A woman who answered the phone at Chipotle in the mall told NBC News
that someone ran in and yelled, “It’s a shooting, it’s a shooting.”She said employees shut the restaurant doors. She said the mall is crawling with police.
Witness Amber Tate told KATU that she was standing in the parking lot
when she spotted a man wearing a camouflage shirt and what looked like a
bulletproof vest.
Tate said he looked like a teenager.
Gay student asks Justice Scalia to defend his 'bestiality' comments
Alex Wong / Getty Images file
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, seen in October 2012.
By Elizabeth Chuck, NBC News
Updated at 4:40 p.m. ET -- Just days after the Supreme Court announced it would take its first serious look at gay marriage, Justice Antonin Scalia was asked to defend his legal writings on homosexuality.
The
Supreme Court justice was visiting Princeton University on Monday to
discuss his latest book when a college freshman, who identifies as gay,
asked Scalia about the comparison he has drawn between laws banning
sodomy with those barring bestiality and murder.
“If we cannot
have moral feelings against or objections to homosexuality, can we have
it against anything?” Scalia said in response to the question, according to The Daily Princetonian. “I don’t think it’s necessary, but I think it’s effective.”
Scalia told Princeton student Duncan Hosie that he is not equating
sodomy with bestiality or murder, but drawing parallels between the
bans.
Scalia added dryly, “I’m surprised you weren’t persuaded,” the student newspaper reported.
Hosie's
question -- which received a round of applause -- stemmed from a 2003
case, Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down a Texas anti-sodomy law.
Scalia had dissented in the case; in his dissent, he makes a couple of
comparisons to laws against bestiality and declares, "nowhere does the
Court’s opinion declare that homosexual sodomy is a 'fundamental
right.'"
Scalia, the longest-serving justice on the current
court was at Princeton to promote his new book, “Reading Law: The
Interpretation of Legal Texts,” and to talk about the interpretation of,
the Constitution. It was during a question-and-answer session that
Hosie asked him about Lawrence v. Texas. "It's a form
of argument that I thought you would have known, which is called the
'reduction to the absurd,'" Scalia told Hosie, of San Francisco, The
Associated Press reported.
Reduction to the absurd,
an English translation of the Latin term "reductio ad absurdum," is a
form of logic in which one refutes an argument by showing that its
inevitable consequences would be absurd.
Hosie later told NBC News he didn't feel persuaded by Scalia's response.
"I
was very pleased that Scalia was polite with me. I thought he was
respectful with me, so I appreciate that, however, I disagree with the
substance of his answer," Hosie said.
"If you’re making an
argument to convince people, you don’t want to alienate people, and
that’s what Scalia did with his language. He didn’t just alienate
liberals by comparing laws against gay sex to laws against murder and
bestiality, he has alienated laws conservatives have condemned. It
didn’t make sense to me," he added.
The Supreme Court will be reviewing California's ban on
same-sex marriage and a federal law that defines marriage as only the
legal union of a man and a woman in March, with a decision expected by
late June.
Scalia has "not been opaque" about his feelings toward
same-sex marriage in the past, and gay rights advocates do not expect
him to change his mind when the Supreme Court hears the cases in the
spring, said Fred Sainz, vice president of communications at Human
Rights Campaign, the nation's largest gay rights organization.
"It's safe to say he is a vote in the 'no' column," Sainz said. "He
is not a justice that has an open mind towards these issues that are
coming his way.”
Hosie said he hopes the exchange he had with
Scalia, while it may not change the justice's mind, will at least change
the fiery words he uses in the future.
"I feel as if he’s crossed
a line in comparing some of the things he’s compared gay rights to ...
so hopefully this media coverage will encourage Justice Scalia to be
more conscientious and careful in the words he uses," he said.
Scalia
didn't discuss any issues related to specific cases during the
Princeton Q&A, but defended his view that divining the original
meaning of the Constitution is the best way to interpret it. “The Constitution is not an organism; it’s a legal text, for Pete’s sake,” he said, reported The Daily Princetonian. “Unless you give [the laws] the meaning of those who enacted them, you’re destroying democracy.”
I'm
throwing the BS flag on your agenda unless you can point to a specific
place where religion is mentioned either in the article or in Scalia's
written opinion in the case files.
Scalia
has, in his rulings, made it clear that his conservative Catholicism
defines his beliefs. For example, he has made it his life's goal to
gather enough justices to overturn Roe v. Wade. He is more beholding to
the Pope than to the American people!
