Leave Afghanistan Now

http://news.yahoo.com/us-commandos-hand-over-troubled-area-afghans-085617778.html

President Obama said that this was the war that absolutely must be won. NOT. America is in fast retreat from this hell hole.

Secretary of State Kerry, as a Senator, said that the Afghanistan war is the true war for freedom and democracy. Now he is making deals with the Taliban.

President George W Bush thought this was a significant place to fight against terrorism, ignorance and Muslim bigotry. NOT.

Is it any wonder that the USA under the Obama administration is in full retreat from Afghanistan?

The writer of this blog does not agree with the idea that because we have already spent the lives of thousands of Ameria’s best patriots, therefore, we need to stay and spend the lives of thousands more.

Rather, I believe that the entire Afghanistan venture was a total and complete waste of time and effort. That our young men’s lives were tragically wasted. And that Bush, Mrs. Clinton, Obama and Kerry are responsible for the carnage inflicted upon American families during this twelve year long stupidity.

Therefore, the USA should immediately and completely withdraw from Afghanistan. We shoud not consult with, seek the approval of. nor worry about, the silly Karzai government. We should just order our troops to destroy all USA equipment in Afghanistan. We should order the total destruction of all USA installations in Afghanistan. And this is to be done by a few dozen volunteers who will remain after we unilaterally and immediately withdraw 100 % of the the USA forces from that nation State. As to the contractors? They got there by our USA government and USA military machinations. Therefore, give the USA government and military a “secret date certain” for the 100 % withdrawal and get the very highly paid volunteer civilains out,However, only after we are certain that our volunteer military forces are safe to leave.

Let Afghanistan have Afghanistan. And Allah bless them as they build their nation upon the principles of Islam.

Vatican Official Response

February 23, 2013, Saturday — Communique

“…news reports abound which are often unverified or unverifiable, or completely false…” –Communique this morning from the Vatican’s Secretariat of State, released at the Vatican Press Office

The Vatican Speaks Out

Evidently concerned that the upcoming papal conclave to elect a successor to Pope Benedict XVI (the conclave is now expected to be held between March 10 and 15, though the date is not yet fixed) may be subjected to undue “pressure” from outside the Church, this morning, the Vatican Secretariat of State released the communique printed below.

The hope expressed is that the cardinals entering the Conclave be completely free to make their choice of the next Pope.

The desire expressed is for the complete freedom of the Church, libertas ecclesiae, from information, and from disinformation.

The fact that this Communique was thought necessary shows how seriously the Vatican is taking the current situation in the media, with rumors of all types swirling and spreading across the globe in mere seconds.

Clearly, the Secretariat of State is concerned about the danger that an individual cardinal, or the Conclave as a whole, may be unduly influenced by overwhelming “pressure” from outside the Church.

At the same time, there is a growing feeling among the Catholic faithful that the best way to ensure that such undue pressure is not exerted, that the “freedom of the Church” is protected, is for more of the truth about the “Vatileaks” affair, and the results of the investigation of the three cardinals into that affair, to come out.

As one reader (but there were dozens like him who have written to me) put it in an email this morning: “All the people and the faithful want, is the truth. If this continues to blow up as it would appear, then the Vatican should release the report. The people of God deserve the truth and nothing less, despite what may offend or injure the Church’s reputation. This has similar tones of cover up like what happened with the sexual abuse world wide. Let the cleansing begin.”

=================================

Secretary of State Communiqué on Conclave
(Vatican Radio) Please find below a Vatican Radio translation of a Secretary of State communiqué on conclave, issued Saturday:
“The freedom of the College of Cardinals, which alone, under the law, is responsible for the election of the Roman Pontiff, has always been strongly defended by the Holy See, as a guarantee of a choice based on evaluations solely for the good of the Church.
“Over the centuries, the Cardinals have faced multiple forms of pressure exerted on the individual voters and the same College, with the aim of conditioning decisions, to bend them to a political or worldly logic.
“If in the past it was the so-called superpowers, namely States, that sought to condition the election of the Pope in their favour, today there is an attempt to apply the weight of public opinion, often on the basis of assessments that fail to capture the spiritual aspect of this moment in the life of the Church.
“It is regrettable that, as we draw near to the beginning of the Conclave when Cardinal electors shall be bound in conscience and before God, to freely express their choice, news reports abound which are often unverified or unverifiable, or completley false, provoking damage to people and institutions.
“It is in moments such as these, that Catholics are called to focus on what is essential: to pray for Pope Benedict, to pray that the Holy Spirit enlighten the College of Cardinals, to pray for the future Pope, trusting that the fate of the barque of St. Peter is in the hands of God.”

