Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Segami
Segami's Journal
Segami's Journal
August 29, 2013
Eric Holder Says DOJ Will Let Washington, Colorado Marijuana Laws Go Into Effect
WASHINGTON -- The United States government took a historic step back from its long-running drug war on Thursday, when Attorney General Eric Holder informed the governors of Washington and Colorado that the Department of Justice would allow the states to create a regime that would regulate and implement the ballot initiatives that legalized the use of marijuana for adults. A Justice Department official said that Holder told the governors in a joint phone call early Thursday afternoon that the department would take a "trust but verify approach" to the state laws. DOJ is reserving its right to file a preemption lawsuit at a later date, since the states' regulation of marijuana is illegal under the Controlled Substances Act.
Deputy Attorney General James Cole also issued a three-and-a-half page memo to U.S. attorneys across the country. "The Department's guidance in this memorandum rests on its expectation that states and local governments that have enacted laws authorizing marijuana-related conduct will implement strong and effective regulatory and enforcement systems that will address the threat those state laws could pose to public safety, public health and other law enforcement interests," it reads. "A system adequate to that task must not only contain robust controls and procedures on paper; it must also be effective in practice." The memo also outlines eight priorities for federal prosecutors enforcing marijuana laws. According to the guidance, DOJ will still prosecute individuals or entities to prevent:
The eight high-priority areas leave prosecutors bent on targeting marijuana businesses with a fair amount of leeway, especially the exception for "adverse public health consequences." And prosecutors have shown a willingness to aggressively interpret DOJ guidance in the past, as the many medical marijuana dispensary owners now behind bars can attest. U.S. Attorneys will individually be responsible for interpreting the guidelines and how they apply to a case they intend to prosecute. A Justice Department official said, for example, that a U.S Attorney could go after marijuana distributors who used cartoon characters in their marketing because that could be interpreted as attempting to distribute marijuana to minors.
cont'
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/29/eric-holder-marijuana-washington-colorado-doj_n_3837034.html
BREAKING! - DOJ SURRENDERS ON LEGAL WEED
Eric Holder Says DOJ Will Let Washington, Colorado Marijuana Laws Go Into Effect
WASHINGTON -- The United States government took a historic step back from its long-running drug war on Thursday, when Attorney General Eric Holder informed the governors of Washington and Colorado that the Department of Justice would allow the states to create a regime that would regulate and implement the ballot initiatives that legalized the use of marijuana for adults. A Justice Department official said that Holder told the governors in a joint phone call early Thursday afternoon that the department would take a "trust but verify approach" to the state laws. DOJ is reserving its right to file a preemption lawsuit at a later date, since the states' regulation of marijuana is illegal under the Controlled Substances Act.
Deputy Attorney General James Cole also issued a three-and-a-half page memo to U.S. attorneys across the country. "The Department's guidance in this memorandum rests on its expectation that states and local governments that have enacted laws authorizing marijuana-related conduct will implement strong and effective regulatory and enforcement systems that will address the threat those state laws could pose to public safety, public health and other law enforcement interests," it reads. "A system adequate to that task must not only contain robust controls and procedures on paper; it must also be effective in practice." The memo also outlines eight priorities for federal prosecutors enforcing marijuana laws. According to the guidance, DOJ will still prosecute individuals or entities to prevent:
the distribution of marijuana to minors;
revenue from the sale of marijuana from going to criminal enterprises, gangs and cartels;
the diversion of marijuana from states where it is legal under state law in some form to other states;
state-authorized marijuana activity from being used as a cover or pretext for the trafficking of other illegal drugs or other illegal activity;
violence and the use of firearms in the cultivation and distribution of marijuana
drugged driving and the exacerbation of other adverse public health consequences associated with marijuana use;
growing of marijuana on public lands and the attendant public safety and environmental dangers posed by marijuana production on public lands;
preventing marijuana possession or use on federal property.
revenue from the sale of marijuana from going to criminal enterprises, gangs and cartels;
the diversion of marijuana from states where it is legal under state law in some form to other states;
state-authorized marijuana activity from being used as a cover or pretext for the trafficking of other illegal drugs or other illegal activity;
violence and the use of firearms in the cultivation and distribution of marijuana
drugged driving and the exacerbation of other adverse public health consequences associated with marijuana use;
growing of marijuana on public lands and the attendant public safety and environmental dangers posed by marijuana production on public lands;
preventing marijuana possession or use on federal property.
The eight high-priority areas leave prosecutors bent on targeting marijuana businesses with a fair amount of leeway, especially the exception for "adverse public health consequences." And prosecutors have shown a willingness to aggressively interpret DOJ guidance in the past, as the many medical marijuana dispensary owners now behind bars can attest. U.S. Attorneys will individually be responsible for interpreting the guidelines and how they apply to a case they intend to prosecute. A Justice Department official said, for example, that a U.S Attorney could go after marijuana distributors who used cartoon characters in their marketing because that could be interpreted as attempting to distribute marijuana to minors.
cont'
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/29/eric-holder-marijuana-washington-colorado-doj_n_3837034.html
August 29, 2013
Mark Kessler is at it again. You might remember that he is the now-suspended Pennsylvania Police Chief who essentially held the small town of Gilberton, PA hostage, and called for violence against Democrats and the government. Now, he is at it again, posting violence to YouTube that essentially threatens a city official.
In the video Kessler can be seen shooting at a photo of a “tyrant” clown that he has named “libtard Eric.” This can reasonably be concluded to be a threat to the Vice-President of the Gilberton Borough Council Eric Boxer, as Kessler has repeatedly blamed Boxer for being the one to bring his suspension about, according to Keystone Progress. From Michael Morrill, executive director of Keystone Progress:
But, I’ll let you judge soon-to-be former Chief Kessler for yourselves, in the flesh:This video isn’t the only video in which Kessler threatens public officials, though. He posted another video earlier in the year in which he was shooting at a photo of a clown that was supposed to represent House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA).
