Posted by cyclimus on March 5, 2014
If you read these sorts of blogs you are aware that Ukraine is having some civil instability at the moment. Russia has put troops into the Crimea – an Ukraine province that is heavily ethnic Russian. The rationale that the Russians have used to justify this are a 1994 agreement that allows the government to request Russian intervention for civil disturbances such as a coup d’etat, and the need to protect the large population of ethnic Russians in Crimea.
Back in 2008, Sarah Palin pondered aloud that then-Senator Obama would have no idea how to handle a Russian invasion of the Ukraine. In 2012, Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney argued that Russia was still our largest geopolitical foe and would remain so for the foreseeable future for which he was ridiculed as being stuck in Cold War thinking. Funny, yes?
What’s not funny is that Russian troops now have full control of the Crimea and have set a deadline of tonight for the Ukraine forces surrounded on the Ukrainian military bases in the Crimea to withdraw or surrender.
We have a Secretary of State that thinks this is 19th century military strategy, a President that hesitated when that 3AM phone call came (AGAIN mind you… Remember Benghazi), and a citizenry that has not looked Russian aggression in the eye since 1989 when the Berlin Wall was toppled.
How the hell is this different from the Sudetenland again?
And they want to draw down the military to the smallest size since the end of World War 2… the war that came soon after Adolf Hitler and the German War Machine occupied the Sudetenland of Czechslovakia in order to protect ethnic Germans.
History folks… it is repeating.
This must be stopped now. NATO needs to grow some balls or we will be facing a revitalized Red Bear or worse.
I have no confidence that President Obama will have the mental or character fortitude to stare down Vladimir Putin and end this aggression here and now. Angela Merkel, Steven Harper, and David Cameron will need to take the lead… because after all, this is an European issue…. not a global one…. at least, not yet.
Posted by cyclimus on March 3, 2014
Would you violate a gag order to save your child’s life?
A family has been ordered by a court of law that they are not allowed to even speak with their daughter after the hospital effectively kidnapped the child. The government is in bed with the hospital and the hospital is in bed with the government in this case. The family only could turn to the media in spite of (in my opinion) an unethical gag order.
The family has essentially bankrupted by this as they fight not just the hospital, but the government. The father and mother’s responsibility is to their child, it is their right to care for and advocate for their child, to FIGHT for their child. When the hospital and government deny them that right and responsibility there is no greater tyranny.
The father now faces a contempt of court charge for violating the gag order…. they have no money… and their child’s life is in danger for more reasons than I can adequately explain here. As a father, in his shoes, with nothing more to lose… contempt of court is nothing to fear.
If God the Father was willing to send His Son to the cross to die an excruciating death and temporal separation from the communion with the Father and Spirit, then we as fathers must be willing to go through hell and back for our children if necessary.
Posted by cyclimus on February 19, 2014
THE UNFORGETTABLE, THE UNFORGOTTEN, THE UNFORGIVEN: Benghazi Attack on September 11, 2012: Top U.S. Military Knew Of Attack “Within Minutes” — President Obama Knew “It was a terrorist attack and not a demonstration gone wrong”
Seriously… heads should roll. We have State Department FAST teams, myriad special forces units, and fast response Marine Corps detachments trained to defend and evacuate consulates and embassies under attack… this administration is not just replete with amateurs, but idiots.
Originally posted on Chainsoff's Blog:
Benghazi attack on September 11, 2012: Top U.S. Military Knew Of Attack “Within Minutes” — President Obama Knew “It was a terrorist attack and not a demonstration gone wrong”
Benghazi happened just two months before the 2012 Presidential Election and “didn’t fit the White House narrative”
- Newly declassified testimonies about what happened among Pentagon officials the night of the Benghazi attack on September 11, 2012 have been obtained by Fox News
- The documents show the U.S. military found out about 15 minutes after the attack – which killed four Americans – that it was an act of terror and communicated that to the Obama administration
- However the government – including Obama and then-U.S. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, who were in the throes of the 2012 US Presidential election – maintained for two weeks afterward the attack started as a protest against an anti-Islamic film and turned violent
By Daily Mail ReporterPentagon officials knew almost immediately that the attack on the U.S. facility in Benghazi, Libya, on 9-11-2012 was a terrorist attack and not a demonstration gone wrong, declassified documents have shown.
The documents – which were obtained by Fox News and contain 450 pages of top secret testimonies about the attack – has proven the Obama administration lied about the cause of the attack for two weeks afterward, having repeatedly maintained it was sparked by a violent demonstration against an anti-Islamic movie.
According to the documents, Gen. Carter Ham – who at the time was head of AFRICOM, the Defense Department combatant command with jurisdiction over Libya – said that while there was mention of the demonstrations – which started on the same day day as Benghazi but in Egypt – he and the other commanders involved were always clear that Benghazi was a terrorist attack.
That information was delivered to President Obama and his top advisers, including then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta.
However the government said the attack was caused out of protest of Innocence of Muslims, a controversial 14-minute video uploaded to YouTube that was seen as denigrating of the prophet Muhammad.
