The Buck Never Stops

On the desk of Harry Truman in the Oval Office was a wooden sign that read “The buck stops here!”  There is more than sufficient evidence to believe that Mr. Truman meant it and acted on that simple, moral sentiment.  It embodied honor, humility, but above all, the complete and willing acceptance of responsibility for his job, including the consequences for failure as well as praise for success.

The same was true of Dwight D. Eisenhower, who, on the eve of D-Day, drafted a simple letter to be delivered to the president and the press if the invasion was a failure.  The final two sentences read: 

The troops, the air and the Navy did all that bravery and devotion to duty could do.  If any blame or fault attaches to the attempt, it is mine alone.

These were honorable men, men who knew the meaning of responsibility.

One of more disgusting qualities of Barack Obama is his absolute refusal to accept true responsibility for virtually anything.  To be sure, Mr. Obama is never hesitant to brag about his position or power, or to take credit for the labor and accomplishments of others, but actually accepting responsibility is another matter, despite his occasional protestations to the contrary.  Truly taking responsibility involves not only accepting the positive factors associated with a position of trust, but accepting the consequences of failure to properly discharge the duties of that position.  No one can accuse Mr. Obama of failing to accept the praise and perks of his position, but he is infamous for absolutely refusing to acknowledge failure, for deflecting blame and for ignoring or angrily railing against criticism.  Even today, after his first term, he and members of his Administration are still blaming George W. Bush for–well, just about anything.

Can any sentient being imagine Barack Obama resigning the presidency–for any reason?

On May 13, Mr. Obama addressed the renewed Benghazi scandal for the first time in recent months, calling it a “sideshow,” and claiming there is “no there there.”  Mr. Obama called the renewed interest in the scandal politically motivated and also essentially claimed that he labeled the attack terrorism from the beginning.  In fact, it was not until September 20, nine days after the attack, that anyone in the Obama Administration clearly used the word “terror” or “terrorism” in relation to the attack.

A quick and far from comprehensive review of what we now know, pre, during and post attack:

Pre-Attack:  There is no doubt that the security situation in Benghazi was desperate and worsening, and that Hillary Clinton was aware of it, but refused every request for additional security.  We know that the security available to the mission there was substandard and that the only person who can authorize a continuing mission under those conditions is the Secretary of State.  We know that despite the date–9-11–the Obama administration did not plan for a terrorist attack.  They did not preposition military assets, nor did they put any on heightened alert.  This was amazing to former Vice President and Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney, who said:

“If [the Obama administration] told the truth about Benghazi that it was a terrorist attack by an Al Qaeda affiliated group, it would’ve destroyed the false image of competence that was the basis of [Obama’s] campaign for re-election.

Well, they lied.

He charged that the administration didn’t want to admit the attack happened due to ‘their incompetence’ by ignoring calls for more security on the ground in Libya. Cheney said, ‘They tried to cover it up by constructing false stories, claiming there was confusion about what had happened at the Benghazi consulate. There was no confusion.

During the Attack:  We now know the State Department and CIA knew the attack was a terrorist attack and that it had nothing to do with a video at the time it occurred.  We know Hillary Clinton was called directly by a diplomatic security officer when the attack was occurring and was told it was a terrorist attack.  We know that the CIA also had no doubt that it was a terrorist attack.

We know that an in-country military team twice tried to go to the aid of those under attack but was twice told to stand down.  We know that every request for military help went unanswered.  We know that the only person who can authorize our military to cross national borders is the President and that he never gave this authorization.  We know, according to Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, that Mr. Obama spoke with him early in the evening of the attack for a short time, and that he never spoke with Mr. Obama again that night.  We know that rather than deal with the attack, Mr. Obama apparently went to bed.

