In the USA...
July 23, 2013 08:00 AMRafael Cruz Declares Son Ted Cruz 'The Anointed One'
Rafael Cruz, Ted Cruz' father, revealed much about himself, his son, and their agenda in a recent interview with Christian Broadcasting Networks' David Brody.
He began with an anointing:
Texas Sen. Ted Cruz stumped in Iowa over the weekend, and his father Rafael Cruz was promoting his son’s possibly presidential candidacy to pastors and local Republican leaders during his trip. In fact, he said in an interview with Christian Broadcasting Networks’ David Brody that he told his son: “You know Ted, you have been gifted above any man that I know and God has destined you for greatness.’ And I started making declarations about the Word of God to him every day.”
He goes on to suggest that his son is destined to save freedom in America, and even Brody called Cruz’s political career “a thing of God.”
This isn't idle praise. The group Cruz and his fellow TeaBircher Rand Paul spoke to over the weekend was the Iowa Renewal Project, a gathering of pastors who were treated to an all-expenses paid weekend paid for by billionaires like Texas billionaire James Leininger, who was behind the big evangelical push to Rick Perry's bid for the nomination in 2012 and his runs for governor. Wherever Renewal Project David Lane is, you can expect to find billionaires in the background.
Mike Huckabee was the beneficiary of the Renewal Project billionaires in 2007 and 2008. It appears that the 2016 effort will be focused on Ted Cruz, and will involve mobilizing and plumbing the depths of the evangelical right to stoke enthusiasm for ultra-conservative candidates in 2014.
Rafael Cruz has some deep connections to the current movement known as the New Apostolic Reformation. That movement is really a rebranding of what we know as the "Religious Right", as they were called in the days of Reagan, but with a 21st century dominionist twist. Cruz was a member of the Religious Roundtable in the 1980s, an activist group of Christians who were committed to engagement in politics. He boasts in the interview of serving on the state board of that organization:
This was a coalition of Christians and Jews who was very instrumental in helping Reagan get elected. I was on the state board of the Religious Roundtable, so when my son Ted was eight years old, all we talked about around the dinner table was politics because I was so involved with the Reagan campaign. So during that time is when I asked him so many times, ‘You know Ted, when I lost my freedom in Cuba I had a place to come to. If we lose our freedoms here where are we going to go? There is no place to go.’
Rafael Cruz is a pastor with Purifying Fire Ministries founded by Suzanne Hinn, ex-wife and then wife again of Benny Hinn. The Hinns are huckster Christians, dealing in faux emotions and invented manifestations of the Holy Spirit at the most convenient and opportune fundraising moments. They are also smart enough to understand where the gravy train is, and so they've hitched their boxcar to the New Apostolic, or dominionist movement.
So has Rafael Cruz. He delivered a sermon in August, 2012 where he discusses how Christians should "take dominion over the earth." Cruz goes on to define what that means, saying "dominion is over every area -- society, education, government, economics..." That particular moment happens 1 hour and 12 minutes in, if you care to watch. It's instructive to see him deliver that line with dictatorial passion.
Dad did serve up a couple of interesting nuggets about a young Ted Cruz. Like this one:
Ted enters high school, the Free Enterprise Institute organizes a group of five kids, called them the Constitutional Corroborators, now Ted is reading the The Federalist Papers, The Anti-Federalist Papers, and each of the five kids memorized the entire US Constitution.
He did, however, neglect to note that the Free Enterprise Institute is a project of Texas builder billionaire Leo Linbeck, III, and that Ted Cruz serves as Trustee of that organization. He is in august company, with fellow trustees ranging from powerful Texas Republicans to billionaires and bankers. It appears that the junior senator from Texas has connections in high places, and that his high school passion has paid off handsomely for him.
At the end of the interview Rafael Cruz delivers the dominionist line as it has been rewritten by the billionaires who bankroll the Renewal Project summits:
So before my son left high school he was passionate about the constitution. He was passionate about freedom and free markets and limited governments. Before he left high school he knew without a shadow of a doubt what his purpose in life was and it was to defend and protect freedom and the Constitution, to fight for free markets and limited government, and it became a passion in his life. So this is not a trajectory of three years, this is a trajectory of 30 years.
It's clear to me that the GOP has made a decision about 2014 and beyond. Rather than engage people of color and try to persuade them on the merits of conservatism, they've chosen to focus solely on white people, and most specifically on the religious zealots. Rafael Cruz may speak with a Cuban accent, but his message is intended for white evangelicals to rise up and take dominion. In the end, it could be that Cruz is being used to fire up a small minority of hard-core Cuban evangelicals in order to propel Rand Paul into the spotlight for 2016, but first they will set 2014 as the proving ground.
