchanges are those that are fully voluntary.
This worked well until the progressives took over the government in the first decade of the 20th century. They persuaded enough Americans to cause their state legislatures to ratify the Sixteenth Amendment, which was designed to tax the rich and redistribute wealth. They promised the American public that the income tax would never exceed 3 percent of income and would only apply to the top 3 percent of earners. How wrong – or deceptive – they were — Taxation Is Theft
The IRS should be disbanded and replaced with nothing.
Only the clear enunciation of the fundamental rights of man–rights which no man, or government can rightfully violate (even at the “local” level) will stand as a permanent bulwark against the slow erosion of liberty.
It takes a highly educated and wise majority of people to be able to sift through the obscuration of pseudo-educated liberals who throw out benign appearing and lofty concepts of compassion that secretly destroy other’s rights.
…the burden is upon government to prove that such laws are in accord with fundamental rights. Most importantly, public officials should be aware that they are PERSONALLY LIABLE for any infringement of another’s rights, and that men may ultimately and rightfully defend their fundamental rights with appropriate force, when no practical or fair legal recourse is possible.
The principles and rights listed are sufficiently self-evident that a man who chooses not to accept God may still accept them as “natural rights.”
“Do you think the American people would ever have ratified” the Constitution if they had been told “the meaning of this document shall be whatever a majority of the Supreme Court says it is?” Scalia asked. Referring to the 1973 ruling that legalized abortion and the 1992 decision that barred states from placing an: “undue burden” on abortion rights, he said, “They vote on the basis of what they feel.”
“It’s the destruction of our democratic system,” Scalia said. “I cannot imagine the system can continue with more and more of the basic rules made by the Supreme Court.”
The Constitution is silent on the question of marriage because marriage has always been a local issue. Our founding fathers went to the local courthouse to be married, not to Washington, D.C.
Do consenting adults have a right to contract with other consenting adults? Supporters of the Supreme Court’s decision argue yes but they argue no when it comes to economic liberties, like contracts regarding wages.
It seems some rights are more equal than others.
The Constitution was written by wise men who were raised up by God for that very purpose. There is a reason ours was the first where rights came from our creator and therefore could not be taken away by government. Government was instituted to protect them.
We have gotten away from that idea. Too far away. We must turn back. To protect our rights we must understand who granted them and who can help us restore them.
Selected Quotes Below:
I think about my father — he had a fifth-grade education — a great believer in our country. He would not recognize it today. The loss of freedom we have imposed by the arrogance of an all-too-powerful Federal Government, ignoring the wisdom and writing of our Founders that said: Above all, we must protect the liberty of the individual and recognize that liberty is given as a God-given right.
So my criticism isn’t directed personally, it is because I truly believe that freedom gains us more than anything we an plan here. I know not everybody agrees with me, but the one thing I do know is that our Founders agreed with me. They had studied this process before. They know what happens when you dominate from a central government. This didn’t mean intentions are bad; the intentions are great. The motivations of people in this body are wonderful, but the perspective on how we do it and what the long-term consequences are of how we do it really do matter.
To those of you through the years whom I have offended, I truly apologize. I think none of that was intended because I actually see things differently. You see, I believe our Founders were absolutely brilliant, far smarter than we are. I believe the enumerated powers meant something. They were meant to protect us against what history says always happens to a Republic. They have all died. They have all died.
So the question is, What will happen with us? Can we cheat history? Can we do something better than was done in the past? I honestly believe we can, but I do not believe we can if we continue to ignore the wisdom of our founding documents. So when I have offended, I believe it has been on the basis of my belief in article I, section 8. I think we can stuff that genie back into the bottle.
Read the entire transcript of Senator Tom Coburn’s Farewell to the Senate or watch Senator Tom Coburn’s (R-OK) Farewell Address on CSPAN.