Neither you nor I are able to insist that our definition is the ‘natural’ or ‘legal’ one, and, vice versa, those who consider that life exists only ‘at birth’ or even, only ‘when wanted’ cannot make us, in our own lives, accept their definition. But this leaves the state in a dilemma.

The state CAN, nationally, establish a law that defines life and thus, that law must abide by the Constitution. It has, instead, chosen only to make abortions legal. This puts the definition of ‘what is life’ back into the hands of the people but, by extension validates the second definition of life. My point is only that such a definition must be decided by the people not by government.

That means, in the states, and by referendum. Note that no matter which definition one chooses, another person will reject it and choose the other definition.

Obama was not lying about telling the truth about the lie he now claims wasn’t vetted until the truth was known to not be a lie, so the original semi-lie will not be considered a total untruth until a new, coherent lie can be supplanted for the provisional truth that was superseded by the first temporary lie.

Updates as they come in…

Social issues are very important to a people and must never be within the hands of a government – unless you want a Taliban or totalitarian style nation. Instead, decisions about these belong to the people at the local/state level and by referendum. Never, ever, to a federal government. The GOP should insist on this.

The constitution already has provisions against abortion in the 5th and 14th amendments.

“No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws..”

We are already living in a totalitarian style society where innocent children are massacared by the millions with no protection under the law. Even if the constitution didn’t protect human life, state’s rights don’t trump human rights.

That’s what you wrote. I said that the CIA said that no-one asked THEM for help. The Benghazi CIA and Seals certainly asked for help but my suspicion is that they asked their line-of-authority, which I suspect was the WH or State Department or DoD.

ETAB on November 16, 2012 at 4:41 PM

Read this again. Slowly. And carefully. Then tell me where you got it wrong.

I can’t explain it to you in any simpler terms if you refuse to understand even what you post.

Few know about this story. Fewer care.

We need to find out the truth to honor the four fallen Americans.
If this is too much to ask, then we are in a world of hurt.
Maybe BO will trade not falling off the cliff for the truth about this matter.
Also. You don’t get orders to Stand Down, unless you have been told to Stand Ready.
Did I hear the Reid won’t allow for a Special Committee?

It’s not going to emerge from the Benghazi investigation. It already exists and is both the cause of the Benghazi massacre and the source of its cover-up.

jules, our concern over Benghazi has nothing to do with any political party but with the integrity and ideational principles of the USA. A massacre, caused by our very own government’s refusal to secure its ambassador, and refusal to assist a consulate under attack, is a violation of our integrity as a people.

Because Obama The Corrupt is going to slither out of it, as he has done with EVERY concern around him, doesn’t mean that such an investigation should not be done. It MUST be done and be on record.

I fully agree with you about your concerns about the GOP – but this is an entirely different issue from Benghazi. I agree with you about the GOP Establishment (who backed Romney). My own view is that the GOP should reject social issues (abortion, gay marriage) as absolutely outside of the duties and interests of a federal government. A federal government’s duties refer to the economy, fiscal, security of person and property, foreign relations and interstate infrastructure. Period.

Social issues are very important to a people and must never be within the hands of a government – unless you want a Taliban or totalitarian style nation. Instead, decisions about these belong to the people at the local/state level and by referendum. Never, ever, to a federal government. The GOP should insist on this.

The Democrats ran almost entirely on social issues. Their economy? Heh, they hid Obama’s economy and ran on Clinton’s economy.

But the Benghazi investigation is a vital one. Because we, the people, matter. Even if Obama doesn’t.

ETAB on November 16, 2012 at 6:19 PM

Roger Simon sees one likely fallout of Benghazi:

What may emerge [from the Benghazi investigation] is a kind of government by cabal, a super-government composed of David Axelrod, Valerie Jarrett, Eric Holder, and possibly a few others who operated, in the service of the president, above and beyond our legal and constitutional systems — all the time thinking what they did was for the better good of our country.

All the time thinking they loved this country so much that they should turn it on its head and transform it into the antithesis of itself.

We can only hope that their corruption, hubris and thuggery collapses soon under its own weight, as it appears the GOP has neither the political courage nor moral fiber to stop them.

RINOs and foxnews want us to keep talking about Benghazi and how to win latinos because they don’t want to face a simple truth: Moderate Republicans are LOSERS. The Obama team knew they would win by turning out their base (they gave up on independents when they chose to be pro gay). Republicans won in 2010 by turning out their base. That’s how Elections are won in a very divided America, not by being moderate.
It’s time for Conservatives to take over the Repooublican Party and remove the RINOs who are still in position of power…

This whole Benghazi non sense is a distraction that won’t hurt Obama at all (it did not during the Election and will certainly not going forward). Let’s clean house within teh Republican Party instead…Let us silence the RINOs that are killing the Party.

The fact that Obama has subjected, and I mean the term, almost the majority of Americans into dependents, people who depend on government funding for various or all aspects of their life, is a tragedy. And the fact that this same majority don’t understand that the ‘government’ has no money itself; it takes all its money from other people, from taxpayers. And from future taxpayers by borrowing, borrowing, borrowing…that’s another tragedy.

Now, the WH is suggesting that the Petraeus Talking Points memo was changed to ‘protect national security’. Huh? How?

Is it because to say that it was an Al Qaeda attack is more harmful to our security than, as the rewritten memo said, that it was due to the quick spontaneous anger of ‘extremists’? Hmm. Or is it that taking out Al Qaeda, which is to say, removing any hint that terrorism is a reality and instead, suggesting merely emotional extremism (anger at the video)…suits the Obama team’s self-identification of We Conquered Terrorism? I know which one I think is logically plausible.