Click to watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jp4lIvDIv-g
********Limbaugh on white guilt: ‘It’s preposterous that Caucasians are blamed for slavery’
By David Edwards
Monday, July 22, 2013 15:51 EDT
Conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh on Monday said that he was done with “white guilt” because white people had done more to end slavery “than any other race.”
“This, this white guilt, it’s time for all this white guilt to end,” Limbaugh told his listeners. “If any race of people should not have guilt about slavery, it’s Caucasians. The white race has probably had fewer slaves and for a briefer period of time than any other in the history of the world.”
“Now, sadly, we’re not talking about the rest of the world when the civil rights coalition gets ginned up. They’re talking about America and slavery,” he continued. “And that can’t be denied; it happened. But, compared to the kind of slavery that still exists in the rest of the world and has existed, by no means was it anywhere near the worst.”
Limbaugh went on to say that slaves were the “primary reason” that Arabs, “black Africans” and American Indians went to war.
“But despite all that, no other race has ever fought a war for the purpose of ending slavery, which we did,” the radio host opined. “Nearly 600,000 people killed in the Civil War. It’s preposterous that Caucasians are blamed for slavery when they’ve done more to end it than any other race, and within the bounds of the Constitution to boot.”
“And yet white guilt is still one of the dominating factors in American politics. It’s exploited, it’s played upon, it is promoted, used, and it’s unnecessary.”
********GOP chairman: I don’t really care for the word tolerance
By Eric W. Dolan
Monday, July 22, 2013 17:43 EDT
Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus assured social conservatives on Monday that the GOP was not going to embrace “tolerance” as part of its rebranding efforts.
“I don’t know if I’ve used the word ‘tolerance,’ I don’t really care for that word myself,” he told the Christian Broadcasting Network. “I don’t have a problem with it, I just think it has another meaning politically that can go the other direction.”
Priebus said Republicans would continue to oppose same-sex marriage and seek to ban abortion in the United States. He described both as “foundational issues,” but said Republicans needed to adopted a more tolerant tone.
“If you’re looking at the evidence, what you will see is a party that embraces life, a party that embraces marriage and a chairman that understands that there’s only one sovereign God and that we ultimately aren’t dependent on what happens in politics,” Priebus explained. “What ultimately matters in our lives is that we’re salt and light in the world and that we’re honoring God in the things that we do every day. I get that. I think our party gets that and there’s never been a movement away from that.”
An “autopsy report” released by the RNC earlier this year encouraged Republicans to reach out to LGBT voters, citing “generational difference within the conservative movement.” Less than a month later, the RNC unanimously adopted resolutions opposing same-sex marriage.
***********Republican lawmaker: Abortion to save the life of the mother is ‘a matter of convenience’
By Eric W. Dolan
Monday, July 22, 2013 17:09 EDT
In a bizarre tirade, a Republican state senator in Missouri lashed out at an Anglican priest over the issue of abortion and gun rights last week.
Missouri State Senator Brian Nieves (R-Washington) had posted a photo of a gun on his Facebook page last Friday, explaining that a constituent “brought some of his personal Arsenal [sic] for me to look at and Drewel [sic] upon.” The photo quickly generated comments, with one woman saying that Nieves was a “white racist redneck” and the priest saying he hoped Nieves would “realize that true patriotism is more than carrying a deadly weapon.”
In response, Nieves accused the two commenters of working for the Riverfront Times, a local publication, and called them stupid.
“There is NO Possible way ya’ll are real people who really believe what you’ve written on my page,” Nieves wrote. “I’m simply not falling for it. You two are obviously just people who are pretending to be that stupid in the hopes of drawing me in to some senseless argument and then try to snatch a quote for the RFT or some other lib-rag. Sorry, I’m on to you, you over played your cards and made your comments far too stupid.”
But Nieves quickly continued the “senseless argument” after the priest said he was “saddened that any elected official would reduce himself/herself to name calling.” Nieves accused liberals of being “bullies” and then questioned whether the priest supported a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy. When the priest replied that he supported reproductive rights and opposed the death penalty, Nieves wondered whether liberals like the priest were suffering from a mental illness.
“A person commits a heinous crime, the kind we hear about in the news, and they are not allowed to be executed but an innocent baby who is wrapped in the comfort of his/her mother’s womb – Having been created by God – can be literally ripped apart, viciously murdered, and this ‘Man of God’ supports it?!?!?!” Nieves wrote.
Nieves continued to argue with the priest for another 30 minutes, writing that an abortion to save the life of the mother was “a matter of convenience” and that the priest made him sick.
