"Symbol of a New America"

Ya think? Some of us already knew this. You're just figuring this out? 

"We are in the midst of historic cultural and demographic changes, and Obama is both the symbol and in some ways the architect of this new America " (Time Magazine Managing Editor Richard Stengel, explaining why Obama was chosen as this year's Person of the Year). 

Here's Gary Bauer commenting on this selection: "Obama's election and reelection were historic events. But the 'fundamental transformation of America' is not something to celebrate. The redefinition of marriage. Abortion on demand. Using the power of big government to force churches and men and women of faith to violate their cherished values. Record deficit spending that threatens to rob future generations of the American Dream."

To Bauer's description of this "new" America, I'd add: the balkanization of society; a dishonest, possibly even corrupt media; a polarized and divided electorate; the cynical celebration of Alynskyite/brass-knuckle, ends-justifies-the-means/Chicago-style politics in which the most polarizing, divisive, smarmy, and dishonest politician is somehow transformed into a messiah-like symbol of hope and unity while a decent, successful, morally upright, kind, honest, hard-working, politician is mocked and demonized. 

Barack Obama receives the Nobel Peace Prize for doing nothing. 

Barack Obama is elected president of the United States with a weak legislative voting record, radical pro-abortion positions, far left ideology, and little to no vetting from the mainstream media.

Barack Obama is re-elected president of the United States despite the fact that he has overseen:

• four years of rising unemployment (highest among blacks and Latinos)
• record deficit spending (eclipsing all previous administrations combined)
• foreign policy debacles
• botched smuggling of firearms that ended up getting into the hands of Mexican cartels
• wasted taxpayer dollars on failed green energy investments
• and the list goes on
• and on
• and on

Symbol of a new America, indeed. One hardly recognizes it anymore. 
  

"Show up and shut up"

Let the dogs do the talking. 

I agree with Hugh Hewitt here. The media are despicable, and the preening politicians, equally so. 

My memory of George Bush was when he went to comfort those who had experienced great loss, the media were not invited.
By contrast, Barack Obama's visit to Newtown, Connecticut, tonight is a media event. 

Can't these politicians have the decency to wait until the children are buried, to wait until we know more about the circumstances of this horrific crime, before talking about  what the government should or should not do?

Despicable people. Despicable media.

Shame, shame, shame on them all. 

"Local Dogs Taken to Newtown to Comfort Massacre Survivors," by Naomi Nix (Chicago Tribune, December 16, 2012)

"The Mainstream Media Vultures Gather," by Hugh Hewitt (The Examiner, December 16, 2012)

Never Forget

Non Sequitur, by Wiley Miller (June 11, 2006)

Pay Up, Please, Obama People

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue Northwest, Washington, DC 20500, where the rubber meets the road....

"A new report just out from the Internal Revenue Service reveals that 36 of President Obama's executive office staff owe the country $833,970 in back taxes  . . . 

Nearly one-third of Obama's aides make more than $100,000 with 21 being paid the top White House salary of $172,200, each.  

The IRS' 2010 delinquent tax revelations come as part of a required annual agency report on federal employees' tax compliance. Turns out, an awful lot of folks being paid by taxpayers are not paying their own income taxes. 

The report finds that thousands of federal employees owe the country more than $3.4 billion in back taxes. That's up 3% in the past year."

Uh huh.

Read more here: "36 Obama Aids Owe More than $833,000 in Back Taxes" (Andrew Malcom, Investors Business Daily).

Googling the Wealthy: By the Numbers

Let's do the numbers: 

First, Google employees and affiliates were among Barack Obama's top donors in the 2012 election, contributing  $357,382 to re-elect the president.

Source: "Microsoft, Google Folks are Top Sources for Obama Funds" (CNET). 

Second, according to Bloomberg Business Week, Google (the company) "avoided about $2 billion in worldwide income taxes in 2011 by shifting $9.8 billion in revenues into a Bermuda shell company, almost double the total from three years before, filings show. By legally funneling profits from overseas subsidiaries into Bermuda, which doesn’t have a corporate income tax, Google cut its overall tax rate almost in half. The amount moved to Bermuda is equivalent to about 80 percent of Google’s total pretax profit in 2011." 

Source: "Google Revenues Sheltered in No-Tax Bermuda Soar to $10 Billion" (Bloomberg Business Week).

