Yesterday the website American Thinker had a column by Steve McCann saying that the move to convince the LIV the new scandals are the result of a too big government is the wrong approach. He believes we should be pointing out to people that it is a lack of character in Washington that has created these scandals. Clean up the character in Washington, and the scandals will go away. I said that the problem with this approach is that the character (morals) of the people is no better than the character (morals) of their representatives. The author also stated that polls (never a good indicator) show that people still count character as one of the most important traits for a political representative. But people are much like politicians; it's what they DO that counts, not what they SAY. That so many people voted for Barack Obama when his poor character was clearly evident is proof that people care about what politicians are going to GIVE them, not what their character is about.

Nobody will read your post because of the way it begins. You are wasting your time here.

Forget about the guns, from what I have read, you are guilty of a crime in England if you carry ANYTHING that might be a potential weapon. When I use to jog, I would carry a small pipe up the sleeve of my jacket in case I encountered any mean dogs. Of course, it could also be useful against mean people, but I lived in a relatively safe rural area. When I was a kid in school, there were some bullies who use to pick on me, so I carried a large hat pin pinned inside my shirt that I could stick someone with. I actually used it once on a big mean boy who loved to terrorize me. Regardless of how many people were around the assaulted man, who in their right mind would jump on someone with a knife or machete when they were completely unarmed, especially if that person were much smaller than the assailants or if the onlookers were women? People MUST be allowed to have weapons available to them to equalize the discrepancy between those who are big and powerful and those who are smaller and weaker. Liberals are all about what's FAIR; where is the fairness in leaving the smallest and weakest at the mercy of barbarians?

It depends on what you call a skill. He is a restaurant manager for a large national family chain of restaurants. (NOT McDonalds) He has a degree from Ohio State University in restaurant and hotel management. Believe me, there is A LOT that goes into restaurant management than most people have no idea of. It's not something that just any Joe can do. He has been in this business for about 30-years. He use to make a very good salary with very good benefits. Then, his company was purchased by some Iranians. Ever since then, the pay and benefits have gone down. Why doesn't he leave? He has tried to leave, but when you are over 55 no one will hire you no matter how much experience and skill you can bring to a job. His employer knows this, and that's why they put the screws to him. I am a conservative, and I have always believed in the right of an employer to hire and pay who and what he wants to, but there use to be a time when owners of companies had some morals about business and doing right by employees. Not anymore. If you haven't experienced this yet, talk to me in 20 years.

Some insurance policies offered by employers now are "skinny" policies. If you are considering becoming an employee of a company, don't just ask if they provide health insurance. Ask to see a copy of the plan. I'm on my husband's plan and it's just about worthless. The only real benefit I get is from the predetermined prices that providers have agreed to under our insurance policy. The insurance company negotiates the price for services down so that what their policy holders are charged is less than what those without insurance are charged. As for the insurance company actually paying anything,..very seldom and very little.

Continued from above... Please forgive me for being somewhat off-topic here, but the "no responsibility" thing got to me.

The comment about "no responsibility" reminded me of something I heard about six months ago: “It is not our job (responsibility) to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices". Chief Justice John Roberts - Supreme Court of the United States. Our Constitution was written PRECISELY to protect the minority from the consequences of the political choices of the majority. In other words, the majority does not always make the best choices (in law, in policy or in politics) and this is why our founding fathers gave us a REPUBLIC and not a pure DEMOCRACY. A majority of the people elected Barack Obama president, but those who did not elect him and do not agree with him are STILL supposed to be protected by the LAW and the Constitution. These protections remain in effect regardless of WHO is holding political office. By extension, it is the job of the Supreme Court to make sure those permanent protections of law REMAIN in effect and IN FORCE regardless of the political choices of the majority. Chief Justice John Roberts has forever tarnished the Supreme Court by shirking his responsibility to the citizens of the United States and to their Constitution.

I wish Town Hall would stop putting Obama's picture at the top of every article. I am sick of his ugly mug.

Right. Holding someone in contempt and then doing NOTHING about it just makes a mockery of the court and our legal system.

Everyone keeps saying this is "simply a fact-finding exercise", but isn't that what all criminal trials are about - finding the facts? I ask because the inference seems to be that this hearing is not as serious as a trial and therefore rules of the court don't matter, but I am stressing that finding facts is just as important as any trial and essentially what a trial is anyway. Everybody knows that Lerner taking the Fifth was bogus because she was not attempting to protect herself. It was Barack Obama she was protecting.

The violins would have been heard around the world.