Ron Paul
Infowars.com
May 20, 2013

“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 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 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 US 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 US 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.

Former Congressman Ron Paul’s article first appeared at the-free-foundation.org, the temporary home for his weekly column until his personal web page is up and running.

Donna Anderson
Infowars.com
May 20, 2013

All 50 states have adopted a legal limit of 0.08 percent.

In a move opponents believe will have no measurable effect on public safety, the National Transportation Safety Board is urging state governments to lower the allowable limits for drivers from 0.08 percent to 0.05 percent, a move it says will reduce fatalities caused by drunk drivers. Even MADD, the most vocal anti-drunk driving group in the world, would rather pursue other options.

Currently, all 50 states have adopted a legal limit of 0.08 percent. Alcohol-related traffic fatalities have dropped from 21,098 in 1985 to 10,000 in 2011, but NTSB says progress has stalled. “There are at least 10,000 reasons to tackle this issue,” said Deborah A. P. Hersman, the chairwoman of the board.

But statistics tell a different story. In 2010, The U. S. Department of Transportation reported a total of 32,885 traffic fatalities. Out of that total, 31.10 percent, or 10,228, involved drivers with a blood alcohol content (BAC) of 0.08 percent or higher. Only 5.32 percent, or 1,720, fatalities involved a BAC of 0.07 percent or less, indicating that the problem isn’t with social drinkers who know their limits and drink responsibly.

The MADD website states that about one-third of all drivers arrested or convicted of driving while intoxicated or driving under the influence of alcohol are repeat offenders, and 50 to 75 percent of convicted drunk drivers continue to drive on a suspended license.

Response from various states suggests the move to lower the legal limit is being met with resistance. In Ohio, The Columbus Dispatch points out that in 2011 Ohio had 11.5 million residents and total traffic fatalities of 1,015. Alcohol-related fatalities were listed at 316. “Of the alcohol-impaired drivers who caused a fatality, 95 percent had a blood-alcohol level of over 0.10, and 55 percent were over 0.20.”

Sarah Longwell, the managing director of the American Beverage Institute, calls the measure “ludicrous.”

“Moving from 0.08 to 0.05 would criminalize perfectly responsible behavior,” she said. And “further restriction of moderate consumption of alcohol by responsible adults prior to driving does nothing to stop hard-core drunk drivers from getting behind the wheel.”

Mother’s Against Drunk Driving (MADD) doesn’t entirely support the measure, either. The group favors mandatory installation of a Breathalyzer system for drivers convicted of drunk driving, and they’re all for passive alcohol sensors and “administrative license revocation” because they believe these measures show strong potential for reducing alcohol-related traffic fatalities.

However, J. T. Griffin, a Washington representative for MADD, says the National Transportation Safety Board is “trying to focus on a group of people who are more social drinkers, who haven’t been targeted in a while.” MADD would not oppose the change, he said, but would pursue other remedies.

Click here for article