News, Entertainment, Enlightenment
Fourth Amendment advocate and international fugitive Edward Snowden says Dropbox, the cloud storage service, is “very hostile to privacy” reports PCWorld.com.
He is recommending that those with a need for cloud storage use companies that practice “zero-knowledge”, means that the data is encrypted before it reaches the cloud and the key remains with the user.
He cited Spider Oak as an example.
Of course, unlike with Dropbox, if you lose your password with Spider Oak you files are lost forever.
By John Fund
Courtesy of National Review
With less than four months to go until Election Day, Democrats increasingly have no confidence in the Obama White House’s political instincts. As a result, more and more Democratic candidates are avoiding the president when he comes to their neighborhood. Senator Mark Udall famously avoided showing up with Obama at a fundraiser in the senator’s honor in Colorado last week. John Foust, the Democratic congressional candidate in a suburban Virginia district just outside Washington, D.C., snubbed the president this week by failing to show up for a presidential event in his area.
Representative Henry Cuellar of Texas was flabbergasted by Obama’s petulant refusal to visit the Texas border last week, calling him “aloof” and “detached” and his decision “bizarre.”
The Virginia Progress PAC, a Democratic committee supporting Senator Mark Warner, issued a list of talking points for potential donors that laid out the challenge the Obama albatross represents for Democrats this fall: “The 2014 midterm elections are shaping up to be similar to the wave elections of 1994 and 2010, particularly with an unpopular President and an unpopular piece of major legislation that will serve as a referendum on the sitting President. . . . A difficult political climate coupled with the rising unpopularity of President Obama could affect the Democratic brand as a whole and hurt Senator Warner.”
Bob Beckel, a former Democratic campaign consultant, said on Fox News this week that he spoke with a Democrat “intimately involved in [Obama’s] campaigns, both of them.” The message was sobering: “He said you have to know what it’s like to get through [presidential counselor] Valerie Jarrett and Michelle Obama, and I think that’s a tough deal for anybody on a staff to do. . . . [Obama] lives in a zone that nobody else goes to.”
Indeed, Democrats are becoming increasingly vocal about their concern that their president is isolated and not connecting with the political reality around him. “The Democratic party is like a wedding party with the common goal of getting to the ceremony on time,” a former Democratic congressman told me. “There is a caravan of cars, but the lead car is driven by a guy who is weaving in and out of traffic and is dangerous to the other cars behind him. Do you follow the guy you agreed to follow, or do you make your own way to the wedding? More and more people are leaving the caravan.”
All of Washington is talking about our detached president — one who would go to two fundraisers in New York last night after a plane carrying 23 Americans was shot down over Ukraine. In 2012, Obama famously flew off to fundraisers in Las Vegas the day after the Benghazi attack killed our ambassador to Libya and three other Americans.
“Obama does not appear to relish being chief executive,” writes liberal journalist Edward Luce in the Financial Times. Luce notes that Obama has headlined 393 fundraisers since he took office, double the number that George W. Bush had attended at this point in his presidency. Veteran journalist Patrick Smith writes, “I can think of two names for this. One is ‘outmoded arrogance.’ The other is ‘asleep at the wheel.’ Whatever the moniker, some measure of incompetence lies behind it.”
Democrats are happy for the president to raise money, which he can still do by appealing to the fat cats in the party’s environmental, gay, and feminist bases. But they increasingly don’t want to appear with him in front of ordinary voters or follow his lead on policy. For example, more and more Democrats in swing districts or states are looking for a way to separate themselves from the Obama White House’s chaotic border policy. Much of the grumbling is private for now, but it is increasingly seeping into public discourse.
And the grumbling goes beyond politics. A disengaged, petulant president who gives the impression that someone else is minding the White House store isn’t good for the country.
One presidential historian says that if the president’s bizarre behavior deepens, people will start making jokes comparing Obama to President Woodrow Wilson, who was debilitated by illness during his last two years in office, with decisions increasingly made by his aides and his wife, Edith. “The comparisons of course wouldn’t be fair, but they don’t have to be to have elements of truth to them.”
Today’s song is the inspiring “Bedtime Story” by Tony Carey, who might be best known for “A Fine, Fine Day” from 1984.
