Obama: I didn’t draw the red line on Syria.

Obama: I didn’t draw the red line on Syria, world did

Barack ObamaPresident Barack Obama gestures during his joint news conference with Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt in Stockholm, Sweden. The president said international community and Congress credibility on the line on response to Syria | Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP
 By Lesley Clark | McClatchy Washington Bureau

St. Petersburg, Russia — President Barack Obama on Wednesday declared the world’s credibility “is on the line” when it comes to punishing Syrian President Bashar Assad for his regime’s purported use of chemical weapons.

Speaking at a press conference in Stockholm, Sweden, ahead of a global economic summit in Russia where he will seek to rally support for a U.S. military strike against Syria, Obama said the “red line” he set against a year ago against Syria’s use of chemical weapons isn’t his, but an international standard.

“I didn’t set a red line, the world set a red line,” Obama said. “My credibility’s not on the line. The international community’s credibility is on the line. And America and Congress’s credibility’s on the line.”

Yet the difficulty Obama faces in achieving a global consensus was illustrated at the press conference with Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt , who decried the use of chemical weapons and said he understood Obama’s predicament, but said Sweden wants United Nations involvement and a political resolution to the carnage in Syria.

“I understand the problem of not having a reaction to abuse of chemical weapons and what kind of signal that sends to the world,” Reinfeldt said, adding, “But this small country will always say ‘Let’s put our hope into the United Nations, let us push on some more to get a better situation.’ ”

Obama staunchly defended his push for a strike, evoking the death of children from exposure to chemical weapons.

“The moral thing to do is not to stand by and do nothing,” Obama said. “I do have to ask people if in fact you’re outraged by the slaughter of innocent people, what are you doing about it?”

Though Obama has chosen to act before a UN investigation is completed, he said U.S. intelligence shows there’s no doubt that chemical weapons were used by the regime.

“Keep in mind I’m somebody who opposed the war in Iraq, and I’m not interested in repeating mistakes about basing decisions on faulty intelligence,” Obama said.

The press conference came hours after Russian President Vladimir Putin in an interview with the Associated Press warned the U.S. against military strikes in Syria, saying without the sanction of the United Nations any assault would be “inadmissible and can only be interpreted as an aggression.”

Putin said the Russian government has provided some components of the S-300 air defense missile system to Syria but has suspended shipments “for now.” He suggested that Russia may sell the potent missile systems elsewhere if Western nations attack Syria without U.N. Security Council backing.

Russia has routinely vetoed sanctions against Syria in the United Nations, but Putin didn’t rule out supporting a UN resolution to support military strikes if it’s proven that the Syrian regime used chemical weapons.

He made clear his threshold for such support is high, calling it “absolutely absurd” that the government would use chemical weapons at a time when it was closing in on the rebels.

In the interview, Putin insisted he and Obama could have constructive talks — even though he said he was disappointed Obama cancelled a meeting with him in Moscow.

A White House official said that although there was no plan for a formal meeting with Putin at the summit in St. Petersburg, the White House “would expect the two presidents to have an opportunity to speak on the margins of the various meetings of the G-20.”

Obama will hold formal bilateral meetings with President Xi of China, Prime Minister Abe of Japan and President Francois Hollande of France.

Putin downplayed his frosty relationship Obama, which Russia analysts have said is among the worst in US-Russian and US-Soviet leader relationships.

“President Obama hasn’t been elected by the American people in order to be pleasant to Russia,” Putin told the AP. “And your humble servant hasn’t been elected by the people of Russia to be pleasant to someone either.”

“We work, we argue about some issues. We are human. Sometimes one of us gets vexed. But I would like to repeat once again that global mutual interests form a good basis for finding a joint solution to our problems,” Putin said.

In a sign the U.S. surveillance program continues to be a source of concern even among U.S. allies, the first question Obama got from a Swedish reporter at the press conference was about the NSA program.

He insisted the U.S. is not “snooping at people’s emails and or listening to their phone calls.”

The program’s focus, he said, is on counterterrorism and cyber security.

NO SYRIAN WAR JUST TO SAVE OBAMA’S FACE.

FACE

NO SYRIAN WAR TO SAVE OBAMA’S FACE!

Pat Buchanan: Why don’t Turkey and Israel man up and strike Assad?

“Catastrophic!” said Sen. John McCain.

If Congress votes no on a resolution calling for U.S. intervention in Syria’s civil war, says McCain, it would be “catastrophic” for U.S. credibility in the world.

Consider what the senator is saying here.

Because Barack Obama, two years ago, said “Assad must go,” and, one year ago, said any use of chemical weapons crosses his “red line,” Congress has no choice but to plunge America into yet another Mideast war.

Can this be? Are we really, as a nation, required to go to war to make good the simple-minded statements of an untutored president who had no constitutional authority to issue his impulsive ultimata?

Are we really required to go to war to get the egg off Obama’s face?

Not since the War of Jenkins’ Ear has there been a dumber cause for a great country to go to war. Is there no way out?

There is, and it’s right in front of us.

The House, Senate or both can vote no on the war resolution, and Obama can then say, as did David Cameron, that, while he disagrees, he respects the decision of a Congress in which the Constitution placed sole authority to authorize America’s going to war.

Are Brits now crying “catastrophe!”? Do the Spanish no longer think the Brits will defend Gibraltar? Is Britain now wholly non-credible to the world?

For Obama, and for us, it is the other options that invite catastrophe.

If, for example, the House or Senate votes down the war resolution and Obama, without authorization from Congress, the Security Council, NATO or the Arab League plunges us into a new war this nation does not want to fight, he will be courting a geostrategic and political disaster.

Even if Congress approves a war resolution, the president should think long and hard about diving into a war he sought to avoid and stayed out of for over two years. Make no mistake; if Obama attacks Syria, be it for hours or days, we are in that blood-soaked abattoir for the duration.

In his dramatic statement Saturday, as politically astute as it was constitutionally correct, Obama called Syria “someone else’s war.”

Whose war? It is Shia Alawite vs. Sunni, Muslim vs. Christian, Kurd vs. Arab, Islamist vs. secularist. Backing Bashar Assad are Iran, Hezbollah and Russia. Backing the rebels are Turkey, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states, al-Qaida, foreign jihadists and the Muslim Brotherhood.

 

Assad is accused of killing 100,000 people. But that is the total of the dead in a civil war Assad has as much right to fight as the rebels. While his army is accused of using gas on civilians, the Islamist rebels have murdered Christians, massacred captives and engaged in public acts of cannibalism on dead Syrian soldiers.

Gas is a sickening weapon. Yet, there is no evidence thus far that Assad ordered its use. Rebel elements are said to have been found with sarin. As for Americans who tend to prefer white phosphorus, napalm and cluster bombs, upon what lofty moral ground do we stand?