“I am perhaps too old and tired for this debate this evening,” the priest wrote. “You don’t seem to understand, or wish to understand what I said about education or providing birth control so abortion is no longer necessary. But then again, you couldn’t scream your disgust at me if you did.”
Though Nieves said he was too smart to fall for the alleged plot to “snatch a quote for the RFT,” the Riverfront Times was the first to report his Facebook comments. The online rant was later picked up by The Huffington Post on Monday.
July 23, 2013 06:00 AMBill O'Reilly's Message to African Americans: Young Black Girls Should Stop Having Babies
By John Amato
O'Reilly: When was the last time you saw a public service ad telling young black girls to avoid becoming pregnant? Has President Obama done such an ad?
Bill O'Reilly was off the air Friday, so I knew he would bring double-barrel action to his Monday night's Talking Points Memo to respond to President Obama's Trayvon Martin race comments, and did he ever. Bill believes he's some sort of race whisperer, and only he will will furnish you with the unvarnished truth on how to solve these difficult problems in African American communities today.
I was surprised that he didn't take the Hannity approach and make asinine remarks about his presser, but he actually agreed that Obama should have broached the topic of race and framed it with the Martin case. Many conservatives have been trying to say that blacks should have no beef with the Zimmerman case because racism was never an issue (which is ludicrous), but Bill came from a different angle. He admitted that the black community has pent-up resentments against white oppression, but then basically said it was a cop-out. The past has nothing to do with anything anymore. No, really he said that.
O'Reilly: Many black Americans harbor at least some resentment for past injury.
Bill-O is frustrated that the sins of the past (racism) are involved in the discussion. It's so 1965. Decades and decades of racist treatment that destroyed so many lives should just vanish from their consciousness. Justice be damned for black America. He also believes that only the great Bloviator knows exactly how to cure what ails the African American community. He also has some new terminology. 'Race hustlers' and the 'grievance industry' will be some of his new race-battling phrases. Be sure to look out for them in the future. BillO is hoping Obama watches and takes notes, so he can lead blacks to the promised land via his guidance. Are you ready? He gives a rundown of the Martin shooting and denies that race played any part in it because there was no evidence of that, but then Bill said it's OK to profile black youths because they are mostly criminals.
The culture we have in this nation does lead to criminal profiling because young black American men are so often involved in crime. The statistic's overwhelming.
You see, Zimmerman had to be suspicious of Trayvon, because most of the young brothers are committing crimes. Now Bill has all the stats relating to black on black crime, but I wonder if he has stats that give us the percentage of young blacks committing crimes against all young blacks in the nation? Now BillO starts to get ready to lay on us cats the crux of his plan, you dig?
First, he hits on the civil rights people in charge.
They blame the barbarity on guns or poor education or lack of jobs. Rarely do they define the problem accurately.
It's interesting that Bill forgot to mention poverty. Huh, I wonder if it skipped his mind, since poverty is the leading cause of destruction in all communities in America, regardless of race.
And here's his big reveal.
The reason there is so much violence and chaos in the black precincts is the disintegration of the black family.
Mike Huckabee couldn't have said it better.
About 73% of all black babies are born out of wedlock. That drives poverty
You think, Bill-O? I guess George Bush's abstinence only plan didn't take hold too well. In fact, it was disastrous for young girls of all races, as we know.
So what's Bill's solution?
When was the last time you saw a public service ad telling young black girls to avoid becoming pregnant? Has President Obama done such an ad? How about Jackson or Sharpton? Has the Congressional Black Caucus demanded an ad like that?
It's those horny young black girls who can't keep their knickers on! Damn, if only they saw an ad from Bill-O yelling at them not to get pregnant, they just might listen. I have an idea: We'll call it the "Scared Celibate" campaign.
And he then has to make sure you know it's not whitey's fault.
White people do not force black people to have babies out of wedlock. That's a personal decision.
Say what? Is Bill suddenly for abortions for the ladies of minorities?
A decision that that has devastated millions of children and led to disaster, both socially and economically.
He then opines that since there isn't a man around, young black men will turn away from school and turn to drugs and thugs. As usual, the entertainment industry is at fault, too, for glorifying a gangsta culture. You know - hip-hop, movies, trashy TV sold to impressionable children. I think Bill made a mistake as he got more revved up. He says limousine liberals are only pissed off at all the black men who sell drugs that are in prison. No, Bill. It's all the people who are busted for using drugs, and not just small time dealers.
Ohhh, it's so unfair, it's a non-violent crime.
I wonder if Bill looked at the stats that show how white drug offenders get treated much more favorably than black drug offenders?
Now here comes his solutions to the epidemic of violent and drug abuse in poor black communities:
Actively discourage pregnancies out of marriage.
