The Pardu

The Pardu
Watchful eyes and ears feed the brain, thus nourishing the brain cells.
Showing posts with label US Constitution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label US Constitution. Show all posts

Tuesday, February 13, 2018

Trump's Financial Underbelly: MSNBC ,Pro Publica

 Undercutting America And Abusing The Oval Office

Is there any wonder why Donald Trump wants no part of publishing his tax returns? Today, we are seeing and hearing reports  Trump receives $175 million in previously undisclosed rent.

MSNBC's afternoon host reported details of what seems violations of the US Constitution along with clear violations of prohibitions from a president reaping financial rewards while serving in the Oval Office.


Pro Publica also published a detailed piece.

I Approved This Facebook Message — But You Don’t Know That

Hundreds of federal political ads — including those from major players such as the Democratic National Committee and the Donald Trump 2020 campaign — are running on Facebook without adequate disclaimer language, likely violating Federal Election Commission rules, a review by ProPublica has found.

An FEC opinion in December clarified that the requirement for political ads to say who paid for and approved them, which has long applied to print and broadcast outlets, extends to ads on Facebook. So we checked more than 300 ads that had run on the world’s largest social network since the opinion, and that election-law experts told us met the criteria for a disclaimer. Fewer than 40 had disclosures that appeared to satisfy FEC rules.

“I’m totally shocked,” said David Keating, president of the nonprofit Institute for Free Speech in Alexandria, Virginia, which usually opposes restrictions on political advertising. “There’s no excuse,” he said, looking through our database of ads.

The FEC can investigate possible violations of the law and fine people up to thousands of dollars for breaking it — fines double if the violation was “knowing and willful,” according to the regulations. Under the law, it’s up to advertisers, not Facebook, to ensure they have the right disclaimers. The FEC has not imposed penalties on any Facebook advertiser for failing to disclose.

An FEC spokeswoman declined to say whether the commission has any recent complaints about lack of disclosure on Facebook ads. Enforcement matters are confidential until they are resolved, she said.
None of the individuals or groups we contacted whose ads appeared to have inadequate disclaimers, including the Democratic National Committee and the Trump campaign, responded to requests for comment. Facebook declined to comment on ProPublica’s findings or the December opinion. In public documents, the company has urged the FEC to be “flexible” in what it allows online, and to develop a policy for all digital advertising rather than focusing on Facebook.

Insufficient disclaimers can be minor technicalities, not necessarily evidence of intent to deceive. But the pervasiveness of the lapses ProPublica found suggests a larger problem that may raise concerns about the upcoming midterm elections — that political advertising on the world’s largest social network isn’t playing by rules intended to protect the public.

Unease about political ads on Facebook and other social networking sites has intensified since internet companies acknowledged that organizations associated with the Russian government bought ads to influence U.S. voters during the 2016 election. Foreign contributions to campaigns for U.S. federal office are illegal. Online, advertisers can target ads to relatively small groups of people. Once the marketing campaign is over, the ads disappear. This makes it difficult for the public to scrutinize them.
The FEC opinion is part of a push toward more transparency in online political advertising that has come in response to these concerns. In addition to handing down the opinion in a specific case, the FEC is preparing new rules to address ads on social media more broadly. Three senators are sponsoring a bill called the Honest Ads Act, which would require internet companies to provide more information on who is buying political ads. And earlier this month, the election authority in Seattle said Facebook was violating a city law on election-ad disclosures, marking a milestone in municipal attempts to enforce such transparency.

Facebook itself has promised more transparency about political ads in the coming months, including “paid for by” disclosures. Since late October it has been conducting tests in Canada that publish ads on an advertiser’s Facebook page, where people can see them even without being part of the advertiser’s target audience. Those ads are only up while the ad campaign is running, but Facebook says it will create a searchable archive for federal election advertising in the U.S. starting this summer.

ProPublica found the ads using a tool called the Political Ad Collector, which allows Facebook users to automatically send us the political ads that were displayed on their news feeds. Because they reflect what users of the tool are seeing, the ads in our database aren’t a representative sample.

The disclaimers required by the FEC are familiar to anyone who has seen a print or television political ad — think of a candidate saying, “I’m ____, and I approved this message,” at the end of a TV commercial, or a “paid for by” box at the bottom of a newspaper advertisement. They’re intended to make sure the public knows who is paying to support a candidate, and to prevent people from falsely claiming to speak on a candidate’s behalf.

