Twitchy shines a light on some tweets by comedians Elayne Boosler and Bill Maher, who used an identical argument to admonish the tea party - that, if the tea party had just not been opposed to taxes, they wouldn't have gotten the treatment.
On the segment Really! with Seth and Amy, Saturday Night Live player Amy Poehler used the same tack to suggest that the tea party had it coming. "Really, Tea Party, really? You're surprised you are targeted by the IRS? You named yourself after a group of people who proudly and historically violated tax laws. Look, if I had a vanity license plate that said, "Weed 420," I might expect to get pulled over now and then."
These are comedians. So laugh.
Representative Brady was right to ask the question "Is this still America?" of the IRS chief last week, but it implies that the government would never use its power to single out people who look or think a certain way. There are cases where unjust profiling has been used by law enforcement and this isn't the first rodeo for conservative groups getting the treatment from the IRS.
But, the issue is whether the government has the authority to control an individual or group of individuals based on their opposition to its policies. The argument from the left concedes that privilege is vested in those who control the governing authority. How does this rationale fit in with the rest of the left's concurrence with the sovereignty of big government?
It is said, redundantly, that one's individual rights should be weighed against the good of the whole. Yet, when an expression of thought lands on the back bumper of your car, or a sign at a rally, or your license plate, you are to expect to be scrutinized as an individual by authority.
Government abuse of the individual is not any different from their mantra and institutionalized belief system that "The Man is trying to keep you down," so rise up and "fight the power" of corporations, industrialists and the rich, except for the fact that an individual, a corporation, or an industrialist cannot force you to buy into their perceived scheme. The government can, and is reflected by the view of those who reject their own sovereignty is that the government is the ultimate authority.
It's all about coercion.
The plain fact is that a corporate head can't make you buy his product, but the government can make you, under penalty of fines or jail, purchase your freedom of harassment by compliance.
Yet, that is how the IRS is set up, and now, they are moving into the great uncharted waters of forcing compliance to a newly created, hyper-partisan healthcare law, the keystone of which is a coercive mandate to purchase that which you may not want, nor have funds for.
No accommodation has been made for you as an individual, especially if you have complained, because the all-powerful government has determined that your problems are to be ignored for the good of the whole.
Isn't the ultimate argument against slavery, the fact that one man cannot own another? That one cannot exert control over another to force him to perform tasks under threat of abuse?
Conservatives argue, in varying degrees, that the individual is the ultimate minority, and that good government respects the diversity of thought and ingenuity of each individual contribution. Our Bill of Rights guarantees freedom of expression in matters of politics, religion, and includes the written and spoken word. It is that expression that is under attack from a government whose ultimate authority was set up to be in the hands of the people. The ultimate authority was vested in the people, not whoever was elected to govern.
The suggestion that someone "had it coming," tells of the mindset and hypocrisy of the left, and blows to smithereens the assumption that we are created equal, as written in the Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."
Independent thought, and the expression of it, is a guaranteed right, not by the authority of government, but by the authority of our Creator. It is a faith in government, or more pointedly, a faith in man, that hands us over to his abuses.
Certain government spokespeople, most notably, Pelosi's rant about "anti-government ideology," and Harry Reid's assumption that the Tea Party is "against government in any form," stand by their rhetoric that the tea party, and its political allies, are against government. But the crux of the matter is not that patriotic Americans are against government, but that an all-powerful government stands against us.
If silly, thought-deficient comedic expression attempts to justify the actions of the controlling authority, it's not only not funny, but it also offers the "powers that be" a pass on selective abuse, and subverts individuality of thought in favor of a government's insistence to its current norm.
Power to the people.