Have we forgotten that Churchill wanted to drop anthrax on Germany and settled for two days of firebombing the defenseless city of Dresden? Or that our great friend Anwar Sadat was the confidante of Gamal Abdel Nasser when Egypt was using poison gas on Yemeni tribesmen?

The United States does not have any national security interest in Syria’s war. Why would we then launch missile attacks to “degrade” Assad’s military, when that army and air force are all that stands between us and a privileged sanctuary for al-Qaida in northern Syria, not unlike what al-Qaida had in Tora Bora and Waziristan.

We are told that if we do not strike Syria – making good on Obama’s threats – Israel, Turkey and even Japan and South Korea will not be able to trust us ever again.

What nonsense. We have treaties with Japan and South Korea. As for Turkey and Israel, if what is happening in Syria is outrageous and dangerous, why do they not act? Why do they keep tugging at our sleeve?

The Israeli Air force is five minutes from Damascus, its army a two-day march. The Turks have three times Syria’s population and a 400,000-man army equipped with NATO weapons. Together, they could invade and turn the tide in a week. Why do they not man up?

McCain and Sen. Lindsey Graham came out of the Oval Office saying Obama was open to wider strikes on Syria and more lethal support for the rebels. As Iran, Hezbollah and Russia would then upgrade their own weapons shipments to Damascus, this will mean more dead, more wounded, more tens of thousands fleeing into exile and a longer war.

But what it will likely end with, after America is dragooned in, is a U.S. war with Iran; our allies, sitting in their box seats, cheering us on.

And that is the dog you will not hear bark in the war-on-Syria debate.

MCCAIN: SHOUTING ‘ALLAHU AKHBAR!’ SAME AS CHRISTIANS SHOUTING ‘THANK GOD!’

MCCAIN: SHOUTING ‘ALLAHU AKHBAR!’ SAME AS CHRISTIANS SHOUTING ‘THANK GOD!’

 730
 6
 1510

Email Article

Print ArticleSend a Tip

by BEN SHAPIRO 3 Sep 2013, 7:00 AM PDT 1248POST A COMMENT

On Tuesday, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) suggested that Fox News host Brian Kilmeade was Islamaphobic because he said that Syrian opposition groups shouting “Allahu Akhbar! Allahu Akhbar!” as rockets hit government offices demonstrated Islamist influence among the opposition.

“I have a problem helping those people screaming that after a hit,” Kilmeade said. McCain responded: “Would you have a problem with an American or Christians saying ‘thank God? Thank God?’” He added, “That’s what they’re saying. Come on! Of course they’re Muslims, but they’re moderates and I guarantee you they are moderates.” McCain provided no evidence to suggest that Syrian opposition groups are moderate, as opposed to the wide swath of evidence suggesting that the opposition is heavily infested with al Qaeda.
Ben Shapiro is Editor-At-Large of Breitbart News and author of the New

Rand Paul’s message to Evangelicals: There’s a war on Christianity

Rand PaulRand Paul’s Message To Evangelicals: “There is a war on Christianity.”

Senator Rand Paul, who is seriously considering running for President of the United States, told a conservative Christian audience today that, “There is a war on Christianity” being waged by “liberal elites’ and “worldwide as well.

Read his remarks below, delivered at today’s Faith and Freedom Coalition luncheon in DC. The organization’s big “Road to Majority” event starts today and runs through Saturday. Jeb Bush, sarah Palin, Ted Cruz and many others are speaking in the next couple days.

Rand Paul has been actively courting the conservative Christian community for months. He took a trip to Israel which was organized by influential evangelical organizer David Lane and has been speaking to Christian audiences in key GOP Primary states. He will speak to hundreds of Iowa pastors next month in Des Moines. The Brody File also knows of plenty of private events he has done within the Christian community.

Rand Paul has quite a bit going for him if he makes a run. His libertarian views give him distinct crossover appeal but, in addition as a committed pro-life believer in Jesus Christ he can court evangelicals in a a way that doesn’t look like pandering. Plus, he’s super smart which not only gives the Tea Party more credibility as a movement but allows Paul to get a serious look from the shark-infested waters filled with mainstream media members. He should NOT be underestimated.

Senator Rand Paul’s Remarks below:

“Last year in Pakistan, 14-year-old Malala Yousafzai was shot in the head by the Taliban for being a girl and for wanting to go to school.

If you haven’t seen the YouTube videow of Malala being interviewed on national television, speaking out for the education of girls, watch and you will be amazed at her poise and grace.

Malala never met the great Urdu poet Parveen Shakir, who grew up in Pakistan when women could become highly educated and even Prime Minister.
This line from one of Shakir’s poems reminds me of Malala:

“They insist upon evaluating the firefly in daylight. The children of our age, have grown clever.”

Why would anyone want to kill this innocent young girl? Because Malala, in her young life, insisted on exposing the firefly to daylight.

Her “crime,” as seen by the Taliban, is to believe in enlightenment, to believe that out of the darkness a flicker of tolerance can glow and grow to overcome ignorance.

Americans are seen by Pakistanis as infidels and invaders. We will not in a thousand years bring enlightenment to Pakistan, only Pakistan can do that.

When Pakistan begins to police Pakistan better, when girls who long for nothing but freedom and education are embraced — rather than gunned down by murderous thugs — then will progress finally be made.

My heart breaks for Malala and her family. It breaks for all those who suffer under violent oppression in the name of religion. It breaks for those who cannot grow up to be poets and teachers, but mostly it breaks for those who cannot speak without being gunned down by extremists.

I can only hope that the violence done to her will motivate those who believe in both Islam and peace and tolerance to stand unanimously and proclaim this violence does not represent them. That the Taliban does not represent them. That gunning down children in cold blood does not please their God.

The violence and intolerance against girls is also directed toward Christians. It saddens me to see countries that are supposedly our allies persecute Christians.

It angers me to see my tax dollars supporting regimes that put Christians to death for blasphemy against Islam, countries that put to death Muslims who convert to Christianity, and countries who imprison anyone who marries outside their religion.

There is a war on Christianity, not just from liberal elites here at home, but worldwide.

And your government, or more correctly, you, the taxpayer, are funding it.

You are being taxed to send money to countries that are not only intolerant of Christians but openly hostile. Christians are imprisoned and threatened with death for their beliefs.

In Pakistan, Asia Bibi, a Christian, sits on death row. Her crime, according to her, is that she dared to drink from a glass that belonged to a Muslim co-worker.

According to her co-workers, she insulted the Prophet. In our country, we refer to such quibbling as gossip. In Pakistan, if you are a Christian, it can land you on death row.

