Weapons

In a completely weaponless world, the biggest, strongest, and least scrupled can have their way with the rest. But once weapons have been introduced, other factors intrude, most important among them:

• Who is armed?
• How good is he with his weapons?
• How willing is he to use them, and under what circumstances?

...which, of course, is why they who seek power above all else strive to deny weapons to others.

---

The United States is unique among societies in its tradition of citizen armament. It's near to the core of what makes us what we are: a people sovereign over themselves and their government, rather than a mass of subjects beholden to the State for all things. Granted that the tradition has taken some blows in recent decades, it's not dead yet. Indeed, it seems in some ways to be regaining ground lost to prior incursions.

But the power-mongers aren't ready to concede the field. Rather, they seek new weapons. Weapons with unique characteristics. Weapons no civilian can possess. Weapons against which there's no imaginable defense.

And it appears they've found one:

What the IRS was doing behind closed doors may soon be official policy in California. Last week, the State Senate voted to revoke the nonprofit status of any group within the state that does not allow full participation of homosexuals, a move aimed directly at the Boy Scouts of America. According to the Associated Press, the bill "would require those organizations to pay corporate taxes on donations, membership dues, camp fees and other sources of income, and to obtain sellers permits and pay sales taxes on food, beverages and homemade items sold at fundraisers." Groups that sponsor troops would also have their tax returns and membership policies scrutinized by the Franchise Tax Board, California’s version of the IRS....

The thread that connects California’s proposed tax policy with the IRS scandal of recent weeks is the unmistakable trend toward weaponizing the tax code. What was once a neutral instrument used for the purpose of collecting revenue for legitimate governmental functions is now employed to punish behavior that powerful people don’t like. Lois Lerner of IRS infamy had a concealed carry permit but the State of California is carrying theirs right out in the open....

But at least the IRS had the good sense to hide their tyrannical machinations. The California Senate wants to do the same thing, right out in the open. The right of private organizations to exclude anyone they want is well established and there’s nothing California can do to stop them; nothing, that is, except to extract a punitive "tax."

My wife, a practicing accountant who deals extensively in tax law and its consequences, is of the opinion that this gambit by the State of California will put it into direct conflict with the federal IRS. I'm not so sure; the IRS might elect to defer to the judgment of the state government about such things, especially since it would increase federal revenues. But we shall see.

The above points to a specific agenda -- special privileges for homosexuals -- but hints at a far broader attack upon freedom of speech and association. If taxes can be imposed differentially upon groups according to their positions on certain political topics, then why not on individual persons? In which case, the dreaded Form 1040 might soon become a longer and more intrusive questionnaire: about how you voted; about how you stand on subjects such as same-sex marriage and abortion; about whether you've ever dared to associate with a conservative organization; and so forth.

Given John Eastman's testimony about the travails of donors to the National Organization for Marriage, which was one of the principal promoters of California's Proposition 8, it becomes quite clear that this trend toward using the tax code as a political weapon against opponents of the ruling regime is:

• Immensely appealing to those who attain power;
• Among the greatest dangers citizen activists and their associations could face.

---

Among the foolish defenses offered up in the attempt to deflect the investigations into IRS skullduggery, perhaps the subtlest was the one offered by political tool David Plouffe: it would be a huge political mistake:

"There’s been no suggestion— the Inspector General said there was no politics involved in this," Plouffe said this morning on "This Week." "This was not an effort driven by the White House. It would be the dumbest political effort of all time."

And indeed, it would be a huge political mistake if it were detected and plumbed to the bottom, as is happening right now. But a president and advisors confident that they could get away with it would not be deterred by that prospect. Indeed, a president and advisors confident that they could get away with it even if it were detected would proceed with it...because it's the royal road to permanent power.

We sometimes forget that freedom of speech can be neutered by denying the speaker an outlet for his speech. If the State can tax away the resources required to publish and proliferate your message, you might have freedom of speech in the formal sense, but in the practical realm it won't matter at all.

---

The IRS is the most feared of all government agencies because its powers are unbounded by Constitutional constraints. It can demand that you incriminate yourself. It can seize your assets without first convicting you of a crime. It can compel you into a "tax court" in which you're presumed guilty unless you can prove yourself innocent. The combination renders the typical citizen, and the typical citizen's association, utterly helpless before its rulings.

The IRS, and its various state-level equivalents, are weapons only the State can wield, and against which there is no defense.

It's high time Americans start asking ourselves why we've tolerated such a blot upon our Constitutional framework for so long. Indeed, it's high time we did something about it: something definite, sweeping, and final.

I'm sure my Gentle Readers can take it from there.