Here is the same text in the original Italian, for those of you who would like to check the one against the other:

COMUNICATO DELLA SEGRETERIA DI STATO

La libertà del Collegio Cardinalizio, al quale spetta di provvedere, a norma del diritto, all’elezione del Romano Pontefice, è sempre stata strenuamente difesa dalla Santa Sede, quale garanzia di una scelta che fosse basata su valutazioni rivolte unicamente al bene della Chiesa. Nel corso dei secoli i Cardinali hanno dovuto far fronte a molteplici forme di pressione, esercitate sui singoli elettori e sullo stesso Collegio, che avevano come fine quello di condizionarne le decisioni, piegandole a logiche di tipo politico o mondano. Se in passato sono state le cosiddette potenze, cioè gli Stati, a cercare di far valere il proprio condizionamento nell’elezione del Papa, oggi si tenta di mettere in gioco il peso dell’opinione pubblica, spesso sulla base di valutazioni che non colgono l’aspetto tipicamente spirituale del momento che la Chiesa sta vivendo. È deplorevole che, con l’approssimarsi del tempo in cui avrà inizio il Conclave e i Cardinali elettori saranno tenuti, in coscienza e davanti a Dio, ad esprimere in piena libertà la propria scelta, si moltiplichi la diffusione di notizie spesso non verificate, o non verificabili, o addirittura false, anche con grave danno di persone e istituzioni. Mai come in questi momenti, i cattolici si concentrano su ciò che è essenziale: pregano per Papa Benedetto, pregano affinché lo Spirito Santo illumini il Collegio dei Cardinali, pregano per il futuro Pontefice, fiduciosi che le sorti della barca di Pietro sono nelle mani di Dio.

As regards the material handled in the Moynihan Letters, the writer of this blog has a tendency to believe everybody. I think there is some truth in all that is happening. However, what that truth really is, nobody knows. This aspect of Vatican politics can be very frustrating. However, I believe that the approach of Dr. Moynihan is realistic, reliable, and interested in that which is considered by many to be the best for the Church. However, I also agree with the officials of the Vatican who rightly exposed and emphasized, as Dr. Moynihan did in his second report, that the reports and stories swirling around the Vatican are really rumors and sometimes rumors based on previous rumors.

I would also agree with those who say that historically, this kind of environment is not unheard of in the Vatican. It is a small place. It is a government and a Church. It is international in scope and far reaching in effect. So, it really shouldn’t surprize us. Nor, if it does, should it automatically cause us to become self righteously judgemental regarding the people of the Vatican.

Obama Administration’s Foolish About Benghazi

http://news.yahoo.com/libya-militia-linked-u-attack-returns-benghazi-141851547.html

The Obama administration is the reason for the continued terrorist success in Libya. Why? Because Obama backed the rebel insurgents and terrorist Islamists who fought against Gaddafi. Using the romantic notion that all the Islamic countries needed was a breath of fresh Spring air, Obama ignited and then supported what has become a nightmare of terror for Libya, Egypt, and Syria.

A glaring fault of the Obama administration’s worldview is directly attributable to the President. He seems to think that simply forcing an autocratic government out of power will automatically produce a grass-roots movement akin to the American Revolution of 1776. However, the governments of Libya and Syria are autocratic for a vast array of social, ideological and tribal reasons. The leadership of these regions, like that in Iraq and Iran is based on powerful clan and tribal allegiances. These forces produced the autocratic governments, perpetuated them in existence and reinforced their continuation into this era. The obvious breakdown of Libya and Iraq into competing tribal and clan factions, each at war with the other over land, influence and Islam, is evidence of the correctness of this analysis. Yet, the Obama administration, its State department and the CIA that serves him, followed an amateurish plan based on romantic notions of hope and change.

