Benghazi: The False 60 Minutes Report

#Benghazi #60minutes #benghaziscandal #foxnews #CBS #republicans #Obama #embassyattack

A terrible thing happened last year, the Benghazi Embassy in Libya was attacked by anti-American extremists and the American Ambassador to Benghazi was killed along with others placed to guard the embassy. After this occurred the conservatives went on a offensive, saying that the attack happened and was successful because the Obama Administration ignored warnings that tensions were rising and ignored requests to send more protection to the embassy. They turned this horrible attack into a media shit storm and attempted to place all the blame on Obama and his administration. To make them seem even worse conservatives spread rumors around and begged the question, “Why does Obama hate Americans?”

Of course anyone with a brain can see that this was a republican attempt to discredit the president and make him seem like an anti-American Islamic socialist that wants to see Americans die and wants to turn the country on its head. In order to do this they had to prove that Obama refused to send backup to the Benghazi Embassy even after multiple requests to the White House for additional assistance. Of course, the only news network that was trying to discredit the White House was Fox News. They wanted the American people to believe this crock about the president not caring about Americans enough to send out reinforcements. Unfortunately for Fox they had all the answers and knew exactly why the president did this, they just couldn’t prove anything.

Recently though on the CBS program 60 Minutes they covered the Benghazi story, as one man was brave enough to step up to the plate and tell the truth about what really happened in Benghazi, and how he tried to warn the White House many times and that his voice fell on deaf ears. This man is Morgan Jones and he was a security officer sent to protect the Benghazi mission.

60 Minutes did this report based on everything Jones had told them. He told them that he warned the Obama Administration that more backup was needed, and that he was there during the September 11^th 2012 attack on the Benghazi embassy.

When this was aired on television Fox News jumped on it, almost as if they were relieved. Fox News personalities were talking about how the story has to be true because 60 Minutes wouldn’t cover the story if it wasn’t. They were also touting themselves for breaking the “scandal” story saying “60 Minutes reported on things that Fox uncovered months ago.”

Fox was generally happy now that another news network corroborated their insinuations about the Benghazi attack. They’ve been so hell bent on finding out exactly what happened and trying to get the American people to see if as a huge act or corruption and cover-ups designed to kill US citizens and protect our anti-American president. So this was exactly what Fox needed, someone who was there who can backup everything they have said about this incident, and now they’ve got him. Only problem is that the story that Morgan Jones gave CBS was entirely false.

CBS discovered that the incident report Jones filed with his employer was completely different from what he told 60 Minutes. The New York Times discovered that he told the FBI that he was no where near the compound during the attack, a claim which Jones says is a smear attack against him and not true despite the fact that the report he gave the FBI are consistent with statements he gave to Blue Mountain, a British-based contractor hired by the state department to secure the perimeter around the compound.

After this was all discovered 60 Minutes had this to say:

60 Minutes has learned of new information that undercuts the account told to us by Morgan Jones of his actions on the night of the attack on the Benghazi compound.
We are currently looking into this serious matter to determine if he misled us, and if so, we will make a correction.

Fox News had nothing to do with releasing this story, as all they did was talk about the 60 Minutes report and brag about how this was all stuff that they had uncovered months ago…they just never had any proof. And now that this guy Morgan Jones comes up and says he has proof they are all super excited to tout themselves as great investigative journalists. But much to their chagrin the story turned out to be false and Morgan, whose REAL NAME is actually Dylan Davies lied to 60 Minutes about being there during the attack. Fox has a really bad reputation for saying things with no proof to back them up. They can’t even find someone to lie for them; they have to wait until another news organization covers it. And even though it turned out to be lies, Fox will only use this situation to make other news networks out to be untrustworthy.

You see, Fox plays semantics and so they can never be held responsible for the things the say. Just like Bill O told Jon Stewart on his show, “I’m an opinion man” even though Jon told him that he may see himself as an opinion man but he consistently delivers his opinions as fact and leaves little to the imagination otherwise. Of course Bill firmly denies this, but it’s true. Bill even likes to call his show the “No Spin Zone” yet he wants to say he is an opinion man who doesn’t present his information as factual. Jesus H. Christ if that’s not spin I don’t know what is.









So this is just a case of Fox jumping on any lie they can propagate and spread. Lucky for them the majority of their viewers are not very smart and much like Fox News itself the viewers never bother to check facts. So unfortunately I can see people talking about this all like it is real and wasn’t debunked. So just remember folks, when someone tries to tell you that Fox News was right on the money about Benghazi because of this misleading 60 Minutes report make sure you correct them and tell them to check their facts. Because this is the type of bullshit that will be spread around the streets and of course social media sites like it already has been. You just need to remember one simple thing about Benghazi: Republicans cut spending on protecting embassies, which is exactly why the Benghazi embassy was under protected.  

FROM THE ARTICLE:

On Wednesday morning, CNN anchor Soledad O'Brien asked the Utah Republican if he had "voted to cut the funding for embassy security."

"Absolutely," Chaffetz said. "Look we have to make priorities and choices in this country. We have…15,000 contractors in Iraq. We have more than 6,000 contractors, a private army there, for President Obama, in Baghdad. And we’re talking about can we get two dozen or so people into Libya to help protect our forces. When you’re in tough economic times, you have to make difficult choices. You have to prioritize things.”

The Obama Administration had nothing to do with cutting the funds, and because of the republican led cut back the Benghazi Embassy was left under protected and the White House had it’s hands tied and couldn’t send out extra help. And now they want to turn around and blame it all on the president and Hilary Clinton? What a waste of time…



SOURCES:
Republicans Admit Cutting Funds for Embassies
60 Minutes Apologizes for Misleading Benghazi Report
 

Back Again! What Have I Missed?

It’s been a long time, but after another long hiatus I am back!

