The IRS Hits the Century Mark

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 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. That’s because, one, her presidential aspirations are D.O.A. and, two, because she’s long deserved to have a fork stuck in her.

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.

Author Bio:

Burt Prelutsky, a very nice person once you get to know him, has been a humor columnist for the L.A. Times and a movie critic for Los Angeles magazine. As a freelancer, he has written for the New York Times, Washington Times, TV Guide, Modern Maturity, Emmy, Holiday, American Film, and Sports Illustrated. For television, he has written for Dragnet, McMillan & Wife, MASH, Mary Tyler Moore, Rhoda, Bob Newhart, Family Ties, Dr. Quinn and Diagnosis Murder. In addition, he has written a batch of terrific TV movies. View Burt’s IMDB profile. Talk about being well-rounded, he plays tennis and poker... and rarely cheats at either. He lives in the San Fernando Valley, where he takes his marching orders from a wife named Yvonne and a dog named Angel.
Author website:
  • Wheels55

    I fear we have only seen the tip of the iceberg.

  • legal eagle

    Muslims are famous for their law breaking behavior? Hispanics are famous for eating tamales? Republicans are famous for being stupid?

  • veeper

    dem left wing nut jobs like dowd and kucinich are beginning to realize obama doesn’t like democrats either…

    he just uses them…

  • Pat Comstock

    Great article, Burt. You made some fine points and clarified some others. By the way, me and my 87 year old Mom own all of the Mary Tyler Moore series and we just watched one the other day that YOU wrote. We thank you for the many wonderful scripts you contributed to quality TV shows over the years . These were just great shows that were wholesome as well as entertaining. You should know that you and all the other writers have made a lasting and important contribution to our culture. Your work will go on long after you’re gone because mediocrity falls by the wayside, but quality stands up over time. Thanks, Burt. We wish you the best!!

    • legal eagle

      I guess comedy writing qualifies one as a political pundit these days….LOL

      • Pat Comstock

        Well, comedy writing certainly qualified Will Rogers as a political pundit! There was no one more insightful or funnier than Will when it came to politics! But, that may have been before your time. You might want to Google him and take a look at his genius. I can assure you…you will be entertained and his comments are remarkably tImely even today.

        • legal eagle

          Will Rogers did political humor and he mocked politicians in general. Burt Prelutsky writes an opinion column with, it appears, very little, if any humor. He also appears to have little respect for the law. As is the case with most of the right wing media they criticize without ever offering a solution.

          • GlenFS

            I’m unclear on why you read and comment on Mr. Prelutsky’s pieces if you aren’t amused by them? I only read what interests and amuses me.

          • legal eagle

            I read a lot of books, magazines and blogs…I don’t have to be amused. How would I know what people are thinking if I only read what is amusing or what I agreed with.
            BTW…How do you know something interests you unless you read it?

          • Pat Comstock

            You make a valid point that Burt does not include humor in his political commentary usually. However, my point was that being a humorist should not disqualify one from being taken seriously as a political commentator . Could you give a specific example of how or when he has displayed “little respect for the law”? I am unaware of this, but would be open to being given an example. In regard to “the right wing media criticizing without ever offering a solution”, it has been my experience that both the right and the left do this. I have no idea which camp does it more. But, I do notice they both do it. If you happen to know of a study that has shown one side does it more than the other, please inform me.

          • legal eagle

            “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,”

            Prelutsky appears to be that of a bitter old man who needs to vent. Lawyers are asses, politicians are slime etc. Prelutsky is a hater..
            As an attorney I have helped more people in a year than Prelutsky probably has in a lifetime.

          • Pat Comstock

            There is a difference between bitterness and outrage. Burt expresses outrage at outrageous laws. That doesn’t make him bitter. And, some lawyers are asses just like some doctors are and some housewives are asses. We are all asses at some time in our lives. He calls a spade a spade. That doesn’t make him a hater. You may have helped many people, but you have no way of knowing or judging how many people Mr. Prelutsky has helped.

