Mediaboss Marketing

Professedpurveyors of civil liberties refusing to speak out against releasing of privileged phone recordsare sacrificing their cause"on the alter of Trump's impeachment," according civil liberties legal expert Alan Dershowitz on Newsmax TV.

"Every civil libertarian, the ACLU, everybody who cares about civil liberties in the Constitution should be up in arms at the tactics being used by this congressional committee to obtain evidence,"Dershowitz told Monday's "America Talks Live" about Rep. Adam Schiff's, D-Calif., House Intelligence Committee in pursuit of the impeachment of President Donald Trump.

"And, yet, we don't hear a word from civil libertarians, because they like the end result. They want to see Trump impeached, so they're prepared to sacrifice basic civil liberties on the alter of Trump's impeachment."

Dershowitz rejected House Democrats' partisan arguments for grounds ofimpeachment because "none of them satisfy the constitutional criteria for impeachment" and our democracy's check on their abuse of power will come in the November 2020 elections.

"I think people who vote for impeachment without satisfying the constitutional criteria are going to have to pay a price at the ballot box," Dershowitz told host John Cardillo.

Constitutional checks and balances are also being abused by House Democrats in this impeachment attempt, because they are "ignoring" the Judicial branch to "circumvent the Constitution," according to Dershowitz.

"What's going on for the most part in this impeachment is the Democrats are ignoring the third branch of government, the Judicial branch," Dershowitz said. "They want the president to comply with subpoenas without challenging them in court. They want to get records and documents without going through court procedures.

"What we're seeing is kind of diminishing impact of courts, and the courts are supposed to be the referees between the Executive branch and the Legislative branch. And the Legislative branch in this case is eliminating the courts in trying to circumvent the Constitution."

Important: See Newsmax TV now carried in 70 million cable homes, on DirecTV Ch. 349, Dish Network Ch. 216, Xfinity Ch. 1115, Spectrum, U-verse Ch. 1220, FiOS Ch. 615, Optimum Ch. 102, Cox cable, Suddenlink Ch. 102, or Find More Cable Systems Click Here.

2019 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

More here:
Alan Dershowitz to Newsmax TV: Silence of the Libertarians - Newsmax

SACRAMENTO, CA December 11, 2019 Californiacounty elections offices across California are mailing postcards to every No Party Preference voter who is registered to vote-by-mail. These postcards are standard and provide voters with their presidential primary voting options.The American Independent, Democratic, and Libertarian parties are allowing No Party Preference voters to participate in theirMarch 3, 2020Presidential Primary Elections.In order to do so,No Party Preference voters should complete and return this postcard to select and receive a vote-by-mail ballot listing presidential candidates from one of these parties.

Voters are encouraged to return these postcards before the new year if possible, so that elections officials can process their requests in time for ballot printing and mailing.

Advertisement

TheMarch 3, 2020Presidential Primary is now less than 90 days away and voters should start preparing now, Secretary of State Alex Padilla. With the launch of a new How to vote for U.S. President website, direct mailings to voters, and social media campaigns, elections officials are working to educate and assist all eligible Californians. No Party Preference voters, in particular, need to know their options for requesting a ballot with presidential candidates, if they so choose. Voters registered with No Party Preference should be on the lookout for a postcard from your county elections office with options for voting in the presidential primary. Returning this postcard in a timely manner will make for a smoother experience for voters and elections officials alike.

REQUESTING A CROSSOVER BALLOT

No Party Preference voters who do not respond to this postcard will be mailed a ballot without any presidential candidates listed. If after receiving a non-partisan ballot a No Party Preference voters prefers to receive a crossover ballot, they can still request one from their county elections official by:

Voters also have the option of taking their non-partisan vote-by-mail ballot to their polling place (or any vote center in a Voters Choice Act County) and exchange it for a ballot with presidential candidates from the American Independent, Democratic, or Libertarian Party.

HOW TO VOTE FOR PRESIDENT

The Secretary of States office recently launched a new websiteHowToVoteForPresident.sos.ca.govdetailing California voters options for voting for U.S. President in theMarch 3, 2020Presidential Primary.

NO PARTY PREFERENCE VOTERS WHO VOTE IN PERSON No Party Preference voters who vote at the polls, can ask the poll worker for a ballot with either American Independent, Democratic, or Libertarian Party presidential candidates when checking-in at a polling place.

VOTING IN THE GREEN, PEACE AND FREEDOM, OR REPUBLICAN PARTY PRIMARY No Party Preference voters who want to vote for a Green, Peace and Freedom, or Republican Parties presidential candidate, must first re-register with that specific party.

