Posted: 10 Jul 2008 12:55 PM CDT
Every year, multiple times a year, we see headlines screaming "War With Iran Imminent"!
Would you be surprised if you opened your email one day to see "US Army invaded Iran'?
In September of 2007, a French Weekly newspaper, Le Canard Enchaîné, known for their investigative journalism, headlined with "A report sent to the Elysée — Putin tells Tehran: They're going to bomb you!"
The New York Sun, reporting about that French headline, titles their piece with "Attack on Iran Said To Be Imminent."
February of 2007, The NewStatesman said, "American military operations for a major conventional war with Iran could be implemented any day."
January 2007, Centre for Research on Globalization warns, "Iran Must Get Ready to Repel a Nuclear Attack."
These imminent dire warnings go all the way back to at least 2004, where the Lebanon Wire was reporting that Bush's October of 2004 "surprise" before his re-election was going to be.... yes, an imminent attack against Iran.
With each and every news report declaring war with Iran was imminent, there came the continuing speculation throughout the Internet, echoing those reports.
The latest of those reports came from AsiaTimes, declaring that "Bush 'plans Iran air strike by August'".
With these dire warnings of an imminent attack on Iran, year after year coming to your email and shown in many country's media, would it surprise you in the least to open your email one morning to see emails declaring "Negotiations between the US and Iran end in war" or US Army invaded Iran" or even "World War III has already begun"?
You open that email quickly and you see the news and then you see a video of the initial attack on Iran, taken by a US soldier.
Do you click that video? Do you even want to see? Is it like a trainwreck, you do not want to see the damage but you cannot help but look.
If you answered yes to any of the above questions.... you would have downloaded a Trojan infecting your computer with a malicious code.
This is the newest element to Storm Worm's spam campaign.
The campaign before that was the 4th of July alert, which used a different message to get you to open the emails, but with the same outcome. Downloading malicious code onto your computer.
This campaign using Iran in a socially-engineered message, would be more likely to work because they are using the consistent drumbeat about war with Iran to bypass the skepticism from those that generally would be cautious in opening emails from people they do not know.
The United States Computer Emergency Readiness Team, (US-CERT) gives a list of potential subject lines, which can change at any time. They include the following:
* 20000 US soldiers in Iran
* Iran USA conflict developed into war
* More than 10000 Iranians were murdered
* Negotiations between USA and Iran ended in War
* Occupation of Iran
* Plans for Iran attack began
* The Iran's Leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declared Jihad to USA
* The World War III has already begun
* The beginning of The World War III
* The military operation in Iran has begun
* The secret war against Iran
* Third War in Iran
* Third World War has begun
* US Army crossed Iran's borders
* US Army invaded Iran
* US army is about 20 kilometers from Tegeran
* US soldiers occupied Iran
* USA attacked Iran
* USA declares war on Iran
* USA occupied Iran
* USA unleashed war on Iran
* War between USA&Iran
* War with Iran is the reality now
* Washington prefers to shoot first
The advice given is to not follow unsolicited links in email messages and make sure you have virus protection on your computer and that it is up-to-date.
They also offer a PDF file for people to refer to, called "Recognizing and Avoiding Email Scams" and another one called "Avoiding Social Engineering and Phishing Attacks".
Major events that happen in America would be on every news channel as well as in every major newspaper, so when someone receives an email with breaking news that they are not seeing anywhere else, it would be smart to delete it without opening.
(Cross posted this from a piece I wrote for Digital Journal- H/T David)
Posted: 10 Jul 2008 12:24 PM CDT
Michael van der Galien from PoliGazette gives us a first hand account of how some Europeans view Barack Obama.
The whole piece is a must read...so...GO. read. Leave Michael a comment.
Posted: 10 Jul 2008 09:54 AM CDT
The video below is only 1 minute and 8 second long. I am going to focus on one specific portion of a Barack Obama speech where he says: (YouTube URL here)
"I don't understand when people are going around worrying about, We need to have English-only. They want to pass a law, We want English-only.
Now I agree that immigrants should learn English, I agree with that. But...but understand this.............
Instead of worrying about whether immigrants can learn English - they'll learn English - you need to make sure your child can speak Spanish".
Bilingual means speaking more than one language, but Obama suggests that the second language American children should be forced to learn, is Spanish.
This puts Barack Obama on the wrong side of America, where 83 percent of Americans disagree with his ideology and his words and that was from a poll done a month before he gave that speech.
Eighty-three percent (83%) place a higher priority on encouraging immigrants to speak English as their primary language. Just 13% take the opposite view and say it is more important for Americans to learn other languages.
Here was that original survey.
Rasmussen isn't the only polling that has shown that an overwhelming majority of Americans disagree strongly with those words that Barack Obama so carelessly uttered.