Third, as a reminder, let's not forget Jim Senegal, CEO of Costco (who I blogged about in November), who is saving his shareholders millions in taxes by hurrying through a special dividend payment before Obama's higher tax rates kick in. 

Fourth, while we're on the subject of tax-dodging Democrat millionnaires, let's not forget the left-leaning, Obama-endorsing Washington Post, who "will pay its 2013 dividends before the end of this year to try to spare investors from anticipated tax increases." 

Fifth, staying on that same subject (to wit: vociferous advocates, etc.), shall we include in this list one of the beneficiaries of the Post's early payout from the Post, none other than Warren Buffett, whose Berkshire Hathaway firm stands to benefit from the Post's actions: "Berkshire Hathaway [is] the largest shareholder with an estimated 1.7 million shares, which means it could get a roughly $17 million dividend payment").

Source: "Washington Post Co. to Pay 2013 Dividend Early Ahead of Potential Tax Changes," (Associated Press, December 7, 2012).

There's not much more to say here: the numbers speak for themselves. One can only conclude that: 

a. Apparently über-wealthy Democrats do not actually want to share their wealth, which is why they're at the top of their class when it comes to sheltering their income from Uncle Sam. So much for compassionate liberalism. 

b. Democrats (writ large) are cynical, hypocritical liars. 

Not only do I no longer believe a word Democrats say, I find it difficult to respect people who continue to support this duplicitous president and his despicable agenda.  

Four More Years: The Age of Obama

Good article by Victor Davis Hanson (a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution), published here in National Review Online. The tagline of the article is, "'Hope and change' has been replaced by envy and jealousy." Hanson discusses five likely consequences of the Obama administration: 

1. Massive government spending (i.e., expansion of government services and entitlements)
2. Diminishing support for Israel (and the ho-hum response from American Jews, over 60% of whom voted for Obama)
3. Failure of conservatives to counter Obamism. Here's how Hanson put it: 

"The traditional conservative antidote to Obamaism has fallen short. That is, the arguments of principled conservatives about the perils of big government, redistributionist economics, and diminutions in personal freedom seem for a majority of Americans to be outweighed by the attraction of government subsidies and entitlements."

1. Balkanization of American society (i.e., pitting one racial group against another, which is ironic since Obama ran on the now disproved ideal of uniting America and healing the racial divide)
2. Class envy (i.e., not just the haves vs. the have-nots, but the haves vs. the have mores)

Here's Hanson's final paragraph: 

"One of the great lessons in the age of Obama is that wealth and poverty will always remain relative. Happiness is now defined not as having the basics I need, but as ensuring that someone else does not have more. Obama has successfully appealed to the oldest and basest of human emotions — envy and jealousy, masked with the notion of enforced fairness — and for now they trump even the human desire to be free."

Not mentioned in Hanson's discussion are other likely consequences which others have articulated (Dinesh D'Souza in his book called Roots of Obama's Rage, followed by his documentary called 2016: Obama's America) and Steve Emerson, founder of The Investigative Project on Terrorism, which has produced a documentary called Jihad in America: The Grand Deception. Both D'Souza and Emerson seem concerned about the influence of radical Islam on America (more on this later). 

Here's the link to "Ripples from the Election," by Victor Davis Hanson (National Review Online, December 11, 2012).

Have Fun, Mr. President

Well, la di da. 

"President Barack Obama is headed to Hawaii for a posh 20-day vacation costing some $4 million to the taxpayers. The First Family will head to Kailua, where they’ll erect barricades to prevent the commoners from interacting with them. But it’s not the cost and inconvenience that Americans should wonder about – it’s the timing. President Obama heads out of town from December 17 to January 6. The fiscal cliff is slated to hit on January 2."

 "As Fiscal Cliff Looms, Obama Set for 20-Day, $4M Hawaiian Vacation" (Ben Shapiro, Breitbart News).

"The total cost (based on what is known) for a 20-day round trip vacation to Hawaii for the President and his family and staff and security is more than $4 million."

"Residents Alerted to the Obamas' Holiday Plans," (Hawaiian Reporter).

Wealthy Democrats Pay Higher Taxes?

I thought wealthy liberal Democrats wanted to pay higher taxes? (cue guffaws, chortles, snorts). 

