Tuesday, January 7, 2020

Last Call For The Drums Of War, Con't


The Pentagon said Tuesday that Iran launched more than a dozen missiles at two Iraqi bases that hold US troops in response to the US airstrike that killed a top Iranian general last week. 
The attack comes days after the US killed top Iranian general Qasem Soleimani in an airstrike in the Iraqi capital of Baghdad. The administration has sought to cast that strike as an attempt to de-escalate tensions with Iran, but Tehran has vowed revenge for the killing, which it says was an "act of war" and "state terrorism." 
Jonathan Hoffman, a Pentagon spokesperson, said Tuesday evening that Iran launched more than a dozen missiles at the al-Asad airbase, which houses US troops, and American and coalition forces in the town of Erbil. Hoffman said the Pentagon is assessing the damage done by the attacks. 
"In recent days and in response to Iranian threats and actions, the Department of Defense has taken all appropriate measures to safeguard our personnel and partners," Hoffman said in a statement. "These bases have been on high alert due to indications that the Iranian regime planned to attack our forces and interests in the region." 
"As we evaluate the situation and our response, we will take all necessary measures to protect and defend U.S. personnel, partners, and allies in the region." 
Qatri al-Obeidi, a commander in the nearby town of al-Baghdadi, said that the shelling has stopped for now. President Donald Trump visited the base in December 2018 to visit troops after Christmas. Vice President Mike Pence also visited the base in November 2019. The attack follows last week's deadly US drone strike that Trump ordered to kill Soleimani. 
Iranian state TV reported that the Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, or IRGC, "has hit U.S. Ain al-Asad airbase in Iraq with tens of missiles." The IRGC warned the US of of more "crushing responses in case of new aggression," according to state TV. The IRGC said it will target any regional state that becomes a platform for US aggression, a second banner on state TV read
US Defense Secretary Mark Esper's office called the office of the Prime Minister of Iraq at around 7 pm ET on Tuesday, according to a diplomatic source. There were difficulties getting through as it was the middle of the night in Baghdad. Eventually the two offices were able to connect and the source says there has been "communication between the US and Iraqi governments at the highest level."

Iran openly taking credit for the missiles against an Iraqi base with US troops is a big deal, Iranian state TV warning that anyone supporting the US in attacking Iran, like say, Iraq or Saudi Arabia (or possibly Israel, Turkey, Kuwait or Bahrain) will be attacked too is a much, much bigger deal.

Some sort of diplomatic effort right now would be ideal, but if Trump decides to flatten a major chunk of Tehran with a couple score Tomahawks, all bets are off.

The next step after this up the ladder is actual war, guys.  Trump won't give a damn about any AUMF or what Congress thinks.  If he's not reined in right now, tonight, we're going to war.

I hate being right.

Deportation Nation, Con't

Meanwhile, with the last major logistical hurdle stopping the Trump regime's plan for mass deportations of undocumented removed with Guatemala offering itself up to take America's cash in exchange for becoming our dumping ground for undesirables, it looks like the Stephen Miller plan will soon be in full swing.

Mexicans seeking asylum in the United States could be sent to Guatemala under a bilateral agreement signed by the Central American nation last year, according to documents sent to U.S. asylum officers in recent days and seen by Reuters.

In a Jan. 4 email, field office staff at the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) were told Mexican nationals will be included in the populations “amenable” to the agreement with Guatemala. 
The agreement, brokered last July between the administration of Republican President Donald Trump and the outgoing Guatemalan government, allows U.S. immigration officials to send migrants requesting asylum at the U.S.-Mexican border to apply for protection in Guatemala instead. 
Mexico objects to the plan, its foreign ministry said in a statement late on Monday, adding that it would be working with authorities to find “better options” for those that could be affected. 
Trump has made clamping down on unlawful migration a top priority of his presidency and a major theme of his 2020 re-election campaign. His administration penned similar deals with Honduras and El Salvador last year. 
U.S. Democrats and pro-migrant groups have opposed the move and contend asylum seekers will face danger in Guatemala, where the murder rate is five times that of the United States, according to 2017 data compiled by the World Bank. The country’s asylum office is tiny and thinly staffed and critics have argued it lacks the capacity to properly vet a significant increase in cases. 
Guatemalan President-elect Alejandro Giammattei, who takes office this month, has said he will review the agreement. 
Acting Deputy U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Ken Cuccinelli said in a tweet in December that Mexicans were being considered for inclusion under the agreement.