It’s hard talking politics all day and debating over the net and in person. It can really get to a person after a while and really burn them out. So I took a break, focused on work, and silently watched as America (and the rest of the world) put on this lovely little absurd play. I laughed, I cried, I shouted, then I drank a beer and passed out. So let’s get down to it. What happened since my last post?

Government Shut Down:

Oh joy! Republicans have outdone themselves this time. They actually shut down the government because of their grievances with the Affordable Care Act.

When the Affordable Care Act, also known as “Obamacare”, was due to be enacted the Republicans went on an all out assault and tried to stop it by shutting down the government. Many Republicans were on the TV at this time talking about how this was all about stopping “Obamacare”, yet others were saying that this was less about “Obamacare” and more about the debt ceiling or both. Debt ceiling debates aside, we all know why they wanted the shut down. It was simply an effort put forth to attempt a halting of funds to, or the down right dismantling of the Affordable Care Act.

Why would Republicans do this? Were the majority of Republicans all for this? Well, no they really weren’t at first, I think. Sure, many Republicans were against the ACA, even after a SCOTUS ruling which deemed the ACA constitutional. But a minority of House Republicans (Tea Party Republicans) were able coaxed the rest of their colleagues to take it one more step off the crazy edge. And thus the government shut down was born.

What is really funny about the whole Republican manufactured shut down is how after the shut down took place the Republicans were quick to respond to critics by saying that they never wanted to shut down the government and that it was the Democrats fault the government was shut down.

But the Republicans spent weeks and months talking about how they will shut down the government unless a law they didn’t like was repealed immediately. How in the world can they turn around and say they never wanted to shut down the government?

It’s like being in a dysfunctional, abusive relationship with someone. You demand that your partner do something that they can’t or otherwise don’t want to. So to get them to comply you threaten them with the ultimatum that they either comply or get injured. When they still don’t comply you start to beat them, all the while saying, “This hurts me more than it hurts you. I never wanted this, nor am I doing it. You’re doing it to yourself and you’re the one who wanted this. If only you just did what I told you to do, you wouldn’t have brought this on.”

What is even more absurd is the Republican attitude toward the shutting down of war memorials and national monuments and parks. They seemed to be more upset that veterans could not go to war memorials than the fact that their shut down was going to cost billions of dollars for the country. I thought this was somewhat interesting though. Republicans tout themselves as being extremely patriotic, and their attitude towards the fighting men and women of our military seems very loving and highly supportive. Republicans constantly talk about supporting the troops and how we wouldn’t have freedom without them.

Memorials Closed Due to Government Shut Down

Yet, when they aren’t fighting wars Republicans don’t seem to care about them. They come home after fighting questionable wars, and all they get is a pat on the back and sent on their way. Many of the troops who come home suffer from mental disorders they received due to the traumas of war. Many of them cannot find jobs, cannot get the healthcare they not only need but deserve due to VA hospital tie ups (another debacle created by Republicans), and many even end up homeless. But Republicans don’t seem to care about the health and status of our veterans at all. They only care about buildings made of stone and mortar that were erected to honor them, not the actual fighting soldiers. If they truly cared, then why would they try to cut funding for VA hospitals?

To drive the idea that this shut down was not their fault the GOP had photos taken of Republican law makers sitting down at one side of a long conference table, the other side was vacant essentially saying, “We’re here to fix this, but Democrats don’t want to.”

GOP "Ready to Compromise"

In the end a compromise was made though, one that would raise the debt ceiling and allow “Obamacare” to continue unhindered as planned. The Republicans lost their silly battle against healthcare, and the cost of the shut down to the country was $24 billion. All because they wanted to cry about something they couldn’t dictate.

Now that they lost that battle a new battle rages on to discredit the Affordable Care Act; the failure of the ACA website. Yes, the ACA website is one hell of a cluster fuck. With all of the problems it is having it really is hard to tell if the site is just being inundated with traffic from Americans who want to sign up for healthcare, or if the site just plain sucks.

Republican attacks against the site are filled with silly talking points that make them look pettier then you could imagine. They are attacking it by criticizing the President for the cost of fixing the ACA website www.healthcare.gov, which is being reported as $634 million.

This is silly, because compared to the shut the ACA website has only cost 2.64% of the government shut down cost (if the numbers are being reported are accurate). Hmm, and they call themselves fiscally responsible when they can’t even tell that 24 billion is more than 634 million? Interesting.

NSA Spying:

Well, the cat’s out of the bag now, Mr. President! Thanks to 30 year old Edward Snowden, an EX analyst for the NSA, the entire world now knows that the United States of America has been spying not only on it’s own people, but the people and governments of other countries. How did this information get leaked? It got leaked because Edward Snowden was privy to this information and had access to sensitive documents, and he released them to The Guardian, exposing the NSA’s domestic and foreign spying efforts.

Currently, Snowden is living in Moscow, Russia after being given amnesty by Russian president, Vladimir Putin. This action by Putin was taken simply to stick a large bug up Obama’s ass, and it worked. Because of these actions Snowden is safe from American reprisal for the time being. And now the entire world knows of America’s spying, and they are not very happy about it to say the least.

German chancellor Angela Merkel is one of many world leaders that are particularly concerned about this spying revelation, especially now since we are discovering that the USA was spying on her cell phone conversations and what’s more sources say Obama knew about it.

Merkel has been in the news a lot recently because she is asking the President if these allegations are true. The White House of course has taken a firm stance on these accusations, and the NSA itself is denying that they ever briefed President Obama on Angela Merkel phone surveillance.

Angela Merkel and Barack Obama

First off come on, man. Obama had to have known about it, I’m sure he did allow it, and now I’m sure he is lying about it. I mean, the man renewed NDAA which expanded on indefinite detention and indiscriminate wire tapping. Then he went behind everyone’s back and signed into law the Monsanto Protection Act, knowing damn well that his constituency did not want him to do that. Yet, I’m not seeing very much anger on the Democrat side.