Recently, in Pakistan, a 12-year-old with Downs syndrome was imprisoned and charged with a death penalty crime for burning the Koran.

After weeks she was released after a local Imam was accused of actually sprinkling pages from an Arabic book into a fire near the little girl.

Dr. Shakil Afridi is not a Christian but his imprisonment by Pakistan is nonetheless an injustice. He was tortured and held without charge for nearly a year.

He was shackled with his hands behind his back for months and he was finally imprisoned, likely for the rest of his life for the crime of helping America get Bin Laden.

How do your leaders respond? 90 % of them voted against my bill that would have put restrictions on this aid.

My bill said that Libya, Egypt, and Pakistan would get no more foreign aid from the US taxpayer unless they turned over the assassins that killed our ambassador, pledged and verified that they CAN and WILL protect our embassies, and in the case of Pakistan they must release Dr. Afridi.

Overwhelmingly, I was voted down. Is it any wonder that Congress has a 10% approval rating? In Egypt, in Pakistan, they burn our flag—I say not one penny more to countries that burn the American flag!

Even when we’ve tried through good intentions to make the world a better place our actions have often backfired.

During the Iraq War, over a quarter-million Iraqi Christians fled Iraq. Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator but his government was secular and therefore relatively safe for Christians. Christians, however, feared the Shiite government that we helped put in place after Saddam, and they fled in droves.

Where did these Christians go? They headed mostly for Syria, joining the over one million Syrians who have lived as Christians since the time of Christ.

Now, the senate is attempting to arm the rebel forces in syria, many of whom are al quaeda or affiliates.   they do so out of a miguided attempt to stop the violence in syria.

Instead their actions will bring more violence and more persecution of Christians, who have long been protected in Syria.

Before the Arab Spring, Christianity flourished in small outposts, like the Coptic Christians in Egypt. I had hoped that the Arab Spring would bring freedom to long-oppressed people throughout the Middle East, but I fear the Arab Spring is becoming an Arab winter.

Today, Christians in Iraq, Libya, Egypt and Syria are on the run—persecuted or under fire—and yet, we continue to send aid to the folks chasing them.

While they burn the American flag and the mobs chant Death to America, more of your money is sent to these haters of Christianity.

Even if all the atrocities to Christians were not occurring in these countries, we simply don’t have the money to engage in this foolishness. We must borrow the money from China to send it to Pakistan.

While American soldiers spent a decade fighting to liberate Iraq and while American taxpayers have sent roughly $470 million each year in aid, Christians in Iraq are the subjects of what Carl Moeller, president of Open Doors, describes as “religicide.”

Before the toppling of Saddam Hussein, Mosul, a city in Iraq, was home to some 75,000 Christians, but now the number has dropped to around 25,000.

Christian homes are set on fire, bombs are being placed in their cars and Christian families are receiving letters threatening them to leave Iraq or be kidnapped or killed.

American soldiers have also risked their lives for the sake of these countries liberation. Our young men and women have fought for a noble cause but the law of unintended consequences is an unforgiving one.

These countries are not our true allies and no amount of money will make them so. They are not allies of Israel and I fear one day our money and military arms that we have paid for will be used against Israel.

This fight has made me unpopular in Washington but I am willing to risk unpopularity with politicians to do what I am convinced is right.

The new leader of Egypt is Mohammed Morsi, a member of the Muslim Brotherhood. Recently, he stood by when a radical cleric said a prayer for the destruction of Israel and her supporters in his presence.

Actually, it is worse, he did not just stand by, he was seen to mouth the word “Amen” as the cleric said these words of hatred.

How does your government respond?

The bipartisan consensus in Washington vows to increase Egypt’s funding. The President is currently requesting a billion dollar increase in aid to Egypt.

This is an outrage! It is amazing that so many in Washington fail to see who the real enemies are. We should immediately stop sending F-16’s and tanks to Egypt!

It is clear that American taxpayer dollars are being used to enable a war on Christianity in the Middle East and I believe that must end.

When Pope John Paul II spoke about a “culture of death,” he talked about “a war of the powerful against the weak.”

As Christians, we know we must always stand with the most defenseless. I believe that no civilization can long endure that does not respect life from those not yet born to life’s last breath.

I am the sponsor of a life are conception act in the senate, and I will stand up for unborn children as long as I am privileged to be in office.

These days Christians are often unified in our defense of the not yet born but I exhort you to remember the 19-year-olds who are sent into battle.

War is not a game or a sport and any politician who speaks of pre-emptive war with gleeful bravado should not be leading any nation.

As we sit here, our brave troops risk their lives, serving our country with faithfulness and honor. They endure harsh conditions, loneliness and great danger. I pray for their safe return each day and I pray for an end to the war.

I can recall no utterance of Jesus in favor of war or any acts of aggression. In fact, his message to his disciples was one of non-resistance. I do not believe that means that we don’t defend ourselves.

I believe individuals and countries can and should defend themselves. But I simply can’t imagine Jesus at the head of any army of soldiers and I think as Christians we need to be wary of the doctrine of pre-emptive war.

We must and should stand with our fellow Christians in the Middle East and around the world—but that does not necessarily mean war and it certainly does not mean arming sides in every conflict.

Jesus, himself, reminds us of this in the Sermon on the Mount, when he proclaims, Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.

Today, we have a culture that accepts the wanton disposal of millions of innocent children, and sends aid to countries that persecute Christians. . . . . I, for one, will not rest until this injustice ends.

As Christians, we understand that the right to life, and freedom of religion, pre-exist all government. These rights are not granted to man by other men, these rights are granted to us by our Creator.

God, help us in these troubling times to make wise decisions, to make moral decisions, and to listen to the voice of God that lives and breathes and resides in us all. Amen.”

Is Obama the worst president ever?

WORSTIs Obama the worst president ever?

BY HUGH HEWITT | AUGUST 25, 2013 AT 5:15 PM

“If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan.”— President Obama, Aug. 11, 2009

So said President Obama again and again through 2009 and 2010 as he sold Obamacare to the country. He promised. He put his personal integrity on the line. His word.

If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan.

How many UPS employees voted for the president in 2008 and again in 2012? Because on Friday, UPS announced it was dumping 15,000 spouses of UPS employees from their UPS health plans despite the president’s many, many promises to the contrary.

 

The UPS spouse-dump followed by a few days the news from New Jersey that Obamacare’s rollout there will end the low-cost, high-deductible plan that more than 106,00 Jersey folks liked and which presumably many of them would have preferred to keep.

Oh, and the cost of individual plans are set to rise on average 41 percent in Ohio, and another major insurance company, Anthem Blue Cross, has pulled out of the California market for small businesses.