Circuit Court Judge Wade McCree in ActionWayne County, Mich. Circuit Court Judge Wade McCree had a divorce case before him. He found the wife attractive, sent her provocative text messages from the bench and eventually had sexual relations with her resulting in a child which was aborted.
McCree, needless to say, came down pretty hard on the husband in his ruling.
Unfortunately for McCree, this and other unjudicial acts came to light and the Michigan Supreme Court suspended him from the bench for six years without pay.
And the husband, Robert King, sued him.
The U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against King cited the doctrine of judicial immunity for decisions judges make on the bench that stems from the Bradley v Fisher decision handed down by the Supreme Court in 1871.
King’s lawyer, Joel Sklar, is appealing to the Supreme Court.
We hope he wins. It should be obvious that once a person who happens to be a judge reveals himself to be corrupt the protection should end and justice prevail.
Bill Tyson, who is the director of marketing and communications for Penn State University, Brandywine Campus is the subject of the July 29 Delaware County News Network’s Profile of the Week by the always interesting Susan L. Serbin.
Barack Obama’s disdain for the slow, grinding mechanisms of government has become unmistakable of late. So it is little surprise that, frustrated by congressional inaction on his proposal for “comprehensive immigration reform,” the president last month declared that he would “fix as much of our immigration system as I can on my own.” The result, intimated by White House senior adviser Dan Pfeiffer last week, is a “very significant” executive action to be unveiled by the end of the summer. If reports of the contents of the order are credible, not only will the action fail to “fix” America’s immigration system, it will further undo the constitutionally prescribed separation of powers that this administration has already done so much to weaken.
The White House is reportedly weighing two options for executive action similar in kind to the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program that was implemented — also by executive fiat, via memorandum — in 2012. One option would grant temporary legal status to illegal-immigrant parents of U.S. citizens, authorizing them to remain in the country and to work here. The second option would do the same for illegal-immigrant parents of DACA recipients. These actions could affect anywhere from 3 to 6 million people.
Although the specifics are unknown, any unilateral action of this magnitude and type would be unprecedented. Permission to work would secure for millions of illegal immigrants the benefits of lawful status despite the absence of a green card or a pathway to citizenship. Already illegal immigrants, taken in toto, represent a net drag on the American economy of $55 billion a year, according to the Heritage Foundation, since they and their families make use of direct benefits (such as Social Security and Medicare), means-tested welfare benefits, public education, and other government-funded resources. The tacit moral sanction granted by a new DACA-type program would ensure that program participants are eventually guaranteed these services.
It is not unlikely that a new program would, like DACA, be pitched as a temporary measure. DACA deferrals, for instance, are given in two-year increments, after which recipients must renew their grant. But these “temporary” programs are no such thing. Consider Temporary Protected Status, established in 1990 to provide for illegal immigrants who, for reasons of war or natural disaster, cannot return to their home countries at the moment, but who do not qualify as refugees. Not one TPS beneficiary has been deported because his status expired. TPS status still shields Honduran refugees fleeing Hurricane Mitch, which struck in 1998. By this precedent, there is no reason to believe the Obama administration will aggressively enforce any new, supposedly temporary program.
In addition, any new DACA-style program will have the tendency to encompass persons beyond its target demographic. As U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) officers report in the wake of DACA, anyone who appears to be under the maximum deferral age — that is, any illegal immigrant who appears younger than 33 years old — is presumed to be eligible for DACA. As of March 31, some 550,000 “DREAMers” have received permits under the order, but the program has functionally shielded from investigatory and/or enforcement actions probably 2 to 3 million illegal immigrants. No doubt a similar presumption would obtain under a new program, protecting millions who are technically ineligible.
DACA also belies the claim that unilateral executive actions are simply large-scale enactments of prosecutorial discretion, pragmatic measures necessitated by the federal government’s lack of resources. DACA has proven to involve a massive expenditure of both time and money that has required USCIS officers to table entrance applications from legal immigrants to accommodate the deluge of applicants from illegal immigrants. A de facto amnesty of 5 million illegal immigrants would overwhelm an already inundated system.