Scalia
is old and a product of his generation, and that allows him to ignore
changes in public opinion. He will die soon, and then he can be replaced
with someone younger, more in touch with modernity. Scalia is one of
those that only look backward, gritting his teeth that society is not
stuck in the 1950s like him.
"He is not a justice that has an open mind towards these issues that are coming his way.”
An open mind and Antonin Scalia, now that's funny. He is the poster
child for the brain dead right. The SC will function much better once
the likes of Scalia and Thomas have retired.
Whether Scalia has used his personal religious beliefs in law arguments, I leave to others.
I do support the notion that he is more of a partisan hack than a
competent judge. I submit for your review the case of Gonzalez v. Raich,
and then his position on use of the Commerce Clause since, particularly
with reference to the ACA.
Scalia has, in his rulings, made it clear that his conservative Catholicism defines his beliefs.
While it is probably true that Scalia's religious beliefs affect his
rulings, Rick's comment called on him to STFU about those beliefs. My
comment was a call for Rick (or anyone) to show me a specific instance
of Scalia making reference to his beliefs in his legal opinions. In
other words, how do you STFU about something you've never said?
Like
what jake2247 said. Is anybody really surprised that Scalia holds these
opinions when he grew up during a time when segregation and Jim Crow
laws were OK considering it's the same time period in which
homosexuality was demonized and many had to be in closet because of
persecution?
"It's safe to say he is a vote in the 'no' column," Sainz said. "He
is not a justice that has an open mind towards these issues that are
coming his way.”
Just because a person disagrees with you doesn't mean he/she doesn't
have an open mind. One could just as easily say that YOU do not have an
open mind about Justice Scalia even though he hasn't heard the case or
ruled on it yet. Two people can hear the same evidence and reach very
different conclusions, as is very often the case with Supreme Court
justices. Why does it always end up that with a person rules
conservatively, they don't have an open mind?! His argument is that you
have to draw the line SOMEWHERE, because if you don't, then the line
keeps getting pushed further and further (into the absurd). If marriage
can be defined as two men or two women, then why not one man and two
women? Why not a man and a horse? Why not two men and a car? Once you
start moving the goal posts, then how far do you move them?
Scalia
has made no secret about his feelings toward the so called "homosexual
agenda". He has prejudged this case and needs to recuse himself. He's an
arrogant little son of a bitch and surely won't do that so he needs to
be impeached. His conflict of interest and lack of impartiality in the
case involving Dick Cheney's secrecy with our national energy policy
meetings should have gotten him removed then.
He, and his legal lap dog, Clarence Thomas have badly damaged the
Supreme Court and indeed, the entire American judicial system. He needs
to be impeached.
dhines
- "sodomy" - well, not QUITE - while the original reference is to a
supposedly supernaturally destroyed city in the middle east, that
particular connection is MOOT today. As an "act" (a physical act),
"sodomy" is well defined. No biblical connection required.
Bruce - the easiest thing would be to get the gummint of the business
(and it IS a BUSINESS) of sanctioning "marriage" and have them issue
"certificates of civil unions". you want to get "married" go to a
church (temple, whatever). I KNOW (factual "know") that it is possible
to get "married" in a Buddhist Wat in Thailand but not register the
"marriage"; ergo, you wouldn't be "married" outside Thailand. A few
years ago there was an interesting marriage where a guy married TWINS
(in the Wat, of course) and was quite happy. no word on how it has
worked out, though.
You
really aren't serious asking where religion is mentioned, right?
Seriously? What argument against gay rights, including gay marriage, can
anyone make that doesn't involve religion??? If you look at the
subject from a purely legal perspective and leave all the religious
views out of things, what are you left with? It isn't legal to treat
one group of people who aren't harming anyone in a way that is only
wrong, bad, or should be prevented in any different way than anyone
else. If you aren't judging the behavior logically, but instead are
adding religious beliefs into it you get what we have had for years in
this country...discrimination. If you look at it legally and rationally
there is no bias and you see that you don't have to want to do
something or even like it for it to be legal and fair. There are things
I don't agree with that are legal, so I just don't do them. Case
closed...oh wait...it isn't closed.
