by Joel Gehrke Commentary Staff Writer
Public Policy Polling, a Democratic-leaning polling firm, shows Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, and former Gov. Mitt Romney, R-Mass., trailing President Obama by a mere one point in their latest poll of Florida voters. Obama has a 56 percent disapproval rating in the swing state.
PPP shows Paul trailing Obama 45-44 in a hypothetical general election match-up, while Romney lags Obama by the same margin, 46-45. Gov. Rick Perry, R-Texas, has a 7 point deficit on the president, 50-43 - likely because 63% of voters polled disagree with his characterization of Social Security as a Ponzi scheme.
That said, PPP made a point of noting that Perry's deficit to Obama recalls Dewey's loss to President Truman, which might say as much about how PPP wants Republican voters to see Perry as it does about Perry's chances in this election.
http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/poll-ron-paul-v-obama-dead-heat-fla
Thursday, September 29, 2011
Facebook Tracking Its Users
'We didn't mean to track you' says Facebook as social network giant admits to 'bugs' in new privacy row
By Daniel Bates
Facebook has admitted that it has been watching the web pages its members visit – even when they have logged out.
In its latest privacy blunder, the social networking site was forced to confirm that it has been constantly tracking its 750million users, even when they are using other sites.
The social networking giant says the huge privacy breach was simply a mistake - that software automatically downloaded to users' computers when they logged in to Facebook 'inadvertently' sent information to the company, whether or not they were logged in at the time.
Most would assume that Facebook stops monitoring them after they leave its site, but technology bloggers discovered this was not the case.
In fact, data has been regularly sent back to the social network’s servers – data that could be worth billions when creating 'targeted' advertising based on the sites users visit.
The website’s practices were exposed by Australian technology blogger Nik Cubrilovic and have provoked a furious response across the internet.
Facebook claims to have 'fixed' the issue - and 'thanked' Mr Cubrilovic for pointing it out - while simultaneously claiming that it wasn't really an issue in the first place.
Mr Cubrilovic found that when you sign up to Facebook it automatically puts files known as ‘cookies’ on your computer which monitor your browsing history.
This is still the case. But Facebook claims the cookies no longer send information while you are logged out of its site. If you are logged in to Facebook, the cookies will still send the information, and they remain on your computer unless you manually delete them.
They send Facebook your IP address - the 'unique identifier' address of your PC - and information on whether you have visited millions of websites: anything with a Facebook ‘like’ or ‘recommend’ button on it.
'We place cookies on the computer of the user,' said a Facebook spokesperson - and admitted that some Facebook cookies send back the address of users' PCs and sites they had visited, even while logged out.
'Three of these cookies inadvertently included unique identifiers when the user had logged out of Facebook. We did not store these for logged out users. We could not have used this information.'
However, the site spokesperson said that the 'potential issue' had now been 'fixed' so that the cookies will no longer broadcast information: 'We fixed the cookies so they won't include unique information in the future when people log out.'
'It's just the latest privacy issue to affect a company that has a long history of blunders relating to user's private information.
Monitoring all: Facebook founder and chief executive, Mark Zuckerberg
Mr Cubrilovic wrote: ‘Even if you are logged out, Facebook still knows and can track every page you visit.
‘The only solution is to delete every Facebook cookie in your browser, or to use a separate (web) browser for Facebook interactions.
‘This is not what "logout" is supposed to mean’.
The admission is the latest in a series of privacy blunders from Facebook, which has a record of only correcting such matters when they are brought to light by other people.
Earlier this year it stopped gathering browser data from users who had never even been to Facebook.com after it was exposed by a Dutch researcher.
The site was forced into a partial climbdown over changes to privacy settings which many claimed made too much public.
It also came under attack for launching a ‘stalker button’ which allowed users to track another person’s every move in a list which was constantly being updated.
Arturo Bejar, one of Facebook’s directors of engineering, admitted that users continue to be tracked after they log out but said that the data was deleted right away.
He said it was to do with the way the ‘like’ feature works, which is a button users can click on to show they like something.
He said: ‘The onus is on us is to take all the data and scrub it. What really matters is what we say as a company and back it up.’
On technology blog CNET, however, users were outraged at what was going on.
One wrote: ‘Who the hell do these people think they are? ‘Trust us?’ Why? Why should we trust a company that spies on us without our knowledge and consent?’
Another added: ‘Holy wow.... they've just lept way past Google on the creepy meter’.
According to U.S. reports Facebook has recently set up its own Political Action Committee, an American term for a lobbying outfit to get its views heard on Capitol Hill.
So far this year it has already spent £352,000 on lobbying, already ahead of last year’s total of £224,000.
The website has also been forced to deny Internet rumours it will begin charging for its services and said it will ‘always be free’.
A spokesman for Facebook said that the login and log out measures were designed for security and were there to prevent fraud.
He added: ‘We to do not use this information to target adverts’.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2042573/Facebook-privacy-row-Social-network-giant-admits-bugs.html
By Daniel Bates
Facebook has admitted that it has been watching the web pages its members visit – even when they have logged out.
In its latest privacy blunder, the social networking site was forced to confirm that it has been constantly tracking its 750million users, even when they are using other sites.
The social networking giant says the huge privacy breach was simply a mistake - that software automatically downloaded to users' computers when they logged in to Facebook 'inadvertently' sent information to the company, whether or not they were logged in at the time.
Most would assume that Facebook stops monitoring them after they leave its site, but technology bloggers discovered this was not the case.
In fact, data has been regularly sent back to the social network’s servers – data that could be worth billions when creating 'targeted' advertising based on the sites users visit.
The website’s practices were exposed by Australian technology blogger Nik Cubrilovic and have provoked a furious response across the internet.
Facebook claims to have 'fixed' the issue - and 'thanked' Mr Cubrilovic for pointing it out - while simultaneously claiming that it wasn't really an issue in the first place.
Mr Cubrilovic found that when you sign up to Facebook it automatically puts files known as ‘cookies’ on your computer which monitor your browsing history.
This is still the case. But Facebook claims the cookies no longer send information while you are logged out of its site. If you are logged in to Facebook, the cookies will still send the information, and they remain on your computer unless you manually delete them.
They send Facebook your IP address - the 'unique identifier' address of your PC - and information on whether you have visited millions of websites: anything with a Facebook ‘like’ or ‘recommend’ button on it.
'We place cookies on the computer of the user,' said a Facebook spokesperson - and admitted that some Facebook cookies send back the address of users' PCs and sites they had visited, even while logged out.
'Three of these cookies inadvertently included unique identifiers when the user had logged out of Facebook. We did not store these for logged out users. We could not have used this information.'
However, the site spokesperson said that the 'potential issue' had now been 'fixed' so that the cookies will no longer broadcast information: 'We fixed the cookies so they won't include unique information in the future when people log out.'
'It's just the latest privacy issue to affect a company that has a long history of blunders relating to user's private information.
Monitoring all: Facebook founder and chief executive, Mark Zuckerberg
Mr Cubrilovic wrote: ‘Even if you are logged out, Facebook still knows and can track every page you visit.
‘The only solution is to delete every Facebook cookie in your browser, or to use a separate (web) browser for Facebook interactions.
‘This is not what "logout" is supposed to mean’.
The admission is the latest in a series of privacy blunders from Facebook, which has a record of only correcting such matters when they are brought to light by other people.
Earlier this year it stopped gathering browser data from users who had never even been to Facebook.com after it was exposed by a Dutch researcher.
The site was forced into a partial climbdown over changes to privacy settings which many claimed made too much public.
It also came under attack for launching a ‘stalker button’ which allowed users to track another person’s every move in a list which was constantly being updated.
Arturo Bejar, one of Facebook’s directors of engineering, admitted that users continue to be tracked after they log out but said that the data was deleted right away.
He said it was to do with the way the ‘like’ feature works, which is a button users can click on to show they like something.
He said: ‘The onus is on us is to take all the data and scrub it. What really matters is what we say as a company and back it up.’
On technology blog CNET, however, users were outraged at what was going on.
One wrote: ‘Who the hell do these people think they are? ‘Trust us?’ Why? Why should we trust a company that spies on us without our knowledge and consent?’
Another added: ‘Holy wow.... they've just lept way past Google on the creepy meter’.
According to U.S. reports Facebook has recently set up its own Political Action Committee, an American term for a lobbying outfit to get its views heard on Capitol Hill.
So far this year it has already spent £352,000 on lobbying, already ahead of last year’s total of £224,000.
The website has also been forced to deny Internet rumours it will begin charging for its services and said it will ‘always be free’.