I have to share a story here. A friend of mine once bashed Bush, saying that he was wire tapping the American people and spying on us and detaining people indefinitely and that Bush was a real asshole for all of that.

So, just this summer I asked “What do you think of the NDAA being renewed and all the NSA revelations under this administration?” To which he replied, “Well PEOPLE in the GOVERNMENT have been spying on us for decades now, so it’s no big deal really. And I don’t mind it at all because I’m not doing anything that I shouldn’t be.”

WOW! What a change of heart! A Republican is in office and a Democrat assaults him verbally for establishing laws which make it easier for the government to spy on its own people. Then a Democrat gets into office, does the same exact thing, and it’s totally acceptable.

Remember folks, I’m no Obama-Yes-Man. I did vote for him, yes. But that doesn’t mean I’m going to defend his every action or inaction. This is just how it is.

Quite frankly, I believe that Obama is way more right-winged than anybody is willing to believe, and that this type of behavior is going to continue and many of us, Democrats and Republicans alike, are going to allow it.

Syria!!:

So Syria was a big deal for me. When I heard about it I was pissed. “Here is our famous “anti-war president” dragging us into another unnecessary conflict”, I thought. I mean seriously folks, this is the guy who campaigned on Iraq being an unnecessary conflict that we should never repeat again, yet he wants to lob missiles into other countries?

Obama said that “no boots would touch the ground”, and he even had John Kerry try and explain to us that war is only war when troops are not on the ground fighting other soldiers. Since no boots are touching the ground, Kerry tried to explain to us, there is no real war. It’s just some missiles being fired, aimed at strategic points to cripple the other country’s regime and force them to surrender. That’s all, folks. No war here.

Kerry at Senate Hearing Discussing Syrian Intervention

It hurts my brain to think about it, but Mr. Kerry truly is one real son of a bitch for trying to get us to believe this nonsense. He clearly wants us to believe that there are no sailors who are going to be controlling these missiles. Are they not troops or part of our fighting forces during war time? Do they not feel the morality of what they do weighing on their shoulders? I guess not. How about pilots whose missions are to drop bombs or control drones? Are they not troops?

This reminds me of something, an anime called Gundam Wing. In the story there is a type of mobile suit created which does not require a pilot to control it manually from the inside of its cockpit or from a remote location. They are all controlled by computer and are for the most part autonomic. While these machines are out fighting wars in space against real people the citizens of the alliance which built the machines barely feel the true effects of the war and have essentially become separated from it in nearly every way.

That is how I feel when our politicians try to tell us that no boots on the ground means war cannot exist. I feel it is a dirty, underhanded trick that politicians find necessary to use when they want to start another conflict without their followers realizing what it really is.

Luckily though, we have had some seemingly good progress come out of this almost-conflict with Syria. The Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad has actually pledged to get rid of their chemical weapon stock piles and has said that he would like Syria to become apart of the Geneva Convention. I have to admit, I did laugh when I heard this. Only because I wasn’t sure if Assad would go through with it, however it seems that he is.

No news has been making it to the major media networks about that region for a while though…interesting.

So that’s about it for this blog, now that I’m back from hiatus stayed tuned for some more to come.

If you want you can follow me on Twitter @Turk_Reno

Or you can find me on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/reno.erde

SOURCES:

Health Care Act Website Costing $634 Million

Government Shut Down Cost USA $24 Billion

Republicans Angered by Memorial Shut Down

Republican “Compromise” Photo Op

GOP Wanted to Cut VA Benefits

Edward Snowden Leaks Sensitive Information, Gets Amnesty in Russia

NSA Denies Spying on Germany

Obama on Bombing Syria

Assad Wants to Join Geneva Convention

John Kerry, “No boots on the ground”

Boy Scouts of America Delay Decision on Lifting Gay Ban

So after I got all excited about the BSA making a decision on whether or not to lift the ban on homosexuals I found out yesterday that the BSA has decided to delay that decision. This doesn’t come as too much of a shock to me, as people on the right-wing tend to have a difficult time when making coherent and tolerant decisions.

The BSA released a statement today saying, "After careful consideration and extensive dialogue within the Scouting family, along with comments from those outside the organization, the volunteer officers of the Boy Scouts of America's National Executive Board concluded that due to the complexity of this issue, the organization needs time for a more deliberate review of its membership policy."

That basically translates to, “We know it’s the right thing to do, but we have a very large group of religious members who are against the right thing. So, we will delay this decision for a while to see if maybe our religious members will allow this.”

I mean, really? How complex is this issue? Does it take a fucking rocket scientist to figure out that discrimination is bad, especially when it’s a public organization that’s discriminating? Let’s not forget to add that they are a public organization when they want those public funds supplied to them from the government then turns around and says it has the right to discriminate because they are actually in fact a private organization.

We already know that the BSA is given a government stipend to fund their activities. We also know that the government itself has acknowledged the BSA as a patriotic organization and that they are allowed to rent public land for little to no expense at all. So if the BSA wants to call themselves a private organization then I guess they can do without the public money and the neat usage of public facilities for free, right?

OBAMA QUOTE FROM THE ARTICLE:

"And you know the Scouts are a great institution, that are promoting young people and exposing them to opportunities and leadership that will serve people for the rest of their lives. And I think nobody should be barred from that."

And you know something; the President is right about this. Why would you bar certain people because of the way they were born from being exposed to great opportunities and experiences that not only will serve them but the rest of the people of this nation? Oh, but the religious right-wingers have some excellent, incoherent defenses for that, of course.

Pat Robertson, the TV evangelist and host of the 700 club said that if the Boy Scouts allow homosexuals to join their organization that it will open the door to pedophiles who will target children.

