PALO ALTO, Calif. — President Obama will meet here on Friday with the nation’s top technologists on a host of cybersecurity issues and the threats posed by increasingly sophisticated hackers. But nowhere on the agenda is the real issue for the chief executives and tech company officials who will gather on the Stanford campus: the deepening estrangement between Silicon Valley and the government.

The long history of quiet cooperation between Washington and America’s top technology companies — first to win the Cold War, then to combat terrorism — was founded on the assumption of mutual interest. Edward J. Snowden’s revelations shattered that. Now, the Obama administration’s efforts to prevent companies from greatly strengthening encryption in commercial products like Apple’s iPhone and Google’s Android phones has set off a new battle, as the companies resist government efforts to make sure police and intelligence agencies can crack the systems.

And there is continuing tension over the government’s desire to stockpile flaws in software — known as zero days — to develop weapons that the United States can reserve for future use against adversaries.

I'd say the bubble is almost certain, but of course more muted than the previous one (which was more muted than the one before, and that more than the one before that in 2011).

A federal district court in Texas ruled residency requirements for pistol purchases is unconstitutional, directly challenging Attorney General Eric Holder who has argued the federal ban on handguns outside of a person’s state of residence doesn’t violate the second amendment.

In the case, federally licensed firearms dealer Frederic Russell Mance Jr. of Texas and gun buyers Tracey and Andrew Hanson sued Mr. Holder and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Director B. Todd Jones claiming the federal ban on the sale of handguns outside of one’s state stops the formation of a national handgun market.

The Hansons, who live in Washington, visited Mr. Mance’s Texas store in June and were unable to buy handguns because of the ban. The ban effectively “reduces competition, raises prices and limits consumer choices,” their joint lawsuit, which was filed in July, alleged.

Mr. Holder and the Department of Justice aimed to dismiss the suit, claiming the plaintiffs had no standing, and were dealt no harm. Mr. Holder also argued, the Second Amendment is “silent” as to the ability to sell or buy handguns “in any particular forum” and that courts have “repeatedly declined” to rule that right is protected.

“Here, the court’s inquiry can end at step one because the challenged laws do not impose any burden, let alone a substantial burden, on conduct historically protected by the Second Amendment,” Mr. Holder’s motion said.

Advocates for less government snooping suffered a blow Tuesday when a federal judge in California ruled that a group of citizens can not sue the National Security Agency to stop the "upstream" collection of their data.

US District Judge Jeffrey White ruled that the plaintiffs in the case, Jewel v. NSA, failed to prove that they have the right to sue because they could not prove that their individual information had been collected and prepared for analysis. Further, White wrote, "even if Plaintiffs could establish standing, a potential Fourth Amendment Claim would have to be dismissed on the basis that any possible defenses would require impermissible disclosure of state secret information."

Essentially, because the plaintiffs can't say specifically how their data was collected by the government, this aspect of their case won't go forward. The reason they can't offer specifics is because, even after the Snowden leaks, the exact workings of the NSA surveillance program remain undisclosed. And even if the plaintiffs could show those specifics, the NSA could swat down their suit by claiming that the case would compromise state secrets.

"Upstream" collection refers to the government's admitted practice of copying phone and internet traffic moving through the fiber optic backbone of the internet, trying to filter out purely domestic information, and then searching the remaining traffic for certain keywords, phrases, email addresses, etc.

House Republicans are laying the groundwork for a revision of the food-stamps program after its sharp expansion during the recession.

The effort kicks off Feb. 25 when the House Agriculture Committee holds the first of several hearings scheduled this year on food stamps, formally known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

Committee Chairman Mike Conaway (R., Texas), who is leading the charge, said he wants to stay away from the type of party politics that can doom reforms before they are proposed. But as the son of a roughneck on oil rigs, he said he favors the kind of hard work that “built America,” suggesting any changes will lead to a smaller program and fewer recipients.

“A family that depends on their own work is more secure,” he said in an interview. “There’s a dignity in taking care of yourself.”

Some 46.5 million people—about 15% of the U.S. population—receive benefits, double the number from a decade ago. The costs, meanwhile, have nearly tripled in that time, going from $27 billion in fiscal year 2004 to $74 billion in 2014.