USCIS referred questions to DHS, which referred to Cuccinelli’s tweet. Mexico’s foreign ministry did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Deporting Mexicans at the US border to Guatemala is being done on purpose to get Mexico to play ball, and all indications are the President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador will give in. Mass deportations of asylum seekers will begin in 2020, followed of course by mass deportations of undocumented in the US, rounded up by ICE.  Sure to be a number of actual US citizens who are going to get one-way trips to Central America, but who in this government will give a damn?

That pipeline is going to start gushing pretty soon.  It's an election year, and should Trump win, it's a flood that won't cease anytime soon.

The Red Rout Resumes, Con't

The first major Trump regime political casualty of the war with Iran is apparently Secretary of State Mike Pompeo's Senate run in Kansas.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Monday told Mitch McConnell, the Senate majority leader, that he does not plan to run for Senate in 2020, most likely ending Republicans’ hopes of securing a potentially dominant candidate for the open seat in his home state of Kansas, according to four people briefed on the meeting.

Mr. Pompeo, a former congressman from the Wichita area, has quietly explored a campaign for months. But in the aftermath of the military operation last week that killed Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani of Iran, Mr. Pompeo has told senior party officials that he is ruling out becoming a candidate, according to several people who have spoken with him directly.

Mr. Pompeo still has time to change his mind. The filing deadline for the primary is not until June. However, administration officials who have spoken with him in recent days said he seemed adamant about not entering the race.

Without Mr. Pompeo in the race, Republicans face an unsettled primary that includes at least one candidate, Kris Kobach, whom party leaders fear could imperil their hold on a crucial open Senate seat. Mr. Kobach, who ran unsuccessfully for governor in 2018, is popular with hard-right primary voters but widely disliked among moderate and independent voters in Kansas.

Several other candidates are competing for the Republican nomination, including Representative Roger Marshall. National Democrats have rallied behind Barbara Bollier, a state senator who left the G.O.P. to become a Democrat a little more than a year ago, as their preferred candidate.

Mr. Pompeo’s decision is a setback for Republicans working to retain their Senate majority in the November elections. Mr. McConnell aggressively courted him for months, and also deployed a number of his lieutenants to make the case that the secretary of state should return to Kansas, which he represented in the House until he joined the Trump administration.
There's no way Pompeo would have been able to leave the State Department with his career intact, and he would have been blasted by questions about why he left in the middle of a war to go run for Senate.

There's a very real possibility now that Kobach wins the primary and loses the general to a Democrat, Barbara Bollier, who has endorsements from both US Attorney Barry Grissom and popular former Gov. Kathleen Sebelius.  Pompeo was, up until Friday, the GOP's best hope to keep the seat.  It's still going to be a tough sell, but Kobach has already lost the 2018 governor's race, and there isn't anything to make me think he improved anything heading into November.

Could be a big pickup for Team Blue.

StupidiNews!

Monday, January 6, 2020

Last Call For The Blue Wave Rises, Con't

Another month, another "How to win back Trump voters" article, but at least this time it comes from two political scientists and not the wishful thinking of white male pundits.

To understand the potential ramifications of Obama-Trump voters in 2020, it’s worth understanding how they voted in 2018. Among those who voted, three-quarters stuck with the Republican Party. But Democrats did win back about one-fifth of the Obama-Trump group in 2018, which would amount to a net swing of about 1.5 million votes. While the idiosyncratic governing style of Mr. Trump may have been one key factor in bringing Obama-Trump voters back into the Democratic fold, it wasn’t the only reason. It’s true that most Obama-Trump voters who stuck with the Republican Party in 2018 strongly approved of the job Mr. Trump was doing as president, but interestingly even half of those who flipped back to the Democratic side at least somewhat approved of Mr. Trump. Democrats won back a significant share of Obama-Trump voters not because those voters disliked Mr. Trump, but in spite of the fact that many actually approved of him.

Instead, these voters appeared to be drawn back toward the Democrats by some of the party’s bread-and butter-issues, and in spite of others. On issues like gun control, health care and the environment, these voters look remarkably like the Democratic Party’s base — those who voted for Obama in 2012, Hillary Clinton in 2016 and a Democratic House candidate in 2018. Eighty-four percent of Obama-Trump voters who voted for Democratic House candidates in 2018 want to ban assault rifles, compared to 92 percent of the Democratic base. By contrast, 57 percent of Obama-Trump voters who stayed with Republicans in 2018 support an assault weapons ban (which has far less support among the Republican base).