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/08/29/gun-nut-with-a-badge-mark-kessler-posts-more-violence-to-youtube/
GUN NUT With A Badge Mark Kessler Posts More VIOLENCE To YouTube
Mark Kessler is at it again. You might remember that he is the now-suspended Pennsylvania Police Chief who essentially held the small town of Gilberton, PA hostage, and called for violence against Democrats and the government. Now, he is at it again, posting violence to YouTube that essentially threatens a city official.
In the video Kessler can be seen shooting at a photo of a “tyrant” clown that he has named “libtard Eric.” This can reasonably be concluded to be a threat to the Vice-President of the Gilberton Borough Council Eric Boxer, as Kessler has repeatedly blamed Boxer for being the one to bring his suspension about, according to Keystone Progress. From Michael Morrill, executive director of Keystone Progress:
Kessler is a ticking time bomb who must be removed from his position immediately. His suspension is over this week. This video is clearly intended to intimidate Gilberton Council members before they decide on his future. Kessler’s continued intimidation of people he disagrees with has created a climate of fear in Gilberton and beyond. It is outrageous to allow him to continue to carry a badge and a gun while he repeatedly intimidates citizens.
But, I’ll let you judge soon-to-be former Chief Kessler for yourselves, in the flesh:This video isn’t the only video in which Kessler threatens public officials, though. He posted another video earlier in the year in which he was shooting at a photo of a clown that was supposed to represent House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA).
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/08/29/gun-nut-with-a-badge-mark-kessler-posts-more-violence-to-youtube/
August 29, 2013
If you needed more evidence that former president Jimmy Carter was correct when he said, in response to reports of the massive National Security Agency spying program exposed by Edward Snowden, that that democracy no longer exists in the US, just look at Washington’s push to launch a new war against Syria. According to the latest Reuters poll, 60 percent of Americans, despite weeks of propaganda out of Washington, and cheerleading in the corporate media, oppose a US war in Syria. Only nine percent are in favor of the US launching an attack. Does that matter? Clearly not. The aircraft carriers and cruise missile-armed submarines and surface ships have been moved into position. The corporate media quote unnamed government “sources” as saying that “only the timing of an attack” is in question, and suggesting that an attack could come as early as Thursday.
UN inspectors have just gone to the site of an alleged gas attack to see if such a thing actually happened, as charged by Syrian rebels. But is the US (which reportedly tried to scuttle the independent UN investigation into the alleged gas attack) waiting to see whether there even was an attack, and to hear whether if there was one, it was the work of the Syrian government, or, as some have charged, of the rebels themselves? No. Rather, the Obama administration and the war-mongers in Congress are already declaring that the attack “certainly” occurred, and that it was the Syrian government’s doing. (Hey, if the US really wanted a justification for a war, and was "certain" Syrian troops were behind the poison gas attack, wouldn't they have wanted UN investigators' confirmation of the crime and the guilty party?) The media are talking about an “intervention” in, not an invasion of Syria. CBS News reports that President Obama has “ordered up” a legal justification to be used for attacking Syria, and says that “particular emphasis is being placed on alleged violations of the Geneva Convention and the Chemical Weapons Convention.”
Not mentioned is that there is a broader international law that flat-out bans the launching of a war by one nation against another, unless there is an “imminent” threat of attack against the attacking nation by the nation being attacked. Violating that law is called a “crime against peace” under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and under the terms of the UN Charter. The concept of a “crime against peace” was incorporated into the Nuremberg Charter, largely at the urging of the US, following World War II and the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal, and was later incorporated into the UN Charter as Article 51. The US is a treaty signatory, which the Constitution says means it is as binding on the government as any law passed by Congress. This law was declared to be jus cogens, meaning that it is superior to all other laws of war and therefore cannot be superceded by any other international or national law except of the same ranking. The Geneva Convention against the use of chemical weapons, for example, is a subordinate law, as are laws against other war crimes, against genocide, or against torture.
The government war-mongers in Washington, including the president and secretary of state, when they speak of finding, creating or digging up a legal justification for attacking Syria over its alleged use of chemical weapons, ignore this reality. For their part, the corporate media don’t mention UN Charter Article 51, the Crime Against Peace, or the fact that it makes a joke out of any administration effort to justify an attack on Syria. (No wonder Obama just asked a federal court to block any effort to bring war crime charges against his predecessor, George W. Bush, and his consigliere, VP Dick Cheney. The man, trained as a constitutional scholar, is thinking ahead, hoping his successor will do the same for him.) Legalities aside, any attack on Syria by the US and its puppet states in Europe, Britain and France, can only worsen a bad situation. Originally the plan was to arm the rebels. That was supposed to reduce the killing by allowing the rebels to defend their territory against Syrian government troops. Instead, arming the rebels, who as it turns out are a bloodthirsty lot themselves, has only made things worse by leading to more killing from their side, and to a prolongation of the already more than two-year-old internal Syrian conflict.
cont'
http://thiscantbehappening.net/node/1932
Americans OPPOSE Criminal US Syrian Attack, But Obama Is SET To Launch It Anyway
"..Ex-President Carter has it right: “The US has no functioning democracy.” Until Americans start putting wrenches into the gears of the war machine, it will continue to clank along on it's grim, destructive and self-destructive path..."
If you needed more evidence that former president Jimmy Carter was correct when he said, in response to reports of the massive National Security Agency spying program exposed by Edward Snowden, that that democracy no longer exists in the US, just look at Washington’s push to launch a new war against Syria. According to the latest Reuters poll, 60 percent of Americans, despite weeks of propaganda out of Washington, and cheerleading in the corporate media, oppose a US war in Syria. Only nine percent are in favor of the US launching an attack. Does that matter? Clearly not. The aircraft carriers and cruise missile-armed submarines and surface ships have been moved into position. The corporate media quote unnamed government “sources” as saying that “only the timing of an attack” is in question, and suggesting that an attack could come as early as Thursday.
