You are here: Home / Bishops Behaving Badly / "Earn Your Trident Every Day"
"Earn Your Trident Every Day"
October 28, 2012 by Gail Sheppard
That's the motto of the Navy SEALS. Please take the time to read the following essay about what really happened in Benghazi. Thumbnail: two Navy Seals –Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty–fought off two waves of attackers, killing sixty before they themselves were killed. In laying down suppressive fire, they enabled twenty Americans to escape with their lives.
Source: ScottOnCapeCod's Weblog
About the two Navy SEAL's killed in Libya:
Quite an astounding tribute to the courage and bravery of the two former Navy SEAL's that went to the aid of Ambassador Stevens and Embassy staff. Courageous!
Recently I was teaching a class in my church on the biblical character, Joshua. You remember him – he's the one who took over for Moses to lead the Israelites into the Promised Land. God made several promises to Joshua in the opening verses of this book of the Bible named after him. Three times God instructs Joshua to "be strong and courageous." In fact, one of those times God instructed him to be "very courageous." The road ahead was a tough one and Joshua would need to be up to the task.
The news has been full of the attacks on our embassies throughout the Muslim world, and in particular, the deaths of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others in Benghazi , Libya . However, apart from the shameful amount of disinformation willingly distributed by the Main Stream Media and the current administration, there's a little known story of incredible bravery, heroics, and courage that should be the top story of every news agency across the fruited plain.
So what actually happened at the U.S. embassy in Libya ? We are learning more about this every day. Ambassador Stevens and Foreign Service officer Sean Smith, along with administrative staff, were working out of temporary quarters due to the fact that in the spring of 2011 during the so-called Arab Spring, the United States cut ties with then president Moammar Gadhafi. Our embassy was looted and ransacked, causing it to be unusable. It is still in a state of disrepair. Security for embassies and their personnel is to be provided by the host nation. Since Libya has gone through a civil war of sorts in the past 18 months, the current government is very unstable, and therefore, unreliable
A well-organized attack by radical Muslims was planned specifically targeting the temporary U.S. embassy building. The Libyan security force that was in place to protect our people deserted their post, or joined the attacking force. Either way, our people were in a real fix. And it should be noted that Ambassador Stevens had mentioned on more than one occasion to Secretary of State, "Hillary Clinton", that he was quite concerned for his personal safety and the welfare of his people. It is thought that Ambassador Stevens was on a "hit list."
A short distance from the American compound, two Americans were sleeping. They were in Libya as independent contractors working an assignment totally unrelated to our embassy. They also happened to be former Navy SEALs. When they heard the noise coming from the attack on our embassy, as you would expect from highly trained warriors, they ran to the fight. Apparently, they had no weapons, but seeing the Libyan guards dropping their guns in their haste in fleeing the scene, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty snatched up several of these discarded weapons and prepared to defend the American compound.
Not knowing exactly what was taking place, the two SEALs set up a defensive perimeter. Unfortunately Ambassador Stevens was already gravely injured, and Foreign Service officer, Sean Smith, was dead. However, due to their quick action and suppressive fire, twenty administrative personnel in the embassy were able to escape to safety. Eventually, these two courageous men were overwhelmed by the sheer numbers brought against them, an enemy force numbering between 100 to 200 attackers which came in two waves. But the stunning part of the story is that Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty killed 60 of the attacking force. Once the compound was overrun, the attackers were incensed to discover that just two men had inflicted so much death and destruction.
As it became apparent to these selfless heroes, they were definitely going to lose their lives unless some reinforcements showed up in a hurry. As we know now, that was not to be. I'm fairly certain they knew they were going to die in this gun fight, but not before they took a whole lot of bad guys with them!
Consider these tenets of the Navy SEAL Code: 1) Loyalty to Country, Team and Teammate, 2) Serve with Honor and Integrity On and Off the Battlefield, 3) Ready to Lead, Ready to Follow, Never Quit, 4) Take responsibility for your actions and the actions of your teammates, 5) Excel as Warriors through Discipline and Innovation, 6) Train for War, Fight to Win, Defeat our Nation's Enemies, and 7) Earn your Trident every day (http://www.navyseals.com/seal-code-warrior-creed).
Thank you, Tyrone and Glen. To the very last breath, you both lived up to the SEAL Code. You served all of us well. You were courageous in the face of certain death.
And Tyrone, even though you never got to hold your newborn son, he will grow up knowing the character and quality of his father, a man among men who sacrificed himself defending others. God bless America !
Dr. Charles R. Roots Senior Pastor Former Staff Sergeant, USMC Captain, U. S. Navy Chaplain Corps (Ret)
This should be passed on and on and on.
Filed Under: Bishops Behaving Badly, Michalopulos Blog
loh says
http://oca.org/PDF/NEWS/2012/2012-1025-aac-responses.pdf
ISawHerStandingThere says
Questions eleven through fifteen are interesting.
Q11 — In other words, Syosset made the unprecedented decision not to have hierarchs from outside the OCA there (because of embarassment? it's certainly not because of "space requirements!"). Note however that, once the election is done, everyone is asked to make a public show of support.
Q12 — Is this a reversal of Syosset's disallowing Metropolitan JONAH from coming? Did they fail to come up with a reason to justify their denial? What's this about seating bishops "in an appropriate place"? The only place the bishops have been seated is at the head table. Is this intended to prepare us for Metropolitan JONAH being seated elsewhere? And what about them "not being permitted to speak"? That's never been the case. Not vote, sure, but not allowed to speak?
Q13 — A figleaf to dissenters? They finally had to admit we can nominate whomever we wish. I'm voting for Metropolitan JONAH, even though we all know the Synod will not elect him.
