Stanford University researchers have created Crowdpac, a for-profit organization that rates potential political candidates according to three primary measurements: 1. Voting records. 2. Speeches and statements. 3. Campaign contributions. Their most recent ranking explores where potential Republican and Democratic 2016 presidential candidates fall on the left-right ideological spectrum.

A “10C” is the highest rating conservative rating one can receive and a “10L” is the highest liberal score.

Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky) is the most conservative Republican with a 10+C ranking, says Crowdpac, ahead of Senator Ted Cruz (R-Tx) who received a 9.7C, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker came in at 7.8C followed by former Indiana Governor Mike Pence 7.6C and Dr. Ben Carson at 7.4

Potential candidates Jeb Bush, Mitt Romney, Marco Rubio, Rick Santorum and Mike Huckabee all fell below 7 points.

Senator Bernie Sanders (D-Vt) is ranked as most liberal overall at 8.3L, followed by Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Ma) who comes in at 8.2L.

But on the civil liberties-related issue of government surveillance and spying on U.S. citizens–Rand Paul was ranked as more liberal than any potential Democratic candidate.

Sanders, Warren, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton–all of them.


...

...
It’s good for the voters to have choices, says Paul, and it seems like Republican voters have more every day. Mitt Romney is seriously considering a run. Former three-term New York Gov. George Pataki just visited New Hampshire to see if anyone remembers him. South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham is making soundings. It’s getting to be the case that the R next to a politician’s name stands for “Running for president.” “I saw in the paper recently they listed who might run for the Republican primary,” said Paul. “It was like the whole page.”

But Paul isn’t just being ideologically consistent when he says, “More the merrier.” He’s happy to see the others split the vote. On the establishment side of the party, Mitt Romney, Jeb Bush, and Chris Christie will fight for the share of voters who want a pragmatist with executive experience. Social conservatives will splinter between Rick Santorum, Ted Cruz, and Mike Huckabee. Paul will have relatively less competition for the libertarian conservatives of the kind who supported his father in the state in 2012, when Rep. Ron Paul came in second to Mitt Romney with 23 percent of the vote.

But the son is not the father. To make that clear he has said his father will not be campaigning with him. Sen. Paul’s foreign policy views are less confrontational and isolationist than his father’s are, and he is running a more traditional campaign, assembling constituency groups, not just relying on tribal loyalism. At Murphy’s, Paul talked to small government legislators, at the gun club it was Second Amendment enthusiasts, and at Founders it was education activists. You could almost see the chart on which the careful constituent tending had been mapped out.
...

I'm still pondering if you meant worst case Scenario or if that was a snide remark at a certain capital  
You know your ready for the Worst Case Ontario if you have 50 BTC saved up

One day in the House of Representatives, a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support. The Speaker was just about to put the question when Davey Crockett arose:

“Mr. Speaker–I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the government was in arrears to him.

Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week’s pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks.”

He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as, no doubt, it would, but for that speech, it received but few votes, and, of course, was lost.

Later, when asked by a friend why he had opposed the appropriation, Crockett gave this explanation:
“Several years ago I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some other members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown . It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast as we could. In spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made homeless, and, besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many women and children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them. The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done.

“The next summer, when it began to be time to think about the election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there, but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up. When riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more of a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came to the fence. As he came up, I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but, as I thought, rather coldly.
“I began: ‘Well, friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates, and–’

“‘Yes, I know you; you are Colonel Crockett, I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine. I shall not vote for you again.’

“This was a sockdolager . . . I begged him to tell me what was the matter.

“‘Well, Colonel, it is hardly worth-while to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it in that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the constituent to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting or wounding you. I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what, but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest. . . . But an understanding of the Constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the more honest he is.’

“‘I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake about it, for I do not remember that I gave any vote last winter upon any constitutional question.’

“‘No, Colonel, there’s no mistake. Though I live here in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by a fire in Georgetown . Is that true?’

“‘Well, my friend; I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing Treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I did.’

“‘It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing to do with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be intrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means. What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government.

 So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other.

No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this county as in Georgetown , neither you nor any other member of Congress would have thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week’s pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men in and around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life. The congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people about Washington , no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving by giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution.

“‘So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you.

“I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go to talking, he would set others to talking, and in that district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him, and the fact is, I was so fully convinced that he was right, I did not want to. But I must satisfy him, and I said to him:

“‘Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it, and thought I had studied it fully. I have heard many speeches in Congress about the powers of Congress, but what you have said here at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I ever heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote; and if you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law I wish I may be shot.’

“He laughingly replied: ‘Yes, Colonel, you have sworn to that once before, but I will trust you again upon one condition. You say that you are convinced that your vote was wrong. Your acknowledgment of it will do more good than beating you for it. If, as you go around the district, you will tell people about this vote, and that you are satisfied it was wrong, I will not only vote for you, but will do what I can to keep down opposition, and, perhaps, I may exert some little influence in that way.’