In 2007 Zogby found that 83 percent of Americans favor making English the official language, including substantial majorities of Democrats, Republicans and Independents.
Chairman of U.S. English, Inc., Mauro E. Mujica, speaks to the issue, via Market Watch, and he says, "Senator Obama's idea is characteristic of an elitist mindset declaring that it is not the job of immigrants to America to learn English, but that it the job of Americans to learn the language of the immigrants. This runs counter to our proud history as a melting pot and counter to the belief of most Americans. Clearly, Senator Obama has spent too much time at the lectern instead of interacting with the American people."
"As a naturalized citizen of the United States, I am appalled by Senator Obama's comments," Mujica continued. "When I came to this country, I knew I was coming to a nation of many different nationalities, none more prized than another. I also knew that English was the unifying force between the diverse people, and that it was the language of opportunity and success.
When Barack Obama first joined the race to become president of the US, many people declared they did not know enough about him, some even comparing him to a blank slate.
As Americans learn more of his policy positions, his ideology as well as his judgment a regarding certain associations, many are determining that his ultimate goals have nothing to do with their ultimate goals for this country.
Many that supported him simply on the basis of "change" are now starting to discover that the changes he wishes to make are not changes they want.
Expect to see portions of that video above used in GOP ads, and rightly so, and expect to see those ads to be shown in states where there is a limited Hispanic population, because it will effectively show Barack Obama as someone that is proposing something that an overwhelming majority of Americans vehemently disagree with.
Posted: 10 Jul 2008 08:55 AM CDT
There are many stories from both Afghanistan and Iraq that the msm will never share. In Afghanistan - as elsewhere - brave locals work with our troops, often as interpreters. As elsewhere, these 'terps risk their lives daily because they are invested in their families' futures. What follows is in the Afghans' own words. It was sent to me via a US Major, who wants these voices to be heard; so do I. This IS the Afghan 'terps: VERBATIM.
Go here to read their own words.
Posted: 09 Jul 2008 06:52 PM CDT
[Update] Video of a portion of Jackson's comments added below where he says about Obama... "I wanna cut his nuts off"
Jesse Jackson is a former presidential candidate from 1984 and a well known civil rights activist.
Recently he made remarks, not knowing that the microphone in front of him was on, that were critical of Barack Obama.
When reports came out that his remarks were caught and would be shown on the Fox News program Hannity and Colmes, he issued a preemptive apology for those remarks which Jackson calls "crude and hurtful" comments toward the presumptive Democratic nominee, Barack Obama.
According to Jackson, Fox News microphones picked up the remarks that were meant to be delivered privately, which criticized Barack Obama for lecturing the black community on morality.
Jackson's apology did not specify what was said in the soon to be shown remarks but he does say that he was trying to explain that Obama was hurting his relationship with black voters by recently conducting "moral" lectures at African-American churches.
CNN reports that Jesse Jackson, who is endorsing Barack Obama is "very distressed" over the comments.
Jackson says, "This is a sound bite in a broader conversation about urban policy and racial disparities. I feel very distressed because I'm supportive of this campaign and with the senator, what he has done and is doing. I said he comes down as speaking down to black people. The moral message must be a much broader message. What we need really is racial justice and urban policy and jobs and health care. That's a range of issues on the menu.
"Then I said something I regret was crude. It was very private. And very much a sound bite.
Jackson's public apology is told to CNN where he says, "For any harm or hurt that this hot mic private conversation may have caused, I apologize. My support for Senator Obama's campaign is wide, deep and unequivocal. I cherish this redemptive and historical moment."
What Jackson was referring to was a speech Barack Obama gave speaking about black fathers being more engaged in raising their children. He gave this speech at the Apostolic Church of God on Chicago's South Side where he was highly critical of absent black fathers that are absent in raising their children. .
According to the Drudge Report it says that Jackson's remarks were an appeal for "for the moral content of his message to not only deal with the personal and moral responsibility of black males, but to deal with the collective moral responsibility of government and the public policy which would be a corrective action for the lack of good choices that often led to their irresponsibility. "
That was the context of my private conversation and it does not reflect any disparagement on my part for the historic event in which we are involved or my pride in Senator Barack Obama, who is leading it, whom I have supported by crisscrossing this nation in every level of media and audience from the beginning in absolute terms.
The bottom line here is that people should be aware of whether a microphone is on or off before speaking for all the world to hear because the statements made could end up on new coverage stories across the country, indeed, the world.
[Update] From Bucks Right:
Hannity also intimated that Jackson says he wants to "rip Obama's nuts off" on the tape. Hannity would not say "nuts," but based on his description (portion of the male anatomy beginning with an "n") I believe that's the word he was going for.