To impose strict discipline in the public schools including mandatory student uniforms. (Who's going to pay for them?)
Create a zero tolerance policy for gun and drug crimes, imposing harsh mandatory prison time for offenders.
Challenge the entertainment industry to stop peddling garbage. (I guess Bill doesn't believe in the free market system, after all!)
Bill-O starts spitting in anger after that, so it's up to you to finisyh watching the video. I'm getting showered on over here.
Black girls, stop having sex and pumping out babies without being married.
************The Republican Plan for Women: Barefoot, Pregnant, and Economically Dependent
Jul. 22nd, 2013
Americans tout the blessings inherent with living in a nation founded on equality that fosters individuality they argue is the antipathy of being in a place where one lives under the power or authority of others. In fact, the Declaration of Independence was the Founding Fathers affirmation that colonists had no duty to be in subjection to England as an inalienable right even though they, like conservatives through history, never intended to extend that right to all Americans. Chief among Americans destined to perpetual subjugation under the law is half the population, and despite women’s progress over the past century, Republicans have set returning them to second-class status as one of their primary goals since they rose to power after the 2010 midterm elections. America is, and always has been, controlled by a patriarchal mindset throughout its history, and Republicans have found an incredibly powerful and successful means to put women in their historically subservient place with little opposition from the public and support from an untouchable power source.
The most efficient means to suppress and control a segment of the population is to eliminate their ability to achieve economic independence, and to keep women out of the workforce and dependent on men for their subsistence, Republicans are creating a scenario that either a woman is celibate, or stays in a perpetual state of pregnancy. The attacks on women’s reproductive health choices in Republican-controlled states have no justification that is not founded in patriarchal belief that men are born to control women, and regardless the arguments proffered to regulate women’s reproductive health, it all boils down to keeping them in subjection to men.
The rash of states abolishing women’s right to choose their reproductive health have not given any justification for their actions that are not easily refuted. There is no scriptural justification in the bible to ban abortion or contraceptives, but they have garnered universal support from President Obama, all Democrats, the National Organization of Women (NOW), and even Planned Parenthood who are mortified to cite the unconstitutionality of imposing a religious edict on a specific segment of the population. The unwritten commandment that, regardless the atrocities committed by a religion (except Islam) on half the population, it is a mortal sin to cite the Separation of Church and State’s prohibition on legislating from the bible even though the holy book belies pro-life advocates sanctity of life argument.
There is also absolutely no medical, biological, or scientific justification for banning contraceptives or abortions until a fetus is viable outside the mother’s uterus; not that pro-life fanatics acknowledge biology or medical science. The recent 20-week abortion ban in Texas, soon to be a 6-week ban, denies biological proof that there is zero chance for a fetus’s survival outside the womb at 20-weeks, but viability is not the issue; forcing women to stay perpetually pregnant and giving birth is, and the intended result is forcing them to remain sequestered at home economically dependent on a man. Ohio’s personhood measure defining a zygote as a fetus worthy of 14th amendment rights violates biological reality, subverts a woman’s 14th amendment rights, keeps them out of the workforce, and forced to be stuck at home serving as indentured servants to men.
There is no economic advantage to women, the government, or their families to control when and how often they produce children, and in fact it is economic terrorism to condemn women to an existence as brood mares. The best way to keep women in economic despair is forcing them to give birth several times during their child-producing years instead of working, and the cost of carrying, delivering, and raising even one child for eighteen years can be the difference between a woman living in abject poverty or having a financially secure existence.
Republicans have spent years opposing equal pay for equal work, the Equal Rights Amendment, gender equity in healthcare costs, and attack teachers’ unions specifically targeting women who make up 82% of all teachers in the nation. Republicans hate union labor, but they do not attack police officer, firefighter, or correctional officer unions because their ranks are overwhelmingly male. Republicans have had relative success in blocking Democratic attempts to give women their constitutionally guaranteed equal rights, but Republicans have found the “silver bullet” to women’s rights with their assault on reproductive rights.
It is apparent that women have become too powerful for Republicans to easily control, so they are passing legislation to send half the population back into the home with no means of escape. By neutering women economically, Republicans control half the population and keep their voice out of government. In the past two years, Republicans have questioned the wisdom of “giving” women the right to vote, and the next best thing to eliminating their electoral power is keeping them overwhelmed with childrearing duties or a perpetual state of pregnancy not unlike livestock producers keeping cows, sows, and ewes producing.
