Jan 30, 2014

Prisme à travers prisme de la Constitution

Prisme à travers prisme de la Constitution
Comme un conservateur pro - défense , j'ai mes doutes sérieux quant à la légitimité de Prisme de la NSA et de programmes connexes qui rassemblent une quantité massive d'informations privées sur tous les Américains et clairement ( à mon avis ) viole la Constitution .
On nous dit qu'il n'y a pas eu d' abus signalés de ces programmes . Qui savoir si elles ont été la cible illégalement ? Il s'agit d'un programme secret, après tout . Si Snowden n'avait pas divulgué certaines informations , il a obtenu de manière frauduleuse , nous aurions à ce jour n'ont aucune connaissance de ses crimes .
La Constitution et la Déclaration des droits ont été expressément conçus pour limiter et de diffuser le pouvoir du gouvernement fédéral par l'entremise des pouvoirs énumérés , divers freins et contrepoids , et clairement définis protection des droits civils pour les citoyens .
L'argument selon lequel le gouvernement devrait intercepter et maintenir les communications téléphoniques et électroniques sur tous les Américains parce que les compagnies de téléphone et les fournisseurs de services Internet possèdent déjà cette information est grotesque . Il fait partie du travail de ces entreprises à maintenir certains documents pour leurs clients , comme requis par la loi .
Dominé dans tous les dissimuler sur cette question cruciale de la vie privée est que le secteur privé ne possède pas le pouvoir coercitif de l'État. En outre , ces entreprises agissent effectivement comme un tampon entre les individus et le gouvernement .
Une raison principale pour exiger du gouvernement de délivrer des mandats individu ( et non couverture ) dans des cas précis est de garder le gouvernement d'abuser de son pouvoir . C'est la principale préoccupation rédacteurs et il devrait nous être ainsi .

de Daniel Borchers à www.CoulterWatch.com

voici un lien sur le site de Dan :

http://www.coulterwatch.com/

translated on google translate

Chicago State University is the best place for President Obama's library

Chicago State University Campus is the right place for The Obama Library.

Chicago State is the Right Place for President Obama's Library

The Presidential Library is definitely coming to Chicago. Mayor Rahm Emanuel wants a unified effort instead of scattered sources going after it and we miss it. Other cities vying are Hawaii and New York. The President loves Hawaii, it is where he spent his childhood years and he lived in New York as an undergraduate. These are all the right places for sentimental reasons. The University of Illinois is in the running simply because they are on the map. They will be considered only because they are in Chicago. The Mayor is absolutely correct in insisting on a unified effort. Certainly he will be an important factor in the money raise.

Chicago is the right place

Chicago is the place for the library without doubt. It is politically logical. This is where Barack Obama took political root. The South Side of Chicago is home for First Lady , Michelle, and this is where he is registered to vote. Chicago is home. End of story. Now, where should the library locate? Being considered is the old Michael Reese Hospital land on 31st Street. The land is vacant, clear and ready for construction. However, it would be a very expensive proposition. So I say no.

The University of Chicago is a good choice. It is where President and the First Lady had professional careers. The President taught Constitution Law at the University. Michelle worked at the Hospital, best friends Eric Whitaker has held executive position. Good friends, Valerie Jarrett and John Rogers have been board members. And the Obama girls attended Lab School. Political guru, David Axelrod, is now a faculty member. Good connections. And of course, The University of Chicago, has all the means in the world to raise the necessary funds to make it happen. With all of this said, it is not the best place for the library.

I hope Chicago State University receives the Obama Library. Here’s why. First of all this is the community where Obama was a “community organizer.” I think he is the only president who rose to the presidency tracked from the community. This location would give rise to the University status and stature on the world stage. The community that Obama worked for would positively change and benefit. The library could be an economic engine for the South Side where he worked as a community organizer and served as a State Senator. Secondly, the University established a library of Black State Legislators and the President should be added to the legacy with his presidential papers. Thirdly, The Obama Library, would be the first ever to be located on a Black University campus. The institution would strengthen and young people of Chicago would be inspired. The placement of the library on this site would be historical and inspirational. This is the hallmark of his two term presidency. What better legacy?