Post Attack:  We know that the Obama Administration’s lies undercut the Libyan President’s clear and unequivocal statement about terrorist involvement in the attack and this caused our FBI considerable difficultly in getting permission to enter the country.  We know that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton lied to the survivors of the victims of Benghazi and knew they were lying.  We know the CIA’s talking points delivered to the Obama White House and the State Department clearly identified the attack as an act of terror and said nothing about a video.  We know that those talking points were edited no less than 12 times, removing all clear references to terror and that the editing was done at the demand of the White House and the State Department.  We know that White House “fixer” Ben Rhodes wrote the final talking points.

We know that Mr. Obama met Mrs. Clinton at the State Department on 09-12 and that later that day, he went to Las Vegas for a fundraiser.

We know that as late as September 20, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were still blaming the attack on a video virtually no one had seen, but even on September 24, 2012, during an appearance on The View, Mr. Obama refused to categorize the attack as terrorism

We know that Hillary Clinton, In a January 23, 2013 congressional hearing, said:  

With all due respect, we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk who decided they’d go kill Americans.  What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened.

We know that on May 01, 2013, Presidential press secretary Jay Carney said Benghazi “happened a long time ago.”

No there, there Mr. President?  It has been positively established that Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton failed to provide minimally adequate security for our diplomatic personnel in Libya.  They did not provide the military backup they needed when they were under attack and lied about that.  They lied to the American people about the very nature of and motivation for the attack.  They lied–face to face–to the survivors of the victims of the attack, and lied over their coffins.  The Obama Administration has stonewalled the Congress in their attempts to get to the truth.  The Obama Administration has harassed, hidden, and threatened those involved in an attempt to continue their cover up, a cover up that continues to this day.

In the real world, with a functional, professional skeptical press, a competent, moral Congress, and an engaged, involved citizenry, Barack Obama would be speedily impeached and convicted, and Hillary Clinton and a variety of others would be tried and jailed.  But that would require a world where high governmental officials actually take responsibility for their actions and omissions.  Hillary Clinton said “I take responsibility” for Benghazi in a CBS interview on October 15, 2012,  but of course, she meant that only to the degree it might help further the cover up.  Consider the value of that statement compared with her January 23 testimony before Congress to see whether her definition of “responsibility” comports well with the real definition.

Here are the facts of responsibility that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton refuse for fully accept:

Hillary Clinton was primarily responsible for ensuring that the Libya mission had sufficient security.  She did not provide that security despite multiple pleas from those in the line of fire.  She was also the only person in the US Government that could allow any diplomatic mission to continue to operate with substandard security, which she obviously did.  She was told as the attack was happening that it was a terrorist attack, yet she did nothing to save those under attack, and lied about her actions thereafter.

Barack Obama is the commander in chief of the armed forces, yet did nothing to prepare for 9-11 in Libya, and when told of an active attack on our diplomatic mission, apparently did nothing to save them, choosing instead to go to bed.  There is no evidence at all that he actively monitored the situation, or even occasionally monitored the situation.  He is also the commander of all cabinet departments, including the Department of State, and all intelligence agencies.  Yet he did not use those departments to save those under attack.

But we don’t have all the answers!  We don’t know exactly what Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton did down the the second!  We don’t know every detail of exactly who said what to whom and when!

We don’t need to know that.  We know what they failed to do, and we know that their failure cost American lives, lives that should not have been put in that kind of danger, and lives that might have been saved had responsible officials been in office.

In other words, Hillary Clinton was directly responsible for the Department of State and everything that happened on her watch.  Barack Obama is directly responsible for the Department of State and our military, and everything that happens on his watch.  But in reality, they were–and are–truly responsible for nothing, nothing that doesn’t go their way or reflect well on them.

For Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, it’s always someone else’s fault, and the buck never stops; it spins, eternally.

What Good Vision Reveals

Despite Mr. Obama’s recent  epic gun control defeat, anti-gun forces continue to pursue their never-ending goals.  No Progressive goal or policy can ever be wrong, you see.  It’s just waiting for the perfect time.  In a Washington Times story, we learn that Vice President Joe “double-barreled shotgun” Biden has had a religious vision:

Vice President Joseph R. Biden said in a wide-ranging magazine interview that gun-control legislation will pass eventually because several senators who voted against it are experiencing a public backlash.