The system does have limitations, reflecting concerns that overuse of disclaimers could inhibit free speech. For starters, the rules apply only to certain types of political ads. Political committees and candidates have to include disclaimers, as do people seeking donations or conducting “express advocacy.” To count as express advocacy, an ad typically must mention a candidate and use certain words clearly campaigning for or against a candidate — such as “vote for,” “reject” or “re-elect.” And the regulations only apply to federal elections, not state and local ones.

The rules also don’t address so-called “issue” ads that advocate a policy stance. These ads may include a candidate’s name without a disclaimer, as long as they aren’t funded by a political committee or candidate and don’t use express-advocacy language. Many of the political ads purchased by Russian groups in 2016 attempted to influence public opinion without mentioning candidates at all — and would not require disclosure even today.

Enforcement of the law often relies on political opponents or a member of the public complaining to the FEC. If only supporters see an ad, as might be the case online, a complaint may never come.

The disclaimer law was last amended in 2002, but online advertising has changed so rapidly that several experts said the FEC has had trouble keeping up. In 2002, the commission found that paid text message ads were exempt from disclosure under the “small-items exception” originally intended for buttons, pins and the like. What counts as small depends on the situation and is up to the FEC.

In 2010, the FEC considered ads on Google that had no graphics or photos and were limited to 95 characters of text. Google proposed that disclaimers not be part of the ads themselves but be included on the web pages that users would go to after clicking on the ads; the FEC agreed.

In 2011, Facebook asked the FEC to allow political ads on the social network to run without disclosures. At the time, Facebook limited all ads on its platform to small, “thumbnail” photos and brief text of only 100 or 160 characters, depending on the type of ad. In that case, the six-person FEC couldn’t muster the four votes needed to issue an opinion, with three commissioners saying only limited disclosure was required and three saying the ads needed no disclosure at all, because it would be “impracticable” for political ads on Facebook to contain more text than other ads. The result was that political ads on Facebook ran without the disclaimers seen on other types of election advertising.

Since then, though, ads on Facebook have expanded. They can now include much more text, as well as graphics or photos that take up a large part of the news feed’s width. Video ads can run for many minutes, giving advertisers plenty of time to show the disclaimer as text or play it in a voiceover.

Last October, a group called Take Back Action Fund decided to test whether these Facebook ads should still be exempt from the rules.

“For years now, people have said, ‘Oh, don’t worry about the rules, because the FEC doesn’t enforce anything on Facebook,’” said John Pudner, president of Take Back Action Fund, which advocates for campaign finance reform. Many political consultants “didn’t think you ever needed a disclaimer on a Facebook ad,” said Pudner, a longtime campaign consultant to conservative candidates.

Take Back Action Fund came up with a plan: Ask the FEC whether it should include disclosures on ads that the group thought clearly needed them.

The group told the FEC it planned to buy “express advocacy” ads on Facebook that included large images or videos on the news feed. In its filing, Take Back Action Fund provided some sample text it said it was thinking of using: “While [Candidate Name] accuses the Russians of helping President Trump get elected, [s/he] refuses to call out [his/her] own Democrat Party for paying to create fake documents that slandered Trump during his presidential campaign. [Name] is unfit to serve.”

In a comment filed with the FEC in the matter, the Internet Association trade group, of which Facebook is a member, asked the commission to follow the precedent of the 2010 Google case and allow a “one-click” disclosure that didn’t need to be on the ad itself but could be on the web page the ad led to.

The FEC didn’t follow that recommendation. It said unanimously that the ads needed full disclaimers.

The opinion, handed down Dec. 15, was narrow, saying that if any of the “facts or assumptions” presented in another case were different in a “material” way, the opinion could not be relied upon. But several legal experts who spoke with ProPublica said the opinion means anyone who would have to include disclaimers in traditional advertising should now do so on large Facebook image ads or video ads — including candidates, political committees and anyone using express advocacy.

“The functionality and capabilities of today’s Facebook Video and Image ads can accommodate the information without the same constrictions imposed by the character-limited ads that Facebook presented to the Commission in 2011,” three commissioners wrote in a concurring statement. A fourth commissioner went further, saying the commission’s earlier decision in the text messaging case should now be completely superseded. The remaining two commissioners didn’t comment beyond the published opinion.