Drudge reports that Jackson said: "Cut his nuts out."
Posted: 09 Jul 2008 04:13 PM CDT
Obama votes yes and Clinton votes no! Final tally is 69 Ayes, 28 Nays! FISA passes!
Bleeding hearts are broken!
Here is a sample:
In Obamaworld, apparently wrecking the Fourth Amendment is roughly equivalent to ridiculing some obscure rapper. The only thing more depressing than the conceit that supporting unconstitutional measures is a way to "signal" to swing voters that you are not a radical loon bent on "ideological purity," which is basically to make defending the Constitution a position held only by radicals and extremists, is the dishonest representation of support for the compromise legislation as being a pro-civil liberties position.
Just so we are clear...here is the flip-flop in black and white.
December 17, 2007: "Senator Obama unequivocally opposes giving retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies and has cosponsored Senator Dodd's efforts to remove that provision from the FISA bill. Granting such immunity undermines the constitutional protections Americans trust the Congress to protect. Senator Obama supports a filibuster of this bill, and strongly urges others to do the same. It's not clear whether he can return for the vote, but under the Senate rules, the side trying to end a filibuster must produce 60 votes to cut off debate. Whether he is present for the vote or not, Senator Obama will not be among those voting to end the filibuster."
Watch the ACLU meltdown here.
I was once sitting on plane waiting for it to taxi to the gate, chatting on my phone to my cousin about work, and the word "terrorist" nearly escaped my lips. I did catch myself, but that's the chilling effect. It's self-censorship, and thanks to Congress's capitulation today to the White House, all Americans who talk on the phone or email will know it well.
Heh! Always fun to watch the left freak out!
Posted: 09 Jul 2008 01:30 PM CDT
The US Congress approved the compromise FISA bill with immunity for telecommunications companies included, back on June 20, 2008 with a vote of 293 to 129 with 13 not voting and then the Senate voted for cloture to discuss the bill before their fourth of July recess, with a vote of 80 to 15, bypassing a filibuster from those opposed to the bill that the Congressional negotiators worked months on to get passed the House.
Today the US Senate approved the FISA bill with the highly controversial immunity for telecommunications companies attached, over the objections to those opposed to the immunity attachment within the Senate and the active campaign from the left side of the blogosphere to force their Senators to vote against the bill.
(Roll call will be here)
[Update] Roll call is up and the FISA bill passed with a vote of 69 to 28. Barack Obama voted yes for the bill. [End Update]
The Senate opposition tried to propose an amendment to have Title II (Protections For Electronic Communications Service Providers) stricken from the FISA bill. This amendment proposed by Senator Chris Dodd was rejected by the Senate. That vote was 32 to 66.
The second one was the Specter Amdt. No. 5059- To limit retroactive immunity and that was rejected with a vote of 37 to 61.
The third was the Bingaman Amdt. No. 5066- To stay pending cases against certain telecommunications companies and that was rejected as well with a vote of 42 to 56, not enough votes to bypass a filibuster, where 60 votes are needed.
Then the Senate voted for cloture so they could get to the actual vote on the bill, that vote passed with a 72 to 26 vote and according to the roll call, Obama voted yeah on cloture.
President Bush has already indicated he will sign the bill that the House sent to the Senate so it is expected that this bill will now be signed into law.
Barack Obama has been suffering from massive criticism from his base for his stated support for the bill whether immunity ended up being stripped from it or not.
His original statement given immediately after the House passed it's compromise bill, Obama said, "while far from perfect, is a marked improvement over last year's." The statement went on to detail a various improvements in the bill, but ended with a reluctant acknowledgment that he'll vote for it.
"It is not all that I would want. But given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as President, I will carefully monitor the program..."That caused Obama's base to level massive criticisms towards him for his statement that he would try to strip immunity from the Senate version but if that did not happen he would vote for it, that he actually was forced to respond again to the criticisms from people on his very own website.
Expect the President to sign the bill within days thereby ending the chapter regarding the immunity for telecommunications companies, at least for the next few years.
(Note- The far left blogospherepreemptively started throwing their temper tantrums, knowing that the FISA bill was going to be passed)
That was before the actual vote, stay tuned for reactions afterwards.
Tons of reactions already coming out and probably a ton more to come. You can see them at memeorandum. The biggest whiner award goes to Greenwald, the man with constant diarrhea of the keyboard.
|You are subscribed to email updates from Wake up America |
To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now.
|Email Delivery powered by FeedBurner|
|Inbox too full? Subscribe to the feed version of Wake up America in a feed reader.|
|If you prefer to unsubscribe via postal mail, write to: Wake up America, c/o FeedBurner, 20 W Kinzie, 9th Floor, Chicago IL USA 60610|