‘To use the vernacular, there’s suddenly a lot of senators out there who have seen the lord,’ Mr. Biden told Rolling Stone Magazine. ‘You find out that the senator from New Hampshire [Republican Kelly Ayotte] is in trouble; she voted no. I can name you four senators who called me and said, ‘Jesus, I guess you were right — maybe we can find some other way of doing this. Can we bring this back up?

This can probably be put in the same category as Mr. Biden’s firearm advice in general: don’t listen to it unless you want to end up in prison or dead.

The Lamestream Media often accuses those that support the Second Amendment of paranoia for believing that anti-gun forces are inherently dishonest about their intentions.  Fortunately, every now and again, they commit a gaffe, defined as accidently telling the truth, as did three New Jersey state senators recently:  

Second Amendment rights advocates are fuming today over words from three Democratic state senators caught on tape after Thursday’s hearing on the upper chamber’s gun control package.

The three female senators, who sound from the recording to be Sen. Loretta Weinberg, Sen. Sandy Cunningham and Sen. Linda Greenstein, are heard discussing the just-closed hearing.

‘We needed a bill that was going to confiscate, confiscate, confiscate,’ said an unknown voice.

Weinberg said she had no idea who said confiscate or in what context, or if it was even a lawmaker. The next voice, which is clearly Weinberg, said, ‘They want to keep the guns out of the hands of the bad guys, but they don’t have any regulations to do it.’

Next up was Cunningham: ‘They don’t care about the bad guys. All they want to do is have their little guns and do whatever they want with them.’

Then Greenstein: ‘That’s the line they’ve developed.’”

The pols involved, were, of course, completely honest and forthcoming:

“Reached Friday, Weinberg took issue with the gun advocates and the release of the hot mic recording.

‘The advocates would be much better off not inflaming people,’ she said. ‘Nothing in this package of bills ‘confiscates.’ If people want to inflame folks rather than advocating on the reality of the situation, I can’t do anything about it.’

Asked who used the words ‘confiscate’ on the recording, Weinberg said she has no idea. It could have been a staffer, she said, adding that she has no idea what microphone was still on or who it would have picked up in addition to the three senators.

‘All I know is it’s not my voice and I don’t know who said it or in what context.’

Calls to Greenstein and Cunningham were not immediately returned.

The calls haven’t been returned?  What a surprise.  Notice that Weinberg dodged the issue, which was their expressed intentions, not the content of any bill before the legislature.

Paranoid?  Not so much, not in New Jersey and certainly not in the U.S. Congress where Senator Diane Feinstein (D, CA), among others, have been painfully (for Progressives) honest about their desires:

In a 1995 broadcast of CBS’ 60 Minutes, Feinstein admitted she would love to have instituted an “outright ban” on all guns.

Feinstein was the driving force to the failed (and now lapsed) 1994 ‘assault weapons’ ban, and it was upon her success at getting the law passed that she made her admission.

‘If I could’ve gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them — Mr. and Mrs. America turn ‘em all in — I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren’t here.’

We can be certain that Mr. Biden and others of his kind will slavishly support any anti- gun/freedom measure with which they think they can get away.  We can also be certain they will they will never cease their efforts, will never fail to exploit any tragedy, and will never fail to demonize anyone that supports the Second Amendment.  But above all, we can be certain that when they profess support for the Second Amendment or say they aren’t after the guns of the law-abiding, they’re lying.  That’s not paranoia; it’s good hearing and good vision.

How Does One Impeach A Messiah?

On May 18, 2009, Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit, in the Wall Street Journal Online, wrote:

Barack Obama owes his presidency in no small part to the power of rhetoric. It’s too bad he doesn’t appreciate the damage that loose talk can do to America’s tax system, even as exploding federal deficits make revenues more important than ever.