Mr. Conaway said it is too early to talk of specific changes, but critics cite a need for tighter eligibility requirements. Under current limits, a family of four earning less than $2,584 in gross monthly income can qualify.

“The program was structured when malnutrition was a real problem,” said Douglas Besharov, a professor of public policy at the University of Maryland. “It has now become a form of income support.”

The program dates back to the 1930s, when unemployment was high, and was made permanent in 1964.

States, which manage the Agriculture Department program, are already starting to cut back. More than 20 are preparing to reinstate time limits that most states had waived in the recession. Healthy adults without children will be limited to three months of benefits every three years unless they are working or enrolled in job training for at least 20 hours a week.

The move to reinstate those limits could end benefits for about 1 million people, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a think tank specializing in low-income policies.

The US military will train Kiev troops fighting against militias in southeast Ukraine, Ben Hodges, US Army Europe commander, said hours before the start of “Normandy Four” talks dubbed a “last chance” for the peaceful resolution of the conflict.

The officers from the 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team in northeast Italy will be deployed to Ukraine as part of the plan, said Pentagon spokeswoman Lt. Col. Vanessa Hillman.

According to Hillman, the military aid requested by the Kiev authorities was to help the formation and strengthening of the National Guard, which Kiev launched shortly after the coup in February 2014.

The National Guard troops will be exercising according to “the traditional training systems of the US Navy Seals and Delta Force,” Semenchenko said.

Since the fighting began in southeast Ukraine, the National Guard has been repeatedly accused of war crimes, including deliberate artillery fire at residential areas in the Donetsk and Lugansk Regions, and of blocking humanitarian aid for the regions.

Last September, an Amnesty International report confirmed that abductions, executions and extortion had been committed by the Aidar volunteer battalion.

Earlier this week, Obama said that the US was also examining the possibility of supplying “lethal defensive weapons” to the Kiev authorities.

The plan is opposed by both Russia and the EU, who agree that there can be no military solution to the Ukrainian crisis.

At long last, the Obama administration has submitted a draft resolution to Congress that would authorize the ongoing U.S.-led military intervention against the Islamic State, or ISIS.

The effort comes more than six months after the U.S. began bombing targets in Iraq and Syria. Since then, some 3,000 U.S. troops have been ordered to Iraq, and coalition air forces have carried out over 2,000 bombing runs on both sides of the border.

Better late than never? Maybe not.

The language proposed by the White House would authorize the president to deploy the U.S. military against the Islamic State and “associated persons or forces” for a period of three years, at which point the authorization would have to be renewed.

In an attempt to reassure members of Congress wary of signing off on another full-scale war in the Middle East, the authorization would supposedly prohibit the use of American soldiers in “enduring offensive ground combat operations.” It would also repeal the authorization that President George W. Bush used to invade Iraq back in 2002.

The New York Times describes the draft authorization as “a compromise to ease concerns of members in both noninterventionist and interventionist camps: those who believe the use of ground forces should be explicitly forbidden, and those who do not want to hamstring the commander in chief.”

As an ardent supporter of “hamstringing the commander in chief” in this particular case, let me count the ways that my concerns have not been eased by this resolution.

1. Its vague wording will almost certainly be abused.

For one thing, the administration has couched its limitations on the use of ground forces in some curiously porous language.

How long is an “enduring” engagement, for example? A week? A year? The full three years of the authorization and beyond?

And what’s an “offensive” operation if not one that involves invading another country? The resolution’s introduction claims outright that U.S. strikes against ISIS are justified by America’s “inherent right of individual and collective self-defense.” If Obama considers the whole war “inherently defensive,” does the proscription against “offensive” operations even apply?

And what counts as “combat”? In his last State of the Union address, Obama proclaimed that “our combat mission in Afghanistan is over.” But only two months earlier, he’d quietly extended the mission of nearly 10,000 U.S. troops in the country for at least another year. So the word seems meaningless.

In short, the limitation on ground troops is no limitation at all. “What they have in mind,” said California Democrat Adam Schiff, “is still fairly broad and subject to such wide interpretation that it could be used in almost any context.”

Any context? Yep. Because it’s not just the ISIS heartland we’re talking about.[/quote

More...http://fpif.org/5-reasons-congress-reject-obamas-isis-war/

Anyone want to place any bets on how long this next 'adventure' will last?