Robertson said, "The question is, are there predators as boy scouts, pedophiles that would come in as scoutmasters? And if they are, then of course parents wouldn't want their sons being involved in the Boy Scouts, or their daughters in the Girl Scouts."

Well of course no one wants their Scoutmaster to be a fucking pedophile, but how does allowing homosexuals the change to be apart of Scouting going to open the doors to pedophiles?

This whole idea that homosexual men are prone to be child molesters is an old one and one that has been proven to be incorrect. But that doesn’t stop the religious right, oh no. You see they like to think that male-male sexual molestation means that the perpetrator is in fact a homosexual, and that all male-male acts of molestation are committed only by homosexuals.

FROM DOCTOR FRED BERLIN M.D.

“A man who is homosexual is no more at risk of abusing a boy as a man who is heterosexual at risk of abusing a girl.”

Fred Berlin is a professor of psychiatry at the John Hopkins Medical School, and he is one of the nations leading authorities on pedophilia.

“There is in our society still much stigma against people who are homosexual, and part of the stigma is the sense that somehow they must be more at risk to children. There simply isn’t any scientific evidence to support that.”

So what does that mean exactly?

“To put it succinctly there is no credible evidence that a homosexual man is more likely to abuse a child than is a heterosexual man.”

Thanks doc! That comes in handy when talking to this religious nut jobs that are out to discriminate against something they don’t even understand. I’m pretty sure that one of the leading authorities on pedophilia in this country would know more about sexual disorders than a guy who preaches about God and hosts a Christian television show.

And lets look at it from another angle while were on the topic. If that is a major concern of the BSA, to keep children safe from homosexual pedophiles, then what current policies do they have to protect their kids against heterosexual pedophiles? It isn’t just gay men who molest children; it is also heterosexual men and women who molest children. So what procedures do they have in place to identify these heterosexual pedophiles? The short answer is that they don’t have any procedures.

This is where the stigma comes in. Straight Scouts are “normal” and have no sexual disorders because they walk the path that God set for them. Whereas homosexuals do not walk that path according to the Mormons, and because of that they are sick, twisted individuals who are out to touch you’re children’s genitals. Yet they have no solid evidence, they just blindly back up their claim saying that homosexuals are pedophiles because homosexual men are attracted to men and the Boy Scouts is a male organization. So does that mean that males are not allowed to volunteer for the Girl Scouts? I mean, since heterosexual men are attracted to women does that mean they are a threat to young girls in the Girl Scouts? Even further, could you say that no straight man is safe to be alone with his own daughter because he is attracted to females? The logic simply makes no sense.

When I was in High School there was one gay teacher (as I can recall). You really didn’t know he even existed because he taught Advanced Placement Algebra off in some tiny little corner of the school. Aside from him all of the male teachers were straight, and you heard more stories about the straight male teachers having sex with students then the gay teacher.

A friend of mine on the track team admitted to having sex with her assistant coach multiple times until the actual coach caught on and had the two separated (and no, no reports were ever made as it was deemed ‘consensual’ by all parties involved). And one teacher (our favorite teacher because he smoked marijuana and drank all the time) was forced into retirement just a few years ago because an ex-student of his from 20+ years ago accused him of having sex with her while she was a teenager. The teacher did not deny the claims. Rather, he took the forced retirement ultimatum and is now collecting his pension. 

So again, how does allowing straight people to be in any sort of leadership position any safer than allowing a homosexual to be in the same position? The Mormon Chuch is humping the idea that the children in the BSA are completely safe because there are no gay Scoutmasters. But what about the straight Scoutmasters who are at risk to children? How do they even find that stuff out? I mean, I’m sure it has happened before, where a straight Scoutmaster molested one or more of the children in his troop. Did anyone find out about it? If so, what happened to that straight Scoutmaster?

What I’m saying is that there is no way on earth to tell if someone is a child predator or not. These people blend into society very well, and you most likely live next to or close to someone who is straight and has been convicted of a sex crime against the same sex. So why point the finger at one group of minorities and say that they are the cause of all sexual abuse cases? Why not let everyone join, and those who break the law will be dealt with accordingly. That’s the way it should be.

Just like the argument against guns. The right-wingers like to say that you shouldn’t punish the law abiding citizens who own guns because criminals use them for bad things. And they are absolutely correct on that one. But the same logic can be used in this topic of gays in the Boy Scouts. Why would you punish every single homosexual in the nation because there was an instance where one homosexual man molested a young boy?

 To punish all homosexuals and say they cannot join the organization because they are a molestation risk? Have there been any homosexual Scoutmasters who were caught breaking the law by molesting children? And if there have been, why would they persecute all homosexuals because of the devious act of one homosexual? Sure, they are all for it when it comes to guns. Just because one guy goes nuts and shoots up a school with an assault weapon doesn’t mean that all law abiding citizens who have assault weapons are dangerous people. The same thing applies here, and I wish they would use simple logic to realize this.

Pat Robertson had this to say as well, "Our prayers are with them (THE BSA) that they will do what they feel is right for them, not what the political [sic] correct crowd thinks is right for them."

OK, once again I am all for them being a private organization and excluding whomever they want, if they were truly a private organization. You can’t pretend to be a public organization to acquire government money, then turn around and say that you are in fact not a public organization. Pick one! If you don’t want to allow homosexuals into the group then stop accepting public funds.

In closing, I think that the Mormon Church is behind this, big time. Taking a look at some figures we see that the Mormon Church actually represents 15% of 2.7 million Boy Scouts. They represent more Scouts in this nation than any other group, religious or otherwise. And since 1999 (which was around the time I was about to leave the Scouts) the membership of the BSA has dropped significantly, making the organization smaller, but expanding its Mormon influence.

