TIME: The Government Can Use GPS to Track Your Moves

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2013150,00.html

From the article:
Government agents can sneak onto your property in the middle of the night, put a GPS device on the bottom of your car and keep track of everywhere you go. This doesn’t violate your Fourth Amendment rights, because you do not have any reasonable expectation of privacy in your own driveway — and no reasonable expectation that the government isn’t tracking your movements.

The dumbest presidential administration in my life time, Harry  S  Truman and on, has deemed it necessary to orchestrate a media push that somehow, the President who plays golf every Sunday, was born a Muslim and slept through twenty years of Jeremiah Wright’s sermon is some how supposed to believed to a Christian.   White House spokesman Bill Burton as quoted by lJordan Fabian, Hill:

“The president is obviously a — is Christian,” he said. “He prays every day. He communicates with his religious adviser every single day. There’s a group of pastors that he takes counsel from on a regular basis. And his faith is very important to him, but it’s not something that is a topic of conversation every single day.”

Jews don’t pray!   The Obama White House doesn’t know squat about either religion or economics, but that’s another post.   I don’t know in what planet the Obama administration orbits but on this planet, prayer is not an exclusive activity of the Christians.

As for the theory that Barack Obama is a Christian, there in nothing obvious about it, from Kyle-Anne Shiver, American Thinker:

According to this poll released last week, nearly one in five Americans believes that President Obama is a Muslim, despite his consistent claims to be a Christian. The White House commented that “obviously,” the president is a Christian; “he prays every day.” Various liberal columnists quickly ran to the president’s aid with mouths agape over the obvious stupidity of this sizable chunk of the American peasant class.

The only thing truly obvious about this poll, in my opinion, is that it was meant to be a distraction from the growing, across-all-strata anger at the president’s policies, a still-gloomy economy, and a widely held perception of the president as a lazy man who much prefers the perks of high office to the actual work required of the officeholder.

Aside from his apparent faithfulness to his wife,  I can’t think of  single attribute of a Christian that Obama shares.   Can you?

As Abraham Lincoln may have said:  It does not matter what religion a man is, so long as he has one.    Sadly, I do believe that the only entity to whom Obama worships is to himself.    Any evidence to the contary?

So, we read Dianna West:

Stonings at ground zero – that’ll be the day, right? The concept has no manifestation beyond the cold sweat of a dark hours nightmare. Still, there’s something worth gleaning from the not-so-free association process that inspired it.

It clicked when I read a riveting investigation by Christine Brim at BigPeace.com into scrubbed Web site material of the Cordoba Initiative, the Internet home of Imam Feisal Rauf, he of the ground zero mosque. In this trove of information, curiously deleted from the current Cordoba Initiative Web site, lie key clues to Rauf’s long-term program, the Shariah Index Project, whose “goal,” as stated in the “hidden” material, is to “define, interpret and implement the concept of the Islamic state in modern times.”

Bruce McQuain beats me to the punch this morning:

Mirror Mirror on the wall, who is the biggest liar of them all?

In the middle of a recession, with joblessness hovering around the 10% mark, the Obama administration made a deliberate decision to impose a drilling moratorium knowing it would cost at least 23,000 jobs. Why?

Senior Obama administration officials concluded the federal moratorium on deepwater oil drilling would cost roughly 23,000 jobs, but went ahead with the ban because they didn’t trust the industry’s safety equipment and the government’s own inspection process, according to previously undisclosed documents.

Bruce McQuain

Never mind the fact that an event like this had never happened before in deep water.   Never mind there were hundreds of deepwater wells functioning properly and well.  Never mind that those jobs were well paying jobs  and that through their elimination would cause ripple-effect unemployment down the supply chain.

Instead, deliberately trash the lives of 23,000 workers – and their families – because of unfounded fears.

Yeah, that’s leadership, isn’t it?

Look, let’s face it Bruce….

The cause of shutting down oil companies has been a priority of the left for some years.  This merely provided a convenient excuse.  These events show the priorities of the left and how screwy they are.   Was there ever any doubt that this uber-liberal administration considers following their own political dictates to be of larger concern than joblessness?   And let’s face it; the reason that we’re hearing so much about this spill is because of the administration’s desire to use it to shut down as many oil delivery systems as possible.  Is there anyone on the planet who doesn’t know the kind of economic impact that will have?  I tend to doubt it.

Does anyone think that these moves will not have a negative impact on the democrats and their reelection chances both in this off year election and when the Dim Won tries to run for a second term?

As regular readers will know, I’ve had a new job for a few months now which has prevented me from doing much blogging.