          • legal eagle

            With all due respect,there is little difference between bitterness and outrage when the outrage is expressed as vitriolic as Prelutsky expresses his opinions. He has nothing constructive to say and if you believe that calling the President a schmuck and an SOB is “telling like it is” I and most thoughtful and civil people don’t..
            If Prelutsky expressed himself with such hateful language on television or in the media, I believe, that his media appearances would be far and few between and, in fact. most media outlets would have fired him.
            Whatever Prelutsky or yourself are frustrated about regarding our political system I would assume it didn’t begin the day Obama was elected and it wont end when Hillary is elected.

          • Pat Comstock

            “With all due respect”‘ vitriol and hateful language is not confined to the right wing commentators. Some of the most vile, disgusting remarks were constantly being hurled at Bush jr. I had profound disagreements with him while he was in office, I.e. I believed then and still do believe that the Iraq war was a tragic mistake. He was not a bright man and would never have been president if his father had not first been president. But, now we do have a bright man who knows how to delegate but does not make the effort to exercise any oversight on the projects he delegates and it is coming back to haunt him…and us. But, I will not tolerate someone in my presence who makes vile ad homonym remarks about our president. How many people on the left do you think would have that attitude about a Republican president inIoffice? I don’t approve of the vitriol and unfair attacks on either side, but you seem to focus just on this one case on the right…as if the left just isn’t ever guilty of it. And, when it comes to bitterness, you seem to have quite a bit of that yourself!

          • legal eagle

            I was commenting on Prelutsky’s vitriol not anyone else’s. Excusing outrageous and vile comments regarding Obama with the justification that some unknown person said it to Bush is nonsensical.
            I don’t know what every writer on the left writes nor do I know what everyone on the right writes.
            As far as my bitterness level goes when I write a legal brief or a legal opinion I avoid personal attacks. Makes one seem petty and lacking salient points.
            The only thing I am bitter about is that The New York Rangers will not win the Stanley Cup again this year….LOL

          • Pat Comstock

            When I used the word “oversight”, I was not talking about micromanaging. I also have worked for a couple of corporations, and oversight is MAINLY what the do. They assign a project to a group of people and then expect that group to give them feedback on how the project is going . One of Obama’s own staff in the Whitehouse recently made remark that he often assigns a project and then he’s done with it…doesn’t want to be bothered with any feedback. This is a recipe for disaster and the current scandals surrounding our president are to some extent, probably due to this flaw in his managerial style. Either you did not closely read my previous remarks or, you are engaging in sophistry. I clearly did NOT excuse outrageous and vile comments made about any of our presidents who happen to be in office. I have a great respect for the incredibly difficult job being president is…no matter whether he or she is a Dem. or a Rep. You, being a trained lawyer, are used to thinking in terms of “winning”, that is understandable. But, when you engage in obvious sophistry in order to “win” an argument, one has to come to the conclusion that you are more interested in thinking of your self as “right” than in getting to the bottom of an issue. I have the impression that you are not a sincere debater…that is someone who has genuine respect for the dialectic process. Therefor, anything someone says in debate with you can be twisted to mean something they obviously did not mean. This is a game. You are very good at setting up a “straw man ” argument and then knocking it down. This is an age old trick that sophists use to seem to win a point. The only honorable way to debate an issue is to try to be “objective”. We all have our point of view, which makes us biased. But, that does not mean we cannot affirm a valid point from the other side. After all, neither side has a corner on the truth. There are valid points on both sides…and you make valid points, but you seem to never affirm a valid point anyone else makes. I am not a perfect debater either. But, I’m working on it. But, one has to have a “vision” of what honorable debate consists of in order for us to have helpful civil discourse in a free society. I rest my case.