But the Mormon connection doesn’t end there. The Mormons have been vehemently attacking homosexuals and gay rights in general for years. A good example of this would be the millions of dollars they funneled into California’s Proposition 8 campaign, which made gay marriage illegal in California under the guise of protecting marriage and the family unit. This is what the Mormon Church had to say about the BS delaying their decision on lifting the ban against homosexuals, “We believe (the BSA) has acted wisely in delaying a vote on this policy issue until the implications can be can be carefully evaluated…we caution others not to speculate about our position or assume that individual Latter-day Saints inside or outside the Scouting movement speak for the Church. Neither has the Church launched any campaign either to effect or prevent the policy change.”

But we do in fact know that he Church doesn’t support any change to the BSA’s membership policy. Will they ever? That is what we will have to wait and find out.

The Mormons are trying to walk a very fine line here of course, because of their views on homosexuality and their high stakes in the BSA organization. Only time will tell how much influence they really have, and how much pressure they put on the BSA to delay this decision.

People like Pat Robertson and Rick Santorum would have you believe that this is a liberal political issue and that popular culture is trying to find it’s way into this great organization and destroy it for political causes. But this is not a political issue. As Sean Penn who played Harvey Milk in the movie ‘Milk’ said to Josh Brolin who played Dan White, “It's more than an issue. This is our life we're fighting for.”

Stand up with me and fight against this bigotry. Tell the BSA that you think they should lift their policy of discrimination and that if they wish to be a private organization that they need to stop accepting public funds.  Tell the Mormon Church to back off and stop discriminating against our fellow Americans. Together we can put an end to this absurdity and we can have the equality that every American has today.

 SOURCES:

ABC NEWS: BOY SCOUTS DELAY GAY DECISION

BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA: MEMBERSHIP POLICY STATEMENT

HUFF POST: REACTION TO DELAY

HUFF POST: PAT ROBERTSON COMMENTS

CNN: SCOUTS DELAY GAY DECISION

PSYCHOLOGY UC DAVIS: FACTS OF HOMOSEXUALITY

IMDB: MILK MOVIE QUOTE

PENN & TELLERS BULLSHIT: BSA

2012: The Year in Review

Another year is over, and this year really had a lot going on. So many advances or discoveries in science were reported, the Girl Scouts tried to prevent transgender people from joining, Obama was reelected for another term, marijuana was legalized in two states, human rights made a huge win when three states legalized gay marriage, and we all survived the Mayan apocalypse.

So I thought for my last blog of the year I would review all the shit that’s happened, good and bad, so that we may reflect and remember how great (or not) the past 365 days have been.

This year has seen some great discoveries and achievements in science. The first photographs of DNA were taken, showing the double helix that resides in our bodies. It was an interesting process that required scientists to make some type of crazy looking microscopic landscape which looked like it was made up of tiny little mesas that were water resistant. When scientists had this landscape made they took DNA strands in water and dropped them into the “landscape” they made. The DNA strands stuck to the tiny mesas creating a “tightrope” if you will, of DNA that stretched from one mesa to another. They were able to take a picture of that strand. Simple, right? Uh, maybe not. Let’s leave science to the professionals.

The first man to ever sky dive from the edge of space happened this year, and it was all made possible by the energy drink company that brings us Red Bull. I still find it funny that in this day and age an energy drink company can help a man break a world record yet religion is still setting us back with nonsense. The jump reminded me of the 2009 Star Trek movie, where Kirk, Sulu, and a poor guy in a red shirt made a freefall jump from space to disable Nero’s mining device.

Water was found all over our solar system it would seem, as scientists discovered that water was in fact on Mars and even Mercury, which surprised the shit out of us all because Mercury is much closer to the sun than Mars. And while we’re on the subject or Mars, in August of this year the Curiosity rover landed on Mars. Also, another bit of interesting news is that Curiosity made it’s first Foursquare check in back in October. Wow, even unmanned planetary rovers get to check into the Foursquare. I bet Curosity will be Mayor of Mars soon.

Genome sequencing for fetuses was discovered as well. And unlike earlier techniques used to complete the sequencing this technique was completely noninvasive. The scans can pick up possibly fatal conditions earlier on in your child’s life as well as possible predispositions to diseases.

The SpaceX space shit named Dragon is pretty well known for those who keep themselves savvy on the latest space technology. One of my good friends actually worked on this project some years ago and is always excited when he hears news about it. Well in May of this year Dragon was delivered to the International Space Station. Score one for the private space exploration sector.

Remember walking around during 2012 and seeing all of those signs for Kony 2012? It was a documentary that was meant to show the brutality of Ugandan warlord Joseph Kony. The movie, albeit went viral very quickly, backfired as critics said it had a very narrow view, lack of info, and was deemed to have a “white savior” mentality.

Let us not forget the horrible tragedy that occurred in Connecticut. On December 14^th Adam Lanza, armed with guns he stole from his mother not only killed his mother but twenty-six people at the Sandy Hook Elementary school. This shooting has reinvigorated the gun control debate with politicians, making us wonder what type of crazy world we will be entering in 2013 with the introduction of new, and useless gun control laws.

The Westboro Baptist Church was at it again, and this time they made a new friend in the hacker group Anonymous. WBC said they would travel to Connecticut to protest the funerals of the victims of Adam Lanza. Their reasoning is that God doesn’t like gay people and is punishing America for allowing tolerance of gays. They said they would be holding up signs which read “God Sent the Shooter” and “God Hates Fags”. The group Anonymous was tired of this shit so they decided to wage an all out war against the WBC by attempting to keep them off the internet. To this day the www.godhatesfags.com website is still experiencing issues which the site being reduced to just one page that is entitled “God Still Hates Fags”.

