by Lawrence Fox
Let us get this straight.
This administration told us that there were no scandals and
there was certainly no coordinated cover-up between the White House, State
Department and CIA as it related to the debacle in Benghazi, Libya. We now know
the White House, State Department and CIA were warned about the impending
threats in Libya, but did nothing because the CIA was running guns to the Muslim
Brotherhood in Egypt and Syria from the same embassy.
No Cover-up?
Then the administration told us there were no scandals and there
was certainly no coordinated cover-up between the White House, State Department
and NSA as it related to the collection of millions of private cell phone
messages, e-mails, and on-line communications between law abiding American
Citizens -- while all the time arguing that profiling Islamic Jihadists was
immoral, but profiling law abiding Americans is a moral good and
necessary for national security. We now know every progressive liar in the US
works for the present administration.
Spying on Law-abiding Americans?
Now the same administration - after things really start to heat
up – tells the world there exists a coordinated effort on the part of the
Hope and Change?
Well I guess we will know soon whether it is psychologically possible for a psychotic administration to allow one embassy to be destroyed and lie for
political gain and then actively protect other embassies and lie for political
gain. Or will we soon find out how gullible Progressive Americans
remain. Either way, the Law Abiding U.S. Citizen is experiencing "Hope and
Change."
There are two cold hard facts that we have to acknowledge. First, the attack in Libya could have happened under any administration. Second, the security efforts being employed by the government would just as likely be taken by any administration. The Obama administration is no more powerless to prevent attacks or vigilant in trying to do so than any other administration has been or will be.
ReplyDeleteYou dislike Obama for other reasons. So of course you are going to blame his administration for issues that would be common to anyone trying to govern this country.
If we had a devout Catholic or right wing Christian in the White House, you would be supporting the President for the same issues.
Dear Bill,
ReplyDeleteThis is not true. If a Republican were in the White House, and handled the crisis as disgracefully as Barach Obama, we would be equally as outraged.
This the man whose friends witnessed him leave the situation room to play 15 rounds of Spades while he supposedly was supervising the death of Osama Bin Laden. Here is the news online:
"On the day Navy SEALs were raiding Osama bin Laden’s compound in Pakistan and killing the 9/11 mastermind, President Obama didn’t spend every moment in the White House situation room. Instead, the commander in chief played cards in a private dining room that day, too — about 15 games of spades, in fact, his former personal assistant Reggie Love recently told a UCLA forum." Obama is the man who used Air Force One to transport only his dog to a vacation!
In Benghazi, there was firepower available, a brave man who lost his life by shining a red light on the insurgents, which could have been taken out (but the order came to stand down), and everyone agrees that no one but the president of the United States could have given the order to stand down. U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens was gay. Barack claims to care for this type of person. Christopher Stevens was even Barach's friend. But he threw him under the bus, just like he did with his own white grandmother, and his former pastor Rev. Wright, and the American people themselves. Re: the Benghazi crisis, the worst in his entire Administration, no one can tell us where Barack Obama was? Was he in the situation room where he should have been? Or was he in the card room playing spades? Obviously, this is a cover-up par excellente otherwise the Administration would have disclosed what the U.S. President was doing during the several hour Benghazi criss. Have you read anything about the condition of Stevens' body after he was tortured and murdered? He apparently had been raped repeatedly by the insurgents. Do the American people know that? Can you find any news truthfully describing the condition of the body? Stop reading the general media. Research the issue online. The general media is not interested in the truth. Literally, we have to read British newspapers to find out what is really going on. God bless you. Susan Fox
It is funny what people will say about others when they don't like them. It's also funny how they will defend them when they do like them. I like our President. I am ok with him playing cards while waiting for news on a special mission. I myself played cards when my wife was in a critical operation to remove a tumor from her back. What else could he had done but just sit and wait for news.
DeleteI have noticed how Catholics will hardly ever say anything bad about the Church, its leaders, its scandals, etc. But they are all over the slightest misstep of the President. It's just human nature.
Dear Bill,
ReplyDeleteYou are judging us and wrongly.
Please see the article on this blog: "Boy Scouts: Sold Down the River Again by the U.S. Bishops"
http://christsfaithfulwitness.blogspot.com/2013/05/boy-scouts-sold-down-river-again-by-us.html
At National Catholic Register I have countless posts criticizing the U.S. Bishops. I just finished lambasting them for the abuses in Catholic Relief Services and Campaign for Human Development. (probably won't be published until Tuesday) I am sure there are complaints about the Republicans too at NCR. You should see the letters I send to my Republican representative in Colorado. I blister his ear. God bless you. Susan Fox
I read your article about the Boy Scouts. So, you have a problem with their new policy of not discriminating against gay applicants? You see it as a threat to traditional marriage?
ReplyDeleteYou would deny a boy the experience of scouting for admitting to be gay? And this is your idea of criticizing the Church? I'm talking about criticizing the Church for its intolerance, not for its tolerance.