America’s women are a threat to Republicans, and dealt them a crushing defeat in the last election due to the sustained attacks that began at the start of the 112th Congress. It is likely that most Republicans could not care less about evangelicals’ so-called sanctity of life frenzy, but they do care about keeping women, all women, out of any position of power that is borne of economic success. There is a contingent of conservatives who believe women should leave the workforce, surrender their jobs to men, and return to their kitchens to subject themselves to their husbands and fulfill the position patriarchs assign them, and Republicans are doing their best to put women “in their place” at home birthing children.
Women are far from powerless, but they are facing an aggressor that sees an opening to set women’s rights back several decades, and they have powerful allies in corporate leaders entrenched in evangelical fanaticism. For example, the retail chain Hobby Lobby convinced a judge that their “belief” that contraceptives are abortifacents, or chemicals that cause abortions, is sincere leading him to rule the owner’s religious belief informs that birth control pills abort fetuses, and although it is patently false, Hobby Lobby prevailed. Large retailers such as WalMart lobby to keep women from earning the same pay as a man, and they prevailed two years ago when the conservative Supreme Court ruled against women suing for equal pay.
With no religious, economic, and scientific justification for denying women the right to choose their reproductive health, it is obvious the Republican’s goal is exerting control over women. Republicans are so terrified of the power women have gained they could not care less how they control them, but forcing them to be perpetually pregnant, unable to earn an education, and incapable of economic independence forces them to be in subjection to men’s will and if successful, Republicans will have won the war on women.
***********New Low: These 14 Republicans Gutted Food Aid While Giving Themselves Farm Subsidies
By: Sarah Jones
Jul. 22nd, 2013
Congressman George Miller (D-CA) is calling it Pork Barrel politics.
According to a report put out by Miller’s office, 14 Republican members of Congress voted to kill food stamps for 47 million Americans, and also voted to keep their own farm subsidies.
Are each Republicans;
Have a total net worth of up to $124.5million;
Have received a total of at least $7.2 million in farm subsidies;
Each previously voted to gut the SNAP program by giving states large financial incentives to kick families off SNAP.
So, a combined networth of 124.5 million gutted food aid for the poor while making sure they got their personal pork, which clearly they do not need for survival.
These Republicans voted last week to give themselves subsidies after they managed to split nutritional aid bills from the farm subsidies (dividing the country again – urban versus rural) after House Republicans couldn’t get their act together and Boehner refused to lead, again.
That debacle led Nancy Pelosi to refer to House Republicans as amateur hour.
Don’t worry, Republicans did exactly what you imagine they would do in this instance. Now that they got rid of the hungry people, they took their new FARRM Act and figured why not give most of the $196 billion to big agro business:
Republicans tried to claim that the passage of the farm provisions was done to help family farms, but this Farm Bill is loaded with pork and handouts for the wealthy and corporations. Farmers with incomes over $250,000 will receive one third of the crop insurance money. This Republican House passed windfall for millionaires and corporations comes at a time when net farm income is projected to reach it highest level since 1973.
Representative Miller’s office noted, “14 Republican members of Congress, who each voted for a Farm Bill that excluded a nutrition title for the first time in four decades, have received more than $7.2 million in government farm subsidies, or an average of $515,279 in handouts. At the same time, they have a combined net worth of as much as $124.5 million, according to public records.
In stark contrast, the typical household receiving aid under the farm bill through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), has a gross monthly income of only $744, and their average monthly SNAP benefit—which every member detailed in this report voted against extending— is just $281.”
These Republicans are:
Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-AL)
Rep. Blake Farenthold (R-TX)
Rep. Stephen Fincher (R_TN)
Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-MO)
Rep. John Kline (R-MN)
Rep. Doug LaMalfa (R-CA)
Rep. Tom Latham (R-IA)
Rep. Frank Lucas (R-OK)
Rep. Cynthia Lummis (R-WY)
Rep Randy Neugebauer (R-TX)
Rep. Kristi Noem (R-SD)
Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R-IN)
Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-TX)
Rep. David Valadao (R-CA)
Miller called this a new low, even for this Congress, saying in a statement, “It’s outrageous that some members of Congress feel it is ok to vote for their own taxpayer subsidies but against critical nutrition assistance for 47 million Americans. It’s bad enough that the House of Representatives didn’t pass a Farm Bill that included authorization for sorely-needed nutrition programs, but to see members of Congress approving their own benefits at the expense of the working poor is a new low, even for this Congress.”
A new low, indeed. Welfare for the wealthy, redistribution for the elite, and nothing for the rest of the country. Republican austerity explained in action.
