GFY, m’dear.

And if that doesn’t do the trick………..eat a gun.

You are one disgusting POS.

Anyone else see a pattern here?

Regards,
Peter H.

Just more proof that the POTUS is up to his eye balls in this $hit. God, what a sad, evil story he and his people have bought to us to bear. How on earth do we end this nightmare?

1. The consulate asked for security before the attack; the Obama regime refused it.
2. The Obama Regime at a minimum stood by and did nothing while the consulate was under attack for ten hours; and at worst, blocked help from getting to the consulate.
3. President Obama spent the days after the attack in which four Americans were murdered partying at fundraisers.
4. Although they knew it was a terrorist attack; the Obama Regime lied and claimed it was a “spontaneous uprising” about a YouTube video.
5. The Obama Regime has stonewalled congressional access to documents and witnesses that could testify about what happened at Benghazi.

These are facts.

I don’t think so, ILC. Hot Air (aptly named, I think).

Look at your source’s source: “Both Hayes and Karl refer to summaries of the emails, meaning they presumably relied a great deal on the notes of those at the March 19 White House briefing. Karl inaccurately quotes from one email, which may have been based on faulty note-taking or some other error.”

So, like Jazz Shaw, you are calling this issue “refuted” because of claims prefaced by: “may” and “presumably” and “great deal.” Seriously–that refutes the claim that the reporter was fed the incriminating email quote/report by a GOP staffer? Hmm…

Further, I think it is OK to say that your source “asserts” a different view regarding email content, but to say he “refutes” a claim–you know, proves it… I don’t think so, especially when his “proof” is a commentary from the National Review saying it isn’t important for the overall case. JS asserts that the “doctoring” wasn’t that important, and that the sense of the emails was the same. You can argue that, if you think that moving from “government agencies” to “government agencies, including the State Department” is a “no harm, no foul” kind of issue. Given the emphasis that GOP folks have placed on targeting Hilary Clinton, I cannot agree with you on that. Is State an important player–yes, I’ll grant that immediately. But the email doctoring turns “a player” into “THE player.” I think that distinction, given the political dimensions of the way this “scandal” has played out, is VERY important.

Especially, when the source’s source ends its commentary by saying: “Furthermore, there is ample evidence beyond this e-mail that the White House and State Department were deeply involved in editing the talking points to scrub references to terrorism.” Definitely the claim to make when the email quote specifically “included the State Department.”

But as P.T. BARNUM said, ¨There´s a sucker born every minute.¨ They must be Democrats.

The Department of Justice has an interesting problem. Holder “recused” himself from the AP subpoena fiasco. He does not recall exactly “when” he recused himself.

Ooops! Legally, Holder writes his “recusal” and directs the scope of the recusal to a named party and gives the justification for the recusal. Oh, my, Holder just gave his “recusal” orally. Therefore, he was not legally recused.

But, lets just overlook that little formality and move on, OK? Why make a mountain out of a molehill?

Let us stipulate that when any one of us veers out of control and knocks a little old lady off her pins and then backs over her, that we suddenly and forcefully believe that what “happened” is fundamentally against who we are as Americans.

Fine. We has done a little obligatory self-flagellation. Now do we tell everyone that we need to move on and make sure it never happens again or do we appoint a special prosecutor whose own ass is not on the line to investigate the facts and arrive at the truth of what happened? Understand, this is not the best way for the mendacious minions of mediocrity to push the Progressive crusade for controlling statism forward.

So what is an ideologue to do? Do you err on the side of transparency and truth or do you hunker down and play games in an attempt to get all of this behind you and move on?

As an Obama ideologue, you have to make your choice as to whether you favor a full transparent exposure of the facts and let the chips fall where they may or whether you favor protecting your leader, your Progressive ideals and your ideology in its battle to fundamentally transform America into whatever your Progressive, unstated aspirations and goals are.

Are you a useful mendacious minion of statist mediocrity and therefore believe your Progressive leaders should order “Damn the torpedoes, full steam ahead” in reaching your desired statist America? Or, are you willing to risk the discovery that there actually is something there there and permit an investigation which might possibly lead toward impeachment?

When does an ideologue back off his talking points and open his own mind? Is he willing or even able to accept the truth or is it a case of where the truth lies before he knows whether he can handle it or not?

Your comments are very slim in the serious issues department. Certainly you care whether Benghazi and four deaths were the result of inept planning and handling. Surely you care if the IRS is being used to target individuals and groups for political or religious reasons. You must care whether the Department of Justice is blindfolded so that it accords all citizens the due process of law, does not abridge the privileges or immunities of the citizens, nor deprive any person of life, liberty or property without the due process of laws, nor deny any person the equal protection of the laws and that the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

If you have some doubts or conditional reservations about investigating malfeasance, misfeasance or applying the 14th and 4th amendments to the President and his merry band of political poltroons, then state them and justify them. Sending out ridiculous comparisons and bumper sticker philosophy is to build a straw man of farce, because we all know that you are covering up questions that have negative answers and will redound badly for the Obama Administration.

Have you made yourself into an ideological eunuch who dares not allow the sunlight of truth expose the dark corners of your ideological ambitions? Can you are the merits of your methods and why they should trump the status quo in the name of unspecified change?

Simple. Still have an IRS but a much smaller organization. No audits required unless the 1099′s don’t match.

Now, get back to the all-you-can-eat buffet, you leftist cow.

LOL!

Regards,
Peter H.

And yes, I went there. Deal with it.

Regards,
Peter H.

If we don’t have an agency responsible for collecting taxes, how will the government collect taxes?

I suggest you read the following:

“In a fully free society, taxation—or, to be exact, payment for governmental services—would be voluntary. Since the proper services of a government—the police, the armed forces, the law courts—are demonstrably needed by individual citizens and affect their interests directly, the citizens would (and should) be willing to pay for such services, as they pay for insurance.

“The question of how to implement the principle of voluntary government financing—how to determine the best means of applying it in practice—is a very complex one and belongs to the field of the philosophy of law. The task of political philosophy is only to establish the nature of the principle and to demonstrate that it is practicable. The choice of a specific method of implementation is more than premature today—since the principle will be practicable only in a fully free society, a society whose government has been constitutionally reduced to its proper, basic functions.”

The source? Ayn Rand – “Government Financing in a Free Society.”

Checkmate.

Regards,
Peter H.

Despite the temper tantrums, and conspiracy theories being thrown out on this page and similar right-wing nut jobs sites, Obama’s approval ratings have remained untouched.

Oh, really? You spin more than Lynda Carter did in four seasons as Wonder Woman.

But you are wrong. Voila:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2013/05/19/worst-week-obamas-presidency-cnn-publishes-poll-saying-his-job-approv

Looks like this was the State-Run Media working with Axelrod and others to ensure Duh Won looked good.

Remember, this is the same network that trumpeted Bush’s falling approval ratings after Katrina. In fact, they polled a misleading sampling of “registered” (not “likely”) voters, which – in case you don’t know – are less likely to vote.

Try again, Wonder Woman.

Regards,
Peter H.