And that is because this is ALL about religion whether a person
states it explicitly or not if we are honest about it. Just because a
person doesn't come out and announce that his/her statement is based on
religious beliefs it is pretty obvious if it is based on a personal
belief that comes from what is taught in various churches. This is a
legal case and shouldn't be judged on anyone's religious beliefs. That
would be totally wrong to do and anyone who can't judge the legality and
not the beliefs should not be judging the case.
Hosie said later that Scalia's answer didn't persuade him, and that
he believes Scalia's writings tend to "dehumanize" gays, according to
The AP.
Well Hosie, that's your opinion. Now quit whining. So many people crying about anything in this day and age.
My American born mother was not allowed to play in her high school
band because of her Mexican heritage. Her dream was to play in a high
school band and march on a football field. She wasn't even allowed in
movie theaters.
Did she feel dehumanize? Yes. Did she whine about it? No. Even
to this day she still doesn't complain about it or have an ill will
towards anyone. What's done is done and I've admired her more because
she did not complain because it shows her strength.
Michigan
has officially become the 24th "right to work" state, outlawing forced
union membership in both the public and private sectors. NBC's Ron Mott
reports.
By M. Alex Johnson, NBC News
Updated at 7:30 p.m. ET: Michigan
Gov. Rick Snyder signed into law two bills Tuesday sharply limiting
labor rights, which the House passed over the objections of thousands of
people packing the Capitol in protest, some of whom chanted "Shame on
you!" from the gallery.
"This isn't about us versus them. This is about
Michiganders," Snyder said at news conference in the state capital,
Lansing, where he announced that he had signed the legislation.
By
a 58-51 vote, the Republican-led House passed a bill that would ban
workplace rules that make union membership a condition of employment for
government workers. It then approved a second bill, covering
private-sector workers, by a vote of 58-52.
When the new rules take effect, probably in late March, Michigan —
one of the most union-friendly states in the country —will become the
24th "right to work" state, making payment of union dues voluntary even
though the union negotiates on a worker's behalf.
Snyder told NBC News' Andrea Mitchell that he was "pro-collective
bargaining," but he said right-to-work laws denied workers freedom of
choice.
"I think it's a good thing," he said of the legislation. "I think it's pro-worker."
Michigan
has long been considered the heart of organized labor. But now it may
draw new manufacturing plants that had been drawn to "right to work"
states in the South. CNBC's Phil LeBeau reports.
As the
vote was taking place, as many as 10,000 people descended on the
Capitol, State Police estimated, prompting authorities to restrict
access to the building because it was at its capacity of 2,000. The
overflow filled the lawn and stretched down East Michigan Avenue to the
Lansing Center across the river several blocks away.
About 200
onlookers filled the gallery overlooking the House floor Tuesday. As
debate resumed on one of the bills, the session was interrupted with
protesters yelling, "Shame on you," NBC News' Nadine Comerford reported.
After the votes, protesters then moved to the building housing Snyder's office, chanting, "Governor Snyder, just say no!"
Law
enforcement officials said they wouldn't let Michigan become another
Wisconsin, where demonstrators occupied the state Capitol around the
clock for nearly three weeks last year to protest similar legislation.
Armed with tear gas canisters, pepper spray and batons, State
Police officers guarded the Capitol as protesters shouted "No justice,
no peace!" and "Shut it down!" NBC station WILX of Lansing reported.
State Police officials confirmed
that one of their troopers used pepper spray on one protester. Police
spokesmen said the man was sprayed when he grabbed a trooper and tried
to pull her into the crowd.
The man wasn't arrested, but two other
people were arrested after they tried to force their way into another
building on the grounds where Snyder has offices, police said.
A
tent set up by supporters of the measures also collapsed amid what
authorities described as "pushing and shoving" among protesters. No one
was hurt, police said.
Dale G. Young / AP
Governor
Rick Snyder presents his views on Michigan's future energy plans and
how they merge with environmental and resource management issues at
MSU's WK Kellogg Biological Station, Wednesday, Nov. 28, 2012 near
Hickory Corners, Mich.
Elsewhere on the lawn, four large
inflatable rats were set up to mock Snyder, House Speaker Jase Bolger,
Senate Republican leader Randy Richardville, and Dick DeVos, a prominent
conservative businessman who union leaders say is behind the bills.
Schools in at least three districts were closed because so many teachers and other staff were at the rally.
NBC's
Ron Mott reports on the latest from the labor protests in Lansing,
Mich., and then, Msnbc's Tamron Hall talks with Rep. Sander Levin,
D-Mich.