**********Ken Cuccinelli Reaches National Joke Status Thanks To The View
By: Sarah Jones
Jul. 22nd, 2013
While explaining to an incredulous audience that Virginia Republican gubernatorial candidate Ken Cuccinelli wants to make it a felony to have oral sex, “– a felony! YEAH!”, Whoopie Goldberg mainstreamed America’s disdain for Ken Cuccinelli’s extreme Republican values. She also vowed to keep him out of the governor’s mansion.
This is exactly what Ken was told to not let happen. The plan to get Cuccinelli into office has been: Do not let them know what a whack-a-doo you are. Run as a moderate Republican and keep your mouth shut until after you’ve been elected.
“Michael Douglas better stay out of Virginia,” Joy Behar deadpanned.
The panel had a laugh at Cuccinelli’s plan to outlaw oral sex:
“I think we all should—”
“You should stay out of Virginia, Mamma!”
Barbara Walters asked, “What ever happened to the slogan ‘Virginia is for lovers’?”
And so mocking Cuccinelli’s extremism was mainstreamed.
Walters explained that Cuccinelli automatically equates oral sex with homosexuality, to which Sherri Shepherd quipped, “Well then I’m gay as a — I mean I’m just saying!”
Walters continued reading Cuccinelli’s explanation of his fear of oral sex and the homosexual “agenda”, with the ladies getting bug eyed and horrified at “When you look at the homosexual agenda, I cannot support something that I believe brings nothing but self-destruction, not only physically but of their soul.”
The ladies were gobsmacked — oral sex brings self-destruction? Oh no you don’t, sir…
That was it for Whoopie. “You know what? I gotta say… first of all, how do I know you haven’t indulged? That’s the first thing. And the second thing is, why are you in my bedroom?!? GET OUT!!! Get out!!” The audience was totally with Whoopie on this one. Cuccinelli’s approval ratings just fell even lower, at least among the literazzi.
Whoopie continued, “Because, what he is saying and what he is doing are two different things and I don’t remember God saying anything about you being in my bedroom and telling me what to do.”
Playing the God card against the tent revivalist con artist! Good one, Whoopi. She finished off, “Sir, you’re not going to become the governor if you stay on this track. I’m gonna make sure your behind doesn’t become governor.”
The audience loved Whoopi’s speech a lot more than anyone has ever loved Ken Cuccinelli (see oral sex). Joy got in the last word, “He wants the government on my back and my husband off of it.”
That’s it in a nutshell. Cuccinelli wants to be in your bedroom telling you what to do and what not to do. #Winning.
This is super bad news for Ken Cuccinelli, whose biggest task in the upcoming election was to keep voters ignorant of his extremism. Even the Republican business community warned him that he was too extreme. In March, Politico reported on a very tense meeting Cuccinelli had with top GOP donors:
Shapiro (Gary Shapiro, CEO of the Arlington-based Consumer Electronics Association) spoke up next and was even tougher on Cuccinelli. As a hushed room looked on, Shapiro, who sits on the board of the influential Northern Virginia Technology Council, said the state’s centrist-oriented business community won’t back the Republican standard-bearer because he’s out of the mainstream.
“Gary just slammed him,” said one attendee.
The business community isn’t alone in their concerns over Ken’s bizarre beliefs. Republican women were fleeing Cuccinelli’s ticket after he accused Planned Parenthood of being “racists”. Let’s face it, Ken has some issues that don’t appear as shiny and golden in the light of day as they do in his imagination.
You might have thought his ethics (or lack thereof) were the problem, but ethics problems are only problematic for Democrats. We’ve come to expect them from Republicans, and then they tell us all that God sanctioned their greed and it’s all okay. But to be out of the mainstream to such a degree that you want to tell everyone they can’t have oral sex, well, sir, you are out of order!
***********Joe Scarborough Slams Sean Hannity For Using Racism to Gin Up Ratings
By: Jason Easley
Jul. 22nd, 2013
Joe Scarborough unloaded on Sean Hannity this morning for using racism to justify George Zimmerman’s actions, and to gin up his ratings.
Scarborough: we’re talking about how black men are doing in society this past week. It seems to me that the op-eds that you read over and over again, whether it’s in your paper or the “Wall Street Journal” or other papers say black men aren’t doing well. Crime levels are high. Then there’s this unexplained leap to justify George Zimmerman’s actions of walking through a suburban neighborhood armed chasing down a young black man, being told by a dispatcher to get away, and him continuing to chase down a young black men. I find it so ironic that we were enraged in the ’60s and ’70s when politicians would try to generalize. It’s society’s fault so society needs to give African-Americans who are committing crimes a free pass. Now it’s the opposite. It seems, and what’s depressing is, this isn’t confined to the far right talk show radio hosts. Sean Hannity has been ginning this up so badly that Michael Savage, Michael Savage has been saying that he’s been irresponsible and that he’s using race to gin up his ratings in a way that’s bad for America. That’s how extreme Sean Hannity’s position has been. That’s where we find ourselves today in 2013 that now young African-American males are presumed guilty because of larger societal trends. We have turned this on its ear. now we’re being told, we’re reading in “The Washington Post” and “Wall Street Journal” that black men are presumed guilty if they are wearing the wrong things.
