Tuesday, May 29, 2012

UN agency plans major warning on Flame virus risk

05/30/2012 04:57

International Telecommunications Union to issue warning to member nations that Flame is "dangerous espionage tool."

hacking hackers computer hacking [illustrative] Photo: Thinkstock/Imagebank
BOSTON - A United Nations agency charged with helping member nations secure their national infrastructures plans to issue a sharp warning about the risk of the Flame computer virus that was recently discovered in Iran and other parts of the Middle East.

"This is the most serious (cyber) warning we have ever put out," said Marco Obiso, cyber security coordinator for the UN's Geneva-based International Telecommunications Union.
The confidential warning will tell member nations that the Flame virus is a dangerous espionage tool that could potentially be used to attack critical infrastructure, he told Reuters in an interview on Tuesday.

"They should be on alert," he said, adding that he believed Flame was likely built on behalf of a nation state.

The warning is the latest signal that a new era of cyber warfare has begun following the 2010 Stuxnet virus attack that targeted Iran's nuclear program. The United States explicitly stated for the first time last year that it reserved the right to retaliate with force against a cyber attack.

Evidence suggests that the Flame virus may have been built on behalf of the same nation or nations that commissioned the Stuxnet worm that attacked Iran's nuclear program in 2010, according to Kaspersky Lab, the Russian cyber security software maker that took credit for discovering the infections.

"I think it is a much more serious threat than Stuxnet," Obiso said.

He said the ITU would set up a program to collect data, including virus samples, to track Flame's spread around the globe and observe any changes in its composition.

Kaspersky Lab said it found the Flame infection after the ITU asked the Russian company to investigate recent reports from Tehran that a mysterious virus was responsible for massive data losses on some Iranian computer systems.

So far, the Kaspersky team has not turned up the original data-wiping virus that they were seeking and the Iranian government has not provided Kaspersky a sample of that software, Obiso said.

Some in industry skeptical of potency of virus

A Pentagon spokesman asked about Flame referred reporters to the Department of Homeland Security.

DHS officials declined to respond to specific questions about the virus, but an agency spokesman issued a brief written statement that said: "DHS was notified of the malware and has been working with our federal partners to determine and analyze its potential impact on the US"

Some industry participants appeared skeptical that the threat was as serious as the UN agency and Kaspersky had suggested.

Jeff Moss, a respected hacking expert who sits on the US government's Homeland Security Advisory Council, said that the ITU and Kaspersky were "over-reacting" to the spread of Flame.

"It will take time to disassemble, but it is not the end of the Net," said Moss, who serves as chief security officer of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, or ICANN, which manages some of the Internet's key infrastructure.

"We seem to be getting to a point where every time new malware is discovered it's branded 'the worst ever,'" said Marcus Carey, a researcher at with cyber security firm Rapid7.

Organizations involved in cyber security keep some of their communications confidential to keep adversaries from developing strategies to combat their defenses and also to keep other hackers from obtaining details about emerging threats that they could use to build other pieces of malicious software.

It's official...MITT IS IT!!!  
I am honored and proud to say that I supported MITT in '08 and supported him from day one now!

MITT ROMNEY all the way to Pennsylvania Avenue...bye-bye 'bama bye-bye! :)
Hawaii Senior Elections Clerk: “Barack Obama Was Not Born In Hawaii”

President Obama face WH photo SC Hawaii Senior Elections Clerk: “Barack Obama was not born in Hawaii”

“For starters, just because there is no long form birth certificate on file in Hawaii, that doesn’t rule out President Obama being born elsewhere in the United States, or even in Hawaii,” states Hawaii’s former Senior Election Clerk Timothy Lee Adams in his Masters Thesis that was signed off on by four English Department Deans at Western Kentucky University in partial fulfillment of the Requirement for Degree of Master of Arts, on June 13, 2011.

Adams was the Chief Elections Clerk (Pg. 30) for the City and County of Honolulu, Hawaii.  “On a temporary contract, I ran an office that verified voter eligibility that had a staff of about fifty people,” he also told radio  host James Edwards of the Liberty News Radio Network. 