Let a thousand stink bombs go kaboom. Obamacare is the train wreck that just keeps arriving on an ever-more prolonged schedule.

Most Mainstream Media refuse to catalogue the consequences of the epic bill that went unread when it was passed without a single Republican vote in 2009. Most journalists just avert their eyes.

But now that that the bodies of hundreds of gassed Syrian children are piling up in Damascus and scores of Christian churches are burned-out shells in Egypt, it is getting harder and harder to find anything to write about the president that doesn’t underscore his incompetence.

Obama’s tenure is a vast desert of anti-achievement, a landscape of waste and ruin on every front at home and abroad, save on the ability to mobilize voters who don’t know or don’t care about the state of the country or the world.

The president rolled to re-election on the strength of technologies that enabled his minions to tap and turn out folks who simply are clueless that that nice fellow in the White House hasn’t the foggiest idea of how to run the country.

Perhaps by the time you read this, the president will have ordered a few cruise missiles to fall on Damascus, and the anti-Sisi rhetoric will have been toned down in recognition that the general running Egypt is likely to be there far longer than the president is living at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

But the prospect of 39 more months of the anti-president at the helm is daunting. No plans for anything except bus tours and college campus speeches, no idea how to invigorate a sputtering economy or trim a bloated budget.

Just miles and miles to go before we can can all sleep without the prospect of seeing him the next day, yet again, making another meaningless speech or filibustering another softball question from a kept White House press.

Many will argue that Stanley Baldwin was the worst of the modern British Prime Ministers, though a few remonstrate half-heartedly for Edward Heath, but Heath did not leave his country vulnerable to war and direct attack that killed hundreds of thousands.

Since 1979 and the acquiescence of the transfer of Iran to religious zealots with world-enders and Hidden Imam-summoners among them, I didn’t think it was possible for an American president to be ranked below Jimmy Carter on the competence list.

But now we have Obama, with double the years that Carter had to more than double the wreckage of the Carter era. Obama is working on his place in history every day, and every day he is making that ranking more secure.

HUGH HEWITT, Washington Examiner columnist, is a law professor at Chapman University Law School and a nationally syndicated radio show host who blogs daily at HughHewitt.com.

“There is a war on Christianity.”- Rand Paul

Rand PaulRand Paul’s Message To Evangelicals: “There is a war on Christianity.”

Senator Rand Paul, who is seriously considering running for President of the United States, told a conservative Christian audience today that, “There is a war on Christianity” being waged by “liberal elites’ and “worldwide as well.

Read his remarks below, delivered at today’s Faith and Freedom Coalition luncheon in DC. The organization’s big “Road to Majority” event starts today and runs through Saturday. Jeb Bush, sarah Palin, Ted Cruz and many others are speaking in the next couple days.

Rand Paul has been actively courting the conservative Christian community for months. He took a trip to Israel which was organized by influential evangelical organizer David Lane and has been speaking to Christian audiences in key GOP Primary states. He will speak to hundreds of Iowa pastors next month in Des Moines. The Brody File also knows of plenty of private events he has done within the Christian community.

Rand Paul has quite a bit going for him if he makes a run. His libertarian views give him distinct crossover appeal but, in addition as a committed pro-life believer in Jesus Christ he can court evangelicals in a a way that doesn’t look like pandering. Plus, he’s super smart which not only gives the Tea Party more credibility as a movement but allows Paul to get a serious look from the shark-infested waters filled with mainstream media members. He should NOT be underestimated.

Senator Rand Paul’s Remarks below:

“Last year in Pakistan, 14-year-old Malala Yousafzai was shot in the head by the Taliban for being a girl and for wanting to go to school.

If you haven’t seen the YouTube videow of Malala being interviewed on national television, speaking out for the education of girls, watch and you will be amazed at her poise and grace.

Malala never met the great Urdu poet Parveen Shakir, who grew up in Pakistan when women could become highly educated and even Prime Minister.
This line from one of Shakir’s poems reminds me of Malala:

“They insist upon evaluating the firefly in daylight. The children of our age, have grown clever.”

Why would anyone want to kill this innocent young girl? Because Malala, in her young life, insisted on exposing the firefly to daylight.

Her “crime,” as seen by the Taliban, is to believe in enlightenment, to believe that out of the darkness a flicker of tolerance can glow and grow to overcome ignorance.

Americans are seen by Pakistanis as infidels and invaders. We will not in a thousand years bring enlightenment to Pakistan, only Pakistan can do that.

When Pakistan begins to police Pakistan better, when girls who long for nothing but freedom and education are embraced — rather than gunned down by murderous thugs — then will progress finally be made.

My heart breaks for Malala and her family. It breaks for all those who suffer under violent oppression in the name of religion. It breaks for those who cannot grow up to be poets and teachers, but mostly it breaks for those who cannot speak without being gunned down by extremists.

I can only hope that the violence done to her will motivate those who believe in both Islam and peace and tolerance to stand unanimously and proclaim this violence does not represent them. That the Taliban does not represent them. That gunning down children in cold blood does not please their God.

The violence and intolerance against girls is also directed toward Christians. It saddens me to see countries that are supposedly our allies persecute Christians.

It angers me to see my tax dollars supporting regimes that put Christians to death for blasphemy against Islam, countries that put to death Muslims who convert to Christianity, and countries who imprison anyone who marries outside their religion.

There is a war on Christianity, not just from liberal elites here at home, but worldwide.

And your government, or more correctly, you, the taxpayer, are funding it.

You are being taxed to send money to countries that are not only intolerant of Christians but openly hostile. Christians are imprisoned and threatened with death for their beliefs.

In Pakistan, Asia Bibi, a Christian, sits on death row. Her crime, according to her, is that she dared to drink from a glass that belonged to a Muslim co-worker.

According to her co-workers, she insulted the Prophet. In our country, we refer to such quibbling as gossip. In Pakistan, if you are a Christian, it can land you on death row.

Recently, in Pakistan, a 12-year-old with Downs syndrome was imprisoned and charged with a death penalty crime for burning the Koran.

After weeks she was released after a local Imam was accused of actually sprinkling pages from an Arabic book into a fire near the little girl.

Dr. Shakil Afridi is not a Christian but his imprisonment by Pakistan is nonetheless an injustice. He was tortured and held without charge for nearly a year.

He was shackled with his hands behind his back for months and he was finally imprisoned, likely for the rest of his life for the crime of helping America get Bin Laden.

How do your leaders respond? 90 % of them voted against my bill that would have put restrictions on this aid.

My bill said that Libya, Egypt, and Pakistan would get no more foreign aid from the US taxpayer unless they turned over the assassins that killed our ambassador, pledged and verified that they CAN and WILL protect our embassies, and in the case of Pakistan they must release Dr. Afridi.