That’s changing, with the addition of an HP/Compaq NC6000 nI picked up used for $100. Everything’s there, everything works, including the wireless networking ability. It runs XP as does every other desktop on my network, save one… and that runs Ubuntu.

I’ve added a WAP at the house so myself and my wife can compute wherever, but I’ve also enabled the mobile Hot Spot on the Palm Pre Phone I carry, so that I have full internet ability wherever I go.  Since I’m set with no data limits (no limits of any kind for that matter) on the phone, I’m now always connected again as I used to be in the days before a laptop was needed.

For charging the laptop in the truck I could have opted for a 12v line, but for several reasons I chose to get a 110vac converter. The 150watt capacity should be more than enough to power the 65watt charger and should provide a level of electrical isolation between my truck and the computer. (Alternator whine is an issue with my truck’s electrical components.) It’ll also run things like my electric shaver and so on.. Why spend big money on things that don’t have any flexability?

Since the laptop has a fairly sizable hard drive, it will allow me to carry serious tunage, as well. (grin) The only thing I’m missing from what I have on my desktop is the multi-screens (I use three screens on my desk) and the voice dictation ability.  (Shrug)

We’ll see how this goes. I have no doubt it’ll be a building process.

I’ve been spending a good deal of time the last several weeks thinking about many things as I go about the business of driving my truck, and piloting the nation’s freight to where it needs to go. It’s a kind of job that certainly gives one time to do exactly that.

One of the things that I have been thinking mightily about through that period is the So called “peace movement ” in this country.  If you’re reading this, most likely you agree with me that the peace movement as such has things entirely wrong. Not  many of us, however, have focused on specifically why their thinking is so misguided.  Allow me then, to propose a radical line of thinking, and see what you think of it:

Clearly, the peace movement in this country thinks that peace is the absence of war.  That’s not true.  They also think that peace can be negotiated.  That is also untrue in large part.  Negotiated peace very seldom lasts for very long, and usually works out to a serious disadvantage for one side or the other.  A close look at North Korea, certainly the product of a negotiated peace and of an antiwar sentiment here in the United States and back in the days of the Korean war, will demonstrate that clearly. I suggest you ask the south Koreans if they think their existence has been a peaceful one since those days. I suspect that they will not.

Consider also, the negotiated peace of World War One. What was negotiated, most scholars will advise us, led directly to World War Two, which was an even bigger and bloodier conflict.

I dare to propose to you, that peace is the product of having overwhelmingly won the war, and of showing the resolve to take on all those who would disturb that peace, thus removing war as an option for them.

As examples of this, let’s look at Germany and Japan in the years following World War Two.  I suspect and suppose that there are very few indeed who will complain that the actions and intentions of the German and Japanese peoples following World War Two, were anything but peaceful.  Demonstrably, these two countries have been among the most peaceful countries on the planet, and have been stalwart friends of freedom.  I suggest this is a direct result of having won the wars against Germany and Japan in overwhelming fashion, and showing a continued resolve to take it on any world power who decides for whatever reason to act unpeaceably.

The leftist “peace” movement in this country with its call to unconditionally separate us from our ability to respond to war making is in fact exposing us to aggressors, thereby causing more bloodshed, and certainly causing a loss of freedom throughout the world.  They would have us negotiating with every ten pot dictator that comes along, in the hope of avoiding bloodshed.  ( The name of Neville Chamberlain pops into mind, unbidden.)

I will leave this one as it is just now.  I will ask for your comments and criticisms.  I suspect, however, that my observation that peace is a product of having won the war overwhelmingly, will stand.

What say you?

Just go and read this.

This is all pretty much “inside baseball”, but it’s the quickest way I can think of to get the info to those who need it:

I’ve upgraded everything to WP v 3.01, and upgraded all the relevant plug-ins.
I’ve also removed the twitter plug in that we have been running since they change to the API at Twitter just recently, and the thing no longer worked. Im looking at another way to get things going again, there.

My laptop is now mostly operational and so I can do full support from anywhere.

I’m a little annoyed at my Palm Pre just now. It turns out that engaging the mobile hotspot consumes the batter in a faster rate than the better each Archer can normally generate, particularly if you’re feeding from DC sources such as my truck. This means my connectivity, while very usable for short durations, cannot be left on all day as I had planned.  Maybe I could get a bigger batteries for the Pre, I dunno.  Still, they should give me an hour or so of mobile networking in the absence of any other connection in the neighborhood.  Freeway rest areas, for example, have a tendency to have open WAPs, as do a lot of truck stops and coffee shops, so we’ll see what happens. 