The problem, though, is finally one of constitutional order. Is Congress — and, through it, the electorate — responsible for the laws governing America’s borders? Or does one man get to decide who may enter and work in the United States? The assumption by the president of the ability to unilaterally welcome or reject migrants is a rank violation of the separation of powers. The president would no longer be enforcing existing law; he would be writing it anew at will on a scale heretofore unimagined.
Earlier this month Texas Republican senator Ted Cruz introduced a bill (S. 2666) that would cut off federal funds for the continued implementation of DACA and would prohibit any “agency or instrumentality of the Federal Government” from using federal resources “to authorize any alien to work in the United States” who was not lawfully admitted under the Immigration and Nationality Act. Although the bill is unlikely to pass the Democrat-controlled Senate, it will put pressure on red-state Democrats to defend their decision to countenance this executive-branch power grab.
Perhaps that can assist in the Republican campaign to retake the Senate. The campaign to restore immigration laws, and the rightful place of Congress in our constitutional order, will take much longer.
Tonight’s meal by Chef Bill was a plum baked ham steak with a Greek salad featuring garden-fresh parsley by Mrs. Chef Bill.
The plums were brought today from Produce Junction.
Dessert was an apple-pie from Walmart.
By Pat Carfagno
Personal mockery is a well-oiled and perpetually used tool from the Alinsky toolbox. The right tends to shy away from it. They should get over it. If rocks are being thrown at you, its perfectly reasonable to pick them up and throw them back. Palin, Bush and their spouses and children’s were fair game to the left. If you want to take higher ground, stick to the politicians themselves.
There is one thing that has always disturbed me about Barak Obama. Always. Even before I knew anything about him. He is touted as one of the biggest intellects in the world. From the day he came on our radar I wondered why he wasn’t smart enough to get that hideous growth nestled outside his nostril removed. After all he was being sold as perfection. If he wasn’t always sticking his nose in our business, I wouldn’t pick on it (sorry).
(Read more at FreedomRadioRocks.com)
500 Illegals Pennsylvania Bound it is being reported.
Old friend Tom Flocco sent links to a couple of stories here and here regarding how more than 500 children who have illegally crossed our southern border have been sent to Pennsylvania.
Tom had some not-so-nice things to say regarding Republican Pennsylvania congressman Jim Gerlach, Patrick Meehan and Charlie Dent and their apparent support of the matter.
We are inclined to cut the trio some slack as protecting children harmed by Barack Obama’s irresponsibility and cruelty is going to inevitably cause some stink to stick to one.
Still, our more compassionate political representatives (the Republicans) are going to have to make sure that those coming here really are children and not teenagers with teardrops tattooed to their faces and address rumors saying such.
The humanitarian crisis engulfing the United States — tens of thousands of parentless Central American children pouring across the southern border — will surely increase in scope. And the reason is simple: America continues to send the message that we welcome illegal immigrants with open arms, even young ones traveling alone.
That’s not just insane, but downright cruel.
It’s one thing if illegal immigrant advocates lobby for amnesty and open borders, but openly encouraging parents to send their children on a perilous journey is heartless. And make no mistake: That’s exactly the message being sent. Not surprisingly, the biggest advocate of all is the U.S. government.
The influx of these children has taken the immigration issue to a whole new level. And here’s the underlying short-term problem: While most are eventually designated for deportation (the key word being “eventually”), it often takes years to get a hearing in immigration court. In the meantime, the children are left in a scary, isolated limbo, not living a productive life, and, worst of all, remain far away from where they belong: at home, with their parents and families.
The parents, not seeing their children return home a short time after sending them off, assume deportations are not taking place, and that their kids have been officially accepted into American society as part of an open amnesty program. As the old shampoo commercial said, those parents tell two friends, and they tell two friends, and so on, to the point where it becomes widely perceived that sending more children to America is the right thing to do.
But it’s not.
With so many dangers confronting these defenseless children during their trek to America, from sickness to being taken advantage of by unscrupulous adults in a host of horrible ways, we should be doing everything in our power to stop this exodus from Central America. Now. That would be the humanitarian thing to do.