Valerie Constance, a developmental reading
instructor for the Wayne County Community College District and a member
of the American Federation of Teachers, sat on the Capitol steps with a
sign shaped like a tombstone. It read: "Here lies democracy."
Scott
Hagerstrom, director of the Michigan affiliate of the activist group
Americans for Prosperity, said the new laws would be "a win-win for
Michigan's economy, for individual freedom."
"What a lot of these
protesters may not realize is that after this bill passes, they can
still belong to a union. It'll just be their choice. They just can't
force their co-workers to give their hard-earned money to a private
organization," he said.
But Rep. Sander Levin of Michigan, the ranking Democrat on the Ways and Means Committee, called it "a terrible result."
"Workers
want a voice and ... they want to be sure when conditions are set that
they're part of the process," he said in an interview on msnbc.
Valerie
Constance, a developmental reading instructor for the Wayne County
Community College District and a member of the American Federation of
Teachers, sat on the Capitol steps with a sign shaped like a tombstone.
It read: "Here lies democracy."
But Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Committee,
hailed the votes, saying the made for "a great day for Michigan's
workers and taxpayers,"
"I would like to congratulate Michigan's
workers for their newly protected freedom to work without union
affiliation as a condition of their employment," Mix said.
Mich. labor fight puts 'tough nerd' Snyder under partisan spotlight
By Michael O'Brien, NBC News
Updated at 6:05 p.m. ET --
Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder called himself "one tough nerd" in his 2010
gubernatorial campaign, fashioning himself as a pragmatic problem-solver
who wouldn't delve into the divisive partisanship that had come to
define some of his fellow Republicans.
But
now that Snyder has signed historic legislation making Michigan the
nation's 24th right-to-work state, detractors will likely lump the
governor with those firebrand Republicans, a distinction that he had
long sought to avoid.
Gov.
Rick Snyder, R-Mich., tells NBC's Andrea Mitchell that the
right-to-work legislation will bring more work to his state and may be a
"positive" to unions over time.
“I didn’t do this to get into the politics of it,” Snyder said on
MSNBC Tuesday afternoon of the fight. He said the issue reached a
“critical mass” after organized labor unsuccessfully pushed a ballot
initiative this November that would have established a right to
collective bargaining in the Michigan constitution.
Snyder had
previously said that pursuing this legislation was not on his agenda.
But Republicans in the statehouse, whose majorities in the House and
Senate will be narrower next year due to the 2012 elections, revived the
long-dormant proposal with Snyder's eventual blessing.
"Once we
had the support that we had, the next step was convincing the governor
that this was a good thing," said state Republican Rep. Marty
Knollenberg, a primary sponsor of the bill in the House. "It certainly
started from the legislature, and then it was presented to the governor …
I think he was sort of taking a wait-and-see attitude. It wasn’t on his
priority list, as he indicated."
But Snyder did ultimately
embrace the law, and signed it into law on Tuesday evening. Whether he
would be able to preserve his reputation as a non-ideologue is an open
question.
The Washington Post's Ruth Marcus talks about the protests in Lansing, Michigan over the right-to-work legislation.
"I
think he kind of decided he couldn’t string this out any longer. The
idea that he had some sort of moment where he was converted in a
blinding flash of light – I don’t think that’s the case," said Bill
Ballenger, editor of the "Inside Michigan Politics" newsletter. "Here
you’ve got Michigan looking, all of a sudden, far more extreme and
aggressive that Scott Walker. Isn’t that ironic?"
Snyder enjoyed a
51 percent approval rating for Snyder in an early December EPIC-MRA
poll; 48 percent of Michiganders said they had a negative impression of
Snyder's performance as governor. The same poll found that Snyder had an
edge over a generic Democratic challenger in 2014.
But
the state was much more divided on the question of whether the
legislature should pursue right-to-work laws. While the EPIC-MRA poll
found that Michiganders were generally supportive of the concept
of those laws, they were evenly divided – 47 percent in favor, 46
percent against – on the question of whether Michigan should adopt such a
law.
Indeed, Snyder's decision to
move forward with this proposal will inevitably invite parallels with
GOP Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker's work to push legislation that stripped
public employees of their collective bargaining rights in early 2011.
Like Michigan, Wisconsin is an industrial Midwestern state with a long
tradition of unionism. And as with Wisconsin, Democrats and labor
activists stormed the state capitol with unmet hopes of halting the
changes to labor law.