A spokesman for Facebook said that the login and log out measures were designed for security and were there to prevent fraud.
He added: ‘We to do not use this information to target adverts’.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2042573/Facebook-privacy-row-Social-network-giant-admits-bugs.html
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Are We Waking Up?
Herman Cain Leads Republican Field In Zogby Poll
by John Hayward
A new Zogby poll puts Herman Cain at the top of the Republican field, as the top choice of 28% of poll respondents. (IBOPE Zogby International says the polling sample consists of “all likely voters and of likely Republican primary voters.”)
Rounding out the top three are Rick Perry at 18%, and Mitt Romney at 17%. Fourth place goes to Ron Paul at 11%. Paul’s the most solid performer in Zogby’s polling history for the 2012 GOP race – his 11% might as well be chiseled in stone.
Interestingly, this poll was conducted after the Orlando GOP debate, but before Cain won the Florida straw poll. It’s a huge surge for Cain, who was polling at 12% just two weeks previously, and was floating at a campaign low of 8% two weeks before that. Aside from that bitter 8% number, Cain has generally done quite well in the Zogby poll, usually good enough for second or third place.
On the other hand, Rick Perry’s numbers in the Zogby poll have cratered, falling 19% in just two weeks. His debut last month was also his high-water mark thus far, when Zogby had him at 41%.
Michelle Bachmann has also been slipping steadily, chugging in at 4%. That puts her just below Jon Huntsman, which is the same way she finished the Florida straw poll. Bachmann was actually the leading candidate in Zogby’s polling from June 21 through July 25… then she plunged to 9% in the next poll and continued sliding down from there.
Romney’s been holding fairly steady in the Zogby poll. He bounces a few points up and down, but seems to hover in the 15-17% range.
Zogby’s also got President Obama’s approval rating at 42%, with 57% disapproval. That’s actually a bit better than his September 5 low of 39-61. His poor approval numbers seem to hold fairly steady, while his disapproval bounces around.
As always with poll news, the usual caveats apply: it’s one poll, it might be an outlier, Zogby’s accuracy has been questioned in the past, et cetera. Still, these numbers reflect the general shape of the race pretty well: Perry started big but fizzled fast, Romney’s been playing a careful game built around damage control, Paul’s got a loyal following but can’t reach beyond it.
I’d have guessed Cain would rank a bit lower than his Zogby numbers until now, but he had one of the best weekends a candidate could ask for in Orlando, and Zobgy’s poll is telling us the same thing the Florida straw poll did. It will be interesting to compare the first batch of polls from various sources to reflect that straw poll, and Cain’s reaction to it.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=46473
by John Hayward
A new Zogby poll puts Herman Cain at the top of the Republican field, as the top choice of 28% of poll respondents. (IBOPE Zogby International says the polling sample consists of “all likely voters and of likely Republican primary voters.”)
Rounding out the top three are Rick Perry at 18%, and Mitt Romney at 17%. Fourth place goes to Ron Paul at 11%. Paul’s the most solid performer in Zogby’s polling history for the 2012 GOP race – his 11% might as well be chiseled in stone.
Interestingly, this poll was conducted after the Orlando GOP debate, but before Cain won the Florida straw poll. It’s a huge surge for Cain, who was polling at 12% just two weeks previously, and was floating at a campaign low of 8% two weeks before that. Aside from that bitter 8% number, Cain has generally done quite well in the Zogby poll, usually good enough for second or third place.
On the other hand, Rick Perry’s numbers in the Zogby poll have cratered, falling 19% in just two weeks. His debut last month was also his high-water mark thus far, when Zogby had him at 41%.
Michelle Bachmann has also been slipping steadily, chugging in at 4%. That puts her just below Jon Huntsman, which is the same way she finished the Florida straw poll. Bachmann was actually the leading candidate in Zogby’s polling from June 21 through July 25… then she plunged to 9% in the next poll and continued sliding down from there.
Romney’s been holding fairly steady in the Zogby poll. He bounces a few points up and down, but seems to hover in the 15-17% range.
Zogby’s also got President Obama’s approval rating at 42%, with 57% disapproval. That’s actually a bit better than his September 5 low of 39-61. His poor approval numbers seem to hold fairly steady, while his disapproval bounces around.
As always with poll news, the usual caveats apply: it’s one poll, it might be an outlier, Zogby’s accuracy has been questioned in the past, et cetera. Still, these numbers reflect the general shape of the race pretty well: Perry started big but fizzled fast, Romney’s been playing a careful game built around damage control, Paul’s got a loyal following but can’t reach beyond it.
I’d have guessed Cain would rank a bit lower than his Zogby numbers until now, but he had one of the best weekends a candidate could ask for in Orlando, and Zobgy’s poll is telling us the same thing the Florida straw poll did. It will be interesting to compare the first batch of polls from various sources to reflect that straw poll, and Cain’s reaction to it.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=46473
Columnists | Ford pulls its ad on bailouts | The Detroit News
Columnists Ford pulls its ad on bailouts The Detroit News
By
Daniel Howes
Ford pulls its ad on bailouts
'Didn't take the money' boast ruffles feathers
For the only Detroit automaker that "didn't take the money" of the federal auto bailouts, Ford Motor Co. keeps paying a price for its comparative success and self-reliant turnaround.
There's no help from American taxpayers to help lighten its debt load, giving crosstown rivals comparatively better credit ratings and a financial edge Ford is working diligently to erase all on its own.
There's no clause barring a strike by hourly workers amid this fall's national contract talks with the United Auto Workers — a by-product of the taxpayer-financed bailout that General Motors Co. and Chrysler Group LLC retain until 2015.
And there's no assurance the Dearborn automaker can use the commercially advantageous fact that it didn't "take the money" proffered by the Obama Treasury Department and use it in TV ads angling to sell cars and trucks. Not if the campaign takes a whack at its Detroit rivals and suggests that Ford no longer supports the Obama administration bailouts it backed in public statements and sworn congressional testimony.
As part of a campaign featuring "real people" explaining their decision to buy the Blue Oval, a guy named "Chris" says he "wasn't going to buy another car that was bailed out by our government," according the text of the ad, launched in early September.
"I was going to buy from a manufacturer that's standing on their own: win, lose, or draw. That's what America is about is taking the chance to succeed and understanding when you fail that you gotta' pick yourself up and go back to work."
That's what some of America is about, evidently. Because Ford pulled the ad after individuals inside the White House questioned whether the copy was publicly denigrating the controversial bailout policy CEO Alan Mulally repeatedly supported in the dark days of late 2008, in early '09 and again when the ad flap arose. And more.
With President Barack Obama tuning his re-election campaign amid dismal economic conditions and simmering antipathy toward his stimulus spending and associated bailouts, the Ford ad carried the makings of a political liability when Team Obama can least afford yet another one. Can't have that.
The ad, pulled in response to White House questions (and, presumably, carping from rival GM), threatened to rekindle the negative (if accurate) association just when the president wants credit for their positive results (GM and Chrysler are moving forward, making money and selling vehicles) and to distance himself from any public downside of his decision.
In other words, where presidential politics and automotive marketing collide — clean, green, politically correct vehicles not included — the president wins and the automaker loses because the benefit of the battle isn't worth the cost of waging it.
"This thing is highly charged," says an industry source familiar with the situation. Ford "never meant it to be an attack on the policy. There was not any pressure to take down the ad."
Maybe not technically. But the nexus of politics and the auto business in today's Washington is bigger, broader and more complex than it arguably has been in who knows how long.
Add a re-election campaign for the president credited (or condemned) with executing the bailout, and it should be no surprise that a White House that insists it doesn't want to "run" the business nonetheless reserves the right to question it, implications be damned.
Whatever the politics, the ad kerfuffle exposes two opposed realities existing simultaneously for Ford:
First, a sizable cadre of current and would-be customers oppose the notion of taxpayer bailouts for automakers, whatever the economic costs to the industrial Midwest and the nation of letting them collapse. Meaning there's an advantage Ford can press to remind folks that it didn't receive direct payouts from Treasury.
Second is that Ford supported the bailouts before Congress, in public statements and still does today, despite the recurring snarkiness you hear around its offices in Dearborn that it "didn't take the money."
No, it didn't. But Ford did seek a line of credit from the feds, borrowed billions under a government program to "retool" its plants and effectively failed first. That's why it recruited a superstar CEO from Boeing Co. and gave him some $23 billion in borrowed money to save the Blue Oval from bankruptcy.
Or it would have taken the money, too.