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said Wednesday morning that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton deserves a lot of blame for instability in the Middle East and the rising numbers of Islamic State (ISIS) recruits.

Paul said that Clinton’s intervention in Libya and the assassination of Muammar Gaddafi created space for ISIS jihadists to flourish and grow.

“The disaster that is Libya is now a breeding ground for terrorists and is a breeding ground for armaments. So I really do blame Hillary Clinton’s war in Libya for creating a lot of the chaos that is spreading throughout the Middle East,” he said.

Michael Gerson, who boasts the résumé bullet point of chief speechwriter under George W. Bush, recently began a column bashing Rand Paul by arguing that the Kentucky senator’s actions had fallen into a pattern.

Let me humbly suggest that the pattern is on the other side of the table. Nearly every hawkish opinion columnist has written at least one think piece about Paul, and at this point they’ve become a tad predictable—almost like they’re working off a template.

Now, for the first time, and after much rigorous research, I’ve distilled that template into four handy steps.

Not every anti-Paul manifesto follows these rules to a T, but if you’re planning to write such a piece, this is about as comprehensive a style guide as you’ll find.

As always, I exist only to serve.

First, begin by expressing curiosity about Paul

You might concede that Paul is “interesting” or “thoughtful,” “an alternative,” someone who is starting a “necessary” or “inevitable” foreign policy debate on the right. Bonus points are awarded if you mention the “war-weary” American public, whose sentiments Paul is channeling.

This establishes you as a neutral arbiter of the conversation, rather than a zealous ideologue who winces every time a fistfight breaks out in the Middle East without an American response. Your tone is prodding, curious, willing to consider Paul even if you’re secretly pining for his electoral annihilation.

Second, denounce as crazy one or two genuinely concerning statements Paul has made

The most common and effective examples here are Paul’s equivocating on mandatory vaccinations and his implication that Dick Cheney invaded Iraq to enrich Halliburton, the first of which is controversial and the second of which simply isn’t borne out by the facts.

These are statements that worry even his supporters. Questions about them are absolutely fair game, and Paul will have to put them to bed if he wants to win the presidency.

Third, denounce as crazy one or two entirely normal foreign policy statements Paul has made without skipping a breath

Kurt Wallace: This is Kurt Wallace and our guest today on Rare is Doug Stafford, Executive Director at Rand PAC. You can find Rand PAC at RandPaul2016.com, and Doug thanks for being with us today.

Doug Stafford: Thanks, Kurt. Pleasure to be with you.

Kurt Wallace: Purpose of this discussion is to talk about the Fed. Sen. Paul has introduced Audit the Fed legislation. The Hill newspaper which covers Congress, puts in this week is that the Fed is “lashing out” at Mr. Paul’s plan.

Forbes has conjectured that “The club of U.S. central bankers appears jittery, but it’s not because of interest rates, unemployment, or mortgage-backed securities. It’s because of Congress.” What’s going on here?

Doug Stafford: Yeah Kurt, Sen. Paul has reintroduced Audit the Fed and I’m going to take issue with “jittery” I don’t think it’s jittery…

It seems downright scared, doesn’t it?

WASHINGTON – If Republicans Rand Paul and Ted Cruz were competing in the 2016 tech primary, the senator from Kentucky on Thursday showed why he’s ahead — even if he managed to also highlight his weaknesses as a potential presidential candidate during the same appearance.

Both Paul and Cruz appeared at Lincoln Labs’ #RebootCongress conference at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in Washington (subtitle: “Get S#!t Done”), giving a speech and answering questions from organizer-selected moderators.

“I love tech,” Cruz declared as he paced the stage for nearly half an hour with microphone in hand, regaling the scattered crowd with stories of how his parents were programmers in the 1950s and 1960s — echoing the standard campaign trope of telling, say, an Iowa audience which distant relative was born in a town that somewhat resembles a hamlet in the agricultural state.

The Silicon Valley-oriented, mostly tieless, often denim-clad crowd stared back at him. “The principle I’m going to suggest to you is, don’t mess with the Internet!” Cruz said. Exactly two half-hearted claps came from the back of the room. “The two ‘don’t mess with us caucus,’” Cruz said, laughing nervously, “and the remainder are looking to be messed with.”