Q14 — This is a non-answer. The truthful answer is, YES. They even admit that every bishop must have a see (but then they don't answer the question, nor do they say what see +JONAH is over.) However, they have both stripped him of his Metropolitanate and uncanonically taken his diocese away. It is a lie that "The office of the Metropolitan and the See (of Washington DC) cannot be separated." All they can do is state that +Alexander is temporarily over Washington. What a mess.
Q15 — Note they add "armed." This is not true. The rumor is that Syosset has hired police officers, which they have. This is not at all usual practice for AACs. Cops as parking attendants? If you believe this lie, I have a bridge to Brooklyn I will sell you, real cheap.
Nobody says
THE WASHINGTON TIMES ON "BENGHAZIGATE":
The evidence suggests that the Obama administration has not simply been engaging, legitimating, enriching and emboldening Islamists who have taken over or are ascendant in much of the Middle East. Sta
rting in March 2011, the Obama administration has been arming them, including jihadists like Abdelhakim Belhadj, leader of the al Qaeda franchise known as the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group.
Once Moammar Gadhafi was overthrown, American diplomat J. Christopher Stevens was appointed ambassador to the new Libya run by Mr. Belhadj and his friends. Not surprisingly, one of the most important priorities for someone in that position would be to try to find and secure the immense amount of armaments that had been cached by the dictator around the country and systematically looted during and after the revolution. One of the places in Libya most awash with such weapons is Benghazi.
It now appears that Stevens was in Benghazi to send arms recovered from the former regime's stocks to the "opposition" in Syria. As in Libya, the insurgents are known to include al Qaeda and other Shariah-supremacist groups, including none other than Abdelhakim Belhadj.
The Al Entisar, a Libyan-flagged vessel carrying 400 tons of cargo, docked on Sept. 6 in the Turkish port of Iskenderun. It reportedly supplied both humanitarian assistance and arms — including deadly SA-7 man-portable surface-to-air missiles — apparently destined for Islamists, again including al Qaeda elements, in Syria.
What cries out for further investigation is whether this shipment was part of a larger covert Obama effort to transfer weapons to our enemies that could make the Iran-Contra scandal pale by comparison.
Investigative journalist Aaron Klein has reported that the "consulate in Benghazi" actually was no such thing. What Mr. Klein describes as a "shabby, nondescript building" that lacked any "major public security presence" was, according to an unnamed Middle Eastern security official, "routinely used by Stevens and others to coordinate with the Turkish, Saudi and Qatari governments on supporting the insurgencies in the Middle East, most prominently the rebels opposing Assad's regime in Syria."
We know that Stevens' last official act was to hold such a meeting with an unidentified "Turkish diplomat." Presumably, the conversation involved additional arms shipments to al Qaeda and its allies in Syria. It also may have involved getting more jihadi fighters there. After all, Mr. Klein reported last month that, according to sources in Egyptian security, our ambassador was playing a "central role in recruiting jihadists to fight Bashar al-Assad's regime in Syria."
Last week, Center for Security Policy senior fellow and former career CIA officer Clare Lopez observed that there were two large warehouse-type buildings associated with the so-called "consulate" whose purpose has yet to be disclosed. As their contents were raided in the course of the attack, we may never know for sure whether they housed arms, perhaps administered by the two former Navy SEALs killed along with Stevens.
What we do know is that the New York Times reported in an Oct. 14 article, "Most of the arms shipped at the behest of Saudi Arabia and Qatar to supply Syrian rebel groups fighting the government of Bashar Assad are going to hard-line Islamic jihadists, and not the more secular opposition groups that the West wants to bolster."
In short, it seems President Obama has been engaged in gun-walking on a massive scale. The effect has been to equip America's enemies to wage jihad not only against regimes it once claimed were our friends, but inevitably against us and our allies as well. That would explain his administration's desperate and now failing bid to mislead the voters through the serial deflections of Benghazigate.
–Frank J. Gaffney Jr. is president of the Center for Security Policy (SecureFreedom.org), and a columnist for The Washington Times.
http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/oct/22/the-real-reason-behind-benghazigate/#.UIoMh8wfR0R.facebook
face-it says
Amazing, Thank you!
SilentNoMore says
I think this is an international scandal.
An urgent request from the CIA annex for military back-up during the attack on the U.S. consulate and subsequent attack several hours later was denied by U.S. officials — who also told the CIA operators twice to "stand down" rather than help the ambassador's team when shots were heard at approximately 9:40 p.m. in Benghazi on Sept. 11…
…The security officer had a laser on the target that was firing and repeatedly requested back-up support from a Spectre gunship, which is commonly used by U.S. Special Operations forces to provide support to Special Operations teams on the ground involved in intense firefights. The fighting at the CIA annex went on for more than four hours — enough time for any planes based in Sigonella Air base to arrive.
Two separate Tier One Special operations forces were also told to wait, among them Delta Force operators.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/26/cia-operators-were-denied-request-for-help-during-benghazi-attack-sources-say/
At the very least, this was a hundred million times worse than Watergate. Someday, the story of how these two SEALS held off 150+ militants all alone for 7 hours will be made into a Hollywood blockbuster.
ObamaScandalous says
Charles Woods, the father of Tyrone Woods, who was killed in the 9/11 terrorist attack at the American consulate in Benghazi:
"Now that it's coming out that apparently the White House situation room was watching our people die in real time, as this was happening."
Woods wants answers on what happened—and why there was no apparent effort to save his son's life.
Woods continues: "Apparently even the State Department had a live stream and was aware of their calls for help."
Woods said he wants to the "truth" to be told because he feels "abandoned."
Woods says he was told by military officials that the military could have "come above [the area] and completely carpeted area," and therefore saved the officials in Benghazi, Libya. But that someone gave the command for the American military not to save the lives of the Americans under attack.