The people of America have spoken! Four more years of Obama have been decided, and let’s just say that the American people actually picked the right guy this time. The election was a scary time of course as we could have voted into office an extremely hateful man named Mitt Romney. A man who is against all types of civil rights, especially gay and women’s rights, who also believes we should be at war with Iran and things that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were going great. He is also a Mormon who believes that his undergarments are magical and protect him against car accidents and fires.

At the same time the people of Washington and Colorado voted to legalize marijuana for recreational use. Washington was also one of three states that legalized gay marriage, extending human rights to men and women whose love was deemed evil or unnatural by the religious right-wingers. It was a huge victory for human and civil rights and it just goes to show how overwhelmingly good the American people are.

China launched its first jet off of its first and only aircraft carrier. The aircraft carrier was an old soviet ship that was gutted and sold to the Chinese after the fall of the Soviet Union. The Chinese were able to install what they needed in it and made it operational at the end of 2011. Their first successful launch and landing of a jet fighter on the deck of the carrier took place on November 25^th.

So many other things happened this year, there’s just too many to talk about so I just listen the ones off the top of my head. I think 2012 was a great year, albeit I lost my job, and I think 2013 will turn up being a great year as well. We just need to start thinking more rationally about the issues at hand that we face as a species, instead of jumping on the wagon of nationalist fervor and religion.

I hope you had a great year, and I hope you have a good New Year celebration. Don’t get too drunk….or do I don’t care. Just bare careful folks!

This is Reno, signing out for the year 2012. See you all on the other side!  

Obama Demands Gun Control Debate

(What do you think about the gun control debate after the events in Newtown, Connecticut? Comment below with your thoughts.)

So the war against the Westboro Baptist Church is raging on. The victims of the Sandy Hook shooting are trying to bury their loved ones but are being harassed by the church. Anonymous has been putting on the pressure as their Operation Westboro (#OpWestboro, #OpWBC) is in full swing.

The shootings occurred last Friday in Newtown Connecticut when a crazed gun man named Adam Lanza forced his way into an elementary school where he opened fire and killed twenty children and six adults. Lanza acquired the guns through his mother, who was an avid gun enthusiast, by stealing them from her and killing her with one.

This terrible tragedy has invoked the gun control debate by politicians of course, and President Obama himself is demanding action on gun control by creating a task force. Yes, a task force…but what does that mean exactly?

From the Article:

"This time, the words need to lead to action," said Obama, who set a January deadline for the recommendations. He vowed to push for their implementation without delay.

I’m not surprised by this at all. It was my first thought when the shootings occurred that the politicians would be offering us empty promises and sympathy with no solution other than to debate and enact new gun laws. Being an avid proponent of firearms and the 2^nd Amendment I am against this.

Obama says that he is for the 2^nd Amendment, but he does believe that certain gun control laws/restrictions would decrease the amount of shooting deaths in the United States. Even some congress members who are pro gun rights are starting to consider legislation to control firearms. But aren’t firearms already being controlled?

Obama plans to create new gun control policies such as stricter background checks and limit high capacity ammunition clips, but also says that he wants improved focus on mental health as well. Which will actually happen, or come first? I’m sure it will be the stricter gun control laws. Obama’s ‘deadline’ for gun control proposals is January 2013.

The President says he encourages all people from all types of political backgrounds to come together and have these discussions about what type of control should be enacted.

From the Article:

"The fact that this problem is complex can no longer be an excuse for doing nothing," Obama said. "The fact that we can't prevent every act of violence doesn't mean we can't steadily reduce the violence."

I have to say that I’m tired of politicians using every chance they can at furthering their own agenda and not the American citizens who voted them into office

Guns do not kill people, people kill people. And the very fact that politicians are using this event to try to take or curb our usage of firearms just goes to show how afraid they are of the American citizens being armed.

The 2^nd Amendment has some very specific wording:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

A well regulated MILITIA being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. It’s the Militia Vs. The People. It’s not saying “the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It says THE PEOPLE. And why did the founding fathers write this? Because THE PEOPLE just got done fighting a war, for two years, against a tyrannical state MILITIA, who tried to take their rights and disarm them.

If we are going to talk about things that people kill with lets talk about knives and cars and doctors. I can kill someone just as easily with a car. “But Reno, the government regulates cars and doctors!” Pssh…what’s going to stop me? I don’t have a license or a car, but what’s stopping me from stealing someone else’s car and waiting for children to get out of school so I can run them down? Not some law, that’s for sure.

The fact is that when we talk about these types of tragedies we wonder about how we could have prevented it and the number one thing that comes up all the time is more gun control. But the truth is that these shooters break the laws anyway. In the case of Columbine the shooters, and the person who sold them the guns and ammo, broke the laws already in place. Adam Lanza also broke the law when he STOLE his mother’s guns. Guns which did not belong to him in the first place, and of course maybe if Nancy Lanza kept her guns locked up this would have never happened. But Nancy was an older woman who had an older son, one that should have been able to tell right from wrong and know that it would not be wise of him to touch his mother’s weapons.

Really though, this is just what politicians were waiting for, a moment to bring up the gun control debate again so they can disarm the American people and have nothing to fear anymore. In fact when you think about it by limited guns of banning guns they are actually involving fear within the people of the USA. When ordinary law abiding citizens cannot obtain fire arms that doesn’t mean criminals, people who break the laws, won’t be able to get their hands on them. And when they do they can unleash terror upon ordinary people who will not be packing because they are good citizens who obey the law. The fact is that you can’t stop an insane person from doing insane things with insane laws…that’s insane!

Many people from other countries scoff at us because we Americans clutch our guns so tightly. They scratch their heads and wonder why we cling to such destructive weapons. But they don’t understand simply because they are not Americans. We Americans are rebellious spirits who want our government to know they can’t fuck with us, and the way we do that is by arming ourselves. We fought a war against the British (yeah so what it was over two-hundred years ago) because they tried to force us to borrow money from the British national banking establishment and when we revolted they tried to take our weapons so that we could not put up a fight.