“We are overjoyed at the decision and hope it will have the effect of stopping anonymous attacks,” said Pudner, of Take Back Action Fund. “We think that this is a matter of the voter’s right to know.” He added that the group doesn’t intend to purchase the ads.

This year, the FEC plans to tackle concerns about digital political advertising more generally. Facebook favors such an industry-wide approach, partly for competitive reasons, according to a comment it submitted to the commission.

“Facebook strongly supports the Commission providing further guidance to committees and other advertisers regarding their disclaimer obligations when running election-related Internet communications on any digital platform,” Facebook General Counsel Colin Stretch wrote to the FEC.

Facebook was concerned that its own transparency efforts “will apply only to advertising on Facebook’s platform, which could have the unintended consequence of pushing purchasers who wish to avoid disclosure to use other, less transparent platforms,” Stretch wrote.

He urged the FEC to adopt a “flexible” approach, on the grounds that there are many different types of online ads. “For example, allowing ads to include an icon or other obvious indicator that more information about an ad is available via quick navigation (like a single click) would give clear guidance.”

To test whether political advertisers were following the FEC guidelines, we searched for large U.S. political ads that our tool gathered between Dec. 20 — five days after the opinion — and Feb. 1. We excluded the small ads that run on the right column of Facebook’s website. To find ads that were most likely to fall under the purview of the FEC regulations, we searched for terms like “committee,” “donate” and “chip in.” We also searched for ads that used express advocacy language such as, “for Congress,” “vote against,” “elect” or “defeat.” We left out ads with state and local terms such as “governor” or “mayor,” as well as ads from groups such as the White House Historical Association or National Audubon Society that were obviously not election-oriented. Then we examined the ads, including the text and photos or graphics.

Of nearly 70 entities that ran ads with a large photo or graphic in addition to text, only two used all of the required disclaimer language. About 20 correctly indicated in some fashion the name of the committee associated with the ad but omitted other language, such as whether the ad was endorsed by a candidate. The rest had more significant shortcomings. Many of those that didn’t include disclosures were for relatively inexperienced candidates for Congress, but plenty of seasoned lawmakers and major groups failed to use the proper language as well.
For example, one ad said, “It’s time for Donald Trump, his family, his campaign, and all of his cronies to come clean about their collusion with Russia.” A photo of Donald Trump appeared over a black and red map of Russia, overlaid by the text, “Stop the Lies.” The ad urged people to “Demand Answers Today” and “Sign Up.”

At the top, the ad identified the Democratic Party as the sponsor, and linked to the party’s Facebook page. But, under FEC rules, it should have named the funder, the Democratic National Committee, and given the committee’s address or website. It should also have said whether the ad was endorsed by any candidate. It didn’t. The only nod to the national committee was a link to, which is paid for by the DNC, at the bottom of the ad. As on all Facebook ads, the word “Sponsored” was included at the top.

Advertisers seemed more likely to put the proper disclaimers on video ads, especially when those ads appeared to have been created for television, where disclaimers have been mandatory for years. Videos that didn’t look made for TV were less likely to include a disclaimer.

One ad that said it was from Donald J. Trump consisted of 20 seconds of video with an American flag background and stirring music. The words “Donate Now! And Enter for a Chance To Win Dinner With Trump!” materialized on the screen with dramatic thuds and crashes. The ad linked to Trump’s Facebook page, and a “Donate” button at the bottom of the ad linked to a website that identified the president’s re-election committee, Donald J. Trump for President, Inc., as its funder. It wasn’t clear on the ad whether Trump himself or his committee paid for it, which should have been specified under FEC rules.

The large majority of advertisements we collected — both those that used disclosures and those that didn’t — were for liberal groups and politicians, possibly reflecting the allegiances of the ProPublica readers who installed our ad-collection tool. There were only four Republican advertisers among the ads we analyzed.

It’s not clear why advertisers aren’t following the FEC regulations. Keating, of the Institute for Free Speech, suggested that advertisers might think the word “Sponsored” and a link to their Facebook page are enough and that reasonable people would know they had paid for the ad.
Others said social media marketers may simply be slow in adjusting to the FEC opinion.