Voters can re-register online atRegisterToVote.ca.gov. If a voter needs to re-registerafter February 17, 2020, a voter who wishes to re-register can do so in person at their polling place, any vote center (VCA counties only), or their county elections office.

See original here:
No Party Preference Voters Encouraged to Complete Presidential Primary Ballot Selection Postcards by the New Year - YubaNet

Brian Strietelmeier has voted Democratic in every presidential election since 2008. In 2020, the 34-year-old Prospect man might vote for a Libertarian or even Donald Trump.

Why?

Strietelmeiers top political issue heading into 2020 is not healthcare, or border security or any of the other top issues that seem to have split the electorate.

The candidate who will win his vote will need to be pro-vaping, or at least open to the idea of studying it before making policy changes such as a flavor ban.

Im not asking them to come out, hold up a vape, you know, and take a huge rip and be like, Im with you. I mean, I would love it. But, Im a realist, said Strietelmeier, a print services specialist.

Strietelmeier is not the only vape bloc voter.

In a Morning Consult and Politico poll of 1,988 voters last month, one in 10 former Trump voters said theyd be less likely to vote for a presidential candidate in favor of banning flavors, and 8% said theyd be much less likely.

Other vapers interviewed by LEO said they may vote for a third-party candidate, while others said they might vote for Trump, but all were skeptical of Democratic candidates, most of whom have stayed silent on vaping.

They said they arent against all regulations, such as raising the age for vaping to 21 and requiring vape supplies to be sold in only specialty shops. Mostly, they dont want a ban on flavors, and some just want a candidate who wont demonize vaping.

On Sept. 11, Trump threatened to ban vape flavors, but in November, he backed off, and now vapers like Strietelmeier are still waiting to see if he disavows the idea completely. Libertarians, by definition, arent big fans of government regulation, and that would include vaping regulations.

Not all vapers are single-issue voters.

Danielle Lavigne, who lives in Allen County, Kentucky, said she will consider other issues such as education, job growth and lower taxes. But, the 44-year-old supermarket employee understands why others would let vaping decide their vote. Many issues that candidates bring up dont touch peoples everyday lives, she said. Thats not the case with vaping.

Thats something that affects my life greatly, said Lavigne, who vapes in lieu of smoking, which she did for 26 years.

Still, some people doubt that there are many single-issue voters on vaping on either side of the debate. Skeptics include Ben Chandler, a former Kentucky congressman who is now president and CEO of the Foundation for a Healthy Kentucky, which lobbies for more vaping regulations in the state.

He said he hopes lawmakers wont hold off on passing vaping regulations because of what he called electoral blackmail from vaping lobbyists.

They dont have any evidence on their side that this is a healthy activity, said Chandler.

About that evidence

LEO interviewed four voters, two of them Kentuckians, who said they plan to base their votes in the presidential election solely on vaping. Some have opinions on issues such as immigration, healthcare and abortion, but after quitting smoking with the help of vaping now they believe its imperative to public health to vote with their vapes.

E-cigarettes have fewer toxins than do combustible cigarettes, but a health expert who studied vaping, Aruni Bhatnagar from UofL, has told LEO that just because vaping carries X number of fewer toxins doesnt mean e-cigarettes are X times healthier than smoking. Vaping still produces harmful substances, he said, and the long-term effects of the practice are not known. The recent vaping illnesses that have hospitalized 2,291 people led the CDC to urge people to stop using black market THC vapes and adding their own ingredients to nicotine e-cigarettes and other vaping products. This, after the additive vitamin E acetate was linked to the illness. But, the CDC said, there might be more than one cause and, as such, is advising abstinence from nicotine and THC vapes. Still, vaping has replaced smoking for millions of Americans, according to a report published last year in the Annals of Internal Medicine. Smoking tobacco kills 480,000 people in the United States every year.

Lainey Tipton, a 38-year-old graphic designer from Tennessee, said she smoked cigarettes for 12 years before switching to vaping. Both her parents died from smoking-related lung illnesses.

When asked why vaping has become her main political issue, Tipton said, Because it saves lives.

Honestly, the day my mom died was probably the hardest day of my life, and I still just randomly burst out in tears, said Tipton. And its because of smoking.

For the vapers who spoke with LEO, flavored vapes were integral for transitioning away from smoking cigarettes, although they have continued vaping. Vanilla custard is the one Tipton attributes to helping her quit.

Most vapers interviewed by LEO said that they were consistent voters and registered with particular political groups, but most were free-flowing with their affiliation.

