Saturday, July 21, 2007

Terrorists celebrate as Democrats kill "John Doe" Immunity Provision

 
Democrats in the Senate killed a legislative provision granting citizens with immunity from lawsuits for reporting suspicious behavior that may lead to a terrorist attack. The so-called "John Doe" amendment was intended to prevent frivolous, expensive lawsuits by the likes of the "Flying Imams."

According to police reports, the imams were asked to deplane a US Airways flight in November after reportedly requesting seat-belt extenders; invoking the words "Bin Laden", "Saddam Hussein", and "terrorism"; shouting "prayers"; and generally acting in a disturbing and suspicious manner. Three of the six had one-way tickets and between all six, only one checked a bag. Once seated, they spread out in the plane in a pattern similar to the 9-11 hijackers. Two sat in the front, two in the middle, and two in the back.

The imams, backed by CAIR, subsequently sued US Airways, passengers, and crew who had reported their activity. The lawsuit against the "John Does" was apparently intended to "discourage passengers from reporting suspicious activity in the future."

On Thursday, the Senate voted on a measure that would protect these citizens from frivolous lawsuits. The Collins Amendment would provide limited immunity for reports of suspicious behavior -- in other words, for doing precisely what the government asks citizens to do -- that is, "if you see something, say something."


The original New York Subway Sign

But Democrats don't appear to like the idea that citizens can report suspicious behavior (shhh... it may be "politically incorrect"). Wizbang tells us that "Senate Democrats... successfully killed the John Doe provision - at least for now - and have sided with potential terrorists against their own citizens."


The new Subway Sign

Wizbang also published the roll call -- a veritable wall of shame -- that should be used in every 2008 campaign commercial.

Gateway Pundit has more. Much more. And Michelle Malkin adds to the collection.

I don't question the Democrats' patriotism any more. I question their sanity.

iPhone 'may never be secure'

 
Encryption expert Phillip Dunkelberger, a former Apple employee and president of security firm PGP, believes that the iPhone is almost impossible to protect.

"There are so many security issues with the iPhone, because it is not just a phone," he said. "From an IT guy's perspective it is a Linux computer with communications built in."

...He added that, if hackers did get control of the iPhone, they could use it to dial expensive phone lines and steal funds from users.

Methinks he has a point. Consider:

* Jon Lech Johansen (you may know him as DVD Jon) reported on his So Sue Me blog that he found a way to activate the iPhone for WiFi and iPod functionality, but not for phone.

* The iPhone Dev Wiki has released a tool that that "generate[s] a valid activation token based on the SIM card (and iPhone) information...[and] allow[s] for activation with virtually any AT&T/Cingular SIM that the iPhone is hardware-compatible with."

* SPI Labs warned iPhone users not to use the web dialer feature. "Attackers could exploit a bug in this feature to trick a victim into making phone calls to expensive "900" numbers or even keep track of phone calls made by the victim over the Web... [it could] be stopped from dialing out, or set to dial out endlessly."

For a malicious party, the full-fledged Linux-style OS running on the iPhone definitely provides an intriguingly large attack surface.

Update 7/22: several commenters complained about describing the iPhone's OS/X as a "Linux OS". While Linux and BSD apps will recompile and run on OS/X, it's true that they are not directly related in the genealogy of Unices. I've changed the word Linux to Linux-style, above.

Friday, July 20, 2007

Democrats: a Punchline, not a Party

 
President Bush criticized Congress today for failing to act on a defense spending request that included troop pay raises and equipment upgrades.

"It is time to rise above partisanship, stand behind our troops in the field and give them everything they need to succeed," Bush said.

The Democrats? Rise above partisanship? That's a great punchline, Mr. President!

After getting ripped by the Pentagon for boosting enemy propaganda, Hillary decided that wearing a slinky, low-cut outfit might deflect some criticism.

Sorry, Hill, I know Pam Anderson. Pam Anderson is a friend of mine. Senator, you're no Pam Anderson. Come to think of it, you're no Phyllis Diller.