From The Detroit News: http://detnews.com/article/20110927/OPINION03/109270322/Ford-pulls-its-ad-on-bailouts#ixzz1ZDFa2sWM
This next video is of the guy explaining himself. Maybe he should run for President?
By
Daniel Howes
Ford pulls its ad on bailouts
'Didn't take the money' boast ruffles feathers
For the only Detroit automaker that "didn't take the money" of the federal auto bailouts, Ford Motor Co. keeps paying a price for its comparative success and self-reliant turnaround.
There's no help from American taxpayers to help lighten its debt load, giving crosstown rivals comparatively better credit ratings and a financial edge Ford is working diligently to erase all on its own.
There's no clause barring a strike by hourly workers amid this fall's national contract talks with the United Auto Workers — a by-product of the taxpayer-financed bailout that General Motors Co. and Chrysler Group LLC retain until 2015.
And there's no assurance the Dearborn automaker can use the commercially advantageous fact that it didn't "take the money" proffered by the Obama Treasury Department and use it in TV ads angling to sell cars and trucks. Not if the campaign takes a whack at its Detroit rivals and suggests that Ford no longer supports the Obama administration bailouts it backed in public statements and sworn congressional testimony.
As part of a campaign featuring "real people" explaining their decision to buy the Blue Oval, a guy named "Chris" says he "wasn't going to buy another car that was bailed out by our government," according the text of the ad, launched in early September.
"I was going to buy from a manufacturer that's standing on their own: win, lose, or draw. That's what America is about is taking the chance to succeed and understanding when you fail that you gotta' pick yourself up and go back to work."
That's what some of America is about, evidently. Because Ford pulled the ad after individuals inside the White House questioned whether the copy was publicly denigrating the controversial bailout policy CEO Alan Mulally repeatedly supported in the dark days of late 2008, in early '09 and again when the ad flap arose. And more.
With President Barack Obama tuning his re-election campaign amid dismal economic conditions and simmering antipathy toward his stimulus spending and associated bailouts, the Ford ad carried the makings of a political liability when Team Obama can least afford yet another one. Can't have that.
The ad, pulled in response to White House questions (and, presumably, carping from rival GM), threatened to rekindle the negative (if accurate) association just when the president wants credit for their positive results (GM and Chrysler are moving forward, making money and selling vehicles) and to distance himself from any public downside of his decision.
In other words, where presidential politics and automotive marketing collide — clean, green, politically correct vehicles not included — the president wins and the automaker loses because the benefit of the battle isn't worth the cost of waging it.
"This thing is highly charged," says an industry source familiar with the situation. Ford "never meant it to be an attack on the policy. There was not any pressure to take down the ad."
Maybe not technically. But the nexus of politics and the auto business in today's Washington is bigger, broader and more complex than it arguably has been in who knows how long.
Add a re-election campaign for the president credited (or condemned) with executing the bailout, and it should be no surprise that a White House that insists it doesn't want to "run" the business nonetheless reserves the right to question it, implications be damned.
Whatever the politics, the ad kerfuffle exposes two opposed realities existing simultaneously for Ford:
First, a sizable cadre of current and would-be customers oppose the notion of taxpayer bailouts for automakers, whatever the economic costs to the industrial Midwest and the nation of letting them collapse. Meaning there's an advantage Ford can press to remind folks that it didn't receive direct payouts from Treasury.
Second is that Ford supported the bailouts before Congress, in public statements and still does today, despite the recurring snarkiness you hear around its offices in Dearborn that it "didn't take the money."
No, it didn't. But Ford did seek a line of credit from the feds, borrowed billions under a government program to "retool" its plants and effectively failed first. That's why it recruited a superstar CEO from Boeing Co. and gave him some $23 billion in borrowed money to save the Blue Oval from bankruptcy.
Or it would have taken the money, too.
From The Detroit News: http://detnews.com/article/20110927/OPINION03/109270322/Ford-pulls-its-ad-on-bailouts#ixzz1ZDFa2sWM
This next video is of the guy explaining himself. Maybe he should run for President?
Thursday, September 22, 2011
'Stingray' Phone Tracker Fuels Constitutional Clash
By JENNIFER VALENTINO-DEVRIES
For more than a year, federal authorities pursued a man they called simply "the Hacker." Only after using a little known cellphone-tracking device—a stingray—were they able to zero in on a California home and make the arrest.
Stingrays are designed to locate a mobile phone even when it's not being used to make a call. The Federal Bureau of Investigation considers the devices to be so critical that it has a policy of deleting the data gathered in their use, mainly to keep suspects in the dark about their capabilities, an FBI official told The Wall Street Journal in response to inquiries.
A stingray's role in nabbing the alleged "Hacker"—Daniel David Rigmaiden—is shaping up as a possible test of the legal standards for using these devices in investigations. The FBI says it obtains appropriate court approval to use the device.
Stingrays are one of several new technologies used by law enforcement to track people's locations, often without a search warrant. These techniques are driving a constitutional debate about whether the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, but which was written before the digital age, is keeping pace with the times.
On Nov. 8, the Supreme Court will hear arguments over whether or not police need a warrant before secretly installing a GPS device on a suspect's car and tracking him for an extended period. In both the Senate and House, new bills would require a warrant before tracking a cellphone's location.
And on Thursday in U.S. District Court of Arizona, Judge David G. Campbell is set to hear a request by Mr. Rigmaiden, who is facing fraud charges, to have information about the government's secret techniques disclosed to him so he can use it in his defense. Mr. Rigmaiden maintains his innocence and says that using stingrays to locate devices in homes without a valid warrant "disregards the United States Constitution" and is illegal.
His argument has caught the judge's attention. In a February hearing, according to a transcript, Judge Campbell asked the prosecutor, "Were there warrants obtained in connection with the use of this device?"
The prosecutor, Frederick A. Battista, said the government obtained a "court order that satisfied [the] language" in the federal law on warrants. The judge then asked how an order or warrant could have been obtained without telling the judge what technology was being used. Mr. Battista said: "It was a standard practice, your honor."
Judge Campbell responded that it "can be litigated whether those orders were appropriate."
On Thursday the government will argue it should be able to withhold details about the tool used to locate Mr. Rigmaiden, according to documents filed by the prosecution. In a statement to the Journal, Sherry Sabol, Chief of the Science & Technology Office for the FBI's Office of General Counsel, says that information about stingrays and related technology is "considered Law Enforcement Sensitive, since its public release could harm law enforcement efforts by compromising future use of the equipment."
Enlarge Image
Close.The prosecutor, Mr. Battista, told the judge that the government worries that disclosure would make the gear "subject to being defeated or avoided or detected."
A stingray works by mimicking a cellphone tower, getting a phone to connect to it and measuring signals from the phone. It lets the stingray operator "ping," or send a signal to, a phone and locate it as long as it is powered on, according to documents reviewed by the Journal. The device has various uses, including helping police locate suspects and aiding search-and-rescue teams in finding people lost in remote areas or buried in rubble after an accident.
The government says "stingray" is a generic term. In Mr. Rigmaiden's case it remains unclear which device or devices were actually used.
The best known stingray maker is Florida-based defense contractor Harris Corp. A spokesman for Harris declined to comment.
Harris holds trademarks registered between 2002 and 2008 on several devices, including the StingRay, StingRay II, AmberJack, KingFish, TriggerFish and LoggerHead. Similar devices are available from other manufacturers. According to a Harris document, its devices are sold only to law-enforcement and government agencies.
Some of the gadgets look surprisingly old-fashioned, with a smattering of switches and lights scattered across a panel roughly the size of a shoebox, according to photos of a Harris-made StingRay reviewed by the Journal. The devices can be carried by hand or mounted in cars, allowing investigators to move around quickly.
A rare public reference to this type of technology appeared this summer in the television crime drama "The Closer." In the episode, law-enforcement officers use a gadget they called a "catfish" to track cellphones without a court order.
The U.S. armed forces also use stingrays or similar devices, according to public contract notices. Local law enforcement in Minnesota, Arizona, Miami and Durham, N.C., also either possess the devices or have considered buying them, according to interviews and published requests for funding.
The sheriff's department in Maricopa County, Ariz., uses the equipment "about on a monthly basis," says Sgt. Jesse Spurgin. "This is for location only. We can't listen in on conversations," he says.
Sgt. Spurgin says officers often obtain court orders, but not necessarily search warrants, when using the device. To obtain a search warrant from a court, officers as a rule need to show "probable cause," which is generally defined as a reasonable belief, based on factual evidence, that a crime was committed. Lesser standards apply to other court orders.
