Delegates are not bound who they have to vote for. With this news, Ron Paul should win the Republican nomination over Mitt Romney. After that statistics show Ron Paul would beat Obama. So, President Paul… that’s got a nice ring to it.
In what may be the most stunning revelation of the ongoing GOP presidential nomination process, it has been discovered that in 2008, the RNC Legal Counsel legally interpreted the RNC rules and concluded that all delegates, regardless of state party rules, could vote for whomever he or she chooses at the Republican National Convention. This legal inquiry by the RNC was the result of a delegate’s desire not to vote for a candidate who did not represent his principles. The significance of this legal interpretation by the RNC lawyers is that all delegates are free to vote for any candidate regardless of any such “binding”. Because the RNC was the organization that conducted this legal examination, their ruling trumps all state GOP rules.
Just like he told you, Ron Paul is continuing to rack up delegates and outright state wins in his continuing race for the Republican Party presidential nomination. In the Minnesota state Republican Party convention on Saturday, he came out controlling 32 of 40 delegates from the state.
The Park Rapids Enterprise reports on how Paul, who showed up to talk to his people at the convention the day before the final delegate vote, was received:
To chants of “President Paul,” 2,000 Minnesota convention delegates welcomed the Texas congressman and presidential candidate.
“There are a lot of friends of liberty in this town,” Paul said….
U.S. Senate candidate Kurt Bills endorsed Paul and Paul endorsed Bills. The Senate candidate said he will continue to back Paul until he is out of the race.
Several convention observers said that while Paul was well received, they did not hear probable Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney mentioned during the day-long convention.
Paul, who finished second to Rick Santorum in this year’s precinct caucuses, told the Republicans that it is not just their party that latches onto his ideas.
“It is much, much bigger than this,” he added, saying that independents “and even Democrats” support his ideas.
In 10 or 15 years from now, when gay marriage is legal in every state, historians will look back on days like today. They will be amazed that people actually thought it was really controversial that the President of the United States would say he was in support of it. I think it will be like now looking back on African American and woman rights. All the people on the wrong side of history today need to remember this day because I imagine there will be a lot of apologizing in your future.
Ron Paul wins state number eight… and counting. The binding rule the guy in this video is talking about is real easy to get around I’ve been learning. None of these Ron Paul delegates will be voting for Mitt Romney in Tampa… it’s gonna be all Ron Paul. I can’t wait to see what happens. Occupy Wall Street couldn’t be more pleased.
You probably didn’t know this but Ron Paul has been winning state after state after state. You probably didn’t hear about this information, but it’s happening. His organized grass roots campaigns are locking up more delegates than anyone else. He has a chance to win Texas and even California as it stands. He will take Florida and has already taken states like Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, and Louisiana. It will be interesting to see what happens in the next 30 days. And, statistics show if it’s a Ron Paul/Obama election, Ron Paul will win. Ron Paul is quietly becoming our next President of the United States.
It has become incredibly frustrating to deal with people who erroneously believe that Obama and his administration will live up to a single claim, promise, or statement. Especially since neither Obama nor his pals have given us a single reason to trust them while giving us tons of reasons not to, not the least of which being the fact that they claim they can kill you or me whenever they please, based on policies which they repeatedly have refused to justify in a court of law.
Back when the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 was being pushed through the House and Senate and making its way towards Obama’s desk I attempted to make it clear that the Obama administration’s supposed intention to veto the bill was nothing more than theater.
Of course, he ended up signing the bill with a meaningless signing statement claiming that he “signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists.”
Video documentation by local activists and independent media shows that police officers and county deputies from across Minnesota have been picking up young people near Peavey Plaza for a training program to recognize drug-impaired drivers. Multiple participants say officers gave them illicit drugs and provided other incentives to take the drugs. The Occupy Wall Street movement, present at Peavey Plaza since April 7th, appears to be targeted as impaired people are dropped off at the Plaza, and others say they’ve been rewarded for offering to snitch on the movement.
Protesters across the world hit the streets Tuesday on May Day to rally against austerity measures and call for higher wages and more jobs.
Marches turned violent in Oakland, where protesters pounded on bank windows and went face-to-face with a police line, and in Seattle, where protesters dressed in black smashed windows and police pepper-sprayed some in the crowds.
In the United States, the protests are seen as the biggest test for the Occupy movement since many of its camps were shuttered late last year. Occupiers in more than 100 cities across the country were expected to protest on the day that traditionally celebrates workers’ rights.
Up until this afternoon, the final vote on CISPA was supposed to be tomorrow. Then, abruptly, it was moved up today—and the House voted in favor of its passage with a vote of 248-168. But that’s not even the worst part.
The vote followed the debate on amendments, several of which were passed. Among them was an absolutely terrible change (pdf and embedded below—scroll to amendment #6) to the definition of what the government can do with shared information, put forth by Rep. Quayle. Astonishingly, it was described as limiting the government’s power, even though it in fact expands it by adding more items to the list of acceptable purposes for which shared information can be used. Even more astonishingly, it passed with a near-unanimous vote. The CISPA that was just approved by the House is much worse than the CISPA being discussed as recently as this morning.