"When I heard, you know, that there's a very good chance that the White House as well as other members of the military knew what was going on and obviously someone had to say, don't go rescue them. Because every person in the military–their first response [would be], we're going to go rescue them. We need to find out who it was that gave that command–do not rescue them."
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/father-slain-seal-who-made-decision-not-save-my-son_657782.html
Benghazigate says
Three days after the bloody 9/11 siege on our consulate in Benghazi, the Taliban waged an intricately coordinated, brutal attack on Camp Bastion in Afghanistan. Two heroic U.S. Marines were killed in the battle. The murderous jihadists released video exactly one month ago this week showing off their training exercises in preparation for the assault. Where are the questions? Where's the accountability? Where's the Obama administration? Where's the press? Where's the outrage?
On September 20, John Gresham of the Defense Media Network called it "arguably the worst day in USMC aviation history since the Tet Offensive of 1968." Eight irreplaceable aircraft were destroyed or put out of action by Taliban warriors dressed in U.S. combat fatigues — amounting to "approximately 7 percent of the total flying USMC Harrier fleet," Gresham reported.
His summary: "A Harrier squadron commander is dead, along with another Marine. Another nine personnel have been wounded, and the nearby Marines at Camp Freedom are now without effective fixed-wing air support. The USMC's response to this disaster will be a telling report card on its leadership and organizational agility."
On September 21, the left-leaning magazine The Atlantic published an article on the Camp Bastion attack titled "The U.S. Suffered Its Worst Airpower Loss Since Vietnam Last Week and No One Really Noticed."
President Obama has referred callously to the murders of our civilian diplomatic staff in Benghazi as "bumps in the road," and "not optimal." Even more maddening, though, is the silence from the White House about what happened that day at Camp Bastion.
Somehow, a band of 15 insurgents managed to penetrate the wire with assault rifles, rocket-propelled grenades and other weapons on 9/14. Their destruction was of historic proportions.
Michelle Malkin: "Obama mocks Romney with snarky lines about bayonets and binders. The thin-skinned commander in chief exploits Seal Team Six to burnish his 'leadership' cred. But silence is complicity. The questions must be asked: Did politically correct rules of engagement hamper our troops' defenses? Who knew what and when? Who was behind the attackers? And what is being done to ensure our front-line defenders of freedom are able to defend themselves?"
http://www.michellemalkin.com/2012/10/26/what-about-the-camp-bastion-attack/
LiarInChief says
THE WASHINGTON TIMES:
Is an American General losing his job for trying to save the Americans besieged in Benghazi? This is the latest potential wrinkle in the growing scandal surrounding the September 11, 2012 terrorist attack that left four men dead and President Obama scrambling for a coherent explanation.
On October 18, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta appeared unexpectedly at an otherwise unrelated briefing on "Efforts to Enhance the Financial Health of the Force." News organizations and CSPAN were told beforehand there was no news value to the event and gave it scant coverage. In his brief remarks Mr. Panetta said, "Today I am very pleased to announce that President Obama will nominate General David Rodriguez to succeed General Carter Ham as commander of U.S. Africa Command." This came as a surprise to many, since General Ham had only been in the position for a year and a half. The General is a very well regarded officer who made AFRICOM into a true Combatant Command. Some assumed that he was leaving for unspecified personal reasons.
However the information I heard today was that General Ham as head of Africom received the same e-mails the White House received requesting help/support as the attack was taking place. General Ham immediately had a rapid response unit ready and communicated to the Pentagon that he had a unit ready.
General Ham then received the order to stand down. His response was to screw it, he was going to help anyhow. Within 30 seconds to a minute after making the move to respond, his second in command apprehended General Ham and told him that he was now relieved of his command.
Hillary Clinton's freakishly bizarre statement on September 14 is also worth noting. At a memorial service to the fallen she told Charles Woods, father of slain former Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods, that "we will make sure that the person who made that film is arrested and prosecuted." In that situation one would expect her to vow to take down the terrorists who killed Tyrone.
But since when does the Secretary of State feel it is her duty to promise to have an American filmmaker who has committed no crime arrested? For all the bowing and scraping to Islam that has gone on in the last four years, speaking against that or any other faith is still not illegal in this country. The First Amendment still exists. It is strange that Mrs. Clinton believed that the parents of the slain Americans would empathize with her outrage at the filmmaker, rather than reserve their anger for the extremists who actually did the killing.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/robbins-report/2012/oct/28/general-losing-his-job-over-benghazi/#.UIzCXxKqGmM.facebook
ObamaMuslim says
In the 2004 election, Cindy Sheehan had been turned into a media star for no reason other than that her son had died in Iraq and she was willing to lend her name to the left's campaign. There was no specific issue that Sheehan raised, but nevertheless the media was willing to cover her every sneeze.
And now 2012. Charles Woods, the father of Tyrone Woods, one of the Navy SEALS killed at the Benghazi consulate, has made serious allegations about his encounter with Hillary Clinton and the refusal of the Obama Administration to save his son. And the media has conducted a complete blackout of the story.
The media refuses to touch it. And yet how can the statements of Senator McCain and Charles Woods not be covered? The New York Times chose to suppress coverage of the Congressional hearings on Libya. They can only be sidelined until the election, which is what the media is doing, buying a little more time for Obama to win.
http://frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/the-medias-cover-up-of-benghazigate/
I am not American, but I do hope the USA honours the sacrifice of these brave, brave men in some appropriate way. If I were American, I think I would be very angry at the obvious failures of the executive level of government which clearly contributed to this event. Someone has some explaining to do – hold them to it.