A spokeswoman with the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension in Minnesota says officers don't need to seek search warrants in that state to use a mobile tracking device because it "does not intercept communication, so no wiretap laws would apply."
FBI and Department of Justice officials have also said that investigators don't need search warrants. Associate Deputy Attorney General James A. Baker and FBI General Counsel Valerie E. Caproni both said at a panel at the Brookings Institution in May that devices like these fall into a category of tools called "pen registers," which require a lesser order than a warrant. Pen registers gather signals from phones, such as phone numbers dialed, but don't receive the content of the communications.
To get a pen-register order, investigators don't have to show probable cause. The Supreme Court has ruled that use of a pen register doesn't require a search warrant because it doesn't involve interception of conversations.
But with cellphones, data sent includes location information, making the situation more complicated because some judges have found that location information is more intrusive than details about phone numbers dialed. Some courts have required a slightly higher standard for location information, but not a warrant, while others have held that a search warrant is necessary.
The prosecution in the Rigmaiden case says in court documents that the "decisions are made on a case-by-case basis" by magistrate and district judges. Court records in other cases indicate that decisions are mixed, and cases are only now moving through appellate courts.
The FBI advises agents to work with federal prosecutors locally to meet the requirements of their particular district or judge, the FBI's Ms. Sabol says. She also says it is FBI policy to obtain a search warrant if the FBI believes the technology "may provide information on an individual while that person is in a location where he or she would have a reasonable expectation of privacy."
Experts say lawmakers and the courts haven't yet settled under what circumstances locating a person or device constitutes a search requiring a warrant. Tracking people when they are home is particularly sensitive because the Fourth Amendment specifies that people have a right to be secure against unreasonable searches in their "houses."
"The law is uncertain," says Orin Kerr, a professor at George Washington University Law School and former computer-crime attorney at the Department of Justice. Mr. Kerr, who has argued that warrants should be required for some, but not all, types of location data, says that the legality "should depend on the technology."
In the case of Mr. Rigmaiden, the government alleges that as early as 2005, he began filing fraudulent tax returns online. Overall, investigators say, Mr. Rigmaiden electronically filed more than 1,900 fraudulent tax returns as part of a $4 million plot.
Federal investigators say they pursued Mr. Rigmaiden "through a virtual labyrinth of twists and turns." Eventually, they say they linked Mr. Rigmaiden to use of a mobile-broadband card, a device that lets a computer connect to the Internet through a cellphone network.
Investigators obtained court orders to track the broadband card. Both orders remain sealed, but portions of them have been quoted by the defense and the prosecution.
These two documents are central to the clash in the Arizona courtroom. One authorizes a "pen register" and clearly isn't a search warrant. The other document is more complex. The prosecution says it is a type of search warrant and that a finding of probable cause was made.
But the defense argues that it can't be a proper search warrant, because among other things it allowed investigators to delete all the tracking data collected, rather than reporting back to the judge.
Legal experts who spoke with the Journal say it is difficult to evaluate the order, since it remains sealed. In general, for purposes of the Fourth Amendment, the finding of probable cause is most important in determining whether a search is reasonable because that requirement is specified in the Constitution itself, rather than in legal statutes, says Mr. Kerr.
But it is "odd" for a search warrant to allow deletion of evidence before a case goes to trial, says Paul Ohm, a professor at the University of Colorado Law School and a former computer-crime attorney at the Department of Justice. The law governing search warrants specifies how the warrants are to be executed and generally requires information to be returned to the judge.
Even if the court finds the government's actions acceptable under the Fourth Amendment, deleting the data is "still something we might not want the FBI doing," Mr. Ohm says.
The government says the data from the use of the stingray has been deleted and isn't available to the defendant. In a statement, the FBI told the Journal that "our policy since the 1990s has been to purge or 'expunge' all information obtained during a location operation" when using stingray-type gear.
As a general matter, Ms. Sabol says, court orders related to stingray technology "will include a directive to expunge information at the end of the location operation."
Ms. Sabol says the FBI follows this policy because its intent isn't to use the data as evidence in court, but rather to simply find the "general location of their subject" in order to start collecting other information that can be used to justify a physical search of the premises.
In the Rigmaiden example, investigators used the stingray to narrow down the location of the broadband card. Then they went to the apartment complex's office and learned that one resident had used a false ID and a fake tax return on the renter's application, according to court documents.
Based on that evidence, they obtained a search warrant for the apartment. They found the broadband card connected to a computer.
Mr. Rigmaiden, who doesn't confirm or deny ownership of the broadband card, is arguing he should be given information about the device and about other aspects of the mission that located him.
In the February hearing, Judge Campbell said he might need to weigh the government's claim of privilege against the defendant's Fourth Amendment rights, and asked the prosecution, "How can we litigate in this case whether this technology that was used in this case violates the Fourth Amendment without knowing precisely what it can do?"
Read more: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904194604576583112723197574.html#ixzz1YkA6R5v3
For more than a year, federal authorities pursued a man they called simply "the Hacker." Only after using a little known cellphone-tracking device—a stingray—were they able to zero in on a California home and make the arrest.
Stingrays are designed to locate a mobile phone even when it's not being used to make a call. The Federal Bureau of Investigation considers the devices to be so critical that it has a policy of deleting the data gathered in their use, mainly to keep suspects in the dark about their capabilities, an FBI official told The Wall Street Journal in response to inquiries.
A stingray's role in nabbing the alleged "Hacker"—Daniel David Rigmaiden—is shaping up as a possible test of the legal standards for using these devices in investigations. The FBI says it obtains appropriate court approval to use the device.
Stingrays are one of several new technologies used by law enforcement to track people's locations, often without a search warrant. These techniques are driving a constitutional debate about whether the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, but which was written before the digital age, is keeping pace with the times.
On Nov. 8, the Supreme Court will hear arguments over whether or not police need a warrant before secretly installing a GPS device on a suspect's car and tracking him for an extended period. In both the Senate and House, new bills would require a warrant before tracking a cellphone's location.
And on Thursday in U.S. District Court of Arizona, Judge David G. Campbell is set to hear a request by Mr. Rigmaiden, who is facing fraud charges, to have information about the government's secret techniques disclosed to him so he can use it in his defense. Mr. Rigmaiden maintains his innocence and says that using stingrays to locate devices in homes without a valid warrant "disregards the United States Constitution" and is illegal.
His argument has caught the judge's attention. In a February hearing, according to a transcript, Judge Campbell asked the prosecutor, "Were there warrants obtained in connection with the use of this device?"
The prosecutor, Frederick A. Battista, said the government obtained a "court order that satisfied [the] language" in the federal law on warrants. The judge then asked how an order or warrant could have been obtained without telling the judge what technology was being used. Mr. Battista said: "It was a standard practice, your honor."
Judge Campbell responded that it "can be litigated whether those orders were appropriate."
On Thursday the government will argue it should be able to withhold details about the tool used to locate Mr. Rigmaiden, according to documents filed by the prosecution. In a statement to the Journal, Sherry Sabol, Chief of the Science & Technology Office for the FBI's Office of General Counsel, says that information about stingrays and related technology is "considered Law Enforcement Sensitive, since its public release could harm law enforcement efforts by compromising future use of the equipment."
Enlarge Image
Close.The prosecutor, Mr. Battista, told the judge that the government worries that disclosure would make the gear "subject to being defeated or avoided or detected."
A stingray works by mimicking a cellphone tower, getting a phone to connect to it and measuring signals from the phone. It lets the stingray operator "ping," or send a signal to, a phone and locate it as long as it is powered on, according to documents reviewed by the Journal. The device has various uses, including helping police locate suspects and aiding search-and-rescue teams in finding people lost in remote areas or buried in rubble after an accident.
The government says "stingray" is a generic term. In Mr. Rigmaiden's case it remains unclear which device or devices were actually used.
The best known stingray maker is Florida-based defense contractor Harris Corp. A spokesman for Harris declined to comment.
Harris holds trademarks registered between 2002 and 2008 on several devices, including the StingRay, StingRay II, AmberJack, KingFish, TriggerFish and LoggerHead. Similar devices are available from other manufacturers. According to a Harris document, its devices are sold only to law-enforcement and government agencies.
Some of the gadgets look surprisingly old-fashioned, with a smattering of switches and lights scattered across a panel roughly the size of a shoebox, according to photos of a Harris-made StingRay reviewed by the Journal. The devices can be carried by hand or mounted in cars, allowing investigators to move around quickly.
