******************** THIS BLOG HAS MOVED TO WWW.LEGALINSURRECTION.COM ********************

This blog is moving to www.legalinsurrection.com. If you have not been automatically redirected please click on the link.

NEW COMMENTS will NOT be put through and will NOT be transferred to the new website.

Thursday, September 30, 2010

Another Jewish Historical Reference Found In Stuxnet Code

The New York Times reported on a possible reference to the Book of Esther in the Stuxnet code.  Queen Esther, of course, saved the Jews of Persia from the evil Haman, as celebrated in the Jewish holiday Purim.

Now, a Symantec researcher has found a reference in the code to an obscure date in 1979 which just happens to be the date on which the Iranian revolutionaries executed a prominent Iranian Jew.  As reported at ThreatPost:
A Symantec researcher filled in more critical details about the Stuxnet worm here, demonstrating the worm's ability to take control of programmable logic controllers (PLCs) by Siemens Inc. and disable machinery connected to them.

Liam O'Murchu of Symantec, speaking at the Virus Bulletin Conference here, provided the first detailed public analysis of the worm's inner workings to an audience of some of the world's top computer virus experts. O'Murchu described a sophisticated and highly targeted virus and demonstrated a proof of concept exploit that showed how the virus could cause machines using infected PLCs to run out of control....

As for suggestions that Israeli intelligence may have authored the virus, O'Murchu noted that researchers had uncovered the reference to an obscure date in the worm's code,  May 9, 1979, which, he noted, was the date on which a prominent Iranian Jew, Habib Elghanian, who was executed by the new Islamic government shortly after the revolution.
Here is a portion of the Wikipedia entry on Elghanian:
On May 9, 1979, Elghanian was executed by a firing squad in Tehran sending shock waves through the closely knit Iranian Jewish community. He was the first Jew and one of the first civilians to be executed by the new Islamic government. This prompted the mass exodus of the once 100,000 member strong Jewish community of Iran which continues to this day.
Was this an Israeli attack with snippets of code manipulated to mock the Iranians, or a false flag operation meant to blame the Israelis?

Somewhere, someplace, someone is laughing.  We just don't know who.

Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Bookmark and Share

Why Isn't The Left Screaming At Gloria Allred?

Gloria Allred is doing more to drive illegal immigrants underground and to target Latinos for racial profiling than anything the State of Arizona has even thought of doing.

Allred dropped a late-September surprise on Meg Whitman based on the allegation that Whitman did not do enough to verify the status of her Latino housekeeper.  Whitman, by all accounts, obtained the usual required documentation when she hired the housekeeper.

The thrust of Allred's attack is that after Whitman or her husband received a letter from the IRS alerting them to a possible discrepancy in the housekeeper's social security number, Whitman did not do enough to follow up.  Instead, according to Allred, Whitman's husband gave the letter to the housekeeper and left it to the housekeeper to clear it up.  (Note:  This is Allred's account, it is not yet clear that this account will be verified.)

Allred may be right that the employer (in this case Whitman and her husband) should not have left it up to the housekeeper to clear up the problem, and should have been more suspicious.  Had Whitman or her husband followed up, the housekeeper would have been fired several years ago.

Call Allred a strict constructionist when it comes to the immigration laws, just like the people who are excoriated by the left as racists for seeking enforcement of federal immigration laws. 

The message Allred is sending is that if you are going to hire an immigrant, not only must you dot every federal immigration law  "i" and cross every federal immigration law "t", you also must not trust the immigrant if a problem arises.  At least not if you want to run for public office.

So why isn't the left excoriating Allred?  Why isn't Allred being called the most vile names usually reserved for Tea Party supporters or Republicans?

Because this time political correctness and the use of the race card would not help to defeat a Republican running for Governor of California.

Update:  Allahpundit has a good explanation of why Allred's allegation about the social security discrepancy does not amount to much.

The other interesting aspect, quite apart from politics, is Allred's willingness to expose her client to legal harm even though the client does not have any meaningful legal claim.  This is not a case where Allred's client is a crime victim who comes forward to the police.  There does not appear to be a violation of any law by Whitman, but there does appear to be both immigration and possibly criminal violations by Allred's client, who filed false documents with the government.  By going public as she has, Allred has exposed her client to significant legal jeopardy in order to score publicity and political points for Allred.

Update 10-1-2010:  Mark Levin has a must listen-to interview with Allred.  Allred refused to answer whether her client forged social security documents.  Levin makes a point similar to mine about Allred exposing her client to legal jeopardy.  At 13:00 of the audio, Allred dances around and evades answering the question of whether she has been in touch with any intermediaries from the Brown campaign.

Related Posts:
Arizona Appeal To Be Argued Election Week
Saturday Night Card Game (The Arizona Immigration Bill Is Not Racist)
Hey, Rhode Island Already Checks Immigration Status At Traffic Stops

Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Bookmark and Share

Confronting The 'Soldiers With Pens'

A post at Israel Matzav about a failed attempt at a university in South Africa to boycott Israel's Ben Gurion University reminded me that there has been a vicious war underway, albeit one fought mostly under the media radar.

The Islamist-Leftist Anti-Israel Coalition, which brought you such above-the-radar events as the Gaza flotilla, also is waging a war against Israel's legitimacy through false accusations of war crimes (via J-Street's friend Richard Goldstone and others), false accusations that Israel is an "apartheid state" and that the security barrier against suicide bombers is an "apartheid wall," false accusations of dual loyalty leveled against American Jews, absurd attacks on "the Israel lobby," demands that Jews leave Israel and go back to Europe, and other acts to demonize Israel further.