UN inspectors have just gone to the site of an alleged gas attack to see if such a thing actually happened, as charged by Syrian rebels. But is the US (which reportedly tried to scuttle the independent UN investigation into the alleged gas attack) waiting to see whether there even was an attack, and to hear whether if there was one, it was the work of the Syrian government, or, as some have charged, of the rebels themselves? No. Rather, the Obama administration and the war-mongers in Congress are already declaring that the attack “certainly” occurred, and that it was the Syrian government’s doing. (Hey, if the US really wanted a justification for a war, and was "certain" Syrian troops were behind the poison gas attack, wouldn't they have wanted UN investigators' confirmation of the crime and the guilty party?) The media are talking about an “intervention” in, not an invasion of Syria. CBS News reports that President Obama has “ordered up” a legal justification to be used for attacking Syria, and says that “particular emphasis is being placed on alleged violations of the Geneva Convention and the Chemical Weapons Convention.”
Not mentioned is that there is a broader international law that flat-out bans the launching of a war by one nation against another, unless there is an “imminent” threat of attack against the attacking nation by the nation being attacked. Violating that law is called a “crime against peace” under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and under the terms of the UN Charter. The concept of a “crime against peace” was incorporated into the Nuremberg Charter, largely at the urging of the US, following World War II and the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal, and was later incorporated into the UN Charter as Article 51. The US is a treaty signatory, which the Constitution says means it is as binding on the government as any law passed by Congress. This law was declared to be jus cogens, meaning that it is superior to all other laws of war and therefore cannot be superceded by any other international or national law except of the same ranking. The Geneva Convention against the use of chemical weapons, for example, is a subordinate law, as are laws against other war crimes, against genocide, or against torture.
The government war-mongers in Washington, including the president and secretary of state, when they speak of finding, creating or digging up a legal justification for attacking Syria over its alleged use of chemical weapons, ignore this reality. For their part, the corporate media don’t mention UN Charter Article 51, the Crime Against Peace, or the fact that it makes a joke out of any administration effort to justify an attack on Syria. (No wonder Obama just asked a federal court to block any effort to bring war crime charges against his predecessor, George W. Bush, and his consigliere, VP Dick Cheney. The man, trained as a constitutional scholar, is thinking ahead, hoping his successor will do the same for him.) Legalities aside, any attack on Syria by the US and its puppet states in Europe, Britain and France, can only worsen a bad situation. Originally the plan was to arm the rebels. That was supposed to reduce the killing by allowing the rebels to defend their territory against Syrian government troops. Instead, arming the rebels, who as it turns out are a bloodthirsty lot themselves, has only made things worse by leading to more killing from their side, and to a prolongation of the already more than two-year-old internal Syrian conflict.
cont'
http://thiscantbehappening.net/node/1932
August 29, 2013
As of this writing, early Thursday morning, some Syrians are scheduled to pay with their lives for America’s “credibility.” The bombarding of an already war-ravaged country is acknowledged as “symbolic,” intended simply to “send a message.” This is an obscenity as great as the one Washington purports to answer. Another Middle Eastern society will come further unstitched, and those doing the unstitching will have nothing on offer to replace it. The U.S. long ago squandered what credibility it may once have enjoyed or desired in the Mideast. If credibility were the cause, Washington need do no more than start dismantling the Potemkin village it has made of the principles it tediously mouths. But this thought goes nowhere these days.
And so the U.S. stalks into another war in the Middle East. Unlike the Iraq and Afghanistan wars—American works of art, both—the conflict in Syria is somebody else’s canvas. But apart from this, the similarities among these three instances of Washington’s wanton hostility toward uncompliant regimes are astonishingly similar. Make that tragically similar. History proceeds, we Americans insist on the virtue of ignorance, on learning nothing and knowing nothing. And what we are about to get is what we get, predictably and always. We are a singular people, no question. Maybe even exceptional. As of these hours, the Obama administration is on the record as rejecting any deliberations the U.N. may judge just. On Wednesday evening, British Prime Minister David Cameron gave in to Labour Party objections to his support for Washington’s invasion plans. Britain now wants to see a U.N. report on the alleged chemical attacks from weapons instructors, and to give the Security Council process more time.
But listen closely to President Obama speaking Wednesday on PBS’ “Newshour” and it is clear the U.S. could go it alone against the Syrian regime if need be. “We’re prepared to work with anybody – the Russians and others – to try to bring the parties together to resolve the conflict,” Obama said. “But we want the Assad regime to understand that by using chemical weapons on a large scale against your own people … you’re also creating a situation where U.S. national interests are affected, and that needs to stop.” So not even the fig leaves of international assent matter now. Events since the apparent attacks with chemical substances in four residential districts of Damascus last week bear all the marks of a disgraceful bum’s rush. Given that the cruise missiles the Obama administration is about to send into Syria will bear the chalk signatures of every American, like a World War II bomb, we are the chumps of the piece (once again, that is). This is a shared responsibility. It makes us complicit.
The fabrications and duplicity put before us as Washington prepares to “respond” to the latest savagery in Syria are so strangely formed that it is hard to follow the bouncing ball. The Obama people have changed their story diametrically before our eyes, casting aside all consistency, self-evidently making it up as they go along. And it is the same story recited countless times before. Maybe it is the only story Americans can articulate or grasp—a disturbing thought, but one begging consideration at this point. Stories require media, of course, and there they are, on the case in the Syrian crisis and delivering the goods with irresponsible single-source stories dressed up as responsible multiple-source stories. When was it that journalists began thinking of themselves as national security operatives? It is getting unbearable, this errand-boy act in the face of power. If journalists did their jobs properly we would get into fewer messes such as Syria and would be more nationally secure. As it is now, the press is a defective piece in the democratic mechanism.
cont'
http://www.salon.com/2013/08/29/lapdog_media_learns_nothing_beats_war_drums_again/
LAPDOG MEDIA Learns Nothing, Beats War Drums AGAIN
Have we forgotten Judith Miller already? Or Colin Powell at the UN?
Before attacking Syria, let's know the truth.
Before attacking Syria, let's know the truth.