The movie subsequently caused a breakout of violence in Egypt on September 11 that spread to other Arab and Muslim nations and caused the death of 50 people.
That night, a heavily armed group of between 125 and 150 gunmen attacked the American diplomatic mission at Benghazi, killing U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and another diplomat.
Then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton supported the Obama administration claims that Muslim of Innocence was believed to be cause, and chose the Accountability Review Board to conduct an ‘investigation’ into the attack.
The investigation determined that there was no such protest in Behnghazi and that the attack was premeditated and launched by Islamist militants.
Skepticism has surrounded the government’s explanation of the attack, especially from the Republican party, mostly because Benghazi happened just two months before the 2012 Presidential Election.
However the declassification of the documents proves the Obama administration were not divulging details of the attack to the American people.
Numerous aides to the president and Clinton repeatedly told the public in the weeks following the murder of Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans that night – as Obama’s hotly contested bid for re-election was entering its final stretch – that there was no evidence the killings were the result of a premeditated terrorist attack.
According to Fox, Gen. Ham said he learned about the assault on the consulate compound within 15 minutes of its commencement, at 9:42 pm Libya time, through a call he received from the AFRICOM Command Center.
‘I told him what I knew. We immediately walked upstairs to meet with Secretary Panetta.’
Ham’s account of that fateful day was included in some 450 pages of testimony given by senior Pentagon officials in classified, closed-door hearings conducted last year by the Armed Services subcommittee.
The testimony, given under ‘Top Secret’ clearance and only declassified this month, presents a rare glimpse into how information during a crisis travels at the top echelons of America’s national security apparatus, all the way up to the president.
Also among those whose secret testimony was declassified was Dempsey, the first person Ham briefed about Benghazi.
Ham told lawmakers he considered it a fortuitous ‘happenstance’ that he was able to rope Dempsey and Panetta into one meeting, so that, as Ham put it, ‘they had the basic information as they headed across for the meeting at the White House’.
Ham also told lawmakers he met with Panetta and Dempsey when they returned from their 30-minute session with President Obama on September 11.
Armed Services Chairman Howard ‘Buck’ McKeon, R-Calif., sitting in on the subcommittee’s hearing with Ham last June, reserved for himself an especially sensitive line of questioning: namely, whether senior Obama administration officials, in the very earliest stages of their knowledge of Benghazi, had any reason to believe that the assault grew spontaneously out of a demonstration over an anti-Islam video produced in America.
‘In your discussions with General Dempsey and Secretary Panetta,’ McKeon asked, ‘was there any mention of a demonstration or was all discussion about an attack?’
Ham initially testified that there was some ‘peripheral’ discussion of this subject, but added ‘at that initial meeting, we knew that a U.S. facility had been attacked and was under attack, and we knew at that point that we had two individuals, Ambassador Stevens and Mr. [Sean] Smith, unaccounted for’.
Rep. Brad Wenstrup, R-Ohio, a first-term lawmaker with experience as an Iraq war veteran and Army reserve officer, pressed Ham further on the point, prodding the 29-year Army veteran to admit that ‘the nature of the conversation’ he had with Panetta and Dempsey was that ‘this was a terrorist attack’.
‘As a military person, I am concerned that someone in the military would be advising that this was a demonstration. I would hope that our military leadership would be advising that this was a terrorist attack,’ Wenstrup said.
‘Again, sir, I think, you know, there was some preliminary discussion about, you know, maybe there was a demonstration. But I think at the command, I personally and I think the command very quickly got to the point that this was not a demonstration, this was a terrorist attack,’ Ham answered.
‘And you would have advised as such if asked. Would that be correct? Wenstrup continued.
‘Well, and with General Dempsey and Secretary Panetta, that is the nature of the conversation we had, yes, sir,’ Ham responded.
Fox says they are going to continue to release more information found in the testimonies.
On the critical question of whether the Benghazi attack was preplanned by terrorists or generated spontaneously by a street mob, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton asked a Senate panel in January, ‘What difference, at this point, does it make?’
Photo: U.S. envoy J. Christopher Stevens was killed at Benghazi on September 11, 2012. (Photo by: Ben Curtis/Associated Press)
From left: Glen Doherty, Tyrone Woods and Sean Smith died in the September 11, 2012 attacks on the U.S. Consulate in Libya
In the September 11, 2012 terror attack on the U.S. in Benghazi, Libya, Ambassador Chris Stevens (right, above) was killed, along with State Department staffer Sean Smith and former Navy SEALs Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods.
Above: Just a few days after the Tuesday, September 11, 2012 attack at Benghazi, on Sunday, September 16, 2012, Susan Rice went on all five major Sunday TV News talk shows and used talking points that minimized the known terrorist threat and involvement in the attack that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others. Rice and the White House said the event was a “Spontaneous Demonstration” sparked by an American made video offensive to Muslims.
Susan Rice defends Benghazi interviews (December 23, 2013)
Video: Susan Rice statement after terror raid on Benghazi:
Benghazi: The problem was terrorism, poor security and murder….. not a video.