Make no mistake, the people perpetrating these anti-Israel campaigns are at war with Israel, and in many cases with western civilization more generally.  They are, as I have posted, soldiers with pens.

So many of us have been consumed by domestic politics, with good reason.  But the soldiers with pens not only have not paused for domestic U.S. politics, they have increased their efforts at the U.N., on campuses, and elsewhere, to delegitimize Israel.

After November 2, I'll turn more attention to exposing and confronting these anti-Israel elements.

Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Bookmark and Share

"Alan Grayson: Hates Children, Hates Seniors, Loves Satan" Video

Not hard hitting enough, but will do for now:

(Via Michelle Malkin)

Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
 Bookmark and Share

Is There No Detail Too Small For The Feds To Regulate?

The federal government is forcing states and municipalities to change the lettering on street signs from all CAPS to initial Caps because it supposedly is easier for motorists to read, and therefore will save milliseconds of driver attention which might, I repeat, MIGHT, save lives.

I understand uniformity of traffic signs on major highways and roads, but street name signs?

As reported by the NEW YORK POST, sorry, New York Post, $27 million to change NYC signs from all-caps:
Federal copy editors are demanding the city change its 250,900 street signs -- such as these for Perry Avenue in The Bronx -- from the all-caps style used for more than a century to ones that capitalize only the first letters.

Changing BROADWAY to Broadway will save lives, the Federal Highway Administration contends in its updated Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, citing improved readability.  At $110 per sign, it will also cost the state $27.6 million, city officials said....
Studies have shown that it is harder to read all-caps signs, and those extra milliseconds spent staring away from the road have been shown to increase the likelihood of accidents, particularly among older drivers, federal documents say.
The new regulations also require a change in font from the standard highway typeface to Clearview, which was specially developed for this purpose.
As a result, even numbered street signs will have to be replaced.
Interestingly, the article notes that the rules do not apply to traffic on the internet:
"On the Internet, writing in all caps means you are shouting," she said. "Our new signs can quiet down, as well."
Or should I say, don't apply, YET.

Related Posts:
Miles of Sidewalks, and Empty Stores
Cash For Clunkers Rear Ends Rhode Islanders
Rhode Island Dem Launches "Let's Scare Grandma" Tour

Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Bookmark and Share

Your Morning Stuxnet Update

Because until it hits one of my computers, it's still cool.
Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Bookmark and Share

Wednesday, September 29, 2010

The End Is Near

Don't get distracted by all the distractions the Dems are throwing up (pun intended).

Keep on message:  The Dems are ruining the economy, suffocating business, stealing from our grandchildren, and trying to control every aspect of our lives.

Let the blithering idiots and hacks with degrees whine about Christine O'Donnell's Linked-In page, call us the Taliban, and drop as many October surprises as they want.

Focus.  The end is near.

Related Posts:
Pep Talk II
Relax, The Dems Will Screw Up

Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Bookmark and Share

SPLC To Apologize to Prof. Guenter Lewy For False Accusations

Guenter Lewy, an emeritus Professor of Political Science at the University of Massachetts, filed a defamation lawsuit in 2008 against the Southern Poverty Law Center, and two one of its employees, (including Mark Potok) David Holthouse.

The lawsuit arose from Lewy's historical research in which he determined that the evidence of a Turkish genocide against the Armenians was inconclusive.  SPLC's Intelligence Report labeled Lewy, who is a Holocaust survivor, the equivalent of a Holocaust denier and also asserted that Lewy was paid by Turkey.  Among other things SPLC asserted:

"Lewy is one of the most active members of a network of American scholars, influence peddlers and website operators, financed by hundreds of thousands of dollars each year from the government of Turkey, who promote the denial of the Armenian genocide."
Lewy sued for defamation, and a court recently ruled that the lawsuit could proceed.  As of today, the link at SPLC's website containing the accusations still is up and running.

I have learned that Lewy and SPLC recently settled the case, and as part of the settlement, SPLC and its employees will apologize to Lewy and publish the apology in numerous publications including the Chronicle of Higher Education.  Here is the text of the apology [added:  see updates below as to text of apology]:
TEXT REMOVED - See Update 2 below
I am still working to confirm any other details of the settlement and will update this post if new information becomes available.

As I have noted before, SPLC is very quick to label people with the worst epithets, and it is good to see that someone stood up to SPLC's tactics.

Update:  After this post, I was contacted by the attorney for Prof. Lewy, indicating that the text above is not accurate, and that what follows below is the only apology to be offered between the parties.  The source of my original post above was very reliable, and there must have been changes just prior to signing. 

Prof. Lewy's attorney stated that there was a financial settlement, and that while he could not disclose the amount, Prof. Lewy was very happy.  Additionally, SPLC will be printing the retraction on its website.

In light of the e-mail from Prof. Lewy's attorney, I am printing the update, as follows:
Retraction and Apology

In the summer 2008 issue of its Intelligence Report, the Southern Poverty Law Center reported that Guenter Lewy, a professor emeritus at the University of Massachusetts, was part of a network of persons, financed by the Government of Turkey, who dispute that the tragic events of World War I constituted an Armenian genocide. We now realize that we misunderstood Professor Lewy's scholarship, were wrong to assert that he was part of a network financed by the Turkish Government, and were wrong to assume that any scholar who challenges the Armenian genocide narrative necessarily has been financially compromised by the Government of Turkey. We hereby retract the assertion that Professor Lewy was or is on the Government of Turkey's payroll.

