After my post the other day, I’ve been thinking a lot about movies. And last night it hit me: I’ve got an idea for a screenplay that just can’t miss!!
…A group of freedom-loving patriots, ordinary folks hailing from ordinary hamlets (we’ll call them the “TEA Party”), witness their beloved country being taken over by a hostile State.
Rallying around a single man’s call to stand up and fight, they answer in droves. Neighborhood by neighborhood, then town by town, they band together across the entire country, creating an impressive force which positively impacts an election.
Then, the State fights back, attempting to crush and grind these groups out of existence, or intimidate them into silence.
I’m telling ya’, if this was about a group of Progressives, that movie would have already been written and cast by now. Probably a pair of sequels, too. I can picture the silk-screened t-shirts and 30-second mini-trailers now!!
That’s because Progressives love to hold themselves out as brave defenders of freedom, standing athwart “societal injustice”, locked in an eternal struggle against “the Man”. It’s also seen in movie after liberal movie, glorifying their bravery as they speak Truth To Power in films such as The China Syndrome, Fair Game, The Day After Tomorrow, All The President’s Men, The People vs. Larry Flynt, Born on the Fourth of July, Fahrenheit 9/11, Inherit the Wind, Milk, Rendition, and most recently The Company You Keep.
And it’s also why MY movie screenplay will never be made: it would be about Conservatives. Full credit goes to Greg Gutfeld for giving me the seed of the idea last night, as he was discussing the Tea Party and the IRS:
“This is the fantasy of every left-wing group: to be the target of the IRS, the target of the Government… because it’s incredibly romantic. Occupy Wall Street would have loved for this to happen.
This is what they make movies about!“
And yet, most Liberals don’t and won’t view it this way. Rather, they’ll continue to slander Conservatives in general, and the Tea Party specifically, as a collection of racist rabble whose deep-&-burning issue in this Maelstrom of Scandal is STILL the color of Barack Obama’s skin.
This is why they poo-poo’d Conservatives’ accusations of harassment at the hands of the IRS for years: only Leftists are ever oppressed, you see, since they are the permanent victim class.
But with an ever-widening net of IRS-targeted parties, it’s possible that the folks in the ideological middle (and even a few Media-types) might finally remove their Koolaid-colored glasses and see the ugly reality which is kicking them square in the face right now.
The Associated Press scandal is the one that seems to have riled the Press the most at this point (since it impacts them), but for the rest of us the scariest abuse of power is via the Internal Revenue Service. The evidence against them continues to pour in:
- There is Democrat Senator Carl Levin’s request to the IRS that they investigate the tax-exempt status of specifically conservative nonprofit groups, by way of letters to the then-IRS commissioner Doug Shulman and director Lois Lerner in 2012.
- Then you have the Northeast Tarrant Tea Party in Dallas-Ft. Worth, which was told by the IRS to produce (among other things) all of their member’s names, addresses, and their number of children. Also requested was what house their member’s live in, telephone numbers, Facebook addresses, email addresses, Twitter addresses, etc.,.. Does this sound like information that ANY supporter wants to hand over to the government, as a prerequisite of membership? What group do you belong to that requires this?
- Recall the case of Billionaire Frank VanderSloot, a major donor to a Mitt Romney super PAC, who in 2012 was identified on an Obama campaign website as one of eight “wealthy individuals with less-than-reputable records.” And sixty-one days later, VanderSloot received an audit notice from the IRS.
- We’ve just heard that the Coalition for Life of Iowa was refused tax exempt status because of their position on abortion. According to a non-profit law firm, they were told to send a letter vowing to not picket or protest outside of …Planned Parenthood. QUOTE: “Once the IRS received this letter, their application would be approved.”
And then there’s the curious case of Dr. Anne Hendershott, a Catholic professor, author and blogger who was singled out for an audit following her outspoken criticism of Obamacare:
(Hendershott) criticized liberal Catholic groups and President Obama, an act which she believes provoked an IRS audit.
During her audit, the IRS demanded to know who was financing her work, and “what their politics were.”
Dr. Hendershott was floored. She explained that she was just a writer, a blogger really. She did not make any money from her work, in fact she estimates that she has lost money if anything.
Despite this, the IRS insisted she was running a business and treated her as such. Dr. Hendershott does not have a business, and files jointly with her husband, who actually brings in the majority of their household income.
The IRS was not interested in her husband. Instead, they insisted she meet with them in private and provide in exacting detail an account of where every dollar that went into her bank account came from.
Why would a spouse, who files joint returns with the primary breadwinner, be requested to appear by herself and answer questions on her ‘business’? The only reason I can posit is that someone was hellbent on going after her.
All of this MAY be all coincidental.
Sure, it could be.
But since the IRS has already admitted they were targeting Conservative groups, and more admissions are coming every day, shouldn’t somebody ask the obvious question: if the IRS truly was out-of-control and being used to target explicitly conservative groups and individuals, why would they voluntarily limit themselves to just slow-walking 501(c)(4) applications? Doesn’t it just make logical sense that they’d use the full weight and power of their Agency to do so?
What’s the old phrase? “In for a dime, in for a dollar”. Well, by the looks of it, the IRS was in for a whole bunch of dollars, if you know what I mean….