Carl Hughes, a 42-year-old vaper who lives in Pikeville, Kentucky, described himself as not very political.

Which is why its easy for me to be a single-issue voter, said Hughes.

Hughes recently switched from being an independent to Libertarian as Trump toyed with a flavor ban. More needs to be done. He has to come to a decision, said Hughes. Im cautiously optimistic that hes going to do Trump will do the right thing, and if he does, Ill happily campaign for him.

Cherry Lai, a vaper from California whom Hughes knows, said that shes always based her votes on single issues. Last election, it was healthcare.

Lai, a retiree, described herself as a left-leaning moderate, but this election, she plans to vote for Trump.

Strietelmeier is currently leaning toward voting Libertarian, but he said that he would vote for Trump if he took a more pro-vaping stance.

Tipton said she voted for Libertarian Gary Johnson in the last presidential election, but shes also considering Trump in 2020. Nobody else has really spoken out on the issue, and Im going to vote for someone who has a stance on it, said Tipton, and at least hes gone, We need to really consider whats going to happen to the economy and to these peoples lives.

Vaping diehards such as Gregory Conley, president of the American Vaping Association, a vaping advocacy organization, think vapers could impact the election.

A lot of vaper voters are people that are largely disaffected, Conley said. And they may not be regular voters, but if you give them a reason to vote, they will turn out.

He pointed to a poll conducted by a Republican firm, McLaughlin & Associations, created for the Vaping Technology Association, that showed 74% of 4,669 vapers surveyed in 17 battleground states would be less likely to vote for Trump if he banned flavored e-cigarettes. Eighty-three percent said they would be likely to vote for or against a candidate based solely on their position on vaping products, the survey found.

Conley said that vapers have already decided elections, specifically, the race that re-elected U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin. Johnson thanked vapers in his acceptance speech, saying they made the results possible. Kaiser Health News reported that an owner of an online vape store at the time and former campaign manager for Herman Cain, Mark Block, rallied vapers around Johnson, raising $3,000 with a Vape PAC and sending out around 400,000 mailers. KHN also interviewed Tom Russell, the campaign manager who worked for Johnsons rival, who said it was the Tea Party, not vapers, that had made a difference in the election.

Vapers have organized mostly online, with a We Vape We Vote social media campaign paired with calls to contact representatives, although there have been rallies, including one in Washington, D.C. that attracted around 3,000 people, according to Conley, and another that occurred in Lexington, Kentucky, the day that Trump came to town for a pre-election rally for former Gov. Matt Bevin. Somewhere between 75 and 100 people showed up to that one, hoping to capture the presidents attention.

Vapers seem to have Trump worried.

The New York Times and The Washington Post reported on Nov. 17 that Trump stepped back from a flavor ban partially to keep support from vapers. Perhaps coincidentally, he changed his mind about a ban while on the way to his Kentucky rally, according to an unnamed Trump adviser interviewed by the Post.

The few candidates on the left who have taken a stance on vaping have called for more regulations. For vapers, former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg became enemy No. 1 after allocating $160 million to push for flavor bans in at least 20 cities and states. Andrew Yang told The Washington Examiner that the country was headed in the right direction after Trump proposed a flavor ban. And, U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren has been dinged by vape enthusiasts for urging regulators and companies to increase oversight [and] address health impacts of e-cigarette products.

At this point, I want to see them pay, said Strietelmeier. I want to see them do the right thing, or I want to see them go down on their swords.

Go here to see the original:
Could Vapers Swing The 2020 Presidential Election? - Louisville Eccentric Observer

To truly understand the dark web you need to understand who is using it, for what purpose, and to what degree. In part one we called the dark web a den of thieves and a front for freedom fighters. Lyrical prose aside, the description was technically accurate, if incomplete.

Current estimates place the number of unique URLs in use on the dark web at roughly 60,000. Obviously, we are talking about destinations here, not users. However, these destinations essentially form the dark webs marketplace (to use the term loosely), and profiling this marketplace offers a largely representative, albeit incomprehensive view of dark web demographics.

For simplicitys sake, we can divide dark web users into five primary categories: anonymous users, corporations, criminals, state actors, and anti-State actors. Each have their own motivations and habits:

Anonymous users refers to individuals looking for anonymity for personal reasons. Some might be pursuing deviant, albeit not technically illegal behavior. A few may be whistleblowers acting against companies, organizations, or institutions. Others of the more libertarian sway may simply wish to keep their personal browsing patterns free from the touchy-muchy tentacles of big data crawling machines like Google and Microsoft.

