Medicare, we read here, is in a fiscal crises and totally unsustainable. How could that be? The Tea Party has awakened to the fact that the American people have been taken to the cleaners. What is the Tea Party to do? My answer all along to seniors: “It is entirely up to you. You should have been prepared.”
First, I’d like to bring to your attention that there is a member of my family, now in her fifties, who has never accomplished anything in her life worthy of mention. It galls the living daylights out of me. She had a good background. Why is she is now jobless and currently living in a small trailer with a druggie, on welfare? In my youth she’d not have gotten a thin dime from government or family. Tragically, thanks to government giving people a right to goof off, this woman with a pickled brain has three children, all with emotional problems.
Welfare is a growing cancer on society. It absolutely drives me up a wall. This case I mention is not an unusual phenomenon in twenty-first century America. It happens in the best of families. It is happening for a reason. We Americans live in a hothouse environment, waiting for government to pull levers and turn valves. One cannot help but notice the number of grossly obese young people. Sorry Michelle, it is not the government’s role to control the kind of foods we eat. It’s the parent’s job.
An oncologist, who also practices alternative medicines, was told by an FDA bureaucrat that he must first offer chemotherapy, with its dismal record, but being a $200 billion a year industry, money talks. Why would anyone want to commit suicide in a very painful way by subjecting themselves to chemo? In many forms of cancer, chemo has little of no positive effect and can cause your cancer to spread. I knew someone who died only yesterday. She had lung cancer and was put on Chemo. Unnecessarily, par for the course and a crying shame, a few months later she died of brain cancer in her sixties. If she had only known, she’d more than likely be living a normal life. Alternative medicine is curing the terminally ill.
Talk about reducing health care costs, there are myriad ways, but first, get government out of health care.
A school teacher wearing a necklace with a small cross was told she could not wear it by reason that it might offend somebody. “That’s Obama for you. He’s as nutty as a fruitcake.” American Muslims dress in garb that lets you know they are Muslim. It’s funny that it is their right. In all cases, it has been Muslims who bomb airliners out of the sky. Wouldn’t you be a bit concerned to see someone in Muslim garb on your airliner. In order not to racially profile we must grope all airline passengers. It doesn’t occur to Obama intellectuals that a little old American lady is not likely to be carrying a bomb in her panties, but she has to be felt. Whoopee Goldberg says if they want to feel her that’s O.K. “It’s a heck of way to get your jollies, Whoopee. You are as stupid as you look.”
I was a single working on a minimum paying job. My employer deducted 20 percent of my income for Uncle Sam. It was very discouraging. My wages were withheld and the IRS confiscated my property. Think about that family member on welfare and me busting my butt trying to survive on my after tax income. I was locked out for non-payment of rent. The socialists in control of America are deliberately flushing us down the toilet. History gives us a record of what happens when the people don’t take action against government treachery. I did not succumb. I took my tax case to the U. S. Supreme Court. It’s all in the record.
I offer you Flast v Cohen, a taxpayer case. The Court speaking in Flast (1968):
“Federal judicial power is limited to those disputes which confine federal courts to a role consistent with a system of separated powers and which are traditionally thought to be capable of resolution through the judicial process.”
As to capable of resolution through the judicial process, in Butler, Justice Stone, dissenting on the redistribution of incomes question before the Court, “The power to tax and spend is not without constitutional restraints. One restriction is that the purpose must be truly national. Another is that it may not be used to coerce action left to state control. Another is the conscience and patriotism of Congress and the Executive. It must be remembered that legislators are the ultimate guardians of the liberties and welfare of the people in quite as great a degree as the courts.” Does court policy on redistribution of incomes consider Justice Stone’s objection? Hardly. The IRS told me that Congress had unlimited authority to tax my income.
In Missouri, Kansas & Texas Ry Co v. May, Justice Holmes: “A tortured construction of the Constitution is not to be justified by recourse to extreme examples of reckless congressional spending which might occur if courts could not prevent expenditures which, even if they could be thought to effect any national purpose, would be possible only by action of a legislature lost to all sense of public responsibility.” Do America’s courts consider congressional spending extreme? Hardly. The IRS, backed by the federal judiciary, as proven in my case, is a lying fraud.
Justice Warren in Flast: “Additional uncertainty exists in the doctrine of justiciability because that doctrine has become a blend of constitutional requirements and policy considerations. And a policy limitation is not always clearly distinguished from the constitutional limitation.”
“The many subtle pressures which cause policy considerations to blend into the constitutional limitations of Article III made the justiciability doctrine one of uncertain and shifting contours . . .”
“As we understand it, the Government’s position is that the constitutional scheme of separation of power, and the deference owed by the federal judiciary to the other two branches of government within that scheme, present an absolute bar to taxpayer suits challenging the validity of federal spending programs. The Government views such suits as involving no more than the mere disagreement by the taxpayer with the uses to which tax money is put. According to the Government, the resolution of such disagreements is committed to other branches of the Federal Government and not to the judiciary. Consequently, the Government contends that, under no circumstances, should standing be conferred on federal taxpayers to challenge a federal taxing or spending program. An analysis of the function served by standing limitations compels a rejection of the Government’s position.”
“The fundamental aspect of standing is that it focuses on the party seeking to get his complaint before a federal court and not on the issues he wishes to have adjudicated. The gist of the question of standing is whether the party seeking relief has alleged such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court so largely depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions.”
The taxpayer had standing in Flast, but, alas, the Court decided that the amount the tax took was too small to consider. The taxpayer was complaining of his tax money being given to church schools, which amounted to pennies. What about my case? My tax case, in which thousands of dollars were lawlessly snatched by the IRS, why was my case dismissed by the Supreme Court without a word? Because it can get away with it. It can get away with it because if it isn’t you being ripped off it is none of your concern.
In the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (rule 41[e], 18 U.S.C.A.) I was entitled to file suit. Huge corporations have. I was able to show existence of “special and extraordinary circumstances sufficient to bring a case within some acknowledged head of equity. My case demonstrated that the United States could not establish its tax claim.” The IRS claimed in the Supreme Court that it made an “error,” and that it was corrected. It was not corrected. The IRS corrected the error and then made it again in violation of a Tax Court Order. The facts and evidence showed that the IRS made many errors, including thumbing its nose at a Tax Court order. The IRS corrected its second error, after I filed a complaint in the District Court, corrected its error again, and then made the same error again. Yes, I could file a claim. It could file claims the rest of my life, but as a matter of policy, no court would hear me. It took public exposure to stop the IRS.
Your government is a liar and a fraud. Because you have not been concerned, this I report could be your concern one of these days. By court policy, it is open season on taxpayers. The IRS can and does by “mistake” put taxpayers on the street, and never pays for its crimes. I’m one of those the IRS put on the street. I’d still be on the street if I had not fought.
I’m not a taxpayer anymore. I receive a government check. The socialists in America are moving right along in their agenda, and I would not slap the hand that feeds the mouth.
After Hitler took over, in Nazi Germany’s courts, on record, government was permitted to murder 6 million Jews. The German gentiles didn’t make it their worry, and ended with their nation flat on the ground. I was there. What the German people did wasn’t too smart. I want to know what makes American judges, morally, any better than German judges?
Threatening death is the best way we know to get the people’s cooperation. Take note that governments never know they can do wrong until the people tell them. A fitting Tea Party resolution in 2011 would be to take legal action to gain back the individual’s inalienable rights, lest, at government’s discretion, for the good of all, of course, we end dead.
Comments