Instead, as is the case for every major issue we face, we look to tactics, not strategies, to solve the crisis, amounting to Band-Aids on hemorrhaging wounds. America has lost its gift of foresight, becoming reactive instead of proactive and jettisoning its ability to eliminate problems before they start, or, at the least, confronting them head-on with the iron will to solve them.
A glaring example of this is the clamor, on both sides of the aisle, to better fund and staff our immigration courts as a way of alleviating the massive backlog of cases, now exponentially higher given the influx of children. (There are 243 immigration judges, an average of one to every 1,545 pending cases).
Nice idea, but it misses the whole point. Ramping up the immigration courts will never solve the problem, because it doesn’t address it. More courts, judges and hearings may slightly alleviate the supply side of illegal immigration, but does nothing to cut down the demand. Until we get serious about reforming a broken immigration system, which neither party has any interest in doing, things will only deteriorate, and more people will attempt to cross the order for the perceived amnesty. Tensions will continue to escalate between citizens and illegal immigrants they see as threatening their physical and economic security, and the situation will become measurably uglier. And when that occurs, no one wins.
Here are some common sense solutions, which, if articulated correctly, would be reasonable to the vast majority of Americans, while providing compassion to people who yearn for the better life America provides:
1. Build the border wall. This is the single most important step to fixing the problem, as a formidable barrier will instantly send the message that America has gotten serious about stopping illegal border crossings. When families in Central America understand this, they will stop sending their children into harm’s way, saving countless lives. Since we have a $17 trillion debt, funding the wall won’t be an issue (what’s a few billion more?), but costs could be controlled by utilizing nonviolent prisoners and illegal immigrants to construct it. If we were smart, we would also stop giving foreign aid to any nation that encourages illegal immigration, and that refuses to accept their citizens whom we deport. That funding alone would be enough to build the wall.
Common sense tells us that a secure border wall would absolutely cut down the “supply” side of not just illegal immigrants, but drug traffickers and terrorists. Protecting our children and eliminating al-Qaeda’s free pass (possibly with a nuclear weapon) should be top priorities. For proof of effectiveness, look at Israel’s success with its wall. Walls work. Build it. Now.
2. There is no need to militarize the border, as some advocate. The smart utilization of current resources (and a secure wall) would be more than adequate. The numbers tell the story: The southern border is 2,000 miles long. As of 2012, there were over 21,000 Border Patrol agents. Even if we take 3,000 agents out of the equation (more than enough to patrol the Florida shores and those sneaky Canucks), that leaves nine agents per mile, which is an extraordinarily high staffing level. Making America into a military state is anathema to what we stand for and totally unnecessary.
3. Marketing America’s legal immigration policies in Central American nations is not mutually exclusive to instituting “self-deportation” policies for illegal immigrants. America is the most generous nation on Earth regarding legal immigration, and immigrants have always made America stronger. But the emphasis must be on entering the country legally.
One easy and cost-effective way to cut down on undocumented workers skirting the law is to mandate that all employers utilize the free E-Verify system, which quickly determines the legal status of a potential hire. Companies that do not comply should face stiff penalties. This is a win-win, as stringent law enforcement measures on businesses would also serve to eliminate lavish public benefits enjoyed by illegal immigrants — the mammoth costs of which are borne by taxpayers.
4. We must place partisan politics aside and reasonably deal with illegals already here. Failure to do so will only exacerbate an already bad situation.
We can document the workers already here by issuing long-term or lifetime work visas (after they pass a criminal background check), while permanently denying them citizenship and possibly levying fines. In doing so, they would begin paying their “fair share” through taxes and lessen the financial burden on U.S. citizens.
That’s not amnesty, but the only realistic approach to finally solving a huge, decades-old problem. It penalizes lawbreakers, documents millions (bringing them out of the shadowy underworld) and makes them, and Americans, considerably safer. It would increase tax revenue and make formerly illegal workers pay into benefits programs.
Solving America’s illegal immigration crisis amicably and reasonably, while protecting the most vulnerable of any society — the children — can be summed up by the quote, “The solutions are simple; they’re just not easy.”
For everyone’s sake — Americans, immigrants, and especially the youngest generation — it’s time to finally roll up our sleeves and get the job done.