Corporations are keenly aware of the existence of the anonymous user and a few have set up a dark web presence of their own to cater to this group of digital agoraphobes, including the New York Times and Facebook.

Mostly though, companies are motivated by self-preservation, responding to the threat of hackers sharing deep web vulnerabilities capable of granting access to corporate databases. Cyber firms specializing in dark web monitoring offer these corporations their services, which mainly involve crawling, scraping, and analyzing dark web data for traces of client names, products, and user information. The idea is to head off a breach before it occurs, or if it is too late for that, to at least plug up the dam before it fully bursts.

Make no mistake, the threat is real. A 2019 study managed to identify over 20 million stolen credentials from Fortune 500 companies spanning 10 different industries across the globe.

Criminals are perhaps the most notorious group on the dark web, and for good reason. In addition to seeking ransoms from corporate or other entities following successful data breaches, this intrepid shadow-class of businessman, with little to no moral moorings whatsoever, are paddling in any and all products and services that are at the very least detested, more often criminalized by mainstream markets. With cryptocurrency fueling the engine, everything from child exploitation to gun running, fraud to murder, can all be found on Amazon-like marketplaces, conveniently categorized, complete with user reviews and checkout carts.

Much of these offerings are scams in-and-of-themselves, with newbie TOR surfers frequently being taken in and having to chalk up their financial losses to lessons learned, as one element still lacking on the dark web is a Better Business Bureau.

State actors: the U.S. started it all and it never left the fray. But many more have joined the game since then, and the dark web has become a small part of a far larger cyber war with as many fronts as there are conflicts, including U.S.-China, Russia-Ukraine, India-Pakistan, and so on. No government agency is safe, with recent hacks of top secret US Naval intelligence and a stunning attack on Russias FSB underscoring this point.

Anti-state actors: championed altruistically by some of the original researchers on the TOR project (Roger Dingledine, Nick Mathewson, Paul Syverson, and Steven Murdoch), they are the original rationalization for allowing TOR to go public despite the possible negative consequences of such a bold move.

For oppressed people under the thumb of tyrannical regimes, the dark web has become at minimum a release, and on a greater scale a means of insurrection. It is the anonymity of the dark web that affords anti-government users the ability to fight back against the likes of China and Iran, regimes ruthlessly vigilant when it comes to crawling the internet to snuff out any and all activity deemed a threat to their stronghold on the reins of power.

Interestingly, terror, for the most part, makes up a small portion of TOR sites, perhaps for the same reasons the dark web has not gone mainstream as some have predicted. At least in one respect, terror has a similar digital goal as that of any respectable aspiring organizationnotoriety.

This is not to discount privacy concerns, which continue to be a vocal gripe of the masses. But basic marketing and group-think psychology always worked against the notion that privacy concerns would trigger waves of migration from the surface web to the dark web. The whole idea of social media is to be social, and if we are including in this description the posting of visual media to platforms, the reality is that most people are not interested in true anonymity.

As for freedom-fighting individuals, the technical barrier to dark web entry has always been a curbing factor. That is to say nothing of the fact that dark web anonymity is by no means fool-proof. Oppressive governments are not sitting idly by while resistance pockets seek to undermine their authority. The mere thought of cyber units crawling the farthest corners of the network, imagined to be armed with unknown technology specifically designed to ferret out regime traitors, will inevitably keep many of the more cautious-minded users at bay.

Corporations, on the other hand, can be expected to increase their presence dramatically as the dark web becomes more of a threat to their data. Expect to see dark web monitoring become a mainstay of international standards like ISO and NIST, with auditors demanding to see results from companies latest dark web monitoring sessions.

And we havent even discussed offensive business intelligence, another possible use of the dark web that requires more exploration and much experimentation.

The most alarming trend of the dark web, however, is the growing scourge of cyber criminals, profiting off the ideals and enabling the technologies of governments and libertarians alike. Words cannot accurately capture the horrific abuses anonymity, cryptocurrency, and streaming bandwidth have invited. It is certainly true that these crimes were being committed long before the dark web came about, but the ease of serviceability brought on by the digital marketplace may be significantly increasing the volume of these crimes. As far as the degree of depravity of the crimes themselves, nothing brings out creativity quite like an audience, which is now available on demand and with a profit incentive to boot.

Progress is being made technologically to identify and arrest these criminals, and there is an increase in international law enforcement cooperation. But the game of cat and mouse never truly ends, and when confronted with the crimes themselves, when stats and figures become faces and stories, one cannot help but ask whether the dark webs benefits justify the costs, a question all its users will likely have to grapple with for as long as the dark web exists.

