Maybe, but is he trustworthy?
This is likely unprecedented. A president has never, so far in my research, prevented the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee in Congress from asking a member of the military direct questions. This is stonewalling.
Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon, a California Republican and chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, stopped short Saturday of calling President Obama a liar. But he says the administration is keeping the American people in the dark when it comes to the deadly terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya.
McKeon tells Fox News’ “America’s News Headquarters” he doesn’t know why the Obama administration is dodging questions and blocking the efforts of some lawmakers to get answers.
“They ought to just tell everything they know,” says McKeon. “When there is a cover-up, it’s always worse than the incident itself. They ought to just come clean and tell us what happened. Admit that mistakes were made and make corrections for the future because this is just going to be a deeper and bigger hole they’re digging.”
To add more fuel to the fire, a spokesman for McKeon tells Fox News that Defense Secretary Leon Panetta office stepped in and prevented four senior military officers from answering McKeon’s questions concerning security at the consulate, effectively blocking the investigation. McKeon’s spokesman calls this “nearly unprecedented.”
While on Fox, McKeon acknowledged that he has questioned “senior commanders” within the military about the Benghazi terror attacks and says they’re stonewalling.
“Essentially what I wanted to know was had they or anyone in their command warned the State Department of any problem that they had in Libya or had offered any help,” says McKeon.
The congressman went on to say he gave those commanders 24 hours to respond. On Friday, they did saying they would not and could not respond in a timely manner. McKeon says just thinking Ambassador Christopher Stevens was in Benghazi without adequate protection “sickens him.”
[Editor’s Note – With this column we are very excited to welcome a truly wonderful mind in the form of Kate Dalzell to Political Arena. In this column Dalzell takes apart an all to common false narrative, a subject that is on our mind as of late.]
by Kate Dalzell
I have recently heard altruism defined as: a selfless and benevolent service to others and simply the rent we pay for living on this planet. While I am sure Joel Osteen and several other milquetoast pastors would nod their heads in mutual agreement the truth is it is an evil that I’ve personally witnessed creeping it’s way into the church and planting itself deeply into the spiritual lives of most Christians I interact with these days.
The problem is this altruist root of selflessness that lies at the core of all totalitarian systems, past, present, and future is that it is nothing more than a spiritual supplement. It offers outward reflection, a false humility, without the benefit of renewal or change that comes from a transformed life found in Christ. It is the religion of cults, atheists, Marxists, and all other totalitarian forms of worship. Altruism is the moral code at the base of all of these false religions, political systems and economies that have infiltrated not just our nation but, sadly, our church. It views human beings as objects of sacrifice, having no right to exist apart from service to others.
This is a lie from the pit of hell.
The truth is that the healthiest and most thriving nations are those made up of selfish, high regard for self, exceptional individuals that give and serve out of a charitable and humble heart, whereas the most stressed, and sometimes deadly, societies are founded on brutal and oppressive altruist premises. It is creating a disease so profuse in our culture that if not uprooted and destroyed, make no mistake, it will reduce Americans into second class citizens. Not only will blind atheists and evil Marxists be guilty of allowing this but so will the ignorant Christian.
Nathaniel Branden on altruism:
“Instead of the goodwill and mutual respect engendered by recognition of individual rights, altruism as a moral commandment produces only fear and hostility among human beings. It forces them to accept the role of victim or executioner and leaves them no standard of justice, no way to know what they can demand and what they must surrender. In order for human beings to accept self-sacrifice as a moral ideal, they have to remain ignorant of the concept of rational selfishness. Moralists have commonly declared or implied that our basic alternative is to sacrifice others to ourselves (which they call “egoism”) or to sacrifice ourselves to others (“altruism”). This is equivalent to declaring that our basic choice is between being a sadist or a masochist. Just as healthy sex consists of the exchange of pleasure, not pain, so healthy relationships of any kind consist of the exchange of values, not sacrifices.”
We must agree to put this out of our camp now!
It speaks for itself.