“I think it’s important to make a distinction with Wisconsin and
Ohio,” Snyder said on MSNBC. “That was about collective bargaining. That
was about the relationship between employers and unions. This has
nothing to do with that. Right-to-work has to do with the relationship
between unions and workers.”
The bigger distinction might be the
extent to which Michigan's fight was relatively bloodless. The fight in
Wisconsin dragged out for days as Democrats in the state Senate went
into hiding in Illinois to try to prevent a vote. And labor fought for
months to recall Walker, an election which the Wisconsin governor
survived this past June.
The right-to-work law moved much more
quickly through Michigan's state government, giving opponents of the law
barely any time to stop the bill. Even President Barack Obama's
criticism of the law during a stop Monday in Detroit did little to halt
the legislation's progress.
That sort of criticism could threaten
to erode the reputation Snyder had built for himself during two years in
office. Snyder, a former CEO of Gateway Computers, emerged from
relative obscurity in 2010 to beat two well-known Republican
challengers, Rep. Pete Hoekstra and Attorney General Mike Cox, in the
primary on the strengths of his plain-spoken, jobs-oriented message.
Bob
King, president of the United Auto Workers and Rev. Jesse Jackson share
their reactions to the right-to-work legislation and the protests
occurring because of it.
Snyder tried to burnish his
bipartisan bona fides upon taking office by appointing former State
House Speaker Andy Dillon, a Democrat who'd unsuccessfully sought his
party's gubernatorial nomination in 2010, as his state treasurer. He had
sought to build a new bridge between Detroit and Canada over the
opposition of some Republicans, and resisted a GOP initiative to ban
domestic partnership benefits for gay and lesbian couples before
relenting.
Democrats and their allies in organized labor are sure
now to redouble their efforts to beat Snyder in 2014, despite a
relatively thin bench of challengers. More voters (40 percent) said they
would be less likely to give Snyder a second term if he pursued
right-to-work than those who said they would be more likely to re-elect
the Republican.
Washington
State's new law makes it legal for adults to possess up to an ounce of
marijuana, but some speculate the federal government will prosecute
those who use marijuana on federal land because federal law prohibits
marijuana use. NBC's Kristen Dahlgren reports.
By M. Alex Johnson, NBC News
Washington and Colorado say you can legally smoke marijuana for fun now, but here's the catch: You can't legally buy it.
Voters in those states passed initiatives last month to
legalize recreational use of marijuana. As of last Thursday, it's legal
under Washington law for anyone 21 and over to possess up to 1 ounce of
marijuana, 16 ounces of "solid marijuana-infused product" (in other
words, a pound of pot brownies) or 72 ounces of "marijuana-infused
liquid."
In Colorado, Gov. John Hickenlooper signed Amendment 64
to the state Constitution on Monday, legalizing not only recreational
use but also home growing, unlike in Washington.
Entrepreneurs are already planning stores to get more buck for the bhang.
"Part
of the mission of our company is to transform marijuana from a
back-alley drug being sold by criminals into a premium product being
enjoyed by responsible adults," said Jamen Shively, chief executive of
Diego Pellicer Inc., a new company that hopes to open a chain of stores
in Washington and Colorado as soon as the legal issues are cleared up.
The company is named for Shively's great-grandfather, who grew hemp
in the Philippines. It eventually became the biggest hemp supplier in
the world around the turn of the 20th century. ("It's a family
business," said Alan Valdes, a veteran securities trader who recently
joined the company as chairman.)
"We're creating the category of
premium marijuana," said Shively, who worked as a corporate strategy
manager for Microsoft Corp. from 2003 to 2009 before leaving for a
specialty food startup. "If you are producing or intending to produce
premium-grade product that's in line with our ethos, we're interested in
talking to you."
But Diego Pellicer and its customers may be in for a long wait.
The
federal government still insists that marijuana is a Schedule I
controlled substance and that buying and selling it for any purpose
remains a federal crime. Federal authorities officially even frown on
the pot that patients get at medical marijuana dispensaries, although
their policy is to look the other way in those cases.
For recreational users, well, "you're a felon," said Mark A.R.
Kleiman, editor of the Journal of Drug Policy Analysis. "Period. End of
paragraph."
And so is your retailer.
