• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Bill Allowing IRS To Revoke Passports Described as “Stalinist”
 

Bill Allowing IRS To Revoke Passports Described as “Stalinist”

on

  • 579 views

Most pervasive restriction on

Most pervasive restriction on
mobility since Communism
dominated Eastern Europe

Statistics

Views

Total Views
579
Views on SlideShare
579
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

CC Attribution-NonCommercial LicenseCC Attribution-NonCommercial License

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Bill Allowing IRS To Revoke Passports Described as “Stalinist” Bill Allowing IRS To Revoke Passports Described as “Stalinist” Document Transcript

    • Bill Allowing IRS To Revoke PassportsDescribed as “Stalinist”Paul Joseph WatsonInfowars.comFriday, April 20, 2012Most pervasive restriction onmobility since Communismdominated Eastern EuropeThe ‘Moving Ahead for Progress inthe 21st Century Act’ (MAP-21) isso crammed full of unconstitutionalprovisions that even the mainstreammedia is up in arms, with anInvestors Business Daily editorialdescribing the section that allowsthe IRS to revoke passports ofaccused tax delinquents as “Stalinist”.As we reported earlier this week, Senate Bill 1813 would empower the Internal RevenueService to bar Americans from leaving the country if they are merely accused of owing $50,000 ormore in back taxes.Despite numerous Supeme Court cases and the Constitution itself, namely Article I, Section 9,paragraph 3 , which forbids “Bills of Attainder,” arguing against the provision’s legality, theRepublican-controlled House is expected to pass the bill in its entirety without much fanfare.However, a maelstrom of dissent appears to be brewing, even amongst mainstream mediacolumnists including the Investor’s Business Daily, a prominent national newspaper published inLos Angeles.In an editorial entitled IRS Might Have Stalinist Powers Under New Law, IBD remarks, “It ishard to imagine any law more reminiscent of the Soviet Union that America toppled, or itsEastern Bloc slave satellites.”The editorial compares the notion of empowering the IRS with such authority as a new kind ofunseen Berlin Wall, creating powers that will restrict mobility to a degree not seen sinceCommunism dominated eastern Europe.“Throughout the many decades of the 20th century’s Cold War, the freedom of movementAmericans enjoyed as a cherished right was one of our secret weapons. As the Communists inMoscow promised the world utopia out of the barrel of a gun, people around the globe noticedthat the Soviets needed walls and barbed wire fences to keep their people in, while in the U.S.walls were as pointless as a fish’s bicycle.”
    • Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin was renownedfor setting up a system of ‘internal passports’that restricted citizens from leaving their areaof residence without government permission.“There remain few things more prized thanAmerican citizenship. Yet now our ever-expanding leviathan of a government isforcing Americans abroad out, and it mightsoon build its own Berlin Wall, restricting our“freedom of world travel,” as Reagan put it, even when there is no conviction from a court,”states the editorial, making the connection with the recent revelation that Americans arerenouncing their citizenship in record numbers due to intensified efforts by the feds to pry intotheir financial affairs.But it’s not just the IRS provision that has prompted a frosty response to a bill that looked set tosail through with barely a whimper of protest – anti-privacy measures are also coming underscrutiny.“Infowars’ Paul Joseph Watson, reading through Section 31406 of the “Moving Ahead forProgress in the 21st Century Act” (MAP-21) bill that’s currently making its way throughCongress, made a nice catch: The bill calls for “Mandatory Event Data Recorders” to be installedin new vehicles starting in the year 2015,” writes The Atlantic’s Megan Garber, one of anumber of publications to report on the enforcement of mandatory black boxes, a story that wefirst highlighted on Wednesday.While some writers scoff at the privacy implications of “event data recorders,” pointing out thatthey are already installed in the majority of new vehicles, they overlook the fact that making theseblack boxes mandatory is the first step to a tax by the mile system that has been the goal of theObama administration for years.However, the most chilling section of the MAP-21 bill is also the provision that’s attracted theleast attention – the deployment of a ‘vehicle to infrastructure’ communication system – inother words a two-way bug that will connect your car to the ‘Internet of things’ – atransformation recently hailed by CIA chief David Petraeus as a boon for “clandestinetradecraft.”This coincides with the development of street lights that are wirelessly connected to the Internetand double as “Homeland Security” surveillance hubs that can spot suspicious activity and recordprivate conversations.This kind of technology only existed in Stalin’s wildest dreams, and yet it is about to be mandatedin all new vehicles within a few years unless simmering discontent over the MAP-21 bill is raisedto a crescendo.