A rare public reference to this type of technology appeared this summer in the television crime drama "The Closer." In the episode, law-enforcement officers use a gadget they called a "catfish" to track cellphones without a court order.
The U.S. armed forces also use stingrays or similar devices, according to public contract notices. Local law enforcement in Minnesota, Arizona, Miami and Durham, N.C., also either possess the devices or have considered buying them, according to interviews and published requests for funding.
The sheriff's department in Maricopa County, Ariz., uses the equipment "about on a monthly basis," says Sgt. Jesse Spurgin. "This is for location only. We can't listen in on conversations," he says.
Sgt. Spurgin says officers often obtain court orders, but not necessarily search warrants, when using the device. To obtain a search warrant from a court, officers as a rule need to show "probable cause," which is generally defined as a reasonable belief, based on factual evidence, that a crime was committed. Lesser standards apply to other court orders.
A spokeswoman with the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension in Minnesota says officers don't need to seek search warrants in that state to use a mobile tracking device because it "does not intercept communication, so no wiretap laws would apply."
FBI and Department of Justice officials have also said that investigators don't need search warrants. Associate Deputy Attorney General James A. Baker and FBI General Counsel Valerie E. Caproni both said at a panel at the Brookings Institution in May that devices like these fall into a category of tools called "pen registers," which require a lesser order than a warrant. Pen registers gather signals from phones, such as phone numbers dialed, but don't receive the content of the communications.
To get a pen-register order, investigators don't have to show probable cause. The Supreme Court has ruled that use of a pen register doesn't require a search warrant because it doesn't involve interception of conversations.
But with cellphones, data sent includes location information, making the situation more complicated because some judges have found that location information is more intrusive than details about phone numbers dialed. Some courts have required a slightly higher standard for location information, but not a warrant, while others have held that a search warrant is necessary.
The prosecution in the Rigmaiden case says in court documents that the "decisions are made on a case-by-case basis" by magistrate and district judges. Court records in other cases indicate that decisions are mixed, and cases are only now moving through appellate courts.
The FBI advises agents to work with federal prosecutors locally to meet the requirements of their particular district or judge, the FBI's Ms. Sabol says. She also says it is FBI policy to obtain a search warrant if the FBI believes the technology "may provide information on an individual while that person is in a location where he or she would have a reasonable expectation of privacy."
Experts say lawmakers and the courts haven't yet settled under what circumstances locating a person or device constitutes a search requiring a warrant. Tracking people when they are home is particularly sensitive because the Fourth Amendment specifies that people have a right to be secure against unreasonable searches in their "houses."
"The law is uncertain," says Orin Kerr, a professor at George Washington University Law School and former computer-crime attorney at the Department of Justice. Mr. Kerr, who has argued that warrants should be required for some, but not all, types of location data, says that the legality "should depend on the technology."
In the case of Mr. Rigmaiden, the government alleges that as early as 2005, he began filing fraudulent tax returns online. Overall, investigators say, Mr. Rigmaiden electronically filed more than 1,900 fraudulent tax returns as part of a $4 million plot.
Federal investigators say they pursued Mr. Rigmaiden "through a virtual labyrinth of twists and turns." Eventually, they say they linked Mr. Rigmaiden to use of a mobile-broadband card, a device that lets a computer connect to the Internet through a cellphone network.
Investigators obtained court orders to track the broadband card. Both orders remain sealed, but portions of them have been quoted by the defense and the prosecution.
These two documents are central to the clash in the Arizona courtroom. One authorizes a "pen register" and clearly isn't a search warrant. The other document is more complex. The prosecution says it is a type of search warrant and that a finding of probable cause was made.
But the defense argues that it can't be a proper search warrant, because among other things it allowed investigators to delete all the tracking data collected, rather than reporting back to the judge.
Legal experts who spoke with the Journal say it is difficult to evaluate the order, since it remains sealed. In general, for purposes of the Fourth Amendment, the finding of probable cause is most important in determining whether a search is reasonable because that requirement is specified in the Constitution itself, rather than in legal statutes, says Mr. Kerr.
But it is "odd" for a search warrant to allow deletion of evidence before a case goes to trial, says Paul Ohm, a professor at the University of Colorado Law School and a former computer-crime attorney at the Department of Justice. The law governing search warrants specifies how the warrants are to be executed and generally requires information to be returned to the judge.
Even if the court finds the government's actions acceptable under the Fourth Amendment, deleting the data is "still something we might not want the FBI doing," Mr. Ohm says.
The government says the data from the use of the stingray has been deleted and isn't available to the defendant. In a statement, the FBI told the Journal that "our policy since the 1990s has been to purge or 'expunge' all information obtained during a location operation" when using stingray-type gear.
As a general matter, Ms. Sabol says, court orders related to stingray technology "will include a directive to expunge information at the end of the location operation."
Ms. Sabol says the FBI follows this policy because its intent isn't to use the data as evidence in court, but rather to simply find the "general location of their subject" in order to start collecting other information that can be used to justify a physical search of the premises.
In the Rigmaiden example, investigators used the stingray to narrow down the location of the broadband card. Then they went to the apartment complex's office and learned that one resident had used a false ID and a fake tax return on the renter's application, according to court documents.
Based on that evidence, they obtained a search warrant for the apartment. They found the broadband card connected to a computer.
Mr. Rigmaiden, who doesn't confirm or deny ownership of the broadband card, is arguing he should be given information about the device and about other aspects of the mission that located him.
In the February hearing, Judge Campbell said he might need to weigh the government's claim of privilege against the defendant's Fourth Amendment rights, and asked the prosecution, "How can we litigate in this case whether this technology that was used in this case violates the Fourth Amendment without knowing precisely what it can do?"
Read more: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904194604576583112723197574.html#ixzz1YkA6R5v3
Sunday, September 18, 2011
Ron Paul wins California straw poll
(CNN) -- Texas Rep. Ron Paul won a California straw poll, the state Republican Party announced in a statement Saturday night.
A total of 833 ballots were cast during the straw poll, the statement said.
Paul won with 44.9% of the votes, Texas Gov. Rick Perry came in second with 29.3% of the votes, and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney came in third with 8.8% of the votes.
The California Republican Party, associated members and registered guests were allowed to vote in the straw poll, according to the statement.
Paul was scheduled to give speeches in Los Angeles on Saturday, including the keynote at the Republican Liberty Caucus of California.
He has gained momentum in the race for the White House in recent weeks, according to the latest CNN/ORC International Poll. Among current GOP candidates, Paul placed third in the poll with 13%, following Romney in second place with 21% and Perry in first with 32%.
His win came the same day he celebrated Constitution Day with another one of his "money bomb" fundraisers.
The online event attempts to raise a large sum of cash in 24 hours, a tactic that's proved successful in the past for Paul.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/09/17/california.straw.poll/
Saturday, September 17, 2011
Constitution Day
WE THE PEOPLE:
On this day, September 17, 1787 the Constitution of the United States was signed by thirty-nine brave patriots.
On this day, September 17, 1787 the Constitution of the United States was signed by thirty-nine brave patriots.
The U. S. Constitution is the oldest constitution still in active use in the world today and is the oldest Federal constitution in existence. Let us once again start to read it and study it so we have a better understanding of the Miracle that took place through that hot summer in Philadelphia 1787.
"On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." Thomas Jefferson
"The Constitution is the guide which I never will abandon." George Washington
"Governments, in general, have been the result of force, of fraud, and accident. After a period of six thousand years has elapsed since the creation, the United States exhibit to the world the first instance, as far as we can learn, of a nation, unattacked by external force, unconvulsed by domestic insurrections, assembling voluntarily, deliberating fully, and deciding calmly concerning that system of government under which they would wish that they and their posterity should live." James Wilson
"I have so much faith in the general government of the world by Providence that I can hardly conceive a transaction of such momentous importance as the framing of the Constitution. . . should be suffered to pass without being in some degree influenced, guided, and governed by that omnipotent, omnipresent, and beneficent Ruler in whom all inferior spirits live and move and have their being." Benjamin Franklin
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Facebook CEO Admits To Calling Users ‘Dumb Fucks’
Mark Zuckerberg admits in a New Yorker profile that he mocked Facebook users for trusting him with their personal information.
"They trust me — dumb fucks," says Zuckerberg in one of the instant messages, first published by former Valleywag Nicholas Carlson at Silicon Alley Insider, and now confirmed by Zuckerberg himself in Jose Antonio Vargas's New Yorker piece.