Backups are complete, and everything seems normal.  Now I can get back to my writing. 

Starting to catch up on my reading. As it has been in the past, James Joyner’s Outside The Beltway is among my first stops:

John Hawkins‘ unscientific survey of conservative bloggers on The 25 Worst Figures In American History is revealing.

James Joyner

Aside from Richard Nixon and a couple of traitors and assassins, the list is almost completely made up of Democratic politicians and liberal activists:

23) Saul Alinsky (7)
23) Bill Clinton (7)
23) Hillary Clinton (7)
19) Michael Moore (7)
19) George Soros (8)
19) Alger Hiss (8)
19) Al Sharpton (8)
13) Al Gore (9)
13) Noam Chomsky (9)
13) Richard Nixon (9)
13) Jane Fonda (9)
13) Harry Reid (9)
13) Nancy Pelosi (9)
11) John Wilkes Booth (10)
11) Margaret Sanger (10)
9) Aldrich Ames (11)
9) Timothy McVeigh (11)
7) Ted Kennedy (14)
7) Lyndon Johnson (14)
5) Benedict Arnold (17)
5) Woodrow Wilson (17)
4) The Rosenbergs (19)
3) Franklin Delano Roosevelt (21)
2) Barack Obama (23)
1) Jimmy Carter (25)

As Steve Bainbridge and Jim Geraghty have already noted, this is just bizarre.   Bainbridge rightly observes that the list “reflects the partisan passions of the moment, not anything resembling a serious verdict of history.”

I am not so sure. James says:

To me, such a list should be reserved for people who had a large impact and who intentionally did evil, not simply those who acted according to the widespread beliefs of the day that are now viewed as repugnant.

But who admits to themselves that thay’re doing evil? Who doesn’t couch their actions however immoral, in a moralistic crusade, or at least in moral neutrality?  I should point out that Stalin, Hitler and a few others of that level of evil were not intentionally DOING evil, but as James says “acted according to the widespread beliefs of the day that are now viewed as repugnant.”

You see, I look at it that the people whose evil had the widest impact on the world, are invariably the ones who thought they were doing no harm. Perhaps that’s why liberals made it to John’s list in such large percentages, for so it is with the liberal mindless set. This demonstrates the danger in the power of government. How much evil has been done with the power of government in the name of doing good?

I will say that Jimmy Carter making #1 on the list is a product of the amount of time that has passed. I suggest Woodrow Wilson should have been #1… and that the only reason he isn’t there is because so few people know the kind of evil Wilson represented, whereas more people of today know Carter having survived his presidency.

Government schools, you see, are not teaching this stuff.  I suggest that’s one reason we no longer have the ability to detect evil… it’s not being taught as such.

?

Yeah, I know.
Gamechanger though is that I now have my laptop and can post from anywhere.

http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-08/google-amp-verizons-net-neutrality-proposal-kind-scary

Dim Won, Barney Fran and Mrs. Pelosi or not match for the Gipper, video:

Hat tip: RS McCain.

Phishing, unfortunately, is a common hacker tactic on the Internet, and Facebook has been a victim of this type of attack using bogus “friend” requests sent via e-mail for some time now. I suppose, due to the increasing popularity of LinkedIn (there are now more than 75,000,000 business professionals), LinkedIn has now been targeted too!

If you are a LinkedIn user (who’s not nowadays?) you must beware of a new Phishing attack delivered in the guise of LinkedIn invitations LinkedIn messages. Over the past few days, starting on Friday, 08/13/2010, I have received many e-mail messages which appear to be legitimate LinkedIn invitations and/or LinkedIn messages.

These e-mails look 100% authentic, but there are two tell-tale signs that they are not legitimate:

1. If you look carefully at the target of the links embedded in the e-mail messages, you will find that they all go to third party web sites, and will most likely attempt to install some type of malware on your computer.
2. You will not get a copy of the message in your LinkedIn Inbox; it will only go the e-mail address that you registered at LinkedIn.

Below are example screen shots of each of the two different messages I’ve received. The first appears to be a legitimate LinkedIn invitation:

The second looks like a legitimate LinkedIn update message:

As you can see in the second example, when I mouse over the link, it DOES NOT point to LinkedIn. If you use Outlook (shown in the screen shot), simply mouse over the link (do not click it) and it will show you the target, if it doesn’t point to LinkedIn, it’s not valid. If you use some type of web mail like Yahoo Mail or Gmail, mouse over the link (without clicking it) and look in the status bar in the lower left hand corner of your browser to see the target.

