All Georgia Residents Westboro Nut-Jobs is planning on protesting a soldiers funeral in Ludowici, GA.

Passing this info along. The nut-jobs are coming to Georgia. Lets shows them some Southern Hospitality.
I am for free speech but let families grieve please. Especially our solders.  We fight for your rights weather we agree to the mission or not.

I got to put this out to my readers.

#StandWithRand #86to86  86 senators who voted to continue sending aid to Syrian Rebels instead of putting that $1.5 billion back into our own! Make it heard tweet it out in 10 Min..  Both of Georgia's senators voted to send the money overseas. 

10 Signs Your Girlfriend Is A Bitch

I couldn't help myself on this one. I came across this and thought I would share..

No.10 - She’s self-centered

To a bitch, the only person in the world of any importance is herself. Others are merely warm bodies who get in the way of her selfish pursuits. She is the only person affected by a tragedy. The only feelings worth considering are hers. A bitch is so obsessed with herself that she would rather get a manicure than visit your father in the hospital.

No one should have to tolerate this kind of superiority complex — especially a good man, who tends to be the preferred victim of the bitch.


No.9 - She criticizes everything about you

Shaming is a common tactic women use to control their men. The bitch takes this to the extreme. By making you feel inadequate in every domain, she hopes to make you lose your self-confidence, then rely on her to do things “right.” Nothing is good enough for her, and you are the only one, aside from her bitch friends, who actually listens. So she nags about everything you say and do.


No.8 - She’s coldhearted

A bitch is typically amoral, adhering minimally to the ethical codes of society while transgressing those that are inconvenient to her. She dismisses civility for her own gains. She’s manipulative and scheming, always looking for underhanded ways of taking advantage of people or even hurting them. And as proof that she lacks a woman’s gentle soul, she never cries or shows soft emotion.


No.7 - She expects to be treated like a queen

A bitch is usually a spoiled brat who simply refuses to grow up. She was pampered and adored as a child, and typically given anything she asked for. As an adult, she still thinks she is entitled to everything. She consistently expects car rides, gifts and attention from you. She makes constant demands of people, and never listens to their requests. There is no fixing such a person; it’s programmed into her. Only by being denied several times will she begin to get a clue.


No.6 - She slights you in bed

You want to know just how heartless such a woman can be? Not only does she not appreciate all the effort you put into pleasing her sexually, she also has the gall to ridicule you. But she’ll pick the oddest times to do so, such as during an unrelated argument or just randomly in passing. This could be a cruel comment about your size, stamina or technique. More grating still is the fact that she would go crazy if you were to reciprocate the slur.


No.5 - She treats people like trash

As someone who believes luxury treatment is owed to her, a bitch has no respect for those who do things for her. She’s rude to people who work in the service industry, such as waiters and clerks, seeing them not as human beings, but as robots who exist solely to serve her. She talks at them — not to them.

She has no compassion for people in need, such as the poor or the sick. “It’s their own fault,” she’ll tell herself and others. More sickening still, she’s mean to children, as they are a nuisance and can’t do anything for her. And since her existence dwells on envy, she constantly badmouths other women over trivial things, such as their earrings or the way they speak.


No.4 - She never pays

As she thinks that it is the duty of others to provide for her, the bitch is a tightwad. On dates she always selects expensive restaurants and orders the priciest dish and drink, but never offers to pay. She won’t pitch in for gas on trips or for food at a get-together. She buys crappy gifts for others, when she can be bothered, usually expecting you to pay for them. And if you mention any of these things, she’ll accuse you of being cheap!


No.3 - She bosses you around

A bitch’s massive superiority complex makes her think people are born to be her servants, especially her boyfriend. As someone who spends a lot of his time with her, she uses you to do all the menial tasks that she doesn’t want to. Sometimes she’ll even boss you around for the power trip — just because she can.


No.2 - She embarrasses you in public

A bitch cares nothing about the feelings of others, not even those of the hapless sap she may be dating. In fact, she uses her man as a punching bag. Sometimes she even berates him in front of his friends, or even hers. She does this either as a power trip, to show others she can, or simply to beat a man’s self-worth down to her own level — after all, misery loves company.


No.1 - She flirts with other men

This is the most intolerable trait of a bitch, which many men sadly tolerate. She’ll tease and allure other men right in front of you, never once considering how you may feel about it. There are no bounds to her search for attention and admiration. And to top it off, she’ll extract whatever feelings of jealousy she can from you by comparing you to other men

So thoughts on this one. Like I said not my writings just came across it and thought it was kind of factual. 

Myths about men and dating unmasked.

Are men more romantic than women? Popular opinion would suggest not, but a new survey says that, in fact, men are way ahead when it comes to one area of romance.

The online survey quizzed around 100,000 people and found that while 48 per cent of men have fallen in love at first sight, a mere 28 per cent of women could say the same.

It’s not the first time popular ideas about men and romance have been wrong. Here are 10 myths about men and dating - well and truly debunked.

Myth one - men cheat, women are cheated on

It’s popularly believed that men are the cheaters in relationships and women the cheated on. Men don't cheat alone, so it’s commonly thought that a few women cheat a lot, but that far more men have been unfaithful at least once or twice.

Most figures don’t back that up. One recent study found that, while more men than women admitted to cheating, the gap was less than five per cent (20 per cent of men admitted cheating, compared with 16 per cent of women).

There’s also evidence to suggest that women are better at not getting caught, meaning unfaithful women may have longer affairs than unfaithful men.

Myth two - men tell great big whoppers

Studies suggest that, in relationships and while dating, men might lie a little more than women. We lie about how many partners we’ve had in the past, what our long-term intentions are, and how long ago we broke up with a previous partner, among many other things.

But figures suggest that between eight and 15 per cent of children have not been fathered by the man who thinks he is the biological parent.

So we might lie more, but it’s hard to imagine that our lies are worse.

Myth three - men are cold, women romantic

A wealth of research now exists to debunk this myth. The study mentioned at the start only confirms an earlier poll by match.com, which found that 54 per cent of men had felt love at first sight, compared to 44 per cent of women.

Myth four - women fall in love fastest

A study by Pennsylvania State University in the US found that most people thought of women as the hopeless romantics, and men as stand-offish and emotionally cold. The same study then went on to debunk the stereotype completely.

It found that three times as many men as women said 'I love you' first to their partners. That’s right, the three little words that mean so much are much more likely to come out of a man’s mouth first than his girlfriend’s.

Myth five - but...but...seriously, women DO fall in love fastest

Erm, no they don’t. The Penn State survey mentioned earlier also found that men were likely to start falling in love within weeks, while with women it took several months.

Another study, by researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, also found that men start thinking about saying 'I love you' a good six weeks before women do.

It seems the more loved-up gender - contrary to popular opinion - is men.

Myth six - women are the ones pressing for kids

Once ensconced in a relationship, the common perception is that, when women start talking about having kids, men have to be dragged kicking and screaming into bed.

But new research suggests that, in fact, men are just as broody as women, and sometimes more so. Research presented to the British Sociological Association recently found that men want to be fathers just as much as women want to be mothers.

