Published DateTo the editor,
White House senior advisor Dan Pfeifferit has astonished all astute Americans by actually asserted the law is "irrelevant" in considering the IRS scandal. Even after all the official deception since Ambassador Rice's initial ruse, Mr. Pfeifferit pronounced that the president's whereabouts as four Americans were murdered serving us in Benghazi was also "largely irrelevant fact." Employing a bewildering doublethink rationale, Mr. Pfeifferit went on to say that the charges of Republicans (not "of Americans" mind you) are "trumped up" and "offensive" to the White House. Are we to understand Mr. Pfeifferit's assertion to be that Americans are "trumping up" their dissatisfaction with being repeatedly mislead about the murder of the four Americans who died in their service? Is it "offensive" to seek the end governmental abuse directed at fellow citizens exercising their First Amendment rights? Are we to understand that it is the White House who is "offended?" The rationale would make George Orwell blush.
We have politically and legally evolution since kings of former times claimed their decrees represented God's will, Mr. Pfeifferit and those of his ilk forget that the basis of the president's authority is legal, not rhetorical. Laws are "relevant" to the exercise of governmental authority. President Obama's arbitrary decisions and warnings such as "If Congress does not act, I will," is not simply a poor decision making process; it is contrary to the rule of law inherent in the Constitution of the United States.
Federalist Madison, commenting of freedom of speech reminded us that "Without this robust freedom of expression, perhaps, the Constitution itself would not have come into being." It is the Constitution that grants the inherent Congressional oversight responsibilities that displeases Mr. Pfeifferitt. The First Amendment is the very core of the Constitution; the core "irrelevant" law Mr. Pfeifferitt and the IRS have sought to degrade. How does this occur?
Presidents use the word "enemy" to describe people with whom we are at war. President Obama, who pretends we are not at war, uses the word to describe selected fellow American citizens. For over five years he has personally and publicly ridiculed citizens whose opinions are not in lockstep with his own. He has used the bully pulpit to denounce citizens who owned aircraft, were "fat cats," worked on Wall Street, acquired wealth in their lives, were stupid police, had successful small businesses, believed in free markets, donated to the "wrong" causes, or saved too much for their retirement. Increasingly, with no thought to a targeted citizen's liberties, their reputations, financial, emotional, and psychological well-being, or even their physical safety following his vilification from the most powerful office on Earth, he has increasingly personally and publicly denounced citizens by their name. Just like Mr. Pfeifferitt has done, President Obama other minions have also substituted substantive and informed debate with layers of personal attacks until the facts--or the law, have no significance in articulating their reasoning.
After years of complaints of government abuse by Republicans, fiscal conservatives, and Tea Party supporters, and following Harry Reid's public bragging about his having 10 years of details of Governor Romney's taxes while speaking on the Senate floor, finally an I.G. report has confirmed what the complainants knew. President Obama's now wants informed citizens capable of independent thought, to believe that he became aware of these behaviors only days before they were to be made public. Additionally, intelligent citizens are to believe that the groups persecuted by the IRS are the very same targets of Obama's diatribes. rage, the activities just happened to coincided with his own political interests for years.
Subsequent investigations will probably fail to find a "smoking-gun." No one will discover a statement-of-work or contract signed by President Obama directing these abuses. I suspect that as more facts slowly emerge, Americans will rationally conclude what their hearts sadly already know. President Obama's years of unrelenting belittlement of fellow citizens, is directly responsible for the obnoxious and often illegal comportment of many of his underlings as they carried out both official and oblique abuses aimed at fellow citizens who had the audacity to think independently of his monologues. We have seen this tactic of intolerance called "hate speech" in other times. As President Obama would often say it is "Not who we are."
Thus Mr. Pfeifferit is half right after all. Although not the responsibility of the "enemies" Mr. Pfeifferit's implies, stories have been "trumped up." and "offenses" have occurred. Isn't it finally time to restore honor and trust in our institutions, for destructive attacks such as those from Mr. Pfeifferit's to cease, and for comprehensive respectful cooperation with Congress to commence? I suspect most Americans disagree with Mr. Pfeifferit on two points; (1) Every president is accountable to the citizens he or she serves, and (2). Our rule of law, the Constitution, and especially the First Amendment is highly relevant. It should be respected in letter and spirit. Actually, this is "Who we are."
Michael D. Breen M.P.A., Ph.D.