"In light of your continuing refusal to appear voluntarily for a transcribed interview, however, I have found it necessary to issue a subpoena to compel your appearance at a deposition."

Talk about the heavy hand of government. The man was willing to testify; just in public

For months the Obama admin was on the ropes. This is where they begin to come off the ropes and expose the dopey republicans for the demagogues that they are.

You can bet, if the House refuses to hold the public hearings the Senate will. Everything that Pickering has to say will eventually come out (again).

When are heads going to roll in the white house? Answer: never during his administration

Why should they if no one in the White House was culpable?

Now, a case could be made that the POTUS should be intimately engaged with the day-to-day operations of the government. However, given the size and scope of the government, that isn't possible.

Should the POTUS have to learn about politically charged issues from the news media? In a way, that is a good sign: it means that he and his political minions aren't involved in the day-to-day operations of the government; and that is a good thing.

Obama's focus is obviously on policy, motivation and national security. He appoints who he thinks are competent executives to manage the various agencies and leaves them alone to do their jobs. He will only get involved in their operations when/if the sh.. hits the fan. I don't have a problem with that style of management and neither do most Americans. After all, they re-elected him.

Here's a guy who joined the Rethugs in gutting security funding and accountability for that security at all foreign embassies.

The POTUS has openly asked for more funding for embassy security. If it is not forthcoming, he should start shutting down embassies to ensure that there is sufficient resources to provide adequate security.

The ambassador asked repeatedly for more security.

It has been reported that Ambassador Stevens was twice offered military aid which he refused.

Unless you have some kind of statistical evidence that shows Tea Party groups have a higher occurrence of tax-exempt abuse than other groups, your belief is stupid.

Because these groups were relatively new and had maintained a very public political profile, the IRS had a duty to ensure that their public persona was not inconsistent with their filing for tax free status.

Groups are profiled because they have a higher likelihood, based upon previous actions, to commit a certain act than other groups.

If that were the case, the results of the profiling stops in NYC would have terminated. Since young white males are more likely to commit mass murder, should they be profiled?

I believe that the Tea Party organizations wwere profiled because of their name; not because of their ideology. It's the same mentality that leads many on the right to justify "stop and frisk" or to support George Zimmerman only this time it was done with the Tea Party.

Profiling is wrong whenever it happens but it would be great if the populace showed some consistency in their positions.

Maybe they should have strict anti gun laws like Chicago.

Cynicism noted. However, laws aren't written just to deter crime. Laws are also written to provide the legal basis to punish people when they break the law.

Conservative groups should not have been the only ones targeted. All groups participating in the political process and getting special tax breaks should be aggressively investigated.

I will never understand why it is that students (and their parents) are not in an uproar over high skilled immigration. With some retraining, jobs going to immigrants could easily be filled by many American graduates.

As I said illegal immigration hurts blacks the most.

And the CBC just sits on its thumbs!

President Barack Obama chided Republicans on Saturday for approving a plan to ease air-traffic delays caused by federal spending cuts while leaving budget cuts that affect children and the elderly untouched.

Ok. Let's see him veto the bill once it comes to his desk.

If he doesn't veto it, he should just [shut up]!

Man, that's insane. Yeah, what we need are more tough guys with guns threatening lawmakers.

Actually, that's exactly what we need. Maybe then the lawmakers will realize that common sense gun regulations are required.

history demonstrates otherwise & each time Gvt flubs something, Gvt simply says we NEED MORE GVT to fix the problem

Aggressive prosecution of business owners/managers in criminal and civil courts that knowingly mislead regulators would curtail many of these problems. A slap on the wrist when people have died just won't do.

I think he understands he has to be careful about using dictatorial powers.

As a general rule, I agree. However, if there is a capability granted to the POTUS by the congress or the constitution, he should use it! Patching holes in the database of the mentally ill would not be considered using dictatorial powers. Prosecuting felons that try to buy guns would not be considered using dictatorial powers. In other words, he should enforce the laws that are already on the books and remove that as an excuse that others can use against him.

