We've all seen kids that are being raised in a shitty way by parents that aren't even fit to take care of themselves cause they're relying on government handouts and this is why they have the kids in the first place. The most optimal way to raise a kid is to have carefully planned the pregnancy in cahoots w/ being financially ready to handle such a responsibility. This way, the kid is raised w/ maximum love and compassion. This CPS was born w/ the intent to weed out unfortunate kids from miscreant parents as the welfare state started to kick into higher gear a few decades ago or so. Now, it's become the predatory agency that you describe but these judges need to recognize good parents when they see them before them instead of allowing these lawyers to battle out what's best for the kid.

This kind of thing used to happen to me as I used to mow the grass behind my grandparents' apartment building which is on the lake. There was a nearby tree where they had their nest set up and they would circle around me constantly til I made it around to the front of the property.

Big surprise that in such a situation of historical contexts that these piece of shit courts would turn this one on its head. The medical examiner's job ends once they complete the autopsy and determine the cause of death. I would question this examiner's sanity and mental fitness for the job after they go and pull some deranged stunt like this.

It's unfortunate for those that had their info exposed but that's a potential side effect of working for such a notorious organization like US.gov. I can see many wanting early retirement but then it might cause many more a second thought before they decided to work for the government going forward.

Much obliged for this thread as it tells me exactly what I pretty much figured all along, not much going on atm. Nice little update though.

Also, there's way more options for a lot more people around the world to purchase bitcoin at this point which means the next rise will be even more significant.

All the positives and good news lately is reminiscent of the times before the last parabolic rise, as well as the boredom in the pricing action atm. So many people are so subdued because of the past bear season that they can't comprehend that this sort of rise is possible.

Spencer Ackerman revealed in The Guardian yesterday that “Obama lawyers asked a secret court to ignore a public court’s decision on spying.”
Of course, this is not shocking to anyone with common sense. Justice is not Obama’s strong suit. Deception is. And in this case, it comes with an added, cruel twist of the knife.

Here’s a short (twitter) version of the revelation from Ackerman:
Spencer Ackerman
✔ @attackerman
June 2, 6:03pm: Obama says he'll sign law banning bulk collection. June 2 9:50pm: DOJ asks secret court for 180 more days of bulk collection

10:13 AM - 8 Jun 2015

Here’s a longer version:

“The Obama administration has asked a secret surveillance court to ignore a federal court that found bulk surveillance illegal and to once again grant the National Security Agency the power to collect the phone records of millions of Americans for six months. The legal request, filed nearly four hours after Barack Obama vowed to sign a new law banning precisely the bulk collection he asks the secret court to approve, also suggests that the administration may not necessarily comply with any potential court order demanding that the collection stop.”
And here’s Ackerman’s full article.

Now that’s some real, nearly-instant “Hope and Change” from Obama right there – or rather “Hope, Then Change It” – all in under 4 hours.
Actually in just 3 hours and 47 minutes, as Zero Hedge notes:

“Just when we thought the absurdity that marks every single day of Obama’s reign could not possibly be surpassed, we learned that 4 hours (3 hours and 47 minutes to be precise) after the US president vowed to sign a new law banning bulk data collection by the NSA (named, for purely grotesque reasons, the “USA Freedom Act“), the Obama administration asked the secret Fisa surveillance court to ignore a federal court that found bulk surveillance illegal and to once again grant the National Security Agency the power to collect the phone records of millions of Americans for six months.”

Zero Hedge cites this as just another example of Obama going “Full Stalin.”

H.L. Mencken once quipped: “Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under.”

http://www.voicesofliberty.com/article/obama-goes-full-stalin-on-nsa-bulk-data-collection/

Ten months into the US war on ISIS, the chances of getting an actual Congressional vote on the conflict looks less likely than ever, with Rep. Adam Schiff’s (D – CA) amendment getting voted down today in the House 231-196, in a vote strongly along party lines.

The amendment wouldn’t have offered any guidance on the war itself, but would simply have required that the House have a vote on the authorization of the war at some point before March 31 of next year. Having failed, they appear set not to have a vote on the war at all.

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 forbids the US from entering any armed conflict longer than 60 days without an explicit vote authorizing it from Congress. This timeline would’ve put the vote ahead of the mid-term elections, however, so Congressional leaders decided to punt the controversial issue down the road.

Months after the election, however, the White House finally got around to proposing an AUMF for the war, but publicly bragged it was so deliberately vague as to allow them to do whatever they wanted. Controversy surrounding that left that version of the authorization basically dead on arival.

Still, the war continued, and while there has been occasional talk about some other authorization with some actual limits in it, it’s never really gotten very far, and officials seem by and large content to continue the war for years on end without Congress having any say at all.