Guess not. Here's what Jim Sinegal, co-founder and former CEO of Costco (not to mention Obama supporter and donor) is doing in order to let shareholders of his company avoid paying higher taxes on capital gains in 2013 when the rates go up:

"...The giant retailer announced Wednesday that the company will pay a special dividend of $7 a share this month. That's a $3 billion Christmas gift for shareholders that will let them be taxed at the current dividend rate of 15%, rather than next year's rate of up to 43.4%—an increase to 39.6% as the Bush-era rates expire plus another 3.8% from the new ObamaCare surcharge. More striking is that Costco also announced that it will borrow $3.5 billion to finance the special payout. Dividends are typically paid out of earnings, either current or accumulated. But so eager are the Costco executives to get out ahead of the tax man that they're taking on debt to do so."

Mr. Sinegal stands to benefit as well. I read elsewhere that "Mr. Sinegal owns two million Costco shares, and his wife owns nearly 85,000 shares. He stands to make at least $14 million from the dividend. After taxes, he'll keep about $12 million. But if he waited until next year, he'd get only $8 million. By cashing in this year, he's avoiding $4 million in higher Obama taxes." 

And people wonder why conservatives disdain liberals and their phony "indignation" about those nasty Republican millionnaires. 

"Costco's Dividend Tax Epiphany" (Wall Street Journal, November 30, 2012) 

Memo to America: Raising Taxes on Rich People Doesn't Work

This is for all the silly, foolish people who buy into Barack Obama's rhetoric that raising taxes on "millionnaires and billionaires" will somehow solve all our problems. 

'T'wont work. Never has, never will. Case in point: rich people leaving Britain to avoid paying higher taxes. Said one conservative member of Parliament, “Labour’s ideological tax hike led to a tax cull of millionaires. Far from raising funds, it actually cost the UK £7 billion in lost tax revenue." See article in The Telegraph, below, for details.

Is anyone surprised? Are you kidding me? Of course they're going to leave! People with wealth are too smart to put up with this nonsense. There's nothing intrinsically altruistic about the wealthy. They've worked too hard to just lie down and let the government waltz in and pick their pockets. The Warren Buffets can pontificate all night long until the veins in their necks bulge about how they would gladly pay higher rates, but don't you believe them, not for one blue state second. These are the ones who can hide their money or just up and leave town, if they want. That's what's happening in California. People are high-tailing it out of town. Going to places like Texas. Even those phony-baloney Hollywood liberals are taking their business out of state. And why shouldn't they? California is robbing us blind. It's the bottom line that matters. End of story. 

Raise taxes on the rich? And for what, by the way? To what end? Come on, smarty pants. Let's look at this situation logically. Even if Barack Obama got what he wanted and was able to raise the tax rates on those nasty millionnaires and billionaires, the amount of revenue generated would fund the government for eight days. In fact, you could take every nasty millionaire and billionaire's last dime and it wouldn't make a dent in the national debt. Barack Obama has outspent all previous presidents in his first term than any of them did in two terms. And he's not stopping. He won't even discuss spending cuts as we approach this so-called fiscal cliff. This is absurd! This is a sham! This is mockery!

Nevertheless, there he is, folks, your wonderful president, your hero, your savior, Mr. Barack Obama himself, out on the campaign trail three weeks after the election, blaming the nasty Republicans for our fiscal problems and calling on everyone to support his plan to raise taxes on the wealthy. 

Yoo hoo, Mr. President, the election's over. It's time to stop demagoguing and start governing. 

Foolish, silly people, you're so proud of your little vote, aren't you? I hold every single last one of you, 18-years old on up, for what you've done, for your gullibility, for falling for this charlatan once again. Because if Barack Obama is good at anything, he's good at campaigning. Yes, we get it, we who lost, we get it. We were beaten by the best. He's a terrible president, but he's a master campaigner. He's an amazing community organizer (I say this with disdain). He's brilliant at dissembling, demonizing, propagandizing, so brilliant that most people--most well-meaning, genuinely nice people, people I'm related to even--have no idea that they're being manipulated, that they were played for fools. Not a clue. 

Doesn't matter, though. A vote is a vote, elections have consequences, and now we're stuck, and we're all going to have to live with this decision to give this narcissistic, arrogant, divisive, charlatan another four years.

"Two-Thirds of Millionnaires Left Britain to Avoid 50% Tax Rate" (Robert Winnett, The Telegraph)

Tom Clancy, Yo! Here's a Good Story

Stranger than fiction....