The quote resounds precisely because Facebook continues to stir up privacy controversies at regular intervals. Zuckerberg justifies his privacy rollbacks by saying the social norms have changed in favor of transparency, but, as tech executive Anil Dash tells the New Yorker, that sort of change is much more appealing for a privileged, Ivy Leaguer golden boy of Silicon Valley like Zuckerberg than for his half a billion users, many of whom work for less tolerant bosses and socialize in more judgmental circles.
http://gawker.com/5636765/facebook-ceo-admits-to-calling-users-dumb-fucks
"They trust me — dumb fucks," says Zuckerberg in one of the instant messages, first published by former Valleywag Nicholas Carlson at Silicon Alley Insider, and now confirmed by Zuckerberg himself in Jose Antonio Vargas's New Yorker piece.
The quote resounds precisely because Facebook continues to stir up privacy controversies at regular intervals. Zuckerberg justifies his privacy rollbacks by saying the social norms have changed in favor of transparency, but, as tech executive Anil Dash tells the New Yorker, that sort of change is much more appealing for a privileged, Ivy Leaguer golden boy of Silicon Valley like Zuckerberg than for his half a billion users, many of whom work for less tolerant bosses and socialize in more judgmental circles.
http://gawker.com/5636765/facebook-ceo-admits-to-calling-users-dumb-fucks
Ron Paul’s View On Foreign Occupations Supported By US Troops
Ignoring the facts, establishment media smears Congressman as “defending Al-Qaeda”
Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
The establishment media is once again attempting to smear Ron Paul as anti-American following Paul’s simple observation during the debate last night that foreign occupations increase the risk of terrorist attacks, when in reality the Texan Congressman’s views are endorsed by US military personnel more than any other Republican candidate.
“Republican Presidential Candidate Rep. Ron Paul was booed at last night’s CNN/Tea Party debate while explaining his view on why America was attacked on September 11, 2001,” reports ABC News.
The corporate media instantly seized on the boos, made by a gaggle of neo-con “Tea Party” members, as a tool through which to portray Paul as un-American, with one acerbic headline even asking whether the Congressman was defending Al-Qaeda.
It’s a common smear to equate not supporting foreign occupations as anti-American or against conservative principles, despite the fact that the founding fathers consistently warned against becoming involved in foreign entanglements.
But like a lot of the myths circulated by the establishment about Ron Paul, reality reflects a very different picture.
Given the fact that Ron Paul has received more money in donations from active duty military personnel than all of the other Republican candidates combined and more than Barack Obama himself, his views on foreign occupations are supported by the very U.S. troops that neo-cons constantly invoke to support maintaining such foreign occupations.
Paul’s contention that the troops should be brought home from Afghanistan and Iraq, and that US bases around the world should be closed, is supported by those very same troops.
“Paul’s campaign told Politifact that Paul raised $34,480 from people in the military, compared with $19,849 for Obama and $13,848 for the other GOP presidential candidates,” reports USA Today.
“The Center for Responsive Politics says $11,350 of Paul’s military donations come from people who work for the Army. In the 2008 campaign, the center found that individuals employed by the Army, Navy and Air Force were Paul’s top three sources of campaign donations.”
But it’s not just military service people who are growing tired of America’s unaffordable foreign empire. According to a recent Rasmussen poll, conservatives in general are losing their appetite for war.
Only 15 per cent of of likely U.S. Voters think the situation in Afghanistan will improve over the next six months, while more voters than ever before – 59 per cent – now want an immediate troop withdrawal or a firm timetable to be set for ending the occupation. Republicans are more pessimistic than Democrats about the future course of operations in both Afghanistan and Iraq.
The 59 per cent figure represents a significant swing from less than two years ago in September 2009, when just 39 per cent wanted the troops pulled out of Afghanistan.
Crucially, a slim majority of Republicans now want the troops brought home from Afghanistan, 43 per cent to 42 per cent. Wars launched during the administration of George W. Bush have now become Obama’s wars. Indeed, there are more troops deployed under Obama than there were at any time under Bush.
In addition, a mere 13 per cent of Republicans support US military intervention in Libya to topple Colonel Gaddafi.
The myth that Republican candidates must not deviate from the neo-con dogma of supporting America’s unsustainable foreign occupations and the ludicrous policy of pre-emptive warfare in order to be electable is disappearing fast.
Although a gaggle of self-proclaimed “conservatives,” who in reality have nothing in common with the founding fathers, may have booed Paul’s explanation last night, the majority of Americans, and indeed the majority of US Military servicemen and women, were applauding him.
http://www.infowars.com/ron-pauls-view-on-foreign-occupations-supported-by-us-troops/
Ron Paul raises most campaign cash from military workers: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2011/07/ron-paul-military-campaign-donations-/1
Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
The establishment media is once again attempting to smear Ron Paul as anti-American following Paul’s simple observation during the debate last night that foreign occupations increase the risk of terrorist attacks, when in reality the Texan Congressman’s views are endorsed by US military personnel more than any other Republican candidate.
“Republican Presidential Candidate Rep. Ron Paul was booed at last night’s CNN/Tea Party debate while explaining his view on why America was attacked on September 11, 2001,” reports ABC News.
The corporate media instantly seized on the boos, made by a gaggle of neo-con “Tea Party” members, as a tool through which to portray Paul as un-American, with one acerbic headline even asking whether the Congressman was defending Al-Qaeda.
It’s a common smear to equate not supporting foreign occupations as anti-American or against conservative principles, despite the fact that the founding fathers consistently warned against becoming involved in foreign entanglements.
But like a lot of the myths circulated by the establishment about Ron Paul, reality reflects a very different picture.
Given the fact that Ron Paul has received more money in donations from active duty military personnel than all of the other Republican candidates combined and more than Barack Obama himself, his views on foreign occupations are supported by the very U.S. troops that neo-cons constantly invoke to support maintaining such foreign occupations.
Paul’s contention that the troops should be brought home from Afghanistan and Iraq, and that US bases around the world should be closed, is supported by those very same troops.
“Paul’s campaign told Politifact that Paul raised $34,480 from people in the military, compared with $19,849 for Obama and $13,848 for the other GOP presidential candidates,” reports USA Today.
“The Center for Responsive Politics says $11,350 of Paul’s military donations come from people who work for the Army. In the 2008 campaign, the center found that individuals employed by the Army, Navy and Air Force were Paul’s top three sources of campaign donations.”
But it’s not just military service people who are growing tired of America’s unaffordable foreign empire. According to a recent Rasmussen poll, conservatives in general are losing their appetite for war.
Only 15 per cent of of likely U.S. Voters think the situation in Afghanistan will improve over the next six months, while more voters than ever before – 59 per cent – now want an immediate troop withdrawal or a firm timetable to be set for ending the occupation. Republicans are more pessimistic than Democrats about the future course of operations in both Afghanistan and Iraq.
The 59 per cent figure represents a significant swing from less than two years ago in September 2009, when just 39 per cent wanted the troops pulled out of Afghanistan.
Crucially, a slim majority of Republicans now want the troops brought home from Afghanistan, 43 per cent to 42 per cent. Wars launched during the administration of George W. Bush have now become Obama’s wars. Indeed, there are more troops deployed under Obama than there were at any time under Bush.
In addition, a mere 13 per cent of Republicans support US military intervention in Libya to topple Colonel Gaddafi.
The myth that Republican candidates must not deviate from the neo-con dogma of supporting America’s unsustainable foreign occupations and the ludicrous policy of pre-emptive warfare in order to be electable is disappearing fast.
Although a gaggle of self-proclaimed “conservatives,” who in reality have nothing in common with the founding fathers, may have booed Paul’s explanation last night, the majority of Americans, and indeed the majority of US Military servicemen and women, were applauding him.
http://www.infowars.com/ron-pauls-view-on-foreign-occupations-supported-by-us-troops/
Ron Paul raises most campaign cash from military workers: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2011/07/ron-paul-military-campaign-donations-/1
What is Michelle Obama saying during the 9/11 flag ceremony?
There is a growing internet buzz over the First Lady's comment to her husband during the 9/11 commemoration Sunday, as the flag ceremony is taking place. Watch the video clip below and you tell me what you think she says. It looks as though she is saying, "All that for a flag!"
Two Comments taken from AmericanThinker.com
Regardless of what is being said, her head and eye movements clearly indicate disapproval of something. What is ultimately troubling is a lack of respect for the solemnity of the occasion.
It would be interesting to know what words were spoken though my aha moment came immediately after her comments...the shake of her head, side to side (a negative) along with what can only be described as a sneer...what ever it was she said, she was thinking of something with complete derision...in terms of the ceremony they were witnessing I do not understand the facial disgust I saw after she spoke whatever words...the interaction between the first lady and the president given the context of the scene do not compute for me...