Now yes, that was a long time ago, but that spirit still remains and the idea still remains. We may one day have to do our duty as Americans and arm ourselves to stand up to our own government.

Thomas Jefferson once said that for there to be true freedom an armed rebellion against the government should take place once every twenty years. He also wrote, “What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms; let’s signify a few lives lost in a century or two. The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants; it is its natural manure.”  

Guns don’t have a brain. They cannot pick themselves up and pull the trigger. Humans do have a brain however, and it is our choices that shape the world around us. Thankfully most of us are sane people and we know right from wrong, but unfortunately some of us are not. It doesn’t take a gun to hurt someone; it takes someone who wants to hurt someone, regardless of how they do it.

A lot of us don’t have much experience with guns. A lot of the exposure to guns we get comes from negative exposure from TV and movie. They strike fear into us, make us think how scary shit is and that any moment now some armed gun man can break into your home and kill you.

Fear is the politician’s companion, with enough fear legislators can walk right into congress and pass all kinds of crazy laws with the necessary steps. Politicians even create the hysteria themselves by passing gun control laws, such as the Brady Bill, which has actually been rather ineffective in keeping guns in the wrong hands.  

One of these crazy laws is the creation of the gun free zone. The gun free zone has to be the biggest pile of shit law I have heard of. Basically if you get caught with a gun while in a gun free zone your fines and punishments are increased. But we look at all of the shootings that have occurred and they all happen in ‘gun free zones’. Sandy Hook Elementary is a gun free zone, so how can this type of tragic event happen in a gun free zone?

If the number of guns in the hands of citizens truly is the problem then why don’t we see this type of violence at NRA conventions or gun shows? Surely, a place like that where tons of people are in possession of tons of guns, there must be hundreds of tragedies at these events, right? Wrong. The number of guns in the hands of the people doesn’t increase the number of violent crimes. The number of guns in the wrong hands DOES increase crime.

So how do we keep the guns out of the wrong hands? Well with all the gun laws on the books (which exceed over 20,000) you would think that criminals wouldn’t be able to get there hands on firearms. But alas, just like the war one drugs if there is a law against something there is a black market for it.

None of these gun control laws on the books prevented Columbine, and none of them prevented Sandy Hook, and none of the existing laws or future laws will prevent terrible tragedies like this from occurring.

Don’t let the government fool you into giving up your rights because of some crazy kid who misused them. The government can only take away from us what we allow them to. 

(What do you think about the gun control debate after the events in Newtown, Connecticut? Comment below with your thoughts.)

SOURCE:

Yahoo! News Report

Obama Yahoo! News Video

Twitter Tags: #Guncontrol #Obama #Sandyhook #Columbine #WBC #OpWBC #Anonymous

Obama’s Big Bad Benghazi Cover-up

On September 11^th 2012 an armed group of militants attacked a US Diplomatic consulate in Libya which killed four Americans and injured three Americans and seven Libyans. The next day President Obama addressed the people calling it an “outrageous attack.” And then the story was over with and everyone went back on with their lives. Well, not exactly.

Leave it up to the Republicans. John McCain came out blasting President Obama after comments he made at his Rose Garden address. McCain is blaming the Obama Administration of a cover-up in this incident in Benghazi, and rightfully so since Obama never actually told the American people that a diplomatic mission to Libya was attacked.

Wait a second…yes, he did tell the American people that a diplomatic mission in Benghazi was attacked. So wait, I’m confused about this now. What exactly was the cover-up? I’m looking as hard as I can to see it, reading between each line I can, but it is no where to be found. The more I think of it the more it boggles my mind. There was an attack on a US diplomatic mission to Benghazi…four Americans were killed…the next day President Obama spoke about it openly…what did he say?

TRANSCRIPT OF OBAMA SPEECH:

“Yesterday, four of these extraordinary Americans were killed in an attack on our diplomatic post in Benghazi.  Among those killed were our Ambassador, Chris Stevens, as well as Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith.  We are still notifying the families of the others who were killed.  And today, the American people stand united in holding the families of the four Americans in our thoughts and in our prayers.”

…

“It's especially tragic that Chris Stevens died in Benghazi because it is a city that he helped to save.  At the height of the Libyan revolution, Chris led our diplomatic post in Benghazi.  With characteristic skill, courage, and resolve, he built partnerships with Libyan revolutionaries, and helped them as they planned to build a new Libya.  When the Qaddafi regime came to an end, Chris was there to serve as our ambassador to the new Libya, and he worked tirelessly to support this young democracy, and I think both Secretary Clinton and I relied deeply on his knowledge of the situation on the ground there.  He was a role model to all who worked with him and to the young diplomats who aspire to walk in his footsteps.”

…

“No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.  Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America.  We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act.  And make no mistake, justice will be done.”

OK yeah so he openly spoke about it, but where the hell is the cover-up part? What are John McCain and the GOP saying about the Obama Administration? As I searched for this answer I found a lovely piece at www.breitbart.com which features quotes from Bret Baier of the Fox News Network. “Oh boy,” I thought.

So it turns out that this cover-up the GOP and right-winged talking heads are going on about is that the attack was actually a terrorist attack and that the President is trying to cover it up. But wait a second…did Obama say “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation”? Is it not clear that he is saying in this very sentence that the attack against US diplomats in Benghazi was in fact a terrorist attack? Not according to Bret Baier of Fox News, no.

As I said, I found this little piece from an article Bret wrote and posted on his own website. If you’re familiar with Faux News you can smell the BS spin job they use to try to say that President Obama is covering up the fact that the attack in Benghazi was a terrorist attack.

FROM THE ARTICLE:

These are two crucial answers in the big picture.  Right after getting out of the Rose Garden, where, according to the second debate and other accounts he definitively called the attack terrorism, Obama is asked point blank about not calling it terrorism. He blinks and does not push back.