Monica Crowley, writing for the Center for Security Policy, asks the questions that the press and maybe even Congress isn't asking (but needs to): 

Wonder why we're getting a drip-drip-drip of wild new details every day? To keep us distracted. The sex scandal is a mess, but it's not the mess that matters. What matters is what happened in Benghazi, Libya on September 11 that resulted in the deaths of four Americans, including two Navy SEALS, a longtime foreign service officer, and the personal representative of the President of the United States, U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens. 

Here are a few of the critical questions that REALLY matter: 

1. As has been reported by Aaron Klein and others, the U.S. compound in Benghazi was NOT a consulate.  It was a "mission" of some sort, and it looks increasingly likely that the CIA was running the show there.  What was the CIA doing in Benghazi? 

2. What were Stevens and the others doing at that CIA mission late into the evening? 

3. Before he was killed that fateful night, Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods rescued scores of Americans from the compound. Who were they?  What were they doing in Benghazi? 

4.  Woods sprung into action to try to save the Ambassador and others despite being given the order to "stand down." Who gave the "stand down" order? Did Obama approve it? 

5.  Who repeatedly denied their requests for help as they were under attack? Who was watching the attack unfold in real time back in Washington? 

6. Who dreamt up the fiction that the attack was inspired by some obscure video? And who sent out top administration officials, including U.S. Ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and CIA Director David Petraeus, among others, to spin and perpetuate the fiction-for weeks? 

7.  MOST IMPORTANTLY: What is this administration REALLY covering up?

The title of Crowley's article is, "The Real Questions are Still About Benghazi, Not the Petraeus Sex Scandal." Read the seven sub-questions listed under item 7, above. The implications are startling and would explain why the Obama administration is going to such extremes to hide, conceal, distract, even lie to protect itself. 

Full article here. 

"Our Lord and Savior Barack Obama"

Slashing Jobs and Reducing Hours the New Normal Under ObamaCare

"Obamacare," I've been gently chided, is a derogatory term for the "Affordable Care Act." We shouldn't refer to this act derisively because supposedly Obama cares... 

Ah, I see. 

Somebody please show me that he cares. For instance, how much does Obama care about the ramifications of this poorly-thought out monstrosity on some of the sectors that may be impacted? 

Let's start with business:

"The restaurant industry, already operating with razor thin margins, doesn’t have the ability to absorb tens of thousands more in healthcare expenditures without a considerable increase in sales. It’s a basic realty [sic] of economics: more has to be coming in than going out. The only solution for restaurants that want to stay open and maintain competitive pricing would be to cut employee hours to part-time status. This is the conclusion already reached by several large chains–companies that provide jobs to tens of thousands of working class Americans . . . "

Now, education:

"Community College Of Allegheny County will cut the hours of some instructors to avoid paying for their health insurance coverage under new Affordable Care Act rules . . . The Affordable Care Act -- nicknamed Obamacare -- classifies employees who work 30 hours or more per week as full-time, and CCAC would be required under the new law to provide employer-assisted health insurance to those employees.Instead, temporary part-time employees, such as clerical, computer, seasonal and other positions, will be limited to working 25 hours per week, and adjunct instructors will only be able to teach 10 credits per semester. Permanent part-time employees, already eligible for health care coverage, will be unaffected. The Pittsburgh-based college estimates the move will save it from spending an additional $6 million."

So much for Obama's (false) promise to spur job growth. I propose someone keep track of all the industries that start cutting back employee hours, reducing staff, or refusing to expand. 

Read full articles here: 

"Restaurant Industry Already Preparing for Obamacare Consequences" (Bethany Mandel, Commentary Magazine, November 19, 2012).

"CCAC Cuts Adjuncts' Hours to Avoid Obamacare Requirements" (Tyler Kingcade, The Huffington Post, November 20, 2012).

Situation Room Photos Released Only When it Promotes a Narrative?

Here's the now famous photo of Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and others in the Situation Room the night when Osama bin Laden was killed:

Ah, as an American, I feel so proud of my leaders. They look so absorbed, so concerned.

Now, here's the Situation Room the night of the Benghazi attacks in which our ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stephens, and four others were killed in what is now understood to be a terrorist attack but which was spun for several weeks by the administration as a mob riot protesting an anti-Muslim video. Here's the pic:  










Oh, wait, sorry, folks. No picture is available, nor, apparently will one be forthcoming. Apparently Mr. Obama has (and I quote), provided all information regarding "what happened in Benghazi."

