Author: Frederick Henry

Retired army

Obama Administration Lies Again.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/obama-administration-denies-role-arming-syrian-rebels-232112058.html  How can we ever believe the Obama Administration?!  Please note that in the USA we consider the government to belong to the people.  The present managers of the government are called the administration.  I think this is true of Western European Democracy in general.  For instance, the Queen of England is the Head of State and the Prime Minister is the manager of the government.  However,  the Obama administrators seem to think of themselves as being the government and the citizens as being the enemy.  That is why the lie to us constantly, try to work around and not with the Congress and are persistent in undermining the foundations of our system of governing.  Happily, more and more of the main stream media like the Washington Post, and the New York times are taking their journalism seriously and have stopped pandering and covering up for the first black president in US history.  Now they are reporting the facts as they have always known them to be and the facts tell us a story of a government that consistently lies to its people.  Jay Carney, the spokesperson for the Obama back room cronies, is constantly disingenuous and plays with words trying to tell us that gray is red and orange is really not a primary color,  So what, Mr. Carney, aiding the rebels with …communications equipment that we know they will need when they have achieved the objectives we want and expect… is just a polite way of saying that we back the rebels against the government of Syria and that we are covertly Partisans in a covert operation to topple the Assad government.  Are we really so self-righteous that we think we can aid and assist rebels to kill legal police, army and government officials of a sovereign nation and use bombs to cripple the Syrian national infrastructure, while claiming in public that we back UN peace plan?  The legal government of Syria has every right to defend itself against outside provocateurs and instigators of internal violence in the same way that we defend against those we claim are terrorists.  Would not the USA government attack those who tried by force to overthrow the Obama administration?  Why does the United Nations condemn member governments that try to maintain stability within their internal boundaries?  Why doesn’t the International Criminal Court in the Hague indict the USA for criminal aggression and crimes against humanity when it is our assistance that fosters, promotes and sustains criminally violent behavior?  Strangely and surprisingly it is V. Putin and the government of Russia that stands as defender of the integrity and sovereignty of Syria while it is Obama and the USA that is attacking that nation with the intention of installing a puppet USA friendly government in Damascus.  And as for War Hawk and Monger Mc Cain.  I should think that he would abhor war since he is a victim of it.  Instead, he seems to promote war and destruction at every opportunity.  Shame on him.

Sarkozy Under Investigation?

http://news.yahoo.com/sarkozy-faces-slew-probes-immunity-ends-092003356.html  As I read this news story, and it is news not commentary, I wonder about all the moral high ground and moral posturing by Sarkozy when he spearheaded the criminal aggression against Libya.  Only a few months ago it was Sarkozy the Just against Gaddafi the Vile.  Back then, it was the France of Joan of Arc, the Britain of Churchill, and the USA of George Washington against the dirty desert dictator from Tripoli.  Back then the contrasts were so stark.  It was the tent of Libya against the Versailles of Sarkozy’s France.  But reading this article one’s eyesight focuses and the distinctions turn into desert sands which constantly morph into different shapes.  This writer has been consistent and is still committed to a “Realpolitic” that holds the self-righteous to the same standards they set for others.

In the USA, which is my county, our leader and his party have denounced terror and terrorism.  President Obama was quick to criticize the CIA for “waterboarding” which he called torture.  There was constant posturing as the Democratic Congress people like Pelosi and Senator Reid smirked about the terrible George Bush.  But today we witness President Obama willingly ordering political murder.  I have lost count of the number of assassinations by aerial drone the USA has committed.  We are told that the targets of these killings deserve what we deal to them.  They are terrorists we are told.  They are suspected of terrorism we are told.  They must be executed where they are before they have a chance to send terrorists to us.  Regularly, we are reading of another pinpoint assassination of some supposed terrorist or other as though the drone kills only the single human and leaves all others unharmed.  But we know that a drone is an aerial bomb and the alleged terrorist is joined in his death by all those around him.  Are none of the associates innocent or is anyone even standing in the vicinity of the drone’s target to be considered worthy of death?

Sarkozy, Cameron and Obama need to be investigated and also the United Nations and NATO should be called to the Bar, not only for political impropriety but also international criminal aggression.