Can you smell it? It smells like ‘Pure Grade A 100% Faux News Bullshit’. The spin tactic being used here is so out in the open and overt that a five year old could point it out.

First off, let’s go into this article that I found. It’s actually about Faux News man Bret Baier who says that he has proof that Obama is covering up the fact that the Benghazi attack was actually a terrorist attack. He states that a CBS interview with the President was recorded in October in which this was said:

KROFT: Mr. President, this morning you went out of your way to avoid the use of the word terrorism in connection with the Libya Attack, do you believe that this was a terrorism attack?

OBAMA: Well it’s too early to tell exactly how this came about, what group was involved, but obviously it was an attack on Americans.  And we are going to be working with the Libyan government to make sure that we bring these folks to justice, one way or the other.


He then goes on to say that the recording wasn’t aired for more than six weeks and that they still failed to air the interview even when questions about the incident were being raised during the second presidential debate. As I read, the author states that when asked if the Benghazi attack was in fact a terrorist attack the moderator, Candy Crowley, stepped in and spoke for Obama falsely stating that Obama in fact called it an act of terror on September 12^th 2012 at his Rose Garden interview.

Falsely stated? How did the moderator falsely state that Obama called the act an act of terror when he did in fact say it was an act of terror? The author goes on to make the argument that if this didn’t happen and the moderator didn’t step in and lie for Obama that Romney would have won the debate, and that CBS withheld this interview to assist President Obama cover-up any dishonesty about the attacks and assist him in his reelection campaign.   

So here is the spin. Obama says in his Rose Garden interview that “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation,” essential labeling the attack as a terror attack. It’s not so much because he said it was an act of terror but because he can’t prove it’s an act of terror, and the GOP is using this as an excuse to call into question the credibility of the Obama Administration. Merely because there are different people with different opinions on what actually happened in Benghazi the right-wing political machine is using the incident to call the Obama Administration into question about an alleged cover-up on whether or not the attack was terrorist in nature or not. If Obama says in a speech that terror will never shake our resolve than isn’t it clear he is just covering his ass on both sides of the spectrum? Can’t he think to himself, “Well we don’t know if this is a terror attack yet, but either way terror will not shake us”? I am wouldn’t that be a very poignant thing to say to keep our spirits up? No, instead the GOP wants to try to call Obama a liar because there were conflicting reports on whether or not it was a terrorist attack and because he didn’t have to answer his question at the debate.

But the truth is simple, if Obama had come out during the debate and said, “Yes, terrorists did in fact attack a US Diplomatic mission to Benghazi” the Romney campaign would have turned right around and said, “See? There was a terrorist attack on Americans in Benghazi and Obama never saved them. He is weak against terror.” This is just another use of political spin and word play and they know it.

Word play and semantics are being used here heavily and lets face it they are simple tactics to use and they work for any argument you are in. You just have to change a word or the meaning or a word to make your argument. It’s not ‘Gun Control’ it’s ‘Preventative measures against violent crimes’, it’s not a ‘job’ it’s a ‘career’, don’t say the word ‘compromise’, don’t say ‘capitalism’ say ‘free economic market’, don’t say ‘taxes the rich’ say ‘takes from the rich’, they are not ‘middle class’ they are ‘hardworking tax payers’, ‘government spending’ is ‘waste’, ‘entrepreneur’ is ‘job creator’. And in this case we can also define what these are based on who is currently in office, Republican or Democrat.

And in this case of the Benghazi Terror Attack Cover-up the word terrorism is now redefined. You see if Bush were in office this case would be easy, it would be an act of terror, plain and simple, no need for investigation. Why? Because it happened to Americans in a foreign country, the attackers were Muslim (or possibly Muslim) and it happened AFTER 9/11/01. See that? Those are the ingredients for terror under Bush's watch. But the Republicans are willing to change their view when it's a Democrat in office. Now the definition has changed and we should investigate this to see if it was a terror attack, because terror attacks are so deeply thought out and largely complex and don't require just a few Americans to die by the hands of foreigners in a land where maybe there are terrorists. You see now for a terror attack to be considered a terror attack one needs to form a terror group and intentionally attack American interests.

So as you can see, he Republicans have a back up plan for just in case not all of their criterion are met for a terrorist attack. See if there is no terror group that comes out and takes responsibility the right-wingers can say, “Oh see this doesn't fit the bill of what we know as a terror attack. This Benghazi thing was just some protest that went violent and unfortunately some Americans got caught up in it and were killed.” And BOOM, just like that Obama’s image is changed. He isn’t a guy who is weak on terror, he’s a liar who called a protest riot a terrorist attack. And how can the American people trust a president who can't tell the difference between a protest riot and a terrorist attack?

As usual I had a hard time wondering what the right-wingers are trying to get at. Are they trying to say that Obama is covering up the fact the the Benghazi attack was a terrorist attack, or are they are calling him a liar for calling it an attack. They can go either way with this issue and like all politics it is bunk. We shouldn't be worrying about whether or not it's a terrorist act by a politicians definition or not
  Let’s take time to step away from the TV for a moment and make our own decision without some talking head political pundit or politician. Lets think about the word terror and what it means, because in my view any act of violence is an act or terror. Violence is terrible, terrifying, and for lack of a better word, terror. Terror has no exact definition unless the word is being used for political gain. War is terror, being mugged is terror, flying a plane into a building is terror, and getting caught up in a violent riot is terror. It’s not that complicated folks, all of these things are terror so don't let the right-wing media change your view on what terror actually is. 


SOURCES: 

www.breitbart.com Proof Obama Refused to Call Benghazi Terror CBS Covered-Up

President Obama's Rose Garden Speech (VIDEO)

President Obama's Rose Garden Speech (TRANSCRIPT)