To our knowledge, Professor Lewy has never sought to deny or minimize the deaths of Armenians in Ottoman Turkey; nor has he sought to minimize the Ottoman regime's grievous wartime miscalculations or indifference to human misery in a conflict earmarked by widespread civilian suffering on all sides. What he has argued in his book, The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey: A Disputed Genocide, and elsewhere is that the present historical record does not substantiate a premeditated plan by the Ottoman regime to destroy because of ethnicity, religion ,or nationality, as opposed to deport for political-military reasons, the Armenian population. In this view, he is joined by such distinguished scholars as Professor Bernard Lewis of Princeton University. As additional troves of archival information come to light, Professor Lewy advocates greater study of this contentious subject.
We deeply regret our errors and offer our sincerest apologies to Professor Lewy.

Professor Lewy adds the following comment:

The SPLC has made important contributions to the rule of law and the struggle against bigotry. Thus I took no pleasure in commencing legal action against it. But the stakes, both for my reputation as a scholar and for the free and unhindered discussion of controversial topics, were compelling.  It must be possible to defend views that contradict conventional wisdom without being called the agent of a foreign government.. 

Lewy v SPLC - Retraction and Apology

Update 2 - 9-30-2010:  At the request of Prof. Lewy's attorney, I have removed the original text of the Retraction (although I don't think I was required to do so).  Prof. Lewy's attorney states that the version originally posted never was agreed-upon text, and that the only agreed-upon text of a retraction is what now appears in the first update.

Related Posts:
Southern Poverty Law Center Completes Its Descent Into Madness
Confirmed - SPLC Exaggerated About Klan In Rhode Island
SPLC's Democratic Party Mission

Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Bookmark and Share

And Herein Lies The Dems Problem

From the Obama rally at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, where hope is still alive, reality prevailed:
Emily Lawless, a UW-Madison junior from Lakeville, Minn., waited in line five and a half hours for the chance to see the president live.

"You're not going to remember your accounting class when you're 40, but you'll definitely remember this," she said.
Enthusiastic, but will they vote?
But the thrill of seeing the president doesn't necessarily translate into supporting Democratic candidates during a midterm election. Even Lawless admitted she would likely not vote. "It's too much work with the absentee ballot," she said.
Which reminds me, I haven't run this photo in a while:

I wonder where they are now?

Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Bookmark and Share

Law Professors Set To Cross Picket Lines

The Association of American Law Schools (AALS) is an association, er, of American law schools.  The AALS annual meeting, which is held early in January, is a big event in the law professor community.

I first posted about the AALS annual meeting back in November 2008, when some law professors attempted to force AALS to boycott a San Diego, California hotel owned by a backer of California Prop. 8.  The attempt failed, in a somewhat comical series of events chronicled in my post, Will Law Professors Boycott The Inauguration?

Now the boycott problem is back for AALS, because the annual meeting next January is being held in San Francisco.  So? 

So, a variety of unions are planning a strike and other labor action against various San Francisco hotels, including two of the three hosting the AALS annual meeting, which will mean the law professors will have to cross the picket line to attend.  Needless to say, in the slightly left of center (hah!) law professor community, there are calls to move the meeting, cancel the hotel arrangements, etc.  Just as happened in reaction to Prop. 8.

AALS, as it did with the Prop. 8 boycott, is choosing contractual obligation over [political] principles.  AALS has circulated a letter, in pertinent part as follows:

AALS is not in any way commenting on the labor dispute in San Francisco.  We regard our decision as the best among the bad choices we face.  It is both painful and disappointing to anticipate the impact of an unresolved dispute on the conduct of our meeting, should that come to pass. 
The letter provides the reasoning -- namely that contractual obligations must be honored -- and continues that there will be attempts at "amelioration" by relocating some activities to a non-union hotel.

So the net result is that there is a significant likelihood that law professors attending the AALS annual meeting will be crossing a picket line in San Francisco.

Related Posts:
Will Law Professors Boycott The Inauguration? 
Should Law Professors Really Be Running The Government?
Watch As I Place My Hand In Hot Oil

Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Bookmark and Share

Tuesday, September 28, 2010

Your Health on Obamacare

You can keep your coverage and doctor, if you want to.  And the check is in the mail.  And I'm good for it, don't worry.  And ...

As reported by The Boston Globe:
Harvard Pilgrim Health Care has notified customers that it will drop its Medicare Advantage health insurance program at the end of the year, forcing 22,000 senior citizens in Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Maine to seek alternative supplemental coverage.
The decision by Wellesley-based Harvard Pilgrim, the state’s second-largest health insurer, was prompted by a freeze in federal reimbursements and a new requirement that insurers offering the kind of product sold by Harvard Pilgrim — a Medicare Advantage private fee for service plan — form a contracted network of doctors who agree to participate for a negotiated amount of money. Under current rules, patients can seek care from any doctor.
Alternative plans likely will cost more and will not have the same coverage as currently, according to the article.

Which reminds me, I forgot one more "and."