At his Arizona State University commencement speech last Wednesday, Mr. Obama noted that ASU had refused to grant him an honorary degree, citing his lack of experience, and the controversy this had caused. He then demonstrated ASU’s point by remarking, ‘I really thought this was much ado about nothing, but I do think we all learned an important lesson. I learned never again to pick another team over the Sun Devils in my NCAA brackets. . . . President [Michael] Crowe and the Board of Regents will soon learn all about being audited by the IRS.’

Of course, it’s never funny when the President of the United States threatens to unleash the IRS on anyone, but Mr. Obama has been exempt from the rules that apply to mere mortals.  There are signs that is changing, even among his most fervent worshippers: the Lamestream Media.  Few things concern American more than the IRS being used as a political weapon, and even reporters can easily imagine themselves on the wrong side of an audit.  We now know that the IRS was subjecting conservative groups to extra, incredibly intrusive and illegal scrutiny by early 2010.  That scrutiny was also far broader than previously known.  Fox News reports:  

An IRS campaign to apply additional scrutiny to conservative groups went beyond targeting ‘Tea Party’ and ‘patriot’ groups to include those focused on government spending, the Constitution and several other broad areas.

The additional guidelines created by the agency were part of a timeline, obtained by Fox News, from the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, which is looking into the controversial IRS practice. IRS officials apologized Friday for the scrutiny, but new information suggests senior leaders were apprised of the effort as early as 2011 despite public denials from the top…

The internal IG timeline shows a unit in the agency was looking at Tea Party and ‘patriot’ groups dating back to early 2010. But it shows that list of criteria drastically expanding by the time a June 2011 briefing was held. It then included groups focused on government spending, government debt, taxes, and education on ways to ‘make America a better place to live.’ It even flagged groups whose file included criticism of ‘how the country is being run.’

By early 2012, the criteria were updated to include organizations involved in ‘limiting/expanding government,’ education on the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and social economic reform.

And what, if anything, did the IRS do to deal with this egregiously criminal behavior?   The Washington Post reports:   

At various points over the past two years, Internal Revenue Service officials targeted nonprofit groups that criticized the government and sought to educate Americans about the U.S. Constitution, according to documents in an audit conducted by the agency’s inspector general.

The documents, obtained by The Washington Post  from a congressional aide with knowledge of the findings, show that on June 29, 2011, IRS staffers held a briefing with senior agency official Lois G. Lerner in which they described giving special attention to instances where ‘statements in the case file criticize how the country is being run.’ Lerner, who  oversees tax-exempt groups for the agency, raised objections and the agency revised its criteria a week later.

But six months later, the IRS applied a new political test to groups that applied for tax-exempt status as ‘social welfare’ groups, the document says. On Jan. 15, 2012 the agency decided to target ‘political action type organizations involved in limiting/expanding Government, educating on the Constitution and Bill of Rights, social economic reform movement.,’ according to the appendix in the IG report, which was requested by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee and has yet to be released.

Apparently Lerner has little pull within her own agency, if she actually demanded any changes.  But dangerous radicals concerned with educating the public about the Constitution weren’t the only focus of the IRS.  Kevin Williamson at National Review Online notes: 

Along with targeting tea-party groups, the IRS may also have given extra-special attention to the tax-exempt status of some Jewish groups for political reasons.

From the Jewish Press:

The passionately pro-Israel organization Z STREET filed a lawsuit against the IRS, claiming it had been told by an IRS agent that because the organization was ‘connected to Israel,’ its application for tax-exempt status would receive additional scrutiny.  This admission was made in response to a query about the lengthy review of Z STREET’s tax exempt status application.

In addition, the IRS agent told a Z STREET representative that the applications of some of those Israel-related organizations have been assigned to ‘a special unit in the D.C. office to determine whether the organization’s activities contradict the Administration’s public policies.’ . . .