For at least two and a half hours tomorrow, George W. Bush will undergo a colonoscopy. During that time, Dick Cheney will be President of the United States.

One word for "progressives": MUHAWHAHWAHAWHAWHAWHAWHAWHAHWAWHAWHAW!!!

Hat tip: Larwyn

Thursday, July 19, 2007

Another rebuke for the Wilson-Plame Family

 
Valerie Plame's lawsuit against members of the Bush administration was dismissed earlier today. She had accused VP Dick Cheney and others of conspiring to reveal her identity.

She claimed that the disclosure had violated her right to privacy and was an illegal form of revenge for her husband's criticism of the President.

[The Judge said] there was no legal basis for the suit... [he] sided with administration officials who said they were acting within their job duties... "...there can be no serious dispute that the act of rebutting public criticism, such as that levied by Mr. Wilson against the Bush administration's handling of prewar foreign intelligence, by speaking with members of the press is within the scope of defendants' duties as high-level Executive Branch officials...

The Judge's rebuke couldn't happen to a more fitting family of liars.

Ramirez gets the last word.

A Senator faces a reporter's inquiry: 2036

 
How dare you question my latest budget? The "Robert Byrd Surrender Monument and Cryonic Storage Chamber" holds 18,000 of my elderly constituents in suspended animation. And it's strategically located in Nitro, West Virginia! I won't have you twaddlizing my work!

Obama favors age-appropriate Sex-Ed for Kindergartners

 
Barrack Obama says he favors sex education for children -- including Kindergartners -- as long as it's "age-appropriate".

Hey kids, Barbie dropped the soap in the shower!

I get the feeling this issue isn't a winning "position" for Obama.

Wednesday, July 18, 2007

Ellison's got a fever... and the only cure is more cowbell

 
The New York Post describes a fair level of Congressional outrage over Rep. Keith Ellison's remarks comparing Bush to (who else?) Adolf Hitler:

Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), the lone Muslim lawmaker in the House, compared the [9/11] attacks to the burning of the German Reichstag, or parliament, in 1933 - noting that the fire put Hitler "in a position where he could basically have authority to do whatever he wanted."

The remarks - which closely mirror the propaganda of fringe 9/11 conspiracy groups - drew sharp rebukes from several of Ellison's House colleagues. "I disagree with President Bush on many things, but comparing him to Hitler is outrageous," fumed Rep. Elliot Engel (D-Bronx). "I think these conspiracy theories about 9/11 are off the wall."

Reps. Zach Wamp (R-Tenn.) and Eric Cantor (R-Va.) wrote House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, saying it was "intolerable that a Member of the United States Congress would choose to exploit the worst attack on American soil as a means of political rhetoric."

Ellison told The Post yesterday, "I have nothing to say about that."

That's a bold apology, Keith.

Meanwhile, Don Surber offers his comparison:

1. Hitler was an articulate and dynamic speaker. Lefties mock the way Bush says “nuclear.”
2. Hitler was a decorated combat veteran. Lefties call Bush a chickenhawk.
3. Hitler’s people set fire to the Reichstag to seize power. Lefties pretend Bush had something to do with 9/11.
4. Leni Riefenstahl paid tribute to Hitler in the film, “Triumph of the Will.” Michael Moore mocked Bush in “Fahrenheit 911.”
5. Hitler was a best-selling author who wrote, “Mein Kampf.” Bush was mocked for reading, “My Pet Goat...”

Read it all.

The Hegemony of the Barbaric Imperialists

 
An American soldier celebrates the destruction of a civilian building.

An Israeli security guard stands in a post over the controversial security fence.

Brian at Snapped Shot has the background for these outrageous photos.

Exclusive Trailer: Hillary Exposed

 
You gonna put some ice on that, Hill?


Be sure and watch the trailer for Hillary Exposed. Go ahead. I'll wait.

Tuesday, July 17, 2007

The NIE: what won't be above the fold in the Times

 
The National Intelligence Estimate's executive summary opens with this sentence: We judge the US Homeland will face a persistent and evolving terrorist threat over the next three years..