Surprisingly, it is Vladimir Putin who is the voice of a seasoned and reasonable national policy regarding the Mid Eastern nations in general and Libya and Syria in particular. Putin was betrayed during the illegal aggression against Libya which was carried out by Obama, Cameron, and Sarkozy. In conjunction with the Belgians, these three leaders had gotten United Nations permission to protect rebels forces fighting against a member of the UN (Libya). But the UN resolution 1973 was then used by these leaders as a cover under which they engaged their nations in criminal aggression against the legal government of Gaddafi, a government, which until his murder by the rebels, was recognized by 103 nations as the legal government of Libya. The criminal aggression was carried out by bombing, and strafing the legal army of Libya by NATO forces. It was carried out by the use of 213 USA cruise missiles fired against the legal army and government of Libya by NATO. The illegal aggression was carried out by the use of USA Special Forces personnel on the ground in Libya who aided the rebels, guided the bombing raids, and spotted for the missile attacks. The entire affair enraged Putin because it was illegal under International law. But the powerful Belgians, French, English and Americans were never called accountable. Instead, the puppet press of the Obama administration depicted the Libyan aggression as a war of freedom against tyranny.

Evidence of confiscated weapons shipments by Russia to the Syrian government of Assad, seems to indicated that the Russians are doing legally what the USA did illegally. How so? The Syrian government, like the Libyan government of Gaddafi, has an internationally recognised right of self-defense against all enemies foreign and domestic. By the way, it is illegal, regarded as treason, and punishable by death, if a citizen or group of USA citizens attempts to overthrown the federal government by force. So, what’s the difference with Libya? Oh, I forgot! We declared Gaddafi a dictator and that made every illegal and criminal action that we took, well, it made our action right!!??

Strange, isn’t it, that a former Communist KGB agent, Vladimir Putin, should be more of defender of national sovereignty and I believe in Libya, of national self determination, then the Obama administration?

Gaddafi had moved very forcefully to attempt to atone for his terrorist actions in Lockerbie. He acknowledged the crime and paid the blood money. Which, although Westerners do not agree with the process, is nonetheless, regarded as an expiation for the crime. So, if the relatives of the victims accept the blood money, they are required to exonerate the perpetrator of the crime. (Hey, I don’t agree either. But if we are going to play the game and accept the money then we cannot secretly decide that we have other rules that we apply to the game that are unknown to the other participant.)

Gaddafi had stopped all Nuclear bomb development in acquiesce to American demands. He had stopped all International terrorism funding and activity in return for USA government recognition of his government. A fact attested by the visit of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to Gaddafi.

However, President Obama did not honor the promises of the previous USA administration. President Obama reneged on government to government agreements. He decided to repudiate the promises of the USA made to Gaddafi, instead using our prestige at the United nations to get Resolution 1973 passed and then using it as a legal cover for illegal and criminal aggression against a sovereign Libya government, an action which was condemned by Nuremberg when it was done by the Nazi against Poland, etc.

The amateurish and cavalier approach of President Obama to foreign affairs in terribly illustrated by his handling of the Benghazi murder of four Americans, including Ambassador Stevens. It seems that President Obama thinks that he can engage in acts of war and then walk out of the oval office and go to bed, leaving the conduct of the war to others. But what is his plan? What is he intending to accomplish? What is his focus in terms of the macro and micro scenario of international politics? Where is his instruction manual for what he intends for his officials to achieve? Just saying to his staff, “handle it.” and then going to bed is not the basis for policy, anymore than just giving a speech on a USA issue is the same as the proposal of legislation to the Congress.

Speeches and statements to staff to “handle it” are evidence of a politician who is not engaged in governing. They are the cavalier statements of a person who has little regard for the mechanics of real life government. Maybe, Obama thinks that all he has to do is think and speak and everybody else has to work.

Hilary Clinton is an Old Woman

http://news.yahoo.com/ap-interview-clinton-raps-benghazi-critics-084552064–politics.html

It is time for those of us, and I too am 65, to give over and let the younger generation have a time at bat. This is why I am appalled by those who want to run Hilary Clinton in 2016. By then she will be 70 and frankly, although I too, do not think of myself as old, nonetheless, she and I are old, and it is time to give over the world to our children.