    • Spy Drones Over America: LawmakersDemand Answers On Privacy SafeguardsSteve WatsonInfowars.comApril 20, 2012FAA releases documents showingwhere government agencies are flyingUAVsA bipartisan pair of Congressman joinedforces Thursday to put importantquestions to the Federal AviationAdministration regarding the agency’splans to open up American skies tothousands of surveillance drones.Reps. Joe Barton (R-Texas) and EdwardMarkey (D-Mass.) penned a letter tothe FAA demanding answers on how thefederal agency will protect the Fourth Amendment rights of American citizens if and when the useof unmanned ariel vehicles by government, law enforcement and private companies increases.“There is…potential for drone technology to enable invasive and pervasive surveillance withoutadequate privacy protections.” the Congressmen’s letter stated.“We are writing to express our concerns about the law’s potential privacy implications and torequisition information about how the FAA is addressing these important matters.” it continued.Congress recently passed legislation paving the way for what the FAA predicts will be somewherein the region of 30,000 drones in operation in US skies by 2020. Once signed by president Obama, the FAA Reauthorization Act allows for the FAA to permit the use of drones and develop regulations for testing and licensing by 2015. “Many drones are designed to carry surveillance equipment, including video cameras, infrared thermal imagers, radar and wireless network ‘sniffers,’ ” the representatives wrote. They added that the FAA has “the responsibility to ensure that the privacy
    • of individuals is protected and that the public isfully informed about who is using drones inpublic airspace and why.”Barton and Markey are acting in their roles asco-chairmen of the Congressional PrivacyCaucus.“We must ensure that as drones take flight indomestic airspace, they don’t take off withoutprivacy protections for those along their flightpath,” Markey said. “The potential for invasivesurveillance of daily activities with dronetechnology is high. Standards for informing thepublic and ensuring safeguards must be put inplace now to protect individual privacy.”“When the domestic use of drones was legalizedin the FAA Modernization and Reform Act, I knew that the usage of these unmanned aircraftwould bring a great benefit to our local and state governments, as well as some businesses,”Barton added. “However, if used improperly or unethically, drones could endanger privacy and Iwant to make sure that risk is taken into consideration.”The FAA declined to comment on the lawmakers’ letter, however the agency has today releasedinformation regarding where drones are currently being flown and who is flying them.The documents were released to the privacy watchdog The Electronic Freedom Foundation(EFF) after the group sued the agency for initially not responding to a Freedom of InformationAct request in January.The FAA documents show which private companies and government entities currently have acertificate to fly drones in US airspace.They include Raytheon, General Atomics, Telford Aviation, AAI Corp, Honeywell, UnmannedSystems Inc, L-3, and Aurora Flight Companies, as well as government agencies DARPA, theFBI, the Departments of Energy, Agriculture, & Homeland Security, and branches of the military.As we reported in February, Over 30 prominent watchdog groups have banded together topetition the FAA on the proposed increase in the use of drones. The groups, including TheAmerican Civil Liberties Union, The Electronic Privacy Information Center and The Bill of RightsDefense Committee, are demanding that the FAA hold a rulemaking session to consider theprivacy and safety threats.The ACLU noted that the FAA’s legislation “would push the nation willy-nilly toward an era ofaerial surveillance without any steps to protect the traditional privacy that Americans have alwaysenjoyed and expected.”In addition to privacy concerns, the groups warned that the ability to link facial recognitiontechnology to surveillance drones and patch the information through to active governmentdatabases would “increase the First Amendment risks for would be political dissidents.”