“It’s entirely possible that because disclaimers haven’t been included for years now, candidates and committees just aren’t used to putting them on there,” said Brendan Fischer, director of the Federal and FEC Reform Program at the Campaign Legal Center, the group that provided legal services to Take Back Action Fund. “But they should be on notice,” he added.

There were only two advertisers we saw that included the full, clear disclosures required by the FEC on their large image ads. One was Amy Klobuchar, a Democratic senator from Minnesota who is a co-sponsor of the Honest Ads Act. The other was John Moser, an IT security professional and Democratic primary candidate in Maryland’s 7th Congressional District who received $190 in contributions last year, according to his FEC filings.

Reached by Facebook Messenger, Moser said he is running because he has a plan for ending poverty in the U.S. by restructuring Social Security into a “universal dividend” that gives everyone over age 18 a portion of the country’s per capita income. He complained that Facebook doesn’t make it easy for political advertisers to include the required disclosures. “You have to wedge it in there somewhere,” said Moser, who faces an uphill battle against longtime U.S. Rep. Elijah Cummings. “They need to add specific support for that, honestly.”

Asked why he went to the trouble to put the words on his ad, Moser’s answer was simple: “I included a disclosure because you're supposed to.”
ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom.  Sign up for their newsletter.

Monday, August 4, 2014

Palin "Challenges" The Washington Post! A Frankenstein MonsterTaking The GOP To The WindMill

Image juxtaposition-ed based on behavior, not a comparison of physicals appearance.

On July 27th Sarah Palin placed this post on her Facebook page.  

Can you think of any reason Palin would reach out and challenge the Washington Post? If you visited the link above, you found out why within the first three sentences of the Facebook post. Palin has adopted "Impeach Obama" as her ticket to increase revenue and a draw viewers for her new cable network.  

Farther into the inane drivel post, Palin proves the full measure of her lack of intellect and a complete absence of judgment.  Take a quick read.

The list of Obama abuses and impeachable offenses is long. I challenge you to lift a finger and help protect democracy, allow justice for all, and ensure domestic tranquility by doing your job reporting current corrupt events fairly. If not, you prove yourselves incompetent and in bed with Obama, not caring one iota about media integrity.
"The list of Obama abuses and impeachable offense is long." 

Palin or someone in her camp wrote. Yet, the opportunist carnival barker fails to name even one "impeachable" offense.  I trust her handlers have informed her the words "High crimes and Misdemeanors" are integral to the congressional action. Actual verbiage from the US Constitution reads as such:
The Constitution, Article II, Section 4: 
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
In any case, the 50 Impeachment votes enacted since ratification of the US Constitution, were performed within the clearly stated script of the Constitution. 

The GOP has flirted with the "I" Word as script for town hall meetings.  But, the talk died-down once the vacationing members of the House returned to DC.

The 2013 House Summer Recess was obviously accompanied with "impeachment" playbook mantra for excitement of those town hall constituents. The chatter stuck with a few members of the House who continue to clamor about "impeachment."  But they are few, yet we must while recognize the House if full of obedient GOP representatives who will vote (lockstep) to cut the branch on which they sit. 

Impeachment dogma reminds of GOP mantra about shutting down the US government from 2009 until they accomplished the $29 billion dollar feat last year. The shutdown was horrid waste of resources, opportunity to address real national issues and  slam against legislative public perception that will accompany an impeachment procedure. Some Palin(esque) members of the House would like nothing better than an impeachment process while they completely shirk any responsibility regarding legislation for the good of the nation. But, know that those members of Congress will avoid stepping into the arena with the Washington Post.  

If you skipped reading the full scope of Palin's Facebook post, it is worth the time and you will not be burden with typical Palin vernacular. Hence, the words seem to come from a ghost writer. 

Palin wrote:

"I challenge you"

If not, you prove yourselves incompetent and in bed with Obama, not caring one iota about media integrity.

Have you ever heard of the psychological states of "delusions of grandeur" or "deluded""delusional?" 

Flawed GOP strategy and extremely poor judgment from GOP power-brokers handed John McCain the Palin Frankenstein Monster and she will not go away. Of course not, she has been given the gift of extreme wealth for simply spewing drivel without any accompanying investment to improve her intellectual capacities. She stated: "I challenge you!";  " bed with Obama!" Can you imagine the scope and weight of a Palin challenge.