As of this writing, early Thursday morning, some Syrians are scheduled to pay with their lives for America’s “credibility.” The bombarding of an already war-ravaged country is acknowledged as “symbolic,” intended simply to “send a message.” This is an obscenity as great as the one Washington purports to answer. Another Middle Eastern society will come further unstitched, and those doing the unstitching will have nothing on offer to replace it. The U.S. long ago squandered what credibility it may once have enjoyed or desired in the Mideast. If credibility were the cause, Washington need do no more than start dismantling the Potemkin village it has made of the principles it tediously mouths. But this thought goes nowhere these days.
And so the U.S. stalks into another war in the Middle East. Unlike the Iraq and Afghanistan wars—American works of art, both—the conflict in Syria is somebody else’s canvas. But apart from this, the similarities among these three instances of Washington’s wanton hostility toward uncompliant regimes are astonishingly similar. Make that tragically similar. History proceeds, we Americans insist on the virtue of ignorance, on learning nothing and knowing nothing. And what we are about to get is what we get, predictably and always. We are a singular people, no question. Maybe even exceptional. As of these hours, the Obama administration is on the record as rejecting any deliberations the U.N. may judge just. On Wednesday evening, British Prime Minister David Cameron gave in to Labour Party objections to his support for Washington’s invasion plans. Britain now wants to see a U.N. report on the alleged chemical attacks from weapons instructors, and to give the Security Council process more time.
But listen closely to President Obama speaking Wednesday on PBS’ “Newshour” and it is clear the U.S. could go it alone against the Syrian regime if need be. “We’re prepared to work with anybody – the Russians and others – to try to bring the parties together to resolve the conflict,” Obama said. “But we want the Assad regime to understand that by using chemical weapons on a large scale against your own people … you’re also creating a situation where U.S. national interests are affected, and that needs to stop.” So not even the fig leaves of international assent matter now. Events since the apparent attacks with chemical substances in four residential districts of Damascus last week bear all the marks of a disgraceful bum’s rush. Given that the cruise missiles the Obama administration is about to send into Syria will bear the chalk signatures of every American, like a World War II bomb, we are the chumps of the piece (once again, that is). This is a shared responsibility. It makes us complicit.
The fabrications and duplicity put before us as Washington prepares to “respond” to the latest savagery in Syria are so strangely formed that it is hard to follow the bouncing ball. The Obama people have changed their story diametrically before our eyes, casting aside all consistency, self-evidently making it up as they go along. And it is the same story recited countless times before. Maybe it is the only story Americans can articulate or grasp—a disturbing thought, but one begging consideration at this point. Stories require media, of course, and there they are, on the case in the Syrian crisis and delivering the goods with irresponsible single-source stories dressed up as responsible multiple-source stories. When was it that journalists began thinking of themselves as national security operatives? It is getting unbearable, this errand-boy act in the face of power. If journalists did their jobs properly we would get into fewer messes such as Syria and would be more nationally secure. As it is now, the press is a defective piece in the democratic mechanism.
cont'
http://www.salon.com/2013/08/29/lapdog_media_learns_nothing_beats_war_drums_again/
August 29, 2013
"..John Boehner, Eric Cantor, John McCain, and every other Republican who were asked refused to attend the March on Washington event..."
According to Roll Call:
Speaker John A. Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor, the House’s two most senior Republicans, were invited to speak at the 50th anniversary of the historic March on Washington — but declined.
According to a list obtained by CQ Roll Call, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., was also invited to speak at Wednesday’s events, but according to a spokesman, the lawmaker was in Arizona all week with a schedule full of public events.
Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush was also asked to attend in lieu of his brother, President George W. Bush, who reportedly had to turn down the invitation as he recovered from surgery due to an arterial blockage — not, as Bond suggested, he had to stay to attend to his also-ailing father.
“This was truly a bipartisan outreach effort,” said a spokesperson for the event in an email statement to CQ Roll Call. “All members of congress were invited to attend and the Republican leadership was invited to speak. Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s office was very helpful in trying to find someone to speak at the event. Making this commemoration bi-partisan was especially important to members of the King family, too.”
http://blogs.rollcall.com/goppers/boehner-cantor-turned-down-chance-to-speak-at-march-anniversary/
It is obvious why Republicans made sure that they were “busy” on the day of the event. None of them wanted to be seen on or near a stage with President Obama. Republicans also view ignoring or antagonizing minorities as good politics. For example, Mitt Romney’s speech at the NAACP convention appeared to be designed to get him booed. (It was the one goal that the candidate was able to achieve, as he was nearly booed out of the building.) By refusing to attend this event, Republicans affirmed that they are not interested in bipartisanship of any kind. Congressional Republicans don’t want to give the impression to their base that they are capable of agreeing with Democrats on anything, including honoring a one of the most important moments of the last half century.
Jeb Bush turned down attending the event, because he is stuck in perpetual mode of mulling a run of his own for the presidency. If he would have been healthy, George W. Bush might have been the event organizers’ best chance of getting a Republican to attend.
cont'
http://www.politicususa.com/2013/08/29/john-boehner-eric-cantor-refused-speak.html
EVERY REPUBLICAN That Was Asked REFUSED TO ATTEND March On Washington Event
"..John Boehner, Eric Cantor, John McCain, and every other Republican who were asked refused to attend the March on Washington event..."
According to Roll Call:
Speaker John A. Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor, the House’s two most senior Republicans, were invited to speak at the 50th anniversary of the historic March on Washington — but declined.
According to a list obtained by CQ Roll Call, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., was also invited to speak at Wednesday’s events, but according to a spokesman, the lawmaker was in Arizona all week with a schedule full of public events.
Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush was also asked to attend in lieu of his brother, President George W. Bush, who reportedly had to turn down the invitation as he recovered from surgery due to an arterial blockage — not, as Bond suggested, he had to stay to attend to his also-ailing father.