The over-under on which paragraph this will be mentioned in tomorrow's New York Times is 18.

Paragraph 2: We assess that greatly increased worldwide counterterrorism efforts over the past five years have constrained the ability of al-Qa’ida to attack the US Homeland again and have led terrorist groups to perceive the Homeland as a harder target to strike than on 9/11. These measures have helped disrupt known plots against the United States since 9/11.

The odds of that sentence appearing in a Maureen Dowd column are slightly less than the chance I'll be struck by a meteorite while playing outfield for the Yankees.

Furthermore:

...we judge that the United States currently is in a heightened threat environment... al-Qa’ida’s Homeland plotting is likely to continue to focus on prominent political, economic, and infrastructure targets with the goal of producing mass casualties, visually dramatic destruction, significant economic aftershocks, and/or fear among the US population...

...al-Qa’ida will continue to try to acquire and employ chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear material in attacks and would not hesitate to use them if it develops what it deems is sufficient capability... this internal Muslim terrorist threat is not likely to be as severe as it is in Europe, however...

That's what the NIE truly says. My guess is we'll see front-page coverage of a pregnant, six-headed cow that can harmonize the chorus of "Love me tender" before the Times covers these assessments.

To make matter worse, Ace points out that we hit another grim milestone today.

Clintons move to DEFCON 3 in the Peter Paul Case

 
Whenever the name Peter Paul comes up in Democratic circles, the reaction is sharp and instantaneous. The man's a convicted felon. He's not believable. It's outrageous that anyone would believe him.

Of course, the Clintons were more than willing to embrace the convicted felon when they needed money for Hillary's Senate campaign in 2000. The result was a private Hollywood gala, the likes of which has never been seen before or since.

Last month, a video surfaced that reportedly shows Hillary collaborating on the planning of the event. According to some observers, it is shocking "evidence of Hillary participating, coordinating, and facilitating a hard money in-kind donation from Peter Paul. It was illegal from the outset." Knowingly accepting or soliciting $25,000 or more in a calendar year is a felony carrying a prison sentence of up to five years.

The videotape was submitted as evidence to a California appeals court in a civil fraud suit filed by Paul against Hillary and Bill Clinton.

Now attorneys on both sides are firing heavy salvos at each other, though the mainstream press has ignored the case completely. That won't be so easy if both Clintons are deposed along with several Hollywood celebs, as Paul is wont to do.

Sen. Hillary Clinton's legal team denies a "smoking gun video" captures the New York Democrat and her campaign in the act of committing a felony, calling the assertion "pure fantasy" and "much ado about nothing..."

...Kendall argues any contribution from Paul toward the Hollywood event should be credited to a joint fundraising committee, New York Senate 2000. The state account, not subject to the federal $2,000 individual limit... Paul's attorney... [counters that] Kendall's reply fails to address the main point – that Sen. Clinton directly solicited the funds and applied some control over them, in violation of section 441 of the Federal Election Commission code... the FEC regulation considers any donation specifically requested by a candidate to be the same as a direct contribution to the candidate.

...the videotape captures Clinton designating her then-White House aide, Kelly Craighead, as her agent in daily contact with Paul, who advised the senator as to when her personal involvement would be helpful. Clinton is recorded saying Craighead, a White House employee with no relationship with any joint fundraising committee, "talks all the time" with Paul about details concerning coordination of the event, "so she'll be the person to convey whatever I need."

[Paul's attorney stated] "...the law could not be more clear. If you have coordination, solicitation by the candidate of the contribution, and are exercising control, that makes it a contribution (to the candidate)."

Paul says that no matter the outcome of the preliminary ruling, the Clintons and several Hollywood celebrities will be deposed.

Perhaps this explains why the Clintons have raised their DEFCON level to 3, which could, if tradition holds, result in a hilarious series of coverups and payoffs directed by the Clintonos.

Sunday, July 15, 2007

Larwyn's Linkfest

 
Larywn points us to several must-read posts:

* Don Surber's writing is so nuanced that it's sometimes difficult to discern his true feelings.