Like the fabled Frankenstein Monster's trodding through the countryside and local village, Palin is meandering around destroying the periphery of the GOP and showing a sad  conservative underbelly with personal gain ans impetus.

The Post responded, as anyone with a modicum on intelligence should expect. The Post hit where it had to hurt most, but pulled up shy of a complete nuclear response. Palin's brainless effort to increase her net worth via "challenging" the storied publication was destroyed via her own social networking incompetence. She also fell victim to typical conservative shortsightedness. The attack against the Washington Post on Palin's Facebook page sits mere inches above a post of praise the media giant.  "DUH."

A little contemplation of covering one's backside can ward off plunging a Bonsai Samurai Sword up one's own rear end. And, yes running-up against the Washington Post is comparable to a futile Bosai charge while facing (Palin will  love this) 50 caliber machine gun placements. 

Samuel Warde's Liberals Unite captured the kerfuffle as well as any social media. 

We offer a sample excerpt.
On Monday, Washington Post published a rebuttal to Palin’s post beginning with a video clip of Palin’s now infamous interview with Katie Couric, during which Palin unable to name a single national publication that she read. Couric went on to win a Cronkite Award with the judges calling Couric’s interview with Palin a “defining moment in the 2008 presidential campaign.” A film clip was later leaked showing Couric mocking Palin. 

Below is the clip of Palin fumbling the question about what publications she reads, followed by the Washington Post rebuttal.

Read more via Liberals Unite

As we learned about the GOP's surprise from the North in 2008, we grew (like Katie Couric) to realize she was lacking in something. Early on, it was impossible to discern and define "something", it became obvious shortly thereafter. Palin has a lesser degree of intellect coupled with poor judgment and communication skills more common what has come to be known as the"bimbo." The reference to the gender based "bimbo" shouldn't offend as Palin is a woman. We could have used reference to Pvt. Gomer Pyle, or even better Barney Fife of Andy of Mayberry. 

As Couric spent a few days with the Palin caravan just after her selection to run with McCain, I strongly suspect the astute Couric listened to Palin's communication and realized: "This woman could not be well-read. Who speaks like this?" Thus questions about her reading preferences. Turns out, Palin's answer was an indication of "No reading." A fact that became clear to the rest of the nation once she started to speak before the cameras. It was so bad, the McCain camp withdrew Palin from media questioning, unless McCain was sitting or sitting within feet of the VP candidate.

Palin should consider herself better off the Washington Post exercise the "nuclear option." The publication did not roll-out other evidence of personal issues that center around Paul Revere, role of the vp In the US Senate and "Putin flying over Alaska." 

Let's see how this kerfuffle unfolds.  I will place my money on the Washington Post. But, Palin wins in either case, as people who fall for her false mantra and tune-in to her network have ignored issues of credibility.  We see a win for Palin, but possibly not a win for the GOP. She could be continuing to do for the GOP as the Frankenstein Monster did for his creator.

Whatever the case, Palin will probably think about more before running-up (pit-bull with lipstick) against the Washington Post.


Friday, July 5, 2013

The Defector: Snowden, Liberals, Libertarianism, The Rolling Stones


Ultra liberals are admirable people. They want a society that is humane, civil, helpful to people (in need), abhor self-serving corporatists (plutocrats), and also believe in their interpretation of the US Constitution. Freedom of Speech is a deep-rooted human right and will always receive vehement defense from the Left (even more vehemently from the far Left).   

Personal privacy and our beloved Internet adds additional dynamics to liberal angst in the Edward Snowden defection against the United States.  I can personally recall no issue that has generated more bi-partisan thought and comment from people on the Right and the Left. There actually exist a large group of people on the Left who fall very close to many on the Right in support of Snowden as a harmful tool of espionage (albeit it self-ordained) and defection against US national security. Of even more relevance, the existential reality of Snowden's violation of his sworn commitment to uphold US security related secrets (materiel, procedure and methodology). The act of surreptitious gathering and collecting information outside of his specific area of duty, factually reminds of other US citizens who spied and performed other acts of espionage against the United States. 