An important point for me that is worth considering... someone who feels the need to interrupt a "flag folding" ceremony to make comments, shake their head and sneer...well, simply put it seems very disrespectful to me...along the lines of speaking during the national anthem...so, for me I see disrespect for the ceremony in michelle's need to speak at that moment in time...then comes the head shake and the sneer...not very "presidential" in my opinion.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/09/what_is_michelle_obama_saying_during_the_911_flag_ceremony.html
Two Comments taken from AmericanThinker.com
Regardless of what is being said, her head and eye movements clearly indicate disapproval of something. What is ultimately troubling is a lack of respect for the solemnity of the occasion.
It would be interesting to know what words were spoken though my aha moment came immediately after her comments...the shake of her head, side to side (a negative) along with what can only be described as a sneer...what ever it was she said, she was thinking of something with complete derision...in terms of the ceremony they were witnessing I do not understand the facial disgust I saw after she spoke whatever words...the interaction between the first lady and the president given the context of the scene do not compute for me...
An important point for me that is worth considering... someone who feels the need to interrupt a "flag folding" ceremony to make comments, shake their head and sneer...well, simply put it seems very disrespectful to me...along the lines of speaking during the national anthem...so, for me I see disrespect for the ceremony in michelle's need to speak at that moment in time...then comes the head shake and the sneer...not very "presidential" in my opinion.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/09/what_is_michelle_obama_saying_during_the_911_flag_ceremony.html
Monday, September 12, 2011
A Great Little Poem
Somethings seem to never change, yet people look at you like an idiot for trying to speak the truth. Enjoy the poem, I'm sure John Galt did.
I'll tell you what I think about the way
This city treats her soundest men today:
By a coincidence more sad than funny,
It's very like the way we treat our money.
The noble silver drachma that of old we were So proud of, and the recent gold coins that rang true, clean-stamped and worth their weight
Throughout the world, have ceased to circulate.
Instead, the purses of Athenian shoppers
Are full of shoddy silver-plated coppers
Just so, when men are needed by the nation,
The best have been withdrawn from circulation.
From The Frogs by Aristophanes, c. 400 B.C.
Quoted from Ron Paul's End The Fed
I'll tell you what I think about the way
This city treats her soundest men today:
By a coincidence more sad than funny,
It's very like the way we treat our money.
The noble silver drachma that of old we were So proud of, and the recent gold coins that rang true, clean-stamped and worth their weight
Throughout the world, have ceased to circulate.
Instead, the purses of Athenian shoppers
Are full of shoddy silver-plated coppers
Just so, when men are needed by the nation,
The best have been withdrawn from circulation.
From The Frogs by Aristophanes, c. 400 B.C.
Quoted from Ron Paul's End The Fed
Friday, September 9, 2011
Monetary Crisis Has Arrived
The Next Stage of the Global Monetary Crisis Has Arrived
By Porter Stansberry
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
A big prediction I've been making for over a year is unfortunately coming true.
By now, most people know my controversial "End of America" prediction: That the U.S government has promised too many free lunches to too many people… and has taken on impossibly large debts that will never be paid back with sound, honest money. The "end game" of this story is the collapse of the U.S. dollar as we know it.
But the U.S. dollar isn't the only paper currency I've predicted will collapse. The currency of the world's largest economic zone, the euro, is toast as well. A year ago, I told readers…
You should expect the euro to continue to weaken, as the European Central Bank cannot allow Italy or any large commercial bank to fail. And that means more and bigger bailouts. As the size of these bailouts continues to escalate, investors around the world will turn to gold and silver as the only truly reliable currencies.
Since I wrote that, gold is up 55%. Silver is up 140%. And European stock markets have collapsed. The cost of insurance against European sovereign debt defaults has skyrocketed to all-time highs.
Shares of Italy's largest bank, UniCredit, have collapsed 50% in just three months. Share prices in European banks most Americans are familiar with, Germany's Deutsche Bank and England's Barclays, are collapsing. Even UBS and Credit Suisse – headquartered in Switzerland, considered a stable banking haven – are collapsing.
Germany, the economic engine of Europe, finds itself holding the bag for essentially all the credit problems of "problem children" like Greece and Italy. Its central bank is currently holding more than $300 billion in IOUs from peripheral European central banks – obligations that are probably worth less than $100 billion.
It's unclear whether Germany will continue to finance these bad debts. And because of Germany's history, Germany's leaders are loath to consider any substantial effort to monetize the debts through inflation.
I believe Germany will leave the euro before the end of this year, triggering a massive devaluation in all the euro's remaining members. I'll state again: The euro is toast.
Over the past three years, readers have asked me when I expect the crisis to begin. Over that time, we've seen the bankruptcy of General Motors, the complete destruction of America's investment banks, the receivership of the world's largest mortgage firms (Fannie and Freddie), and the collapse of the world's biggest insurance company (AIG). We've seen gold soar to all-time highs. We've watched agricultural prices soar. We've watched U.S. federal debt explode to $14 trillion… and total U.S. debt soar past $54 trillion.
And now, we're seeing the collapse of the European banking system. Keep in mind, this system underpins an economic zone that is larger than the entire United States. The crisis is already here.
I know many people still think I'm crazy for my prediction. But when I perform a simple accounting analysis of U.S. and European sovereign balance sheets, and when I look at the European financial system in crisis, I have to think you're crazy NOT to come to the same conclusion. And you're crazy not to take my unrelenting advice to protect yourself against this crisis by owning plenty of gold and silver bullion.
Good investing,
Porter Stansberry
By Porter Stansberry
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
A big prediction I've been making for over a year is unfortunately coming true.
By now, most people know my controversial "End of America" prediction: That the U.S government has promised too many free lunches to too many people… and has taken on impossibly large debts that will never be paid back with sound, honest money. The "end game" of this story is the collapse of the U.S. dollar as we know it.
But the U.S. dollar isn't the only paper currency I've predicted will collapse. The currency of the world's largest economic zone, the euro, is toast as well. A year ago, I told readers…
You should expect the euro to continue to weaken, as the European Central Bank cannot allow Italy or any large commercial bank to fail. And that means more and bigger bailouts. As the size of these bailouts continues to escalate, investors around the world will turn to gold and silver as the only truly reliable currencies.
Since I wrote that, gold is up 55%. Silver is up 140%. And European stock markets have collapsed. The cost of insurance against European sovereign debt defaults has skyrocketed to all-time highs.
Shares of Italy's largest bank, UniCredit, have collapsed 50% in just three months. Share prices in European banks most Americans are familiar with, Germany's Deutsche Bank and England's Barclays, are collapsing. Even UBS and Credit Suisse – headquartered in Switzerland, considered a stable banking haven – are collapsing.
Germany, the economic engine of Europe, finds itself holding the bag for essentially all the credit problems of "problem children" like Greece and Italy. Its central bank is currently holding more than $300 billion in IOUs from peripheral European central banks – obligations that are probably worth less than $100 billion.
It's unclear whether Germany will continue to finance these bad debts. And because of Germany's history, Germany's leaders are loath to consider any substantial effort to monetize the debts through inflation.
I believe Germany will leave the euro before the end of this year, triggering a massive devaluation in all the euro's remaining members. I'll state again: The euro is toast.
Over the past three years, readers have asked me when I expect the crisis to begin. Over that time, we've seen the bankruptcy of General Motors, the complete destruction of America's investment banks, the receivership of the world's largest mortgage firms (Fannie and Freddie), and the collapse of the world's biggest insurance company (AIG). We've seen gold soar to all-time highs. We've watched agricultural prices soar. We've watched U.S. federal debt explode to $14 trillion… and total U.S. debt soar past $54 trillion.
And now, we're seeing the collapse of the European banking system. Keep in mind, this system underpins an economic zone that is larger than the entire United States. The crisis is already here.
I know many people still think I'm crazy for my prediction. But when I perform a simple accounting analysis of U.S. and European sovereign balance sheets, and when I look at the European financial system in crisis, I have to think you're crazy NOT to come to the same conclusion. And you're crazy not to take my unrelenting advice to protect yourself against this crisis by owning plenty of gold and silver bullion.
Good investing,
Porter Stansberry
Friday, September 2, 2011
Thursday, September 1, 2011
Rick Perry Wanted To Provide Healthcare to Mexican Citizens
In 2001 speech, Perry praised Medicaid, urged study on providing health insurance to Mexicans The Raw Story
Someone warn the tea party: Texas Gov. Rick Perry, the Republican Party's frontrunner for the 2012 presidential nomination, didn't always believe publicly-run health care programs run contrary to America's founding document.