* Bush? A winner? In the Washington Post? Did someone spike my Smartwater™ with Skyy™?

* Kirsten Dunst commits a fashion faux pas; is it career suicide (bombing)?

* Margery Eagen, writing in the Boston Herald, says that Hillary's dependence on Bill for campaign momentum is a giant step back for feminism. Not to mention a giant step back for mankind.

* When does a "proxy war" become a "shooting war"?

* This must be a horrible mistake. Everyone knows that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with the War on Terror.

* The Associated Press is beyond self-parody. It's now utterly indistinguishable from The Onion.

* When is a nation just a rumor?

* I'll bet this politician envies Bush's approval ratings.

The Barrett Report: an Open Letter to Congress

 
In 2005, Robert Novak described the importance of the Barrett Report, an investigation into widespread corruption and coverups:

The Barrett report's shocking allegations of high-level corruption in the [Clinton era] Internal Revenue Service and Justice Department are likely to be concealed from the public and from Congress....

A recently passed appropriations bill, intended to permit release of this report, was altered behind closed doors to ensure that its politically combustible elements never saw the light of day... That investigation would be a long walk into the unknown, with possibly far-reaching consequences. Prominent Democrats in Congress have spent much of the last decade in a campaign, successful so far, to suppress Barrett's report. Its disclosures could dig deeply into concealed scandals of the Clinton administration...

...an IRS whistle-blower told Barrett of an unprecedented cover-up. The informant said a regional IRS official had formulated a new rule enabling him to transfer an investigation of Cisneros to Washington to be buried by the Justice Department. Barrett's investigators found Lee Radek, head of Justice's public integrity office, determined to protect President Bill Clinton...

In January of 2006, Novak described the successful efforts of Democrats to censor key portions of the Barrett Report.

...the question remains what [was] blacked out in 120 pages worth of redactions. Even after the report is released, Barrett and his lawyers would face judicial sanctions if they disclosed anything that was redacted.

However, [there is] an exception, or rather 535 exceptions, to the rule that nobody can see what has been redacted. Any member of Congress can read it merely by asking. Any such lawmaker, who believes American taxpayers should see the product of $23 million in expenditures, presumably could then publish the material without fear of legal sanction.

It is likely, according to Novak, that the disclosures contained in the full Barrett Report could expose many "concealed scandals of the Clinton administration."

Put simply, the corruption and coverups hinted at in the current version of the Barrett Report may be just the tip of the iceberg. And with Hillary Clinton poised to take the Democratic nomination, isn't it of paramount importance that Congress fully disclose how the Clinton Administration operated?

Is there not a single member of Congress brave enough to read and disclose the full Barrett Report to the American taxpayers who paid for it? Is there not one?

Buenos Aires Gets its First Snow Since 1918

 
Here's some climate change news that somehow escaped the attention of the U.S. media. Foreign newspapers (in the UK, Thailand, etc.) are reporting that Argentina's capitol has received its first snow in nearly a century.

Thousands of Argentines cheered and threw snowballs in the streets of Buenos Aires on Monday as the capital's first major snowfall since 1918 spread a thin white mantle across the region...

Wet snow fell for hours in the Argentine capital, accumulating in a mushy but thin white layer late Monday, after freezing air from Antarctica collided with a moisture-laden low pressure system that blanketed higher elevations in western and central Argentina with snow... Argentina's National Weather Service said it was the first major snow in Buenos Aires since June 22, 1918.

This is Argentina's second unseasonal cold snap in two months.

While reported across the globe, apparently U.S. newspapers didn't find this story newsworthy. But, no, I don't think the mainstream media has its own agenda.

News you can use: 'Mrs. Bin Laden's sex secrets laid bare'

 
A tawdry story from the Daily Mail has a catchy headline:

Mrs Bin Laden's sex secrets laid bare

In a tearful and confused phone call to The Mail on Sunday, the British woman who has become Osama Bin Laden's daughter-in-law cast new light on her life since her marriage in April.

Speaking from a villa in Cairo, which she regularly visits for treatment for multiple sclerosis, Mrs. Bin Laden said: 'I need money to get to England and I need to see a good lawyer. I don't have any money. My husband doesn't have any money...