And according to an earlier survey of more than 5,000 people by match.com, over half of single men aged 21-35 want children, compared with 46 per cent of women.

Myth seven - men need more space

OK, so men might fall in love and want kids and all that, but when they’re in relationships they need a lot of space. They need endless nights out with the boys and a 'man cave' to retreat to. Women, on the other hand, crave constant cuddles and intimacy. Right?

Wrong.

A US study from 2011 found that, in fact, the opposite was true. The data showed that 77 per cent of women say having their personal space is 'very important,' against 58 per cent for men; 78 per cent of women say the same about having their own interests and hobbies (64 per cent for men). And 35 per cent of women (compared to 23 per cent of men) say regular nights out with friends are important.

The study’s authors concluded that men and women are increasingly reading each other’s script. Compared to previous generations men want more intimacy and women more independence.

Myth eight - men are sex mad

Young and single men might be obsessed with sex, but that might be because they’re not getting much.

In relationships, the story may be different. According to a poll of nearly 2,000 men in long-term relationships by online pharmacy ukmedix.com, men are more likely than women to turn down sex. Over 60 per cent of the men surveyed said they turned down sex more frequently than their female partner. And for over 40 per cent of the men, sex once a fortnight was fine.

Myth nine - men think about sex all the time

You’ve probably heard the statistic that men think about sex every three seconds. Or was that seven seconds? Or was it every two minutes?

We forget the actual figure, because each time you hear it in the pub it’s different. It’s also a myth.

A study published in 2011 did find that men think about sex more than women, but only roughly 19 times a day. So that’s one sex thought every hour and a bit.

And the study found something else besides. Men think about food as much as sex, and sleep nearly as much. So men think about their physical needs a lot, and more than women do, but we don’t think about sex anywhere near as much as previously claimed.

Myth 10 - men break up and move on

The final myth says that when a love affair ends, cold and heartless men spend a couple of days in a bit of a bad mood and by the weekend are back on the pull. Women, on the other hand, spend months tearing their hair out and analysing what went wrong.

In fact, a US study found that, when a relationship is in trouble, men are more badly affected than women. Men also dealt with rocky love lives in a more damaging way, turning to booze for back-up while jilted women turned to friends.

Part of that might be that women see the end coming before men do. Research conducted at Carnegie Mellon University suggests that women adjust better to the end of a relationship because they've already thought about the possibility, whereas men are typically unprepared for it.

So are you a cold, unromantic man who is in a relationship largely for the sex and would much rather be out swilling beer with the boys than staying in with your partner? If so it seems that you might be in the minority.

So have your say below and tell us what you think.

Warning: The girl is using you!

A relationship is a new adventure and it's something to be excited about. Sure, every couple has a few early teething issues and past failures or mistakes often govern a person's mindset. This is normal and probably quite healthy to bear in mind when making decisions, but making a new relationship work involves opening yourself up to the fact you may get hurt.

That said, there are certain warning signs that could alert you to the notion that your partner isn't as keen on you personally as you may have hoped.
So how can you protect yourself from the type of girl who's just using you for what you can give to them? Whether it be an ego-boost, money, or a short distraction before someone else comes along, you don't want to find out she's really not that into you after it's too late.
Money
This may seem obvious, but it isn't always the case. A woman likes to feel special and a chivalrous man will be happy to buy dinner, drinks, tickets and other things. If a bloke expects a date to chip in with the bill right away he may come across as cheap, and that's the last thing you want. Generosity is an important trait, after all.
So, at the start of a relationship it's best to perhaps wait and see if her attitude to paying changes. But if you're past the third date and she's not offering to split the bill, alarm bells should go off.
The same rule applies when you meet a girl at a bar. Sure, buy her one, maybe two drinks, but come the third, it's her round.
It's all on her terms
A relationship involves compromise and flexibility. It's nice to know your partner will go out of her way to make you happy and vice versa. So, when you have no say in anything and find your girlfriend is only available when she wants to be, there's a problem.
Of course, she's entitled to her own life, but if she shows disinterest in everything you do and isn't prepared to go that extra mile, so to speak, the chances are she isn't keen on getting to know you.
An excellent tester is your friend's opinions, because they should be honest with you and want to see you happy. If you're girl makes no effort with your friends and family then it's fair to assume you're considered nothing more than a time-filler. She'll be out the door as soon as someone she considers better comes along.
Physical and emotional manipulation
Women have a great deal of power over men and they know it! First up, they generally know men lust after them and that we love sex, and secondly they also know how to play the victim and make us men feel guilty.
Emotional manipulation comes in many forms, and if your girl is using any of them she obviously doesn't respect you enough to communicate properly. You shouldn't put up with this.
One popular technique is weeding out previous bad experiences and weaving them into your current relationship to make you feel bad. Yes, she may have been treated poorly in the past, but that isn't your fault — and if she's not prepared to talk openly about it with you, there's nothing you can do. Yes, express concern and sympathy, but if you're dealing with a train wreck, then she's not seeing you in the right light.
Avoiding sex is a big one, too, especially when you've been dating for a little while. Of course, you can't expect to sleep with a girl right away and you certainly don't want to appear as though it's all you want, but you really shouldn't have to ask.
Women are sexual creatures as well, and most of them will have normal sex drives. If she really is into you and comfortable in the relationship, she'll most likely want to have sex with you as much as you want to get physical with her. If she's withholding, then you know there's something wrong.
Remember, what you get out of a relationship should be roughly what you put in. If you're genuinely treating your girlfriend with respect and showing her how much you care then she should return those feelings equally. You know why you are in the relationship and what you want out of it — so don't accept anything less.
How can you tell if your partner is using you? Have your say below

FBI admits to flying drones over US without warrants

The Triton unmanned aircraft system.(Reuters / Bob Brown)

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) says it has used drones for domestic surveillance purposes in the United States at least ten times without obtaining warrants. In three additional cases, drones were authorized but “not actually used.”

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on Thursday published a letter from FBI Assistant Director Stephen D. Kelly, who admitted that the agency used unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) domestically, without gathering any warrants.

“The FBI uses UAVs in very limited circumstances to conduct surveillance when there is a specific, operational need,” the letter reads. “Since late 2006, the FBI has conducted surveillance using UAVs in eight criminal cases and two national security cases.”

The bureau said that it would only be required to obtain a warrant to use a drone in cases for which a person “would have a reasonable expectation of privacy.” The FBI stated that it has not yet needed to ask for a warrant, but that all requests for drone use must be reviewed by an agency lawyer and approved by a senior management official.

The agency said that one of the cases involved the rescue of a five-year-old boy who was being held hostage in an underground bunker. The information strongly suggests that the agency was referring to the Alabama hostage crisis in which a retired truck driver kidnapped a boy from a school bus and held him hostage for six days.

Drone usage was also authorized in three additional cases, but the FBI did not release details about the nature of those circumstances.

Sen. Paul has long advocated against domestic drone usage, and in March held up CIA Director John Brennan’s nomination for nearly 13 hours, due to his history of defending drone strikes. In June, FBI Director Robert Mueller admitted that his agency uses drones to spy on US citizens without any “operational guidelines.” Since Mueller’s announcement, Paul has sent a series of open letters to the FBI, requesting detailed information about its use of drones in the United States.