Roll call...http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2015/roll346.xml

...

But HUD is looking to root out more subtle forms of discrimination that take shape in local government policies that unintentionally harm minority communities, known as “disparate impact.”

“This rule is not about forcing anyone to live anywhere they don’t want to,” said Margery Turner, senior vice president at the left-leaning Urban Institute. “It’s really about addressing long-standing practices that prevent people from living where they want to.”

“In our country, decades of public policies and institutional practices have built deeply segregated and unequal neighborhoods,” Turner said.

Children growing up in poor communities have less of a chance of succeeding in life, because they face greater exposure to violence and crime, and less access to quality education and health facilities, Turner suggested.

“Segregation is clearly a problem that is blocking upward mobility for children growing up today,” she said.

To qualify for certain funds under the regulations, cities would be required to examine patterns of segregation in neighborhoods and develop plans to address it. Those that don’t could see the funds they use to improve blighted neighborhoods disappear, critics of the rule say.

The regulations would apply to roughly 1,250 local governments.

Hans von Spakovsky, a fellow at the Heritage Foundation, called the Obama administration “too race conscious.”

More...http://thehill.com/regulation/244620-obamas-bid-to-diversify-wealthy-neighborhoods

I'll cut you some slack because of your standing here but this endeavor doesn't seem earthshaking nor interesting in the least. Couple hundred bucks for an alt, yet obscure initiative, seems feeble atm. Your move.

Video - Rand Paul Chairs FSO Hearing on Wasteful Government Spending on the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Cmte - June 10, 2015

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GwefTZtMqU

Rand would be epic as a cmte chair in the US Senate and he shows it off in this video.

Rand Paul and 4 Other Senators Introduce Amendment To Protect Against Indefinite Detention

WASHINGTON—Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT), Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) introduced the Due Process Guarantee amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act. The amendment is designed to protect Americans from being detained indefinitely, without charge or trial.

The amendment aims to end ongoing legal ambiguities by affirming and strengthening the principles behind the Non-Detention Act of 1971.


"The indefinite detention of a U.S. citizen without due process is fundamentally un-American. Our founding fathers believed so firmly in the right to trial by jury that they enshrined it in the body of the Constitution, and again in the Sixth Amendment,” Sen. Paul said. "We can and will vigorously investigate and prosecute all who seek to do us harm, and we can do so while respecting the constitutional liberties of American citizens.”

“America should never waiver in vigilantly pursuing those who would commit, or plot to commit, acts of treason against our country. But the federal government should not be allowed to indefinitely imprison any American on the mere accusation of treason without affording them the due process guaranteed by our Constitution,” Sen. Mike Lee said. “By forbidding the government from detaining Americans without trial absent explicit congressional approval, the Due Process Guarantee amendment strikes the right balance between protecting our security and the civil liberties of each citizen.”

“Detaining Americans captured within the United States indefinitely without trial or even charge is a clear violation of our Constitution and our values, and it must not be permitted,” said Sen. Feinstein. "We’ve seen over and over again that our criminal justice system is well-equipped to interrogate and convict terrorists, and I support that process. We need to stand strong against terrorism, and we need to do so within the bounds of U.S. law. This amendment has been approved by the Senate in the past but not enacted; I’m hopeful that this year it will be adopted by both chambers of Congress.”

“This bipartisan amendment strengthens our nation’s founding principles of justice and fairness under the law by protecting all American citizens and lawful residents from indefinite detention without charge or trial while also guaranteeing due process of law,” said Sen. Collins. “Despite successfully passing the Senate with sixty-seven votes in 2012, this amendment unfortunately failed to be adopted. I am hopeful that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will take action to swiftly pass this amendment into law.”

"The Constitution does not allow President Obama, or any President, to apprehend an American citizen, arrested on U.S. soil, and detain these citizens indefinitely without a trial,” said Sen. Cruz. “That’s why I have consistently supported measures to prohibit indefinite detention in the NDAA. The Due Process Guarantee amendment will prohibit the President’s ability to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens arrested on American soil without trial or due process. While we must vigorously protect national security by pursuing violent terrorists and preventing acts of terror, we must also ensure our most basic rights as American citizens are protected.”

In recent years, some have argued that the indefinite detention of Americans is permissible under the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF). The Due Process Guarantee amendment clarifies that the AUMF and other general authorizations cannot be construed as acts of Congress that permit indefinite detention and codifies the “clear statement rule” to clarify that indefinite detention can only occur if Congress expressly authorizes it.

The bill also expands the Non-Detention Act of 1971 to include legal permanent residents in addition to citizens.