"Regardless of any
changes in state law ... growing, selling or possessing any amount of
marijuana remains illegal under federal law," said Jenny Durkan, the
U.S. attorney in Seattle. She said the Justice Department is reviewing
its options in Washington and Colorado.
Shively said that under no circumstances would his company violate federal law.
"Let's
suppose tomorrow that Washington state issued licenses and said, 'Go
ahead, guys, have at it.' We would say to the state of Washington
respectfully, 'Thanks, but no thanks, because we haven't heard from the
federal government.'"
Until then, Diego Pellicer is rounding up
funding and private shareholders to be ready if and when the Justice
Department changes course.
"I think it's going to be hard for the
Obama administration to slap this down," Valdes said. "Washington is a
liberal Democratic state that helped (President Barack Obama) get
elected. The people voted for him — it would be a slap in the face."
Dan
Satterberg, the prosecuting attorney in King County, Wash., which is
home to a thriving marijuana scene in and around Seattle, thinks the
Justice Department will try anyway.
The Washington and Colorado
laws require state agencies to facilitate something the federal
government considers an illegal act — the sale and distribution of
marijuana. That raises an important states' rights question that only
the courts can sort out, he said.
Satterberg told NBC station KING
of Seattle that he expects the states and the Justice Department to
wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court within the next couple of years to
argue the issue.
Overlooked
in the immediate reaction to passage of the initiatives, both pro and
con, is an important public health question, said Kleiman, who is a
professor of public policy at the University of California-Los Angeles
and co-author of "Drugs and Drug Policy: What Everyone Needs to Know."
It's not the question you might expect — how much does legalization
increase marijuana use? — but "how much does legalization increase
abuse?" he told NBC News.
Assuming marijuana use follows the
pattern of alcohol use, most of the marijuana consumed in the U.S. is
used by the 20 percent minority of people who abuse it, he said. Most
pot users use it now for light recreational purposes, but if it's legal,
how big will that 20 percent grow?
"Nobody knows," he said.
Questions
like that are why it might, in fact, be wise for the federal government
to step back and let Washington and Colorado serve as laboratories, so
policy makers can "find out what happens."
If it does, Shively and Valdes will be ready.
"We
are building our entire business on the premise it will be sufficiently
legal in the next few months or a year," Shively said — a business that
will include merchandising beyond simple sales of premium pot.
"Be looking out for really beautiful vaporizing products," he said. "That will be really hot."
Benghazi explained: Interview with an “Intelligence Insider”
Benghazi: Behind the scenes (Part II)
This is part one of a multi-part interview with a government insider intimately familiar with the events that took place in Benghazi. In this part, he provides important background, and explains this administration is engaged in a massive cover-up.
DH: It’s been a while since we’ve discussed Benghazi. What have you heard lately?
II: Before I answer that, I want to get a few things off my chest.
Every politician, whether it’s a congressman senator, diplomat, or their
spokespeople and the media are lying to the American public
every time they call the location of the attack a consulate. It was not.
There was absolutely no diplomatic consulate in Benghazi. None. Words
are important here. They can create a wrong image, an incorrect picture
of what was really going on. The property where our Ambassador and other
Americans were murdered was a rented villa consisting of a primary
residence with a couple of outbuildings behind the actual house. The
reason they’re still calling it a consulate is to subtly divert any questions about our activities there.
DH: Let’s go over this again; exactly what was taking place at Benghazi?
II:
As I said, the place where the attack happened is one of the largest,
one of the most active CIA operation centers in North Africa, if not in
the entire Middle East. It was not a diplomatic station. It was a
planning and operations center, a logistics hub for weapons and arms
being funneled out of Libya. Unlike the embassy in Tripoli, there was
limited security in Benghazi. Why? So the operation did not draw
attention to what was going on there.
DH: So in reality there were no actual security issues?
II: Oh yes, there were, in Tripoli. Diplomatic cables show that. But
it was for the embassy in Tripoli, the Ambassador and the diplomatic
staff in general, not specifically for the Benghazi location for two
reasons. First, the Benghazi location was a CIA operation, not a
diplomatic one. Visible security at that location would draw unwanted
attention there. They had to blend in. Remember, the villa was located
in a somewhat residential area, sort of like the suburbs. Secondly,
additional manpower was not needed there, at this CIA center, as the
operation was already winding down.
DH: I know you’ve gone over this before, but let’s get into the specifics of the operation at Benghazi.