Politics will come in to play

The politics of the situation are clear. Marty Nesbitt, one of the President's best friends will chair the charge. Former Mayor Richard Daley would be a great addition to the library team. This will come down with Mayor Emanuel pulling for The University of Chicago and former President of the State Senate, Emile Jones, pushing for Chicago State. Both strong voices will be heard. There would be no President Obama had it not been for the initial political skill of Senator Jones. Much will be said about the University of Chicago’s capital raise versus Chicago State University. But raising money is easily negotiated. After all the President’s library is the President’s Library.

It would be so nice to see a unified effort behind Chicago State University.

Where do you think the President’s library should be?

copied from N'DIGO

PRISM Through Prism of Constitution

As a pro-defense conservative, I have my serious doubts about the legitimacy of NSA’s PRISM and related programs which gather a massive amount of private information on all Americans and clearly (in my view) violates the Constitution.

We are told that there have been no reported abuses of these programs. Who would know whether they have been illegally targeted? It’s a secret program, after all. If Snowden had not leaked some of the information he fraudulently obtained, we would to this day have no knowledge of his crimes.

The Constitution and Bill of Rights were expressly designed to limit and diffuse the power of the federal government through enumerated powers, various checks and balances, and clearly defined civil rights protections for the citizenry.

The argument that the government should intercept and maintain telephone and email communications on all Americans because telephone companies and Internet providers already possess that information is farcical. It is part of the job of those companies to maintain certain records for their customers, as required by law.

Overlooked in all the dissembling on this critical privacy issue is that the private sector does not possess the coercive power of government. Moreover, those businesses actually act as a buffer between individuals and the government.

One primary reason for requiring the government to issue individual (and not blanket) warrants in specific instances is to keep the government from abusing its power. That was the Framers primary concern and it should be ours as well.

from Daniel Borchers at www.CoulterWatch.com

here is a link to Dan's website:

http://www.coulterwatch.com/

President Obama: Are you ready for O'Reilly

Good job--that is O'Reilly's and Hannity's favorite game--why won't you just answer the question when the premise of the question is ridiculous. I am guessing President Obama may be on to this since he is the President and pretty good with words himself. The other false premise...the folks. Remember, this is from someone who just discovered Pandora......Bill often says he is the only one looking out for the folks. Bill fails to take into consideration the folks elected President Obama twice. Could Bill's folks actually be the 500 dollar ticket payers for the meet and greet portion of his bolder and fresher gig, as it was here in San Diego. The regular tickets were about 100 dollars. I am afraid Bill may live in a slightly smaller world mentally than President Obama but he certainly does not want anyone to tell him that.

Dear President Obama: How to Survive a Bill O’Reilly Interview

JANUARY 30, 2014 | 07:16AM PT

Brian Lowry

TV Columnist@blowryontv

Dear President Obama:

You might not realize this, but ever since it was announced that Bill O’Reilly would interview you again on Super Bowl Sunday, he’s been strategizing – sometimes on air – about how best to conduct the conversation.

And while I suspect you have handlers who are charged with preparing you for these bouts, most of them probably aren’t as familiar with the tale of the tape on an unpredictable foe like O’Reilly as I am.

For starters, while this might be just another interview for you, it’s a major event for Bill, especially since this might be his last crack at you during your presidency, and almost certainly his last exposure on this sort of vast stage for several years.

Moreover, O’Reilly will relive this moment by chewing over, analyzing and running clips for days to come. (Just to make sure the reviews are good, he’ll enlist sycophants like Bernard Goldberg and Dennis Miller to reassure him how great he was.)

