Pushing His Agenda - Obama Shows No Sign of Leadership

It should come as no surprise to Americans that we have found ourselves standing on the edge of the fiscal cliff just waiting for our President to give us all the OK to jump off.

Since early in his term as president, Obama has been chastised by Republican leaders for his spendthrift attitude in support of his social agenda.  The undisputed ‘King of Debt’ President Obama has raised the bar on uncontrolled government spending to new heights.  Party arguments, from either side of the fence, as to how and why are inconsequential, the fact of the matter is the president’s personal mandate, to achieve the goals of his social agenda, is void of fiscal control.

Immediately following the horrific fall in the nation’s economy in late 2007, the then new president responded by making ObamaCare his top priority, an egregious act of fiscal irresponsibility in the wake of the worst recession that this nation has faced since the Great Depression.  Sadly, ObamaCare was only the first on a long list if fiscally irresponsible acts undertaken by the president, most in pursuit of achieving socioeconomic equality through the re-distribution of wealth and the growth of government.

And so, here we find ourselves once again, with our president holding American hostage to his agenda by threatening to raise taxes on all Americans if Republicans do not concede to his proposal of raising taxes on the wealthy and spending cuts that do not even offset his new spending plan much less put a penny towards reducing the nations rapidly growing debt.  This has clearly been the president’s plan all along, one packed full of campaigning and void of compromise and leadership.

There does not exist a president in modern history that has been as flamboyant and overstepping with his presidential powers as has President Obama.  But let’s not be so quick to blame the President himself as public polls constantly show a pretty even division in the president’s popularity but then again, being the president is not a job of popularity but one of leadership and in that regard, Obama has earned himself a big F-.

Another Lesson Not Yet Learned By Republicans

It is astonishing that the latest ‘fiscal cliff crisis’ even exists but then again this stemming from the failure of the ‘Super Committee’ to reach a bi-partisan agreement back in August of 2011, I guess it is to be expected.
In what was really no more than a stopgap agreement between the White House and Republican lawmaker, The Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA) was enacted to end the 2011 debt-ceiling crises.  In exchange for a commitment from the White House to work towards real deficit reduction, House Republicans agree to raise the nation’s debt-ceiling by $400 billion thus putting an end to the 2011 debt-crises and forgoing the possibility of sovereign default by our nation.  And so, as stipulated in the BCA, the Congressional Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, better known as the ‘Super-Committee’ was created, its purpose, to produce a bi-partisan piece of legislation by no later than November 23, 2011.

The BCA was highly controversial and widely unpopular amongst Republican lawmakers and also had Speaker of the House John Boehner coming under significant criticism from his party.  Although expressly implied that Democratic lawmakers would provide real spending cuts, there was no language in the BCA to hold them to it and so, it should come as no surprise that the November 23^rd deadline came and went with no agreement being reach.  By virtue of Republicans negotiating in good faith and Democrats reneging on their side of the bargain, Democrats managed to walk away with the debt-ceiling increased while not having to produce a single spending cut in return.

The failure of the White House to follow through with its commitments, legally bound or otherwise, has become the norm for the Obama administration, from budgets that have yet to transpire to President Obama’s more recent pledge to America that he would reduce spending.  These failures once again have the Federal Government just days away from reaching its debt-limit and the nation going over the fiscal cliff. 

This past Friday, shortly after emerging from a last minute ‘fiscal cliff’ meeting with Senate and House leaders, President Obama expressed that he was “mildly optimistic” that an agreement could be achieved to avert the fiscal cliff.  The President also went on to indirectly chastise Republicans for failing to do their job.   It’s the same old rhetoric from the same old President who has also been campaigning for his real desire, a short term agreement that would get us past the January 2, 2013 deadline and provide lawmakers ‘more time’ to reach a bi-partisan agreement.

Republicans allowed the can to be kicked down the road over a year ago with the The Budget Control Act of 2011 and look where it got them.  The Obama administration has demonstrated its complete inability to pass a budget, has shown inaction on dozens of fiscal and economic issues and now, after having over year to address the fiscal cliff issue, has once again come up short on standing by their word to produce real fiscal reform.

So, the big question is, “have Republicans learned their lesson yet” or are they going to allow the White House to be kick the can down the road once again?

Union Greed - A Roadblock to Progress

It looks as though those pesky labor unions are at it again! 