In his second letter, mailed July 9, Paul threatened to filibuster the confirmation hearing for James Comey, Mueller’s successor, if he didn’t receive a response. This week, Paul finally received the information he sought.

But Paul was discontent with part of the agency’s response. In a follow-up letter addressed to Mueller, he expressed concern about the FBI’s ability to use drones without a warrant in cases where there is no “reasonable expectation of privacy.” He said the clause could result in “an over-broad interpretation of this protection,” and asked the FBI to clarify what would require a warrant.

Sen. Paul also took his concerns to Twitter, telling his followers that “spying without warrants is unconstitutional.”

Overall, confirmation of the FBI’s drone use might be cause for concern among privacy advocates and anti-drone activists. Dave Norris, a councilman of Charlottesville, Va., predicted last February that drone use would occur domestically, and feared that there would be room for abuse.

“To me, it’s Big Brother in the sky,” he told the New York Times. “I don’t mean to sound conspiratorial about it, but these drones are coming, and we need to put some safeguards in place so they are not abused.”

So now you know Big Brother is watching you and invading your life without guidelines or warrants.

As always feel free to leave your comments.  

How to Know if Your Girlfriend Is Cheating on You

Sometimes, a good relationship can be ruined by mistrusting your girlfriend. But if you suspect she's cheating, the nagging suspicion can be almost impossible to ignore. Here's how to start figuring out if your fears are real.

1. Take a step back. Before you do anything rash, take a moment to exhale and consider the situation. Ask yourself:
What makes you think she's cheating? Do you have hard evidence, or just a hunch?
How trustworthy do you think your girlfriend is? Do you think she'd be capable of something like this?
Has your girlfriend lied to you? Can you think of any instances when you haven't been sure if she's telling the truth?
Is she absent or unreachable for long periods of time? Does she bail out on your plans often?

2. Observe. Watch how your girlfriend acts around you and other people. Do you notice any significant changes in her behavior, such as:

Does she send you text messages or calls less often? If you start being the one to call or text her first all the time, that's a bad sign.
Secret phone conversations. Does she leave the room every time she gets a call on her cell? Is she just trying to be polite? If she's trying to guard her conversations on the phone, there may be reason to worry.
Distinct changes in appearance. If your girlfriend suddenly starts worrying a little more about her appearance, (new clothes, always clean shaven, spending more time in the mirror) she may be trying to look good for someone else. If she gets dressed up for you, that's one thing but if they seem to spend a little more time looking good to go out without you, you might want to look into that.
Picking fights: Is your girlfriend picking fights and arguing more with you? This could just be an excuse to get out of the house. Picking a fight and then storming out of the house to get away from you is an easy way to go spend time with someone else.
Lying: Catching her in a lie, no matter how small, is always cause for concern. Try to connect lies with certain time frames and you may have a connection to infidelity.
Computer time: An increase in computer time may a sign you are being cheated on. There are many adult chat rooms out there that cater to infidelity.
Friends behavioral change: If your friends seem to feel uncomfortable around you, they may know something that you don't. This is a classic sign that your girlfriend is cheating on you and you are the last to know.
Accusing you: Another common sign you are being cheated on is that she constantly accuses you of the very same thing she is guilty of — cheating. She may drop hints that you are having an affair because her own guilt is starting to wear on her.
Emotionally detached. When she no longer cares about things related to the relationship. She has a cold, distant vibe that feels as if a large wall is up and you can't do anything to break it down.

3. Express affection and watch how she responds. These are signs that she might be thinking of cheating:

Tell her you love her. Does she say it back?
Hold her hand. Does she try to pull it away? Does she look nervous?

4. Look at her past. Like the old saying goes, "Once a cheater, always a cheater". Has she snuck around other boyfriends in the past? If so, then, she might already be comfortable with cheating.

5 Be up-front with her. Tell her you have something on your mind, and ask if she has time to talk in a private space. Don't accuse her (such as, "I know you're cheating!"), but do express your feelings (like "I feel like you're losing interest in our relationship").

Notice whether or not she gives you an answer. If she isn't cheating, she has no reason not to be straightforward and reassure you that everything is fine. If she is, she might talk in circles without really saying anything.
If she becomes defensive or tries to turn the tables on you, this might be her guilt talking.

6. Follow your gut. Sometimes, you just know things without having to second-guess yourself. No amount of crying and denial can rival the feelings you have in the pit of your stomach. After you've taken all the evidence into consideration, it's time to follow your intuition.

Quick Tip Rundown
If she is making excuses not to spend time with you but is going the extra mile to hang out with her so-called friends, it's likely that she doesn't want to be with you anymore.

If your girlfriend begins to start acting differently with the way she speaks to you and the way she acts when you are not around that could be a sign.

She will make all kinds of excuses to make you feel bad and the ease of getting away from cheating.

You can obviously tell if your girlfriend is cheating on you if she doesn't have the time to be with you anymore. It almost seems as if she has plans without you.

Don't just randomly ask her, "Hey, you wouldn't happen to be cheating on me, would you?" She's going to say no anyway and she'll think you don't trust her.

Nothing you can do will dictate her actions. Sometimes, there is simply nothing you can do but walk away. Never, ever, dismiss this as an option or you will not get anywhere.

She doesn't want you to know her associations, see her emails or her phone.

If she talks (texts) another guy more than she texts your or when you are out doing something, it's a good sign she might be cheating.

If she can't look you in your face while you two are talking, that might mean she is cheating on you.

If your girlfriend is coming home at extremely late hours after long periods of absence, this may be a sign that she is having an affair.

Well this is the first part of the two part blog series I have for Yall this weekend. Look for part 2 tomorrow. As always feel free to leave your comments .

FED's demand your user names and password for your online accounts.

Secret demands mark escalation in Internet surveillance by the federal government through gaining access to user passwords, which are typically stored in encrypted.

The U.S. government has demanded that major Internet companies divulge users' stored passwords, according to two industry sources familiar with these orders, which represent an escalation in surveillance techniques that has not previously been disclosed.

If the government is able to determine a person's password, which is typically stored in encrypted form, the credential could be used to log in to an account to peruse confidential correspondence or even impersonate the user. Obtaining it also would aid in deciphering encrypted devices in situations where passwords are reused.

"I've certainly seen them ask for passwords," said one Internet industry source who spoke on condition of anonymity. "We push back."

A second person who has worked at a large Silicon Valley company confirmed that it received legal requests from the federal government for stored passwords. Companies "really heavily scrutinize" these requests, the person said. "There's a lot of 'over my dead body.'"

Some of the government orders demand not only a user's password but also the encryption algorithm and the so-called salt, according to a person familiar with the requests. A salt is a random string of letters or numbers used to make it more difficult to reverse the encryption process and determine the original password. Other orders demand the secret question codes often associated with user accounts.