“‘If I don’t,’ said I, ‘I wish I may be shot; and to convince you that I am in earnest in what I say I will come back this way in a week or ten days, and if you will get up a gathering of the people, I will make a speech to them. Get up a barbecue, and I will pay for it.’

“‘No, Colonel, we are not rich people in this section, but we have plenty of provisions to contribute for a barbecue, and some to spare for those who have none. The push of crops will be over in a few days, and we can then afford a day for a barbecue. This is Thursday; I will see to getting it up on Saturday week. Come to my house on Friday, and we will go together, and I promise you a very respectable crowd to see and hear you.’
“‘Well, I will be here. But one thing more before I say good-by. I must know your name.’
“‘My name is Bunce.’
“‘Not Horatio Bunce?’
“‘Yes.’
“‘Well, Mr. Bunce, I never saw you before, though you say you have seen me, but I know you very well. I am glad I have met you, and very proud that I may hope to have you for my friend.’

“It was one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met him. He mingled but little with the public, but was widely known for his remarkable intelligence and incorruptible integrity, and for a heart brimful and running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words but in acts. He was the oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame had extended far beyond the circle of his immediate acquaintance. Though I had never met him before, I had heard much of him, and but for this meeting it is very likely I should have had opposition, and had been beaten. One thing is very certain, no man could now stand up in that district under such a vote.

“At the appointed time I was at his house, having told our conversation to every crowd I had met, and to every man I stayed all night with, and I found that it gave the people an interest and a confidence in me stronger than I had every seen manifested before.

“Though I was considerably fatigued when I reached his house, and, under ordinary circumstances, should have gone early to bed, I kept him up until midnight, talking about the principles and affairs of government, and got more real, true knowledge of them than I had got all my life before.

“I have known and seen much of him since, for I respect him–no, that is not the word–I reverence and love him more than any living man, and I go to see him two or three times every year; and I will tell you, sir, if every one who professes to be a Christian lived and acted and enjoyed it as he does, the religion of Christ would take the world by storm.

“But to return to my story. The next morning we went to the barbecue, and, to my surprise, found about a thousand men there. I met a good many whom I had not known before, and they and my friend introduced me around until I had got pretty well acquainted–at least, they all knew me.

“In due time notice was given that I would speak to them. They gathered up around a stand that had been erected. I opened my speech by saying:

“‘Fellow-citizens–I present myself before you today feeling like a new man. My eyes have lately been opened to truths which ignorance or prejudice, or both, had heretofore hidden from my view. I feel that I can today offer you the ability to render you more valuable service than I have ever been able to render before. I am here today more for the purpose of acknowledging my error than to seek your votes. That I should make this acknowledgment is due to myself as well as to you. Whether you will vote for me is a matter for your consideration only.’

“I went on to tell them about the fire and my vote for the appropriation and then told them why I was satisfied it was wrong. I closed by saying:

“‘And now, fellow-citizens, it remains only for me to tell you that the most of the speech you have listened to with so much interest was simply a repetition of the arguments by which your neighbor, Mr. Bunce, convinced me of my error.

“‘It is the best speech I ever made in my life, but he is entitled to the credit for it. And now I hope he is satisfied with his convert and that he will get up here and tell you so.’
“He came upon the stand and said:

“‘Fellow-citizens–It affords me great pleasure to comply with the request of Colonel Crockett. I have always considered him a thoroughly honest man, and I am satisfied that he will faithfully perform all that he has promised you today.’

“He went down, and there went up from that crowd such a shout for Davy Crockett as his name never called forth before.

“I am not much given to tears, but I was taken with a choking then and felt some big drops rolling down my cheeks. And I tell you now that the remembrance of those few words spoken by such a man, and the honest, hearty shout they produced, is worth more to me than all the honors I have received and all the reputation I have ever made, or ever shall make, as a member of Congress.

“Now, sir,” concluded Crockett, “you know why I made that speech yesterday.

“There is one thing now to which I will call your attention. You remember that I proposed to give a week’s pay. There are in that House many very wealthy men–men who think nothing of spending a week’s pay, or a dozen of them, for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of those same men made beautiful speeches upon the great debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased–a debt which could not be paid by money–and the insignificance and worthlessness of money, particularly so insignificant a sum as $10,000, when weighted against the honor of the nation. Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it.”

So what is this crazy rumor? is it that satoshi will be coming to conference? or a massive news that will start the uptrend?

it is a bullshit. Ross Ulbricht owned Silk Road. FBI will bring the evidence next weeks. You will see.

Karpeles remains a thief and money launderer as most of the Bitcoin exchangers

The theory of anti-hate speech laws is that hate speech often leads to violence, and violence demands police and thus the expenditure of public resources, and so the government can make it illegal to spout hatred in order to conserve its resources. This attitude presumes, as Wilson did when he prosecuted folks for publicly singing German songs during World War I, that the government is the origin of free speech and can lawfully limit the speech it hates and fears. It also presumes that all ideas are equal, and none is worthy of hatred.