Possibly becoming the third labor union walkout on US shipping ports this month, the International Longshoremen's Association (ILA) is threatening to strike if an agreement can not be reached by the end of the week.  Currently working on a 90 day contract extension, the ILA and employers are at a stalemate over ‘royalty fees’.  In an effort to gain back some control over their business, employers wish to place a ‘cap’ on these fees to aid in the company’s ability to remain competitive.  A strike by the ILA would affect more than 14,000 workers and some 14 ports along the Eastern Seaboard creating a major disruption in the nation’s retail market and agricultural exports, a disruption the ILA will certainly exploit.

What are these ‘royalty fees’?  They are nothing more than a ‘bonus’ paid to ILA dockworkers on top of their negotiated contract union wage.  The amount of these ‘royalty fees’ are based on the weight of the containers the dockworkers move.  Stemming from the fact that shippers use weight as one of components in determining its shipping cost to customers, union logic concludes that if the shipper profits by weight then so should its members.  However, the union fails to acknowledge that work being performed by its members is impervious to weight while the shipper must recover the cost to purchase and maintain transport equipment, fuel costs and various transportation taxes and fees imposed by state and federal law.  The concept of these ‘royalty fees’ is another example of the backwards union logic used to manipulate its members and its miss use of power to get into the pockets of those who employ there members.

At the same time, the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) and employers have also reached a stalemate over a number of proposed rule changes in the existing labor contract.  The proposed rule changes would remove a significant number of employee ‘perks’ that simply are unfair to the employer, such as paying workers while conducting union business at the work place for example.  As their argument, the ILWU cites that the companies are attempting to impose changes to contract terms that have been in place for over 80 years while also claiming the reason for these changes is simply to break the union.  I guess it has never occurred to the ILWU that business practices have progressed over the past 80 years.

And earlier this month approximately 800 striking Clerical Workers Union (OCU) members, supported by an additional 10,000 longshoremen, cripple both the Port of Los Angeles and Port of Long Beach after failing to reach an agreement with shipping line employers.  The striking OCU member, who reportedly receive a wage and benefits package which amounts to roughly $90 per hour, were demanding language in the new labor contract that would ‘guarantee’ there jobs would never be outsourced.  The OCU has made claims that shipping line employers have been outsourcing OCU jobs lost through attrition, a claim the shipping lines deny.  At an economic loss of an estimated $1 billion per day, the striking OCU left approximately 20 ships stranded at anchor, some being re-routed to other ports in order to keep retail goods moving.

An agreement, which heavily favored the OCU and its members, was finally reached putting an end to an eight day strike.  In addition to a wage and pension increase, of which the union claims neither was a point of contention, the new contract includes a ‘no outsourcing’ and a ‘no layoff’ clause which now prohibits the employers from taking advantage of modern computer systems and technology that would streamline and better manage many of the work activities of its OCU employees, virtually forcing employers into progress stagnation.  Losing this technological edge on their competitors, the shipping lines now have to seek out corners to cut that will provide an equivalent cost savings in order to remain competitive.

We’ve come a long way baby

A sad testament to an ideology that, so many years ago, saved and consequently fortified the workforce of our nation, the number of union greed horror stories that are plaguing our nation grows larger by the day.  

With unemployment rates at a record high and an economy still struggling to recover from recession,  both public and private sector labor unions have been waging war with employers in an effort to preserve unjustifiable wages and unsustainable pension plans. From coast to coast, hundreds of cities are facing insolvency largely due to underfunded pensions.  With the lack of participation from the public sector labor unions, many of these financially strapped cities have fallen into bankruptcy and there will be many more to follow.  The private sector faces the same dilemma, those businesses enduring financial hardship are having to make cuts, were ever possible, to offset revenue losses resulting from the nation’s long lasting recession. Those businesses that are bound by a union labor agreement rarely are offered any meaningful assistance from labor unions and their members.  Any assistance that is offered, by the labor union, are almost certain to include a caveat for significant concessions, at a later date.

The recent fall of Hostess is a text book example of union greed trumping common sense which, in the end left roughly 18,000 union members unemployed.  Ignoring Hostess’s warning of an immediate liquidation of assets if production was interrupted during the bank managed restructuring, a small group of union bakers walked off the job.  As warned, Hostess requested that the bank authorize its immediate liquidation of its assets in order to prevent any further debt from being accumulated.  The request was granted and the rest is history.

The Twinkie will most certainly return, as well at least a portion of those 18,000 jobs however, the likelihood of those jobs being union are slim at best.  And for those former Hostess union employees, the new makers of Hostess products may not be so eager to hire those very employees that were responsible for the closure of Hostess in the first place.