Meanwhile, the Obama team is declaring that ALL departments associated with security OK’d the edited Talking Points memo. No, they didn’t; the CIA certainly didn’t approve these changes.

And, the Obama team is busy supporting Rice as a ‘victim’ of public anger, who simply read the points in the memo. Now wait a minute. IF all security departments; the CIA, the DoD, the State Department AND Obama knew that it was terrorism, then, how could they let Rice go out and present a false scenario?

Again, as I’ve said before, Obama is a master manipulator and pathological liar. He’ll slither out of this, as he slithered out of Fast and Furious. He’s very good at blaming YOU, the questioner, for daring to question Him. Or not submit to Him.

ETAB on November 16, 2012 at 5:43 PM

Looking ugly, isn’t it.

A commenter – CatDaddyKSC – on Breitbart.com has an interesting theory:

Consider this possibility … the talking points came from the CIA, and they were altered by the campaign people in Chicago. The coverup has been about hiding the sharing of classified information with campaign officials who don’t have the proper clearance. This sharing of information could also be the source of the earlier leaks such as the virus in Iran’s nuclear program.

The coverup has been about hiding the sharing of classified information with campaign officials who don’t have the proper clearance? Hmmm…

However, I’ll stand by my own view that Petraeus was ordered by the WH to stress the video in his testimony on Set 14th, but then, when more facts began to come out, and the WH tried to put all the blame for not answering Benghazi appeals for help..on the CIA…well, Petraeus refused to allow that. He put out HIS memo that rebutted the WH claim..and Obama fired him. Obama is not a collaborator, not someone who works with others. It’s His way. Or no way.

petfrt, yes, I’d also agree that Obama is out to destroy the military. I think it’s well known that the military loathe Obama; Obama, as a pathological and very malicious narcissist, can’t allow them this freedom, and he’ll be out to destroy them. How many four star generals has he gotten rid of?

tommyhawk on November 16, 2012 at 12:06 PM

Heh so much anger and hatred with this one. So much so that it is willing to turn a blind eye to this debacle. What a tool.

CW on November 16, 2012 at 4:31 PM

You just insulted all self respecting WORTHLESS tools world wide! (this loser would need a billion dollar upgrade just to achieve tooldom)

And the battle for truth is between Him and the CIA. He’s out to destroy the latter. And he’s a master at manipulation and lies.

ETAB on November 16, 2012 at 3:00 PM

Maybe out to destroy the military also?

the red herring of Susan Rice

As you said, the WH is using Rice to deflect scrutiny from their own culpability, notably in altering the intelligence report. As Roger Simon pointed out, legal lines may have been crossed here with a political campaign redacting or helping to redact classified material it should never have seen in the first place.

Then, the WH moved in on Petraeus and told him that they need to reduce the image of it being a terrorist attack and IF he wants his job, he’ll suggest that it had a lot to do with the video. That was Petraeus’ basic error. He obliged the WH.

ETAB on November 16, 2012 at 2:53 PM

Maybe he’s so caught up in the culture of corruption that he didn’t give it a second thought when he saw his talking points removed. He gave the boss his assesment – he’s thinking he did his job. Boss wants to change history – who is he to say No?

It could be that this is just he way DP acted in this White House all along.

You think differently and don’t seem to include Obama in this debacle. I do. I consider Obama the first and final cause in this whole scenario. He’ll blame anyone and everything except himself.

ETAB on November 16, 2012 at 4:41 PM

What anyone “thinks” is not of concern.

Only what can be proven – which a lot of people around here seem to forget. What did Obama know? Was Obama even awake for all this? Was he on the Golf Course or something? Was he watching it all unfold and belting out orders?

We don’t know.

The only thing we know for sure is that the organizations running underneath him are fairly fu$ked up. That can be blamed on Obama and I think is an impeachable offense – if we had anyone with spine on Capitol Hill to make that happen (which we don’t).

Beyond that – he could have made some seriously bad decisions here personally – but we really don’t know for sure yet. It could be just that he’s overdelegated a lot of sh!t.

I think that Petraeus’ first talking points memo asserted that it was a terrorist attack, and the WH removed these facts from the memo they gave to Rice to publicize. Then, the WH moved in on Petraeus and told him that they need to reduce the image of it being a terrorist attack and IF he wants his job, he’ll suggest that it had a lot to do with the video. That was Petraeus’ basic error. He obliged the WH.

But then, the WH, having to answer the new emerging public information that help had been requested and refused, tried to pin that refusal on the CIA. That ended Petraeus’ going along with the WH, and he issued the memo that the CIA had NOT refused help. So Obama fired him.

ETAB on November 16, 2012 at 2:53 PM

Rings true to me.

That’s what you wrote. I said that the CIA said that no-one asked THEM for help. The Benghazi CIA and Seals certainly asked for help but my suspicion is that they asked their line-of-authority, which I suspect was the WH or State Department or DoD.

[Furthermore, I said that you were misquoting the ARTICLE on the CIA, not the CIA.]

The CIA and Seals in the Benghazi annex were told to ‘stand down’ and not go to help the Consulate. Who told them this? I suggest it was their line-of-authority. And that wasn’t the CIA.

What I think is going on, with the unravelling of this story, which Obama is trying to contain, is that Obama is trying to pin the blame for HIS actions of refusing to acknowledge the Benghazi terrorist attack…on anything and everything. First, it was the video. That failed. Then, the CIA. Petraeus is fighing back, not for himself, but for the CIA.

You think differently and don’t seem to include Obama in this debacle. I do. I consider Obama the first and final cause in this whole scenario. He’ll blame anyone and everything except himself.