Overwhelmingly, I was voted down. Is it any wonder that Congress has a 10% approval rating? In Egypt, in Pakistan, they burn our flag—I say not one penny more to countries that burn the American flag!

Even when we’ve tried through good intentions to make the world a better place our actions have often backfired.

During the Iraq War, over a quarter-million Iraqi Christians fled Iraq. Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator but his government was secular and therefore relatively safe for Christians. Christians, however, feared the Shiite government that we helped put in place after Saddam, and they fled in droves.

Where did these Christians go? They headed mostly for Syria, joining the over one million Syrians who have lived as Christians since the time of Christ.

Now, the senate is attempting to arm the rebel forces in syria, many of whom are al quaeda or affiliates.   they do so out of a miguided attempt to stop the violence in syria.

Instead their actions will bring more violence and more persecution of Christians, who have long been protected in Syria.

Before the Arab Spring, Christianity flourished in small outposts, like the Coptic Christians in Egypt. I had hoped that the Arab Spring would bring freedom to long-oppressed people throughout the Middle East, but I fear the Arab Spring is becoming an Arab winter.

Today, Christians in Iraq, Libya, Egypt and Syria are on the run—persecuted or under fire—and yet, we continue to send aid to the folks chasing them.

While they burn the American flag and the mobs chant Death to America, more of your money is sent to these haters of Christianity.

Even if all the atrocities to Christians were not occurring in these countries, we simply don’t have the money to engage in this foolishness. We must borrow the money from China to send it to Pakistan.

While American soldiers spent a decade fighting to liberate Iraq and while American taxpayers have sent roughly $470 million each year in aid, Christians in Iraq are the subjects of what Carl Moeller, president of Open Doors, describes as “religicide.”

Before the toppling of Saddam Hussein, Mosul, a city in Iraq, was home to some 75,000 Christians, but now the number has dropped to around 25,000.

Christian homes are set on fire, bombs are being placed in their cars and Christian families are receiving letters threatening them to leave Iraq or be kidnapped or killed.

American soldiers have also risked their lives for the sake of these countries liberation. Our young men and women have fought for a noble cause but the law of unintended consequences is an unforgiving one.

These countries are not our true allies and no amount of money will make them so. They are not allies of Israel and I fear one day our money and military arms that we have paid for will be used against Israel.

This fight has made me unpopular in Washington but I am willing to risk unpopularity with politicians to do what I am convinced is right.

The new leader of Egypt is Mohammed Morsi, a member of the Muslim Brotherhood. Recently, he stood by when a radical cleric said a prayer for the destruction of Israel and her supporters in his presence.

Actually, it is worse, he did not just stand by, he was seen to mouth the word “Amen” as the cleric said these words of hatred.

How does your government respond?

The bipartisan consensus in Washington vows to increase Egypt’s funding. The President is currently requesting a billion dollar increase in aid to Egypt.

This is an outrage! It is amazing that so many in Washington fail to see who the real enemies are. We should immediately stop sending F-16’s and tanks to Egypt!

It is clear that American taxpayer dollars are being used to enable a war on Christianity in the Middle East and I believe that must end.

When Pope John Paul II spoke about a “culture of death,” he talked about “a war of the powerful against the weak.”

As Christians, we know we must always stand with the most defenseless. I believe that no civilization can long endure that does not respect life from those not yet born to life’s last breath.

I am the sponsor of a life are conception act in the senate, and I will stand up for unborn children as long as I am privileged to be in office.

These days Christians are often unified in our defense of the not yet born but I exhort you to remember the 19-year-olds who are sent into battle.

War is not a game or a sport and any politician who speaks of pre-emptive war with gleeful bravado should not be leading any nation.

As we sit here, our brave troops risk their lives, serving our country with faithfulness and honor. They endure harsh conditions, loneliness and great danger. I pray for their safe return each day and I pray for an end to the war.

I can recall no utterance of Jesus in favor of war or any acts of aggression. In fact, his message to his disciples was one of non-resistance. I do not believe that means that we don’t defend ourselves.

I believe individuals and countries can and should defend themselves. But I simply can’t imagine Jesus at the head of any army of soldiers and I think as Christians we need to be wary of the doctrine of pre-emptive war.

We must and should stand with our fellow Christians in the Middle East and around the world—but that does not necessarily mean war and it certainly does not mean arming sides in every conflict.

Jesus, himself, reminds us of this in the Sermon on the Mount, when he proclaims, Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.

Today, we have a culture that accepts the wanton disposal of millions of innocent children, and sends aid to countries that persecute Christians. . . . . I, for one, will not rest until this injustice ends.

As Christians, we understand that the right to life, and freedom of religion, pre-exist all government. These rights are not granted to man by other men, these rights are granted to us by our Creator.

God, help us in these troubling times to make wise decisions, to make moral decisions, and to listen to the voice of God that lives and breathes and resides in us all. Amen.”

OBAMA’S PLAN TO DESTROY AMERICA HATCHED AT COLUMBIA SAYS CLASSMATE

OBAMA’S PLAN TO DESTROY AMERICA HATCHED AT COLUMBIA SAYS CLASSMATE

Apr. 19, 2013 12:01am

obama_angry_2012_8_6

Wayne Allyn Root is a Capitalist Evangelist, entrepreneur, and Libertarian-conservative Republican. Wayne began his career as a sports handicapper, and has gone on to host and appear on many of the biggest television and radio news networks including: FOX News Channel, FOX Business Network, CNBC, and radio shows like Glenn Beck, Michael Savage, Jerry Doyle and Mancow Muller. He is a former Libertarian vice presidential nominee. Wayne’s latest book is out on April 15, 2013: “The Ultimate Obama Survival Guide: Secrets to Protecting Your Family, Your Finances, and Your Freedom.”

The economic news has gone from bad to worse. First we found out the jobs numbers are collapsing. Then retail sales figures were released- they showed across the board contraction. Next we found out U.S. business inventory figures were a disappointment. Finally consumer confidence not only collapsed, but it was the largest miss from expectations in U.S. economic history. What exactly is our president’s plan? Because it’s certainly not working. Or is it? It depends on what the plan is.

Shouldn’t the American people have a right to know what our president’s real economic agenda is? Is he out to help us, or hurt us? With things getting worse, don’t we have a right to ask these questions? I have a story that sheds light on that life or death question.