Does this mean they lied to grieving families?
U.S. President Barack Obama walks with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton past the flag-draped transfer case of one of four Americans who died this week in Libya, during a transfer of remains ceremony at Andrews Air Force Base near Washington, September 14, 2012. U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens and three other Americans killed this week in Benghazi were honored at the ceremony.
Posted by cyclimus on January 14, 2014
I’m certain that everyone is aware of the “comments” that the patriarch of the Robertson family has been raked over the coals regarding and suspended by A&E. (Kudos to the family for standing by Phil and basically invoking their faith in the face of worldly criticism).
The responses coming from the media and much of the morning drive radio listener crowd are that his reputation has been sullied by this “slip of the tongue.” But did he really slip? I think what he said was straight from the heart however coarse and uncultured it may sound to the sin-tolerant ear.
Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. Early in the morning he came again to the temple. All the people came to him, and he sat down and taught them. The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst they said to him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?” This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” And once more he bent down and wrote on the ground. But when they heard it, they went away one by one, beginning with the older ones, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. Jesus stood up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.”
Jesus did not condemn the sinner, but He commands them to stop sinning.
So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me.
It is impossible to serve two masters – you either serve God or you serve sin. Murder, lust, adultery, theft, homosexuality, and the rest are all sinful to God. There is no Diet Sin, it is all SIN – it is anathema to His holy nature whether it is just a little white lie or mass murder. What Phil Robertson said was not wrong. It may have been insensitive in the politically correct media’s opinion, but it was not wrong.
For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
What makes more sense – a moral code passed down from generation to generation for thousands of years unchanged or a fad that has entrenched itself in less than five percent of the world population which is known to be a major social and health risk for participants.
Phil was not condemning those that call themselves gay. I heard no such pronouncement in his statements, but what I did here was an opinion, based on scripture, that is congruent with the message of Jesus Christ – sin no more.
Posted by cyclimus on December 20, 2013
Posted by cyclimus on November 18, 2013
A nice rant on the concept of what you deserve. My thoughts terminate once I consider the ultimate thing that I “deserve.” What are the wages I’m due for my mere existence?
I have only one answer – death.
Originally posted on The Matt Walsh Blog:
I met someone today who doesn’t deserve a living wage. I’m often told such people don’t exist, so maybe I hallucinated this encounter. From what I could see he wasn’t deserving of a job or a wage. At some point in his life, he might be. Perhaps next week. But today? No.
In fact, I was arguing about the minimum wage with someone recently. Halfway through the discussion, she forcefully proclaimed that “everyone deserves a living wage.”
I hear this idea quite a bit nowadays. There’s a lot of deserving going on, apparently. Everyone seems to deserve everything. We deserve a job. We deserve affordable housing. We deserve a phone. We deserve cable TV. We deserve internet access. We deserve higher wages. We deserve. We deserve. We deserve.
Posted by cyclimus on November 8, 2013
Originally posted on triathletewithacollar:
There’s a great article going around entitled “Marriage Isn’t For You” that very eloquently explains why marriage should not be a self-centered commitment in which one is concerned only with their own happiness. Rather, the article claims, marriage is about your spouse—about making them happy and helping them to actualize “their wants, their needs, their hopes, and their dreams.” While I think this article has good intentions, I don’t think that it takes its thesis far enough. Sure, marriage is not for you, but ultimately it’s not for your spouse either—it’s for God.
Like the author claims, marriage is definitely not about making yourself happy, but it’s not always about making your spouse happy either. True love is focused on God, and that sometimes means making people unhappy in order to draw them closer to God. Marriage is not about making your spouse smile or laugh every day. Marriage is not about being nice, it’s about loving your spouse as God loves them. Marriage is not only about making your spouse happy, it’s about making them holy.
Truthfully, this means that sometimes you will make your spouse sad, sometimes you will make your spouse angry, and sometimes you will make your spouse cry. However, the beauty of marriage is in these moments, where you challenge your spouse to better love God even when it makes them unhappy.
Posted by cyclimus on November 5, 2013
I don’t generally jump on bandwagons when it comes to movies. I appreciate them for what they are, but every now and then something that stands the chance to be truly remarkable comes out. These often end up becoming my favorite movies – Gladiator, Glory, V for Vendetta, Braveheart, The Shawshank Redemption, etc…
My wife introduced me to a movie coming out in 2014 that I believe will shake the Earth. It presents the premise of a Christian alone in a philosophy class having to not only defend his own faith, but to prove that not only is there a God, but that He is alive and active in this world.
Posted by cyclimus on October 25, 2013
If I were a Mexican or Cuban, I would never be able to support the viewpoints (those of the liberal variety) this windbag espouses on the air. He’s a mouthpiece for the American Left.
Latinos, Latinas, listen up – THIS IS WHAT THE LEFT THINKS OF YOU.
Senator Cruz is of Cuban dissent. His father fled Castro’s Cuba, not Mexico.
Posted by cyclimus on October 23, 2013