Liberal angst against the United States regarding Snowden and his treasonous acts, is misguided and factually dangerous.  Ron Paul has previously stated that other NSA employees should follow Snowden's treasonous acts. Well, such is not a surprise from a libertarian who has publicly espoused legalizing heroin, abolishing the FEMA and being willingly photographed with white supremacist. And, a person who is "the" public figure of current libertarian thought which is as anti- federal government as deep Democrat segregationist of the 1950s and 1960s. The analogy relates to Libertarianism and a collective predominate affinity for "states rights".   When Libertarianism meets deep liberal thought and paradigm on any issues, strange human behavior manifest.   A classic example was a recent exhibition of 'booing" Nancy Pelosi at the Netroots Nation event  at which she stated Snowden had "broken the law."  It was an inarguable point!

The People's View  June 23, 2013
Speaking at Netroots Nation in San Jose, the House Democratic leader said Snowden "did violate the law in terms of releasing those documents," prompting loud boos and heckling from the crowd.

I strongly suspect the very liberals, and progressives who perpetrated the 'booing" of Nancy Pelosi felt a great deal of chagrin during the GOP debate when Rick Perry was behaviorally lauded with loud applause and yelps as he 'bragged' about executions in his state.   We posit the exhibition against Pelosi, like that for Perry from the far Right, was unfair, inappropriate and uncharacteristic of the poli/social Left

There exist an intriguing and interesting set of treatises on Snowden  NSA monitoring, and liberal angst.

The People's View

Sunday, June 23, 2013 |  

What is the key difference between liberals and right wingers? Sure, we have different issue positions, but the difference is deeper than that. Liberals let the facts guide the debate, and conservative wingbats shout down facts they do not like. So Nancy Pelosi went to Netroots Nation in San Jose, CA last night and stated an incontrovertible fact: Edward Snowden violated the law. Video above linked here: 
The reaction? 
Speaking at Netroots Nation in San Jose, the House Democratic leader said Snowden "did violate the law in terms of releasing those documents," prompting loud boos and heckling from the crowd. 
Nancy Pelosi got booed for stating a fact: Edward Snowden violated the law. When facts begin to get booed because they poke holes into your ideological bubble, I humbly suggest you lose the 'progressive' label. 
Constitutional Amendment Rights

The People's View published a piece early this morning about the Fourth Amendment in the context of a crash course spanning NSA Programs and the Constitution. 
A Crash Course in the NSA Programs and the Fourth Amendment
While out of chronological context, we offer yet another and final piece from The People's View dated July 2nd, 2013.

Liberal Obama hatred from the Left
How the Professional Left's Blind Obama Hatred Got them Played by a Far-Right Nutjob
Some outlets reported last week that NSA leaker and fugitive Edward Snowden was caught into a bit of hypocrisy: public chat records indicate that back in the ancient times of 2009, he wanted leakers "shot in the balls."
Spandan C continued.
Yeah, he said that. But that's not all he said. Oh, no. The Technology site Ars Technica posted extensive public chat logs from Snowden, then using the monkier TheTrueHOOHA, that confirms what I had suspected since finding his campaign contributions to Glenn Greenwald's straight crush Ron Paul.
So let's talk about this man that has been granted hero status by the Left's loudest prognosticators and provocateurs. The transcripts released by Ars Technica are about a lot more than Snowden's previous contempt for leakers. He hated social security, loved Ron Paul and his ideas, and peddled the NRA's garbage about fighting the government with guns. He suggested punishing both leakers and publications that publish the leaks. All in all, Edward Snowden is a right wing, anti-government nutjob who has managed to become the hero of so many on the reactionary Left. (Highlight above by Scandan C).
Read more (A must read)

I doubt one American relishes the thought of an over-hanging monitoring authority snooping into our personal communications. In an idle world, I would certainly stand tall in solidarity with the sentiment. We are not, however, living in the 1700s, thus our communication reaches far beyond face-to-face talk, carrier pigeons, or night riders (such As Paul Revere. And, no he did not warn the British Mrs. Palin). Technology has taken communication right into our private lives (via cellular phones) and our dinning room tables via laptop computers). The very same communication quorums are available to people who would do the nation great harm. Factually, Osama bin Laden was discovered to have Bradley Manning leaked materiel on his Laptop.

It does not take a multi-billion dollar reverse engineering laboratory for urban and field enemies to determine actionable intelligence from leaks as those perpetrated by Snowden.

