I recall hearing all the horror stories of people going bankruput and losing everything becasue they or a family member got sick. And it was all blamed on the evil insurance companies beacuse they refused to pay out when money was needed. However, in those cases when you looked at it... the individual either didn't have a policy or the policy was a "skinny" one that only covered certain things... and what they got wasn't one of them. That skinny policy allowed them to spend less... but made them vulnerable to the horror stories we heard. Now the government is pushing people towards even skinnier policies which will make that issue worse. WHY? I think it is so that they can make that big push to single payer and then control people even more! Br. Carson got it 100% RIGHT when he said that everyone should get an HSA when they are born. And let their parents purchase a low cost hospitalizationg plan to use when something serious happens. LET it roll over if unused and if you need more, then your Hospitalization/emergency policy kicks in.

The problem with relhying on the legal definition of "is" is that it change depending on what you need it to be. I prefer to use the dictionary definition... These guys are crooks and all need to go... Sensenbrener is the first one I've heard say what I'm actually thinking needs to be done. So good for him...

I would not call her back... I would call other witnesses and build the story from the bottom up. She is at the top and because of that has other motivations, like protecting others, that will stop her from going to far. But those who are at the bottom of the issue who are now being blamed don't have as much freedom to just change jobs.. the are career people without the wherewithall to relocate or chage careers. Get those people started and it will point to what she did... and others too. When you get to that point, then you pick out the big fish and use the middle fish to get them by offering immunity to some. Bringing her back now would change the focus of the investigation to her... and away from what actually happened and who knew what when.

Regardless from if she waived her rights or not... she definitely misstated what the purpose of the 5th amendment is. She stated that it is to protect the innocent... that is what many think it is for but that is incorrect. The 5th is in place to allow someone an opportunity ONLY to not incriminate themselves.... And that is why the miranda rights are read when someone is arrested. You see, being an american and governeing in america is a complex thing... The laws direct what can and can't be done... not mob mentality where you just string someone up becasue they appear to be guilty. Governing in our system is difficult, but there are ways to get information other than coercing someone in to admitting something that they may or may not have done. That is what the left is missing... that citizenship and governing in our system is complex and hard. It is not supposed to be easy where you can just accuse someone and then trump up some story to hold them or eliminate them just because you don't like what they think,. That is why we are such a great nation... because its difficult to be an american as you have to live by the rule of law. period!

That protection is total BS... if you participate in illegal activities you can be let go in a heart beat. If you choose to fight that, then you are free to do so... but you are gone. And if you are even suspected of participating you can be suspended... both with or without pay. And again, you have the same opportunity to appeal. Union membership is not freedome to do anything you want and they can't get rid of you... it can be done. It just has to come from the top. And by their excuse making on this issue the obama administration is showing that they are sympathetic to what was done... if not acutally invovled. And both of those are damning of their ability to be trusted for the balance of their term. Not a good thing...

This is her assignment... to go out and fee this line of sillyness, that it wasn't brought up by Romney during the campaign there fore its just republicans phishing for something to "get" obama with. One thing about that... I didn't know that Elijah Cummings was a republican. (ditto for Max Bacaus). But I lost my point... this is just the story that Finney has been assigned to float. There are going to be a bunch of others that are just as dumb. But these will be what the hard left democrats and there media pals will make be the story. And if one of them seems to get traction... well, that's the one they will all run with. i.e. it was the video in Behghazi. To bad that these types of people get a microphone on the air... even at a low viewed network like MSNBC... as there are those out there who think because they are on the air they are experts. ANYONE can read talking points... and they all follow their orders.

They HAD to close... because we all know how violent those TEA party people are.

When crimes occur and the law enforcement officials are the ones committing them... who is going to press charges?

I asked my wife this morning at breakfast when we are going to hear that Atkinson's personal data was also looked at. Guess 3 makes it official.... cross the administration and you will be investigated. These guys are going to go down from their own feelings of invincibility and disregard for the law. Based on the arrogance they exude as they happily go on TV and lie to us about this being something that the republicans have contrived and give us some faabricated story with a 3rd grade level of believeability (apologies to 3rd graders everywhere...)... it is going to be fun to watch them twist in the wind as they go down.

So lets translate for the low information people out there exactly what Carney said... OK, OK... you've caught me in the lie that no one in the white house knew anything abou this until the new report last week. Yes, some of the senior staff did know about it,... BUT, they didn't tell the precedent. HONEST they didn't... he doesn't know anything. Wait, let me reprhase that, as the precedent is the smartest guy to ever hold the office. He didn't know anything about the IRS targeting conservative groups. And you can go to the bank with that... Note, that it says he DIDN"T know... that has multiple meanings and one can be that he didn't know before... but then someone told him and now he does know. Honest.. you can trust him this time. Really, you can... just look at his face... how can anhyone not trust that face? wait, that's Jerry Seinfeld... that you have to trust his face.