President Obama and I were college classmates at Columbia University, class of ’83. I know all too well how mindlessly leftist the students and faculty of that institution can be, and Barack Obama is certainly no exception. My time at Columbia made it crystal clear: leftists always believe they are morally superior. While they publicly state that their mission is to save the world from prejudice, patriotism, racism, greed, and inequality, they are, in fact, hostile and resentful towards anyone who has achieved self-made success through American values.  It is in this cesspool of intolerance that Obama and his Marxist cronies hatched their plan to destroy our country.

There are two things you need to know about Obama at Columbia University. First, he was Pre -law and a Political Science major- just like me. I thought I knew everyone studying Political Science during my four years at Columbia. Not Obama. I never met him, never saw him, never even heard of him. Strange.

Barack Obama

Same major, same career path, and graduated on the same day– where was he? Was he busy attending communist party meetings? No need to guess. In his autobiography he proudly admits attending Socialist Party meetings at Cooper Union in downtown Manhattan. He also admits publicly in his own book to not wanting to meet or befriend anyone at Columbia who wasn’t black, Hispanic, gay, or a Marxist professor. His words- in print. So it’s possible he was so busy attending communist meetings and trying to avoid guys like me (white, straight, a guy who loved America) that our paths never crossed. Unlikely, but possible.

But, it’s the second thing you really need to know about Obama at Columbia. He says he graduated Class of ’83. Let’s give him the benefit of the doubt. I always have. Well then Obama had to attend the same Political Science classes as me. I can tell you, almost to a man, my classmates in the Class of ’83 proudly called themselves Marxist, communist or socialist. They bragged of being “radical” like a badge of honor. They openly hated America- calling it racist. They hated capitalism- and vowed to bring “the system down.”

In my class the typical Columbia political science student vowed to destroy capitalism, bankrupt business owners, and vaporize what they called “the white power structure.” For the most part these were spoiled brat white students of privilege and power. They were children of wealth, given everything on a silver platter and all they felt was anger and guilt. Their goal was to destroy their own fathers. They talked about it all day long.

So let me tell you a story that says it all. Back in 1981 I was sitting in a political science class. The president at the time was Ronald Reagan, a man reviled by the left just as viciously as any Republican is today. Suddenly our lecture was interrupted by a door swinging open violently—whereupon a breathless fellow student raced into the room screaming, “The president has been shot! They’ve just assassinated President Reagan.”

Ronald Reagan was my hero. The news hit me like a ton of bricks. I instantly felt sick to my stomach, and tears flowed down my cheeks. But it was the response of the rest of the class that I will remember for the rest of my life. They cheered. They clapped, they yelled, they high-fived, and whooped in sheer unadulterated joy. My fellow classmates, the ones I was naively trying so hard to befriend despite their radical leftist views, were HAPPY that my hero President Ronald Reagan was dead (or so they thought). They were celebrating what they thought was the assassination of America’s president. Incidently, if Obama actually went to Columbia, he’d almost certainly have to have been in that class leading the cheers. Feel like you need a shower yet?

FEC IRS blog copy

Lest you think I’m exaggerating, British leftists just celebrated and cheered upon hearing of the death of Margaret Thatcher only days ago. It was all over the news. Some Brits held parties celebrating her death. This is revolting and disgusting.

But wait, the most frightening and eye-opening revelation is still to come. You see political science students at Columbia were taught a detailed plan designed by two former Columbia professors named Cloward and Piven to bring down “the system,” destroy capitalism, and turn America into a socialist state. We discussed it in class, wrote about it, and debated it outside class. It was a hot topic of discussion around the halls of Columbia for four years.

The plan was revolting, but brilliant. Cloward and Piven taught that America could only be destroyed from within. Only by overwhelming the system with debt, welfare, and entitlements could capitalism and the America economy be destroyed. So the plan was to make a majority of Americans dependent on welfare, food stamps, disability, unemployment, and entitlements of all kinds. Then, under the weight of the debt, the system would implode and the economy collapse, bankrupting business owners (i.e. conservative donors). Americans would be brought to their knees, begging for big government to save them. Voila – you’d have a new system.

A system based on fairness, equality and social justice. It’s called Socialism.

Sound familiar?

verizon spy blog copy

Lo and behold, one of my classmates was elected as president and it’s clear as a bell that he is using that plan to destroy America, capitalism, and the U.S. economy right in front of our eyes. It’s the exact plan hatched at Columbia University in our college days. Exact in every way.

Under Obama, 660,000 Americans dropped off the job rolls…just last month. 90 million working-age, able-bodied Americans are no longer in the workforce. 90 million. The workforce participation rate is the lowest since 1979. For men it’s the lowest since 1948 (when record keeping began).

New economic numbers were out last Friday. Retail sales contracted. Business inventories were disappointing. Consumer confidence collapsed- the worst miss in the history of the U.S. economy. This economy isn’t getting better, it’s getting worse by the day. Obama isn’t “saving” us, he’s destroying us with every move he makes.

Almost 50 million Americans are on food stamps (20% of all eligible adults). Fourteen million are on disability. Millions more are on welfare, unemployment, housing allowances, aid to dependent children, or 100 other free government  programs. Now, add in free healthcare plus 22 million government employees. Record-setting numbers of Americans are emptying their retirement accounts to survive. Student loan debt is a national disaster- with defaults up 36% from a year ago. Over 16 million Americans live in poverty…in the suburbs. Every day under Obama the private sector shrinks, while the government grows like a toxic malignant tumor.

Obama promised to cut the deficit in half; instead he gave us five consecutive trillion dollar deficits. He promised to spend responsibly; instead now owns the title of biggest spender in world history. He called Bush’s $4 trillion in debt over 8 years reckless, then proceeded to pile on $6 trillion in only 4 years. He swore to be on the side of small business, but he added 6,118 new rules, regulations and mandates in just the last 90 days. He claimed taxes are low, yet he just raised taxes to the same level as bankrupt EU countries like Greece, Spain, Italy and France. Our federal income taxes are now far higher than former Soviet Republics.

Now I ask you- Does this sound like a man trying to “save” us?

Benghazi Massacre Blog copy

Folks, this is Cloward and Piven. This is Karl Marx, who despised the middle class and vowed to wipe it out. This is Saul Alinsky,who dedicated his book (Obama’s favorite book) to Lucifer, the devil.

This is no accident, or the work of an economically inept liberal. This is a purposeful plan to drown the nation in debt and hook a majority to government handouts, happening in front of our eyes. It’s crystal clear Obama’s plan was hatched in our college days, at Columbia, Class of ’83.

While I never met Obama at Columbia, I can certainly put him at the scene of the crime. He either went to Columbia, or he didn’t. If he didn’t, he’s a fraud. If he did, he knew the Cloward and Piven plan like the back of his hand. He studied it and his goal- like almost all my classmates- was to use it to bring down the U.S. economy and destroy capitalism to create what they consider to be “equality, fairness and social justice.”