Previously, CISPA allowed the government to use information for “cybersecurity” or “national security” purposes. Those purposes have not been limited or removed. Instead, three more valid uses have been added: investigation and prosecution of cybersecurity crime, protection of individuals, and protection of children. Cybersecurity crime is defined as any crime involving network disruption or hacking, plus any violation of the CFAA.
Basically this means CISPA can no longer be called a cybersecurity bill at all. The government would be able to search information it collects under CISPA for the purposes of investigating American citizens with complete immunity from all privacy protections as long as they can claim someone committed a “cybersecurity crime”. Basically it says the 4th Amendment does not apply online, at all. Moreover, the government could do whatever it wants with the data as long as it can claim that someone was in danger of bodily harm, or that children were somehow threatened—again, notwithstanding absolutely any other law that would normally limit the government’s power.
The US House of Representatives has just passed the controversial Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, or CISPA (HR 3523) by a vote of 248 to 168. The bill passed mostly along party lines, backed by House Republicans. While the bill is intended to safeguard the US against “cyber threats,” critics say that it is too vague and broad, and would give government and military intelligence agencies the ability to inspect private data without the use of warrants. While the bill hasn’t garnered the same level of outrage as SOPA did in recent months from companies like Google or Facebook (Facebook supports CISPA), web advocates have been vocal in their opposition to the bill.
The Obama administration has already strongly opposed CISPA and threatened to veto it, so it’s not likely that this particular version of the bill will pass. The White House says that the bill lacks civilian oversight and privacy protections, and that “without clear legal protections and independent oversight, information sharing legislation will undermine the public’s trust in the government as well as in the internet by undermining fundamental privacy, confidentiality, civil liberties, and consumer protections.” Still, the White House has signaled that it is interested in some form of cyber security bill, so this won’t likely be its final act.
Occupy Wall Street has been told that Obama plans to veto this bill if it goes before him, so that’s good. But who are these 248 representatives passing this bill? The people have already spoken on this bill. The only thing I can think of is that they are obligated to because their lobbyists and Hollywood has financially been treating them too well. I can’t wait for things to change in the future when people wise up and get these scum, who can be bought, out of office.
President Barack Obama has announced fresh sanctions against Iran, Syria and those who help them use technology to perpetrate human rights abuses.
The executive order creates sanctions against the government of Syria and Iran “and those who abet them, for using technologies to monitor, target and track its citizens for violence”.
“These technologies should be in place to empower citizens, not to repress them,” said Mr Obama.
And yet we have CISPA.
What about the citizens of the US? Will we be taking sanctions against the companies and organizations that track and monitor us? Against those that provide the tools and technologies to do so?
More to the point: Will the US government sanction itself?
The open internet group EFF has warned that CISPA’s broad wording could class many routine internet activities, such as using encryption on emails or enabling anonymity using a service called TOR, as potential threats.
“Any existing legal protections of user privacy will be usurped by CISPA,” the EFF claims. “The bill clearly states that the information may be shared ‘notwithstanding any other provision of law.’”
CISPA could allow any private company to share vast amounts of sensitive, private data about its customers with the government.
CISPA would override all other federal and state privacy laws, and allow a private company to share nearly anything—from the contents of private emails and Internet browsing history to medical, educational and financial records—as long as it “directly pertains to” a “cyber threat,” which is broadly defined.
CISPA does not require that data shared with the government be stripped of unnecessary personally-identifiable information. A private company may choose to anonymize the data it shares with the government. However, there is no requirement that it does so—even when personally-identifiable information is unnecessary for cybersecurity measures. For example, emails could be shared with the full names of their authors and recipients. A company could decide to leave the names of its customers in the data it shares with the government merely because it does not want to incur the expense of deleting them. This is contrary to the recommendations of the House Republican Cybersecurity Task Force and other bills to authorize information sharing, which require companies to make a reasonable effort to minimize the sharing of personally-identifiable information.
CISPA would allow the government to use collected private information for reasons other than cybersecurity. The government could use any information it receives for “any lawful purpose” besides “regulatory purposes,” so long as the same use can also be justified by cybersecurity or the protection of national security. This would provide no meaningful limit—a government official could easily create a connection to “national security” to justify nearly any type of investigation.
CISPA would give Internet Service Providers free rein to monitor the private communications and activities of users on their networks. ISPs would have wide latitude to do anything that can be construed as part of a “cybersecurity system,” regardless of any other privacy or telecommunications law.
CISPA would empower the military and the National Security Agency (NSA) to collect information about domestic Internet users. Other information sharing bills would direct private information from domestic sources to civilian agencies, such as the Department of Homeland Security. CISPA contains no such limitation. Instead, the Department of Defense and the NSA could solicit and receive information directly from American companies, about users and systems inside the United States.
CISPA places too much faith in private companies, to safeguard their most sensitive customer data from government intrusion. While information sharing would be voluntary under CISPA, the government has a variety of ways to pressure private companies to share large volumes of customer information. With complete legal immunity, private companies have few clear incentives to resist such pressure. There is also no requirement that companies ever tell their customers what they have shared with the government, either before or after the fact. As informed consumers, Americans expect technology companies to have clear privacy policies, telling us exactly how and when the company will use and share our personal data, so that we can make informed choices about which companies have earned our trust and deserve our business.