And there's an election in just over a month.
Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Bookmark and Share

A Question In Light of Stuxnet

Who wants to be the one to flip the "on" switch at an Iranian nuclear facility now?
Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
 Bookmark and Share

Some Mysteries Which May Never Be Solved

Willing to consider additional examples:
  • What happened to D.B. Cooper.
  • Who killed the Hamas guy in Dubai.
  • What grade Obama received in Con Law.
  • Who spread the Stuxnet malware.
  • Why the Democrats thought Obamacare would be popular.
  • When hope lost out to fear.
Related Posts:
Rhode Island Dem Launches "Let's Scare Grandma" Tour
Democrats Approach The Tipping Point

Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Bookmark and Share

Stuxnet Mutating

I'm glad this has happened to them, not us.  As reported by The Washington Post:
Iran suspects that a foreign organization or nation designed "Stuxnet," a quickly mutating computer worm that has been infiltrating industrial computer systems in the Islamic republic, a high-ranking official said Monday.

"We had anticipated that we could root out the virus within one to two months," Hamid Alipour, deputy head of Iran's Information Technology Co., a part of the ministry of communication and information technology, told the Islamic Republic News Agency. "But the virus is not stable, and since we started the cleanup process three new versions of it have been spreading," he said.
If the Israelis really are behind this, I wonder how the Islamists feels about being out-foxed by the sons of monkeys and pigs.

Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
 Bookmark and Share

Alan Grayson - Still A Liar and Still A Dem Hero

It has been a while since I've posted about the saddest joke in the Democratic Party (and that's saying a lot), the class clown who said Republicans want patients to die and who called a senior female aide to Ben Bernanke a whore.

As I pointed out in those prior posts, Grayson is a Democratic Party hero.  And he still is, because he is running a television advertisement repeatedly quoting his campaign opponent, Dan Webster, saying that wives should submit to their husbands, quoting one line from the Bible.

The problem is, in reality the Republican was saying just the opposite, that people should use other verses from the Bible not that one.  Comparison videos are here

FactCheck.org puts it this way:
We thought Democratic Rep. Alan Grayson of Florida reached a low point when he falsely accused his opponent of being a draft dodger during the Vietnam War, and of not loving his country. But now Grayson has lowered the bar even further. He’s using edited video to make his rival appear to be saying the opposite of what he really said.

In a new ad, Grayson accuses his Republican opponent Daniel Webster of being a religious fanatic and dubs him "Taliban Dan." But to make his case, Grayson manipulates a video clip to make it appear Webster was commanding wives to submit to their husbands, quoting a passage in the Bible. Four times, the ad shows Webster saying wives should submit to their husbands. In fact, Webster was cautioning husbands to avoid taking that passage as their own. The unedited quote is: "Don’t pick the ones [Bible verses] that say, ‘She should submit to me.’"
As reported by the Orlando Sentinel:
The Grayson campaign edited the original video, chopping it up and taking Webster's words out of context. Webster actually was advising husbands to bypass those particular Bible passages, according a longer video clip released Monday by Webster's campaign.
It would be the equivalent of someone giving a speech saying "do not kill your neighbor" and then having someone cut it up and run only the words "kill your neighbor."

Remember, Alan Grayson is a rock star in Democratic Party circles, particularly among "progressives."  Welcome to your modern Democratic Party.

Update:  Uh oh.  Grayson has managed to rile the normally tranquil TaxProf, The Most Despicable Political Ad. Ever.

Related Posts:
Bozo The Congressman Wants Bozo The Spokesman Fired
Dems Stuck With Blog Hero Grayson
Grayson Death Number is Fiction

Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Bookmark and Share

Monday, September 27, 2010

The True Measure of Just How Far The Coffee Party Has Fallen

Almost everyone is jumping all over the Coffee Party for the pathetic turnout at its national convention last weekend.  Go ahead, kick the dead horse if you will. 

But they all have missed one irrefutable measure of just how far the Coffee Party has fallen since it was launched to great media fanfare and glory.

This blog now gets more traffic than http://www.coffeepartyusa.com/, as demonstrated by Alexa's measurement of "reach."

What a bunch of losers, if they can't beat a do-it-yourself Blogspot.com blog, run part time by someone whose idea of graphic design is to separate words into syllables separated by dots, who picked the colors for his blog in poor lighting, who can't even figure out how to put Blogads graphics in the side bar, who can't manage to load cool looking YouTube and Twitter buttons like the rest of the world, and whose idea of wit is to publish photos of bumper stickers.

And you call yourself a national movement?  Then so am I.

Related Posts:
Questions for Loretta Sanchez - in Vietnamese
Coffee Party Accused Of "Orwellian" Tactics ... By Supporter
Coffee Party Parasites

Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Bookmark and Share

Possibly Related Headlines

Just saying:
Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Bookmark and Share

Rasmussen - O'Donnell Down Only 9% If Castle Runs

Rasmussen just released a Delaware poll showing Christine O'Donnell down 49-40% to Chris Coons in a race in which Mike Castle mounts a write-in campaign:
It is possible that a write-in campaign by Congressman Mike Castle could hurt Democrat Chris Coons more than Republican Christine O’Donnell in the Delaware campaign for U.S. Senate.

A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Delaware voters finds Coons with 49% support, while O’Donnell earns 40% of the vote. Castle, a longtime congressman who lost to O’Donnell in the state’s GOP Primary, picks up five percent (5%). Another five percent (5%) remain undecided.
The Rasmussen release does not indicate how the vote breaks out if Castle is not in the race, except to note that Castle hurts Coons more than O'Donnell, and that almost all of the Castle supporters said they otherwise would vote Coons or were undecided.

The poll obviously is what it is, but what is most surprising is that Castle gets only 5%.  What if Castle pulls 10 or 15% (or higher) as most people expect, and almost all of those are Coons supporters?

Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Bookmark and Share

Rhode Island Dem Launches "Let's Scare Grandma" Tour

That's not the literal name of the tour, but it is a fair characterization of the "Fighting for Social Security" tour of senior citizen centers launched last week by Democratic congressional candidate David Cicilline.

Cicilline, the current Mayor of Providence, is running in the 1st District of Rhode Island, for the open seat currently held by Patrick Kennedy, who is not running again.  The Republican candidate is John Loughlin.  The Cook Report recently moved the race from Likely-D to Lean-D.

As part of the Tour, Cicilline will visit senior citizen centers around the state to warn the elderly that Republicans are a threat to their checks. 

Ciciilline kicked off at a senior center in Pawtucket, RI, where Cicilline and two state Democratic candidates offered free pizza to lure seniors to attend.  As reported by a local Rhode Island political website (see also video below and image above):

Democratic Congressional candidate David Cicilline yesterday vowed to fight with "every fiber of his body" any efforts to privatize Social Security, which he warned his Republican opponent, John Loughlin, would do if elected to Congress.

Cicilline also said he would help seniors get transportation to everything from doctor visits to senior centers. He also said he would get more federal funding for prescription drugs, saying seniors shouldn't have to choose between their medicine and buying groceries. "In the richest, most powerful nation in the world, no senior ... should face that choice," Cicilline said. He spoke at the St. Germain Manor Senior Center in Pawtucket, kicking off what his campaign called the "Fighting for Social Security" tour.
The Providence Journal quoted part of Cicilline's speech in which Cicilline falsely told seniors their checks would be at risk if Republicans were elected (emphasis mine):
“There are people all across this country, Republicans, that are [saying] what we have to do is privatize Social Security,” Cicilline told about 50 seniors who had gathered for a candidate-sponsored pizza dinner. “Now, if we privatize Social Security, and you take what happened in the stock market over the last several years, that will put so many of our seniors and people who rely on Social Security at a terrible, terrible risk.”
Cicilline's presentation to seniors was false in numerous respects. There is no threat to the checks to be received by seniors now in the system either under the present system or with any reforms now in the early stages of discussion. None, yet Cicilline cynically suggests to the elderly that their checks are in jeopardy.

Cicilline's fear mongering about "privatization" also was misleading because the types of changes proposed by people like Paul Ryan would not affect anyone currently receiving social security, or even people a decade or more away, and would not require people to invest in the stock market.

Yet Cicilline raises the bogeyman of privatization to scare the elderly at senior centers.

There is a method to Cicilline's political madness.  Rhode Island has one of the highest percentages of seniors in the nation, so scaring the elderly makes good politics.

What type of politician lures the elderly to meetings with offers of free pizza only to scare them half to death with false claims that their social security checks are in danger?

Well, let's just say Cicilline is not one of those Democrats running away from Obama.

Update:  Thanks to a reader for alerting me that similar talking points about privatizing social security were deemed an outright falsehood by PolitiFact.  It appears that Cicilline is using DCCC campaign strategy. The Providence Journal uses PolitiFact, will it run a Pants on Fire evaluation for Cicilline?

I have e-mailed The Providence Journal requesting that they submit Cicilline's claims to PolitiFact, or at least report that identical claims have been found to be false.  I'll let you know what I hear back.
Related Posts:
The Patrick Kennedy Seat - "Are You Kidding Me?"
The Patrick Kennedy Seat Is In Play Again

Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Bookmark and Share

Sunday, September 26, 2010

The Patrick Kennedy Seat - "Are You Kidding Me?"

I posted the other day about the race in RI-01, which Charlie Cook has moved from LikelyD to Lean D, The Patrick Kennedy Seat Is In Play Again.

I mentioned in that prior post that David Cicilline, the Democratic candidate, is a divisive figure and was hit hard by fellow Democrats in the primary.

Here is an advertisement run by Anthony Gemma, one of Cicilline's Democratic opponents:

My wife met John Loughlin at a fundraiser in Rhode Island last week, and was impressed by him.  He is a straight shooter, unlike the glib Cicilline who has a long history of blaming everyone else for his problems in office (sound familiar?). 

The Loughlin campaign is gaining traction, but will need to raise funds to get on TV to counter Cicilline.

It is likely that Cicilline drained much of his cash in the primary, so Loughlin likely is not as far behind in funds on hand as might be expected.  Cicilline also was hurt by ads from fellow Democrats, like the one above.

I realize that there are hundreds of races in November, but this is one where you can make a difference.

Loughlin's website his here, and you can donate here

Update:  Cicilline has kicked of a “Fighting for Social Security” Tour where he is going around to nursing homes senior centers and scaring Seniors that they will lose their social security checks even though there is not a single proposal on the table or even under serious discussion which would affect social security for people currently in or anywhere near retirement age.  I'm telling you, having lived in that district for almost 20 years, nothing is beneath Cicilline when it comes to campaigning.  He needs to be defeated.

Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Bookmark and Share

My 'Coexist' Bumper Sticker Can Beat Up Your 'Coexist' Bumper Sticker

In response to some of my prior bumper sticker posts, readers have wondered why none of the cars had the famed Coexist bumper sticker

So when driving the other day, I had to circle back when I passed this parked car:

Fortunately, the owner did not spot me taking photos, because if he or she did, who knows what would have happened.  Maybe I should put one of these on my car for protection:

Related Posts:
Bumper Stickers - The Series
Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Bookmark and Share

Saturday, September 25, 2010

Saturday Night Card Game (Questions for Loretta Sanchez - in Vietnamese)

This is the latest in a series on the use of the race card for political gain:

Democrat Loretta Sanchez (CA-47) is being challenged by Republican Van Tran, who is of Vietnamese descent.  Sanchez made news when she said:
"El Viatnamese y los republicanos tratando de tomar distancia de nosotros este asiento."
For our Vietnamese readers, here is what she said:

"Các Viatnamese và Cộng Hòa đang cố gắng để lấy chỗ ngồi ra xa chúng ta."
For our readers who did not get with the program and only understand the language of Anglo-centric cultural imperialism, watch the video (first take off your beer helmets and put down the cheese fries, please, we wouldn't want any accidents):

Left Coast Rebel is all over this and has background on the tight race and Van Tran.

Can you imagine if Van Tran had said something along the lines of "let's take the seat from the Hispanics"?  There would have been a mainstream media firestorm. 

The coverage is growing slowly because Tran has not let the issue drop and the right blogosphere is pushing it, but nothing near what would have happened had the perp been a Republican.

There is no better example of mainstream media bias, and how Democrats get a pass when they use racial politics to motivate their base.

If I were an American of Vietnamese descent, I would ask Sanchez the following questions:
  1. Ai làm bạn Queen?
  2. Bạn đã bao giờ nghĩ về những gì bạn sẽ làm gì khi bạn có để có được một công việc thực sự?
  3. Có một trường học nơi họ dạy cho bạn để nói chuyện tào lao như thế này?
 And then I would say:
Đừng để cửa hit bạn trên đường ra.
Related Posts:
Saturday Night Card Game

Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Bookmark and Share

From The "Please Let It Be True" Dept: Stuxnet Devouring 30,000 Iranian Computers

According to the website DEBKAfile, an Iranian official has acknowledged that some 30,000 Iranian industrial computers are infected with the Stuxnet malware:
Mahmoud Alyaee, secretary-general of Iran's industrial computer servers, including its nuclear facilities control systems, confirmed Saturday, Sept. 25, that 30,000 computers belonging to classified industrial units had been infected and disabled by the malicious Stuxnet virus....
Stuxnet is believed to be the most destructive virus ever devised for attacking major industrial complexes, reactors and infrastructure. The experts say it is beyond the capabilities of private or individual hackers and could have been produced by a high-tech state like America or Israel, or its military cyber specialists.

Deutsche Presse-Agentur has a similar report of the Iranian official's statement regarding the damage.  AP has a similar report about the infection, but not the report of damage:
Iranian media reports say the country's nuclear agency is trying to combat a complex computer worm that has affected industrial sites in Iran and is capable of taking over power plants.

The semi-official ISNA news agency says Iranian nuclear experts met this week to discuss how to remove the malicious computer code, dubbed Stuxnet, which can take over systems that control the inner workings of industrial plants.

Friday's report said the malware had spread throughout Iran, but did not elaborate. Foreign media reports have speculated the worm was aimed at disrupting Iran's first nuclear power plant, which is to go online in October.
More on Stuxnet here.

The interesting thing is that regardless of whether the Stuxnet infection actually causes damage, it will have the Iranians worried that at any moment their nuclear systems may shut down, blow up, or otherwise self-destruct.  That fear in and of itself may delay the program.

Update:  ComputerWorld quotes an Iranian official as saying 30,000 IP addresses were affected which means that the total number of computers infected would be much higher.
Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
 Bookmark and Share

John Kerry Thinks Yur Stuped (but yu new dat all ready)

John Kerry, spokesman for the new Democratic Party, and sometimes Senator from Ted Kennedy's state, has a few choice words for you dummies, via The Boston Herald:
A testy U.S. Sen. John F. Kerry yesterday blamed clueless voters with short attention spans for the uphill battle beleaguered Democrats are facing against Republicans across the nation.

“We have an electorate that doesn’t always pay that much attention to what’s going on so people are influenced by a simple slogan rather than the facts or the truth or what’s happening,” Kerry told reporters after touring the Boston Medical Center yesterday.
Don't worry, I reported for duty to prevent Kerry from swift boating the folks:
Conservative political blogger William Jacobson, who writes Legal Insurrection, immediately pounced on Kerry’s comments, saying that attitude is why voters are looking to shake up Capitol Hill by electing upstart candidates such as U.S. Sen. Scott Brown.
“It just continues the Democrats’ theme that the reason people are upset is because they don’t understand. They’re not smart enough. That sort of rhetoric just gets people even more upset,” said Jacobson
Do I get a medal for that?

Follow up question:

Since many of the commenters feel I deserve a medal, do I also get to pretend to throw it over the fence at the White House?

And at the Herald link above they have an online poll.  These are the results as of 1 p.m.:

Your Guide to John Kerry at Legal Insurrection:
Boston Herald: John Kerry A Bitter Clinger
John Kerry's Persian Delusion
Kerry Against Afghan Surge But May Be For It
Pass John Kerry's Cap-and-Tax Bill or Your Puppy Will Die
Pirates Were For Kerry, Before They Were Against Him

Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Bookmark and Share

Pep Talk II

The day after Obamacare passed, I wrote Pep Talk.  Seems pertinent today as well:
Last night was bad. The law passed by the Senate and House really is that horrible.

But it's the morning after, and your mourning should be over.

The mainstream media and the nutroots will try to demoralize you, and there will be plenty of gloat to go around.