Syria, a blockage in Obama’s Plan for a New World Order

http://news.yahoo.com/syria-holds-parliament-vote-opposition-boycotts-073812291.html  The rebellion in Syria will continue because the rebels state clearly that they will accept nothing other than the fall of Assad.  The article further states that the rebels regard the elections to Syria’s parliament as a sham and theat they will ignore anything that happens through the election process.  It is obvious that the rebels are not cooperating in the cease-fire and they are not cooperating to bring peace and stability to Syria.

This writer agrees that the Western powers, especially NATO should not in any way get involved in Syria’s problems.  I fear that the Obama administration will get very involved if Obama gets elected again.  Why di I think that>  It is because of Obama’s ideas concerning One World Government.  It is because the President has been restrained only due to his re-election efforts.  It is because of his remark to Mevedev that …tell Vladimir (Putin) that I will be unfettered after I am re-elected.  This reference to being unfettered concerns Obama’s disdain and disrespect for the US Congress which he regards as an odious roadblock on his path to one world government.  According to his ideas of a new world order, Obama sees the USA Congress as parochial and even meaningless.  He wants the USA to be under to world order that allows the United Nations and the European Parliament to have direct influence and even legal standing in the conduct of government in the USA.  Under such a one world government, the World Court in the Hague Netherlands would have subpoena power in USA, the United Nations would have legal standing so that the small arms treaty would be law here and Interpol could arrest and remove US citizens wanted by the Courts of Europe.  So, I believe that in a second term President Obama work tirelessly to bring about USA subservience to International Courts, European Tribunals and United Nations mandates.  In fact, he may even oversee the change of the world monetary system away from the dollar and toward a world currency denominated by the Chinese Yuan.  This letter move would make the USA a Second world country fast on its way, due to Obama’s redistribution of wealth schemes, …well on its way to third world status.

But some ask, surely such a thing cannot happen in the USA.  We have laws and a Constitution and an elected Congress.  Yes, but our system is based on the good will and the integrity of our leaders to act according to the law and to accept with integrity  the authority of legally elected officials over the central government.  It is based on the concept that our Federal government officials love America, think of their job as, first and foremost, the protection of the freedoms, rights and privileges of the USA citizen and their intention, in every way to abide by the rule of law.

However, the Obama administration is evidence of a group of elected leaders who mesmerize the population with their political craft all the while undermining and fundamentally changing the way in which the government rules.  The undermining was most obvious during the Obama Care process when Senators were bought and sold according to the dictates of the President.  Congressmen were told that their districts would get special money if the Representative would sell their vote to the Obama people.  Senators were promised as much as three hundred million dollars in federal grants to their States if the Senators would sell their votes to Obama.  And all were told that what they were doing in the Senate was merely to allow the Obamacare bill to be put onto the floor of the Senate so that discussion could begin.  What could be wrong with that?  But as soon as the bill was on the docket  all floor debate was immediately limited to a few hours and Harry Reid used his power to control procedures and the Bill was quickly rammed through.  It was hard enough to shove the ObamaCare bill through using deceit, bribery and brazen power.  Now try to get  two thousand pages repealed!  Noteworthy,  is the swiftness of the federal bureaucracy to disburse the pertinent parts of the two thousand page Bill to the various federal agencies and then to implement as much as possible with lightning speed.

I deeply regret to state the obvious, but those are the methods of dictators like Hitler, Stalin, Chavez.  Heretofore, the USA has not experienced such disregard for the will of the nation and its institutions.  But if the Obama people are going to insure yjr implementation of their view of the world and the way they think that the USA should be in the future, he needs and will continue to need to work very fast to fundamentally change the USA.  Hey, why do you think the Congress is balking?  It is not about Obama the man.  It is about Obama, his helpers and their plans to fundamentally transform the USA into a place where the Congress is disregarded, the Courts are circumvented, the Constitution is ignored and the New World Order instituted.  But you say, not in America and not Obama!  He has such a nice voice and such a pleasing smile!