O’Reilly not only does this sort of thing every day, but he takes pride in presenting himself as the kind of hard-nosed reporter and surrogate for “the folks” who won’t give you a pass, unlike all those mainstream news outlets. And because he does have a way of interrupting and saying unexpected things, he can easily put even a skilled communicator off his game.

So if you want to survive an O’Reilly interview without him laying a glove on you — from the president on down to an ordinary guest — here are some steps to follow:

Flatter him. (Key phrase: “I respect what you do.”) Like a lot of news talent, O’Reilly has a healthy ego. He’s just a bigger, more exaggerated version – Papa Bear, as Stephen Colbert puts it. Getting an “atta boy” from the President of the United States can’t help but turn his head a little, even if many of his viewers see you as a socialist who is secretly trying to destroy America.

Establish rank early. (Key phrase: “Please let me finish my thought.” Repeat if necessary.) OK, this one obviously doesn’t apply to everyone. O’Reilly does a nice job keeping guests off balance by interrupting them. You’ll have to remind him – a few times, probably – that you are the President of the United States, not some professor from a liberal-arts college he booked as a straw man to slap around.

Don’t accept the way he frames issues. (Key phrase: “The premise of your question is flawed.”) O’Reilly has a way of presenting things as if they were conventional wisdom – like the fact he speaks for “the folks” – when they’re often open to debate. Knock him off stride by reframing the conversation, then asking him to defend a line of attack meant to put and keep you on the ropes.

Find common ground. (Key phrase: “You have critics, Bill. Is everything they say about you true?”) O’Reilly is terribly sensitive to criticism, which is why raising the issue of critics will put him on his heels. Bill can’t stand the fact some guy at Mediamatters.org sends out emails detailing his excesses; imagine how he’d feel if the entire Republican Party and 30 think tanks were devoted to it.

Do not joke with him. This is very important. Bill O’Reilly thinks he can be funny, but he has very little sense of humor when it comes to himself. So as much as you might see an opportunity to share a laugh, odds are he’ll see that as obfuscation or a stalling tactic. If you’re going to try to tell a joke or lighten things up, save it for the very end.

Do not lump him in with Fox News. Although he has spent 17 years living adjacent to Sean Hannity, O’Reilly considers himself a very different animal from that sort of raw partisanship. On Wednesday, for example, he endorsed President Obama’s push to increase the minimum wage — and chided Republicans for not getting behind the idea.

So if you say anything about Fox News – and he’s likely to ask, given how indignant the network was about comments pertaining to the network in your recent New Yorker interview – be clear that you are referring to the most ardent partisan voices on Fox, not him.

About that “last word” he’ll promise you… While Bill might say, “I’ll give you the last word,” trust me, you will not get the last word.

Bottom line: His show; his rules. And incidentally, if members of your staff didn’t come up with a list like this, then they’re not looking out for you.

from variety.......

Freighter Travel: Cheaper and Longer

Jan. 30, 2014 10:55 a.m. ET

Enlarge Image

SHIP TO SHORE | A view from the RMS St Helena, which travels between Cape Town, St. Helena and Ascension Island in the South Atlantic Ocean. Alamy

WHEN THE CARGO liner CMA CGM Figaro comes into New York Bay, she does so with shipping containers stacked high on her deck, like enormous Lego bricks. From shore, one can only guess at what she's carrying. Electronics from Yokohama? Maybe. Clothing from Hong Kong? Possibly. A swimming pool and a few paying passengers? Very likely.

The pool is pretty much where the similarities with a traditional cruise begin and end. A mega-liner like Royal Caribbean's RCL +2.49% Oasis of the Seas can carry more than 6,000 passengers; most freighters (if they take guests) top out at about 12. There is no rock wall. No spa. Cabins, though they tend to be spacious, are utilitarian (imagine yourself on the SS IKEA). Instead of a dozen restaurants operating around the clock, cargo ships have officers' dining rooms that serve meals at appointed times.