"This is one of those unanswered legal questions: Is there any circumstance under which they could get password information?"
--Jennifer Granick, Stanford University

A Microsoft spokesperson would not say whether the company has received such requests from the government. But when asked whether Microsoft would divulge passwords, salts, or algorithms, the spokesperson replied: "No, we don't, and we can't see a circumstance in which we would provide it."

Google also declined to disclose whether it had received requests for those types of data. But a spokesperson said the company has "never" turned over a user's encrypted password, and that it has a legal team that frequently pushes back against requests that are fishing expeditions or are otherwise problematic. "We take the privacy and security of our users very seriously," the spokesperson said.

A Yahoo spokeswoman would not say whether the company had received such requests. The spokeswoman said: "If we receive a request from law enforcement for a user's password, we deny such requests on the grounds that they would allow overly broad access to our users' private information. If we are required to provide information, we do so only in the strictest interpretation of what is required by law."

Apple, Facebook, AOL, Verizon, AT&T, Time Warner Cable, and Comcast did not respond to queries about whether they have received requests for users' passwords and how they would respond to them.

Richard Lovejoy, a director of the Opera Software subsidiary that operates FastMail, said he doesn't recall receiving any such requests but that the company still has a relatively small number of users compared with its larger rivals. Because of that, he said, "we don't get a high volume" of U.S. government demands.

The FBI declined to comment.

Some details remain unclear, including when the requests began and whether the government demands are always targeted at individuals or seek entire password database dumps. The Patriot Act has been used to demand entire database dumps of phone call logs, and critics have suggested its use is broader. "The authority of the government is essentially limitless" under that law, Sen. Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat who serves on the Senate Intelligence committee, said at a Washington event this week.

Large Internet companies have resisted the government's requests by arguing that "you don't have the right to operate the account as a person," according to a person familiar with the issue. "I don't know what happens when the government goes to smaller providers and demands user passwords," the person said.

An attorney who represents Internet companies said he has not fielded government password requests, but "we've certainly had reset requests -- if you have the device in your possession, than a password reset is the easier way."

Source code to a C implementation of bcrypt, a popular algorithm used for password hashing.
Photo by Declan McCullagh
Cracking the codes
Even if the National Security Agency or the FBI successfully obtains an encrypted password, salt, and details about the algorithm used, unearthing a user's original password is hardly guaranteed. The odds of success depend in large part on two factors: the type of algorithm and the complexity of the password.

Algorithms, known as hash functions, that are viewed as suitable for scrambling stored passwords are designed to be difficult to reverse. One popular hash function called MD5, for instance, transforms the phrase "National Security Agency" into this string of seemingly random characters: 84bd1c27b26f7be85b2742817bb8d43b. Computer scientists believe that, if a hash function is well-designed, the original phrase cannot be derived from the output.

But modern computers, especially ones equipped with high-performance video cards, can test passwords scrambled with MD5 and other well-known hash algorithms at the rate of billions a second. One system using 25 Radeon-powered GPUs that was demonstrated at a conference last December tested 348 billion hashes per second, meaning it would crack a 14-character Windows XP password in six minutes.

The best practice among Silicon Valley companies is to adopt far slower hash algorithms -- designed to take a large fraction of a second to scramble a password -- that have been intentionally crafted to make it more difficult and expensive for the NSA and other attackers to test every possible combination.

One popular algorithm, used by Twitter and LinkedIn, is called bcrypt. A 2009 paper (PDF) by computer scientist Colin Percival estimated that it would cost a mere $4 to crack, in an average of one year, an 8-character bcrypt password composed only of letters. To do it in an average of one day, the hardware cost would jump to approximately $1,500.

But if a password of the same length included numbers, asterisks, punctuation marks, and other special characters, the cost-per-year leaps to $130,000. Increasing the length to any 10 characters, Percival estimated in 2009, brings the estimated cracking cost to a staggering $1.2 billion.

As computers have become more powerful, the cost of cracking bcrypt passwords has decreased. "I'd say as a rough ballpark, the current cost would be around 1/20th of the numbers I have in my paper," said Percival, who founded a company called Tarsnap Backup, which offers "online backups for the truly paranoid." Percival added that a government agency would likely use ASICs -- application-specific integrated circuits -- for password cracking because it's "the most cost-efficient -- at large scale -- approach."

While developing Tarsnap, Percival devised an algorithm called scrypt, which he estimates can make the "cost of a hardware brute-force attack" against a hashed password as much as 4,000 times greater than bcrypt.

Bcrypt was introduced (PDF) at a 1999 Usenix conference by Niels Provos, currently a distinguished engineer in Google's infrastructure group, and David Mazières, an associate professor of computer science at Stanford University.

With the computers available today, "bcrypt won't pipeline very well in hardware," Mazières said, so it would "still be very expensive to do widespread cracking."

Even if "the NSA is asking for access to hashed bcrypt passwords," Mazières said, "that doesn't necessarily mean they are cracking them." Easier approaches, he said, include an order to extract them from the server or network when the user logs in -- which has been done before -- or installing a keylogger at the client.

Sen. Ron Wyden, who warned this week that "the authority of the government is essentially limitless" under the Patriot Act's business records provision.
Getty Images
Questions of law
Whether the National Security Agency or FBI has the legal authority to demand that an Internet company divulge a hashed password, salt, and algorithm remains murky.

"This is one of those unanswered legal questions: Is there any circumstance under which they could get password information?" said Jennifer Granick, director of civil liberties at Stanford University's Center for Internet and Society. "I don't know."

Granick said she's not aware of any precedent for an Internet company "to provide passwords, encrypted or otherwise, or password algorithms to the government -- for the government to crack passwords and use them unsupervised." If the password will be used to log in to the account, she said, that's "prospective surveillance," which would require a wiretap order or Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act order.

If the government can subsequently determine the password, "there's a concern that the provider is enabling unauthorized access to the user's account if they do that," Granick said. That could, she said, raise legal issues under the Stored Communications Act and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

The Justice Department has argued in court proceedings before that it has broad legal authority to obtain passwords. In 2011, for instance, federal prosecutors sent a grand jury subpoena demanding the password that would unlock files encrypted with the TrueCrypt utility.

The Florida man who received the subpoena claimed the Fifth Amendment, which protects his right to avoid self-incrimination, allowed him to refuse the prosecutors' demand. In February 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit agreed, saying that because prosecutors could bring a criminal prosecution against him based on the contents of the decrypted files, the man "could not be compelled to decrypt the drives."

In January 2012, a federal district judge in Colorado reached the opposite conclusion, ruling that a criminal defendant could be compelled under the All Writs Act to type in the password that would unlock a Toshiba Satellite laptop.

Both of those cases, however, deal with criminal proceedings when the password holder is the target of an investigation -- and don't address when a hashed password is stored on the servers of a company that's an innocent third party.

"If you can figure out someone's password, you have the ability to reuse the account," which raises significant privacy concerns, said Seth Schoen, a senior staff technologist at the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

As always feel free to coment.

Obama Executive Order: All Americans Must Get Tested For HIV/AIDS

Yes another executive order. This just keeps rolling out. Not sure if I am for this or against it... You tell me..