I have written elsewhere on this blog concerning the deceit of the Obama administration regarding Libya.  The lies were so plain that they were incredible.  That is what Josef Goebbels called audacity.  That Nazi leader’s creed was to tell the people a lie often enough and they will believe it.  As NATO bombed (over two thousand bombs dropped on Libya) and used missiles, (over 220 cruise missiles shot into Libya) the USA administration told us that all the destruction was needed to protect Libya civilians.  And then as we assisted the rebel militias with advisors and used our European surrogate to arm the rebels, we hunted Gaddafi until we murdered him.  Now we are using the International Courts to ferret out all remains of the former legal Libyan government so we can try them in Netherlands for so-called “Crimes against Humanity.”  But, you say, those are the bad guys and they deserved to die!  Is the USA the Chicago Mafia and is Obama the Don? And are our USA Armed Forces the hit men? And our arsenal of drones the murder weapons?  Are we using our SEALS as a hit squad?  Is the US Air Force the weapon of political assassination?   It is a frightful thing when the President of the USA can order the murder of a suspected terrorist or someone implicated in attacks against America by sending a drone to kill them.  Effecient? Yes.  Effective? Yes.  And you say that our leaders will never use such weapons against ordinary people and surely not against the citizens of the Nation.  I hated Alawaki and he hated the USA and we “took him out” with a drone.  That’s called political murder.

As an American I find myself shivering to write that in the current events of today I look to Russia and to China as bulwarks against an unfettered Obama regime. Although communists, these nations were awakened from their slumber by the audacious lie which was NATO’s Agression against Libya.  I believe that Putin saw the danger of unbridaled American Imperialism and along with his Communist Chinese friends decided never again to fall for the NATO and UN lie as evidenced in resolution 1973.

To be continued….

 

Roman Catholic Nuns May Not Want Jesus but They Want to Stay Roman Catholic !

http://www.gosanangelo.com/news/2012/may/04/tensions-building-between-liberal-nuns-vatican/?partner=yahoo_feeds  The article cited here is the most recent indication of a societal opinion that does not make sense.  The key paragraphs in the article are the following:

A pivotal moment came in 2007, when Dominican Sister Laurie Brink delivered the keynote address at a national LCWR assembly stating that it was time for some religious orders to enter an era of “sojourning” that would require “moving beyond the church, even beyond Jesus.”

With the emergence of the women’s movement and related forms of spirituality, many sisters would see “the divine within nature” and embrace an “emerging new cosmology” that would feed their souls, said Brink. For these sisters, the “Jesus narrative is not the only or the most important narrative. … Jesus is not the only son of God.”

A year later, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith opened its investigation of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious.

My understanding the word “sojourn” is that it means the same as to journey or to travel.  So Sister Brink is saying that a person can be a Roman Catholic Nun but without the Roman Catholic Church and she can also be a Christian without believing that Jesus is the Son of God, the second person of the Holy Trinity and the Savior promised to the world by the Holy Bible.

The problem with this position is that it is non sensical.  If sister Brink wants to say that an individual can regard themselves to be Christian but without Jesus that’s fine but that is not what she says nor wants.  She wants the individual to be able to declare themselves an official Nun of the Roman Catholic Church without the Church or its approval.  To cut the argument short, I ask, can someone declare themselves to be my child but without biological birth from my wife and myself?  Well, they can declare themselves to be that but just declaring it does not make it true or factual.  A person may feel within themselves that are one of my progeny but they cannot therefore move into my house, eat my food, take my money or represent themselves in legal proceedings as being my child.

I seem to remember this type of case happening before in the case of Father Hans Kung of Germany.  He held the official chair of Roman Catholic theology at a German university.  However, his teaching were not in consonance with the official teaching of that Church.  When Pope John Paul removed him from his teaching position there was an outcry.  Academics condemned Rome for suppressing freedom of speech.  However, the Vatican was very clear.  It said that Father Kung remained a priest of the Roman Catholic Church based upon the doctrine of “Character indelible” (A doctrine that declares when a priest is ordained he is ontologically differentiated and that differentiation cannot be undone by human action.) The Holy See also declared that Father Kung was allowed to write, speak and teach whatever he wanted, to whomever would listen and at any time and place.  However, he was no longer regarded as a theologian of the Roman Catholic Church and his teaching should not be regarded as representing the official Roman Catholic theological position.  Essentially this is analogous to President Obama dismissing his Press Secretary and saying that his views no longer represent the views of the Obama administration.