Gee, as an American, I feel so . . .well, so manipulated.

White House Declines to Release Images from Night of Benghazi Attacks (CBS News).

Faux Outrage? Sorry, LA Times. Not Buying It.

Here's the Los Angeles Times pontificating this morning about the "fog of politics" on Benghazi and claiming that the only reason Republicans are still talking about Benghazi is political: 

Both Rice's comments and the talking poins on which they were based apparently erred in portraying the attack in Benghazi as a spontaneous reaction to the protests in Cairo. But the charge that she knowingly misled her interviewers or the country is, as President Obama rightly said at his news conference last week, outrageous and utterly unsupported by any evidence.

The Times then sets its sights on John McCain, one of the leading voices critical of both Rice (possible nominee for Secretary of State) and the Obama administration itself in its weeks-long denial and obfuscation regarding the events that took place in Benghazi on September 11: 

On Sunday's Face the Nation, McCain suggested that Rice might return to his good graces "by publicly coming back on this show and saying, 'I was wrong, I gave the wrong information on your show some weeks ago.' That might be a beginning." No (sniffs The Times), the beginning would be for the senator to apologize to the ambassador. 

Oh, for heaven's sake, LA Times. Get off your pompous asses and admit that if a Republican president had sent his ambassador out to the major news outlets for a week of interviews that propagated a false narrative that concealed the truth to the American people about a terrorist attack, you'd be at the vanguard calling for impeachment. Your faux outrage isn't fooling anyone.

Stop insulting the intelligence of your readers. At least half of us are on to you. 

"Fog of Politics on Benghazi" (Los Angeles Times editorial, November 20, 2012).

"They're Playing a Different Game"

This morning, eating a bowl of cereal and waiting for eggs to come to a boil, I happened to tune in to Dennis Prager's program and caught a snippet of his discussion on leftism and taxes.

More important to leftists than liberty, Dennis argues, is equality. Bringing the wealthy down is more important than bringing the poor up. That's why the left believes in taxing the wealthy. Obama's tiresome and disingenuous mantra (my words), that millionaires and billionaires aren't paying their "fair share," is the latest riff on this idea.

If a conservative were to challenge that notion by explaining that raising taxes on the wealthy actually suppresses prosperity for everyone in society and not just the wealthy, the left wouldn't care. Dennis suggests an analogy. It would be like telling a baseball player, "If you do [thus and such], you won't be able to score a touchdown." But the baseball player doesn't care about touchdowns. He cares about home runs. It's a different game. 

That's the way it is with the Left, says Dennis. The Left doesn't care about prosperity. It cares about equality. The Left is interested in a different goal. They're playing a different game. 

I find this analogy pretty intriguing. I wonder how others view it. 

The question about whether raising taxes on the wealthy helps or hurts the economy was addressed in an article in yesterday's Wall Street Journal by Stephen Moore. Moore argues that raising taxes hurts the economy and cites several times throughout American history when this was demonstrated, including during and after JFK's administration. 

Moore writes:

JFK cut rates by about 30% for every income group. He argued that the lower tax rates would "boost the economy, produce revenues, and achieve a future budget surplus." He even called lower rates an "investment in the future." His prediction that the economy would surge was validated by rapid growth every year from 1965 through 1968. Tax collections grew by 8.6% per year and unemployment fell to 3.4%. "The unusual budget spectacle of sharply rising revenues following the biggest tax cut in history," announced a 1966 U.S. News and World Report article, "is beginning to astonish even those who pushed hardest for tax cuts in the first place."

This is the kind of common-sense fiscal policy we might have seen instituted under a Romney administration. Unfortunately, common sense fiscal policy is lost on the class warfare policies of hard-leftists like Obama and his fellow Democrats who, believing they were given a mandate in the 2012 election, are trotting onto the football field carrying gloves and bats, intent less on lowering the deficit and stimulating job creation than they are on leveling the playing field. They're playing a different game.

"Why Lower Tax Rates are Good for Everyone," by Stephen Moore (Wall Street Journal, November 15, 2012).

Four More Years

This is What They Voted For

From today's Wall Street Journal editorial board (full article linked below): 

“Note, however, that federal spending remains at a new plateau of about $3.54 trillion, or some $800 billion more than the last pre-recession year of 2007. One way to think about this is that most of the $830 billion stimulus of 2009 has now become part of the federal budget baseline. The "emergency" spending of the stimulus has now become permanent, as we predicted it would….

