“Here’s a guy who says that the IRS openly discriminated against groups on the basis of their politics, but the action was not a political action,” he said. “It was instead an attempt at efficiency. You’ve got to be a knave or a fool to say that, and you have to be an idiot to believe it. It’s simply a contradiction in terms. It’s a matter of definition. It isn’t even a matter of facts.”

Miller told Congress he did not believe it was illegal for the agency to create targeted lists of individual citizens and groups who would be singled out for special scrutiny, the Washington Free Beacon reported.

Yet, Miller and Inspector General J. Russell George thought the real culprit was incompetence by IRS officials. Instead, Miller said agents had engaged in “terrible customer service” and used “obnoxious” criteria:

While he acknowledged that the IRS actions were inappropriate, he objected to the characterization that conservative groups were targeted:

“When you talk about targeting, it’s a pejorative term,” Miller said. “What happened here was … that [an IRS employee] saw some Tea Party cases coming through, they were acknowledging that they were going to be engaged in politics … [and so IRS officials] in Cincinnati decided ‘let’s start grouping these cases.’”

“The way they centralized them [was] troubling. The concept of centralizing [was] not. We’re not targeting these people,” Miller added.

Krauthammer also commented on Miller’s revelation that he had planted a questioner at the American Bar Association last Friday to ask Lois Lerner, the director of the IRS Exempt Organization Division, about the singling out of conservative organizations.

Rep. Peter Roskam (R., Ill.) said it was a “scheme” and “a manipulation” to reveal the targeting in such a manner, and Krauthammer also found it indicative of a shadowy agency.

“I’m not even sure I understand the logic of doing that,” Krauthammer said. “Why not just issue a press release, say it, but to do it in this sort of ridiculously devious way shows you an institution that is sort of given intrinsically to being untruthful and deceptive.”

Sharpton accused Republicans of being “obsessed” over scandals this week, which have drawn bipartisan outrage and left the Obama administration facing comparisons by Sharpton’s parent network to the Nixon era.

SHARPTON: You’ve got to hand it to the Republicans. In a week when they’ve obsessed over scandals, they’ve managed to miss an actual scandal. That’s their 37th vote to repeal the president’s health care law, trying to deny a law that would literally give health care to millions of Americans. It’s not just a waste of time, it’s an outrage. But Speaker John Boehner says he may not be done yet.

Yet Rep. Sander Levin (D., Mich.) bought the testimony when Matthews questioned him about Friday’s hearing, saying there was “terrible mismanagement” but dismissing the idea of any political motivations to the actions of the IRS. He also cited testimony by Treasury Department Inspector General J. Russell George, who merely blamed incompetence on IRS employees who targeted conservative groups applying for nonprofit status.

MATTHEWS: I don’t know what I saw, but I certainly saw a disconnect today. That Mr. Miller guy, I don’t know what — it’s like he didn’t see what he knew people certainly right, left and center could see, that when you target particular groups, you’re targeting particular groups. I mean, if this were on the other foot, and this was a George W. administration, they were targeting groups that were calling themselves progressives, I would say it’s prima facie evidence of targeting. I don’t think it’s complicated. What’s your view, Congressman?

LEVIN: My view is that the criteria were very inappropriate. There was terrible mismanagement. I think there was very terrible oversight, and there was a failure to be in touch as they should have with the Congress. But the IG, the Inspector General, when asked was there any political motivation for the people who were in the exempt organization in Cincinnati, the lower-level people who were working on this, he said no. Was there any outside influence? And he said no. So when the chairman, and I brought his language, started off his opening remarks saying it’s the latest example of a culture of cover-ups in this administration, there was no evidence today to support that. It was politicization of a very, very sad chapter by people who were working and who mis-worked.

Yet, the testimony that the IRS employees only singled out conservative groups strongly suggests this went beyond incompetence, as George verified organizations were specifically targeted for certain buzzwords:

George spoke to the committee about the findings of his report, which concluded the IRS used “inappropriate criteria to target … Tea Party and other organizations based on the name and policy positions.”

George told Congress that groups were singled out if their names included words such as “Tea Party,” “patriot,” and if their issues included “government spending,” “government debt,” or “taxes.” Another listed criterion was “education of the public by advocacy or lobbing to ‘Make America a better place to live.’” Groups were also flagged if they had “any statements in the case of criticizing how the country is being run.”

George said additional investigations were currently underway by the Inspector General office.

“I came running out into the yard here, shouting, waving my arms at the bear, thinking that would care him away,” the retired financial planner told the station. “But it didn’t. All it did was leave the dog and come right for me.”

Ninnemann briefly escaped and ran to the corner of the cabin, but the bear mauled him again. Ninnemann’s wife, Marie, then found a shotgun in the cabin’s basement, but she didn’t know how to load it properly. She instead took the weapon outside the struck the bear on its head, allowing her husband to escape. The couple then backtracked into the cabin with the gun pointed at the bear.

[...]