EXECUTIVE ORDER- – - – - – -ACCELERATING IMPROVEMENTS IN HIV PREVENTION AND CARE IN THE UNITED STATES THROUGH THE HIV CARE CONTINUUM INITIATIVEBy the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to further strengthen the capacity of the Federal Government to effectively respond to the ongoing domestic HIV epidemic, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Policy. Addressing the domestic HIV epidemic is a priority of my Administration. In 2010, the White House released the first comprehensive National HIV/AIDS Strategy (Strategy), setting quantitative goals for reducing new HIV infections, improving health outcomes for people living with HIV, and reducing HIV-related health disparities. The Strategy will continue to serve as the blueprint for our national response to the domestic epidemic. It has increased coordination, collaboration, and accountability across executive departments and agencies (agencies) with regard to addressing the epidemic. It has also focused our Nation’s collective efforts on increasing the use of evidence-based approaches to prevention and care among populations and in regions where HIV is most concentrated.

Since the release of the Strategy, additional scientific discoveries have greatly enhanced our understanding of how to prevent and treat HIV. Accordingly, further Federal action is appropriate in response to these new developments. For example, a breakthrough research trial supported by the National Institutes of Health showed that initiating HIV treatment when the immune system was relatively healthy reduced HIV transmission by 96 percent. In addition, evidence suggests that early treatment may reduce HIV-related complications. These findings highlight the importance of prompt HIV diagnosis, and because of recent advances in HIV testing technology, HIV can be detected sooner and more rapidly than ever before.Based on these and other data, recommendations for HIV testing and treatment have changed. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force now recommends that clinicians screen all individuals ages 15 to 65 years for HIV, and the Department of Health and Human Services Guidelines for Use of Antiretroviral Agents now recommends offering treatment to all adolescents and adults diagnosed with HIV.

Furthermore, ongoing implementation of the Affordable Care Act provides a historic opportunity for Americans to access affordable, quality health care. The Act is expanding access to recommended preventive services with no out-of-pocket costs, including HIV testing, and, beginning in 2014, insurancecompanies will not be able to deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions, including HIV. Starting October 1, 2013, Americans can select the coverage that best suits them through the new Health Insurance Marketplace, and coverage will begin January 1, 2014.

Despite progress in combating HIV, important work remains. Since the publication of the Strategy, data released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that there are significant gaps along the HIV care continuum — the sequential stages of care from being diagnosed to receiving optimal treatment. Nearly one-fifth of the estimated 1.1 million people living with HIV in the United States are undiagnosed; one-third are not linked to medical care; nearly two-thirds are not engaged in ongoing care; and only one-quarter have the virus effectively controlled, which is necessary to maintain long-term health and reduce risk of transmission to others.

In light of these data, we must further clarify and focus our national efforts to prevent and treat HIV infection. It is the policy of my Administration that agencies implementing the Strategy prioritize addressing the continuum of HIV care, including by accelerating efforts to increase HIV testing, services, and treatment along the continuum. This acceleration will enable us to meet the goals of the Strategy and move closer to an AIDS-free generation.

Sec. 2. Establishment of the HIV Care Continuum Initiative. There is established the HIV Care Continuum Initiative (Initiative), to be overseen by the Director of the Office of National AIDS Policy. The Initiative will mobilize and coordinate Federal efforts in response to recent advances regarding how to prevent and treat HIV infection. The Initiative will support further integration of HIV prevention and care efforts; promote expansion of successful HIV testing and service delivery models; encourage innovative approaches to addressing barriers to accessing testing and treatment; and ensure that Federal resources are appropriately focused on implementing evidence-based interventions that improve outcomes along the HIV care continuum.

Sec. 3. Establishment of the HIV Care Continuum Working Group. There is established the HIV Care Continuum Working Group (Working Group) to support the Initiative. The Working Group shall coordinate Federal efforts to improve outcomes nationally across the HIV care continuum.

(a) Membership. The Working Group shall be co-chaired by the Director of the Office of National AIDS Policy and the Secretary of Health and Human Services or designee (Co-Chairs). In addition to the Co-Chairs, the Working Group shall consist of representatives from:

(i) the Department of Justice;(ii) the Department of Labor;(iii) the Department of Health and Human Services;(iv) the Department of Housing and Urban Development;(v) the Department of Veterans Affairs;(vi) the Office of Management and Budget; and(vii) other agencies and offices, as designated by the Co-Chairs.

(b) Consultation. The Working Group shall consult with the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS, as appropriate.

(c) Functions. As part of the Initiative, the Working Group shall:(i) request and review information from agencies describing efforts to improve testing, care, and treatment outcomes, and determine if there is appropriate emphasis on addressing the HIV care continuum in relation to other work concerning the domestic epidemic;(ii) review research on improving outcomes along the HIV care continuum;(iii) obtain input from Federal grantees, affected communities, and other stakeholders to inform strategies to improve outcomes along the HIV care continuum;(iv) identify potential impediments to improving outcomes along the HIV care continuum, including for populations at greatest risk for HIV infection, based on the efforts undertaken pursuant to paragraphs (i), (ii), and (iii) of this subsection;(v) identify opportunities to address issues identified pursuant to paragraph (iv) of this subsection, and thereby improve outcomes along the HIV care continuum;(vi) recommend ways to integrate efforts to improve outcomes along the HIV care continuum with other evidence-based strategies to combat HIV; and(vii) specify how to better align and coordinate Federal efforts, both within and across agencies, to improve outcomes along the HIV care continuum.

(d) Reporting.(i) Within 180 days of the date of this order, the Working Group shall provide recommendations to the President on actions that agencies can take to improve outcomes along the HIV care continuum.(ii) Thereafter, the Director of the Office of National AIDS Policy shall include, as part of the annual report to the President pursuant to section 1(b) of my memorandum of July 13, 2010 (Implementation of the National HIV/AIDS Strategy), a report prepared by the Working Group onGovernment-wide progress in implementing this order. This report shall include a quantification of progress made in improving outcomes along the HIV care continuum.

Sec. 4. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department, agency, or the head thereof; or(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

BARACK OBAMA

Source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/07/15/executive-order-hiv-care-continuum-initiative

I am evil...

Yes I am that ass that is going 60 to 70 miles an hour making you speed all the way with me and when you catch up with me I stop doing 70 in a 60 why cause I can and I am evil today..

Sorry that's how i is.
Sent via goggle voice...

Sources: NSA sucks in data from 50 companies

Yep the FEDS ae at it agian and up to their same old tricks. When are "WE THE PEOPLE" gonna wake up..

Analysts at the National Security Agency can now secretly access real-time user data provided by as many as 50 American companies, ranging from credit rating agencies to internet service providers, two government officials familiar with the arrangements said.

Several of the companies have provided records continuously since 2006, while others have given the agency sporadic access, these officials said. These officials disclosed the number of participating companies in order to provide context for a series of disclosures about the NSA's domestic collection policies. The officials, contacted independently, repeatedly said that "domestic collection" does not mean that the target is based in the U.S. or is a U.S. citizen; rather, it refers only to the origin of the data.