I will not labor the point of faith versus the Faith, except to declare that personal faith in “the divine within nature” and embracing an “emerging new cosmology” is most likely shared by thousands of Roman Catholic Christians, however such personally individual faith is not the same as the Faith and should not be deemed representative of Roman Catholic theology.  Which is to say that persons can embrace such thinking, (whatever it means since it is very vague) but even as a lay catechist they cannot teach such.  This is especially true in the light of the final quote in this report, namely, the “Jesus narrative is not the only or the most important narrative. … Jesus is not the only son of God.”

Why, because Christianity is essentially about Jesus.  The three great ecumenical creeds clearly affirm Jesus as the “only begotten of the Father” and “In Jesus His (God’s) only Son our Lord. conceived by the Hoy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary.”

The Vatican is not declaring that the nuns are not people.  It is not saying that their dedication to social work and community building is unworthy.  It is not declaring that the personal private opinions of these woman is condemned.  What the Vatican is saying is that if they want to be considered official representatives of the Roman Catholic Church then they are required to adhere to the teachings structures and procedures of that Church and that if they have issues with such items they can petition for redress of their complaints.  However, they cannot unilaterally present their personal opinions, prejudices or stereotypes as being officially Roman Catholic.  At least for this writer it is a no brainer.

How do you see the central issue?  Are there other societal examples declaring something to be true which is obviously not true? What is the result when we accept that merely declaring something to be true makes it true? Has anyone read Animal Farm by George Orwell?  Do the pigs practice “truth by definition?”.  What does the horse think of it?

The reports never mention the opposition forces that seek the overthrow of Assad.  Like with Libya, the Nato nations want to interfere and force the government to fall.  However, if a group of anarchists, or any other political group sought to overthrow the Obama government by force, it would be deemed treason and it would be suppressed by force and the perpetrators would be liable to execution.  So why is it different with Syria?  Obviously, the Obama government is already involved in the overthrow of the legal government of Libya by outside force.  In former days, the crime against Libya would have been condemned as criminal aggression and under Nuremberg rules it should be treated as a crime against humanity.

In the case of Libya, the Russian and Chinese were promised that UN resolution 1973 was merely to use NATO military force to protect so-called innocent civilians.  Once approved by UN, the British and French attacked the legal armed forces of the Legal Libyan government.  The excuse was that the army of the government “obviously” must be attacked in order to protect civilians.  After the 212 cruise missile strikes and the first two hundred jet fighter attacks against military installations inside of Libya, Vladimir Putin objected.  However, it was too late.  The drum beats of war had begun and the French and Brits would never accept that they were acting illegally.  So they increased their attacks with assistance from USA and the government of Belgium.  (It is very noteworthy that all three governments have a dirty colonial history of racial imperialism and genocide. (Belgium in Central Africa under King Leopold) However, the Academic community and the mass audience to Internet and TV reporting allowed themselves to condone criminal and wonton aggression because the “horrible” Gaddafi bombed a civilian aircraft over Lockerbie.  (Noteworthy here is that the Brits accepted the actual perpetrator of that crime to gain asylum in Europe.!)

Again Putin objected but to no avail and the military organization known as NATO ferociously attacked the Libyan government . And the world, its response was silence or cheering.  Silence because no one really cared about the Libyan people and cheering because of hatred for Gaddafi. By the way, NATO was originally meant to protect against Russian aggression. Amazing double standard that now they are open, obvious and arrogant aggressors.

All of this brings us to the current impasse with Syria.  The Russians and Chinese were betrayed with UN resolution 1973 and so far they have vowed not to let that happen again.  The NATO nations spent billions to wage war against Libya.  They have no taste for that kind of expense again.  They have expended their war budgets.  And the USA?  Carney’s admission of “defeat” is precursor to the coming proposal that the world community again take up war in the region.  And don’t forget the Iranians.

Obama is right not to arm the rebels.  Our own civil war dealt with the problem of outside forces as the British tried to interfere on the side of the South.  However, Carney does not mention if the Brits, French and Belgians are also refraining from funding, and arming the rebel insurrectionists.  In the light of NATO’s duplicity in the case of Libya, this writer thinks that they are secretly arming, advising and funding the insurrectionists.

