IRS 'useful idiots'
IRS ‘useful idiots'
While watching the theatrical “meltdown” of Jon “porta-potty” Stewart regarding the trifecta of criminal and unjustifiable scandals embroiling President Obama, his minions and lickspittle press, it occurred to me that I have no idea what it would take for the entrenched left to forsake its holy grail, which amounts to socialist, all-encompassing government.
Stewart has obviously taken these events as an incidental justification for nut-job conspiracy hacks and not as evidence of the essential correctness inherent in the conservative argument for limits on government, mostly for legally (dare I say, morally) grounded self-restraint.
The Framers of our Constitution had seen abuse of power with their own eyes, experienced it in their daily lives and correctly projected the impracticality native to a coherent, massed ruling power in sustaining any semblance of justice. Their hoped-for solution was their imposition of a legal system of checks and balances, which the left has always been so eager to discard.
This has many parallels with the Russia of Solzhenitsyn's description, one of liberal politicians, students, professors and other “useful idiots” who advocated and worked toward abandonment of the rule of universally applicable law prior to their placement in front of firing squads in 1917. While no firing squads are imminent here, it seems to me the IRS, in a further regression, has eliminated some of its “enemies” from the political Colosseum on the emperor's “thumbs down.”
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Beware this Wolf I
- Incomprehensible? That’s Obama
- Reverse red-kettle ban I
- Reverse red-kettle ban II
- Not taxpayers’ responsibility
- Good riddance
- No ground troops