For some, the appeal of freighter travel is the prospect for a "Fantastic Voyage"-like journey through the arteries of global commerce. Others like the idea of seeing little-known destinations, like Pago Pago in American Samoa, or relish the opportunity to read and write in near isolation. (Internet connectivity, via satellite, is limited at best.) And unlike with a traditional cruise, it is often possible to arrange passage over just a segment of a ship's route—for instance, if you wanted to get to Europe without flying.

Even the shortest leg, however, requires both time and flexibility. A 20-day voyage might come in at 19 or 22, as commerce and weather dictate. Rates start at about $130 a day. Working with a specialist travel agent is not just advised, it's pretty much mandatory.

Cargo ships travel the world without consideration of tourist season or how sandy nearby beaches are; if there is a deep port there is probably a ship to get you there. Click the mapto view a few of the more compelling trips available.

View Graphics

Illustration by Michael Byers for The Wall Street Journal

Explore More

copied from the wsj

Jan 29, 2014

George Strombo and Larry King: CNN, find your head and put it on

HBO is looking for a HBO New Media Asset Specialist. next job

CNN

Larry King: ‘CNN’s Got Problems’

By Jordan Chariton on January 29, 2014 3:45 PM

Larry King said he occasionally misses CNN, but he’s not ignoring his longtime network’s ratings woes.

“I miss it when there’s big stories but on a day-to-day basis I don’t,” King said in an interview with HuffPost Live today. The former network star also addressed their struggles: “CNN’s got problems,” he said. “I don’t know what they’re going to do.”

“Cartoons” he joked as advice for CNN Worldwide President Jeff Zucker. “Put ‘Spongebob’ on CNN— 24 hours— until a big story breaks. Then we break into ‘Spongebob,’ and go to the hurricane, and then back to ‘Spongebob.’” (Speaking of big breaks, King told us about his last year.)

King also didn’t shy away from Fox News and MSNBC.

“Fox News is so successful, but obviously, ‘fair and balanced,’ cmon…who we kidding?” King said. “I like Roger (Ailes)…but they are certainly not an impartial news network.”

Answering host Marc Lamont Hill‘s question on MSNBC, King said it was pretty much as “knee jerk” as Fox, but that it doesn’t “go out and hire guys who’ve run for office on the Democratic ticket.”

It should be noted that “The Cycle” co-host Krystal Ball ran for Congress in 2010, and Fox News suspended then political contributors Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum back in 2011 when it became likely they were running for president.

Tags: Jeff Zucker, Krystal Ball, Larry King, Marc Lamont Hill, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum

copied from mediabistro.co tv newser

Saturday Construction Class Update from Susan Lazear

Hi all (again)

If you are interested in registering for the Fash 130 (Construction) and
Fashion 199A (Lab)class being held on Saturdays this semester, you will need
to use an Add Code.

Please email Anna Marie Phillips, (fabricprincess@cox.net)
or myself, Susan Lazear, (slazear@sdccd.edu) for an add code for both the
lecture and lab.

Susan

Geraldo Radio Today: Ari Fleischer says Rand Paul is a waste of time

Ari Fleischer, former press sec to President Bush.

On Geraldo Radio today, WABC New York--right off the bat Geraldo asked his guest Ari Fleischer what he thought of the words of Rand Paul giving his thoughts on the state of the Union by President Obama and taking the opportunity to bash President Clinton.

Ari said, "Bringing up President Clinton and his indiscretions is a waste of time. Our country already went through that. That kind of talk does not do anything for the progress of the republican party or win elections."

Those were refreshing words, repub or dem, hate talk does not solve problems. What in the world was the purpose of those ideas of Rand Paul other than to be self serving.

Ari, who is your idea for the republican candidate.

Good job, Ari, and thank you for telling us your thoughts today.