But remember how we got to last night.

November 4, 2008, was the culmination of multiple generations of journalistic and educational malpractice and liberal guilt, malfeasance by Republicans who lost their way while in power, and a mass delusion on par with the tulipomania of 17th century Holland.

On November 5, 2008, did any one of you think that over 16 months later Obama would barely be able to pass a truncated version of his dream of single payer, and that dozens of Democrats would join Republicans in opposition?

As the mainstream media celebrated the permanent Democratic majority in the weeks after the 2008 election, did any of you think that in March 2010 we would be talking about the Democratic majority being in danger?

On January 20, 2009, when Obama took office, and then again in April when Arlen Specter jumped ship, did any one of you think we could hold off Obamacare beyond July?

In August and September, did you think we would make it to the end of the year, and then in early January 2010, did any of you (other than me) think Scott Brown could win and we could prevent a Democratic super-majority?

Your hard work has paid off, even if the end result was not what we wanted. But trust me, without you it would have been much, much worse.

For over a year Obama has not been able to push through other destructive aspects of his agenda, and the clock is running out before the mid-term elections.

The hard work must continue through the November elections because Democrats know they have just a few more months.

So shake off the gloom, get your asses in gear, get over it, and get to work continuing to fight the worst government policies "since the Great Depression."

We have no other choice.
Related Post showing my wisdom and foresight:
Relax, The Dems Will Screw Up

Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Bookmark and Share

Friday, September 24, 2010

Yup, Soros Is Behind J-Street

J-Street is the supposed liberal alternative to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). 

J-Street has been accused -- including by me -- of being nothing more than a front group meant to undermine U.S. support for Israel by playing the "balance" card pushed by groups like the Center for American Progress (which runs Think Progress), Media Matters, and a host bloggers and pundits who subscribe to the Walt-Meirsheimer view of foreign policy.

Now it is revealed that George Soros secretly (through his children) has been funding J-Street.  As reported by The Washington Times:
The Jewish-American advocacy group J Street, which bills itself as the dovish alternative to the influential American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) lobby, has secretly received funding from billionaire George Soros despite previous denials that it accepted funds from the Hungarian-born financier and liberal political activist.

Tax forms obtained by The Washington Times reveal that Mr. Soros and his two children, Jonathan and Andrea Soros, contributed a total $245,000 to J Street from one Manhattan address in New York during the fiscal year from July 1, 2008 to June 30, 2009.

The contributions represent a third of the group's revenue from U.S. sources during the period. Nearly half of J Street's revenue during the timeframe — a total of $811,697 — however, came from a single donor in Happy Valley, Hong Kong, named Consolacion Esdicul.

Jeremy Ben Ami, J Street's executive director, said in an interview that the $245,000 was part of a $750,000 gift from the Soros family to his organization made over three years. Mr. Ben Ami also said that in this same period he had raised $11 million for J Street and its political action committee.
Update:  As reported by Ben Smith:
Perhaps the strangest thing in Eli Lake's story on the funding of the liberal group J Street is that it got half of its money in 2008-9 from a single, obscure woman in China.

The group's 990 forms -- which I've also obtained and put online for the first time here -- show the group's single largest contribution, in the odd sum of $811,697 coming from one Consolacion Ediscul of Happy Valley, a Hong Kong suburb. Ediscul, whose name is Filipino, has no presence on Google or Nexis aside from this story, and people I spoke to in Jewish groups left and right had never heard of her.
According to Smith, a J-Street spokeswoman says that Ediscul is an associate of a well-known and successful gambler, but provided no other information.

A reader (see comments) located what he believes to be Ediscul's Facebook profile.  It has had no activity since May, and has no friends or entries other than to an online cooking game:

and here being photographed with Jackie Chan at a charity event in Hong Kong:

The commenter who noted these pages referred to The Advantage Trust as being related to Blackrock investments, but it appears to be controlled by or at least related to William Benter, the successful businessman / gambler mentioned in the Ben Smith post.  So if the elusive Ms. Esdicul contributed to the charity in Honk Kong on behalf of The Advantage Trust, was her contribution to J-Street also using money from The Advantage Trust and/or Benter?

Related Posts:
J Street Shows Its Hand
J Street: Liberal Bloggers Need To Study History, Not Memory

Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
 Bookmark and Share

The Patrick Kennedy Seat Is In Play Again

When John Loughlin declared his intention to take on Patrick Kennedy in the RI-01 congressional district, the race generated enormous attention, including from me.  Loughlin was willing to take on a Kennedy in a longtime Kennedy seat against large odds.

When Kennedy later announced he would not run again, the race dropped off the national radar.  But it is back.

As reported by The Providence Journal, Charlie Cook has moved the race from Likely-D to Lean-D, based on the strength of Loughlin and a bloody Democratic primary which left Providence Mayor David Cicilline the victor but with an unimpressive showing:
RI-01 OPEN (Kennedy) Likely D to Lean D

Sure enough, Providence Mayor David Cicilline was able to win the mid-September Democratic primary to succeed retiring Rep. Patrick Kennedy, but it came at a bit of a cost. In the run-up to the primary, Cicilline was forced to acknowledge that the city had improperly given him pay raises as mayor between 2006 and 2009, and rival businessman Anthony Gemma even called on the DCCC to ask Cicilline to end his campaign. Cicilline won the primary with 37 percent of the vote, not a terribly impressive showing for the one candidate in the race with universal name ID and a big financial edge.