Why would anyone want to purposely collapse the economy you might ask? Saul Alinsky taught the ends justify the means. A bankrupt America wipes out the middle class and small business. That wipes out the majority of donors to conservatives causes- meaning Obama has no opposition. It creates “equality”- by putting everyone on equal footing (shared misery). It causes panic- and in panic, voters often make hasty decisions- like choosing big government to save them.

Stimulus

The destruction and devastation we see happening right now is classic Cloward and Piven. It’s the plan we learned, studied, and discussed day and night at Columbia. This is no coincidence. This is the Marxist attack from within. This is a purposeful attempt to take down the economy, collapse the middle class, wipe out small business, bankrupt the wealthy (conservative donors), and addict the country to big government Nanny State socialism.

And it’s working. I believe it’s now clear that Obama has been working on his plan for 30 years (our 30th Columbia class reunion is next month). Now it is time for us to get to work- to save America and to save ourselves.

Obama compares personal liberty to dirty dishes

DIRTY DISHES

Obama: Americans Not Trusting NSA Is Like Michelle Not Trusting I Did The Dishes

August 9, 2013 by 

President Barack Obama held an hour-long press conference Friday, addressing reporters’ questions about a range of issues. But the main focus of the event was the ongoing controversy over the National Security Agency’s spying on American citizens.

The President announced a handful of modest steps he claims his Administration is taking to alleviate public concerns about the surveillance agency’s activities, including working with lawmakers to ensure better Congressional oversight and possible changes to the process the government uses to justify data collection.

“I’m also mindful of how these issues are viewed overseas because American leadership around the world depends upon the example of American democracy and American openness,” Obama said from the White House. “In other words, it’s not enough for me, as president, to have confidence in these programs. The American people need to have confidence in them, as well.”

Obama vowed that he intends to work on ways to tighten a provision of the Patriot Act – known as Section 215 – that allows the government to obtain business phone data records.  The President also suggested that his Administration would organize a panel of outsiders comprised of former intelligence officials, civil liberty and privacy advocates to review surveillance programs and suggest changes.

Rejecting the idea that NSA leaker Edward Snowden is a patriot, the President said that his Administration had already called for a review of the Nation’s surveillance practices in May. But, the President said that “there’s no doubt that Mr. Snowden’s leaks triggered a much more rapid, and passionate, response than if I had simply appointed this review board.”

Obama went on to insist that the NSA programs “are operating in a way that prevents abuse,” even without the reforms he announced.

“The question is,” Obama said, “how do I make the American people more comfortable?”

The President continued with an analogy, “If I tell Michelle that I did the dishes–now, granted, in the White House I don’t do the dishes that much, but back in the day–and she’s a little skeptical. Well, I’d like her to trust me, but maybe I need to bring her back and show her the dishes and not just have to take my word for it.”

Obama said that if the American people “examined exactly what has taken place, how it has been used, what the safeguards were,” that there would be no concern.

Why Christians Should Be Speaking Up about the Surveillance State

NSA Data Center in Bluffdale, Utah

Why Christians Should Be Speaking Up about the Surveillance State

Government Overreach, Compliant Christians, and the Founding Fathers |

Ed Stetzer

Many Early American Christians Had a More Healthy Suspicion Regarding Government and Liberty

It is important to note that we have, for example, a First Amendment in the Bill of Rights because free-church Christians (Baptists, to be specific) said that the government should not be trusted to guard the rights of the individual– those rights had to be enumerated, so that freedom and liberty could be protected.

Actually (and ironically), some of the Founding Fathers were concerned that by listing the “rights” in these “bills,” some might assume that these were the only rights, when there were many more. Regardless, they added these rights, which were generally a non-issue for many years– until they were tested many years later and the Bill or Rights became more prominent.

While Big Brother’s eyes grow stronger, some Christians just shut their eyes tighter.

The Founding Fathers chose to enumerate such rights and protections because they knew that governments, left unrestricted, would abuse power– so they assumed such abuses of power not because they were paranoid, but because they were wise. Good people said this would never happen– but they rejected assurances from good people because they knew people weren’t inherently good– and power must always have limits.

Our Founding Fathers saw the Bill of Rights as providing barriers against government overreach and abuse.

People (particularly people in governments with power) could not be trusted to have no checks on their power. Why? Well, some of it had to do with history. For example, a bill of rights was an English concept preceeding the American experiment. But, some of those colonists held the view because of biblical convictions about fallen nature and the need to protect rights that some might want to take away.

By Sean Sullivan, Published: June 18, 2013 at 11:32 amE-mail the writer

National Security Agency Director Gen. Keith Alexander, second from right, testifies on Capitol Hill on Tuesday. (J. Scott Applewhite/AP)

National Security Agency Director Gen. Keith Alexander, second from right, testifies on Capitol Hill Tuesday. (J. Scott Applewhite/AP)

Intelligence officials said Tuesday that the government’s sweeping surveillance efforts have helped thwart “potential terrorist events” more than 50 times since the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, and the officials detailed two new examples to illustrate the utility of the programs.

In testimony before the House Intelligence Committee on Tuesday, officials cited a nascent plot to blow up the New York Stock Exchange and a case involving an individual providing financial support to an overseas terrorist group.

“In recent years, these programs, together with other intelligence, have protected the U.S. and our allies from terrorist threats across the globe to include helping prevent the terrorist — the potential terrorist events over 50 times since 9/11,” National Security Agency Director Gen. Keith Alexander told the committee.

He said at least 10 of the plots targeted the United States.

FBI Deputy Director Sean Joyce said Tuesday that a provision in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act helped officials monitor a “known extremist in Yemen” who was in contact with an individual in the United States. The information led to disruption of the New York Stock Exchange plot, Joyce said.

Joyce also said that the use of a FISA business record provision helped officials with an investigation involving an individual who was communicating with an overseas terrorist.

“The NSA, using the business record FISA, tipped us off that this individual had indirect contacts with a known terrorist overseas,” said Joyce. “We were able to reopen this investigation, identify additional individuals through a legal process and were able to disrupt this terrorist activity.”

“So that’s four cases total that we have put out publicly,” Alexander said Tuesday.

The Washington Post and Britain’s Guardian newspaper recently revealed the sweeping Internet and telephone surveillance techniques the NSA has utilized in recent years.

Mario’s Note:

Here is what they told you today:

1. “Take our word for it we are not going to listen to your conversations.  We are not going to use it against you.  We now know that they did listen to our conversations and read our emails.

Fact: House Intelligence Committee officials have confirmed that they’re totally free to rifle through your data without a court order. As long as they think they might have a reason to be suspicious—any reason will do!—they’re free to go nuts.

