UnFair: Exposing the IRS (film review)

Note: The movie was billed as UnFair: Exposing the IRS but the official website calls it UnFair: The Movie.

Last Tuesday I accompanied some friends to see the documentary film UnFair: Exposing the IRS on the big screen.  This was a breath of fresh air, as I’m used to consuming politics hunched in front of a computer screen rather than at posh movie theaters.  It was an interesting experience and the movie was worth seeing once.

I left the theater critical of the film, but it does have its merits.  The film features in-depth interviews with American citizens who have been directly targeted and victimized by the IRS for political purposes.  Among those affected are:

• Conservative grass-roots organizations, including tea parties and women's groups
• Various churches and Christian ministries
• A non-partisan veterans support group
• Adoptive parents of a foreign-born baby
• Non-partisan pro-life groups

What did all the groups have in common?  Two things: 1) All either held or applied for 501(c)3 or (c)4 tax status; 2) All of the above engaged in some kind of activity that went contrary to public policies under the Obama Administration.

The first credit to the filmmakers is that they blew the whistle on the IRS for serious abuses of power and rampant violation of the First Amendment—every one of the individuals or organizations targeted was engaged in a form of speech, expression, or voluntary association.

The second good thing about the movie is the inclusion of an exposé on Lois Lerner.  The filmmakers shine the spotlight on the former IRS Director of Exempt Organizations and her history of misusing her power in various federal agencies to persecute conservatives.

Whether or not one agrees with conservative (neoconservative) ideas, it’s absolutely wrong, illegal, unconstitutional, and a gross injustice for the government, and/or rogue government agents, to target and persecute people for expressing opposing ideas.

Despite the positive credits to the film, UnFair has its downsides.  For starters, it features (in my opinion) far too many clips from Fox News shows.  Though there are clips from other news networks, Fox News is the most used source.  One doesn’t have to be a libertarian to know that only dedicated neoconservatives take Fox News seriously as an unbiased source for information.

Also, the film dedicated over seventy minutes to complaining about abuses of power in the federal government, but less than ten minutes to the Fair Tax (which the film was a ruse to promote).  The last section only vaguely explained that the Fair Tax would replace the income tax and be a flat rate sales tax.

Here we find a problem.  Even if the Fair Tax is lower than the income tax, all it does is transfer compulsory taxation from earning money to spending money.  It could be a positive first step toward economic recovery, as long as the tax is a very low rate.  Theoretically, people could avoid paying taxes through paying cash and/or “making donations” in the underground market.

However, in that scenario exists a breeding ground for more abuse of power and a police state.  Instead of instantly drawing tax money from a paycheck, the IRS would demand access to receipts for a person’s possessions.  If the owner can’t provide receipts for everything, tax audits could end with the IRS having people’s possessions appraised for their value and then taxed.

The only fair tax is no tax; let the working men and women of America save or spend every penny they earn as they see fit.  And regarding persecuted churches, they shouldn’t have a 501(c) tax status… they should have NO tax status.  For the IRS to regulate churches and ministries goes against the separation of church and state.  End of story.

UnFair: The Movie is worth seeing once with a group of friends to encourage some discussion on tax reform; if not, it’s worth seeing once alone if anyone wants details on how the IRS is stunting the growth of the economy and depriving citizens of their civil rights. The producers also are releasing a companion book by Craig Bergman for further reading.

Acts of WAR vs. Acts of PROTEST

Pink Pistols, a conservative LGBT group, marches for their 2nd Amendment rights

One of my friends in L.A. County Oathkeepers read my last piece and commented on it.  She posed the hypothetical scenario: suppose the Muslim Brotherhood or Hamas was marching up and down my street protesting, practicing both their First and Second Amendment rights by carrying fully locked and loaded weapons with them.  Would that be an act of war or an act of protest?

My immediate answer might surprise some people.  I answered that, in and of itself, a locked and loaded protest would simply be an act of protest.   This is a reference to the recent armed march Adam Kokesh was planning on carrying out in Washington, D.C. on July 4.  Needless to say, I’m incredibly glad the protest was canceled.  Kokesh and his and of merry conspiratarians would merely be carrying an act of protest, although it would simultaneously have been an act of stupidity.

For starters, D.C. has some strict gun control laws and an armed march around federal buildings like the White House or the Capitol simply wouldn’t fly.  The event would be more fittingly called “Surrender Your Gun to the Government and Get Arrested like a Dumb-Ass Day.”  Furthermore, it would have been a horrible reflection on the libertarian movement, making us look like a ban of militants and rendering us all responsible if somebody’s weapon had a misfire.

As much as I disagree with their methods or even their reasoning, as long as the Kokesh march—or an armed Muslim Brotherhood march—is carried out by people whose sole aim is to protest, then it would be an act of protest.  However, there are multiple dimensions to the scenario, and small details could greatly change the dimensions of such an event.  If the same group congregated in D.C. to protest and display loaded weapons, demonstrating their Second Amendment right but with no intention of firing, yet one of the protestors loses his cool and fires a shot, then the protest becomes an act of war.

If the same group had even the slightest intention of firing one of their weapons, especially around government buildings, then the protest was an act of war before they even arrived at the National Mall or Pennsylvania Avenue.

An armed militia in the streets of Tripoli following skirmishes

Let’s relate this concept to two examples from involving revolutionaries and our American countrymen.  The first example is the Benghazi killings in Libya, where four American diplomats were murdered by militants.  Though the official reports from the State Department claim that the Benghazi incident was a protest that sparked into a violent confrontation, hard evidence points to a militia attack.  If it had truly been a protest, then it would have become an act of war the minute the protestors got violent.  However, the protest was a farce orchestrated by an Islamist militia so they could attack the U.S. embassy.  It was an act of war before they even congregated.

The second example was covered in the last rant: the local militia at Lexington in 1775.  Though a military body, the local militiamen at Lexington assembled themselves on the village green as an act of protest.  They were locked and loaded, but their goal was not to fight the British.  Firing their muskets was certainly in their back-up plan, but that definitely wasn’t their plan of the day.  Word from Boston had already reached Lexington about the British seizing firearms.  The militiamen stood their ground, locked and loaded on the village green, in demonstrating that they wouldn’t give up their personal property.

The British response to their silent protest was an act of war.  The militia stood in a silent formation but did not have their muskets aimed at the enemy.  The enemy, on the other hand, broke the rules of engagement and fired on the militia.  That’s when the confrontation at Lexington became a battle.  The local militia participated in a military operation, but their protest was not an act of war.  Had the British kept moving, there would have been no battle or shots fired whatsoever.

Going back to the Kokesh march, it remains in my opinion a very bad idea, but so long as everything went according to plan, it would have been merely an act of protest.  Again, I’m glad it was canceled.  I see too much room in this scenario for some rookie law enforcement officer to get nervous around so many loaded weapons and possibly fire on the protestors, causing a bloodbath.  I also see ample opportunities for an armed conspiratarian to panic when the police close in, and fire at them.

A final note: as I see it, the Second Amendment is equally important as the First Amendment.  However, armed marches aren’t the best tactic for arguing our Second Amendment rights.  After all, that just makes us libertarians and conservatives look like the violent gun nuts the left makes us out to be.

* * * 

Pink Pistols image by "russavia" and militia photo by "Magharebia".  Both photos were obtained from Wikimedia Commons and are used via CC BY 2.0 license.