Have we become nascent haters of the Administration because it is a progressive Administration, and "...should not act as such?"  Or, have we become so mistrusting of the president we feel he has factually transformed into a reincarnation of George W. Bush.  I posit we know better!

We agree completely with The People's View. Rights to privacy are sacred. Rights to open communication is sacred. We feel strongly monitoring of communications via NON-SNOOPING data-mining does not constitute "listening" to our calls. 

The Left must realize there is a social political entity sitting in wait for disgruntled voters to lean in their direction. No one from the far Left will ever support anything right of the nation's poli/social center.  There are, and dangerously so, large swaths of voters who are falling victim to the non-reality of snooping into their private lives, succumbing to the freight mongers who could be anti-federal government (particularly with Barack Obama in the White House), and they may succumb to moneyed plutocrats who stand to benefit from unhappiness, a lack of solidarity and malcontent on the Left. Lest we forget major danger in falling for the Snowden political moves (and defection) which factually benefit "non-friendly" international adversaries.

Finally, Mick Jagger's quip as the Rolling Stones ended their DC show, was somewhat ill-advised. While it is refreshing to see the elderly rocker is up on the NSA monitoring program, we have to realize he is also "up-on" the very malcontent we have addressed in this shared piece with The People's View.  Jagger was probably seeking a bit of "We know your issues (in the States) and we find alleged snooping distasteful" humor.  OK, fine, but Jagger received major boos. We do not know if the boos referenced NSA monitoring, President Obama (as named), of Jagger's foray into US social issues.  

Of particular note, we can find no record Jagger criticized the former President for an INTEL program that started as far back as 2002.  He did not speakout when Verizon admitted to cooperation via monitoring by the FBI/NSA in 2006. Nor, did the elderly rocker speak so boldly about allegations that members of the British Government may have been on the take with Ruppert Murdoch's News Corps reporters and executives.

A little something for Jagger.

It really is sad to the elder statesman of rock, via quip, inadvertently aligned with people such as the following. The ever-present "separatist/segregationist/opportunistic" Rand Paul goes public.

Huff Post (Linked above)
Conservatives were quick to jump on the comment. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) tweeted the quote Tuesday morning, much to the delight of his followers (in less than 2 hours, the below tweet dialed up three times the number of retweets as Rand's previous tweet, which was posted 20 hours ago).

Senator Rand Paul

“I don’t think President Obama is here tonight, but I’m sure he’s listening in.” - Mick Jagger, last night in concert in Washington.

There are times when it is best for entertainers to stick with what they know and do best when they not longstanding advocates for issues from the stage.  The Stones are not noted for such political alignment.

In fairness, and as indicated via update in the linked Huff Post piece above, Jagger tweeted a days or so later support for Obama's climate change initiatives.

The foibles on the Left and 'slick' operatives who support the latest US Defector: Edward Snowden.

Friday, April 26, 2013

Jon Stewart, US Constitution, FoxPEN, Bush Library Day (YAWN)

UPWORTHY Shares Jon Stewart placing FOX and Hannity in perspective.
Rollie WilliamsMore from Rollie »
I'm not sure which show makes more sense to be on Comedy Central. Jon Stewart is a pretty funny dude, but smart money says the real comedic geniuses are working at Fox News (buried deep inside the subconsciouses of the Fox anchors).

For reference, the first 10 amendments are:
1 - Protects freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of the press, as well as the right to assemble and petition the government. 
2 - Protects a militia's and an individual's right to bear arms. 
3 - Prohibits the forced quartering of soldiers during peacetime. 
4 - Prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and sets out requirements for search warrants based on probable cause. 
5 - Sets out rules for indictment by grand jury and eminent domain, protects the right to due process, and prohibits self-incrimination and double jeopardy. 
6 - Protects the right to a fair and speedy public trial by jury, including the rights to be notified of the accusations, to confront the accuser, to obtain witnesses and to retain counsel. 
7 - Provides for the right to trial by jury in certain civil cases, according to common law. 
8 - Prohibits excessive fines and excessive bail, as well as cruel and unusual punishment. 
9 - Protects rights not enumerated in the Constitution. 
10 - Limits the powers of the federal government to those delegated to it by the Constitution.
Jon Stewart encore (The Bush Library)