II: Good, I want to be clear. After Gaddafi was taken out, there was
the matter of his weapons and arms that were hidden all over Libya,
including chemical weapons - gas weapons. According to
Obama and Hillary Clinton, we were in Libya to collect and destroy
these weapons to make for a ‘safer’ Libya. That’s what they were telling
the American public. That’s not really what was going on, though, and
it seems like all of the other nations except the average American knew
it. Anyway, you can find pictures and videos of weapons caches being
destroyed, but that is strictly for the public’s consumption.
What was really happening, before Gaddafi’s body was even cold, is
that we had people locating caches of weapons, separating the working
from those that weren’t, and making a big show of destroying the
weapons, but only the weapons that were useless. The working weapons
were being given to Islamic terrorists. They were being funneled through
Libya, crisscrossing Libya on a Muslim Brotherhood managed strategic
supply route. In fact, Michael Reagan called it the modern day
equivalent of the Ho Chi Minh Trail in a recent article he wrote, and he is correct.
The entire arms and weapons running operation was headquartered in
Benghazi, The weapons were actually being shipped out of Libya from the
port city of Dernah, located about a hundred miles east of Benghazi.
That was the ‘choke point’ of the weapons being shipped out. Remember
the Lusitania? Think in those terms, ships carrying weapons hid among
‘humanitarian aid.’ By the time of the attacks, an estimated 30-40
million pounds of arms were already transported out of Libya.
From there, the weapons were being sent to staging areas in Turkey
near the Syrian border, for use by the Free Syrian Army and other ragtag
terrorist groups to fight against Assad. The objective was and still is
to destabilize the Assad government.
Why Syria, why not Iran?
II: It’s both, but Syria is the primary target here for this
operation. First, look at the bigger picture, look at the so-called
“Arab Spring.” Who benefits and by default, who doesn’t? Who is the architect
for what’s going on throughout the Middle East and North Africa? Whose
agenda is being implemented? To specifically address Benghazi, though,
look at the bigger picture here and what is trying to be accomplished.
The Obama administration is playing the role of Saudi Arabia’s
private army. I think if Americans knew this, they would be outraged.
Our service men and women are being sold out as mercenaries for the
wants and desires of the Royal family, for the Saudi’s interests. It’s
about religious dominance and oil. Who is really benefitting from, say,
what’s going on in Egypt? Mubarek is out, and the Muslim Brotherhood is
in. Who does that benefit? Saudi Arabia.
Look at what we see happening in Egypt. Destabilization. Do you think
the Russians want that? Hell no. Syria is Russia’s red line in the
sand, as you earlier wrote. If Syria is lost to the Muslim Brotherhood
by the actions of Obama, Hillary Clinton and others in this
administration, what happens? Well, it will have an adverse impact on
Russia from a military standpoint. They will likely lose access to their
Mediterranean deep water port in Syria, which is Tartus.
But think further - three dimensionally. Russia is still the world’s
largest oil producer, and that’s Russia’s primary source of income.
Then there’s Turkey, adjacent to Syria. A large amount of Russian oil
and gas, consumed by the West, flows through Turkey, which is also a
player in this operation.
So, the destabilization of Syria which is exactly what Obama and
Clinton are trying to do, presents a direct military and economic threat
to Russia. Assad at least has kept things in check in Syria. Can you
imagine Assad being replaced by someone like Morsi? That would strike at
the very heart of Russia’s economic health and military capabilities.
Think of what’s at stake here. Do Americans want a regional war? World
War III? Has Obama or Clinton asked the American people if this is what
they want?
Make no mistake, we are doing the bidding for Saudi Arabia. The U.S.,
NATO and other allies are engaged in a proxy war with Iran and Russia.
What about Assad’s war crimes?
Assad is no angel, but don’t be fooled by the death toll attributed
to him.
Now this is important. Remember the first Gulf War? In the run
up to Desert Storm, a young woman testified before the Human Rights
Caucus - she only testified under her first name, which was Nayirah.
Remember that she testified that Iraqi soldiers were taking infants from
incubators in Kuwait, leaving them to die? Her testimony was supposedly
confirmed by Amnesty International.
Her testimony went viral, and every war hawk in the U.S. government
cited her testimony, saying we needed to right the wrongs, the
inhumanity. It was all one big lie!