And at least one purely religious Jewish organization, one not focused on Israel, was the recipient of bizarre and highly inappropriate questions about Israel.  Those questions also came from the same non-profit division of the IRS at issue for inappropriately targeting politically conservative groups. The IRS required that Jewish organization to state ‘whether [it] supports the existence of the land of Israel,’ and also demanded the organization ‘[d]escribe [its] religious belief system toward the land of Israel.

Gotta keep an eye on those Jews!  At a joint news conference on May 13 with British Prime Minister David Cameron, Mr. Obama finally addressed the scandal:  

I’ve got no patience for it. I will not tolerate it, and I will make sure we find out exactly what happened on this.

One might be tempted to believe Mr. Obama, however, that would be a mistake.  As the foremost practitioner of the “Chicago Way,” Barack Obama is nothing if not irredeemably thuggish.  Remember his 2012 campaign admonition to “punish our enemies?”  One can be certain he meant that and will always act on that sentiment.  During that same campaign, Obama castigated businessmen who lawfully supported Mitt Romney:  

This follows a multi-year effort by the ongoing Obama campaign to vilify specific donors to competing philosophical causes and demands that organizations release lawfully protected donor lists or donors reveal lawfully private and personal financial information.

In each of these instances, President Obama has relied on a vast grassroots network to coerce, bully, boycott and vilify individuals lawfully taking part in the political process, just as his own donors and supporters are freely allowed to engage.

Pundits and much of the media observe that there is–as yet–no evidence directly linking Mr. Obama to this scandal.  By this they mean, of course, that there is no documentary or other evidence proving Mr. Obama ordered such improper scrutiny.  They have also been careful to note that the former director of the IRS under whose leadership this program of harassment began was a Bush appointee, however, they neglect to mention that Mr. Bush was out of office for more than two years before the program apparently started.

It is no coincidence that IRS intentions, actions and their intrusive questioning of applicants exactly match the beliefs, programs and philosophies of the Obama Administration, to say nothing of its well-known thuggish tendencies.  We also know that the IRS admitted to these abuses, some two years after their chief counsel was first informed of them, not out of a desire to do the right thing, but because an IG report was about to explode in public and they doubtless wanted to get out in front of it.  It may be a more or less remarkable coincidence that this scandal might tend to somewhat deflect interest in the burgeoning Benghazi scandal.

Will Mr. Obama do anything about this?  His usual practice–one he employed with Benghazi, is to deplore whatever happened and promise to get to the bottom of things.  What follows is obfuscation, claims to be unable to speak to the issue because of an ongoing investigation, and no action whatever that might reveal the truth.  Considering that the actions of the IRS exactly align with Mr. Obama’s political philosophy and goals, and that one can tell when Mr. Obama is lying–his lips are moving–there is every reason to believe Mr. Obama’s May 13 statement is more Chicago business as usual.

Regardless of whether a smoking gun tying Mr. Obama to this particular scandal is ever found, remember that as the head of the executive branch, not only is he the boss of whoever he appoints to head the IRS, he is ultimately responsible for everything that goes on there.  Whether Congress and the press will hold him responsible is another matter.

One final note:  On the May 12^th of ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopolous,  George Will jogged the memory with the fact that one of the articles of impeachment drawn up and approved before Richard Nixon resigned the presidency involved his misuse of the IRS.  Yeah.  Good luck with that.  How does one impeach a messiah?

Rhetorical Limitations

President Obama is often lauded as the greatest rhetorician alive—when he’s not being worshipped as a messiah—even by pundits who ought to know better.  As a teacher of the mother tongue (American version), I’m always amazed by such hyperbole.  By every rational measure, Mr. Obama’s teleprompter readings provide no evidence of rhetorical or declamatory excellence.  His slippery and infinitely flexible manipulation of the meaning of words and common understandings well illustrates the point.  True excellence in the art of public speaking and persuasion relies on clarity, simplicity, and honesty, qualities all missing in virtually everything Mr. Obama says (and does).