          • legal eagle

            I never claimed to have a corner on anything especially ultimate truth. Criticizing a CEO or a POTUS for lack of oversight of a particular situation is valid. But, statements like “One of Obama’s own staff in the Whitehouse recently made remark that he often assigns a project and then he’s done with it…doesn’t want to be bothered with any feedback.” As an attorney it’s hard for me to take seriously anecdotal remarks by an unnamed source regarding an unknown circumstance.
            Finally, I am not sure what “Obama Scandals” you are referring to? There is a major difference between administration screw-ups and a scandal…except to Fox News where Obama’s election was and continues to be a scandal…LOL

          • Pat Comstock

            As I said before, ” I rest my case”. You may have, and I’m sure you will have the last word.

          • legal eagle

            Do you think the President’s job is to be a compliance officer for the federal government? How do you expect him to provide oversight?
            I’ve worked for a number of large corporate entities and I have never heard of a CEO exercising oversight……have you?

  • Iklwa

    All one has to do is look at the President when he makes a public address. He sees himself as above reproach for any violation of American decency because he has a basic dislike of Americanism and anything that supports that power structure.

    We have, after all, raped and plundered second and third world countries for centuries (at least that’s what he thinks). His presidency (and the minions appointed to various agencies) is merely a way to exert a little of his brand of “social justice”.

    He runs everything and knows nothing.

    In fact, the smart people (You know, those really, really smart people that come from places like UCLA and Harvard) that supposedly know better how you should live your life than you do, that were appointed to “run” things, don’t know anything either.

    Holder doesn’t know anything.

    The Interim Director of the IRS doesn’t know anything.

    The ex-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton doesn’t know anything.

    The White House staff doesn’t know anything either.

    However, I’m betting if you ask the maid, she knows about it all.

    You could say the IRS, the State Dept, the Justice Dept and the White House all suffer from a catastrophic case of ineptitude.

    Or you could say they all don’t care one whit about the rule of law.

    Just wait until we hear the full story about how the Labor Dept and the EPA were used as political weapons.

    My memory fades quickly but I seem to remember the faint echoes of hairy, painted, tackle pierced “activists” protesting in the streets naming a previous administration “jack-booted fascists”. I wonder where they are quietly lurking these days.

    Either way, it makes George Bush look like a genius and/or a patriot.

    You will never hear much grousing about any of these abuses from our Government Propaganda Apparatus (i.e. the news media at large) because they agree with their fair-haired child in ideology, their distaste for conservatives and their basic dislike for that pesky document limiting the government’s power against the people.

    PS President Lincoln provides us with a perfect case of what happens when a government bureaucracy gains power and looses accountability. He enacted the first Income Tax in August of 1861 and look what happened.

    • legal eagle

      Smart people come from UCLA? Since when?…LOL

  • Kyle Leleux

    Exactly and I agree with that. Wil was comparing the two as if they are similar when they are not. He was also implying that the discrimination of Tea Party organizations are justified because conservatives profile when it comes to our national security.

  • Wil

    The Tea Party and other conservative organizations were held up to greater scrutiny than other organizations. They were PROFILED.>>

    Hey Burt, Do you conservative now see why profiling is wrong? Or, do you believe it is only wrong when it is done to you?

    • Kyle Leleux

      Well, I have no problem with profiling when it comes to the protection of our nation. Profiling illegal immigrants isn’t really protecting our nation but stopping people in line for a few more questions at the airport is. Why do they do that? Because Arab males in their 20’s-30’s are the ones who have done it in the United States. If 70 year old white women were the ones blowing up planes, I would hope that they are profiled and asked more questions but that isn’t the case. Profiling in the case of this IRS scandal is bad because it is discrimination.

      • Wil

        Well, Did you have a problem with Timothy McVeigh, Anders Behring
        Breivik, Ted Kaczynski, Jared Loughner, James Von Brunn, Eric
        Robert Rudolph, and Adam Lanza? That is just a few from a long list. There are
        many more and they are all white!