Medicare for all is surprisingly popular among all Obama-Trump voters, but especially those who voted for Democrats in 2018. Eighty-three percent of those who switched back to the Democratic Party in 2018 support Medicare for all, nearly as high as the 93 percent support the policy achieves among the most solidly blue Democratic voting bloc.

These patterns show that Democrats can win back Obama-Trump voters by focusing on issues that also appeal to their base. Another such issue is climate change. Seventy-three percent of Obama-Trump voters who came back to the Democratic Party in 2018 oppose the president’s decision to withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement; among those who stayed with the Republican Party in 2018, 74 percent support that decision.

Notably, the Obama-Trump voters who returned to the Democratic Party in 2018 look less like the Democratic Party base in other ways. A majority support building a border wall and Mr. Trump’s ban on immigration from predominantly Muslim countries. At the same time, two-thirds of these voters support Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, which allows undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children to receive deferred action on deportation.

They also have less progressive attitudes when it comes to race and gender. For example, less than half of these voters agree that whites have advantages because of the color of their skin, and an even smaller share think that feminists are making reasonable demands of men. These are your classic cross-pressured voters, aligned with Democrats on many policies that are part of the progressive wish list but likely to be turned off by the party’s rhetoric on identity politics.

Again, whenever anyone says "identity politics", substitute the correct term, "civil rights" and you'll see why Trump voters stuck with the Donald.  Luckily the column offers a much larger source of votes in 2020 that will not be put off by civil rights, and that's the people who stayed home in 2016.

Of course, another important group that will play a role in the 2020 election are the 2012 Obama voters who did not vote in 2016, the missing Obama millions. In 2018, Democrats regained some support among this group as well. About one-third turned out for the 2018 election, and Democrats won them 4 to 1. These voters looks much more like the Obama base than the Obama-Trump voters who supported Democrats in 2018. These remobilized Obama-nonvoters not only share similar views with the Democratic Party’s base on health care, gun control and the environment, but they also have similar views on immigration and share progressive views on race and gender relations.

Half of the remobilized Obama-nonvoters are people of color and more than 70 percent are women. Unlike the Obama-Trump voters who supported Democrats in 2018, the Obama-nonvoters appear to have been remobilized by their dislike of Trump — more than 80 percent reported that they strongly disapproved of the job he was doing as president. Strong disapproval of Mr. Trump was a strong predictor of Obama-nonvoters coming back into the electorate to vote for Democrats in 2018.

The story of Democratic success in winning back the House in 2018 seems to be driven by two patterns — the ability to win back some cross-pressured members of the Obama coalition who voted for Trump in 2016, while also remobilizing former Obama voters who failed to show up at the polls two years earlier. Progressive economic and climate views unite these two coalitions, while the groups are more divided when it comes to racial justice and gender equity. Both Obama-nonvoter-Democrats (92 percent) and Obama-Trump-Democrats (88 percent) support a $12 minimum wage and a millionaire’s tax (92 percent and 79 percent).

So yeah, it will be very possible to defeat Trump in 2020 by going with the issues, but also mobilizing Democratic voters to stop Donald Trump, and it doesn't have to come at the cost of support for civil rights.

Imagine that.

Another Day In Gunmerica, Con't

White supremacist militia groups like Oath Keepers are rallying around Virginia's Second Amendment movement and want to turn it into another Charlottesville hate rally, complete with armed terrorists calling for the death of Gov. Ralph Northam.

Gun rights advocates and militia members from around the country are urging thousands of armed protesters to descend on Virginia's capital later this month to stop newly empowered Democrats from passing gun-control bills.

What began as a handful of rural Virginia counties declaring themselves “Second Amendment sanctuaries” has jumped the state’s borders and become an Internet phenomenon. Far-right websites and commenters are declaring that Virginia is the place to take a stand against what they see as a national trend of weakening gun rights.

Unlike blue bastions such as California and New York, Virginia is a former Confederate state with strong rural traditions and lax gun laws. Guns represent the strongest, reddest line against the demographic changes that have seen Old Dominion voters usher in a new era of Democratic leadership in recent elections.

And so a Nevada-based group called the Oath Keepers said it’s sending training teams to help form posses and militia in Virginia. The leader of a Georgia militia called Three Percent Security Force has posted videos and calls to arms on Facebook, urging “patriots” to converge on Richmond. The right-wing YouTuber “American Joe Show” warned without evidence that Virginia will cut the power grid to stop the army of protesters — one of a host of false and exaggerated rumors spreading online.