At the expense of our children

In what might be the most grotesque display of unions ‘doing the wrong thing’ are those public union representatives that stand behind school administrators who have fallen subject to a states ‘Parent Trigger Law’. The Parent Trigger Law has been adopted by several states and allows parents to protect their children’s education from low performing public schools through a legal mechanism that transfers the failed administration into the hands of a charter school administration.  The California Parent Trigger Law has been triggered on not one but two occasions targeting two separate grossly underperforming public schools.  On both occasions the respective Teachers Unions blocked the action through false accusation, harassment and direct persuasion of several affected parents.  With little ability to put up a fight against the powerful Teachers Union, on both instances the actions against its union members were quickly dismantled, leaving the parents powerless and the children to remain in those underperforming school environments.  

And it gets worse, as many of those very same Teacher Unions that have place its members above the education of the children, have also protected and defended the jobs of several of its members who have committed egregious acts against defenseless students leaving one to wonder if any of these Teachers Unions posses a moral compass.  

The Union agenda

Once standing in protection of fair wages, benefits and work environment, for its members, Labor Unions have now become little more than a group of well dressed thugs that care for little more than increasing union membership and maximizing its membership’s wages from which they draw their salary. 

Today’s labor unions choose to ignore advances in technology and changes in the business environment as this knowledge is counterproductive to their mission of increase both labor force and wages.  Another tendency of today’s unions is to unfairly convey the needs of the company and the challenges it faces, to its members.  Their goal now is to create the perception, to its members, that the company cares more of its bottom line then providing fare wage and benefits to its employee.  If the union is successful in its false portrayal, of the company, it will have the support of its members to use as leverage during contract negotiations exploiting the threat of a labor walkout to push employer concessions right to the edge of unprofitability.

Boehner's ‘Plan B’ A Failure Or Success?

If you believe the Liberal Media, Speaker of the House John Boehner is taking a beating by his own party after not being able to muster up enough support to pass his ‘Plan B’, a proposed stopgap measure to avert the ‘fiscal cliff’.  But is this really the case or was the doomed plan part of the Speaker’s strategy?

Having been up against the ropes since the White House started it’s media campaign to vilify Republicans for caring more about protecting the top two percent of wage earners at the expense of the other 98 percent, Speaker Boehner has stood his ground on the absurdity of targeting the nations wealthy as a means to fix the White House’s spending problem.  As it became grossly apparent that President Obama had no intention of offering anything of real compromise, the Speaker pitched his ‘Plan B’ which included tax increases for those earning greater than $1 million annually.  Knowing that his ‘Plan B’ could never gain enough support from his Republican counterparts, in a bold move Speaker Boehner went ahead and introduced the contents of his plan to the White House and the press.

Democrats react

It took no more than a few moments for Democrats to react negatively to Speaker Boehner’s ‘Plan B’ proposal on Wednesday, with the President almost immediately vowing he would veto the plan if it passed a House vote, once again making it clear the President’s lack of desire to make any concessions that would help to avoid going over the fiscal cliff.

And so, on Thursday, after failing to gain the support needed to pass ‘Plan B’, Speaker Boehner put the ball back in the President’s court making it clear he has given the White House his “best and final” offer and now it is up to President Obama to act.

It was the Speakers ‘Plan’ all along

Knowing that he could never gain the support of House Republicans, it is likely that Speaker Boehner’s ‘Plan B’ was never intended to serves as a measure to avoid the fiscal cliff but instead a vessel to send a clear message to the White House that House Republicans simply do not have the stomach for increasing revenue on anyone without some serious concessions in spending by the White House. As a bonus for Republicans, the President’s reaction to the ‘Plan B’ once again revealed his complete lack of desire to negotiate at any level.

The message has been sent, now we will just have to wait and see how serious President Obama is in steering a course towards deficit reduction and economic recover of if he would rather send our economy into a double dip recession by taking us over the fiscal cliff.

Obama Is Holding America Hostage Over Fiscal Cliff Deal

From the moment that President Obama finally engaged himself in the fiscal cliff talks it was apparent that he had a well thought out plan that would either force the hand of Republican lawmakers to concede to White House demands or be faced with the blame for taking the economy over the fiscal cliff.

At the same time Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner was presenting the White House’s proposal for averting the fiscal cliff to Democratic and Republican leaders, the President hit the campaign trail.  Just as he did to gain re-election, the President’s plan was to seize the power of both the main stream and social media to influence Americans.