For a mere ten million pounds, Mrs. Bin Laden says she'll reveal all of the Bin Laden family's dirty laundry.

Daily Mail: Mrs Bin Laden's sex secrets laid bare

Friday, July 13, 2007

Join the fight for wireless freedom

 
All seven of my regular readers know that I almost always favor conservative values: strong national defense, fiscal frugality, and economic liberty -- not subsidies. You'll probably be shocked, then, to know that on certain topics I side with more liberal values. One is the concept of network neutrality.

Our country's current telecom infrastructure -- now dominated by essentially two gigantic companies (AT&T and Verizon) -- is broken. And I'll provide some examples why I'm certain this is the case.

The Internet, by its very nature, provides a level playing field for content providers. You'll hear this equality called network neutrality. What it means is that a guy sitting in a dorm room can invent the next great application -- think Digg, YouTube, and Facebook. The fabric of the Internet, a protocol known as TCP/IP, ensures that wealthy content providers can't be favored over poor ones. Net neutrality ensures the level playing field that results in a steady stream of innovation, unconstrained by immense corporate gatekeepers.

The result of TCP/IP-enforced network neutrality is unprecedented value creation. The aggregate market capitalization of the companies launched under the aegis of the Internet may be approaching a trillion dollars.

Now consider U.S. wireless networks. While the Internet is a hotbed of innovation, the wireless nets are exactly the opposite. They are locked -- tight as a drum. Want some ringtones? Go to your carrier and pay. Streaming video clips? Pay your carrier. Sick of your carrier and want to switch? In most cases, you'll pay a hefty termination fee. And if you own an iPhone, you're out of luck. iPhones are locked to AT&T, with some onerous conditions, and no chance of switching to a more competitive plan.


Free the iPhone.

It's time that Americans rise up against what is effectively a reconstituted telecom monopoly and demand an open wireless landscape.

The last innovation from the telephone monopoly may have been the Princess Phone. It's time we forced them to compete. It's good for consumers, it's good for the phone companies, it's good for the stock market, and it's good for America.

Go to Free the iPhone and take action.

Google vs. Viacom: an Observation

 
Google CEO Eric Schmidt leveled some harsh criticism against media giant Viacom, which is suing the search titan for a billion dollars. Google's YouTube subsidiary is accused of "massive copyright infringement" for permitting users to share Viacom shows including South Park, The Daily Show, and The Colbert Report.

"Viacom is a company built from lawsuits, look at their history... look who they hired as CEO: Philippe Dauman, who was the general counsel for Viacom for 20 years," Schmidt said on Friday.

News.com user rad91 observed:

Things you can't find in youtube
You can't find a hint of nudity in youtube (and trust me, I've tried), but type in "daily show", "simpsons", or "south park", and the world is your oyster. The technology to get rid of all sexually explicit material must be rather sophisticated, so you know they have the ability to remove other types of content. Right or wrong, [Google] should just be more honest and say they don't believe in copyright.

Uhm, that's a hell of a good point.

And if rad91 wants to upload pr0n to YouTube, he might try naming the files "Daily Show".

Thursday, July 12, 2007

Victor Davis Hanson rips the Times a new --er-- blowhole

 
You won't see a finer Fisking than the recent beatdown levied upon the Times' amateur writers cum professional surrender-monkeys. Writing in the City Journal, Victor Davis Hanson delivered a hypodermic truth injection into the notoriously slanted socialists.

1. “It is time for the United States to leave Iraq, without any more delay than the Pentagon needs to organize an orderly exit.”

Rarely in military history has an “orderly” withdrawal followed a theater-sized defeat and the flight of several divisions. Abruptly leaving Iraq would be a logistical and humanitarian catastrophe. And when scenes of carnage begin appearing on TV screens here about latte time, will the Times then call for “humanitarian” action?