As you read the transcript of Mr. Obama’s brief comments on his intentions for dealing with the IRS scandal, delivered on 05-15-13, remember that the next day, he claimed to have no knowledge whatever of the IRS internal probe prior to hearing about it in the press.  This would mean that his handpicked IRS commissioner and his handpicked Treasury Secretary—politically reliable functionaries both—told him nothing about a scandal stretching back to 2009 that was about to blow up in all their faces.  None of Mr. Obama’s political advisors, people far more important to him and people with far greater access than any of his other advisors, brought it up either.  Riiiight.  My helpful translation of the president’s rhetoric is enclosed in bold.

THE PRESIDENT:  Good afternoon, everybody.  I just finished speaking with Secretary Lew and senior officials at the Treasury Department to discuss the investigation into IRS personnel who improperly screened conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status.  And I look forward to taking some questions at tomorrow’s press conference, but today, I wanted to make sure to get out to all of you some information about what we’re doing about this, and where we go from here.

I’m unbelievably angry at having to pretend to care about this before you little people.  I’ve just finished screaming at the Treasury Department officials stupid enough to let anyone find out what we’ve been up to, and they now know what to say and their part in the cover up.  Here are the lies and evasions we’ve come up with for the moment, subject to revision at a moment’s notice, of course.

I’ve reviewed the Treasury Department watchdog’s report, and the misconduct that it uncovered is inexcusable.  It’s inexcusable, and Americans are right to be angry about it, and I am angry about it.  I will not tolerate this kind of behavior in any agency, but especially in the IRS, given the power that it has and the reach that it has into all of our lives.  And as I said earlier, it should not matter what political stripe you’re from — the fact of the matter is, is that the IRS has to operate with absolute integrity.  The government generally has to conduct itself in a way that is true to the public trust.  That’s especially true for the IRS.

So here’s what we’re going to do.

It’s inexcusable these idiots let this cat out of the bag, and boy, and I angry about that.  I don’t care what Americans think, but this is interfering with my agenda, so I’ll pretend I care and give you permission to be angry too.  First, I’ll tell you I won’t tolerate the kind of Chicago and Alinskyite thuggishness that has always been the foundation of my political tactics.  You’re dumb enough to buy that; you always have before. You’re also dumb enough to think I wasn’t using the IRS to attack my political enemies—that’s more than half of all of you rubes, ha ha!— and to ensure my reelection, so I’ll toss out some rhetoric about trust and integrity and truth, and you’ll lap it up as usual.  When you’re thinking I’m your pal, I’ll dazzle you with some garbage about non-actions and non-solutions.

First, we’re going to hold the responsible parties accountable.  Yesterday, I directed Secretary Lew to follow up on the IG audit to see how this happened and who is responsible, and to make sure that we understand all the facts.  Today, Secretary Lew took the first step by requesting and accepting the resignation of the acting commissioner of the IRS, because given the controversy surrounding this audit, it’s important to institute new leadership that can help restore confidence going forward.

Yeah, I’m big on accountability!  It’s hard to be held accountable when you don’t know nothin’ about nothin’!  I always take responsibility for things and never blame others—hee, hee, hee!–suckers!  If you believe I’m ever going to tell you the truth, you’re even dumber than even I have ever imagined, so I’ll just blather on a bit about doing an investigation and getting all the facts.  Now the good part: I’ll distract you with this bit about firing the Commissioner.  You idiots will never figure out the guy’s term was up in a few weeks anyway!  See how tough and concerned I am?  Hahahahahahahahahahha!

From now on when anybody asks about this, we’ll just claim we can’t say anything because it’s an ongoing investigation, just like we do with everything else, and we’ll say “hey, we fired the head of the agency, what else do you want?”  Those media morons always fall for that one, especially the AP!  Hey AP, call me!  Get it?  Call me?  Hahahahahahahahahahah!  Man, I crack myself up!

Second, we’re going to put in place new safeguards to make sure this kind of behavior cannot happen again.  And I’ve directed Secretary Lew to ensure the IRS begins implementing the IG’s recommendations right away.