The message

What can be viewed as no more than strategic posturing, President Obama spoke before several hand selected groups of supporters, and of course a full complement of news reporters, repeating time and again his goal to ensure that taxes do not go up for 98 percent of Americans and 97 percent of small businesses while emphasizing that Republicans were more concerned in protecting the wealthiest two percent of wage earners.  Clearly, this message was and continues to be sent in an effort to lead the public away from the bigger issues such as the $16 trillion, and growing, national debt and the desire of the White House to increase spending without offering anything realistic in the way of spending cuts.

Democrats want taxes to go up

Whether through a deal struck with Republicans or the automatic tax increases that will result from the loss of the Bush era tax cuts, if we go over the fiscal cliff, the bottom line is the Democrats want revenue to offset at least a portion of their increased spending.

In regards to new revenue, one of the key points of contention between the White House and Republican lawmakers has been President Obama’s insistence on a tax increase for those that earn more than $250,000 annually which the President later pushed up to $400,000.

Although the President’s targeting of the wealthy has been a deal stopper with House Republicans, in a good faith effort to avert a tax increase on the majority of wage earners, on Tuesday Speaker of the House John Boehner proposed his ‘Plan B’ which did include a tax increase on those earning more than $1 million annually.  However, with ‘Plan B’ failing to gather enough support to pass a House vote, it should be crystal clear to the White House that House Republicans simply are not interested in handing out any amount of new revenue to band aid the government’s out of control spending. 

While addressing the press this morning, Speaker Boehner once again emphasized that “we have a spending problem” and it appears that he and his Republican counterparts will not fold to the pressures of the looming fiscal cliff that would allow the White House to once again avoid addressing this problem.

Simply unable to admit that the government spending is out of control, President Obama seems willing to do anything to prevent having to touch entitlements and it looks as though he is going to get that opportunity.  Having failed to gain support for his ‘Plan B’, Speaker Boehner told the media that his last offer, presented to the White House, was his “best and final” offer and now it is up to the President to act.

How will it all end
With each second that ticks off of the clock lawmakers are less and less likely to be able to reach a deal that would prevent going off the fiscal cliff and likely push the economy back into decline.  As the Obama administration is already doing little to improve the vitality of the nation’s economy, a small step backwards in exchange for the revenues gained from the expiration of the Bush era tax cuts and avoiding entitlement reform seems to be an acceptable trade off to President Obama.

If we do in fact go over the fiscal cliff the liberal media will play critic and certainly lay blame on Republicans.  In the short term the White House will enjoy all the negative media the Republicans will receive however, in the end President Obama is going to have to take ownership of an economic downturn that will be felt though the world economy, a downturn that most assuredly could have been avoided had the President demonstrated strong leadership and the will to work towards real fiscal reform.

The Dangerous New Trend of Targeting the Wealthy

The concept of our government taking from those who “have” and giving to those who “have not” is not new however, President Obama has made the re-distribution of wealth a key component in nearly all of his administration’s economic policy making.  With their constant portrayal of the middle and lower class fallen victim to the evils of capitalism, Democrats have succeeded in its promotion of a much more liberal attitude to this segment of Americans, many of whom have experienced heavy financial setbacks in the wake of a long lasting recession.  As a result, many of those affected are now getting behind Obama’s ideals of giving more to those who have less by taking away from those who have achieved greater financial gains through hard work, risk taking and self determination to succeed.

Small business is the motor of the economy

Small businesses provide jobs to more than half of the private sector workforce making these businesses the undeniable impetus behind our nation’s economy.  With private equity and the willingness to take risks in return for financial reward, investment capital firms and individuals with the financial means can be credited for the creation and growth of all small businesses.  The success in the creation and growth of any small business relies on three key factors.  First; there must exist a stable economy where consumer confidence is high and promotes the willingness to spend.  Second; there also must exist a desirable rate of return on investment as without a good return on the investment dollar, there is no incentive to invest.  Third; and most important, there must exist access to capital for those who wish to invest in new or expanding small businesses.

With nearly nine million jobs having been lost since the start of the recession in 2007, most seemingly to be gone forever, it would appear logical that the White House would be in support of those who invest in the small businesses that create much needed new jobs.  Instead, the White House’s “government” approach to new job creation spurs more ill will, with top job creators, than incentive as can be measured by the stagnant growth of our economy.

Let the people play Robin Hood!