Ariel Yosefi is the head of the technology and regulation department, at Israel-based law firm Herzog Fox & Neeman. Avraham Chaim Schneider is coordinator of the firms cyber and innovation media project.

See the article here:
Villains and VigilantesCitizens of the Dark Web - CTech

Greens, Libertarians to sue over third party barriers

ALBANY Two minor political parties on opposite ends of the ideological spectrum will jointly sue a commission whose recommendations are set to make it more difficult for third parties to survive in New York.

The Green and Libertarian parties announced at an Albany news conference on Monday that they would sue the Public Campaign Financing Commission, which released recommendations on Nov. 30 making it more difficult for third parties to maintain full, qualified ballot status in New York. Unless the state Legislature reconvenes to amend the recommendations by Dec. 22, a prospect looking increasingly less likely, the commissions work will be legally binding.

Two larger minor parties with opposing ideologies the Working Families Party and the Conservative Party are already suing the commission in similar but separate lawsuits, and are set to have a summary judgment hearing on Thursday in state Supreme Court in Niagara County.

Its not clear if the Libertarians and Greens will sue in state or federal court, or if they will join the other minor parties already suing. But a lawsuit will happen once the legal situation becomes clearer this week, party officials said on Monday.

We are committed to going to court, said Mark Dunlea, a co-founder of the Green Party.

Dunlea said that the Greens and Libertarians had been in discussions with the Conservative and Working Families parties about joining their lawsuit, but were told to wait.

They started this litigation in July, it took them a long time to get to this summary judgment hearing, Dunlea said. They just said, Dont mess up the waters at this point. Lets talk on Friday. Lets figure it out, based on whats going on in the court on Thursday.

Dunlea said the timing was advantageous, because if the court rules against the WFP and Conservative parties, the Green and Libertarian lawsuit could address those legal concerns in their own case.

Dunlea said that the Green/Libertarian lawsuit would address issues that had arisen since the WFP/Conservative lawsuits were filed in July, which primarily focused on maintaining New Yorks unique fusion voting system that allows minor parties to cross-endorse major party candidates.

The public financing commission ended up keeping fusion voting, but instead sought to cull the number of third parties by substantially raising the thresholds that minor parties must meet to have full ballot status. Currently, parties must receive 50,000 votes in the race for governor every four years. Under the changes, they would have to attain 2 percent of total turnout or 130,000 votes, whichever is greater, every two years in both the gubernatorial and then the presidential elections.

The commission also tripled the number of signatures required to independently petition a statewide candidate onto the ballot, from 15,000 to 45,000. Dunlea said that issue would definitively be raised in the Green/Libertarian lawsuit.

The Green and Libertarian parties have different interests than the other minor parties: They generally run their own candidates for major offices such as governor, rather than cross-endorsing Democrats and Republicans, as the WFP and the Conservatives generally do. In 2018, the Greens ran Howie Hawkins for governor, while the Libertarians ran Larry Sharpe.

Running their own, lesser-known candidates could make it more difficult for the Green and Libertarian parties to survive as viable third parties than it will be for parties like the WFP. Sharpe got about 90,000 votes and Hawkins about 95,000.

They are trying to remove our choice, so that they can remove our voice, Sharpe said.

Dunlea primarily blamed Gov. Andrew Cuomo for the changes challenging third parties, but also said two other Democrats Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie and Senate Majority Leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins were complicit in agreeing to eliminate third party competition in New York. Heastie and Stewart-Cousins could team up to pursue a special session before the recommendations are adopted next month and some members of their conferences have called for just that.

But in conversations with reporters over the past week, the majority leaders were hesitant to reject the commissions report or commit to reviewing the rules for minor parties.

Well see what happens, Heastie said, while Stewart-Cousins focused on the commissions work to establish a system to publicly fund elections an item that has long been on Democrats wish lists.

We weren't concerned about fusion voting and this type of thing, but it's part of our discussion, Stewart-Cousins said of the report, which has a severability clause that prevents lawmakers from striking only some of the recommendations. We're talking about all of the recommendations, and, again, I'm happy that we finally actually have public financing, or at least the possibility of public financing."

The Working Families Party alleges that the changes insisted upon by Cuomos appointees were carrying out his revenge against the WFP, which endorsed a Democratic primary challenger to the governor in 2018.

The rest is here:
Greens, Libertarians to sue over third party barriers - Times Union