Meanwhile, GOP state Rep. John Loughlin points out that a Providence Mayor has never been elected to Congress, and Loughlin has been able to stockpile his resources for the general election. By the numbers, this may be the most Democratic seat currently on Republicans' target list, and both national parties may be hesitant to get involved, but local Democrats admit that this will be the most competitive House race Rhode Island has seen in over a decade. Cicilline leads in early polling and still has an advantage, but it's a legitimate race.
This is my home district.  Loughlin is a good guy, with long time service in the Army and Army Reserve.  Cicilline has more money and the district is heavily Democratic -- but in this year it is winnable.  The Cook report hopefully can generate some buzz and some contributions to Loughlin.

Cicilline is a divisive figure.  He has been Providence mayor since Buddy Cianci was driven out of office, but with that carries all the baggage of Providence's problems.  Cicilline was attacked pretty seriously by fellow Democrats in the primary, which amounted to free advertising for Loughlin.

This could be an unexpected pick-up for Republicans, so it is worth the effort.

Loughlin's website his here, and you can donate here.  I am.

Here is Moe Lane's interview of Loughlin back in February:

Related Posts:
Possible Reason Why Patrick Kennedy Not Seeking Reelection
Now The Patches Bad News
My New Project: Patrick Kennedy Must Go

Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Bookmark and Share

It's For The Children

Next time a Democrat pushing another failed liberal policy says you are heartless and we have to help the children, you should agree that we have to help the children, but point out that they are the ones without any heart.

Via Ed Morrissey:

(FYI, Joe Demos' website is here.)

Related Posts:
Who's Heartless Now?
Is Paul Krugman Heartless, Clueless or Confused (Pick Only One)?
The Cruel Ones

Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Bookmark and Share

Is He Using Charlie Crist's Pollster?

Please do it, because it will increase our likelihood of victory.

Mike Castle will test waters with poll:

Rep. Mike Castle is planning on polling a potential three-way Senate race to test his chances as a write-in candidate, a Delaware Republican tells POLITICO.
Can someone get him the phone number for Charlie Crist's pollster?

Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Bookmark and Share

Thursday, September 23, 2010

Will Law Professors Rally Around (A Conservative) One Of Their Own?

I wasn't going to post on this, because I figured there had been enough publicity for him already.  But now that I see (via Instapundit and TaxProf) that the controversy has made its way into Forbes and many major websites, I'll weigh in on the case of Todd Henderson, the University of Chicago law professor and blogger.

The details are at TaxProf, but the short version is that Henderson wrote a blog post coming out against a tax raise for the so-called "super rich."  Henderson's point was that a family like his, living in a big city, were not all that rich just because they made $250k as a family

For that sin, Henderson has been subjected to vicious hate mail and personal attacks in the media, but particularly at left-wing blogs.  Henderson has decided to withdraw from further blogging because of the strain the attacks have placed on his family, which recently brought home a pre-term baby.

I feel his pain, so to speak. 

There are vile people out there.  As I've pointed out before, soon after I started this blog the Obama supporters started attacking me via e-mail and at times it has been vicious.  The e-mails are sent not only to me, but to others who know me in an attempt to interfere with my employment.  It doesn't work, but it is not a pleasant experience the first few times it happens, although now it is something of a joke.  So I feel for Mr. Henderson.

But I wondered, how many law professors will come to his defense either privately or publicly? 

There currently is circulating among law faculties around the country a fundraising letter in support of the Corboda mosque.  The letter has been signed by over two hundred law professors.  Here is the text, in pertinent part:
As law professors who spend our working lives trying to ensure that each succeeding generation can meet Benjamin Franklin's challenge–“We have given you a republic, if you can keep it”–we have decided to put our money where our principles are.

You continue to be asked where your funding is coming from. We would be proud to have you say that part of it comes from us, a group of academics from across this nation dedicated to the spirit of freedom embodied in the First Amendment, to a nation in which every religious group is as free to worship, where and how they see fit, as every other.

We hope that our gesture, however small in absolute terms, encourages others who cherish our Constitutional principles to follow our lead.
I think a similar gesture of support for Mr. Henderson is in order.

Update:  Ann Althouse says I'm "babying this man."  Okay, I'll never defend another blogger against unjustified attacks ever again, and neither should anyone else.  Except that the issue is more serious, and has nothing to do with whether one agrees with Henderson's assessment of his reality.  Criticizing someone's views is one thing, reaching out and touching him is something else, as are deliberate attempts to damage his reputation based on false or misleading characterizations, which we all know takes place in the blogosphere.

And by the way, I don't have a big problem with Henderson's original post.  To those who criticize him I say, What Don't You Understand About "It's Not Your Money".

And, having returned from a two-hour class, I see Ann Althouse has updated her argument with a new post taking credit for "tweaking" me.  Althouse really misses the issue.  The issue is not whether Henderson could be criticized, whether he is "rich," or even whether he made a mistake in putting some personal details in a blog post.  Snark aside, it is a serious issue whether blogging on a subject then makes one legitimately a target for the sort of venom many of us receive outside of the blog.  Althouse demands that Henderson produce the e-mails he has received ("Okay, show me!") but she surely knows that publishing hateful e-mails often stokes the fire and encourages others.  It is a blogger's dilemna whether to go pubic with such e-mails or not.  It is a serious issue even if Althouse is not treating it as such, or at least not treating it as seriously as she treated Ezra Klein's tweet about her.

Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Bookmark and Share