The recent California elections provide a clear example as to what influence the liberal agenda, of wealth re-distribution, has had on voters.  In a state where the unemployment rate is more than two percentage points above the national average and also boasts the highest poverty rate in the nation, the Obama administration’s, “the wealthy can afford it” mantra is readily received by the far left leaning state.  The high percentage of financially distressed Californians provided Governor Jerry ‘Moonbeam’ Brown the ideal circumstance to encourage voters to embrace the “redistribution of wealth” concept in support of his Proposition 30, a proposition which unduly distributes the majority of its tax burden on California’s wealthy.  The mechanism used to fund Proposition 30 is not unique as California, along with many other states, singled out the wealthy as the source of revenue generation in numerous other referendums.

Working outside the will of the people, we have liberal lawmakers that are steamrolling down a path of forced socioeconomic equality, of course, at the expense of the nations wealthy.  The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, better known as ObamaCare, is a prime example of these liberal lawmakers taking aim at the wealthy where not one but two surtaxes, in the law, are paid exclusively by higher wage earners.  At the direction of President Obama, the pending “Fiscal Cliff” deal also has these same liberal lawmakers working to increase tax rates on the highest two percent income earners while extending the Bush era tax cuts for the remaining 98 percent.  Such an action does little if nothing to solve the fiscal crises of the nation but does further the President’s effort to gain greater socioeconomic equality at the expense of the top two percent.

Where does it end?

Like the actions of a serial killer, the first time is always the hardest and from there it just keeps getting easier, and so goes the act of taxing the wealthy.  But when does it end or will it?  For liberals, wealth re-distribution would likely not end until equilibrium has been reached however, the nations wealthy will likely not stick around long enough to see that day come.  Following the trend of companies moving to more business friendly countries, so too will the wealthy, along with their money.

The economic effects of targeting the wealthy

Aside from driving the wealthy out of the country, the attack on the nation’s highest wage earners significantly reduces the capitol available for both investment and commerce. 

Although the actual number of wealthy persons continues to grow, the rate at which they are growing is at a 16 year low.  More significant is the substantial drop and continued decline in assets held by the wealthy.  This drop and decline can be linked directly to the condition of our economy where an unstable marketplace, created by factors such as the uncertainty of the costs of ObamaCare and the threat of wealth redistribution, reels in the risk takers who instead seek safer and therefore lower yielding investment opportunities which rarely include new business or business expansion and in turn stifles new job creation.

The continued loss of the wealth that fuels our economy seems to matter little to the President who’s true goal appears to be the dismantling of class distinctions through the process of de-incenting the human spirit to a point which the drivers of our nation’s economic engine gives way to a social class “of the government, by the government and for the government”.

Bullying Us Over The Fiscal Cliff

With today’s far left leaning policy creators in the White House, bi-partisan politics are as likely as the elimination of the national debt by year’s end.  Crafted by President Obama’s personal agenda, these extreme liberal policies face constant opposition by Republican lawmakers and, more often than not, end in a political stalemate.  Stemming from an unwillingness to work at all with the Republicans, Democrats have instead adopted a more labor union style “bullying” approach of negotiating, continually pressing their near socialist agenda while expressing no desire to offer any concessions.   

The pending fiscal cliff crisis is the latest example of the President asserting these bullying tactics in an attempt to force the hand of the Republicans.  With media in tow, President Obama has been on what bears more the resemblance of a re-election campaign tour, speaking to very select pro-Democratic groups and portraying Republicans as money mongering profligates who would rather burden the middle class with taxes than take a penny out of the pockets of the wealthy.  As part of these “campaign style” speeches, Obama also vilifies Republicans for taking the economy over the fiscal cliff, as if he already knows this will be the final outcome.  

Playing chicken with the economy

Judging from all the rhetoric being fed to the main stream media, by the President, it appears as though he is preparing to take our economy over the fiscal cliff.  Failing to offer any real spending cuts and refusing to let go of his personal ambition to impose tax increases, on the wealthiest two percent, sends a clear message that President Obama has no desire to work with Republicans in order to have a deal in place in time to make the December 31^st deadline.  In many regards, doing nothing could be viewed as a wining proposition for Democrats, who appear to be betting the farm that Republicans will give in to the President’s one sided proposal before time runs out. 

If by chance the Democrats end up losing this bet, by virtue of the automatic spending cuts and tax increases imposed by law, as part of the 2011 public debt ceiling compromise, they will still receive a good portion of their desired defense spending cuts as well as revenue gains resulting from the expiration of the Bush era tax cuts.  Maybe best of all, in the minds of Democrats, is by going over the fiscal cliff, they will be handed another opportunity to once again try and undermine the credibility of the Republican Party.