Anymouse says
Sorry to threadjack, but did anyone catch the minutes of the DOW diocesan council meeting?
http://dowoca.orthodoxws.com/files/reports/Council%20Meeting%20Minutes/DC10-4-12.pdf
In case they get yanked down, here's the relevant bit:
Saint John of San Francisco Monastery – Archbishop Benjamin led a discussion concerning the recent developments at Saint John of San Francisco Monastery, Manton, CA. Father Meletios (Webber) has resigned as abbot of the monastery, will be released from the Orthodox Church in America, and will return to Europe in the near future. After the departure of six monks from the monastery, six monks now remain. There is an outstanding balance of approximately $70,000.00 in outstanding credit card debt. Additionally, His Eminence noted that the monastery pays a monthly mortgage in the amount of $5,000.00. Due to the departure of the younger, physically sturdier monks and the unavailability of the mailing list of benefactors due to its unauthorized removal from the monastery, the monastic brotherhood is facing significant challenges in meeting its financial responsibilities. Because of the role the monastery plays in the life of our diocese and with the hope that it will soon recover from its recent difficulties, there was a consensus that the diocese should provide the monastery with financial assistance at this time, in the form of a loan. This loan would be made to pay off the $70,000.00 credit card debt and to provide for payment of six months of the monastery's mortgage, each payment in the amount of $5,000.00. It was moved and seconded (Tate/Pouschine):
"That the Diocesan Council authorize a zero percent (0%) loan in the amount of $100,000.00 to the Saint John of San Francisco Monastery, Manton, CA, drawn from the Point Reyes funds, with re-payment of the loan to be made within five years. These monies are for repayment of the $70,000.00 in credit card debt and for payment of the monthly mortgage in the amount of $5,000.00 for six months; That the diocesan finance committee be authorized to oversee the distribution of the loaned monies and that it also review the monastery's financial records and assess the long-term financial situation and income potential; and That the diocesan finance council review the monastery by-laws and, if contingencies concerning the disposition of property to the Diocese in the event of defaulting on the loan are not made within the by-laws, that it proceed to secure the loan by a lien on the monastery property." Motion carried.
I guess the silver lining to all this would be that the DOW will have less money to send to Syosset. Oh well.
Sorry, but just how do monks rack up $70 000 in credit card debt?
I thought the podriasnik was a symbol of poverty?
I know monasteries must have business dealings but something seems awry here.
Helga says
Basil, good point. How is it that $70,000 in expenses got racked up in the monastery's name, then the Abbot is allowed to ditch the monastery and leave the country? Hmmm.
There you go thinking logically, Helga. You've really got to stop that as long as we're ruled by the Supreme, Omnipoten, All-governing Synod of the Universe.
StephenD says
It could be travel expenses. Abbot Meletios Webber was here in Jacksonville this year to give a talk at the OCA parish. He actually did a very good job. He is a gifted speaker. Airfares are pretty high these days.
Michael C says
Yeah, and it does sound like a lot of money; and it is. However, yes, StephenD, the Abbot and some of the monks traveled a lot, mainly to raise funds … and, with fundraising being sparse many months, they were forced to use credit to pay bills and buy food (especially for 14-20 monks and for all the visitors).
There may, in fact, be funny business with this $70,000 … that, I don't know. But, I *do* know that Manton – and by comparison Holy Cross ROCOR monastery in WV – always runs low on money, and has to use credit to make ends meet. I believe that Holy Cross is now, finally, in a better spot, cash-flow-wise, but only after a Fund For Assistance appeal last year that raised $60K. Just prior to the appeal, they had $350 in their checking account.
Again, there may be some funny business here; I don't know. But, I don't think many of use realize just how thin the budgets of our US monasteries are, those of Ephraim notwithstanding.
These questions are valid, especially in view of the moral/theological shenanigans that have happened. But, most monasteries struggle financially.
Yeah, I'm not concerned about the loss of $70,000 or their use of a credit card. That's par for the course. What's worse is the self-immolation that took place there because of the questionable teachings of the former Abbott.
Michael C.,
By "awry" I didn't really mean "funny business" but rather bad business.
Credit card debt is the worst debt you can accumulate; but then with the low state of the US economy and interest rates that's not really going to hit home at present, I guess. But buying groceries, gas and other daily living expenses on credit is not a habit that anyone, let alone monks, should get into. His Grace Bp Tikhon's remarks below about lap tops and cell phones and an automobile really get to the nub of the problem, I think.
More generally, you have just too many small monasteries in the US which apparently teter on the brink of insolvency. If an Abbott needs to fly around the country on credit begging donations to stave off starvation, it's clearly a very problematic set-up to begin with. Also, scandal of the type that's surfaced at Manton is more likely in small monasteries that avoid oversight.
Catherine 9 says
I still smell a rat here, along with Basil, despite Michael C.'s reasoned reply comparing
the manton monastery with Holy Cross.
Why? Because I can't imagine that "Fr Mel" of dubious fame – already before this
latest debacle – at least in my own opinion, if no one else's !! –
would travel from Redding to Jacksonville to raise money ?
Surely if a parish had invited him to speak, the parish would have covered at least
his airfare ?
There is something VERY strange here which I personally think should be looked into
carefully by any responsible party !
For it could be one of those suspicious signals which often get swept under the carpet.
But which lead to a whole trail of OTHER strange expenses, or not-quite-right doings.
Surely the heresies and psychological manipulations of the monks, purported pilgrims, seminar
attendees are deleterious.
Following The Money Trail might lead to some MORE revelations ?
I hope this gets followed up on. $70,000 is no tiny amount – FOR A MERE 14 Monastics !
Further, I am guessing that the REAL AMOUNT is probably in the realm
of DOUBLE. Unapalatable financial figures are routinely chopped in half.