Regarding Benghazi, it seems to me that she should just move on and be a grandmother. Her last grandstand is merely a revenge tactic against fellow citizens who do not agree with her view of what happened and what we can do about it. She is merely trying to focus attention upon her critics and not upon the facts. And this is doubly egregious since her whole speech is about the real world and the facts. Yet, she is spinning about others and ignoring the false information from President Obama about the video, and the false talking points from some bogey man in the CIA, and the false statements on national television by the USA UN ambassador, and the weeks of administration insistence upon the video and the mob.

Mrs. Clinton lashes out at others as being not realistic, while she and the Obama administration attempted to blind fold the American public to the facts of Benghazi and her own and President Obama’s failure to treat the attack realistically. She, and Obama, and the joint chiefs and the CIA and the FBI were all watching the events as they were happening. It is the same as watching a person on a public street being attacked by a gang of four knife wielding crooks and doing nothing about it. Because that is what she and President Obama did, they watched it happen, did nothing about it and went to bed as our citizens were tortured and brutally murdered at our embassy in Libya.

Mrs. Clinton should not be allowed to escape the verdict of the people that she and President Obama failed, and that they covered up by lying to the Press and the American people. Both she and all involved should not be allowed to turn the tables on her accusers. She and President Obama were in charge, our military was at the ready and it was Mrs. Clinton and President Obama who failed to grasp the gravity of the real life situation and instead waited for some kind of magical solution as they watched our citizens die in Benghazi.

This writer is not a Clinton hater and I know that many admire Mrs. Clinton for standing by her man during the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Nonetheless, Benghazi is something that we cannot ignore in an attempt to “honor” a spurned wife. Some would ask why I bring up the impeachment over the Lewinsky scandal. Some would ask why I bring up Mrs. Clinton’s own evaluation and scathing criticism of Obama when she was running against him. I do it because history is real and no amount of good intentions or fervor in favor of a particular person should blind us to the facts. In fact, Mrs. Clinton’s parting speech says the same thing. However, she wants to apply the rules to others but not to herself. Well, friends, that is not real.

Obama Intends to Disobey Court Order

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/white-house-rejects-nlrb-ruling-recess-appointments-unconcerned-202214680–politics.html

The President’s statement of rejection harkens back to a Supreme Court ruling regarding the Cherokee Indian nation whereby President Andrew Jackson expressly disobeyed the court, displaced the native american indians and sent them to the concentration camps, also know as Indian reservations. This has been a national disgrace and cause for great national mourning until this day. President Obama can simply ignore the Federal Circuit Court and go forward and it would be up to the House of Representatives to introduce a bill of impeachment because of Obama’s actions. This bill of impeachment, which is an indictment or accusation, would be sent to the Senate for the trial of the President for usurpation of power and illegal action by abrogation of power not granted to him by the Constitution.

Putin’s Policu On Mid East Better than Obama’s

http://news.yahoo.com/russias-vladimir-putin-says-west-fomenting-jihadi-blowback-173800021.html

President Obama should get outside his Muslim childhood and hear the real call of Islam which is a called to radicalism, terrorism, and Jihad. All of these are against democracy and freedom. Instead they are religious, medieval, and tyrannical. It is very surprising that V. Putin, a former KGB agent but for the second time, the President of Russia, should see the world with more clarity and realism than B. Obama. Yes, you can throw the relative state of freedom and democracy in Russia against me. Nonetheless, Putin’s realistic and politically incorrect assessment of the Terrorist Islamic movement in Mid East, is accurate and should be given a lot of attention.

A Citizens Call to Action On Gun Control

https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/mindset/a-call-to-duty/?utm_source=SilverpopMailing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=CCR%2012-21-2012%20Prospects%20(2)&utm_content=

A very thoughtful and passionate prposal for citizen action in light of school invasion and children’s murder.