“Barack Obama was not born in Hawaii,” the former elections clerk continued. “It (Pg. 31) was openly admitted by everyone in the office who was above me, at least my immediate supervisors, that there is no documentation.” Adams details the governmental databases and other means of authentication used included “NCIS, Social Security, all these other things we use on average voters; there were two people higher than me in our office, who are  under the City Clerk of Honolulu. . .” (Pg. 30)

Now Adams emphatically states in his Masters Thesis:  “. . .in my professional opinion, Barack Obama was NOT (emphasis added) born in the United States, and there is no Hawaii long-form birth certificate.” (Pg. 30, 31)  Contrast this man’s statement (a man who was vetted for military, civil, and academic service) with the Verification of Birth certified statement of State Registrar Alvin T. Onaka, signed and issued to Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett on May 22, 2012. Onaka’s document says: “Pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes 338-14.3, I verify the following:  A birth certificate is on file with the Department of Health indicating that Barack Hussein Obama, II was born in Honolulu, Hawaii.” 

Now Onaka’s 12 point official Department of Health document bearing the seal of the State of Hawaii also says, “Birthplace of Father: Kenya, East Africa,” providing official authentication and documentation that the sitting President of the United States does not carry the Natural Born Citizenship status as required by Article II, Sect. 1, clause 5, of our U.S. Constitution, the higher standard required to hold the office of President!

Adams details in his 96 page Masters document the enormous amount of vicious cyber attacks, intimidations, and ad hominem attacks lobbed at him from all sorts of political and media operatives.  Because he has had male patterned baldness since his youth, this now-47-year-old man was labeled a “Skinhead,” and even neighborhood children called him that while hurling pebbles at him.  Adams credits the GLOBE Celebrity Magazine, which did four features on him, as having treated him with the most decency and professionalism.

When a youtube video of his interview went viral, and the intimidation and threats became extremely intense, meetings were held, and he virtually went silent in the Land of Free Speech.   

Additionally, Adams revealed that “We had a set of documents, fifty identity documents stolen out of the office, and they were all the voting records-the ballots that people sent in who were members of the U.S. Foreign Service around the Pacific rim.”  Adams goes on, “From there, things got really, really ugly,” and he left to finish his academic requirements in Hawaii and to move to Western Kentucky University “where I teach now.” (Pg. 32).  Apparently, these government dignitaries who had mailed in their absentee ballots did not want it revealed who they had voted for as it would have made it difficult for them to hold onto their jobs!

Adams says, “A lie has been told, and when a lie is obvious, the public’s just not going to go away.” And then he says this:  “President Obama’s official autobiography is false.” How does that compute with Onaka saying, “Additionally, I verify that the information in the copy of the Certificate of Live Birth for Mr. Obama that you [ Arizona SoS Bennett] attached with your request matches the original record in our files”? Guess what, it does not.  And the public is not going away, either.

Judge shuts down mega-mosque construction

Court ruling says county avoided legal building-permit process

Breaking news on WND / http://www.wnd.com/

Work on a mega-mosque already well along in the construction process in Murfreesboro, Tenn., has been shut down – the existing building’s future uncertain – by a court’s ruling the county avoided the legal process required for grant

The ruling said the county’s actions effectively violated the state’s Open Meetings law during the time when the mega-structure was being approved.

“The court finds that the action of the county was not sufficient to provide the type of notice to citizens of the county that such matters were to be considered at the meeting of the Rutherford County Regional Planning Commission which should be expected under our law,” said the opinion made public today from the Chancery Court of Tennessee, 16th District.

“Under the mandates of the statute, the court then finds that the actions of that commission regarding the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro were in fact void and of no effect.”

While there was a notice of the meeting in a local newspaper, the paper itself had “virtually no paid circulation,” and there was no showing of any notice on the county’s cable television station or on its website.

“The court assumed there was no ill intention or willful deception on the part of the county,” the ruling continued.