Bp Tikhon's attempt to get the financial report is admirable.
However why was it SO difficult even [apparently] back at St Eugene's, the name of the
previous monastery before it changed to St John of San Francisco ?
Anytime there is hedging on providing full financial figures,
surely someone is involved in HEAVY COVER-UP !
So there was a long history of financial foul-up, it sounds like.
Finally under Fr Mel's helm, I suspect the budget skyrocketed due
to various things which won't be reported to the OCA flock by
officials. Such as his own notorious indulgence in ADDICTIONS.
After all, that was a book he wrote, and he conducted seminars
on this topic of addressing addictions with a supposed Orthodox
Secondly, Fr Mel might have had many other layers of agenda, such
as aiding Moscow to have a nice retreat center for tired agents working
in OCA and other venues in Western America.
Laugh all you want : there MAY be something along these lines.
Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) says
Oh, Basil. I used to ask that sort of question when I was the ruling bishop, as did my chancellor, Father Nikolai (Soraich). WE didn't see why they had to have cell phones, laptops, and credit cards/gasoline cards and, in the case of the monk-in-charge, own an auto. And I also had to turn into a real nag to get ONE complete financial report. But, of course, that is when the Brotherhood occupied the property at Point R
eyes Station, formerly occupied by the convent of the Holy Cross, which was ready-made for its new occupants, the brotherhood of St. John of Shanghai and San Francisco!
Let's see, more of the same, lies, and retaliation from +BB and cowardly response from priests in the DOW.
The minutes mention, the unauthorized removal of the benefactors list from the monastery. I was told directly that this question came up when some of the brothers were questioned regarding this "issue" by a couple of priests , from the DOW.
The monks response was straight forward. The guys just didn't know where to look. (Silly but true). I want to say once again,
the monks who left for Platina, were NEVER angry at their brother monks. This retaliation story, is typical of Bishop Benjamin's own tactics, and it reveals,once again, those Priests, who were present at that meeting ,to remain silent, hide out from the truth and allow this slander to go in print. So goes the OCA……….
George your article on the Bishops of the OCA Voting (sorry this is in the wrong place too) is a nice simple assessment of what is wrong in the OCA and deserves a wider readership than I fear it will have during "Sandy". Please reprint, in about 7 days and distribute as widely as you can. Like Christine's document, it is this nuts and bolts description, of the OCA corruption, a greater distribution is needed thoughout OCA. I think ALL jurisdictions should know WHO and HOW the OCA governs itself.
I have already left.
Can the DOW unilaterally release the abbot Webber to another jurisdiction? Was he personally responsible for any of that massive credit card debt?
That is an EXCELLENT question LOH! I thought that only the Metropolitan could release and accept ("unilaterally") clerics to and from another national jurisdiction. Yet another example of the OCA making things up as they go along.
Actually, George, the OCA's Statute restricting the right of canonical release to the First Hierarch is itself not provided for in the canons. In fact, in my experience, hierarchs of other jurisdictions/ Local Churches were surprised, perplexed, or amused that OCA diocesan bishops,that is, bishops in an autocrephalous
Church could not release of accept clergy from any other jurisdiction or local Church on their own. This would seem to exceed even the excessive rights assumed by the notoriously "monarchical" Russian Patriarchate! For example, the Greek Bishop of San Francisco, Anthony, released Father Nicholas Soraich to me and was amazed that I could not receive him, but he had to write another release to our Metropolitan who then, in turn, would release him to me. It always seemed to me like an outrageous suppression of the authority of real diocesan bishops! We must realize, too, that if Archbishop Benjamin wanted to release Abbot Meletios, NO First Hierarch or Locum Tenens in the OCA would stand in his way. Apparently someone used a short cut which was a canonical short cut, but a violation of the All-Sacred Statute. Vladyka Dmitri very very often inveighed against this OCA peculiarity, and sometimes got in hot water for "unilaterally" receiving this or that Priest or Deacon!
According to OCA Statute Article IV, Section 2-J, the Metropolitan receives petitions from candidates hoping to transfer from other jurisdictions, but I assume any diocesan bishop can release anyone under his omophor to transfer elsewhere.
SerbFromJoliet says
I believe the minutes read "will be released", not "has".
DOW Newsflash says
Oh, but this is the Diocese of the Wild West, folks, led by Benny and his Gang of Outlaws!
Fr. Matthew Tate–the same "Tate" in the minutes above, who motioned for the DOW to give $100,000 to a Monastery now comprised of just six monks, was given $20,000 for a housing allowance this year in addition to his salary.
Geez… don't get me started on the finances out here… If you take a look through the last several months of DOW financial statements, you'll see that several key parishes are not paying their assessments to the DOW. Properties have been sold this past year to make up for the loss in income. But everything is just fine, right?
DOW, I'm not sure I follow you about Fr Matthew Tate and his housing allowance. To me that's not an issue nor questionable. I am right with you though regarding the other things you write about, especially the selling of DOW properties and parishes not paying their assessments. If you could document these assertions I would be most appreciated.
The financial statements of the DOW show that it is in remarkably good shape financially, One might even call it "exemplary" or superb shape. Yes there are (as there have been every month since, oh, 1973 or thereabouts, five or six parishes, not always the same ones who are over 30 days, but not much over 30 days, in arrears on their assessment payments. in the September report, Los Angeles is reported as being over 30 days behind. That's the only "key" parish (DOWNewsflash exaggerates when he speaks of "several" key parishes. The diocese's condition (anyone can read their detailed reports on the website) is that it has over $4,000,000 in assets and close to $2,000,000 in liabilities.
colette says
Is it pretty good before or after selling off properties?