The Wall Street Journal reported today that U.S. credit card companies had also provided customer information. The officials would not disclose the names of the companies because, they said, doing so would provide U.S. enemies with a list of companies to avoid. They declined to confirm the list of participants in an internet monitoring program revealed by the Washington Post and the Guardian, but both confirmed that the program existed.

"The idea is to create a mosaic. We get a tip. We vet it. Then we mine the data for intelligence," one of the officials said.

In a statement, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said that programs collect communications "pursuant to section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, " and "cannot be used to intentionally target any U.S. citizen, any other U.S person, or anyone within the United States."

He called the leaks "reprehensible" and said the program "is among the most important" sources of "valuable" intelligence information the government takes in.

One of the officials who spoke to me said that because data types are not standardized, the NSA needs several different collection tools, of which PRISM, disclosed today by the Guardian and the Washington Post, is one. PRISM works well because it is able to handle several different types of data streams using different basic encryption methods, the person said. It is a "front end" system, or software, that allows an NSA analyst to search through the data and pull out items of significance, which are then stored in any number of databases. PRISM works with another NSA program to encrypt and remove from the analysts' screen data that a computer or the analyst deems to be from a U.S. person who is not the subject of the investigation, the person said. A FISA order is required to continue monitoring and analyzing these datasets, although the monitoring can start before an application package is submitted to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

From the different types of data, including their credit card purchases, the locations they sign in to the internet from, and even local police arrest logs, the NSA can track people it considers terrorism or espionage suspects in near-real time. An internet geo-location cell is on constant standby to help analysts determine where a subject logs in from. Most of the collection takes place on subjects outside the U.S, but a large chunk of the world's relevant communication passes through American companies with servers on American soil. So the NSA taps in locally to get at targets globally.

It is not clear how the NSA interfaces with the companies. It cannot use standard law enforcement transmission channels to do, since most use data protocols that are not compatible with that hardware. Several of the companies mentioned in the Post report deny granting access to the NSA, although it is possible that they are lying, or that the NSA's arrangements with the company are kept so tightly compartmentalized that very few people know about it. Those who do probably have security clearances and are bound by law not to reveal the arrangement.

This arrangement allows the U.S. companies to "stay out of the intelligence business," one of the officials said. That is, the government bears the responsibility for determining what's relevant, and the company can plausibly deny that it subjected any particular customer to unlawful government surveillance. Previously, Congressional authors of the FAA said that such a "get out of jail free" card was insisted by corporations after a wave of lawsuits revealed the extent of their cooperation with the government.

It is possible, but not likely, that the NSA clandestinely burrows into servers on American soil, without the knowledge of the company in question, although that would be illegal.

The 2008 FISA Amendments Act allow the NSA to analyze, with court orders, domestic communications of all types for counter-terrorism, counter-espionage, counter-narcotics and counter-proliferation purposes. If the agency believes that both ends of the communication, or the circle of those communicating, are wholly within the U.S., the FBI takes over. If one end of the conversation is outside the U.S., the NSA keeps control of the monitoring. An administration official said that such monitoring is subject to "extensive procedures," but as the Washington Post reported, however, it is often very difficult to segregate U.S. citizens and residents from incidental contact.

One official likened the NSA's collection authority to a van full of sealed boxes that are delivered to the agency. A court order, similar to the one revealed by the Guardian, permits the transfer of custody of the "boxes." But the NSA needs something else, a specific purpose or investigation, in order to open a particular box. The chairman of the Senate intelligence committee, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, said the standard was "a reasonable, articulatable" suspicion, but did not go into details.

Legally, the government can ask companies for some of these records under a provision of the PATRIOT Act called the "business records provision." Initially, it did so without court cognizance. Now, the FISC signs off on every request.

Armed with what amounts to a rubber stamp court order, however, the NSA can collect and store trillions of bytes of electromagnetic detritus shaken off by American citizens. In the government's eyes, the data is simply moving from one place to another. It does not become, in the government's eyes, relevant or protected in any way unless and until it is subject to analysis. Analysis requires that second order.

And the government insists that the rules allowing the NSA or the FBI to analyze anything relating to U.S. persons or corporations are strict, bright-line, and are regularly scrutinized to ensure that innocents don't get caught up in the mix. The specifics, however, remain classified, as do the oversight mechanisms in place.

The wave of disclosures about the NSA programs have significantly unsettled the intelligence community.

The documents obtained by the two newspapers are marked ORCON, or originator controlled, which generally means that the agency keeps a record of every person who accesses them online and knows exactly who might have printed out or saved or accessed a copy. The NSA in particular has a good record of protecting its documents.

The scope of the least suggest to one former senior intelligence official who now works for a corporation that provides data to the NSA that several people with top-level security clearances had to be involved.

The motive, I suspect, is to punch through the brittle legal and moral foundation that modern domestic surveillance is based upon. Someone, at a very high level, or several people, may have simply found that the agency's zeal to collect information blinded it to the real-world consequences of such a large and unending program. The minimization procedures might also be well below the threshold that most Americans would expect.

Clapper said in his statement that the disclosures about the program "risk important protections for the security of Americans."


As always feel free to comment.

Is the NSA Making a Gun Registry?

A bipartisan group of Senators who aren’t satisfied with the National Security Agency’s (NSA) answers on a whole host of questions, recently sent a letter to the agency trying to get some more definite answers. The Senators, led by Ron Wyden (D-OR), asked whether or not the NSA was collecting (or had collected) data that went beyond simple phone records. Data like gun purchases.

The Senators were troubled that the actions of the NSA could have allowed them to collect bulk data that the government should not be privy to.

“It can be used to collect information on credit card purchases, pharmacy records, library records, firearm sales records, financial information, and a range of other sensitive subjects. And the bulk collection authority could potentially be used to supersede bans on maintaining gun owner databases, or laws protecting the privacy of medical records, financial records, and records of book and movie purchases.”

The Senators are worried that the NSA’s understanding of their legal limits and boundaries may be quite different than that of the American people. The problem is that much of the guidelines that our more clandestine agencies are using have been developed in secret and do not have any oversight until someone uncovers malfeasance.

Operating in this manner, many agencies may indeed be breaking the law simply because they understand the law to give them certain freedoms that they do not actually have.

In other words, because of the Patriot Act and other similar legislation that our government is using to fight the war on terror, certain government agencies may actually be breaking the law and diminishing the Constitution simply because they interpret the law wrong deciding that it gives them more power than it really does.

We have already seen that the NSA has completely disregarded our rights under the 4thAmendment; if they thought it could keep a terrorist attack from happening why wouldn’t they violate our 1st or 2nd Amendment too? This could be exactly what is happening now. The letter drafted by the Senators is broader than this, but the information the NSA has been consuming may allow them to build a partial (but very large) national gun registry, allowing the government to know which law abiding citizens have firearms, and what type of firearms they have.

A spokesman for Senator Mike Lee, who signed on to the letter as well, said it best:

“In this country, the government can’t just monitor your constitutionally protected activities—like gun ownership—just because it wants to “The justification that, ‘if you’re not doing anything wrong, you don’t have to worry about it,’ turns us into a police state very quickly. That’s why Congress is right to seek broad oversight of the NSA’s data collection programs.”