Hannity has been beating the race baiting drum harder than anyone else in conservative media. He has even managed to out race bait Rush Limbaugh. The Fox News host is doing exactly what Scarborough said. He is exploiting racism and racial divides in order to justify what George Zimmerman did. He is also trying to jack up his eroding ratings. However, this isn’t ratings based desperation on Hannity’s part. It’s just what he does. Michael Savage is banned in the UK because of his constant use of hate speech on his radio show, and he thinks Hannity has gone too far. The truth is that we need more people on the left and right calling out the Sean Hannitys and Rush Limbaughs of right wing media.
Sean Hannity is cashing in on our nation’s ugly history of racism, and he won’t be stopped unless more people stand up and call him out.
************The GOP’s Peter King Leads the 2016 Charge as He Trashes His Fellow Republicans
By: Hrafnkell Haraldsson
Jul. 22nd, 2013
Peter KingWith an eye to the 2016 presidential elections, would-be Muslim profiler Rep. Peter King (R-NY) has been busy dissing his fellow Republicans.
US News | Royal Baby | More ABC News Videos
Referring to Christian Nationalists Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) and Ted Cruz (R-TX), King told ABC News in reference to Hilary Clinton, “I think she’s very strong on foreign policy, and I think that if we nominate someone from our isolationist wing of the party, she’ll destroy them.”
“I’m not a big fan of Ted Cruz,” King said. “He’s too much of an isolationist,” and “has too negative a view.” He also hasn’t forgiven Cruz for voting against relief for Hurricane Sandy victims after raking in big money for Florida disasters.
Yes, this is Peter King accusing another Republican of having too negative a view. And he said it without laughing.
King’s words are not a big surprise. Everyone – except Democrats, that is – is jockeying for position right now to see who is going to win the primary lottery so they get to be the guy to lose to Hilary Clinton. We’ve already seen Ted Cruz kissing up to religious zealots and racists in Iowa.
I say guy because let’s face it, no Republican woman is going to challenge for the presidency. Even before she sank into this legal morass, Michele Bachmann showed about how far a woman can go in the GOP (Palin, tagging along on John McCain’s coattails and dragging him down, doesn’t count).
King calls this phase of the pre-campaign as “feeling out the opponents the first two rounds, throwing jabs and jabs and when they’re not looking, right cross and it’s all over.”
From his words, it’s more a case of measuring them for their metaphorical coffins, planting a seed of doubt in the minds of the base; that “these are not the Republicans you’re looking for.”
Ironically and surprisingly given what we’ve seen since 2001 and from King the Fear-Monger personally, he said that Republican candidates need to participate in “coherent” foreign policy dialogue while avoiding “name calling and pandering to people’s fears.”
Speaking of name-calling and pandering to people’s fears, King wasted no time in going after Muslims again. He told The New York Times,
It bothers me when the leading Republicans out there, someone like Rand Paul, seem more concerned about an American being killed in Starbucks by a CIA drone than he is about Islamic terrorism.
What King is looking for is a Muslim-hating hawk who can get behind some truly Bushian and ruinous, economy-destroying defense spending:
“Ever since the days of Eisenhower, Republicans have been the party of strong national defense. Right now, the main potential candidates — such as Rand Paul and Ted Cruz — are isolationists who barely mention the threat of Islamic terrorism. I don’t want isolationism to be emblematic of the national Republican Party.”
Islamic terrorism has become the Republican shibboleth. But as Jason Easley wrote here in April,
The statistics as of April 2012 tell us that 56% of domestic terror threats came from right wing extremists. Just 12% of domestic terror threats came from Muslim extremists. It would be bad public policy, and a waste of resources to devote law enforcement to going after Muslims.
Republicans tend to overlook the second part of “all enemies foreign and domestic” and for good reason: they’re the domestic enemies the Founding Fathers warned us about.
As far as the rest of the potential Republican field, the New York Republican says he likes Paul Ryan:
I like Paul, but as far as defense, Paul hasn’t really spoken out. So far, no one is out there talking about national defense. The economy is important, immigration’s important, but the fact is if we don’t survive as a nation, none of that matters.
But, he pointed out, Ryan has 3-4 years to articulate a foreign policy position. It is to be hoped Ryan proves more adept at foreign policy positions than economic, because he has been an utter failure on that front.