Even if Mr. Obama were to bludgeon Republicans into giving him all of the tax-rate increases he wants, the Joint Tax Committee estimates this would yield only $82 billion a year in extra revenue. But if growth is slower as a result of the higher tax rates, then the revenue will be lower too. So after Mr. Obama has humiliated House Republicans and punished the affluent for the sheer joy of it, he would still have a deficit of $1 trillion.

Most of our readers know all this, but we thought you'd like some new evidence to rebut the kids who voted for your taxes to go up when they return from college for Thanksgiving. Maybe they'll figure it out when they have a job, if they can find one.”

The Hard Fiscal Facts (Wall Street Journal, November 11, 2012)

He Has Now Won Twice (Alas)

Or, why we despair. 

Anyone who uses the Latin phrase inter alia instead of the more prosaic "among other things" deserves at least a listen.

Written by a Brit, who has been there/done that, it's as clear an explanation for why conservatives believe the re-election of Barack Obama says more about America than it says about Obama. Which is why many of us, like the author, despair.

I've linked the entire article below. Here are a few choice nuggets.

"But, consider this: A president of the United States just ran a reelection campaign based on the promise of government largess, exploitation of class division, the demonization of success, the glorification of identity politics, and the presumption that women are a helpless interest group; and he did so while steadfastly refusing to acknowledge the looming — potentially fatal — crisis that the country faces. And it worked." 

"Our president, a Narcissus masquerading as a Demosthenes, makes big speeches packed full of little ideas, and he is applauded wildly for it." 

"I have watched how these sorry ideas play out in the real world, and it is not pretty: They make people’s lives worse, and yet simultaneously convince them that any reform will kill them — a fatal combination. Americans should avoid this path sedulously, for that way lies decline." 

"The president has an ample library of ideas from which to choose, and yet he raids the Old World." 

"This year, certainly, was not the perfect storm of 2008. Then, novelty and redemption played a role; this time, an insipid bore ran on an openly statist platform and won the day in a country that is supposed to be 'center right.' Maybe it no longer is."  

"The central problem, then, is not that Obama will be president for the next few years, but that the American people — knowing him — chose to reelect him." 

"Obamacare will now go into effect, and Americans will soon feel entitled to its fruits. Those who doubt that this will have a deleterious effect on American republicanism have clearly never been bribed with their own health care." 

"Alas, there is nothing written in the stars that says that America will always be America." 

"Why I Despair," by Charles C. W. Cooke (National Review Online)

Barack Hussein . . . Nixon?

Sorry, I'm not going to let up. Obama is 10 times worse than Nixon.

Some day people will see.

This is only the latest in a string of ground shaking events demonstrating that the Obama administration hid information vital to the American people during the last days of the 2012 election cycle. The fact that the most respected soldier of his generation, Petraeus, would be leaving the administration during an Obama second term, had to be known by the White House prior to the election. And they said nothing in order to run out the clock.

The fact that Attorney General Eric Holder was considering stepping down from the administration had to be known by the White House prior to the election. Meanwhile, during the election cycle, the Obama administration claimed executive privilege in order to shield Holder from questions about Fast and Furious.

The fact that an American drone was fired upon in international airspace by Iranian airplanes was hidden from the American public for a week in order to prevent the American public from recognizing the failure of the Obama Iranian foreign policy.

The facts in Benghazi were lied about by virtually every member of the Obama administration for weeks upon weeks.

The fact that the administration had been slow-walking reams of vital regulation to beyond the election in order to avoid scaring off voters was hidden from the public.

Now that the Obama administration has succeeded in winning a second term, they are cleaning house. The two figures most linked to the disaster in Benghazi, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Petraeus, are gone. The figure most linked with Fast and Furious, Eric Holder, will be gone. The figure most linked to the administration's economic failures, Secretary of the Treasury Tim Geithner, will be gone.

Only Obama remains. He ran out the clock on his scandals, and now throws anyone associated with them overboard.

The Petraeus resignation is only the most recent evidence that the Obama administration will lie to the American people to achieve its ends. But with all of his experts gone, Obama's cabinet will now be staffed by the political C team in a time of crisis, both domestically and internationally.

"CIA Director Resigns Over 'Affair'"

??????????????????????????