“This was truly a bipartisan outreach effort,” said a spokesperson for the event in an email statement to CQ Roll Call. “All members of congress were invited to attend and the Republican leadership was invited to speak. Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s office was very helpful in trying to find someone to speak at the event. Making this commemoration bi-partisan was especially important to members of the King family, too.”
http://blogs.rollcall.com/goppers/boehner-cantor-turned-down-chance-to-speak-at-march-anniversary/
It is obvious why Republicans made sure that they were “busy” on the day of the event. None of them wanted to be seen on or near a stage with President Obama. Republicans also view ignoring or antagonizing minorities as good politics. For example, Mitt Romney’s speech at the NAACP convention appeared to be designed to get him booed. (It was the one goal that the candidate was able to achieve, as he was nearly booed out of the building.) By refusing to attend this event, Republicans affirmed that they are not interested in bipartisanship of any kind. Congressional Republicans don’t want to give the impression to their base that they are capable of agreeing with Democrats on anything, including honoring a one of the most important moments of the last half century.
Jeb Bush turned down attending the event, because he is stuck in perpetual mode of mulling a run of his own for the presidency. If he would have been healthy, George W. Bush might have been the event organizers’ best chance of getting a Republican to attend.
cont'
http://www.politicususa.com/2013/08/29/john-boehner-eric-cantor-refused-speak.html
August 29, 2013
SUNLIGHT,.....the best disinfectant!......spread the news!...........
The GOP is not out of the election manipulation business yet. Despite the uncovering of Karl Rove’s attempt to hack the election by the hacker collective Anonymous, the Washington Examiner has unveiled how the Republican Party is building a digital network designed to rival, and surpass, Romney’s vote challenger system Orca. For those who do not remember, Orca was a centralized computer system which, on the surface, allowed for direct ties between the election headquarters and the poll challengers, using mobile apps. Orca was Romney’s attempt to out-do Obama’s election machine. As reported by Anonymous, Orca held a darker secret, and was set up to manipulate the election in a similar manner to what is theorized happened in 2004 with Ohio where a server went dead for 90 minutes in the middle of an election, and the tabulation miraculously flipped from John Kerry to George W. Bush.
This new system, being developed by former Facebook engineer Andy Barkett, the Republican National Committee’s chief technology officer, looks capable of allowing even more insidious poll and vote manipulation than ever before. The plan involves intrusive data scrubbing through detailed observation, using set-top boxes such as those provided by your cable provider to analyze viewing habits on an individual household level. It also scrubs social media to selectively target voters for advertising. Combining the two, the GOP is plotting on becoming Big Brother, and they plan on having it ready for a dry run for the 2014 elections, securing candidates which have the approval of the party bosses while eliminating competition, such as Tea Party wildcards who all but destroyed Mitt Romney’s chances in 2012 though comments such as “legitimate rape.”
How such a system would work is relatively simple. They can keep track of your viewing and browsing habits, seeing an individual or families likes and dislikes. Then they coordinate this data with advertisement centers, such as News Corp to target them specifically. Find out a person is anti-gun, they make sure pro-gun advertising and endorsements of candidates do not get distributed. Find out that same person loves kittens, new flyer arrives with the national parties chosen candidate holding a baby calico. Then combine that level of detail with the vote challengers which the party has regularly employed. Now they can be incredibly selective of challenges, making sure that they only challenge the people who, through their media exposure, would be disinclined to vote for the parties chosen candidate. All through the vote challengers smartphone. This is direct, immediate, and ultimately the disenfranchisement undermines the goals of democracy itself.
To alleviate the fears that the national party will be manipulating or controlling the polling results and voter turnout, they have claimed to have turned over the keys to this system to a private company. However, basic research reveals that this private company, Data Trust, is not some independent group but instead is a group managed by Karl Rove. The same man who threw a fit on-air when his system failed to steal the election in 2012. Karl Rove is preparing his next move, and this time it is no longer for a candidate, but for a nation. One nation under Rove. He is the kingmaker. And he has no love of the Tea Party. With this system in place expect a massacre of Tea Party candidates nationwide.
cont'
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/08/29/gop-picks-karl-rove-to-run-new-voter-fraud-system/
Guess WHO's Setting Up The GOP’s NEW VOTE RIGGING SYSTEM?
SUNLIGHT,.....the best disinfectant!......spread the news!...........
The GOP is not out of the election manipulation business yet. Despite the uncovering of Karl Rove’s attempt to hack the election by the hacker collective Anonymous, the Washington Examiner has unveiled how the Republican Party is building a digital network designed to rival, and surpass, Romney’s vote challenger system Orca. For those who do not remember, Orca was a centralized computer system which, on the surface, allowed for direct ties between the election headquarters and the poll challengers, using mobile apps. Orca was Romney’s attempt to out-do Obama’s election machine. As reported by Anonymous, Orca held a darker secret, and was set up to manipulate the election in a similar manner to what is theorized happened in 2004 with Ohio where a server went dead for 90 minutes in the middle of an election, and the tabulation miraculously flipped from John Kerry to George W. Bush.
This new system, being developed by former Facebook engineer Andy Barkett, the Republican National Committee’s chief technology officer, looks capable of allowing even more insidious poll and vote manipulation than ever before. The plan involves intrusive data scrubbing through detailed observation, using set-top boxes such as those provided by your cable provider to analyze viewing habits on an individual household level. It also scrubs social media to selectively target voters for advertising. Combining the two, the GOP is plotting on becoming Big Brother, and they plan on having it ready for a dry run for the 2014 elections, securing candidates which have the approval of the party bosses while eliminating competition, such as Tea Party wildcards who all but destroyed Mitt Romney’s chances in 2012 though comments such as “legitimate rape.”
How such a system would work is relatively simple. They can keep track of your viewing and browsing habits, seeing an individual or families likes and dislikes. Then they coordinate this data with advertisement centers, such as News Corp to target them specifically. Find out a person is anti-gun, they make sure pro-gun advertising and endorsements of candidates do not get distributed. Find out that same person loves kittens, new flyer arrives with the national parties chosen candidate holding a baby calico. Then combine that level of detail with the vote challengers which the party has regularly employed. Now they can be incredibly selective of challenges, making sure that they only challenge the people who, through their media exposure, would be disinclined to vote for the parties chosen candidate. All through the vote challengers smartphone. This is direct, immediate, and ultimately the disenfranchisement undermines the goals of democracy itself.