Dear Bill,
ReplyDeleteYou criticized me for not criticizing the bishops. Now you criticize for not criticizing them according to your opinions. I can't criticize anybody according to your principles because I have explained they are anathema to me. I criticize the bishops (it has nothing to do with whether I like them or not). I criticize the Republicans (it has nothing to do with whether I agree with them on some things). I criticize Barack Obama, and it has nothing to do with the fact that he doesn't agree with me on other issues. I am incapable of criticizing anyone for violating your opinions because I don't share them. This is not a valid basis for criticizing my remarks. God bless you. Susan Fox
If the USCCB says it has no problem with the new Boy Scout policy, I would think, as a Catholic, you would recognize their authority and accept their position on the matter. Of course, I would berate you for doing the same if i disagreed with their position. I know, right?
DeleteDear Bill,
ReplyDeleteLawrence has written an article in response to your comment that we are criticizing Obama because we don't like him. You said, " I have noticed how Catholics will hardly ever say anything bad about the Church, its leaders, its scandals, etc. But they are all over the slightest misstep of the President. It's just human nature." Please read, our response: 'Barack Obama: A Shameless Marxist Ideologue" at
http://christsfaithfulwitness.blogspot.com/2013/09/barack-obama-shameless-marxist-ideologue.html
God bless you. Susan Fox
Absolutely not! Pope John Paul II said that these types of national conferences of bishops have absolutely no canonical status whatsoever. That means what they do has no authority for a Catholic, and what they advocate can be very fallible. Bishops only have authority in their own individual dioceses.
ReplyDeleteGah! You hit my seeing red button. I'm sorry. In the 1990s, priests were busy moving the tabernacle with the Real Presence of Jesus Christ into side altars and the broom closet! In one such case, we asked the pastor why he was doing this, and he said he HAD to obey "Art and Environment," a document of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. It was produced by some committee and never received the approval of all the bishops anyway. But he didn't have to obey that! It had no canonical status whatsoever. But, of course, at that time, Pope John Paul hadn't told us that yet, so we were ignorant. Man, I went to that parish again this summer (it's in another state), and I AM STILL STRUGGLING to forgive that priest, who is still the pastor! God bless you. Susan Fox
I don't know of many churches where the Eucharist is not on a side as opposed to the middle. As for in a "broom closet", the closest I've seen is at a prison chapel used for all religions and denominations. I've never heard of a Catholic church doing that.
ReplyDeleteI of course don't believe in the "Real Presence" and I know how impossible that would be. I call that a "Catholic Thing". One of those things that make Catholics so different from the rest of the world. They wouldn't have it any other way.
None of the churches in Italy or Rome moved the tabernacle to the side. Many U.S. Parishes are in the process of moving them back to the center. It was only in the U.S. and because of that document Art and Environment that any tabernacles were moved. I'm glad you don't know of any parishes where the Eucharist is in a broom closet. I do. It could be because I have lived in a lot of Western States, and you haven't. God bless you. Susan Fox
ReplyDeleteBill said: There are two cold hard facts that we have to acknowledge. First, the attack in Libya could have happened under any administration. Second, the security efforts being employed by the government would just as likely be taken by any administration.
ReplyDeleteBill hard cold fact #1 is not true. We think that the Obama Administration was using Benghazi as a staging point to ship weapons into Syria to the Muslim Brotherhood.
Here is an article about that:
Whatever the State Department and CIA were doing in Benghazi likely “had a direct connection to U.S. policy in Syria,” Rep. Frank Wolf (R-Va.) said Monday evening.
During a discussion on the “unanswered questions” surrounding the Benghazi terror attack, the GOP congressman suggested that the State Department and CIA could have been stockpiling weapons for Syrian rebels when the U.S. compound came under attack on Sept. 11, 2012.
“Were these rebels being armed with weapons collected in Benghazi? Again, there is reason to believe this may be the case and a clear explanation is warranted,” Wolf asked, according to a copy of his prepared remarks obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.
Because Congress is currently debating aiding Syrian rebels with military strikes against the Assad regime, Wolf says it is “more important than ever that the Congress understand U.S. support and assistance to Syrian rebels and either groups responsible for the American deaths in Benghazi may have been at the same time benefiting from U.S. assistance in Syria.”
He went to say that Congress needs more answers on Benghazi before it can make an “informed decision” on a military strike against Syria.
“The two [issues] are intimately related and may [have] a direct bearing on U.S. national security,” Wolf added.
The Virginia lawmaker suggested holding a public hearing with former CIA Director David Petraeus and current Director John Brennan.
Cold Hard Fact #2, there were planes and manpower nearby that could have stopped the torture and murder of U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens. A brave U.S. American shown a red light on the rebels location and back up was nearby but the order came from the White House to stand down. And the brave American was murdered by the rebels he exposed. This clumsiness could not have happened except under Jimmy Carter or Obama. Susan