All of which leads me back to my movie idea. I was actually thinking of different titles last night, and Tweeted out a few suggestions earlier:
Hmmm..: “ScandalOpoly”? “ScandalFest”? “ScandalRama”? “Super-cali-Scandal-istic-expi-ali-doucious”?? wp.me/p1vO66-2Mr#tcot #tgdn
— justturnright (@justturnright) May 16, 2013
If you have other ideas, please let me know. There’s no rush, of course: I’m afraid we’ve got LOTS of time.
I’ll leave the name of your new movie up to you… my question is, can I star in it?? :p I’m getting old, and this might just be may last chance at a ’15 minutes of fame’ moment!
No prob: I’ll have it written into the contract.
Can’t wait to hear from Pgh: HE’LL probably want to DIRECT the darn thing…
Seriously, the hypocrisy is blatant… but hasn’t it always been within every aspect and situation. I do see a bit of good though… people are waking up. I don’t fb or tweet, but it is all over the new media news sites how the ‘average joes’ out there are tweetig and facebooking info… pointing out the corruption and hypocrisy. *happy dance*
ugh. I need to proofread. (my inability to proofread has nothing to do with my ability to act in your movie! 😉 )
Never fear, Teach:
I’m guessing that most of the Hollywood luminaries need SpellCheck a good share of the time, so you have NOTHING to worry about!
PGH having not weighed in, I have dibs on directing!! I do think that your final title suggestion is going a bit too far…it seems to unfairly single out California for scandal…
Ya know, I hadn’t thought of that.
Hmmm…. perhaps you’re right; they DO seem to have enough to worry about right now.
And given your experience, you may certainly direct.
Anyway, I just want one of those nebulous “Executive Producer” credits that seem to be handed out like candy nowadays.
Either that, or “gaffer”.
Ummm…you do realize that “executive producers” are the MONEY people…?
How much do I get?
Oh, …wait a sec… you aren’t talkin’ about the folks that GET the money, are you?
Whoops: guess I’ll angle for either “Best Boy”, or “Key Grip”, ….whatever the heck THEY are.
Oh sure, GBL! Take advantage of a brother who was painfully STUCK in a business meeting from 9AM to 9PM yesterday! Of course, this would be such an epic film, that “co-directors” could be needed!
I would gladly co-direct!! (Sorry about your meeting…don’t envy you that, friend.)
Hearing Chris Matthews call for IRS employees to lose their jobs for this, I felt a thrill shoot up my leg.
But really, how can we expect the IRS to be unbiased? It is staffed by union employees. That’s why no one will be fired for this. They can’t be fired. A couple people have resigned, but they will get new jobs in the government. Once you’re a member of the NTEU you’ve got a job for life.
Through the NTEU, the IRS is spending our tax dollars to elect Democrats. Yet another reason why public sector unions should be illegal.
Actually, even Union employees may be fired if they break the law, which certainly seems to be the case here.
And given the outrage this is causing, even most union bosses would be a bit hesitant about challenging a firing in such a political climate.
However, I completely agree with your point about Public Sector unions, in general.
If you search through our site (just go to our Search tool in the sidebar) for “unions”, you’ll find quite a few posts on the subject. Given my history with Unions and Labor Relations, you can guess my opinion ahead of time.
And yes, Matthews’ calling for the firing is unusual in its rationality, but don’t get too used to it. Chrissy will be back to his frothing-at-the-mouth, semi-drunken self by tomorrow.
Count on it…
Great to see you, Tim! Hope you come back soon.
I’ll gladly eat my words if a single NTEU-affiliated employee is no longer in an NTEU-affiliated position as a result of this. I doubt I’ll have to. If someone is fired, it will be with much pomp and circumstance, and they will be silently hired in to another union position, with a raise.
With this crew, I wouldn’t bet against you… yet. Really depends on how much pressure comes to bear, and where it comes from.
If I’m reading this right, the issue is not if they were breaking the law (they were), or if they can be fired (they can), but rather if they were doing What They Were Told To Do.
Thus, CAN they be fired? Sure. But if they are, they will be more inclined to cooperate with a Congressional investigator or Special Prosecutor.
This one has more to do with Politics and less with unions, IMHO.
But it’s going to depend totally on what sort of investigation occurs, and who conducts it.
Barry “The Boy President” Soetoro, seems to be an amalgamation of scandals past. He’s the King of Cover-up, the Don of Deception, and the Prince of Prevarication. (Yeah….I COULD keep going…)
This administration could do a multi-season sequel of “The Fall Guy”, with a new person being blamed every week by the POTUS.
So, you’ve taken BIG action and asked a person in the job for 8 days to resign, but now you’re putting the person who oversaw the debacle in charge of the enforcement of O-care? REALLY?
And, scandal #4 this month is coming to light with Secretary Sebelius doing her best impersonation of Jesse Jackson and fleecing corporations.
Yeah, Barry, you HAVE fundamentally transformed this County. Way to go!
What about a movie that has characters that were protesters in the 60s and now are in positions of power and as they attempt to destroy their opposition with the IRS, DOJ, etc., realize they have become the oppressive establishment they once perceived they were protesting back in the day?
Too far fetched?
C’mon, Hatfield: you gotta stay REALITY-based here!!