In a mostly forgotten 2001 speech, the Texas governor had kind words for Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and even promised to study a proposal for "bi-national health insurance" that would cover Mexicans and Americans alike.
That's a very different tune than what Perry's campaign has been playing since he announced plans to seek the nation's presidency. In an interview last month, Perry called the nation's most beloved social programs -- Medicare and Social Security -- unconstitutional.
But speaking at a Texas-Mexico border summit on August 22, 2001, Perry bragged about an additional $4 billion in funding the state had set aside for Medicaid, a federal, public health care program intended to help poor people obtain vital medical services. Medicaid only differs from Medicare in that Medicare is reserved for senior citizens.
He also gloated over the additional $900 million they had provided CHIP, a Texas program that provides medical care for the children of poor families. Perry even went on to urge legislators to pass a bill that would provide "telemedicine" services to Mexican citizens south of the U.S. border, and lauded a separate piece of legislation that aimed at studying "bi-national health insurance."
While nothing would ever arise from the idea for a U.S.-Mexico partnership on health care, Perry's urging led the Texas legislature to pass a bill authorizing funds to study the viability of such a program.
He even went on to praise the Texas DREAM Act, which carries elements of the national immigration reform package supported today by President Barack Obama and most Democrats.
"We must say to every Texas child learning in a Texas classroom, 'we don’t care where you come from, but where you are going, and we are going to do everything we can to help you get there,''' he said. "And that vision must include the children of undocumented workers. That’s why Texas took the national lead in allowing such deserving young minds to attend a Texas college at a resident rate."
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/09/01/in-2001-speech-perry-praised-medicaid-urged-study-on-providing-health-insurance-to-mexicans/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story%29
Someone warn the tea party: Texas Gov. Rick Perry, the Republican Party's frontrunner for the 2012 presidential nomination, didn't always believe publicly-run health care programs run contrary to America's founding document.
In a mostly forgotten 2001 speech, the Texas governor had kind words for Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and even promised to study a proposal for "bi-national health insurance" that would cover Mexicans and Americans alike.
That's a very different tune than what Perry's campaign has been playing since he announced plans to seek the nation's presidency. In an interview last month, Perry called the nation's most beloved social programs -- Medicare and Social Security -- unconstitutional.
But speaking at a Texas-Mexico border summit on August 22, 2001, Perry bragged about an additional $4 billion in funding the state had set aside for Medicaid, a federal, public health care program intended to help poor people obtain vital medical services. Medicaid only differs from Medicare in that Medicare is reserved for senior citizens.
He also gloated over the additional $900 million they had provided CHIP, a Texas program that provides medical care for the children of poor families. Perry even went on to urge legislators to pass a bill that would provide "telemedicine" services to Mexican citizens south of the U.S. border, and lauded a separate piece of legislation that aimed at studying "bi-national health insurance."
While nothing would ever arise from the idea for a U.S.-Mexico partnership on health care, Perry's urging led the Texas legislature to pass a bill authorizing funds to study the viability of such a program.
He even went on to praise the Texas DREAM Act, which carries elements of the national immigration reform package supported today by President Barack Obama and most Democrats.
"We must say to every Texas child learning in a Texas classroom, 'we don’t care where you come from, but where you are going, and we are going to do everything we can to help you get there,''' he said. "And that vision must include the children of undocumented workers. That’s why Texas took the national lead in allowing such deserving young minds to attend a Texas college at a resident rate."
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/09/01/in-2001-speech-perry-praised-medicaid-urged-study-on-providing-health-insurance-to-mexicans/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story%29
It's A Proven Fact. Ya Not Really
New book disputes claim Jefferson fathered children of slave Hemings
In a book due out Thursday, eminent scholars say it’s unlikely that Thomas Jefferson fathered Sally Hemings‘ children, disputing a decade’s worth of conventional wisdom that the author of the Declaration of Independence sired offspring with one of his slaves.
The debate has ensnared historians for years, and many thought the issue was settled when DNA testing in the late 1990s confirmed that a Jefferson male fathered Hemings‘ youngest son, Eston. But, with one lone dissenter, the panel of 13 scholars doubted the claim and said the evidence points instead to Jefferson’s brother Randolph as the father.
The scholars also disputed accounts that said Hemings‘ children received special treatment from Jefferson, which some saw as evidence of a special bond between the third president and Hemings.
“It is true that Sally’s sons Madison and Eston were freed in Jefferson’s will, but so were all but two of the sons and grandsons of Sally’s mother Betty Hemings who still belonged to Thomas Jefferson at the time of his death. Sally’s sons received by far the least favorable treatment of those freed in Thomas Jefferson’s will,” said Robert F. Turner, a former professor at the University of Virginia who served as chairman of the commission.
The claims about Jefferson date back to at least 1802, when Jefferson was serving his first term as president. A former ally of Jefferson’s wrote in a Richmond newspaper that he kept a slave named Sally as a concubine, and had fathered “several children” with her.
Hemings‘ children, Madison and Eston, kept the story alive. In November 1998, results of DNA testing were released and showed a genetic link between descendants of the Jefferson family and of Eston Hemings.
Among their evidence:
• Claims that the relationship between Hemings and Jefferson started in Paris are unlikely because she was living with his daughters at their boarding school across the city at the time.
• The “Jefferson family” DNA used in the 1998 test came from descendants of his uncle, which the scholars said means any one of two dozen Jefferson men living in Virginia at the time Eston was conceived could have been the father.
• The 1802 rumors centered on Thomas Woodson, who was said to have been one of Hemings‘ children. But tests of three Woodson descendants failed to show a link to Jefferson family DNA. Also, no documentation supports claims he was Hemings‘ child.
• Oral tradition from Eston Hemings’ family initially said he was not the son of the president, but rather of an “uncle” — which the scholars think is a reference to Randolph Jefferson, the president’s brother, who would have been referred to as “uncle” by Jefferson’s daughters.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/aug/30/new-book-disputes-claim-jefferson-fathered-childre/?page=2
© Copyright 2011 The Washington Times, LLC
In a book due out Thursday, eminent scholars say it’s unlikely that Thomas Jefferson fathered Sally Hemings‘ children, disputing a decade’s worth of conventional wisdom that the author of the Declaration of Independence sired offspring with one of his slaves.
The debate has ensnared historians for years, and many thought the issue was settled when DNA testing in the late 1990s confirmed that a Jefferson male fathered Hemings‘ youngest son, Eston. But, with one lone dissenter, the panel of 13 scholars doubted the claim and said the evidence points instead to Jefferson’s brother Randolph as the father.
The scholars also disputed accounts that said Hemings‘ children received special treatment from Jefferson, which some saw as evidence of a special bond between the third president and Hemings.
“It is true that Sally’s sons Madison and Eston were freed in Jefferson’s will, but so were all but two of the sons and grandsons of Sally’s mother Betty Hemings who still belonged to Thomas Jefferson at the time of his death. Sally’s sons received by far the least favorable treatment of those freed in Thomas Jefferson’s will,” said Robert F. Turner, a former professor at the University of Virginia who served as chairman of the commission.
The claims about Jefferson date back to at least 1802, when Jefferson was serving his first term as president. A former ally of Jefferson’s wrote in a Richmond newspaper that he kept a slave named Sally as a concubine, and had fathered “several children” with her.
Hemings‘ children, Madison and Eston, kept the story alive. In November 1998, results of DNA testing were released and showed a genetic link between descendants of the Jefferson family and of Eston Hemings.
Among their evidence:
• Claims that the relationship between Hemings and Jefferson started in Paris are unlikely because she was living with his daughters at their boarding school across the city at the time.
• The “Jefferson family” DNA used in the 1998 test came from descendants of his uncle, which the scholars said means any one of two dozen Jefferson men living in Virginia at the time Eston was conceived could have been the father.
• The 1802 rumors centered on Thomas Woodson, who was said to have been one of Hemings‘ children. But tests of three Woodson descendants failed to show a link to Jefferson family DNA. Also, no documentation supports claims he was Hemings‘ child.
• Oral tradition from Eston Hemings’ family initially said he was not the son of the president, but rather of an “uncle” — which the scholars think is a reference to Randolph Jefferson, the president’s brother, who would have been referred to as “uncle” by Jefferson’s daughters.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/aug/30/new-book-disputes-claim-jefferson-fathered-childre/?page=2
© Copyright 2011 The Washington Times, LLC
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)