It's been remarkably good, not 'pretty good" for oh, twenty, thirty years. Look up the wonderful financial statement by one of the best treasurers who has ever lived, Mary Caetta, for every month over all these years, look at the Monthlty reports in both detailed and summary versions. The Diocese of the West is and has been in remarkably good financial condition for decades and decades and is so today.'Put up or shut up on this topic, please. I do NOT, however, make any such pronouncement on the financial condition of that monastery. God could cause it to explode into smithereens tomorrow and the financial condition of the Diocese of the West would still be remarkably good, not AS good as today, but stil, remarkably good.
"Pretty good!" That's almost an insult.
Elijah says
That whole situation of two "former" SEALS who just so happened to be right next door to the embassy sounds like a episode of that TV show "The Unit".
One might get the impression that it was no accident that these two heroic, well trained, "former" SEALS were "just down the street" on "unrelated business". I'm no tin foil hat kind of guy who I do believe we have a very robust "black ops" program. This might be one case where someone in command decided to place those men next door to be the first responders regardless of the presidents orders or not.
Also, I say "former" in quotes only because I think possibly they are not as former as the government wants us to believe. Who knows… All I know is that I find it what I would call "dammed peculiar" that those guys were right next door, regardless of the cover story (if it is a cover story).
They were in fact "former." Tyrone Woods' wife and infant child are not eligible for death benefits which would accrue to the survivors of one who is active military. I should have indicated in my original posting that these were "former Navy SEALS". Regardless, it was a breach of international law for these savages to overrun a foreign consulate. My only regret is that these two heroes didn't take out more of them. Well, I take that back, I have another regret: that their Commander-in-Chief didn't send an F-18 or two to buzz over the mob and scatter them. It could have happened, General Carter Ham was poised to save the consulate but he was relieved of his command by his second-in-command. Now he's being "investigated" by the Administration.
It wouldn't be a believable black ops cover story if the wife got death benefits would it?
Two highly trained SEALS right next door just around the time a possible attack was going to happen? Walks like Duck, Talks like Duck…. Those guys made the ultimate sacrifice for their country, their families maybe didn't even know the full extent. I hope his brother SEALS help take care of his family.
Actually there were a mile away. Plus they were ordered to not come to the aid of the Consulate. To "stand down." They both chose to disobey that order and so paid the ultimate sacrifice. Let's take this further: why was the Obama Administration willing to sacrifice the twenty American stationed at Benghazi? Either because they believe the Kumbaya claptrap about multiculturalism and that Muslims would love us more if we were more libertine or because they didn't care about the State Dept employees there. Not a pretty picture, is it?
Even if they were "black ops" it's still nothing short of heroic.
Charles Demetrios says
Former, schmormer. Once a SEAL, always a SEAL!
The ultimate sacrifice for the country which is the he-goat ( Daniel) who attacks Media/Persia, somehow rings like the great sacrifice of the very brave Nazi storm troopers who died by the 100's of thousands in Germany. The Christ esteemed, people like the Centurion, who had great faith, St Nathanial, for his guilelessness, the widow, who threw in the widows mite, and St Peter who first received God's revelation to the human heart, and St. James and St John who said they would drink the cup, also, which the Lord would drink of. There is selflessness and bravery here, that exceeds mortal combat, as do the bravery of the Holy Martyrs who shed no one's blood. Mortal combat and it's glorification is vain glory done for the evil cause of the he-goat.. Stop sending , and blessing Christians to fight for the psychos who run this country.
AND HOW !
This is all a big trumped-up SCAM to kill off the
able-bodied men of America [and Europe too, where NATO
has intervened at the behest of moneyed groups in America
and many other nations.]
Smart guy, Michael J. !
Eljah earlier is totally right. I am so relieved some
people can see through this unbelievable treachery
perpetrated on innocent people.
Most swallow it due to lack of study of the truths
behind these wars to decimate other nations
and peoples.
There are plenty of internet sites to check out
to develop a deeper understanding of
these dynamics.
News flash – we have been emboldening and arming Islamists for years. The Obama administration wasn't the first to start this. This doesn't let him off the hook, but we're being naive, at best, if we believe this has started the last four year.
As a former USN Desert Storm vet, and son of a retired USAF Master Sergeant Vietnam vet, this absolutely sickens me. Whatever happened to "leave no man behind"? And exactly when did the USMC stop providing security to our embassies and consulates? I always thought that was one of the enduring points of pride for the Marines, that they were on station at every piece of America around the world. Up until now, I was going to vote for Gov. Johnson, as I am in agreement with most of the Libertarian party's stances; however, now I believe I will vote for Mitt (much as I despise his personality and the ownership of the GOP by corporate special interests) just to ensure a REAL commander-in-chief who, hopefully, WILL NOT allow something like this to happen to any of our other outposts without serious consequences and repercussions. And, please, let's prosecute all involved, WHOMEVER they may be, to the absolute fullest extent allowed (including treason.)
Could you take this discussion to your category AMERICANA??? It is painful to see this stuff while I am praying for the entire east coast, the safety of all its people, and, most of all, contemplating the possible loss of our dear Metropolitan Jonah, unjustly and effectively stripped of his role as Archbishop of America. His help and prayers are really needed at this time in the Washington, D.C. area within our Diocese.
We should also be praying for the health of his whole family at this time!
The communications network for the Metropolitan is completely broken down. So, he served at St. Mark's, and I and others did not know in advance to come. We all want to hear his sermons and see his joyful face.
Some friends from another jurisdiction asked me what was this business about the OCA Metropolitan. We were walking somewhere and there wasn't time for the large explanation, however concise, so I said, "We have a holy, humble Metropolitan who loves us and gives short great sermons while he has been trying to reform the Church and make it transparent. He even remembers our names, so of course they want to get rid of him!" They commiserated and understood exactly what I meant for they have a Metropolitan who is downright nasty, gives long, tendentious empty sermons, is given to losing his temper and remembering imagined slights and injuries, and plots against the laity.