    • Democrats Push for ConstitutionalAmendment to Roll Back First AmendmentKurt NimmoInfowars.comApril 20, 2012Nancy Pelosi’s tirade against the FirstAmendment coincides with an effort byFree Speech for People to push a “People’sRights Amendment” it wants added to theConstitution. The amendment reads asfollows: Section 1. We the people who ordain and establish this Constitution intend the rights protected by this Constitution to be the rights of natural persons. Section 2. People, person, or persons as used in this Constitution does not include corporations, limited liability companies or other corporate entities established by the laws of any state, the United States, or any foreign state, and such corporate entities are subject to such regulation as the people, through their elected state and federal representatives, deem reasonable and are otherwise consistent with the powers of Congress and the States under this Constitution. Section 3. Nothing contained herein shall be construed to limit the people’s rights of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, free exercise of religion, and such other rights of the people, which rights are inalienable.As the Volokh Conspiracy blog notes, this proposed amendment might be used to shut down thepolitical speech of people and organizations the government wants to silence. Eugene Volokhwrites today that …just as Congress could therefore ban the speech of nonmedia business corporations, it could ban publications by corporate-run newspapers and magazines — which I think includes nearly all such newspapers and magazines in the country (and for good reason, since organizing a major publications as a partnership or sole proprietorship would make it much harder for it to get investors and to operate). Nor does this proposal leave room for the possibility, in my view dubious, that the Free Press Clause would protect newspapers organized by corporations but not other corporations that want to use mass communications technology. Section 3 makes clear that the preservation of the “freedom of the press” applies only to “the people,” and section 2 expressly provides that corporations aren’t protected as “the people.”
    • Rep. Jim McGovern of Massachusetts, the original sponsor of the amendment, confirmed this onWednesday.“My ‘People’s Rights Amendment’ is simple and straightforward,” he told the CongressionalSummit on Overturning Citizens United. “It would make clear that all corporate entities — for-profit and non-profit alike — are not people with constitutional rights. It treats all corporations,including incorporated unions and non-profits, in the same way: as artificial creatures of the statethat we the people govern, not the other way around.” If you think this amendment will only beused to shut down large corporations during national elections, think again. Nancy Pelosi and theDemocrats have waged a relentless battle against the First Amendment for years. In 2008, Pelosiand senator Richard Durbin expressed a desire to limit the constitutional rights of broadcasters.Pelosi told John Gizzi of Human Events she supports the doctrine and the Democrats would dealwith it after the election.The following year, Democrat senator Debbie Stabenow said she would call for McCarthy-likehearings in Washington to have the government impose “balance” in talk radio.Democrats were defeated in 2011, however, when the FCC formally voted to repeal the languagethat implemented the Fairness Doctrine from the Federal Register.Earlier this year, Democrats, including Obama, went after talk show host Rush Limbaugh forinsensitive comments he made about Sandra Fluke, who told congressional Democrats thatcontraception should be paid for in health plans. The Soros operation Media Matters spent$100,000 dollars on radio advertisements in an effort to get Limbaugh thrown off the air. A DailyCaller exposé posted in January revealed that Media Matters works closely with the WhiteHouse.Although several advertisers dropped his show and Limbaugh apologized for the comments, hisradio show remains on the air. Limbaugh’s show is the most popular talk radio broadcast inthe country with an estimated 15 million plus listeners per week.Having failed to reanimate the Fairness Doctrine and motivate a boycott against Limbaugh,Democrats have set their sights on the Constitution. http://www.infowars.com/The Obama Deception VIDEO BELOWhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAaQNACwaLwFall of the Republic VIDEO BELOWhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VebOTc-7shU