When the massacres occurred last week in Paris, all three of the murderers knew that the police would be unarmed and so would be their victims. It was as if they were shooting fish in a barrel. Why is that? The answer lies in the same mentality that believes it can eradicate hate by regulating speech. That mentality demands that government have a monopoly on violence, even violence against evil.

So, to those who embrace this dreadful theory, the great loss in Paris last week was not human life, which is a gift from God; it was free speech, which is a gift from the state. Hence the French government, which seems not to care about innocent life, instead of addressing these massacres as crimes against innocent people, proclaimed the massacres crimes against the freedom of speech. Would the French government have reacted similarly if the murderers had killed workers at an ammunition factory, instead of at a satirical magazine?

And how hypocritical was it of the French government to claim it defends free speech! In France, you can go to jail if you publicly express hatred for a group whose members may be defined generally by characteristics of birth, such as gender, age, race, place of origin or religion.

Speaking Tuesday at the Heritage Action Conservative Policy Summit in Washington, D.C., Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) urged his conservative audience to reject the legal philosophy known as judicial restraint and instead embrace an “activist” Supreme Court that’s willing to strike down offensive state and federal laws. “What happens when a legislature does bad things?” Paul asked the crowd. “Should we have an activist court that comes in and overturns that?”

Paul answered that question with a resounding yes. He pointed to a variety of Supreme Court cases where government actions were on trial, from Progressive era economic regulations to state bans on birth control to the 2012 showdown over Obamacare, and pronounced himself in favor of judicial activism against those laws in every instance.
...
When governments “do wrong we should overturn them,” Paul said. “There is a role for the Supreme Court to mete out justice.”
...
For a detailed account of the long-running legal battle over the merits of judicial restraint, check out my new book on the subject, Overruled: The Long War for Control of the U.S. Supreme Court.
...

A teenage girl spent three years of her life convinced she was dead due to a rare medical condition known as 'Walking Corpse Syndrome'.

Haley Smith, 17, suffered from the ultra-rare illness Cotard’s Syndrome.
Sufferers genuinely believe they are dead, or that parts of their body no longer exist, and some die from starvation because they feel they no longer have to eat.

But with the help of a therapist – and, bizarrely, Disney films – she recovered.

Media Advisory
Senator Rand Paul To Nevada

ON:13 January 2015
BY:Admin
IN: Media Advisory

WASHINGTON, DC – Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) will travel to Las Vegas, Nevada on January 16th and Reno, Nevada on January 17th, 2015. Senator Paul will focus on meeting local pastors, business leaders and political activists.

FRIDAY, JANUARY 16, 2015
WHAT: Diner Visit – Las Vegas
TIME: 10:30 am (PST)
WHO: Senator Rand Paul
WHERE: Peppermill Restaurant
2985 South Las Vegas Blvd, Las Vegas NV 89109

SATURDAY, JANUARY 17, 2015
WHAT: Media Availability – Reno
TIME: 1:00 pm (PST)
WHO: Senator Rand Paul
WHERE: Downtown Reno – Exact location TBD

(Reuters) - Republican U.S. Senator Rand Paul took aim in New Hampshire on Wednesday at Common Core national education standards as he looked to strengthen ties with voters in the first-in-the-nation primary state before an expected 2016 White House run.

With its libertarian leanings, New Hampshire is seen as hospitable territory for Paul's small-government beliefs. His father, former Texas U.S. Representative Ron Paul, finished second in the 2012 New Hampshire primary, trailing only former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, who went on to clinch the nomination.

A running theme during Paul's visit to the state on Wednesday was his critique of the federal government's involvement in grade-school education and particularly the Common Core standards adopted by most states and supported by President Barack Obama's administration.

The Kentucky lawmaker told staff and parents at a Manchester charter school that he would rather see local schools develop their own standards, which he argued would encourage innovation.

"If you have a national curriculum and rules, you'll never get to these new ideas," Paul said.

Paul's position against Common Core distinguishes him from former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, the Republican who has come closest to officially declaring his presidential candidacy and who has expressed support for the standards.

The Common Core English and math standards are aimed at boosting critical-thinking skills and unifying state guidelines.

But they have come under fire across the political spectrum. Left-leaning groups argue they increase reliance on standardized testing and discourage creativity and flexibility in the classroom. Some conservative groups say they amount to a federal takeover of education.

Paul added that if elected, he would eliminate the U.S. Department of Education, a sentiment that drew applause from the audience.

He also addressed another issue dear to many New Hampshire Republicans: gun rights. He spoke at a closed meeting for Second Amendment supporters at the Londonderry Fish and Game Club.

Outside that event, Anthony Nino Jr., 49, said he liked Paul and his father for their commitment to individual rights.

"I think we need more people with his sense of duty to the Constitution," said Nino, wearing a hand-made three-corner hat, a style popular in colonial times. "If they have a duty to follow and enforce the Constitution, then they will respect another person's rights."