EPA - Every state has an equivalent.  A federal agency is an exercise in redundancy.  Off shore drilling can be placed under the jurisdiction of the Coast Guard.

Interior - Sell off all federal lands or return the land (except our national parks) in block grants back to the states.

Energy - Once again every state has an equivalent.

Agriculture - What does it tell you when there are more bureaucrats in the department than farmers in the field?

HUD & HEW - More duplicate nonsense.

We really only need four departments total:  State, Defense, Treasury and Justice.   

I can recall a comment by Bill Clinton regarding Obama during the primary:  "He has the instincts of a thug." 

Here's the problem for Obama.  He's ill-advised if he thinks he can transplant the Chicago way to D.C.  Washington has too many independent power bases.  That's the nature of divided government.  I doubt that Lois Lerner is willing to go down like Frankie Five Angels.  Mobs get broken up all the time, and it's usually for the same reason.  Someone decides to play ball for the other side usually as part of a plea deal.  All it takes is one person.  Eventually self-preservation is going to trump ideological loyalty.    

The rioting is not only the only problem in Sweden.  Statistics show that Sweden is now the rape capital of Europe.  It's estimated that one Swedish woman in five will suffer a sexual assault sometime during her lifetime.  Mind you, rape was nearly unknown just 25 years ago.  I just can't for the life of me figure out what happened???  The sick part is that the PC police make sure certain facts about these sexual assaults are suppressed.  And the message from the Swedish political class?  Your safety is a secondary concern when it comes to ethnic diversity.  What's Swedish for "Quisling?"    

As with Watergate in 1973-74 these scandals will drag out for quite awhile, especially if the administration continues to stonewall.  Combined with the full effects of Obamacare when it kicks in next year the table will be well set for a Republican take away in 2014.  What do you suppose will be Harry Reid's attitude toward a lame-duck, scandal ridden Obama if he loses control of the Senate?  Reid is an opportunist, no ideologue he.  The perfect man to deliver the news about a cancer on the presidency.      

test

People are getting lost in the microsphere when there's a macrosphere in play.  Bigger things are afoot than what might be covered in the daily spin.  If character is destiny, the entire raft of scandals will end badly for Obama.  Eventually a fantasy world no matter how carefully contrived falls in the face of truth.  Look for increasingly preposterous explanations leading eventually to a full-blown panic in the inner circle.  Obama will not escape this time.  He's going down for the count even if this drags out for months, which it probably will.   

More Plato and less Alinsky would have served Obama better, but it's rather too late for that. 

I'm starting to question the narrative that the order to stand down was based on indifference to the fate of the men under fire.  Roger Simon at PJM says that new witnesses are about to come forward.  The House committee investigating this matter has just begun to peal the onion.  I'm going to break the CoC by suggesting that someone got deliberately double-crossed in Benghazi.  Given the people involved my suspicion is not beyond the realm of possibility. 

Who will be the first liberal pundit to ask what kind of man would sacrifice American lives in the pursuit of an election victory?  Is there even one person on the other side who will admit the obvious?  In a sense the press is culpable in the murders because their partisan attitude convinced Obama and Clinton thought they could get away with it.  (I'm looking at you, Candy Crowley.)  Is this not the same as aiding and abetting a crime?  Where is the moral conscience of the left?  Or is the maintenance of power the only thing that matters?        

Religion provides people with a basis for moral discrimination which is why religious institutions are a primary target for leftists.  If we didn't have religion, we could do whatever we want, right?  What a utopia that would be!  "Imagine there's no religion, it isn't hard to do . . . "

I was introduced to some of Coolidge's speeches and personal letters by a conservative friend.  What struck me immediately was that Coolidge was first and foremost a moral philosopher.  He was a deep thinker and a man of tremendous personal integrity.  The contrast between Silent Cal and the current resident in the White House couldn't more striking.         

"It didn't have to happen" is only semantically correct.  The word you are looking for is "inevitable."  It was inevitable that a politicized civil service would eventually use state power to suppress the political opposition.  Whether the decisions were ordered by upper echelon apparatchiks or initiated by low level functionaries makes little difference.  Abuse of this kind is characteristic of a one party state.  The long march through the nation's institutions is nearly complete.  The left is merely showing its true colors:  mostly red.  The seed of tyranny has germinated.  If Republicans leaders actually understood the problem, they would begin the process of dismantling the institutions where tyranny has already taken root.  Not by eliminating individual ideologues, but by eliminating entire agencies.  What we are seeing now is only the tip of the iceberg.   

In the materialist worldview a man is just the sum of his appetites.  The progressive agenda would turn us all into animals, all the easier to enslave once we are fully debauched and debased.  Eventually the day comes when it's time to cull the herd.  The pogrom to eliminate humanity ends in Dr. Gosnell's abattoir and places worse.  Mother Gaia will be revealed as a bloodthirsty bitch with a taste for human flesh.  Some will accuse me of exaggeration, but others know better.  We don't have another generation to set things right.   

KC, I could agree with but for the fact that you're applying a rational and logical analysis to a person suffering from pathological narcissism.  Obama the Great thinks that he can rule by pronouncement.  If he declares that something can be done, then it's up to his minions to carry out the royal decree.  He's not interested in the details, or in a contrary opinion.  When something fails, his reaction is twofold:  a)  it's got to be someone else's fault, and b) the failure cannot reflect on him.  Obama lies first to himself to protect his own self-image.  He then lies to the public in an attempt to change the reality.  The last thing Obama is capable of doing is telling the truth because the reality would cause his self-image to crumble.  It's a form of madness insulated from reality as you and I know it. 

Correct.  The real danger is the regulatory state.  I fear we have already reached critical mass. 

I couldn't agree more, but I worry that the American mind, as per Alan Bloom, might be totally and irrevocably closed.  It's easier for most people to embrace something that is socially acceptable than to think about principles.  And I shudder at the implications.