To alleviate the fears that the national party will be manipulating or controlling the polling results and voter turnout, they have claimed to have turned over the keys to this system to a private company. However, basic research reveals that this private company, Data Trust, is not some independent group but instead is a group managed by Karl Rove. The same man who threw a fit on-air when his system failed to steal the election in 2012. Karl Rove is preparing his next move, and this time it is no longer for a candidate, but for a nation. One nation under Rove. He is the kingmaker. And he has no love of the Tea Party. With this system in place expect a massacre of Tea Party candidates nationwide.
cont'
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/08/29/gop-picks-karl-rove-to-run-new-voter-fraud-system/
August 28, 2013
As President Obama weighs a possible limited military strike against Syria, he may want to consider the track record of his predecessors on this front. It's not encouraging. The Obama administration and several before it have seen limited attacks as a way to sending a tough message without drawing the U.S. into a larger conflict. But critics say such strikes rarely, if ever, inflict serious damage or change the behavior of those targeted. And worse, limited U.S. military action has been followed by some of the deadliest attacks against American targets over the past three decades.
"If this is indeed the sort of attack on Syria that the president is contemplating, it is not likely to be very effective," writes Mark Katz, a professor at George Mason University and a frequent commentator on the Middle East. "Indeed, it may encourage [President Bashar Assad] to launch even more chemical weapons attacks due to the belief that while US retaliation may be annoying, it will not threaten the survival of his regime."
Here's a list of several limited U.S. strikes in recent decades:
Lebanon, 1983: U.S. warships in the Mediterranean shelled Beirut for several days in support of the Lebanese army, which was led by Christians fighting Muslim factions in the country's anarchic civil war. A month after the U.S. shelling, Shiite Muslim suicide bombers struck at the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut on Oct. 23, killing 241 Marines. This remains the biggest loss of life of U.S. military personnel on a single day since World War II.
President Reagan subsequently ordered the Marines out of Lebanon in February 1984 and the Lebanese civil war carried on for another six years. A military committee appointed by Reagan found that American commanders believed the U.S. shelling of Beirut led to the bombing of the Marine barracks.
Libya, 1986: Libya was implicated in the deadly bombing of a disco in Berlin frequented by U.S. servicemen. In response, Reagan ordered a one-night bombing raid on Libya, which targeted the compound of Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi.
The Libyan leader survived, and two years later, in December 1988, a Pan Am plane was blown up over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing 270 people on the plane and the ground. Many of the dead were Americans. After a protracted international legal fight, Libya acknowledged involvement and paid compensation of $1.5 billion in 2008. Gadhafi remained in power until 2011, when a more sustained NATO air campaign helped rebels drive him from power.
Afghanistan and Sudan, 1998: Al-Qaida blew up the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in August, and President Clinton responded two weeks later with a brief barrage of cruise missile strikes directed at al-Qaida camps in Afghanistan and a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan, a country that supported al-Qaida.
The strikes inflicted limited damage and al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden interpreted this as a lack of U.S. resolve to engage in a major confrontation. Al-Qaida attacked the USS Cole while it was in port in Yemen in 2000 and followed that a year later with the Sept. 11 attacks in New York and Washington.
Iraq, 1993, 1996 and 1998: On several occasions in the 1990s, Clinton ordered limited airstrikes and cruise missile attacks against Iraq. The intent was to put pressure on Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein following aggressive action by his forces against opposition groups or by his refusal to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors.
However, the Iraqi leader remained firmly in control until the U.S. ground invasion in 2003 that ousted Saddam. Eight years of war followed until the U.S. forces withdrew in 2011.
Despite many years of tense relations between Syria and the U.S., Syria has not been directly implicated in any major attacks against the U.S. However, Syria's close allies, Iran and the Lebanese group Hezbollah, have been linked to actions that range from kidnapping Americans to terror attacks.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/parallels/2013/08/27/216194529/limited-u-s-strikes-followed-by-major-attacks-on-u-s?ft=1&f=1001
Limited U.S. Strikes ... Followed By Major Attacks On U.S.
A month after U.S. naval ships shelled Lebanon, Muslim extremists blew up the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut, killing 241 U.S. military personnel on Oct. 23, 1983. Over the past three decades, limited U.S. military strikes have been followed on several occasions by major attacks against U.S. targets.
As President Obama weighs a possible limited military strike against Syria, he may want to consider the track record of his predecessors on this front. It's not encouraging. The Obama administration and several before it have seen limited attacks as a way to sending a tough message without drawing the U.S. into a larger conflict. But critics say such strikes rarely, if ever, inflict serious damage or change the behavior of those targeted. And worse, limited U.S. military action has been followed by some of the deadliest attacks against American targets over the past three decades.
"If this is indeed the sort of attack on Syria that the president is contemplating, it is not likely to be very effective," writes Mark Katz, a professor at George Mason University and a frequent commentator on the Middle East. "Indeed, it may encourage [President Bashar Assad] to launch even more chemical weapons attacks due to the belief that while US retaliation may be annoying, it will not threaten the survival of his regime."
Here's a list of several limited U.S. strikes in recent decades:
Lebanon, 1983: U.S. warships in the Mediterranean shelled Beirut for several days in support of the Lebanese army, which was led by Christians fighting Muslim factions in the country's anarchic civil war. A month after the U.S. shelling, Shiite Muslim suicide bombers struck at the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut on Oct. 23, killing 241 Marines. This remains the biggest loss of life of U.S. military personnel on a single day since World War II.
President Reagan subsequently ordered the Marines out of Lebanon in February 1984 and the Lebanese civil war carried on for another six years. A military committee appointed by Reagan found that American commanders believed the U.S. shelling of Beirut led to the bombing of the Marine barracks.
Libya, 1986: Libya was implicated in the deadly bombing of a disco in Berlin frequented by U.S. servicemen. In response, Reagan ordered a one-night bombing raid on Libya, which targeted the compound of Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi.
The Libyan leader survived, and two years later, in December 1988, a Pan Am plane was blown up over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing 270 people on the plane and the ground. Many of the dead were Americans. After a protracted international legal fight, Libya acknowledged involvement and paid compensation of $1.5 billion in 2008. Gadhafi remained in power until 2011, when a more sustained NATO air campaign helped rebels drive him from power.
