Free Republic

This AP CEO apparently has a single-focused view of the first amendment. Surely he realizes that it begins with freedom of religion before it mentions freedom of the press.

And they were among the merrymakers when Obama decided he could force Christians, Catholics in particular, to violate their religion.

If they’d cried out against those abuses, perhaps they would make it clear that no abuses would be tolerated.

The message they sent to Obama was that he could do what he wanted regardless of the God-given rights of a free people.

Obviously, Harry is trying to change the discussion from Benghazi, IRS, AP Snooping.

How do you do that? Start a fight.

The Senate democrats would never allow specific definitions to be in any law that they would vote for...just my humble opinion.

you are the brightness of the sun and the wisdom of the wise, o thou, most famousest of all

It’s more than deceit. It’s a two-fer. He got to act tough will giving you the middle finger. EVERYONE knew Miller wasn’t in charge at the time of the run-up to the election.

I am right. I’ve been right all along.

In your case, though, you need someone to bow to your superior intellect.

Please consider this my admission that you are the master of the universe.

I have answered and posted about Miller all along. My point is, and always has been, that he’s not the one that should have been fired to get Obama off the media hook. As I’ve said again and again, he wasn’t in charge of either the IRS or the relevant department at the critical times.

No I have not, just the article above and others like it.

As always, they will not permit this without the weasel words “life/health of mother” and render it totally unenforceable.

Again, this move has the appearance of doing some good for some infants, but its result is to: (1) make others think pro-life things are being done, even though abortions are still happening, and (2) to actually do nothing, given the certainty of a “health of the mother” clause in anything that has a prayer of passing.

As always, Obama is intent on destroying our military

Thanks for the ping, Salvation.

Miracles or no miracles, a Christian who picks lice off of others so they don’t succumb to disease has my vote as a holy man.

Excellent post, and it puts in perspective why Bush was supported...why I supported him in most of his decisions.

It also again supports Bush’s unwillingness...total negligence...in defending his own decisions and actions.

Finally, you're seeing the light.

Finally, you're seeing the light.

I find it unusual that you don’t realize that Obama’s firing Miller was just a ploy.

So be it.

Go on being happy that Obama gave everyone the finger.

I suppose it’s even possible you believe Obama was really, honestly trying to make the right people pay for this.

You forget the part where Bush did not defend himself.

This is the Wall Street Journal Article in July 2010 where Karl Rove says exactly that. http://www.rove.com/articles/245

Rove writes in "My Biggest Mistake in the White House
Failing to refute charges that Bush lied us into war has hurt our country."

-- "The damage extended beyond Mr. Bush's presidency. The attacks on Mr. Bush poisoned America's political discourse. Saying the commander-in-chief intentionally lied America into war is about the most serious accusation that can be leveled at a president. The charge was false—and it opened the way for politicians in both parties to move the debate from differences over issues into ad hominem attacks.

At the time, we in the Bush White House discussed responding but decided not to relitigate the past. That was wrong and my mistake: I should have insisted to the president that this was a dagger aimed at his administration's heart. What Democrats started seven years ago left us less united as a nation to confront foreign challenges and overcome America's enemies

Nathan Bedford posted this years ago: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2412779/replies?c=13

Here is a post from back in April dealing with Cheney's emergence as a spokesman in defense of administration policy after the administration had been so unaccountably silent in the face of outrageous attacks by Democrats. The observation that Obama might not have won if Bush had defended his administration stands and to it I would add the observation that health care insurance reform almost certainly would not have passed because the damage in the Senate would have been far less if people like Al Franken had not been elected. The observation that Bush might be indicted, of course, does not stand but we have seen the Obama administration pursue those who interrogated the prisoners.

Here is the April reply:

Cheney Unleashed

I have long pondered the seeming incomprehensibility of the failure of the Bush administration to defend itself even as it was dying of a thousand cuts. It is not necessary here to rehearse the rope a dope strategy which brought Bush down into the depths of approval ratings and left his administration toothless.

One primary example of this inexplicable taciturnity was brought to light in a remarkable press interview of Carl Rove which I saw on CNN international . Rove commented that perhaps the biggest mistake of the Bush administration was its failure to defend itself against the mantra, "Bush lied and people died" in the wake of the failure to find WMDs in Iraq. Rove said he went to President Bush and explained to him that the slander that Bush lied was gaining coinage in the absence of the administration telling its side of the story. Who could blame the electorate? President Bush forbade Rove from campaigning in public or otherwise to defend the administration, saying that there were other more important issues and political capital should not be wasted on this issue. I believe Bush said that he would be content to have history judge the matter. Unfortunately, the rest is history.

I believe that this mindless policy is responsible in some unmeasurable way for putting the Manchurian Marxist in the White House. We know what happens to history when Marxists make it and when Marxists write it. In any event, Barak Obama is even today running against George Bush. Republicans cannot defend the record because of Bush's massive unpopularity. George Bush has left the party in a lose -lose situation.