In December 2012, the Senate passed this amendment to the fiscal year 2013 National Defense Authorization Act with 67 votes, but it stalled in the House of Representatives. This legislation is almost identical to that language.

http://www.paul.senate.gov/news/press/senators-introduce-amendment-to-protect-against-indefinite-detention

Rand Paul Signs on to Amendment Barring Ground Troops Against ISIS!

No funds appropriated by this Act may be used to support the deployment of the United States Armed Forces for the purpose of ground combat operations in Iraq or Syria, except as necessary-

For the protection or rescue of members of the United States Armed Forces or United States citizens from imminent danger posed by ISIL; or
To conduct missions not intended to result in ground combat operations by United States forces, such as-
intelligence collection and sharing;
enabling kinetic strikes
limited operations against high value targets;
operational planning; or
other forms of advice and assistance to coalition forces fighting ISIL in Iraq or Syria

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-06-11/rand-paul-signs-on-to-amendment-barring-ground-troops-against-isis

vote for Rand in Virginia GOP straw poll

http://www.virginia.gop/2016-rpv-presidential-straw-poll/

This is for fun but this thing seems skewed in favor of Dr. Carson.

For instance:
Kelley Paul shakes off negativity

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aQMaMzF6lg

MANCHESTER, N.H. — Kelley Paul shrugged off the recent attacks on her husband from fellow Republicans — including John McCain, who called him “the worst candidate” — as just the “contact sport” of politics and vowed to reveal “another dimension” to Rand Paul as she hit the presidential campaign trail here for the first time yesterday.

“At this point, I really do say it’s politics ... and politics is a contact sport,” Kelley Paul told the Herald in an exclusive interview. “It’s remarkable how thick your skin gets after awhile ... I don’t pay that much attention to the political attacks. Anything personal does bother me more, obviously, because you feel like your reputation ... is being attacked.”

Paul, campaigning by herself in New Hampshire through today, did admit to being apprehensive about the approaching media scrutiny over all aspects of her and husband’s life. The New York Times on Friday, for example, detailed the driving record of Marco Rubio’s wife, Jeanette.

“I don’t want to comment on anybody else’s particular situation, but that is exactly one of the things that every person in politics really has to look at, is that you live under a microscope and it can be intimidating, difficult, and you go into it with trepidation, for sure,” she said.

...

More...http://www.bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_politics/2015/06/kelley_paul_shakes_off_negativity

"Like" Rand Paul's wife Kelley on facebook: https://www.facebook.com/KelleyAshbyPaul - She's out there campaigning in different states and bolstering Rand's image among activists, donors, voters and party officials. If you aren't on Fedbook, you aren't worth a crap.

Rand Paul’s disdain for international adventurism was once mainstream conservatism
Countering the GOP’s nation-building mindset

The junior senator from Kentucky drives his colleagues nuts. They don’t like Rand Paul or his positions on domestic spying and international adventurism. Arizona’s John McCain warns that Mr. Paul would be “the worst possible [Republican presidential] candidate of the 20 or so [who] are running” because of his positions on these issues and he admitted that choosing between his GOP colleague and Hillary Rodham Clinton would be “tough.” Mr. McCain’s hostility is nothing new; last year his daughter Meghan told a television interviewer that Mr. McCain “hates” Mr. Paul and assumed that the feeling is mutual.

But Mr. McCain’s views on the Kentuckian are shared by many of his colleagues. It’s no surprise that South Carolina’s Sen. Lindsey Graham, who strives to be more McCain than Mr. McCain agrees with his colleague from Arizona, but as the debate over extension of controversial USA Patriot Act provisions were up for renewal or reform, other Republican senators joined the fray, denouncing Mr. Paul, his arguments and his motives. Some believed Mr. Paul was grandstanding and, shockingly, tried to shout him down as he spoke on the Senate floor. Sen. Dan Coats of Indiana attacked him by name and questioned not just his positions and judgment, but his motives.

The vehemence of these attacks could lead one to conclude that Mr. Paul is at least as unpopular among his fellow senators as Texas Sen. Ted Cruz. Mr. Cruz is roundly disliked for his manner and refusal to “play by the rules,” his perceived arrogance, and his willingness to draw stark contrasts with those within the GOP he sees as too wimpish to stand with him in his battles for conservatism. His tactics and perhaps his personality upset them. This was deeper, however, and more serious. Mr. Cruz challenges the will and tactics of his colleagues, while Mr. Paul challenges the merits of the policies to which they are so firmly wedded.