Here are two intereviews that I did on Fox 19 about social media scams and Phishing:

Dave Hatter on Fox 19 (WXIX) discussing Phishing

Dave Hatter on Fox 19 (WXIX) discussing Social Media Scams – 091113

I have contacted LinkedIn customer service to inform them about this issue; you can see their response below:

LinkedIn Customer Support Message

Subject: I think LinkedIn is the vicitm of a Phishing attack using LinkedIn invitations

Hi Dave,

Please be cautious in opening any attached files included in these types of malicious spoof emails as they may contain Malware which could be damaging to your system.

Your privacy is our top concern. We work hard to earn and keep your trust, so we adhere to the following principles to protect your privacy:

We will never rent or sell your personally identifiable information to third parties for marketing purposes.

We will never share your contact information with another user without your consent.

Any personally identifiable information that you provide will be secured with all industry standard protocols and technology.

We thank you for contacting us about this matter and apologize for any inconvenience the malicious sender may have caused. If you ever receive any communications in which you feel are suspicious in nature, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

Regards,

Angela
Groups Lead, LinkedIn Customer Service

Original Contact:

Member Comment: Dave Hatter 08/13/2010 01:01 PM

I got this e-mail today which looks like a legitimate LI invitation.

However, each link points to cernoma.com/x.html.

Though you should know about this so your could check it out and inform users.. Here’s the body, a screen shot is attached too.

LinkedIn
Eli Castro has indicated you are a Colleague at Interbrand:
I’d like to add you to my professional network on LinkedIn.

– Eli Castro

Accept
View invitation from Eli Castro

DID YOU KNOW your LinkedIn profile helps you control your public image when people search for you?
Setting your profile as public means your LinkedIn profile will come up when people enter your name in leading search engines. Take control of your image!

© 2010, LinkedIn Corporation

? Would you like to learn more about how to harness the knowledge and expertise of your network?
Find training resources on the LinkedIn Learning Center or browse FAQs on the LinkedIn Customer Support Center.
Check out New on LinkedIn or follow us on Twitter®.

LinkedIn values your privacy. At no time has LinkedIn made your email address available to any other LinkedIn user without your permission.
LinkedIn Corporation © 2010 | Privacy Policy | User Agreement | Copyright Policy

[—001:001947:05451—]

Otherwise, but out of trying to play language police.     The over hyped non story of the day is the fact that Doctor  Schlessinger  uttered the word Nigger a  whopping eleven times.    Dr Schlessinger only crime, as see it, is rhetorical over kill.  From Frances Martel, Mediaite:

After the caller expressed some discomfort with the tone of Schlessinger’s comments, the host scolded her, telling her not to “NAACP me” [according to the dictionary, the proper term is to Breitbart] and, finally, “if you’re that hypersensitive about color, and don’t have a sense of humor, don’t marry out of your race.” Wow. Not that Dr. Laura hasn’t gotten in trouble for insensitive comments before: In 2002, Schlessinger found herself in hot water for calling homosexuality “a biological mistake.” That, however, was not directed at a particular caller, nor did it use specific slurs.

Dr. Laura’s rant made it to primetime tonight thanks to CNN’s Rick Sanchez, who led his 8PM program with the story, getting ahead of The O’Reilly Factor (leading with a 14th Amendment debate) and Countdown (leading with an interview with an American mechanic).

Liberals contend that when the word Nigger if used by whites, it is inherently offensive.   Yet liberals and many blacks, routinely accept black use of the word.   It is simply impossible for a word to both inherently offensive, and yet acceptable in certain contexts.    Make up your mind, and get back to me.

Stink Progress, as with much of the left like to label the Bush administration as being ‘conservative’ when it suits their purposes.  Example:

This morning, Ted Olson — the conservative lawyer who represented President Bush in Bush v. Gore — appeared on Fox News Sunday to discuss his recent victory in overturning Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriages in California. Throughout the interview, host Chris Wallace attempted to trip up his guest with a series of familiar Republican talking points, all of which Olson repudiated.

Etc, Etc. But here’s the rub… Olson, like his boss, George W Bush… is at best a centrist, bordering on being full-goose bozo liberal.  That’s a point we”ve made here often in the past and will likely do so in the future. This mislabeling of centrists as conservatives always seems to come out when these borderline leftists like Olson come up with an argument the left agrees with as happens far too often.  It may be an argument point but it doesn’t make it so. Indeed, if the left offers it, suspect an outright lie as in this case.

Think, now… why would the left be so keen to call someone making their argument for them, ‘conservative’?