It was a study in contrasts with Paul, who sat onstage with TechCrunch founder Michael Arrington and bantered easily back and forth about Bitcoin currency, net neutrality and how urban liberals could find common ground with rural conservatives. His fluency served as a reminder that he has something of a leg up with the tech crowd; the billionaire PayPal founder Peter Thiel has donated more than $2.5 million to a PAC backing his father, former Rep. Ron Paul, and Rand Paul has traveled to the Valley to raise money. Napster co-founder Sean Parker has donated to RandPAC.

Requesting help to avoid a "costly and time-consuming legal challenge," U.S. Sen. Rand Paul is asking members of the Republican Party of Kentucky's central committee to create a presidential caucus in 2016.

In a letter dated Feb. 9, Paul told GOP leaders that an earlier presidential preference vote would give Kentuckians "more leverage to be relevant."

"As you may have heard, you, as a member of the Kentucky Republican Central Committee, will be the one to decide if you want to help me get an equal chance at the nomination," Paul wrote.

The letter went out to hundreds of other Kentucky Republicans ahead of the party's 54-member executive committee meeting on March 7 in Bowling Green, where Paul will pitch the caucus idea to members for a vote.

...

A plan to bring one of the world's largest online gambling companies to Atlantic City has seemingly stalled, and some critics are pointing their fingers at New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) and Sheldon Adelson, a billionaire casino mogul and one of the GOP's most influential donors.

Adelson has a reputation as a man whose money can make or break a presidential campaign, and Christie is widely seen as a likely 2016 hopeful. Their relationship made headlines last week after revelations showed Adelson had lent the governor his plane.

Christie's office told Business Insider it is "nonsensical" to say he interfered with the deal, which a local union leader claimed would bring about 1,000 desperately needed jobs to the troubled Garden State gambling destination. However, one influential Democratic lawmaker suggested the New Jersey Legislature should potentially consider investigating the issue.

'Christie put a stop to it'
The company in question is PokerStars, which runs one of the world's most popular online poker sites. In July 2013, PokerStars announced a partnership with Atlantic City's Resorts Casino Hotel. PokerStars planned to open a $10 million poker room at the casino. This would have allowed PokerStars to build its brand with live poker tournaments and other events. However, the company has been unable to obtain a gaming license in New Jersey. State Sen. Raymond Lesniak, a Democrat who sponsored the bill that legalized online gambling in the state, blamed the company's inability to get licensed on Christie.

"Christie put a stop to it," said Lesniak. "With a high degree of confidence it's apparent that's exactly what has happened."

The conventional wisdom among Republican elites is that Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky is a fringe candidate with limited popular appeal. That may prove correct in the long run, but it's unsupported by recent polls -- especially last week's Bloomberg Politics/Saint Anselm New Hampshire survey.

In fact, the poll, which surveyed 989 general election voters, suggests that Paul is succeeding in generating support beyond the Republican base. His untraditional Republican views -- including skepticism of government surveillance and military interventions, and his call to reform U.S. prison and drug laws -- appear to be resonating.

Kentucky Senator Rand Paul sat at the head table of the American Spectator's 48th anniversary dinner. To his right, his wife Kelley, who Paul joked had been invited on "date night." To his left, David Koch, the libertarian funder whose net worth hovered around $42 billion, and whom Paul had just seen at a conference of donors that reportedly went better for literally every other Republican who showed up. Scattered around the room were more donors, influential journalists for conservative publications (John Derbyshire, Byron York, Andrew Ferguson, James Taranto, Richard Miniter), members of Congress (Colorado Representative Ken Buck, Idaho Representative Raul Labrador), and John Ratzenberger, who played Cliff on Cheers.

So Paul's speech, a streamlined version of several he'd given in Republican primary states, was delivered with one of the conservative movement's biggest donors looking right at him. (They'd also talked at a VIP reception before the start of the dinner.) Paul's been talking about criminal justice reform anyway, but the context gave his remarks about Ferguson a little extra heft. To the shock of people who are unfamiliar with libertarians, Koch and his foundations had announced a prison-reform push.

"Many of us believe that if you’ve convicted of a non-violent crime, maybe you deserve a second chance," said Paul. "I think there’s room, in the concept of justice, for discernment."

Coiling feeling...

for every panic seller there is a buyer who gets cheap coins