...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/9/david-keene-rand-paul-counters-gops-nation-buildin/

Time: How Rand Paul Has Already Changed the 2016 Race

The candidate has proven chatty and thoughtful

Rand Paul has been a bad, bad boy. Just ask him. “I’m not very popular in Washington right now” was his opening line at a series of town-hall meetings in New Hampshire, two weeks after he had filibustered and, temporarily, crashed the bulk collection of phone data by the federal government. “I messed up their Memorial Day plans.” The line drew laughter and applause in the great state of New Hampshire, a flinty and skeptical province. Anything that gums up the federal machine is a good thing, it seems, even if it involves national security. “One of my colleagues asked, ‘What do we do if the authority to collect data lapses?'” he continued. “I told him, ‘Well, we could rely on the Constitution for a few hours.'”

[...]

By the time his 15-minute stump speech is over, he has delivered a tutorial about the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Ninth and 10th amendments to the Constitution. “We Republicans won’t be successful as a party,” he says, “until we support the entire Bill of Rights as enthusiastically as we support the Second Amendment”–that is, the right to bear arms.

[...]

The current conventional wisdom is that Paul doesn’t have much of a chance to win the nomination–even though, according to a recent poll, he runs stronger against Hillary Clinton than any other Republican does. But his message is fresh and consequential. It throws a klieg light on the deficiencies of the two major parties: the mindless Republican war-silliness and the utter failure of the Democratic welfare state to alleviate intergenerational poverty. “I was on the South Side of Chicago a few weeks ago,” he said. “And the people there know the current system isn’t working. They’re about ready to try something new.”

More...http://time.com/3917723/chatty-and-thoughtful-rand-paul-has-already-changed-the-2016-race/

Ted Cruz’s Analytics-Driven Plan to Steal the Libertarian Vote from Rand

Ted Cruz needs to pick off enough libertarian votes to hobble Rand Paul, and his data-analytics team thinks it has identified a way to begin to do so.

The recent fight over the expiration of the Patriot Act provisions that provide the legal basis for the National Security Agency’s controversial phone data-collection program offered a window into each campaign’s strategy. Cruz supported reforming the provisions, while Paul staged a ten-hour filibuster calling for their repeal. Cruz’s camp believes that Paul is overlooking a growing fear of international terrorism among libertarian-leaning voters, and that he erred by pushing to gut the NSA’s program rather than supporting a Patriot Act–reform bill that had already passed the House. It’s one instance of a data-analysis effort that Cruz’s team will use to try to target libertarians and other critical voters in the primaries.

Cruz’s campaign has identified about 18,000 Iowans who will support the Texas Republican next year provided they participate in the caucuses, according to Chris Wilson, the director of research and analytics for the presidential hopeful. Wilson claims they have identified another 110,000 Hawkeye voters — over three times the number of people needed to win the state — who could be persuaded to back Cruz, and they have researched what issues most motivate those voters. “Not only do I know their issues, but we are also scoring them on personality type,” he tells National Review.

Perhaps surprisingly, Cruz’s team discovered that national security is a prominent and growing concern among libertarian voters. “There is a plurality of libertarians whose top issue is national security today,” Wilson says, pegging the figure in the mid-30s. “Now, I doubt that was the case in 2008. It may not have been even in 2012. But today it is.” Consequently, he believes that Cruz’s support for the USA Freedom Act, which Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell backed begrudgingly after failing to pass a bill reauthorizing the Patriot Act, hit the sweet spot in terms of appealing to libertarians who dislike the NSA but fear ISIS

That analysis may rely too much on the expectation that those libertarian voters recognize the USA Freedom Act as a middle ground between their national-security fears and their opposition to the NSA program. “That’s a little bit of a false premise to say that because people are concerned about ISIS that somehow they’re more supportive of a robust domestic-surveillance program,” says a Republican operative who is backing Paul. “What I want to know is, does it actually impact the way that somebody votes? And, if so, what solution and what proposal or idea is moving them?”

Paul’s camp assumes that he has too much credibility among libertarians, especially the ones who supported his father, for Cruz to make inroads as an alternative defender of privacy. They believe Cruz’s failure to back Paul on the Patriot Act won’t help him eat into their core supporters. “I think his not supporting Rand [in the NSA fight] hurt him in that base,” Munisteri says.

Nevertheless, the Paul campaign is clearly wary of the threat Cruz poses to their libertarian bedrock. In the aftermath of the NSA fight, they’ve taken the unusual step of claiming credit for the passage of the USA Freedom Act, even though Paul opposed the bill. Munisteri admits that the bill is an improvement over the Patriot Act, but says Cruz must “credit that improvement to Rand Paul, because there is no way that act would have been passed had Rand not caused the Patriot Act to expire.”

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/419543/ted-cruzs-analytics-driven-plan-steal-libertarian-vote-rand-joel-gehrke