While I was railing against this in post after post I could not understand where Dick Cheney stood in this affair. I think his role is now becoming clearer. Although always a relatively taciturn man, Dick Cheney is no pushover and he is certainly not bashful about speaking out on behalf of policies he believes in especially a policy that he so dearly believes in like national security. Cheney was clearly a dutiful vice president and felt obliged to follow the wishes of his chief executive. There is reason now to believe that Cheney considers the circumstances to have changed.

First, there was Cheney's offhand remark that he speaks to the president "occasionally" indicating that their once very intimate relationship might have cooled. I believe that it cooled dramatically in the last days of the administration when Bush rebuffed Cheney's pleas for a full pardon for Scooter Libby. Bush's passivity, indeed his pusillanimity especially during the early stages of the Valery Plame affair, stand as a morality lesson in irony for his entire administration. It is entirely possible that President Bush will be indicted because the Liberals acquired a blood taste for prosecutions that resulted in travesty done to Scooter Libby. The parallels to Katrina are also obvious.

Second, Cheney is no longer serving his commander in chief and therefore he is more free to speak out.

Thirdly, obviously Cheney is greatly exercised about what he regards to be the security lapses being committed by this administration and what Cheney yesterday acknowledged to be Obama's attempts to "socialize the American economy."

I believe Dick Cheney is a passionate patriot but one who never loses his cool. I believe he is profoundly motivated to speak out now, not in defense of the administration, but in defense of his country.

Question Miller all they want, get all the info they can from him. I’ve no problem with that. However, they’ll not be getting info from a person in charge of that function at that time.

And his firing was Obama giving the middle finger to all of us.

They should have fired the lady who was promoted to the ObamaCare department of the IRS. She was involved in the actual misdeeds at the critical times.

Tobasco, I spent months researching the reality of wmds in Iraq. Moreover, my own son saw them. I have no doubt.

GW, a president I fully supported on almost everything, failed to defend his administration. He simply wouldn’t do it. I believe it was Cheney who said about a year ago that that was one of their big mistakes.

Big mistake...it was a terrible decision. It was unilateral disarmament. GW play rope-a-dope when as the president he could have mentioned it at every press conference and every speech and every state of the union. He didn’t even have his own cabinet defend his decisions. They were silent.

And it killed his numbers, and that’s just a fact.

There is no longer a national consensus that makes it possible for a church to belong to or sponsor a non-church organization.

The best avenue would be for Christian Churches abiding by Christianity’s historic morality to operate their own program.

Personally, I’d like to see all of those churches find some kind of unity in that effort, but that might be a bridge too far.

If the BSA approves the gay-Scout initiative, then gay leaders will of necessity follow. For both reasons, traditional churches must be prepared to exit the BSA.

I voted for Bush, I was a self-declared Bush-bot, but even then I was extremely disappointed in his unwillingness to defend himself on anything. That entire strategy is what derailed his presidency.

Do you think that Obama, if he’d proclaimed WMDs, would have been silent about the finds that were made, to include recipes, old weapons, and fingerprints suggesting the wmds had been moved?

No. He’d have been all over that defending himself. And the result would be that the public would at a minimum understand there were 2 sides to the story.

Geithner’s leaving takes on a new dimension, doesn’t it?

Being from Cincy originally, I know that the IRS building is smack amidst those precincts that went 95-100% for Obama.

Yes. In 2009 he went from tax exempts first to Big Business department and then to services and enforcement.

Doug Shulman was the guy in charge when conservative groups were targeted. He retired and Miller took charge on Nov 9, 3 days after the election.

But not during the run up to the election of 2012.

You’re not paying attention.

If Miller wasn’t in charge at the time, then what exactly was the point of firing him.

They might as well have fired you.

Obama got away with offering up the wrong guy.

Steven Miller wasn’t even acting commissioner during the time the targeting took place. He was in charge of big business division and then “services and enforcement.”

A guy named Shulman was in charge at the time. So Obama’s firing of a guy who wasn’t even there, and who is able to retire, is an in-your-face.

see post #7

The law violated is: http://www.osc.gov/documents/hatchact/federal/5cfr734.pdf

Subpart C—Prohibited Activities § 734.301 Exclusion from coverage.

This subpart does not apply to employees in the agencies and positions described in subpart D of this part.

§ 734.302 Use of official authority; prohibition.

(a) An employee may not use his or her official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election.

(b) Activities prohibited by paragraph

(a) of this section include, but are not limited to:

and

§ 734.305 Soliciting or discouraging the political participation of certain persons.

(a) An employee may not knowingly solicit or discourage the participation in any political activity of any person who has an application for any compensation grant, contract, ruling, license, permit, or certificate pending before the employee’s employing office.

(b) An employee may not knowingly solicit or discourage the participation in any political activity of any person who is the subject of, or a participant in, an ongoing audit, investigation, or enforcement action being carried out by the employee’s employing office.

(c) Each agency or instrumentality of the United States or District of Columbia Government shall determine when a matter is pending and ongoing within employing offices of the agency or instrumentality for the purposes of this part.