When President Kennedy got involved with the war in Vietnam he decided to back the insurrection against President Diem.  The result was the murder of the President of South Vietnam in the back of a truck.  Kennedy, a co religionist with Diem, (both were Roman Catholic) intensely regretted the regicide of Diem.  Sadly, he was himself assassinated by those who have no respect for law or morality.  So far, the Obama government is content with political assassination by drone. And although the Obama government is guilty of complicity to murder Gaddafi, they have not committed to regicide by drone against Syrian President Assad.  If they did, the morality would dictate that political assassination of government leaders is righteous and therefore permissible, for anyone who thought the other guy was a so-called dictator and therefore illegitimate.  In these times when we express our politics forcefully and opening, I am sure that many individuals regard the government with suspicion.  Yet, we do not advocate violent overthrow.  What is moral for us should be our guide in dealing with others.

Dick Morris . Com

“The info about the number of fundraisers is interesting.  It is also interesting in terms of misuse of power since he rode in Air Force one for all of them.  He should not be allowed to pass that off because the SS (Secret Service) insisted.  The SEALS took out Osama not Obama.  So why is Obama taking credit for Osama?   As a former CIA person said on the news yesterday, it is startling to note that the Obama administration thinks that waterboarding live prisonerss is inferior to killing them outright.  I guess the reasoning is that intentional murder is preferred to intentional torture! I write a lot about this on my WordPress blog, Progressivepolitics.com”

I wrote the foregoing in answer to Dick Morris’ video concerning the deal between President Obama and former President Clinton.  I wholeheartedly agree that the deal is dirty, but for a difference reason.  I believe that former President Clinton has never been able to adjust to life away from the center of power.  That is why he stays around Washington and is actively engaged in politics.  He liked the position of power and the perks that went with the Presidency.  He thought he owned the White House when he lived there and has never gotten over the fact that President Bush had it for eight and now President Obama four years.  I believe he yearns for those days when he was the main man at the big house.  I also think he realizes how foolish he was to squander those days by an affair with Monica L.  As for Hilary, she settled for Secretary of State for the same reasons.  She missed the White House, and the tremendous array of personal services offered to the First lady by obsequious political functionaries.  A Senator?  In that position she never approached the luxury and power afforded her as wife of the President.  Sad to see her guzzling down a beer at the bar in South America!  So, we have the persons who formerly were fielders of power cutting a deal with the currently powerful in order thereby to win an election that presents them with continued power and access to personal services that would make a king blush.  Maybe it is better to have a five-year Presidency with no opportunity for re-election.  Ford went home, as did Carter.  Bush 41 and Bush 43 also relinquished the reins of government with ‘Elan.  But it looks from here like the Clinton’s and the Obama’s want to hold on so bad that they will put up with each other to achieve it.  Elect Romney and let the new broom sweep the house clean.

Gingrich Expected Fox to favor Him.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/newt-gingrich-cnn-less-biased-fox-news-141511492.html In this article Speaker Gingrich plays loose with facts in favor of “…Callista and I…” Spouses are always very protective and defensive of their partner. I can imagine how difficult it is for the spouses, who are not running for office, to see their partner trashed in the news. However, this writer has exactly the opposite evaluation of Fox. I have wondered why Fox is against Romney and consistently, in my view, worked to give everyone other than Romney an opportunity to destroy Romney. Strange and filled with wonder, how two or more people can look at facts and come to completely different conclusions.

Ann Romney Does Support Her Family

http://news.yahoo.com/ann-romney-fights-back-debuts-twitter-counter-dnc-024814954–abc-news-politics.html The last comment from this Democrat spokesman is that Following the interview, “Rosen herself tweeted, “I’ve nothing against @AnnRomney. I just don’t want Mitt using her as an expert on women struggling $ to support their family. She isn’t.” A true stay at home mother most certainly does support her family in terms of money. The value of her work makes it possible for the spouse to work. This comment is typical of the Democrats who have no experience with reality. Many families cannot afford nannies, or private daycare for their infants and children. The spouse who stays at home, who is often female, contributes the equivalent in dollars and much more in value. Her contribution is dismissed by the likes of Rosen who is snotty about stay at home moms and their monetary value to the family.