Obama Signs Executive Order to Allow Shut Down of All US Communications!

US President Barack Obama quietly signed his name to an Executive Order on Friday, allowing the White House to control all private communications in the country in the name of national security.

President Obama released his latest Executive Order on Friday, July 6, a 2,205-word statement offered as the “Assignment of National Security and Emergency Preparedness Communications Functions.” And although the president chose not to commemorate the signing with much fanfare, the powers he provides to himself and the federal government under the latest order are among the most far-reaching yet of any of his executive decisions.

“The Federal Government must have the ability to communicate at all times and under all circumstances to carry out its most critical and time sensitive missions,” the president begins the order. “Survivable, resilient, enduring and effective communications, both domestic and international, are essential to enable the executive branch to communicate within itself and with: the legislative and judicial branches; State, local, territorial and tribal governments; private sector entities; and the public, allies and other nations.”

President Obama adds that it is necessary for the government to be able to reach anyone in the country during situations it considers critical, writing, “Such communications must be possible under all circumstances to ensure national security, effectively manage emergencies and improve national resilience.”Later the president explains that such could be done by establishing a “joint industry-Government center that is capable of assisting in the initiation, coordination, restoration and reconstitution of NS/EP [national security and emergency preparedness] communications services or facilities under all conditions of emerging threats, crisis or emergency.”

“The views of all levels of government, the private and nonprofit sectors, and the public must inform the development of NS/EP communications policies, programs and capabilities,” he adds.

On the government’s official website for the National Communications Systems, the government explains that that “infrastructure includes wireline, wireless, satellite, cable, and broadcasting, and provides the transport networks that support the Internet and other key information systems,” suggesting that the president has indeed effectively just allowed himself to control the country’s Internet access.

In order to allow the White House to reach anyone within the US, the president has put forth a plan to establish a high-level committee calling from agents with the Department of Homeland Security, Pentagon, Federal Communications Commission and other government divisions to ensure that his new executive order can be implemented.

In explaining the order, the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) writes that the president has authorized the DHS "the authority to seize private facilities when necessary, effectively shutting down or limiting civilian communications."

In Section 5 of his order, President Obama outlines the specific department and agency responsibilities that will see through his demands. In a few paragraphs, President Obama explains that Executive Committee that will oversee his order must be supplied with “the technical support necessary to develop and maintain plans adequate to provide for the security and protection of NS/EP communications,” and that that same body will be in tasked with dispatching that communiqué “to the Federal Government and State, local, territorial and trial governments,” by means of “commercial, Government and privately owned communications resources.”

Later, the president announces that the Department of Homeland Security will be tasked with drafting a plan during the next 60 days to explain how the DHS will command the government’s Emergency Telecommunications Service, as well as other telecom conduits. In order to be able to spread the White House’s message across the country, President Obama also asks for the purchasing of equipment and services that will enable such.

The fact that our nation needs so much "national security" is puzzling, given the fact that President Obama has declared himself leader of the front that has ended terrorism in the U.S. It seems like now, more than ever, our nation is in peril according to the State Department; but many U.S. citizens are asking themselves, "From what?", or better yet, "From who?"

According to Obama, the items of confiscation, or shut down can include: wireline, wireless, satellite, cable, broadcasting, internet, and other key information systems. Never in United States' history has a president given himself the authority to shut down the entire nation and immobilize the citizenry.

The public has been alerted recently that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has been buying an excessive amount of weaponry and ammunition; inclusive of hallow point bullets. DHS has also been given authority to "supervise" some protests throughout the nation. Tea Party groups have had several organized and peaceful protests circled by Department of Homeland Security officers, leading many to believe that DHS has been given the authority to intimidate as well.

If you combine bullets with nationwide immobilizing of all communications, the power given unto the government, is a power our founding fathers never foresaw, nor wished.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) recently announced that they had already used drones on Americans for surveillance.

This is just one step closer to American's journey towards a police state. As always please feel free to leave your comments.

Religion..... Catholic's, Baptist's, Rabbi's

 A Catholic Priest, a Baptist Preacher and a Rabbi all served as Chaplains to the students of Northern Michigan University at Marquette in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. They would get together two or three times a week for coffee and to talk shop. One day, someone made the comment that preaching to people isn't really all that hard, a real challenge would be to preach to a bear. One thing led to another, and they decided to do an experiment. They would all go out into the woods, find a bear, preach to it, and attempt to convert it to their religion.

Seven days later, they all came together to discuss their experiences.

Father Flannery, who had his arm in a sling, was on crutches, and had various bandages on his body and limbs, went first.

'Well,' he said, 'I went into the woods to find me a bear. And when I found him, I began to read to him from the Catechism.

Well, that bear wanted nothing to do with me and began to slap me around. So I quickly grabbed my holy water, sprinkled him and, Holy Mary Mother of God, he became as gentle as a lamb. The Bishop is coming out next week to give him first communion and confirmation.

'Reverend Billy Bob spoke next. He was in a wheelchair, had one arm and both legs in casts, and had an IV drip. In his best fire-and-brimstone oratory, he exclaimed, 'WELL, brothers, you KNOW that we Baptists don't sprinkle! I went out and I FOUND me a bear. And then I began to read to my bear from God's HOLY WORD! But that bear wanted nothing to do with me. So I took HOLD of him and we began to wrestle. We wrestled down one hill, UP another and DOWN another until we came to a creek.

So I quickly DUNKED him and BAPTIZED his hairy soul. And just like you said, he became as gentle as a lamb. We spent the rest of the day praising Jesus. Hallelujah!

The Priest and the Reverend both looked down at the Rabbi, who was lying in a hospital bed. He was in a body cast and traction with IVs and monitors running in and out of him. He was in really bad shape. The Rabbi looked up and said: "Looking back on it, ...circumcision may not have been the best way to start.....

Sorry Couldn't help myself.

DHS Guards IRS Offices as Americans Call For Impeachment, IRS Officials Pleading 5th

Over at the National Journal, pundit Charlie Cook has written that Republicans should just stop harping on scandals about Benghazi, IRS, and Associated Press (and Fox and CBS) — because the public doesn’t care. Is that true? Do you really not care that scandals are currently oozing out of the administration like body fluids out of a salted slug?

We here at Mr. Conservative believe that you care deeply. You care about the Benghazi scandal because four brave men died in the service of their country. You care because their deaths came about through a combination of denial (“Al Qaeda?! No, there’s no Al Qaeda here”) and negligence (“I’m Hillary Clinton and this Stevens guy is boring me with his requests for extra security.”). You care because, on the night they died, Obama issued stand-down orders and vanished from the scene, presumably to catch a good night’s rest before campaigning in Vegas.  And you care because, after the attack, the administration lied to you repeatedly, not for national security reasons, but to cover its own failures.