The bear, which was only a year old, then continued to circle the cabin and looked into its windows. A responding deputy later shot and killed the animal with “one shot,” Gerre Ninneman said.

Ninneman suffered bite marks from his waist to the back of his head and required staples to close some wounds. He was hospitalized but is expected to recover, as is the couple’s dog.

Ninneman said he was grateful for his wife’s help and will teach her to how to properly load and fire a shotgun.

Fascinating to watch the birth of a narrative. And fascinating to watch, as well, as a White House known for its ability to influence the media is suddenly thrown off its game. A president whose foremost concern is to “balance all these equities” finds his administration perilously unbalanced indeed.

Last week, for the first time in memory, Obama’s good luck was replaced by bad. First there was the gripping testimony of Gregory Hicks describing the night of the terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya. Then came Jonathan Karl’s confirmation of Stephen F. Hayes’s story that the changes to the Benghazi talking points in the days after that Sept. 11, 2012, attack were much more “stylistic” than the White House spokesman had said. Then, in the run-up to the release of an inspector general report, the IRS leaked that officials had singled out groups with conservative and freedom-loving names. Then the Associated Press objected to the seizure of phone records by the Justice Department. Not even MSNBC could spin that.

At least for the moment, tales of the heartless and intolerant and extremist Republicans, and of the victims of their budget cuts and nativism and radical adherence to the Second Amendment, have vanished from front-pages and television screens. Might as well enjoy the respite. For the White House is clearly attempting to regain the initiative: ordering Chuck Schumer to re-introduce a media shield law the president hasn’t given a whit about for years; accepting the resignation of an acting IRS director who was scheduled to vamoose anyway; releasing 100 pages of Benghazi emails; and calling on Congress to fund additional security measures for U.S. diplomatic outposts. The West Wing, Mike Allen learned from his latest mind meld, has determined it is “back on offense.” Mojo? Back too. Yes, “these issues may linger.” And “there will always be distractions.” But “key priorities” such as “immigration reform” are “staying on track.” POTUS is talking jobs in Baltimore. What more do you need to know?

A lot more, actually, and on a variety of topics, and at a level of detail that has not been forthcoming. There is the extent of the IRS targeting of conservatives, and to what extent administration officials may have been aware of the practice. There are additional Benghazi emails to read, and there is additional information to be gleaned from the State Department and its former officials. There is the question of the breadth and depth of the Justice Department inquiry into the Associated Press. Plenty of ink waiting to be spilled and bytes to be processed by a media that seems finally to have awakened, if only fitfully and briefly, from a long slumber.

The investigations and recriminations pose a double threat to a presidency already in jeopardy of irrelevance. Not only does the president suffer when he loses control of the metanarrative that determines the assumptions behind media coverage of his administration. He also suffers by looking passive, aloof, and academic. Lately the top officials of the executive branch have seemed always to be in another room, on another call. Hillary Clinton says she was not aware of cables warning of lax security in Benghazi. Eric Holder says he is not sure when he recused himself from the investigation into the AP leak, or if he told the White House, or, really, of anything. Obama says he learned about the IRS IG investigation from the news. He says the Benghazi talking points were a matter of dispute between State and CIA, not the White House. A Martian reading the statements of senior officials on subjects of public controversy would conclude that the U.S. government operates at the whims of midlevel career personnel. But why pick on Martians. Chris Matthews concludes the same thing: “The steering wheel doesn’t control the car anymore.”

The president, however, isn’t even in the car. He is a bystander, a commenter on the passing scene. He moves only when compelled by outside forces. Domestic policy was ceded to Congress during the first half of his term. Only after Scott Brown’s upset in 2010 did Obama take a lead part in passing his health care law. The threat of American default forced him into botched negotiations with John Boehner on the debt ceiling. His tax increases on the wealthy came about only because the entirety of the Bush tax rates were set to expire on Jan. 1, 2013, anyway. On foreign policy he was pulled kicking and screaming into Libya, joining the British and French in overthrowing Qaddafi only when it became clear they were prepared to go to war without him. The Syrian civil war has raged for years, 90,000 have died, as the president does what little he can to convince the Russians to abandon Assad. When natural or man-made disasters strike Americans, he acts, but not before. He is a reactive president, whom only Reinhold Niebuhr could love.

One of his sympathizers describes him, favorably, as “Barack the Buck-Passer.” And pass bucks he has, trillions of them in fact, mostly in the direction of the American people and obstructionist Republicans. Still, Obama’s supporters must recognize, one can only buck-pass for so long. There comes a reckoning of accounts. Have we finally reached that moment, in the confluence of the Benghazi and IRS and AP stories, when Obama no longer will be able to blame his predecessor and adversaries for his own failings? I wonder. Obama’s luck may return. The Republicans may screw up. Another event may restore his sense of balance, and reinstate the supremacy of his preferred narrative.

