Back in 2008 and several times since, I have posited that there are two kinds of Americans. There are those who look at the totality of our history and conclude, warts and all, that we are the greatest nation on earth. Then there are those who look at the same data and conclude that America is a fundamentally damaged enterprise in need of a complete overhaul. I noted that while the latter group is as entitled to their opinion as the former group, putting them in charge of the nation would be a terrible thing to do. If there is anything that ties together the three current scandals afflicting the Obama administration, it is this odious – and progressive – worldview.

We begin with Benghazi. Let’s skip all the political b.s., and get down to the real issue: character. We know from testimony given by former Secretary of State Leon Panetta and Joint Chief of Staff Chairman Martin Dempsey that they met with Obama less than an hour and a half after the onset of the attack on Benghazi. Following that meeting, they never heard from the president again. We also know Obama flew to a fundraiser in Vegas the very next day.

That kind of behavior is beyond cold-blooded. But if one filters it through the progressive prism, it is not unexpected. Progressives consider the military, at best, a necessary evil – but evil nonetheless. This kind of ambivalence best explains Obama’s documented indifference that had him completely off the radar, even as Americans were being slaughtered. It is the same indifference demonstrated by a mainstream media that remains fundamentally incurious about what Obama was doing during that time, even as they remain willfully uncritical of a president who didn’t let this atrocity interfere with his election campaign for even a single day.

Madam Hillary? Her quote, “What difference at this point does it make?” needs no embellishment, other than to say it demonstrates beyond a shadow of a doubt that her character is as cold-blooded as the president’s. For Obama, Clinton, their media supporters and the legions of clueless kool-aid drinkers, who see the deaths of four Americans as little more than an inconvenient tidbit in the midst of a Republican witch hunt, “there’s no there there.”

The truth about Benghazi will ultimately emerge, mainly because the people in the former group mentioned above, the ones who still believe in American exceptionalism – which includes the warrior credo that we never leave our dead or wounded behind – are not about to let that credo get tossed on the ash heap of history, especially to aid a political cover-up.

The IRS scandal accrues to the same worldview. Fundamentally transforming the nation requires progressives to remain in power – by any means necessary. Tax-exempt conservative organizations who would promote the alternative worldview represent a threat to progressive hegemony. Again the fallback (and lame) excuse being trotted by progressives out to justify the IRS’s abuse of power is that the Supreme Court’s 2010 ruling in the Citizens United case, striking down limits on campaign contributions – aka free speech restrictions – overwhelmed IRS staffers forced to deal with an “excessive” workload. How that workload would be made easier by singling out conservative entities for excessive scrutiny somehow eludes “deep thinkers” like Nancy Pelosi.

More to the point, don’t think for even a nanosecond that progressives give a damn about unlimited speech by leftist organizations such as labor unions. Once again, a worldview that insists all corporations, and more often than not, capitalism itself, are “evil,” accrues to defending the IRS, as opposed to the Americans it targeted. No doubt progressives remain equally untroubled by the revelation that religious groups were forced to disclose the content of their prayers, or that two pro-life groups were told they would have to promise – under penalty of perjury – not to picket Planned Parenthood in the first case, and give the pro-abortion platform equal time in their educational materials, in the second case.

Again for progressives, Christianity is little more than the last refuge for Bible-thumping gun-clingers, and only a fundamentally flawed pro-life organization would be opposed to leaving Planned Parenthood alone, or giving equal time to abortion on demand – all the Kermit Gosnells of the world notwithstanding.

Secret subpoenas allowing the DOJ to seize phone records from reporters and editors at the AP? The essence of remaking a nation hidden behind the rubric of nationals security concerns. First a reality check: the AP’s release of a story regarding a thwarted al Qaeda plot to put a second underwear bomber on a jetliner was initially held back by the AP at the request of the CIA. The AP published it only after they heard that the White House was going public with it the next day. In other words, the AP spoiled the administration’s effort to toot its own horn regarding its “tough on terror” credentials.

Thus a fundamental question arises: if the Obama administration was so concerned about national security leaks, why did they intend to release the story a day after the AP beat them to it? And if the DOJ was going to issue subpoenas, why wasn’t the priority to issue them to members of the administration, such as those present in the Situation Room, for example, who would be the most logical sources of the leaks? Shouldn’t the potential sources of a story be given priority over the news organization reporters to whom the information was divulged?

And in true progressive fashion, as in the ends justify the means, the DOJ violated its own protocols when they targeted the AP. Their guidelines require the subpoena of news organization records to be personally approved by the Attorney General – who has pleaded complete ignorance about the investigation. They also state that a subpoena can only be issued after “all reasonable attempts” have been made to get the same information from other sources. The subpoena must also be “as narrowly drawn as possible” and “be directed at relevant information regarding a limited subject matter and should cover a reasonably limited time period.” Twenty editors and reporters were targeted for two months. Furthermore, phone records were seized from the House press gallery, bringing up the possibility that the Executive Branch of the government was spying on the Legislative Branch.

Is that “transformative” enough for ya?

Progressives have long believed the only remedy for our fundamentally flawed nation is the continual expansion of government – with them in charge – primarily tasked with the purpose of caring for an American populace “too stupid” to take care of themselves. Yet in the midst of these emerging scandals, a great irony arises: neither Obama, Attorney General Holder or former Secretary of State and future wannabe president Hillary Clinton, has shouldered one iota of genuine responsibility for any of these debacles. In fact, these three have insisted they knew essentially nothing more than what they learned in the media.

Thus, progressivism isn’t merely about the expansion of government. It is about the expansion of unaccountable government.

The expansion of unaccountable government is the crowning achievement of a see-no-administration-evil media. Despite their current outrage, it was the media who let both Obama and Clinton get away with saying they accept responsibility for Benghazi, even when the emptiness of those self-serving statements is buttressed by the reality that neither of them have suffered anything resembling a single consequence as a result. Furthermore, few things are a better testament to the level of media corruption in this nation than the reality that a grossly inept, congenital liar like Hillary Clinton is still considered a viable candidate for president in 2016. Bet your life that any Republican candidate bringing up Hillary’s aforementioned quote will be labeled a misogynist “trying to open up old wounds” by same the media lapdogs who protected Obama – and will go on protecting him, even though they are as much of a target for this administration as anyone else. The reason is simple: they too, are progressives first, and journalists second.

Have Americans had enough? It’s hard to say. It is certainly no secret that more than a few have swapped their integrity for a government check on one end of the spectrum, while a substantial number of crony-capitalist “winners” on the other end have done the same thing to keep potential competitors down. Yet if a majority of Americans continue to elect people who hold our culture, traditions and history in contempt, what kind of future can we expect?

Sad to say, we’re likely to endure three more years finding out.