“We do not attribute any sinister motives to the county, though we note the undercurrent of the argument presented by the plaintiffs. We simply find that the county failed to publish the meeting…”

The opinion noted that under the county regulations there is not an entitlement to a public hearing, but there is a requirement that the public be properly notified.

It further said that the denial of permission for a building to be used “as a religious meeting place” must be done in a non-discriminatory manner.

Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation, one of the attorneys working with the plaintiffs in the case, told WND the next step likely will be a renewal of the attempts by the county to grant building permission. He credited other attorneys on the case, Joe Brandon and Tom Smith, with argued the case successfully.

He said the plaintiffs contended the process ignored several factors, including that the land where the now-unusable building stands formerly was a pig farm, which is supposed to be anathema to Muslims.

He called it a “political power move” on the part of the powers who wanted the mosque to be built.

The Muslim organization building the mega-mosque had obtained permission for nearly 53,000 square feet of buildings on its lot of land, and the first 12,000-square-soot section was nearly done.

Rutherford County officials have said that they don’t expect any buildings to be torn down, even though the process was violated.

Pamela Geller, publisher of AtlasShrugs.com, also is the author of the WND Books title “Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance” and “The Post American Presidency: The Obama’s Administration’s war on America,” published by Simon Schuster.

She revealed how the Department of Justice, which though it has named the Islamic Society of North America, the Council on American-Islamic Relations and other key Muslim groups and figures as unindicted co-conspirators in a scheme to fund the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas, filed a friend-of-the-court brief demanding that the case against the Murfreesboro mosque be dismissed.

Read Some of the Best Parts of the New York Times Expose on Obama‘s ’Kill List’


New York Times Article on Obamas Kill List and Evolving PhilosophyGay marriage isn’t the only thing the president has “evolved” on.

According to an extensive, eight-page expose from the New York Times, Barack Obama has changed his position on killing enemies abroad: the Times goes behind Obama’s expanding “kill list” and how it’s created.

Here are some of the key parts from the lengthy piece (all emphasis added):
[...] Mr. Obama has placed himself at the helm of a top secret “nominations” process to designate terrorists for kill or capture, of which the capture part has become largely theoretical. He had vowed to align the fight against Al Qaeda with American values; the chart, introducing people whose deaths he might soon be asked to order, underscored just what a moral and legal conundrum this could be.
Mr. Obama is the liberal law professor who campaigned against the Iraq war and torture, and then insisted on approving every new name on an expanding “kill list,” poring over terrorist suspects’ biographies on what one official calls the macabre “baseball cards” of an unconventional war. When a rare opportunity for a drone strike at a top terrorist arises — but his family is with him — it is the president who has reserved to himself the final moral calculation.
“He is determined that he will make these decisions about how far and wide these operations will go,” said Thomas E. Donilon, his national security adviser. “His view is that he’s responsible for the position of the United States in the world.” He added, “He’s determined to keep the tether pretty short.”
Nothing else in Mr. Obama’s first term has baffled liberal supporters and confounded conservative critics alike as his aggressive counterterrorism record. His actions have often remained inscrutable, obscured by awkward secrecy rules, polarized political commentary and the president’s own deep reserve.
Later, the Times expands on the nomination process where national security officials sit around and decide who they should recommend to Obama as the next to die:
It is the strangest of bureaucratic rituals: Every week or so, more than 100 members of the government’s sprawling national security apparatus gather, by secure video teleconference, to pore over terrorist suspects’ biographies and recommend to the president who should be the next to die.
This secret “nominations” process is an invention of the Obama administration, a grim debating society that vets the PowerPoint slides bearing the names, aliases and life stories of suspected members of Al Qaeda’s branch in Yemen or its allies in Somalia’s Shabab militia.
The video conferences are run by the Pentagon, which oversees strikes in those countries, and participants do not hesitate to call out a challenge, pressing for the evidence behind accusations of ties to Al Qaeda.

