Podcast Episode 9: Benghazi, Ben-lyin, & Ben-spyin

Really, really big show tonight – hear that in Ed Sullivan’s voice and it works nicely.  Yes, google Ed Sullivan.

Man I’m not sure we’ll even get to everything tonight.  We are creeping up to the edge of a very big cliff, and when I say we, I mean the President and his administration.

You absolutely have to listen.

Click Here: 

Podcast Episode 9: Benghazi, Ben-lyin, Ben-spyin

Go to iTunes and search for unfiltered and unfettered and you will see our new UF logo. Click, enjoy, write review.

If you don’t use iTunes, you can find us on Podhoster: http://unfilteredunfettered.podhoster.com/

Tell us what you think, ask questions, argue with us.  Do it in the comment section below or the show’s email: theunmail@yahoo.com

OK on to the teaser.

There are 3 more graves just like Amb Stevens'.  Don't lose focus.

There are 3 more graves just like Amb Stevens’. Don’t lose focus.

Benghazi heats up again.

Whistle blowers are coming forward in droves now.  Not just disgruntled State Department employees, but current CIA operatives and admin folk.  2016 is a long way off but Hil-Dogg may be damaged goods after this.

I'd love to stay, but I got a thing

I’d love to stay, but I got a thing

White House Press Secretary’s Ben-Lyin

Jay Carney, WH Press Sec, gets caught in not one but two bold face lies in a matter of minutes in a press conference about Benghazi, the IRS, and the case of the O Administration collecting info on Associated Press reporters.  It seems the White house press corp has decided to take the gloves off.  Hmmm… I wonder what caused their change of pace all of a sudden?  Oh yeah it was because the ….

Can't improve on this.

Can’t improve on this.

…President’s Ben-Spyin

Obama administration caught using the Department of Justice to spy on reporters from the Associated Press. On the same day this story breaks, it quietly gets out that Vladimir Putin has a “US Diplomat”/CIA agent in custody, embarrasses him on Russian television, and kicks him out of the country.  Ryan Christopher Fogle was nabbed after trying to recruit a Russian into the CIA.  Too bad for Ryan that Russian was an undercover Secret Service agent.

All this plus a lively, and I do mean lively, debate on wether the Government has overstepped their bounds in the sexual education of our children.

You absolutely have to listen.

Click Here: 

Podcast Episode 9: Benghazi, Ben-lyin, & Ben-spyin

Go to iTunes and search for unfiltered and unfettered and you will see our new UF logo. Click, enjoy, write review.

If you don’t use iTunes, you can find us on Podhoster: http://unfilteredunfettered.podhoster.com/

Tell us what you think, ask questions, argue with us.  Do it in the comment section below or the show’s email: theunmail@yahoo.com

7 comments on “Podcast Episode 9: Benghazi, Ben-lyin, & Ben-spyin

  1. sassyhupp says:

    Great discussion out of the Monolith Studio 1B! I will have to side with Tony on the condom issue … Providing free condoms to our kids is not an act of protection … It’s the government circumventing parental responsibility. And … I really don’t think adults read labels much less a 13 year old. Parental education is the key … Programs that promote healthy communication within the family unit. Abstinent campaigns … Just give it a try … 🙂 love you guys … Hope you liked the new look, more to come … And the air will be on next time! … You did it again!

    • fmlinardo says:

      So a 13 year old can’t read a label or understand the warnings they will get when they try to pick up their free gov’t condoms, but they will understand abstinence campaigns? How? Plus, I tried to get the free condoms and it’s not very easy. If your 12 year old goes through the process to get them then you are not exercising very much parental responsibility anyway.

  2. Tony says:

    It’s not whether they can read or understand. There’s no comparison between a warning label or recieving a warning and a public health campaign. It’s not an argument of what they can or can’t understand. Public health campaigns have been proven be effective in changing behavior. I want don’t want to beat it around the block again but there’s more than one argument in your last sentence.

    • fmlinardo says:

      The main point of my last sentence is it’s impossible to circumvent something that does not exist. My hypothesis being, if your 12yr old runs the gamut necessary to get free government condoms, there appears to be no parental responsibility to circumvent.

      The underlying point is it’s funny to hear people claim their parental responsibility is being circumvented, subjugated, circumnavigated, etc… by the government when their 12yr old goes online to locate to a gov’t run health agency to get free condoms and then goes to that agency, by themselves, to pick up condoms so he/she can have sex with lower risk of pregnancy or disease.

      Truth be told, a child who does all that would appear to be more responsible than the parent.

  3. sassyhupp says:

    So, now your saying if the 13 year old goes to the health department to pick up their free condoms, they lack parental supervision and support? May or may not be true … but we should be careful about generalizing situations. What really bothers me about this is the message it portrays. You don’t need to involve your parents, there’s no encouragement to communicate. This is a bandaid at its worst, which seems to be the governments way of handling everything. Let’s not get down to the real issue … Let’s try to fix the result of the issue. The family unit should be nurtured, protected and supported … Not circumvented.

    • fmlinardo says:

      What’s all this “now your saying” stuff. That’s exactly what I have been saying from the beginning of the conversation on the podcast.

      How could you say you are supervising your 12 year old if they can disappear for an hour maybe two to go get free condoms? Why are they even going to get them? Why don’t you know why they are going to get them? Don’t see much supervision there.

      The engine of this discussion seems to be what you call the real issue. I don’t think we agree on what the real issue is. Consequently we’ll will go round and round without end.

  4. whatshupp says:

    That’s what I meant earlier. There’s about three different issues here and we mix them up in the argument

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s