You care about the fact that Obama’s Justice Department has been spying on reporters – including reporters who routinely carried water for his policies and peccadillos – because you believe in the First Amendment. The Founders understood that a government remains honest only if it knows it’s being watched. Obama’s administration understands that reality too, which is why it tried to stop anyone from watching iAnd lastly, you care about the burgeoning IRS scandal because you understand that this a scandal like no other: instead of the ordinary cover-ups or insider political attacks that have characterized political scandals since at least the American Civil War, this scandal reached outside of Washington, D.C. and aimed itself directly at you. It doesn’t matter whether the IRS acted under direction from above or if the employees, who are almost exclusively Democrats, decided on their own to engage in a little political jihad against conservatives. What matters is that Washington, D.C., from Democrat top to Democrat bottom, believes Washington that the federal government is untouchable, and can therefore use its power to stifle political speech and dissent.

You bet you care. This is serious stuff.

It’s also very confusing stuff, because an overwhelming cascade of stories has spilled out regarding IRS wrongdoing. This kind of data load can overwhelm people’s circuits and cause them to shut down – allowing National Journal pundits to sneer that ordinary Americans couldn’t care less that the current administration is a toxic combination of corruption and ineptitude. To make it a little easier for you, here’s a chronological run-down of what’s been going on, starting with the day that Lois Lerner broke the news:

May 10, 2013: Lois Lerner, the head of the IRS’s Tax Exempt division, speaks at an ABA conference. Out of the blue, in response to a seemingly innocent question from someone in the crowd, she admits that (and we’re paraphrasing here) “Oh, yes, by the way, we think that, maybe, you might want to know that the IRS has been targeting Tea Party and small government groups.” She then spins a series of lies — about the number of groups targeted, about the fact that the targeting was intentional, about the non-regional nature of the IRS’s attack on conservatives, and about the length of time the IRS and the administration knew what was going on.

May 15, 2013: A mere five days after Lerner first admitted to just a little, itty-bit of IRS wrongdoing, more and more stories bubble up about what had actually happened. Lerner’s lies were quickly exposed:

(1) The 75 targeted groups Lerner claimed were targeted was closer to 500;

(2) Beginning in 2011, no conservative groups got approved for tax-exempt status;

(3) The IRS was auditing individual conservatives (an act of malfeasance separate from harassing non-profit groups);

(4) The IRS was harassing pro-Life groups by demanding that they provide pro-abortion information;

(5) The IRS was leaking to hard-Left groups confidential financial information about conservative groups and individuals;

(6) The IRS was interfering with legitimate education activities; and

(7) The IRS was stealing millions of medical records, including the records for all California judges.

May 15-16, 2013: Steven Miller, the acting Commissioner of the IRS, announces that he is resigning. Whew! At last, someone is taking the fall. But it was not to be. It turns out that Miller was an interim head and was heading out the door anyway on June 1. His “resignation” simply saw him leave a little sooner.

May 17, 2013: Right on the heels of learning that the IRS was stealing medical records comes what seems like related news: the IRS official who directly oversaw the tax-exempt division is now in charge of all IRS ObamaCare enforcement. The IRS has already announced that it will spend billions of dollars and hire thousands of employees to make sure that you pay for free medical care one way or another. Perhaps the IRS was getting a little head-start on the project….

Also, is it even news that, on the same day, Barack Obama taps into his inner Sergeant Schultz (from Hogan’s Heroes) and announces that he knew nothing about anything?

On the same day, Rep. Mike Kelly, disgusted by Steven Miller’s pathetic attempts to defend what the IRS had done (along with his constant memory failures), launches into an epic, and completely enjoyable, tirade about the IRS’s tyrannical conduct. Even ABC, one of the administration’s water carriers, was moved to remark that Obama probably knew before the election that the IRS was stifling conservative dissent.

May 18, 2013: Christian Voices for Life of Fort Bend County, Texas, reveals that the IRS investigated it so aggressively that it demanded that it demanded them to detail and explain all of their prayers. The IRS did exactly the same to the Coalition of Life in Iowa.

Also on May 18, 2013, Jack Lew, whom Obama appointed as the Treasury Secretary for his second term, despite dodging and weaving, concedes that the scandal was becoming common knowledge in the Fall of 2012, and implies that this was known before the election.

Other newly revealed IRS wrongdoing comes out on May 18: The IRS was laundering money from veterans’ disability checks and it had targeted a prominent Romney donor with three audits, with a bonus audit coming from the Department of Labor. The audits revealed only that the government owed the Romney supporter money (which it still has not paid).

May 19, 2013: Senator Ted Cruz points out the obvious: the IRS is either irredeemably corrupt and incompetent, or structurally too flawed to function. No matter the problem, the best way to deal with the situation is to abolish the IRS and then to enact a simple tax code without loopholes and without the need for a potentially tyrannical government agency to peer into every aspect of people’s lives.

May 20, 2013: The call goes out that a Tea Party group is organizing protests on May 21, at IRS offices across the nation. The need for those protests becomes even more obvious when an IRS employee, tired of being scapegoated as one of the “rogue” low-level employees Lois Lerner had blamed, says that the orders for the IRS abuse from the top.

May 21, 2013: Tea Partiers gather at IRS offices around the nation, peacefully protesting IRS abuses. They do so despite stories about the IRS trying to intimidate reporters and employees by using armed guards as “escorts” when reporters tried to interview employees about the scandal.

Those people who attend the protests report that the Department of Homeland Security appears at many of these protests, including at protests in Missouri, Florida, Illinois, and Indiana. The federal government fails to explain why local police could not handle these protests or why a federal organization that’s institutionally hostile to conservatives is the enforcement agency of choice. Certainly, if past protest history is anything to go by, Tea Party protests have invariably been peaceful, and the Tea Partiers have cleaned up after themselves once the protest was over.



Photo: Gateway Pundit



Photo: BizPacReview

In Los Angeles, the DHS puts choppers in the air and blocks protesters from federal property. One California protester says that a woman claiming to be with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) tried to drive her away. ICE, incidentally, is charged with policing America’s borders. However, it has received orders from high-up in the administration to leave illegal immigrants alone. Apparently it didn’t get the same message about respecting American citizens exercising their constitutional right to free speech, assembly, and peaceful protest.

While the media ignores the protests, it can’t ignore the fact that Lois Lerner has announced that, when she appears before Congress, she will plead the Fifth. (Although the Los Angeles Times, which first breaks the story, does try damage control by burying it so deeply on its website that it practically takes a bloodhound to find it.) The implication is obvious: although she cannot be forced to incriminate herself, Lerner has effectively conceded that illegal conduct occurred on her watch.

Perhaps the most important information that comes out on May 21 is also the least noticed. It’s a quiet little tweet from Joseph Curl, a Drudge editor:

CIA source says Fox News scandal the “4th Shoe”; says it goes much deeper; says WH also sitting on “something” that has top aides terrified.

The mind boggles.

May 22, 2013: Which brings us to today’s events.

Lois Lerner made a statement on her own behalf that she was innocent – and then she pleaded the Fifth. Questions are already being raised about whether, having made a substantive statement, Lerner can then shut down questioning. Many legal scholars believe that her statement opened the door to cross-examination.

Is the National Journal correct? Do you think ordinary Americans can never be made to care about the toxic sludge oozing out of this scandal-ridden administration?