browser icon
You are using an insecure version of your web browser. Please update your browser!
Using an outdated browser makes your computer unsafe. For a safer, faster, more enjoyable user experience, please update your browser today or try a newer browser.

Apology NOT Accepted

Posted by on May 10, 2013
Share via email

An IRS spokesperson recently issued a verbal apology to the various Tea Party and Patriot groups whom they had specifically targeted for extreme scrutiny over their applications for 501C3 tax exempt status.  Even though I can’t speak for our group, which happened to be one of those that was targeted, or any of the other groups for that matter, I can at least issue my own personal response.  Your apology is NOT accepted.  In fact, I’m willing to go so far in my response as to say that I would personally like to see those responsible not only fired, but also brought up on both criminal as well as civil charges for violating our civil rights via a direct abuse of power. 

Exactly one month ago I wrote a commentary stating that I was fed up with all the bogus mea culpa’s.  An apology based on an accident is one thing.  However, an apology that is derived solely from being caught committing overt actions related to a political agenda is something else entirely.  An apology isn’t enough after a school suspends a kid over eating a Pop Tart into the shape of a gun just so that the administrators can push a gun control agenda.  Using the IRS to exercise extreme scrutiny against specific political groups is nothing more than an overt attempt to curtail the opposing voices of those groups.  Therefore, an apology doesn’t cut it there either. 

Those that are currently in power like to scoff at those of us who protest against what we view as tyrannical actions by claiming we are simply being paranoid.  However, if you look up the Merriam-Webster definition of Tyranny it’s easy to see that bringing the full power and weight of the IRS to bear on a specific political group for the sole purpose of stifling their oppositional viewpoint fits the very definition of tyranny.

3: a rigorous condition imposed by some outside agency or force

4: an oppressive, harsh, or unjust act : a 

 act

 

I’m not acting out of hypocrisy just because this happens to be an incident that struck home for me.  In fact, in the book I wrote two years ago I specifically stated that even though I disagree with almost everything liberals like Chris Matthews or Rachel Maddow ever say, I would still fight for their right to speak no matter how much I disagree with them.  The reason is that freedom and censorship cannot coexist.  The presence of one will automatically destroy the other.  A person cannot profess a love of freedom and yet practice a tolerance of those things that destroy freedom at the same time.  Therefore, your choice is to either tolerate the abuse of tyrannical censorship, or be as outraged about this as I am.  I would suggest that no matter what your political leanings you should think about this carefully and choose wisely.  Otherwise, the next time you might find yourself being on the wrong end of such tactics yourself where the tyrants will have already chosen for you.

Share via email

Comments are closed.