The IRS Hits the Century Mark

| June 1 2013
Burt Prelutsky

It is just possible that 1913 was one of the worst years in American history.  Not only did Woodrow Wilson, a role model for Obama, become president, but the 16th Amendment was passed, giving Congress the right to levy income taxes on us.  And as anyone who has been paying attention lately realizes, when you place that much power in the hands of federal bureaucrats, you’re just asking for trouble.

It was recently disclosed that our own tax collectors are every bit as evil as those that plagued Robin Hood.  But as you may have noticed, these days there’s never a master archer around when you really need one.

It seems that starting as early as 2011, the IRS was already targeting groups that did not view Obama as the Second Coming.  They made things easy for themselves by determining that if the name of the group included “Tea Party,” “Constitution,” “Bill of Rights” or “Patriot,” it was not entitled to have the same tax-exempt status as, say, such sacred entities as Media Matters, Planned Parenthood or the ACLU.

What’s more, the groups were expected to identify their donors, which normally would be illegal, but this, after all, is Barack Obama’s America, a nation in which harsher words are used to describe law-abiding, gun-owning, Christian conservatives than blood-thirsty jihadists.

The good news of late is that even such dedicated leftists as Maureen Dowd of the New York Times and former congressman, Dennis Kucinich, have taken to attacking the current administration over Benghazi and its misuse of the IRS.

What’s more, by the time the various congressional committees get to the bottom of Benghazi, I suspect I will stand a better chance of garnering the 2016 Democratic nomination than Hillary Clinton.  Considering her decision to remove security forces from the consulate in spite of Ambassador Stevens’ begging for reinforcements; her telling the ambassador’s grief-stricken mother that her son’s death was due to some silly video; and her delivering that disgusting line “What difference, at this point, does it really matter” when referring to the identity of the Libyan killers; I would say it’s time to stick a fork in her presidential aspirations.

I understand that it’s not always possible for conservatives to rid themselves of the liberals in their lives.  In a few instances, even I have not entirely managed to carry it off.  After all, it’s not easy to cast off college friends, and even harder to dump loony relatives.  But I would suggest as a test, try asking those you know what they think of Obama after the Benghazi cover-up and the news about the IRS.  Both, after all, are somewhat reminiscent of life under Richard Nixon.  I’m sure most of us recall how outraged liberals were over Watergate and about his infamous enemies list.

If you ask the liberals in your life these two questions and they insist that Obama had no involvement in either matter or that neither of those events is worthy of their interest, and you don’t call them on it in the exact same way they would if George Bush were the responsible party, you are, at best, an enabler and, at worst, a moral coward.

I despise Obama, and while I regard him as a vile symptom, even I have to acknowledge that he’s not entirely the cause of our national malaise.  I mean, he didn’t hand Dr. Kermit Gosnell the scissors with which he cut the spines of those babies.  On the other hand, a spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood did say that the decision to cut or not to cut should be solely in the hands of the woman and her friendly abortionist, and Obama did find time to give a shout-out at the recent Planned Parenthood convention.  But that was only fitting because as an Illinois state senator, he had already cast votes in favor of murdering the tiny survivors of botched abortions.

While I’m in attack mode, I’ll go on record that when it comes to criminal defense attorneys, they remind me less of actual human beings than they do of those slobbering long-fanged creatures one comes across in sci-fi horror movies.  As if what Ariel Castro, the Tsarnaev brothers, Jodi Arias and Kermit Gosnell, did wasn’t appalling enough, we have an endless daisy chain of lawyers who are only too anxious to defend these monsters.

One assumes the motivation is publicity, although these creeps with their law degrees will inevitably contend that we are a nation of laws and that even those who are obviously guilty deserve the best defense that money can buy.  But it seems to me that the Law, aka Justice, is really intended to protect the innocent, not to enable the guilty to escape their just deserts.  What, after all, is so great about this Law they keep yammering about?

The Law, which these shysters pretend to hold sacred, permits a million legal abortions to take place every year.  The Law permits convicted serial killers to survive for decades after they’ve slaughtered their victims, thanks to an appeal system so perverted that most of those on Death Row will never be executed.  The Law also permits politicians to pass legislation, including ObamaCare, that affects the rest of us in terrible ways, but never them or their families.

The Law goes so far as to permit, one might even say encourage, Supreme Court justices to ignore the Constitution with impunity, and base their decisions on their own political disposition, having nothing to do with the Founders’ obvious intentions.

Thus I say, in the immortal words of Charles Dickens’ Mr. Bumble, “The law is an ass,” and, more often than not, so are its practitioners.

0 comments