Oh yeah, we’re absolutely going to cripple the political dirty tricks that are the only thing that keep me and loads of democrats in office.  From now on, I’ll just keep saying I’ve directed Jack Lew to implement this and that.  They’ll slurp that up with a spoon too!  Lew knows what to do.  Wait—do I look angry enough?  Hmm.  I’ll just try to look like I did when they didn’t pass my gun control bill—yeah, that’ll do it!  Maybe a tear?  Nah—too over the top…

Third, we will work with Congress as it performs its oversight role.  And our administration has to make sure that we are working hand in hand with Congress to get this thing fixed.  Congress, Democrats and Republicans, owe it to the American people to treat that authority with the responsibility it deserves and in a way that doesn’t smack of politics or partisan agendas.  Because I think one thing that you’ve seen is, across the board, everybody believes what happened in — as reported in the IG report is an outrage.  The good news is it’s fixable, and it’s in everyone’s best interest to work together to fix it.

I can barely keep from cracking up as I say this bit.  Yeah, I’ll work with Congress!  Oh, I absolutely respect their oversight role, hahahahahahahaha!  This next line is the best part: I’m going to tell those gun and God clinging republicans not to get political with my getting illegally political with them!  And the press will buy it, because I’m not partisan—heaven forbid!  Oh this is good, hee, hee, hee!  Yeah, we have to work together, which means you do what I want!   Oh yeah, that’ll fix it!

I’ll do everything in my power to make sure nothing like this happens again by holding the responsible parties accountable, by putting in place new checks and new safeguards, and going forward, by making sure that the law is applied as it should be — in a fair and impartial way.  And we’re going to have to make sure that the laws are clear so that we can have confidence that they are enforced in a fair and impartial way, and that there’s not too much ambiguity surrounding these laws.

So I’ll have my congressional sock puppets propose all kinds of hyper-partisan laws and load them up with amendments that have nothing to do with the IRS and then I’ll blame the republicans when they won’t pass it, and I’ll just do what I’ve always done and so will the IRS, only this time I’ll blame it on my political enemies, because I’m the epitome of fairness, clarity and impartiality!

So that’s what I expect.  That’s what the American people deserve.  And that’s what we’re going to do.

So that’s what I expect.  That’s what the American people deserve.  And that’s what I’m going to do.

Thank you very much.

Suckers.

Lest anyone think I’m being a bit too cynical, consider this PJ Media report, posted the day after Mr. Obama’s speech:

Steven Miller, the now resigned acting commissioner of the IRS, is telling staff that the abuse scandal is not the reason he’s leaving.

It is with regret that I will be departing from the IRS as my acting assignment ends in early June,’ Miller wrote. “This has been an incredibly difficult time for the IRS given the events of the past few days, and there is a strong and immediate need to restore public trust in the nation’s tax agency.”

Basically, he’s saying that he’s just leaving a couple weeks early, no big deal. Incredible.

The president’s big statement today was a big nothing as far as accountability goes. The only head that has rolled was already scheduled to roll even if the scandal had never come up. It now looks like Obama came out with that statement for two reasons: To look like he was doing something useful, and to bully Republicans not to aggressively pursue the scandal.

And if that’s not enough cynicism and irony for you, consider this excerpt from his graduation address at Ohio State University on May 5, only 10 days before his assuring us all of his intention to “fix” things at the IRS and to restore honest, clarity and impartiality in government:

Unfortunately, you’ve grown up hearing voices that incessantly warn of government as nothing more than some separate, sinister entity that’s at the root of all our problems. Some of these same voices also do their best to gum up the works. They’ll warn that tyranny always lurking just around the corner. You should reject these voices. Because what they suggest is that our brave, and creative, and unique experiment in self-rule is somehow just a sham with which we can’t be trusted.

The American people can be trusted, as long as the rule of law is in unobstructed operation.  Barack Obama, not so much.  Rhetoric has its limits.