Afghanistan and Sudan, 1998: Al-Qaida blew up the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in August, and President Clinton responded two weeks later with a brief barrage of cruise missile strikes directed at al-Qaida camps in Afghanistan and a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan, a country that supported al-Qaida.
The strikes inflicted limited damage and al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden interpreted this as a lack of U.S. resolve to engage in a major confrontation. Al-Qaida attacked the USS Cole while it was in port in Yemen in 2000 and followed that a year later with the Sept. 11 attacks in New York and Washington.
Iraq, 1993, 1996 and 1998: On several occasions in the 1990s, Clinton ordered limited airstrikes and cruise missile attacks against Iraq. The intent was to put pressure on Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein following aggressive action by his forces against opposition groups or by his refusal to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors.
However, the Iraqi leader remained firmly in control until the U.S. ground invasion in 2003 that ousted Saddam. Eight years of war followed until the U.S. forces withdrew in 2011.
Despite many years of tense relations between Syria and the U.S., Syria has not been directly implicated in any major attacks against the U.S. However, Syria's close allies, Iran and the Lebanese group Hezbollah, have been linked to actions that range from kidnapping Americans to terror attacks.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/parallels/2013/08/27/216194529/limited-u-s-strikes-followed-by-major-attacks-on-u-s?ft=1&f=1001
August 28, 2013
Truly a FOX prick-weasel now.......
A television critic, who was recently fired by CNN and The Daily Beast after a series of embarrassing mistakes about a gay NBC player, on Tuesday devoted his Fox News column to how little clothing his former employer’s daughter-in-law was wearing in her Facebook photos. Fox News media critic Howard Kurtz began his Tuesday column by noting that Washington Post Vice President Ben Bradlee, who Kurtz had worked for before leaving for The Daily Beast, was “one of the great men of American journalism.”
But the point of Kurtz’ column was not to praise Ben Bradlee: it was to call out his daughter-in-law, Pari Bradlee, for a profile photo she posted Facebook because she is wearing a “Swiss-cheese bra that leaves little to the imagination and long black leather sleeves and briefs, is so revealing that it drew a torrent of breathless comments.” Kurtz added that the yoga instructor posted another photo where “she is nude, shot from the back, twisting one arm behind her.”
Although there is nothing about the photos that wouldn’t make it past network television censors, Kurtz asked, “Do the pictures go too far?” “And while there is a light-hearted aspect to the R-rated pictures, Pari Bradlee is also making a statement,” the Fox News critic wrote. “The Hamptons photo shoot, conducted by an old friend, Barry Fidnick, prompted friends to post such comments as ‘HOTT THANG!!!!’, ‘u look sexual’ and ‘Turning this gay man STRAIGHT!’ Kurtz observed. “And her husband obviously approves: he ‘liked’ the picture on her page.”
However, Sally Quinn, who writes a column on religion for the Post and is married to Ben Bradlee, probably won’t be “liking” anything Kurtz does anytime soon. She told Media Matters that she was “appalled” and “heartbroken” when she saw the comments about her daugher-in-law. “I thought Howard was a decent guy, I thought he was my friend and I’m appalled and really heartbroken that he would do something like this,” she explained. “Why would you want to hurt somebody?”
cont'
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/08/27/columnist-rips-howard-kurtz-for-slut-shaming-daughter-in-law-over-facebook-photos/
Columnist RIPS Howard Kurtz For SLUT-SHAMING Daughter-In-Law Over Facebook Photos
Truly a FOX prick-weasel now.......
A television critic, who was recently fired by CNN and The Daily Beast after a series of embarrassing mistakes about a gay NBC player, on Tuesday devoted his Fox News column to how little clothing his former employer’s daughter-in-law was wearing in her Facebook photos. Fox News media critic Howard Kurtz began his Tuesday column by noting that Washington Post Vice President Ben Bradlee, who Kurtz had worked for before leaving for The Daily Beast, was “one of the great men of American journalism.”
But the point of Kurtz’ column was not to praise Ben Bradlee: it was to call out his daughter-in-law, Pari Bradlee, for a profile photo she posted Facebook because she is wearing a “Swiss-cheese bra that leaves little to the imagination and long black leather sleeves and briefs, is so revealing that it drew a torrent of breathless comments.” Kurtz added that the yoga instructor posted another photo where “she is nude, shot from the back, twisting one arm behind her.”
Although there is nothing about the photos that wouldn’t make it past network television censors, Kurtz asked, “Do the pictures go too far?” “And while there is a light-hearted aspect to the R-rated pictures, Pari Bradlee is also making a statement,” the Fox News critic wrote. “The Hamptons photo shoot, conducted by an old friend, Barry Fidnick, prompted friends to post such comments as ‘HOTT THANG!!!!’, ‘u look sexual’ and ‘Turning this gay man STRAIGHT!’ Kurtz observed. “And her husband obviously approves: he ‘liked’ the picture on her page.”
However, Sally Quinn, who writes a column on religion for the Post and is married to Ben Bradlee, probably won’t be “liking” anything Kurtz does anytime soon. She told Media Matters that she was “appalled” and “heartbroken” when she saw the comments about her daugher-in-law. “I thought Howard was a decent guy, I thought he was my friend and I’m appalled and really heartbroken that he would do something like this,” she explained. “Why would you want to hurt somebody?”
cont'
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/08/27/columnist-rips-howard-kurtz-for-slut-shaming-daughter-in-law-over-facebook-photos/
August 28, 2013
In RUSH To Strike Syria, US Tried to DERAIL UN PROBE
Washington - After initially insisting that Syria give United Nations investigators unimpeded access to the site of an alleged nerve gas attack, the administration of President Barack Obama reversed its position on Sunday and tried unsuccessfully to get the U.N. to call off its investigation. The administration’s reversal, which came within hours of the deal reached between Syria and the U.N., was reported by the Wall Street Journal Monday and effectively confirmed by a State Department spokesperson later that day. In his press appearance Monday, Secretary of State John Kerry, who intervened with U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon to call off the investigation, dismissed the U.N. investigation as coming too late to obtain valid evidence on the attack that Syrian opposition sources claimed killed as many 1,300 people.The sudden reversal and overt hostility toward the U.N. investigation, which coincides with indications that the administration is planning a major military strike against Syria in the coming days, suggests that the administration sees the U.N. as hindering its plans for an attack.