Will Republicans cave at the midnight hour?

There is nothing to gain, economically or politically, for Republicans to concede to Obama’s unyielding demands.  Certainly, going over the fiscal cliff will have a negative effect on the economy, at least in the very short term however, once Wall Street gets past its typical knee jerk reaction to bad news, the already slow moving economy will come crawling back and continue to muddle along, just as it has for the past four years, under the current administrations leadership.

What should be more concerning to President Obama is how the international financial community perceives his administrations lack of desire to work towards resolving the US national debt as well as its inability to gain control of its own spending.  This will certainly be looked upon negatively by those whom the US are heavily indebted to as well as those who rely on the strength and stability of the US dollar.

There may also be a bit of Presidential over optimism in Obama’s belief that taxpayer will burden Republicans with the blame for the loss of the much needed Bush era tax cuts.  Small business owners and the middle class, many of whom are also beginning to realize the hidden costs of ObamaCare, may not be so convinced that this failure is not at the hands of the Democrats, who have made no attempt to avert going over the fiscal cliff.

For Republicans, the economic ramifications of going over the fiscal cliff are far less damaging than what would be realized by giving in to Democrats and allowing them to continue to fund their liberal policies through their foolish spending practices that continue to run up the nation’s debt.  Also, allowing President Obama to continue to wage his attack on the wealthiest two percent of our nation, as part of his redistribution of wealth campaign, is simply not good precedent to set.

Could Benghazi Lead to Impeachment for President Obama?

More than two months have passed since the 9/11 terrorist attack on a pair of US diplomatic compounds in Benghazi, Libya, which left U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, one US diplomat and two former Navy Seals dead.  In the days and weeks that followed, it seemed as though a cloak of secrecy had fallen upon the events surrounding the attack with both the White House and State Department remaining tight lipped on any details of the tragedy.

The mainstream media showed little interest in reporting on the deaths of four Americans, at the hands of terrorist, giving the story only cursory coverage and allowed the tragedy to be overshadowed by the pending election.  As well, the White House made little attempt to share details of this horrific event and only when pressured, did they indicate that they would provide a full account of the attack, once all the evidence was collected and sorted out.

Missteps in Benghazi Could Have Damaged Chances for Re-Election

As the election clock ticked down, it became ever more apparent that the White House was attempting to downplay the Benghazi tragedy, possibly to prevent revealing missteps made by the President, leading up to and during the attacks.  A peculiar unwillingness to speak on the attacks, combined with a seemed inability for government agencies to gain access to the site and key witnesses, fueled speculation of an administration cover-up. 

Under pressure, by a handful of key Republicans and Fox News, conflicting stories began to emerge, from the White House, creating further speculation.  Reluctance to share information persisted as did the pressure for President Obama to address the nation on the events surrounding the Benghazi attack and subsequent loss of four American lives.  As days passed and the nation inched closer to Election Day, it became undeniably clear that President Obama was attempting to distance himself from Benghazi and the possibility of having to explain any missteps that he may have made, missteps that could be damaging to his chance for re-election.

A Criminal Act Has Been Commit

While the White House somehow manages to avoid providing any tangible information on Benghazi, Republicans continue to press for answers although, with limited success.  U.N. ambassador Susan Rice clearly has become The White House’s sacrificial lamb, parroting carefully crafted answers that so far have been able to evade incriminating the President.  There is still no clarity as to exactly how engaged the President was, during the seven hour Benghazi ordeal, and at who’s direction it came to essentially do nothing to save American lives. It is clear however, that the White House made every effort to steer clear of any admission of direct involvement, by the President.
   
If it is learned that the White House intentionally withheld information which could be construed as potentially having affected the outcome of the election, Republican Representatives would almost certainly pass a vote on an Article of Impeachment related to withholding information for political gain.  However, with a Democratic controlled Senate, nothing short of a full confession from Obama himself would likely gather enough votes to actually convict the President of any wrong doings. 

The Cover Up Continues

Having made it through the election, the White House and State Department remain tight lipped on the matters surrounding the Benghazi attack.   During the ongoing investigation, the White House must maintain a position which absolves the President from any political missteps that could be viewed as leaving the US diplomatic compounds, in Benghazi, and its staff, vulnerable to attack as well as any direct involvement the President may have participated in, during the actual attack, which ultimately resulting in the loss of four brave Americans.

The cover-up of Benghazi is a national travesty and it seems that, at the will of the Obama Administration, Americans may never get a full and accurate account of what actually happened on that tragic day.