There is more to modern government than paving roads and catching bank robbers. A major contemporary function involves seeing just how many legitimate freedoms can be brought under closer bureaucratic scrutiny or even curtailed.

And being that the Internet increases freedom by serving as a decentralized conduit whereby almost anyone can propagate ideas, some within the government have taken it upon themselves to bring this technology under tighter control. But instead of going after smut peddlers and their related ilk, the IRS now believes it is their duty to limit the exchange of ideas in cyberspace.
According to the Conservative News Service, the IRS is considering a regulation that would forbid websites of 501(c)3 organizations from posting links to political parties or from hosting forums where participants could post comments endorsing candidates for public office.

Some may consider this an extension of already existing rules into the electronic frontier. After all, organizations incorporated under 501(c)3 regulations are already barred from direct political involvement.

Yet a classic axiom becoming more relevant all the time warns that, while politics isn't everything, everything is politics. So as the size of government continues to increase at a rate faster than Bill Clinton's waste in a fast food franchise, there is very little in life today falling outside the purview of politics. Politicians and bureaucrats have taken it upon themselves to enact policy on everything from whether or not you can correct you kids without fear of jailtime to whether or not you buckle your seatbelt as you drive your car down the street.

Not long ago, one church lost its tax-exempt status for sponsoring a newspaper advertisement simply listing the sins of Bill Clinton. Christian conspiracy scholar Texe Marrs claims the IRS threatened to yank the tax-exempt status of his ministry for daring to expose the policies and plots promoting the planetary politics of the New World Order.

Bob Jones University lost its tax-exempt status for merely forbidding interracial dating, something most Americans are leery about to begin with even if they aren't willing to admit it. The IRS admitted in this particular decision that the university did not violate narrowly defined prohibitions against partisan campaigning but instead what revenuers considered appropriate public policy.

What's to stop the IRS and other government agencies from declaring other beliefs such as the exclusivity of Christ as the only way to heaven or the inappropriateness of certain behavior to be policies they will not countenance? Already in other countries such as Canada, one can run afoul of the law for expressing these kinds of ideas.

But at least in each of these situations the groups being sanctioned are being persecuted for things they themselves have said. Applying 501(c)3 prohibitions to every statement made in a website forum exhibits the kind of imperviousness to progress for which the IRS is famous. Remember a few years ago it was said the IRS was still using maps missing the state of New Mexico?

Internet forums, like the letters page of a newspaper, do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the organizations gratuitous enough to provide them. Internet forums are a communications tool whereby individuals are able to post comments and exchange ideas freely, the kind of thing America use to be about before folks like the IRS got a hold of it.

In essence, the IRS wants to punish organizations for the statements of others. This proposed regulation could lead to a variety of interesting scenarios. For example, should a Christian or conservative group be held accountable if a liberal posts comments endorsing a Democrat on the group's website? Somehow I don't think they will since little is done when liberals such as Bill Clinton or Jesse Jackson pulpiteer in leftwing churches anyway.

This proposed policy would ultimately have the impact of shutting down most nonprofit discussion forums and Internet publications, putting the dissemination of information back into the hands of the mainstream media. Almost sounds like a conspiracy, doesn't it?

The regulations regarding 501(c)3 organizations are in certain ways outdated since, thanks primarily to liberals, politics is no longer confineable to solely political matters as they try to take over all areas of life. Nor do these regulations reflect some absolute principle of natural law or America's constitutional democracy. They arose as a venue by which to punish groups who would not dance to Lyndon Johnson's tune on racial politics.

Curbs were placed upon the FBI regarding what kinds of intelligence it could legitimately gather regarding subversive groups because of the abuses that arose in the process. Similar measures should be taken against the IRS in its campaign to hinder the advance of human freedom through the expanse of technology.

Start taking dancing lessons then so you can dance to the tune of government and the new world order. The internet does not advance human freedom, it promotes porn sites. Maybe some regulation is needed? Look at all the so called patriots sites used to promote guns, is that good for children?

I was going to reply, but there is no use, because you have to be a Democrat. Well maybe just one. I know why we want to keep our guns, but why are you so dead set on having them taken away? Could it be that you fear one may be at hand when you decide to take one more of our liberties? Or are you afraid that one of those undisciplined children of yours might run into one when they are breaking into someone's house? There is no law that makes you live in this country and obey the law stated in the Constitution of the United States of America. That is why we are given a choice to make up our own minds. If you don't like living with us barbaric people then you are free to leave. Why do you think you have the right to come along and change the law to suit your self? These laws were design for a free country. That would be like me coming into your home and demanding that you change your furniture, because I didn't agree with it. If you don't like guns then don't own one. You, and people like you, are probably what is wrong with this country now. You want us to give up our rights, while at the sometime you protest for the poo" criminal because he might have to get out of bed before 10 o:clock. I have crawled through mud up to my a** went without a warm meal weeks at at a time, and had half my face blown off, to give you the right to get on here and make those stupid statements. now you tell me what you have done for America lately.

Someone like noguns would like it in Canada now that bill C68 has been stuck down the throats of Canadians. The government's firearms legislation which came into effect Jan. 8 2001 requires all gun owners to have a licence to own the gun they have had 30 or 40 years already or face 5 years in jail for not taken the time and expense to register it. LUFA (Law-abiding unregistered firearms association) is threatening to take to the streets with its 20,000 members for civil disorder. To their credit 6 provinces challenged the licensing program saying Ottawa exceeded its powers, - to no avail. Natives (Indians) have been told by their leaders they do not have to comply. This is the extent of the UN agenda insanity that grips this once free country. It looks like the government dictatorship will have over 2 million people to lock up because they could not or wold not meet the deadline. You in the U.S. hold onto your right to bear arms or take the same road we tread to enslavement.

Well, noguns. What would we do without your unconscious liberal-commie view of everything. In your fantasy world of big brother things are just great. Why don't you take a reality check. I am just being kind.

We can always count on your insightful liberal-commie view whenever the G word is mentioned. Do you ever get a glimmer of the real world around you? Thanks for setting us straight on things once again.