...4. “Continuing to sacrifice the lives and limbs of American soldiers is wrong. The war is sapping the strength of the nation’s alliances and its military forces. It is a dangerous diversion from the life-and-death struggle against terrorists. It is an increasing burden on American taxpayers, and it is a betrayal of a world that needs the wise application of American power and principles.”

The military is stretched, but hardly broken, despite having tens of thousands of troops stationed in Japan, Korea, the Balkans, Germany, and Italy, years—and decades—after we removed dictatorships by force and began efforts to establish democracies in those once-frightening places. As for whether Iraq is a diversion from the war on terror: al-Qaida bigwig Ayman al-Zawahiri, like George W. Bush, has said that Iraq is the primary front in his efforts to attack the United States and its interests—and he often despairs about the progress of jihad there. Our enemies, like al-Qaida, Iran, and Syria, as well as opportunistic neutrals like China and Russia, are watching closely to see whether America will betray its principles in Iraq.

...5. “Americans must be clear that Iraq, and the region around it, could be even bloodier and more chaotic after Americans leave. There could be reprisals against those who worked with American forces, further ethnic cleansing, even genocide. Potentially destabilizing refugee flows could hit Jordan and Syria. Iran and Turkey could be tempted to make power grabs.

The Times should abandon the subjunctive mood. The catastrophes that it matter-of-factly suggests have ample precedents in Vietnam. Apparently, we should abandon millions of Iraqis to the jihadists (whether Wahhabis or Khomeinites), expect mass murders in the wake of our flight—“even genocide”—and then chalk up the slaughter to Bush’s folly. And if that seems crazy, consider what follows, an Orwellian account of the mechanics of our flight:

6. “The main road south to Kuwait is notoriously vulnerable to roadside bomb attacks. Soldiers, weapons and vehicles will need to be deployed to secure bases while airlift and sealift operations are organized. Withdrawal routes will have to be guarded. The exit must be everything the invasion was not: based on reality and backed by adequate resources.

“The United States should explore using Kurdish territory in the north of Iraq as a secure staging area. Being able to use bases and ports in Turkey would also make withdrawal faster and safer. Turkey has been an inconsistent ally in this war, but like other nations, it should realize that shouldering part of the burden of the aftermath is in its own interest.


This insistence on planned defeat, following incessant criticism of potential victory, is lunatic...

Ouch. Hanson used everything but a cattle prod and a baseball bat. My advice is to click, read, and then forward to all of your friends.

City Journal: The New York Times Surrenders

The unwavering philosophies of Hillary Clinton

 
On October 11, 2002, Hillary Clinton cast her vote in support of the resolution to go to war. She said her vote was cast with the "conviction" that the war authorization "best serves the security of our nation."

On December 3, 2005, Hillary Clinton stated, "I reject a rigid timetable that the terrorists can exploit, and I reject an open timetable that has no ending attached to it."

Now Hillary's racing to leave Iraq for reasons that appear to be pure, political expediency -- and not the best interests of the country. I'm stunned.

Hillary's Doublespeak Video

Charting the Digg effect

 
A couple of days ago, I posted an article that summarized the iPhone's unique terms of service as required by AT&T. It was really aimed at a few family members and associates who believe Steve Jobs walks on water and has a magical ability to turn wine into vodka. I didn't give the post a second thought.

However, within a few hours, it had been submitted to Fark, a popular link aggregator. Fark resulted in 5,000 visitors during the day -- a large number for this site, though well short of the record (18,000 - achieved when this story hit the front page of Digg).

A day later, the traffic hose really started hitting the site after someone submitted the site to Digg and it graduated to the front page. Furthermore, it actually became the most popular tech story for a 24-hour period.

In other words, the story hit the traffic jackpot. Now for the graphs!

Here's the snapshot of a daily summary from about 10pm, when I had to catch some ZZZ's.

Here's the hour-by-hour view of visitors. Nearly 8,000 uniques visited the site between 9:00 and 10:00 AM Eastern Time.

The month view: note the Fark effect, followed a day later by the Digg effect.

The yearly view. What a difference a Diggalanche makes!

What's kinda humorous about this is that LGF and Instapundit probably achieve double this much traffic every day of the week.