2.  We foiled terrorist plots because of this program.

Fact: They didn’t stop the Boston Bombings, even though those people had expired visas and were using cell phones to communicate. And the police state enforced with warrantless house searches after the shootout in Watertown didn’t catch the suspect either. It was only when the curfew was lifted that the guy was found hiding in the boat.  All this was done in the name of security and safety.

3. We must obtain search warrants from the judges of the FISA court.

Confirmed: Court “Oversight” of NSA Surveillance Is a Total Joke:  The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, known as the FISA court has been defanged.  When asked, “Is the FISA court a rubber stamp?” NSA chief says no, but in the last two years, they’ve approved 4,000 orders, with zero rejections.

Here is what they are not saying:

Like him or hate Edward Snowden uncovered a dangerous threat to our privacy and freedom

Who is going to protect us from Obama?  The Patriot Act might work if our President was a patriot.  This is what you need to consider:  The Obama Factor.   He is partisan, vindictive and aloof when it comes to information.  Eric Holder is beholden to Obama.  We already have proof through the scandals of the IRS, Benghazi and Fast and Furious, Spying on news Reporters , that the Obama administration will violate the Constitution if they feel threatened.

 Terrorism must not become the latest excuse to expand the spying power of a runaway president.  We must speak up before we lose all of our freedom.  Christians must speak out.

 

The Other Benghazi Scandal: Journalists Worry Covering The Attack Threatens White House Access

Benghazi Massacre Blog copy

The Other Benghazi Scandal: Journalists Worry Covering The Attack Threatens White House Access

by Noah Rothman | 1:26 pm, August 5th, 2013

As the one year anniversary of the deadly attack on an American consulate in Benghazi approaches, journalists have begun to take another look into the scandal surrounding the government’s response to that terrorist event. Last week, CNN aired two striking reports revealing that the Central Intelligence Agency had a large number of agents on the ground on the night of the attack and that a suspect in the attack has never been interviewed by investigators. Following these revelatory reports, which some in President Barack Obama’s administration believe represent a political threat, some CNN reporters now fear for their access to the White House. They are not alone.

On July 31, CNN’s The Situation Room broadcast a portion of an interview conducted by reporterArwa Damon with a suspect in the Benghazi attacks. The suspect revealed to Damon that no investigator has attempted to contact him regarding his involvement in that deadly assault. The following day, CNN’s Drew Griffin broke the news that more than 30 CIA agents were on the ground in Libya on the day of the attack and they are being pressured by the spy agency to not reveal to reporters or congressional investigators what they know of the events of that night. Some CNN reporters are reportedly fearful now that their access to the White House will be hampered following their probing into a story that members of the Obama administration would prefer remain uninvestigated.

“Access is a very serious consideration when it comes to stories that could adversely impact a show, correspondent, or network’s relationship with the administration, a campaign, or any political leader,” one source with insider information told Mediaite.

“I would suggest it’s not an accident that those who have been given a lot of access to the president have generally been AWOL when it comes to stories that might reflect poorly on him,” the source, who did not wish to be identified, continued. “It’s the name of the game. And it’s bad for everyone trying to do this job the right way.” Those reporters have reason to fear for their access to America’s executive branch. Some suspect that reporters who soft-pedal or underreport stories uncomfortable to the administration receive preferential access to White House officials.

On September 12, 2012, less than 24-hours after the attack on the American consulate, President Obama sat down with CBS News reporter Steve Kroft for an in-depth interview on 60 Minutes. Acritical portion of that interview, however, was omitted from broadcast only to be released online the Friday before the election. In that unaired portion of the interview, the president appeared to hedge about whether to declare that attack an act of terrorism.

CBS’s decision to hold this portion of the interview became a focus of speculation because, during an explosive presidential debate against Mitt Romney, Obama declared with much more force that he had always regarded the Benghazi attack as a terrorist event.

Some believe it was no coincidence that the president chose 60 Minutes to sit down with outgoing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for an exit interview in January – one of several that she gave to every network news operation.

Unlike in the exit interviews on the other networks, the 60 Minutes interview’s focus on Benghazi – coming just days after Clinton testified before Congress about her department’s actions leading up to and following the attack – was decidedly limited.

“I want to talk about the hearings this week,” Kroft began.

“You had a very long day. Also, how is your health?” He digressed.

“As the New York Times put it, you accepted responsibility, but not blame,” Kroft asked in a follow up to the above grilling. “Do you feel guilty in any way, in– at a personal level? Do you blame yourself that you didn’t know or that you should have known?”

Both Clinton’s and the president’s response to this question was clinical, lawyerly, and retrospective. Of course, they were able to take this tone because the nature of the question implied that the Benghazi story was a closed book. Today, though, the persistent uncovering of new details relating to the federal response to that attack shows definitively that the Benghazi story is not yet fully understood.

CBS’ 60 Minutes is not the only venue which is protective of their access to the administration. Reporting by ABC News Chief White House Correspondent Jonathan Karl in May surrounding how the administration formed the talking points relating to the terrorist event in Benghazi prompted a flurry of reporting and commentary which suggested that the White House was fending off unwarranted attacks from their political opponents.

Just days prior to Karl’s revelations, NBC News was granted a rare tour of the White House Situation Room as part of a retrospective report reflecting on the two year anniversary of the killing of Osama bin Laden.

In the days that followed Karl’s revelations, NBC News’ most visible personalities were far more hands-off than they had been in the days that initially followed that deadly attack.

“The whole issue of talking point, frankly, throughout this process, has been a sideshow,” Obama pointedly said of Karl’s story unveiling how the talking points were formed. “We dishonor [the fallen] when we, you know, we turn things like this into a political circus.”

Appearing on Nightly News, the NBC News’ Chief White House Correspondent Chuck Toddreacted to Obama’s prickly statement by twice calling the president’s response to those revelations a “defiant” showing. NBC News’ Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent, Andrea Mitchell, observed that there is no doubt a “political undercurrent” to Republicans questioning Clinton’s culpability in those attacks. “After all, those Republicans are taking direct aim at Clinton, the country’s most popular Democrat and a potential presidential candidate,” she said of the revelations surrounding the talking points on NBC’s Today.

“If you worry about access, you’re in the wrong business,” another insider with detailed information about how journalists and news networks react to reporting about Benghazi told Mediaite. “This shouldn’t be a consideration at all, but it is.”

This source, who also declined to be identified, said that the institution of journalism would be better served if reporters were less protective of their sources within powerful institutions. “If we all raised proper objections, they couldn’t do it to anybody,” the source said of the White House’s efforts to block access to reporters who pursue stories they regard as inconvenient. “We’re really playing the government’s game.”