After Desert Storm, it was revealed that Nayirah’s last name was
Al-Sabah, and she was the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the
United States. Her testimony was part of a publicity campaign organized
by Citizens for a Free Kuwait, which was run by Hill & Knowlton, a
PR firm out of New York. People must learn the back story.
So we see a body count attributed to Assad. Who’s doing the killing,
Assad’s people? Maybe at times, but the Free Syrian Army and other
groups are doing most of the slaughter. It’s one huge ‘false flag’
operation and the media is selling it hard. And Americans are buying it,
just like the testimony of the girl from Kuwait.
It’s one big lie being told by Obama, Clinton, Rice, and others. Many
Americans are buying the lie, and the media is selling the lie. The
people behind this are laughing at us. Don’t you get it? They’re
laughing at us.
And do you want to know what’s at stake? Four Americans were killed
in Benghazi. Forty thousand have been killed so far in Syria. Tens of
thousands of Syrian people have become refugees. Why? For what? To
advance the agenda of Saudi Arabia. For oil.
You know, the so-called right wing establishment were all up in arms
about Obama’s submissive bow to the Saudi King. Where are they now?
Where’s the outrage that the body count will be much greater than Forty
thousand? It is anticipated that if the Obama plan succeeds, not only
will America be committed to yet another war, but the body count could
be as high as FOUR MILLION. Christians, among others, will be slaughtered. This could trigger a third world war, it’s that serious.
What are Russia and Iran doing? Certainly, they must be fighting back.
Benghazi was a strike against us, the Obama-Clinton agenda. A visible
strike, and I’ll explain more about this shortly, because there are
events I will point out that will put it all into perspective. But think
of it this way. How did we successfully collapse the Soviet Union? I
mean, what was the last straw? We attacked their currency - the Ruble.
They’re still stinging from that, and Putin was in the KGB at the time.
Do you think he forgot about that?
So, how do, or will Russia and Iran strike back if Obama and
Clinton continue this insanity? Militarily? Possibly in regional
conflicts, but to take us out, to stop us, what is the one area where we
are very vulnerable? It’s our economy - our dollar. What’s our dollar
tied to? Not gold or silver anymore, and some say it’s not tied to
anything. Well, that’s not quite correct. It’s tied to OIL. The
free-flow of oil.
Oil transactions everywhere in the world, including Russia and China,
are made with U.S. dollars. We buy their oil with our dollars, and they
return with those same paper dollars and employ Americans by buying our
goods and services. As Michael Reagan wrote:
“[t]his system is also crucial to the security of our diplomatic and
legal infrastructure, which is ultimately backed by our military. It’s
the core of our foreign policy.” He also wrote that “any attack on the
free flow of oil is an attack on the dollar. Any attack on the dollar is
an attack on our ability to project power and protect Western
democracies, economies, and ideals. God have mercy on us all if that
attack is successful!”
California exodus as thousands quit state for Texas, Ariz., elsewhere
By Olga Spilewsky and Conan Nolan, NBCLosAngeles.com
About
100,000 more people moved away from California in 2011 than relocated
to the Golden State, according to the latest report from the U.S. Census
Bureau.
In recent years, unemployment in the state has skyrocketed, while the cost of living has increased.
So,
where are these Californians going? The Census Bureau calculated that
the most popular destination is Texas, with 58,992 residents relocating
there along with a number of California companies.
Arizona was next on the list, with 49,635 people moving, then Nevada, Washington, and Oregon.
Although
in smaller numbers, others are still relocating to the Golden State.
Texans make up the largest number of new California residents with
37,387 people, according to the report. That is followed by people from
Washington (36,481), Nevada (36,159), Arizona (35,650), and New York
(25,269).
In
total, 468,428 people have moved to California from other states, and
269,772 have moved to the state from other countries, according to the
Census Bureau.
Economic experts are optimistic that California’s
economy has started picking up steam, and may halt the movement of
residents out of the state.
“We expect over the next couple of
years that we will add jobs,” said Robert Kleinhenz, chief economist
with the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation.
"This
year, we’ve added jobs in California at a faster pace than in the
nation as a whole. So, we are moving in right direction. As that
happens, we’ll see the migration numbers turn around some," he added.
The
agriculture industry, one of the state’s largest, has been particularly
affected by fewer undocumented immigrants crossing the border, deterred
from coming to the U.S. because of high unemployment and a developing
middle class in Mexico.
Comment collapsed by the community