WHAT DO YOU THINK?

It is a tyrannical thing to put health care under the IRS.

Carville is correct. There will be a frenzy with the mainstream media, but somewhere along the line, in a few weeks or so, they’ll intentionally steer this back to their support of Obama’s socialist and anti-family policies.

A month or so seems about right to me.

Rinos and Cinos, lapdog followers that they are in too many instances, will then pick up the lamestream news agenda and allow these to leave the front page.

The conservative, internet media will not let it go, nor will Hannity, Rush, Ingraham, and Malkin in the radio/cable media. O’Reilly is already ready to toss two of the issues overboard so “America” can “focus” on just one, Benghazi.

This forecast is based on: (1) No special prosecutor being appointed, and (2) No huge break in either story.

Since Obama controls special prosecutors, he’ll never allow it.

The idea of a huge break is hard to define, but a smoking gun pointing to a cabinet level or higher official will qualify.

§ 734.302 Use of official authority; prohibition.
(a) An employee may not use his or
her official authority or influence for
the purpose of interfering with or affecting
the result of an election.

§ 734.305 Soliciting or discouraging
the political participation of certain
persons.
(a) An employee may not knowingly
solicit or discourage the participation
in any political activity of any person
who has an application for any compensation
grant, contract, ruling, license,
permit, or certificate pending
before the employee’s employing office.

Would this be a violation of the Hatch Act or any other provision prohibiting government employees from interfering with an election?

In normal formatting, 100 pages equals one hundred emails, and probably no more than 2 or 3 hundred emails.

This is NOTHING. It is merely a sound bite as part of an information game played in the media.

didn’t know that

thought they were immune...and there’s always retaliation

Is it actually possible to sue the IRS?

for example....

:>)

The word opportunist was created for just these occasions...

Something I've meant to ask each time this discussion comes up: If the car if going due west at 65 and the fly is going the opposite at 5, then from the observer's viewpoint, is the fly going 60 mph?

The same with the earth. If the earth's rotational direction is east, and the fly and car are both going west, is the speed from the observer's position 1100-70mph, 1030 mph.

And is a runner's speed faster or jump longer if running/jumping from the west to the east?

The pretense is that there is no place else to cut out of the DoD budget.

That is pure BS.

Abolish the IRS.

They have entirely too much INFORMATION.

Note that I did NOT say power.

If it’s related to Petraeus, I hope it has to do with the criminal ROE’s OUR ground troops are required to observe in a combat zone.

If it’s related to Petraeus, I hope it has to do with the criminal ROE’s are ground troops are required to observe in a combat zone.

A fine and penalties didn’t stop it this time, and at other times.

Let’s not kid ourselves. The IRS needs to be fundamentally changed as does our entire tax system.

The very nature of finding out what someone’s income is INVITES abuse.

Better to tax ONLY at point of sale of some purchased item. My private means of securing the income with which I buy anything is then NOT a subject of anyone’s interest.

Their only interest is whether or not the sales tax was paid or not paid. And a receipt will verify that.

The UMC does not bless sodomy. Our denominational position now and in the past, and victoriously fought for so far, is that homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching and that homosexuals are not to be ordained or married in our churches.

That is verifiable by those who wish to check it.

Of the denominations you mention, our evangelical Christians have fought the good fight and have so far succeeded.

The media is silent about that success and, therefore, believers from other denominations don't hear about it.

My message to Christians like you, Cronos, and me is to reject the UMC hierarchy but to support the laity who have led this fight. Support our overseas churches, and our evangelical churches in the USA, because it is those churches who put us over the top.

Better yet, let's get rid of income taxes and these stupid distinctions and all other taxes but one, and institute a sole source of revenue for all levels of government, a sales tax.

Since impeachment is an action of the House, it is a possibility. Conviction being an action of the Senate, that will never happen.

What value is there in impeachment alone? It makes an historical statement of grave abuses of power by the president.

Much speculation on Free Republic at the time about tracking MANPADS that had been given to the Libyan rebels.

That was the subject of articles from other sources and speculation by many.

I recall at the time reading of many troublesome aspects of that mission. Wasn’t there also an issue with no backup bird available for SAR or fire support...something like that???

While David wrote the above, I think he left out a word. "I could see no SCRIPTURAL basis for a belief....etc." in the second sentence of the above excerpt. It makes all the difference.

Assumption, Immaculate Conception, Coredemptrix, and Mediatrix: with the possible exception of "The Assumption", all the above four are without scriptural foundation that I have ever read.

Scott Hahn, in one of his books I've read, suggests the Assumption is depicted in Revelation 12. I don't think it's a close call, but there is a bit of a point there.

I'm open to hearing scripture that does provide a foundation for those beliefs.

The old line goes, “You’re entitled to your own opinions, but no one is entitled to their own facts.”

The problem is what defines “fact”. For some, citing another’s opinion constitutes a fact, either because the cited one is an ancient, a famous person, or some kind of subject area professor.

As if those folks did not have opinions.