White Americans Versus White Americans

0users disliked this commentFrederick • 1 day 7 hrs ago

“We are in the midst of historic cultural and demographic changes,” What does that mean? And if it is true, how is President Obama the architect of cultural and demographic change? Surely, he is not the father of all those demographic people and he is not the author of their culture. Is this a reference to President Obama’s race? Isn’t that racist? Is it a reference to the Muslim influences on his life? Isn’t that also stereotyping and could be considered prejudice? Didn’t the father of modern racial attitudes say that we should judge a person by the content of their character and not the color of their skin? I am wondering how many media people see President Obama as a black man? Would MLK have preferred us to see Obama as a man who is is black? What does Obama himself want? Does he think of himself as a black man or a man who is black? Can a white person think of themselves as a white person or a person who is white and what’s the difference?

3 View all 3 Replies

v1/comments/context/722c65d1-5ccf-33aa-8ee9-2f39cd35ce54/comment/1355943394839-0b995661-15b5-4c8c-a90f-793392323ace/reply/00004s000000000000000000000000-76b6c41e-e70d-4d64-86d7-732e8560ee90

0users liked this commentRate a Thumb Up Rate a Thumb Down0users disliked this comment

M • 1 day 6 hrs ago

He is not their father but their representative. He is actually the architect because he is representing all of the different races and idealogies, instead of any other presidents who has only represented white christian bigots. And yes he is happened to be black.–Or is he?
0users liked this commentThumbs Up Thumbs Down0users disliked this comment

Frederick • a second agoRemove

Sadly, you thing that White Christians are bigots. But that is the problems. White people are taught not to be proud that they are white and that they have a thousand plus years of illustrious history to include Christianity, Monasticism, the Universities, the hospitals, the Renaisance, the Enlightenment,Democracy, Industrial revolution, computer revolution, digital revolution and that white europeans are in the front of the latest innovations in every measurable field of human endeavor. But we are told to hand our heads down, and to stoop our shoulders and to recite the manta of Liberalism, namely, White and Christian is bad and black and Muslim is good.

Obama and H. Clinton are Amateurs

The point of all of the criticism is not that “…they are trying to understand what did happen.” The question is: Why were they not willing to understand the situation BEFORE it happened? It is clear that politics prevailed and the Obama administration was too caught up in getting elected again. Hillary was either at her many hotels, or other travels and Barrack was at another fund-raiser, leaving the government of the nation to the second string. The second string does a great job when all is well, but in a crisis they require informed and decisive leadership. What happened was the leadership of Obama was missing, and Hillary was unprepared. That both of them did not know anything about this crisis is exactly the point. Regular briefings are given but if you are jetting to another foreign country or flying to another fund-raiser, you may not be paying very much attention to the importance of what is being briefed. So, let’s not allow the leadership to investigate and cloud and push-off the responsibility onto the future. The reasons it happened lay in the past, namely, Obama’s refusal to acknowledge militant Islam as dangerously terrorist and Hillary’s loose administration of the State department. The Obama administration has gotten away with this in the past where nobody is responsible and no one held accountable because as they say, we don’t know what happened and we are looking into it. But I think the American people are tired of such amateur government and will make the needed change this November.

2016 the Movie Raises a Lot of Questions

Went to see 2016 the movie. Mr. D Souza, the President of King’s college does a thorough job of analysis concerning Barrack Obama’s intellectual world view. It is a world view that sees the USA as a thief which steals the wealth and resources of third world nations. Mr. Obama feels that it is his job to level the playing field. How? by diminishing the wealth and financial strength of USA in favor of advancing the wealth and financial power of other countries. He has done this during his presidency by denying offshore drilling permits to USA companies and using US dollars to fund Brazilian and other concerns to drill in Brazil as direct competitors with USA firms. He has done this by denying the pipeline permit thereby weakening USA competitiveness in the oil markets. The bottom line is that President Obama does not see his job as being the advance of America but that of forcing the decline of USA world power. See the movie yourself for a thorough understanding of D’Souza’s analysis. However, be warned that it is a chilling piece of analysis that will stun you, surprise you, entertain you and ultimately cause you to wonder if Dinesh D’Souza has answered for all of us the question, “Who really is Barrack Hussein Obama and what will he do with four more years of unbridled Presidential power?” What I mention here is only a very small part of Mr. D’Souza’s examination of what makes Obama tick. For myself, I have felt from the beginning that Mr. Obama does not love America.