Congress is dysfunctional. An aggressive use of executive powers might force the congress to get it's act together. By not using his executive powers aggressively, he appears weak and feckless.

You can't fix stupid

President Barack Obama, moving swiftly after the Senate rejected a measure to expand background checks for gun buyers, acted on Friday to patch holes in the existing database dealers use to ensure they are not selling weapons to criminals or the mentally ill.

This should have been done the instant it was realized that the holes existed! I will never understand the logic that says it is ok to impose rules/regs on others when there is something left undone that is exclusively under his control to fix. Obama seems to reluctant to use his executive powers until he absolutely/positively has no recourse.

With that thinking the police can do what they want when they want is extremely dangerous thinking.

Of course it is but cops do it and, in many (most?) cases, get away with it. Even in this situation, the vet, operating within his constitutional rights, was still arrested and will have to defend himself. What is likely to happen to the cop? If not for the video tape, the answer is probably nothing: the judicial system will protect its own.

A lot of cops bad behavior happens in poor, minority communities; out of the glare of the press or dash cams; dash cams that have intentionally turned off by the cops. And because many of these communities also have high crime rates, it is easier for cops to validate their bad behavior. Cops have been bad actors for a long time in these communities and because of this, many people who live there have a totally different view of cops than do people in non poor, non minority communities.

My point with the comment to "put yourself in the position of the cop" was to suggest that the law allowing open carry is in conflict with human nature; especially given the heightened awareness surrounding gun related deaths.

The hostility comes from the cops attitude, he did not request that the rifle be unloaded or handed to him he reached for it which is not allowable under the law.

Put your self in the cop's position. If you feel that your life is at risk, whether or not you're violating someone's constitutional rights is of no consequence.

We (The NRA) are not the bad guys. We are the guys that will put our lives on the line to protect yours. Many of us are ex military and law enforcement officers. So when you attack the NRA remember who you are attacking.

That's the equivalent of saying if you criticize Israeli policies you're anti-semitic. Nonsense.

A officer can no stop anyone they want and demand anything without probable cause to stop them.

How do posters here feel about stop and frisk?

No one is a idiot for exercising their constitutional rights, the cop is the idiot thinking he can get away with violating them just because he has a shiny tin badge.

There is a difference between being right and being "dead" right.

Overly aggressive cops are a problem where ever they exist. Overt agression by cops is reported to happen quite often in urban (i.e. Black and Latino) communities. But, when it happens there, many on the right instintively take the side of the cop.

Problems (drugs, gangs, aggressive policing, etc) often incubate in poor, minority communities before they take root elsewhere.

In other words - shxt will always happen with guns, cars and life, and it will always be tragic. It will never be eliminated, and neither will the tendency of those who criticize those whose negligence caused it. There will always be those with less luck, common sense and more recklessness than others.

Precisely! That is why processes, regulations, etc. should be designed to account for human foibles.

There is a continuing troubling and sad state state of affairs from this couple, who flaunt a lifestyle while they also condemn people who can afford to live like by trying to take away their earnings under any umbrella.

Perhaps it is inside knowledge, but I have not heard of any instance of the POTUS condeming the life style of wealthy people. All it seems that he wants them to do is to pay their fair share of taxes.

What these debtors need is a job.

This is a rope-a-dope geared to win the house for democrats in the 2014 election. Obama knows that republicans aren't going to agree to any more tax cuts so he could promise them anything. Obama, and democrats by association, will appear reasonable; republicans will appear unreasonable.

Obama needs to take his "continuing campaign" to states/districts of vulnerable republicans and recalcitrant democrats. Force your friends/enemies to identify themselves and let the people decide on election day.

Because they have an obligation to maximize profit to their shareholders.

Unless a product was being sold at a loss, selling less product will not, in and of itself, maximize their profit. It will reduce it.