The nominations go to the White House, where by his own insistence and guided by Mr. Brennan, Mr. Obama must approve any name. He signs off on every strike in Yemen and Somalia and also on the more complex and risky strikes in Pakistan — about a third of the total.
The Times interviewed 36 current and former advisers for its piece, and they painted a picture of someone who has changed:
They describe a paradoxical leader who shunned the legislative deal-making required to close the detention facility at Guantánamo Bay in Cuba, but approves lethal action without hand-wringing. While he was adamant about narrowing the fight and improving relations with the Muslim world, he has followed the metastasizing enemy into new and dangerous lands. When he applies his lawyering skills to counterterrorism, it is usually to enable, not constrain, his ferocious campaign against Al Qaeda — even when it comes to killing an American cleric in Yemen, a decision that Mr. Obama told colleagues was “an easy one.”
There’s a story on how, even from the very beginning, Obama was saying one thing while parsing out words so he could do another:
The day before the executive orders were issued, the C.I.A.’s top lawyer, John A. Rizzo, had called the White House in a panic. The order prohibited the agency from operating detention facilities, closing once and for all the secret overseas “black sites” where interrogators had brutalized terrorist suspects.
“The way this is written, you are going to take us out of the rendition business,” Mr. Rizzo told Gregory B. Craig, Mr. Obama’s White House counsel, referring to the much-criticized practice of grabbing a terrorist suspect abroad and delivering him to another country for interrogation or trial. The problem, Mr. Rizzo explained, was that the C.I.A. sometimes held such suspects for a day or two while awaiting a flight. The order appeared to outlaw that.
Mr. Craig assured him that the new president had no intention of ending rendition — only its abuse, which could lead to American complicity in torture abroad. So a new definition of “detention facility” was inserted, excluding places used to hold people “on a short-term, transitory basis.” Problem solved — and no messy public explanation damped Mr. Obama’s celebration.
“Pragmatism over ideology,” his campaign national security team had advised in a memo in March 2008. It was counsel that only reinforced the president’s instincts.
And if you ever feared the president would try to stretch legal precedent as far as possible to justify action, those fears would be correct:
Sensing vulnerability on both a practical and political level, the president summoned his attorney general, Eric H. Holder Jr., to the White House.
F.B.I. agents had questioned Mr. Abdulmutallab for 50 minutes and gained valuable intelligence before giving him the warning. They had relied on a 1984 case called New York v. Quarles, in which the Supreme Court ruled that statements made by a suspect in response to urgent public safety questions — the case involved the location of a gun — could be introduced into evidence even if the suspect had not been advised of the right to remain silent.
Mr. Obama, who Mr. Holder said misses the legal profession, got into a colloquy with the attorney general. How far, he asked, could Quarles be stretched? Mr. Holder felt that in terrorism cases, the court would allow indefinite questioning on a fairly broad range of subjects.
Satisfied with the edgy new interpretation, Mr. Obama gave his blessing, Mr. Holder recalled.
“Barack Obama believes in options: ‘Maintain my options,’ “ said Jeh C. Johnson, a campaign adviser and now general counsel of the Defense Department.
Another revelation: Obama never devised a plan to close Guantanamo Bay. Instead, he thought that once he cast the vision, everyone would just fall in line and the action would take care of itself:
About four months into his presidency, as Republicans accused him of reckless naïveté on terrorism, Mr. Obama quickly pulled together a speech defending his policies. Standing before the Constitution at the National Archives in Washington, he mentioned Guantánamo 28 times, repeating his campaign pledge to close the prison.
But it was too late, and his defensive tone suggested that Mr. Obama knew it. Though President George W. Bush and Senator John McCain, the 2008 Republican candidate, had supported closing the Guantánamo prison, Republicans in Congress had reversed course and discovered they could use the issue to portray Mr. Obama as soft on terrorism.
Walking out of the Archives, the president turned to his national security adviser at the time, Gen. James L. Jones, and admitted that he had never devised a plan to persuade Congress to shut down the prison.
“We’re never going to make that mistake again,” Mr. Obama told the retired Marine general.
General Jones said the president and his aides had assumed that closing the prison was “a no-brainer — the United States will look good around the world.” The trouble was, he added, “nobody asked, ‘O.K., let’s assume it’s a good idea, how are you going to do this?’ “
It was not only Mr. Obama’s distaste for legislative backslapping and arm-twisting, but also part of a deeper pattern, said an administration official who has watched him closely: the president seemed to have “a sense that if he sketches a vision, it will happen — without his really having thought through the mechanism by which it will happen.”
There’s plenty more worth readying.  Read the entire report from the New York Times here.
Obama’s 'performance' at Arlington  
By: Diane Sori