On the other hand, though he had nothing bad to say about Ryan, King called Chris Christie “the strongest candidate I see out there right now,” and said he and Christie were on the same page, reminding viewers that he had asked Christie to run in 2012.
King is right to fear Hilary Clinton. She has a incredible approval rating among Americans even after the contrived Republican Benghazi witch hunt, and he is right to fear her foreign policy credentials.
In the end, Republican hawks seem like nothing so much as Cold War relics, living in the halcyon days of Reagan’s “evil empire” rhetoric. But Americans are tired of ruinous wars and they’re tired of seeing their sons, daughters, and brothers, killed and maimed in wars that don’t have to be fought; wars that resulted in the first place from Republican foreign-policy incompetence.
What King is offering America is more of the same. And I suspect in 2016 Americans will say, resoundingly, “No thank you.”
Should he run for president, Peter King, Republican of New York, will not be running only against Hilary Clinton, but against the tides of history.
********How retail stores track your in-store movements via smartphone –without you connecting to their WiFi
By The Economist
Tuesday, July 23, 2013 5:18 EDT
NORDSTROM, an American fashion retailer, is known for its high-touch customer service, which has engendered customer loyalty ever since it was founded to supply prospectors for the Yukon gold rush. It has a liberal returns policy, employs non-commissioned sales staff and offers an enormous range of products. It also, apparently, likes to keep tabs on its customers and potential customers without the need for human intervention. For several months Nordstrom tested a system that tracked the movements of people carrying Wi-Fi-enabled smartphones and other devices as they wandered through 17 of its stores or merely walked by. The firm posted a public notice of the monitoring, prompting a report by a television station in Dallas in May, at which point the retailer pulled the plug. Then the New York Times picked up the story, igniting a privacy debate about passive monitoring via Wi-Fi and other technologies. The system used by Nordstrom and several other firms, provided by Euclid Analytics, can precisely track the movements of individual phones, even though they never actually connect to a Wi-Fi network. How does it work?
The technique takes advantage of the fact that Wi-Fi wireless networking protocols are "promiscuous": the Wi-Fi adaptors in laptops, phones and base-stations reveal a lot of information about those devices as they attempt to negotiate connections with other devices nearby. Even before a device hooks onto a Wi-Fi a network, it continuously spews identifying information over the air. Most devices send "probe requests", which are akin to a town crier shouting out the names of networks which the device has previously connected to, so that a nearby base-station that matches any of these requests can respond. The requests run unremittingly across all available frequencies until a connection is made. Even devices that are seemingly turned off, such as sleeping laptops, send out such probes, though at a slower rate. Place several Wi-Fi base-stations in a shop, then, and you can pick up these probe requests, trilaterate the positions of the devices sending them, and thus track the movements of individual shoppers, seeing which racks or displays they stop at, and what paths they follow through the store.
This is arguably just the latest development in the well-established field of "retail science", in which the movement of shoppers is tracked and analysed. This was once done using video cameras, with footage examined by operators to determine where best to place new products or displays. Analysis of video is now heavily automated, and computers grind through the data to work out when stores are busiest, when queues are longest and how the positioning of products and promotional displays affects sales. The use of Wi-Fi tracking allows merchants to track individual shoppers more accurately than is possible with video, particularly in crowded stores. It also means returning customers can be identified without the need for facial recognition, because every Wi-Fi device has a unique, factory-set identifier that is broadcast in its probe requests.
All this is convenient for retailers, but worries privacy advocates. It is true that shoppers are on private property, and signs announce the use of tracking technologies. But improvements mean that Wi-Fi signals travel much farther than they did in the 1990s, so that people who merely walk past a store or look in a window may be picked up by internal tracking systems. More worryingly, because most Wi-Fi devices broadcast a list of known networks, a monitoring system can collect the list, associate it with the device's unique ID and match it against databases of known Wi-Fi networks, which are used as a rough and ready alternative to satellite positioning in built-up areas. Shoppers' stored list of connections could thus reveal where they live or work, and possibly their identities. Google faced worldwide scrutiny from regulators, and had to pay fines, after it emerged that its Streetview mapping vehicles had collected massive amounts of data broadcast publicly by Wi-Fi networks, computers and mobiles in many countries. Accordingly, Wi-Fi tracking firms now seem to be trying to get ahead of regulators. The day after the New York Times story appeared, Euclid and other firms announced a plan to partner with the Future of Privacy Forum to set rules about Wi-Fi tracking. In the meantime, if you are worried, there are two absolutely effective ways to prevent such tracking: turn off Wi-Fi and Bluetooth on your devices, or turn them off altogether.