Then again, once established, storylines are hard to break. The White House may have to do more to regain its mojo than have a senior official place a call to Mike Allen. The desperation with which progressive commentators downplay Benghazi, the IRS, and the AP shows how dangerous to liberalism a besieged White House can be. “The scandals are falling apart,” says Ezra Klein, who at least implies the stories rise to the level of scandal. Others aren’t as charitable.

Perhaps the liberals’ best bet is for Obama to go “Bulworth,” as he has privately wished he could do, and unleash on the world the full, untrammeled power of his obnoxious, know-it-all personality. That at least would change the narrative. Otherwise, I suspect, it is going to be a long, long, long second term.

“There are opportunities for greater efficiencies,” Tommy Beaudreau, the acting assistant secretary of Land and Minerals Management for the Interior Department, told a subcommittee of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

The hearing focused on the Obama administration’s efforts to allow drilling for natural resources on federally owned land.

The federal government approved 7,124 permits for drilling on federal lands in 2007, with an average approval time of 196 days. However, the Obama administration approved only 4,256 in 2012, at an average time of 228 days, Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R., Utah) said.

States can take under a month, and sometimes under two weeks, to issue a permit, multiple congressmen said.

Beaudreau argued after the hearing that states have different regulatory requirements and the Interior Department has to take multiple factors, including multiple uses of federal land, into account when issuing permits.

“That takes time,” Beaudreau said. “That takes public engagement. That takes analysis.”

Frustration about the federal permitting time led Rep. Blake Farenthold (R., Texas) to ask if the department was intentionally sitting on permits in order to delay drilling. Beaudreau assured him the department was not doing that.

Rep. James Lankford (R., Okla.), chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy Policy, Health Care, and Entitlements, showed a map at the beginning of the hearing of drilling locations around federal land in North Dakota. He noted that companies are drilling all around federal land—often right up to the border—but are not actually venturing onto federal land to drill. Lankford argued that the regulatory burden is too high to make it worth it, even though royalty costs are lower on federal land than elsewhere.

Unleashing the resources on federal land would allow “American energy independence and broad economic renaissance,” Lankford argued.

Opening up all federal land to drilling would increase GDP by $127 billion each year over the next seven years and create 552,000 jobs over the next seven years, Lankford said, citing an Institute for Energy Research study.

Subcommittee ranking member Jackie Speier (D., Calif.) argued that issued and unused leases pose a greater problem for the United States than federal land that is closed to drilling.

The Obama administration has been criticized in the past for its reluctance to allow drilling on federal lands. Republican candidate Mitt Romney attacked President Barack Obama during the campaign for the drop in drilling on federal lands under his watch.

The Government Accountability Office issued a report last May asserting that America’s oil shale formations could be equal to the entirety of the world’s proven oil reserves.

The Interior Department is working on a new regulation for hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, on federal lands, Beaudreau said at the hearing.

Lankford wondered after the hearing if the department could handle yet another responsibility, given the inefficiencies that already plague it.

Today was not the first time Goldman has received preferential treatment from Obama. Obama personally served birthday cake to Goldman during an Air Force One flight from Afghanistan last May.

Goldman’s employer is currently facing a scandal. The company was caught granting its journalists access to data from financial terminals that it sells to clients.

JEFF MASON: I’d like to ask you about the Justice Department. Do you believe that the seizure of phone records from Associated Press journalists before that was announced this week was in overreach, and do you still have full confidence in your Attorney General? Should we interpret yesterday’s renewed interest by the White House in a media shield law as a response to that? And more broadly, how do you feel about comparisons by some of your critics of this week’s scandals to those that happened under the Nixon administration?

OBAMA: Well, I’ll let you guys engage in those comparisons, and you can go ahead and read the history, I think, and draw your own conclusions. My concern is making sure that if there’s a problem in the government, that we fix it. That’s my responsibility, and that’s what we’re going to do. That’s true with respect to the IRS and making sure that they apply the laws the way they were intended. That’s true with respect to the security of our diplomats, which is why we’re going to need to work with Congress to make sure that there’s adequate funding for what’s necessary out there.

In an interview with the Inquirer, DatBull says he “always had this in the back of [his] head, but never had the courage to tell [his] parents that this is what [he] want[ed] to do.”

One source told the Inquirer that DatBull had his scholarship stripped after MSU became privy to his first music video, “DatBull 4 Life,” in which DatBull engages in frequent use of the n-word and can be seen smoking what looks like a copious amount of marijuana.

Yes, “DatBull 4 Life,” may be controversial, but I believe the Spartans reconsidered the offer because of the video’s poor quality. Really: How can the university expect DatBull to be mature enough for college when he still plays in a tree house?

To his credit, though, DatBull lets his high school homies show how hard they’ve become from living on the mean streets of Downingtown, Pa., where the median income is $53,468.

And the video does display DatBull’s teamplayer attitude, for example throwing some serious shine on his weed dealer. Team First.

By the looks of DatBull’s football highlight reel, as well as his music video, the young man can be coached to blaze opposing secondaries. And tree.

DatBull’s first album drops June 1.