It’s so sad that it’s gotten to the point where we’re all so used to hearing Barack Hussein Obama talking about himself, that it's become nothing but the punch line of some sick joke at the expense of ‘We the People.’  However, when he does so at the expense of those who made the ultimate sacrifice to keep us safe and free, that, my friends, crosses the line into total disrespect for our fallen heroes, our current men and women in uniform, and our veterans.

Yesterday, at The Tomb of the Unknown Soldier (in Arlington National Cemetery), Barack Hussein Obama gave an emotionless, unheartfelt supposed tribute to the men and women who died defending America.  Every time we think that he couldn't sink any lower, Obama outdoes himself. His velvet-gloved words did nothing but use this sacred day to campaign for re-election and to continue his ‘It’s all about ME, ME, ME’ tour.  This shameful and pitiful excuse of a Commander-in-Chief even had to look at his notes to remember to say ‘God Bless the Fallen.’

Barack Hussein Obama was there simply to campaign at the expense of our veterans and the families of our fallen heroes.  This sorry excuse of a president constantly kept reiterating his campaign points that he ended both wars and that “the nation must remain committed to providing for the families of fallen soldiers and help returning service members seeking jobs, higher education or health care benefits.”  Nothing but pretty sounding words from the man who raises tricare costs on both our active and retired military; nothing but pretty sounding words from the man who cuts our defense budget so he can funnel those monies into freebies and handouts for those whose votes he hopes to buy.

“After a decade under the dark cloud of war, we can see the light of a new day on the horizon.  As commander-in-chief, I can tell you that sending our troops into harm's way is the most wrenching decision that I have to make.  I can promise you I will never do so unless it is absolutely necessary and that when we do, we must give our troops a clear mission and the full support of a grateful nation.”

These were the words of Barack Hussein Obama, the man who has the sole power to decide when it’s ‘absolutely necessary’ to engage our troops.  Tell me Mr. Obama, will you deem it necessary to send our troops when Iran tries to wipe Israel off the map...will you deem it necessary to send our troops to help stop the slaughter of Christians in Africa and the Middle East by your muslim brethren...will you deem it necessary to send our troops the next time a major natural disaster happens...tell me Mr. Obama, what do you deem the situation to be so that you would find it absolutely necessary to send our troops.

On the other hand, Mitt Romney, speaking at Memorial Day services in California, spoke about maintaining an American military “with no comparable power anywhere in the world” and continued to warn against shrinking America’s military as Europe has done. The former Massachusetts governor said we must have the world’s strongest military to not only win wars but prevent wars.

To prevent wars...those three little words are something Barack Hussein Obama just does NOT understand for only through our recognized military strength can wars actually be prevented, and only with a strong, well-funded military, with well taken care of soldiers, can our military work at prime effectiveness.  And only with a military who is allowed to fight to win, NOT fight according to the rules of political correctness, can our military maintain their superiority as the world’s leading fighting force.

Thankfully, veterans will play a major role in the 2012 election and they’re wise to Barack Hussein Obama and his total dishonoring of our current military, their fellow veterans, and of those who died in service to our country, as witnessed by his performance.  For that is what it was at Arlington...a performance.  

His was a performance so poor that he even incorrectly named the last Iraq fatality during his speech.  Hey Obama, just so you know, the last American killed was Army Private First Class Cesar Cortez, of Oceanside, California. NOT Army Specialist David Hickman.

Hopefully, this was the last time ‘We the People,’ the families who sacrificed all, our veterans and active duty military, will have to hear you say pretty words on this most sacred of days...pretty words with NO substance, meaning or feeling behind them.