We want Metropolitan Jonah back and we want him to act as unilaterally as possible. given his present and recent documented lack of support.
May our sweet Lord have mercy on us and the Metropolitan. Be nice if we survived the weather as a bonus.
Lola J. Lee Beno says
My husband is really disgusted by the whole thing. He was in the Army and is a Gulf War I vet. And in fact, he was asked to try out for the Rangers (he ultimately declined, but this would have been perfect for him). There's no way he would have left these guys alone to fight on their own.
123 says
A live video feed doesn't tell us anythign about what was visible on that feed, and the fact it is referred to as video implies there was only video and neither audio nor two-way communications (it looks like it was drone video). Thus, the questions is still what could actually have been known, what was out of sight, what the context was exactly, who was telling them what and what that person could have known relative to the situation as a whole. Since there were reports that a mob had gathered, whether before or after the attack is irrelevant to this point, it would have been highly, politically, internationally dangerous to attack and possibly kill civilians when the entire Arab world was up in arms over the video (which is definitively true of unrest in Egypt, for instance). "US kills Mohammed video protestors in drone attack" is not a favorable headline. In fact, 50-200 insurgents (no one is sure how many) around the 'consulate' could very well have also looked like protesters from the air along with some who were attacking the mission. It was unclear. The fact Panetta "could have" attacked doesn't change the fact that
The "basic principle is that you don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's going on; without having some real-time information about what's taking place [and that's more than just drone video – 123]," he said during a joint question-and-answer session with Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff General Martin Dempsey. "As a result of not having that kind of information, the commander who was on the ground in that area, General Ham, [as well as] General Dempsey and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation," Panetta said. General Carter Ham commands the U.S. Africa Command.
It also looks as if the only people reporting that the Administration refused to provide military aid are Fox News and the Weekly Standard, and various right wing blogs. Not Reuters, not the AP, not Agence France-Presse, no reputable, non-partisan, international news organization without an ax to grind. While there may be something here and it could turn out that "mistakes were made" (big or small), it also seems obvious that partisans are jumping to conclusions now because the election cycle won't provide time enough for the facts to come out in a time frame they prefer.
It's also worth noting that whatever information comes out now, it was, in fact, unclear what exactly was going on then (and even days after the attack). For instance,
"a Reuters report from Sept. 13 – two days after the attack – describ[ed] a supposedly popular protest outside the U.S. mission and even claim[ed] to quote a protester.
Reads the Sept. 13 Reuters report: "Accounts from Libyan and U.S. officials, and from locals who watched what began as a protest on Tuesday against a crudely made American film that insults the Prophet Mohammad spiral into violence and a military-style assault on U.S. troops, point to a series of unfortunate choices amid the confusion and fear."
The article quotes one protester and only by his first name, described as "a 17-year-old student named Hamam, who spoke to Reuters at the devastated compound on Wednesday."
Reuters quotes "Hamam" as saying, "When we had heard that there was a film that was insulting to the Prophet, we, as members of the public, and not as militia brigades, we came to the consulate here to protest and hold a small demonstration."
"Hamam" further claimed that a rumor had spread that a protester had been wounded by firing from inside the U.S. mission, and so Hamam and many others went off to retrieve guns which, Reuters reported, like many Libyans, they keep at home for security."
If the Administration was getting that kind of information in addition to information from drone video and those in the compound, it would have made sense diplomatically to assume that the attack could possibly be related to the uprising in Egypt and the growing outrage around the Muslim world. It would not have been diplomatically astute to be found attacking such protestors with an AC-130. Even a later AP report critical of Reuters' initial reporting admits that militants in trucks bearing the logo of Ansar al-Shariah had gathered "around 20 youths from nearby to chant against the film. Within an hour or so, the assault began, guns blazing as the militants blasted into the compound."" So, this was not simply 'militia v consulate security' regardless of who started it, whether it was planned, and whether most of those involved were not 'just protestors'.
"the building was not a consulate and at no point functioned as one. Instead, the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi served as a meeting place to coordinate aid for the rebel-led insurgencies in the Middle East". That is, it was something more like a CIA station. The Ambassador also died in a safe room that was later burnt. So, he should have been safe, even in a non-consulate without consulate-level security, but he wasn't but shit happens in dangerous, unstable parts of the world, and the Ambassador knew where he was going was not heavily defended (his famous request for security was for Tripoli, not Benghazi). I am thankful for his service and I sorrow over his loss. Things got even more confused ex post facto as people claimed responsibility and then pulled those claims, and others on the ground in fact began protesting the film in Libya and around the Arab and claimed the film as a reason for the attack."
"So far, few of the most inflammatory accusations against the administration have fully borne out under close inspection.
For instance, suggestions that the White House knew for sure that the attacks were not related to the anti-Islam video have been complicated by reports that some militants continued to cite the video for weeks after that incident.
Meanwhile, a series of emails acquired by Reuters last week, which appeared to show the White House being informed within hours of the assault that the militant group Ansar al-Sharia had claimed responsibility for the attacks on a Facebook page, were equally muddled…
Even the most recent Fox News report, alleging that requests for help from CIA officers on the ground were denied by superiors three times, is less conclusive than it appears. Not clear from the reporting is whether the denials came from White House officials, as some Republicans have charged, or if they were made separately by the Pentagon, or perhaps never left the CIA itself.
Fox's report says that the initial request for help "was denied by the CIA chain of command" and that later ones were communicated to "their higher-ups at the annex [in Benghazi]."
The CIA denied the report late on Friday, saying "No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate.""