        • Kyle Leleux

          Well, I am assuming none of them passed through extensive security before they committed their crimes. If there was a way to prevent freak tragedies, I would hope we would look into using that to protect ourselves from them through anyway possible. I am not familiar with some of these men on the list. Excuse my ignorance. I will research them some more though.

          • GlenFS

            You are not the ignorant one here, kyle. Only a leftist would fail to recognize the difference between terrorists and law-abiding citizens right to organize without government harassment. That’s just tyranny.

  • radjahshelduck

    “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.”
    Mr. Prelutsky, when you write of the Founders’ OBVIOUS intentions, would you mind specifying which particular Founder’s obvious intentions those are? James Madison and Alexander Hamilton were both delegates to the 1787 convention, and together wrote The Federalist to urge ratification of the Constitution, and yet later they had disagreements on the scope of the document they worked so hard on. Or how about Thomas Jefferson and John Marshall, two prominent Virginians who supported ratification of the Constitution and later clashed on its meaning such that we still talk about Marbury vs. Madison. Which, of course, arose out of Constitutional disagreements between Jefferson and John Adams, such that TJ successfully challenged Adams for the Presidency.
    Maybe we can just confine it to the intentions of James Madison. Of course, if we do that, we have to ask which James Madison: the one who at the 1787 convention advocated giving the national legislature power to veto any and all state laws, or the one who assured everyone in Federalist #45 that fears of a too strong central government were unfounded because the powers of the federal government were few and defined.

  • Darren Perkins

    Seems to me that what is making Burt angry is that we no longer have a society that values the same things that it used to. There used to be this idea that was valued called freedom. The word is still used but there is an entirely new definition. I prefer traditional freedom where the government didn’t try to micro manage my life by telling me how large of a beverage I could buy or force me to purchase a product I didn’t want. We’re big on slogans like ‘freedom doesn’t come free’ and that’s true but then we take THAT freedom that was fought for by our Veterans and flush it right down the toilet at the ballot box. We’re marching toward a future that has freedom but it is a new kind of freedom… one where the government is free to lie to the people, one where the press is free to ignore the truth and print PC spin, one where the IRS is free to determine your healthcare options and free to penalize you if they dont like the way you think. This new kind of freedom didn’t come free either. Just ask George Sorros, Big Labor, or Bill Maher. It is more of an investment however and when they get enough freedom their wont even be a reason to vote. The Government will be free to tell you what to think… and you better agree or suffer the consequences.

    • legal eagle

      Thank you Archie Bunker for you insightful views of the good old days…

      • Darren Perkins

        You are welcome. When we are taxed on our internet usage (because spending too much time online will be deemed unhealthy) you’ll MISS your ability to hurl ad hominem attacks freely.

        • legal eagle

          I hate to break it to you but if you have a home computer hooked up to cable or DSL or are wired for Wi-Fi you are taxed and have been for many years…The only new tax proposal is sales tax on merchandise purchased out of state.

  • legal eagle

    Fortunately bitter old men like Prelutsky are so insignificant that only people who know him personally probably despise him. What a hater he has become…

    • trailbee

      Apparently not so insignificant – you’re here, and commented. If you did not think Burt had something important to say, you would not have checked in here and wasted your precious time, on a national holiday no less, when you could be out dancing at your local cemetery, or burning a couple of flags.

      • legal eagle

        I enjoy reading when old bitter men, like Prelutsky and Bernie Goldberg, whine about the government right after they deposit their Social Security checks and visit the doctor regularly because they are on Medicare.

        • JDinSTL

          No chance Goldberg could pay out pocket, eh?

          What a ridiculous comment.

          • mike

            if only we could be like France and be taxed 70 % we could have it all,

    • Pat Comstock

      Ironically, YOU find him SO insignificant that you are compelled to respond to nearly every blog he posts! He must be really insignificant if you spend your time on him!

  • souvoter

    I agree whole-heartedly, Burt. I will gladly share your article with all my face-book friends!! The truth needs to be spread everyway possible. Thanks for an excellent read!