Kerry asserted Monday that he had warned Syrian Foreign Minister Moallem last Thursday that Syria had to give the U.N. team immediate access to the site and stop the shelling there, which he said was “systematically destroying evidence”. He called the Syria-U.N. deal to allow investigators unrestricted access “too late to be credible”. After the deal was announced on Sunday, however, Kerry pushed Ban in a phone call to call off the investigation completely. The Wall Street Journal reported the pressure on Ban without mentioning Kerry by name. It said unnamed “U.S. officials” had told the secretary-general that it was “no longer safe for the inspectors to remain in Syria and that their mission was pointless.” But Ban, who has generally been regarded as a pliable instrument of U.S. policy, refused to withdraw the U.N. team and instead “stood firm on principle”, the Journal reported. He was said to have ordered the U.N. inspectors to “continue their work”.
The Journal said “U.S. officials” also told the secretary-general that the United States “didn’t think the inspectors would be able to collect viable evidence due to the passage of time and damage from subsequent shelling.” The State Department spokesperson, Marie Harf, confirmed to reporters that Kerry had spoken with Ban over the weekend. She also confirmed the gist of the U.S. position on the investigation. “We believe that it’s been too long and there’s been too much destruction of the area for the investigation to be credible,” she said. That claim echoed a statement by an unnamed “senior official” to the Washington Post Sunday that the evidence had been “significantly corrupted” by the regime’s shelling of the area. “We don’t at this point have confidence that the U.N. can conduct a credible inquiry into what happened,” said Harf, “We are concerned that the Syrian regime will use this as a delay tactic to continue shelling and destroying evidence in the area.”
cont'
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/18447-in-rush-to-strike-syria-us-tried-to-derail-un-probe
August 28, 2013
Last Friday MSNBC’s Ed Schultz had a town hall in Alabama. He wanted to go to the Deep South and talk directly to the people. He complained about the right wing talking heads using a narrative of dependency as well as race bating to create a level of angst within the white community. You have to wonder if he expected to have two women in the audience with relevant stories that put it all in a microcosm. The following is the transcript of the video that follows. The two women made explosive accusations against many white churches in the South and against local Republican Parties. While many may find what they are saying hard to believe I have had many Republicans in our local Baptist churches tell me similar stories.
ED Schultz: Last Friday night I did a town hall meeting in Birmingham Alabama…This is what an Alabama public school teacher came to the microphone and said.
Alabama Teacher: I have been a part of public education since 1970, when the schools were first integrated. I see more hatred in the South now than I ever saw in 1970 and I will tell you why. It’s been preached in the pulpit. It’s in the White churches. They are teaching people that if you vote anything but Republican, you are going to hell pretty much.
ED Schultz: Oh! They are preaching it and people are buying it. One Alabama state legislator told me a chilling story about a recent attempt to segregate a local school.
Alabama Legislator: I got a call this week from a White female Republican. We have a school district in our county that has made an application to become independent. The reason she called me was because in the church this past Sunday, they were bullied and told you’ve got to support this school district pulling away from the county so we can minimize the number of blacks that are in our school district. Even though she was Republican she was disheartened because she says she never looked at the party from that perspective.
Many believe that Americans spend too much time on race issues. The reality is that it is important to do so, especially now. The right wing’s southern strategy is in full vogue, and what makes the women’s statement important is the context. Martin Luther King said the most segregated hour in America is at 11:00 on Sunday mornings, during church services. That presents several realities. It allows those of ill will to use that homogeneity to indoctrinate and to foment a false reality to be feared, a fear of the ‘the other’.
cont'
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/08/28/ed-schultz-exposes-cause-of-racism-in-the-south-video/
Ed Schultz EXPOSES Cause Of Racism In The South
Last Friday MSNBC’s Ed Schultz had a town hall in Alabama. He wanted to go to the Deep South and talk directly to the people. He complained about the right wing talking heads using a narrative of dependency as well as race bating to create a level of angst within the white community. You have to wonder if he expected to have two women in the audience with relevant stories that put it all in a microcosm. The following is the transcript of the video that follows. The two women made explosive accusations against many white churches in the South and against local Republican Parties. While many may find what they are saying hard to believe I have had many Republicans in our local Baptist churches tell me similar stories.
ED Schultz: Last Friday night I did a town hall meeting in Birmingham Alabama…This is what an Alabama public school teacher came to the microphone and said.
Alabama Teacher: I have been a part of public education since 1970, when the schools were first integrated. I see more hatred in the South now than I ever saw in 1970 and I will tell you why. It’s been preached in the pulpit. It’s in the White churches. They are teaching people that if you vote anything but Republican, you are going to hell pretty much.
ED Schultz: Oh! They are preaching it and people are buying it. One Alabama state legislator told me a chilling story about a recent attempt to segregate a local school.
Alabama Legislator: I got a call this week from a White female Republican. We have a school district in our county that has made an application to become independent. The reason she called me was because in the church this past Sunday, they were bullied and told you’ve got to support this school district pulling away from the county so we can minimize the number of blacks that are in our school district. Even though she was Republican she was disheartened because she says she never looked at the party from that perspective.
Many believe that Americans spend too much time on race issues. The reality is that it is important to do so, especially now. The right wing’s southern strategy is in full vogue, and what makes the women’s statement important is the context. Martin Luther King said the most segregated hour in America is at 11:00 on Sunday mornings, during church services. That presents several realities. It allows those of ill will to use that homogeneity to indoctrinate and to foment a false reality to be feared, a fear of the ‘the other’.
cont'
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/08/28/ed-schultz-exposes-cause-of-racism-in-the-south-video/
Profile Information
Member since: Tue May 13, 2008, 03:07 AMNumber of posts: 14,923