In addition, while
"Reuters reported Wednesday that on September 11—the day of the attack—a State Department email with the subject header "Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack" was sent to the White House…
The email appears to have been incorrect. Ansar al-Sharia in Benghazi, the group suspected of attacking the consulate, never claimed responsibility for the assault. In fact, according to Aaron Zelin, a fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy who monitors jihadist activity online, Ansar al-Sharia in Benghazi didn't post about the attack on its Facebook or Twitter page until September 12, the day after the attack. They expressed their approval of the incident, but they didn't take credit; they did imply members of the group might have been involved, according to Zelin, stating, "Katibat Ansar al-Sharia [in Benghazi] as a military did not participate formally/officially and not by direct orders." The statement also justifies the attack by implicitly alluding to the anti-Islam video linked to unrest in other parts of the Middle East, saying, "We commend the Libyan Muslim people in Benghazi [that were] against the attack on the [Muslim] Prophet [Muhammad]."
"It is possible staffers were mistaken in the heat of the moment," wrote Zelin in an email to Mother Jones. "Not only was there no statement from ASB until the following morning, but it did not claim responsibility." (Zelin provided Mother Jones with screenshots of AAS's Twitter feed and Facebook page, which he also provided to CNN."
It just seems like this is a tragedy in search of a controversy, for political gain (just like it was when Romney fumbled his hasty press conference and in his attempted, failed 'gotcha' in the second debate.
Again, that's not to say there may not be something here, but to claim there is, definitively or even circumstantially at this point, is proof it's partisans playing politics in news-style, not as news. Bush would have been given the benefit of the doubt by the Right in exactly this situation and i suggest we do the same with the President in this situation – and just because the Left would not have does not make this line of attack fair or right ('two wrongs don't make a right' for adults acting like children, too.)
Of course I could be mistaken in this line of thinking in the long-run, but the facts available now point to this all being simply confusion surrounding situations like this in places like this. Add to it the obviously partisan nature of the attacks coming solely from the tin-foil hat Right (who are really the only ones talking about this when the MSM as a whole has no logical reason for hiding it – an argument I make to the tin-foil hat Left who also complainst the right wing bias of the MSM), and no corraboration from reputable, non-partisn news agencies here or abroad point to this being election hyperbole and opportunism. I said the same about benefit of the doubt when the Left was all over Bush for there not being WMDs in Iraw, for not having anticipated the sectarian civil war in Iraq, etc. Politics are supposed to end at the border.
This just looks to be an attempt at a manufactured, opportunistic 'October surprise'. Sandy may provide a spontaneous 'October surprise' similar to what the financial crisis was for Obama in 2008, either for or against him depending on his Administration's reponse. Of course, I'm sure the Right is already prepping ways to hang "Obama's Katrina" around his neck whenever they can find a kitten is left in a tree for longer than 24 hours and water in people's basements.
It's all CYA.
In my opinion, what has happened in Benghazi may be probable cause to impeach Mr Obama for gross malfeasance. It may indeed be better for him to lose the election instead of facing an impeachment procedure in the House. .
I agree, Carl. Better for him to lose the election and face charges of dereliction, malfeasance, and treason as a private citizen.
Thanks for the feature again! Great list to look at !
Well, George they were good centurians the Marines, the bible says good things about Centurians and Roman sources do as well in fact in Julius Caesar's Gallic war he mentions about a brave centurians that rushed into the Gauls and died. Joshua had to have courage if you are familar with the anicent cannanite people they had they go thru fire.
Gail Sheppard on Explosive! Benedict XVI Publishes a Posthumous Book: "🙂" Jan 26, 09:27
Gail Sheppard on Explosive! Benedict XVI Publishes a Posthumous Book: "No! I didn't. George???" Jan 26, 09:20
Gail Sheppard on Explosive! Benedict XVI Publishes a Posthumous Book: "I'm sorry I couldn't help you." Jan 26, 09:19
Deacon John on Explosive! Benedict XVI Publishes a Posthumous Book: "For the past few months I've switched to the Psalter as my primary prayer book and recently I've been studying…" Jan 26, 09:17
George Michalopulos on Pfizer Exploring Mutating Virus to Sell Vaccines: "Absolutely. The question is: did they fail us out of ignorance (somewhat excusable) or out of malice (inexcusable). Regardless, heads…" Jan 26, 09:12
Gail Sheppard on Pfizer Exploring Mutating Virus to Sell Vaccines: "They didn't know and our watch dog institutions like the CDC and FDA, whom we had been able to count…" Jan 26, 08:14
Gail Sheppard on Pfizer Exploring Mutating Virus to Sell Vaccines: "What a great track record! It would make sense that Fauci, Gates, et al., would seek out and fund a…" Jan 26, 08:11
George Michalopulos on Explosive! Benedict XVI Publishes a Posthumous Book: "Rev Dn, you are right: this is why Gail and I decided to post this article on our blog. And…" Jan 26, 07:14
Deacon John on Explosive! Benedict XVI Publishes a Posthumous Book: "After reflecting on our conversation during my morning shower, I started to understand the point that your making. We learn…" Jan 26, 06:36
Karen on Pfizer Exploring Mutating Virus to Sell Vaccines: "Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Oh, Most Holy Theotokos, save us! https://www.lvcriminaldefense.com/pfizer-enters-largest-healthcare-fraud-settlement-in-u-s-history/ The…" Jan 26, 06:07
Petros on Pfizer Exploring Mutating Virus to Sell Vaccines: "I'm trying to have a lot of sympathy for people who received the initial covid jabby, not everyone was in…" Jan 26, 05:58
Deacon John on Explosive! Benedict XVI Publishes a Posthumous Book: "Why would one eat fruit from a diseased tree?" Jan 26, 05:52