Any idea when we might be getting another update on this venture?

Rand Paul’s drug war talk in Iowa was important, but not for the reason you think

BY RADLEY BALKO
June 18 at 9:54 AM

Vox notes that last weekend, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) talked about the drug war’s disproportionate effect on communities of color.

If you look at the war on drugs, 3 out of 4 people in prison are black or brown. White kids are doing it too, in fact, if you look at all the surveys, white kids do it just as much as black and brown kids. But the prisons are full of black and brown kids because they don’t get a good attorney, they live in poverty, it’s easier to arrest them than to go to the suburbs.

Paul also touched on a theme we’ve explored here at The Watch — the overlooked value of redemption.

Most of us are Christians or Jews or of the Judeo-Christian faith, and it’s like, we believe in redemption. We believe in a second chance. Should a 19-year old kid get a second chance? I think yes. Let’s be the party that has compassion, that doesn’t say the behavior is right, but says, ‘You know what? When you’re done with your time, you get the right to vote back.’ Let’s be the party that is for extending the right to vote back to people who have paid their time, who have reformed their ways.

I’d point out that a fair number of we nonbelievers think redemption is important, too. Still, this is an important thing to hear from a U.S. senator, and particularly from a Republican senator with presidential ambitions. (But I repeat myself.)

...

It’s a rare thing for a politician positioning himself for a presidential run to go to an early primary state and say things about the criminal justice system that the people he’s courting may not want to hear. There’s nothing politically opportunistic about telling a bunch of white Iowa GOP caucusers that we need to stop locking up black teenagers for drugs — or that those who have been locked up should get back the right to vote.

Paul isn’t just refusing to pander, here. He’s actually trying to lead.

Dear Chef Ramsay!
..snip..

Those who backed Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum in 2012 are giving Rand Paul a long, hard look.

By David Catanese
June 17, 2014 | 11:16 a.m. EDT

DES MOINES, Iowa – Ramona Heller walked into the state Republican convention with an impression of Rand Paul largely formed by his father – and it wasn’t good.

As a local party official in a small village outside of Cedar Rapids, Iowa, she had witnessed firsthand the brash takeover of her beloved GOP in 2012 by the so-called “Paulites” -- the term used to describe supporters of former Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas – after his third place finish in the last presidential caucus.

“A lot of the things they tried to do to take over and get in were very unethical,” Heller says.

The procedural tactics employed by the Paulites won them control of the party, but left mainstream Iowa Republicans seething and bitter. So when Rand Paul took the dais at the Hy-Vee Convention Center Saturday to address the assembled 2,000 GOP delegates, Heller – a Rick Santorum supporter in 2012 – was prepared to sit on her hands.

“I wouldn’t have even considered him before this morning. He wasn’t even on my radar,” she says.

Instead, her reaction surprised herself.

“Holy shit, I would vote for this guy,” she thought afterward. “Yes, I was impressed.”

One year ago this month, Americans learned that their government was engaged in secret dragnet surveillance, which contradicted years of assurances to the contrary from senior government officials and intelligence leaders.

On this anniversary, it is more important than ever to let Congress and the administration know that Americans will reject half-measures that could still allow the government to collect millions of Americans' records without any individual suspicion or evidence of wrongdoing.

It is time to end the dragnet — and to affirm that we can keep our nation secure without trampling on and abandoning Americans' constitutional rights.

For years, in both statements to the public and open testimony before the House and Senate, senior government officials claimed that domestic surveillance was narrow in focus and limited in scope. But in June 2013, Americans learned through leaked classified documents that these claims bore little resemblance to reality. In fact, the NSA has been relying on a secret interpretation of the USA Patriot Act to vacuum up the phone records of millions of law-abiding citizens. Under a separate program, intelligence agencies are using a loophole in the law to read some Americans' emails without ever getting a warrant.

Dragnet surveillance was approved by a secret court that normally hears only the government's side of major cases. It had been debated only in a few secret congressional committee hearings, and many members of Congress were entirely unaware it. When laws like the Patriot Act were reauthorized, a vocal minority of senators and representatives — including the three of us — objected, but the secrecy surrounding these programs made it difficult to mobilize public support.

 I, along with everyone familiar with shapes and/or capable of spelling the word "dog"--we knew you've been had for quite some time.
Even warned you.
Repeatedly.
Protip:  If nothing else, remember to breathe.

It amuses me because in both cases I was kind enough to explain to Chef Ramsay that what he's doing will inevitably cost him--both in Bitcoin and self-respect.

i hate to be cynical, but people in general are not very smart. they'll just vote for whoever is charismatic, issues and past history be damned. it's also money that influences the votes too.. and i do wish people were more studious with their votes, so that money could have less and less of an effect.. but it just doesn't happen.

saw last night on john oliver that he was the GOP's biggest proponent of immigration reform - so basically, at least for the next 2 years, don't expect to see any improvements on that front.

it was kind of funny on his show last night. republicans don't want immigration reform because most of the latinos that come in know that the GOP isn't looking out for their interests.

Hey all, I will be sending out dividends eventually here. Bear with me.


Also I would like to talk to you about stopping dividends and just buying back shares outright as funds become available.
Would this be something majority shareholders could agree on or woulkd you all prefer to get dividends?

Cheers,

kyle.T