Jan 28, 2014

There, Chris Matthews--Take That: Larry Hancock Solves the JFK Murder Mystery

New post on Larry Hancock

Smoking Gun

by Larry Hancock

Readers of SWHT and NEXUS are aware that they present some pretty tightly focused scenarios for both the JFK conspiracy and the coverup; with SWHT being more detailed on the coverup and NEXUS on the origins, nature and individuals involved in the actual Dallas attack itself. Unfortunately because of the size (and depth I suppose) of SWHT, certain key things get missed even by repeat readers. Bill Simpich and I had a discussion of that the other day. Bill is wrapping up the final chapter of his new boolork - hopefully everyone is following it chapter by chapter on the Mary Ferrell web site. One of the things he called me about was to discuss what we both feel is a "smoking gun" event that further points the figure at some of the key figures involved in the Kennedy assassination.

If you have SWHT, I'd refer you to Chapter 9, page 126 which starts a discussion of "A political H bomb". This is in the chapter on John Roselli and it begins in 1966, years after the murder of the president, with Roselli himself still under FBI surveillance and with Hoover still putting on pressure to deport him as an illegal alien. Its probably safe to say that at that point the last thing in the world Roselli should or would want is to raise his profile with any government agency. Yet what it does, beginning in December of 1966 is to expose himself as a major potential political problem to a host of figures involving not only the FBI and CIA but President Johnson and ultimately the public via Jack Anderson and Drew Pearson.

What he does is detailed in the book, but essentially its to offer concrete information that President Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy, that the conspiracy involved CIA trained Cuban exiles who had been prepared and were being used by the CIA to assassinate Fidel Castro inside Cuba. Given that Roselli was personally involved in multiple assassination efforts, using Cuban exiles, for several years, that would seem to give him a good deal of credibility on the subject - indeed Johnson took it seriously enough to call in the CIA Director and force him to spill the details on the assassination project, something Nixon himself attempted without success during his administration.

Of course Roselli did put just a bit of spin on the story, claiming that the Cuban exiles had been captured inside Cuba and sent back by Castro to kill Kennedy under his direction - now exactly how Roselli would know that is a good question, how Castro would control them another and what happened to them afterwards an equally good question. Strangely, nobody seems to have asked Roselli such questions - not then and apparently not even later during his congressional committee interviews. Well at least when I wrote SWHT it seemed nobody had; more recently new research suggests that following his effort to promote the story, the CIA took Johnny into a safehouse in Maryland and held a chat with him that lasted some two weeks.

But even more interesting than that, is that Bill Simpich has turned up the point that Jack Anderson and Pearson eventually received corroboration of the Roselli story - from none other than William Harvey, the man who worked with Roselli on the assassination projects. Roselli and Harvey had become close, much to the dismay of the CIA but for Harvey to actually confirm the assassination story is a really big deal; we can only wonder what the CIA thought about that.

Now - to the even larger question, the smoking gun - why in the world would first Roselli and then William Harvey, bring such a story to Earl Warren, the Secret Service, the FBI, the White House and the press (all of which other than the press showed no interest at all). And why in the late winter of 1966. The answer is that the Garrison investigation was just getting into swing but was very closely held at that point. The only outsider who knew about it, and who would later blow it to the press, was Bernardo de Torres, the private investigator Garrison's people were referred to in Miami to chase down exile leads to the assassination.

What stimulated John Roselli to a very risky outreach, what led William Harvey to back him up in a preemptive strike supporting conspiracy, but a very special "Castro used CIA trained Cuban exiles" to kill JFK scenario. I'd suggest the two were warned by their gatekeepers in Miami and decided they had best move to take control of the situation by getting ahead of Garrison and also by making key folks in Washington extremely nervous. The details of how they did that and exactly how nervous Johnson became are in SWHT. My point is that in this case, rather than constantly looking for the "smoking gun" in the TSBD, taking a broader view of the assassination can be very useful.

Alan Dale and I are doing some further work on this matter and hopefully before too long we may be able to record a discussion of the Roselli/Harvey/Angleton connection and explore Roselli's very strange public outreach on conspiracy in much more detail.

-- Larry

copied from the website of Larry Hancock and the title is added by the ronnie re.