Law enforcement and public safety officials say they are monitoring the situation, including several instances of threats toward Gov. Ralph Northam (D). Even some gun enthusiasts expressed concern about the potential for violence at a rally planned for the state Capitol on Jan. 20. State police briefed Northam for two hours last week, according to one state official, and the governor plans to lead an all-staff meeting this week to go over increased security procedures.

The Virginia Citizens Defense League, the grass-roots organization planning the rally, said it has told the state to prepare for as many as 50,000 or even 100,000 people showing up.
Police do not dismiss those projections. But at least so far, they have not seen indications that turnout will be that high.

“Do we look at these numbers seriously? It certainly behooves us to prepare for all possibilities,” Capitol Police spokesman Joe Macenka said.

Lawmakers said they have been in regular contact with state, city and Capitol police, and VCDL president Philip Van Cleave said he is keeping lines of communication open so all sides are prepared.

“Hopefully it’ll not be another Charlottesville,” Van Cleave said, blaming police and state planning for the violence that erupted during 2017’s Unite the Right rally around a Confederate statue. Counterprotester Heather Heyer was killed when a white supremacist drove his car into a crowd of people.

Van Cleave has appealed to his supporters not to come bristling with intimidating long guns — including assault-style rifles such as the AR-15 — and politely suggested that militia members are welcome but do not need to provide security. Police will take care of that, he said, “not to mention enough citizens armed with handguns to take over a modern midsized country.”

Or a decent-sized American state.

Just saying that 100,000 armed Oath Keeper and Three Percenter right-wing militia types ready to terrorize the city and maybe "water the tree of liberty" with the Governor's blood may be a serious problem.  Charlottesville got ugly -- and deadly -- with a fraction of that number.

This will not end without bloodshed.


Impeachment Reached, Con't

As predicted, Senate Republicans look to be making their move to proceed with and then dismiss Trump's impeachment articles outright, regardless of what Pelosi chooses to do.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey O. Graham suggested Sunday that Republicans should try to change Senate rules governing impeachment if House Speaker Nancy Pelosi continues to withhold the charges against President Trump — an unlikely 11th-hour bid to begin a trial within days without the actual documents.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) was unequivocal in a Senate floor speech on Friday that “we can’t hold a trial without the articles; the Senate’s own rules don’t provide for that.” But Graham (R-S.C.), a close ally of Trump, floated the idea of a unilateral GOP move, saying he would work with McConnell to allow the Senate to proceed without the two charges against Trump for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.

The suggestion, while unlikely due to the high threshold of votes required for changing Senate impeachment rules, underscores the pressure some Trump allies feel as the president stews over the impeachment delay.

“Well, we’re not going to let Nancy Pelosi use the rules of the Senate to her advantage,” Graham said on Fox News’ “Sunday Morning Futures,” later adding: “My number one goal is [to] not let the speaker of the House become the majority leader of the Senate. . . . If we don’t get the articles this week, then we need to take matters [into] our own hands.”

Graham would need 67 votes to change Senate impeachment rules, so this is unlikely, but all indications are that this will move forward this week with some kind of deal between Schumer/Pelosi and Mitch McConnell.  However, the motion to dismiss the charges by GOP Sen, Josh Hawley is still in play, supposedly.

We'll see what today brings.

StupidiNews!

Sunday, January 5, 2020

Last Call For Rush (No Longer) In Roulette

Rush Limbaugh has signed on for another four years of his radio show, meaning he'll be polluting the airwaves through 2024, and apparently the person to break the news was...Donald Trump.

"The Rush Limbaugh Show" will continue well into the new decade. 
Limbaugh, whose contract was due to expire later this year, has renewed his deal, the syndication company Premiere Radio Networks confirmed to CNN Business. 
Premiere is a division of the radio giant iHeartMedia. A spokeswoman said Limbaugh renewed a "long-term agreement" and declined to comment on any specific terms, like the length of the new deal. 
But according to President Trump, it is a four-year deal. 
CNN Business inquired about Limbaugh's status after Trump blurted out the information at a rally in Miami on Friday. 
The president was there to launch an "Evangelicals for Trump" coalition. After lodging his usual complaints about news outlets that challenge him, he turned to praise some of his biggest radio and TV boosters. 
"We have great people," Trump said. "Rush just signed another four-year contract. He just wants four more years, okay. Rush, Sean Hannity, Laura -- a lot of great people -- Tucker's been great, 'Fox & Friends,' right?" 
Trump went on, listing off other supporters in the media. But the Limbaugh shout-out was curious because the host and the syndicator had not announced a new deal yet. Premiere's most recent acknowledgement about Limbaugh's contract was back in August 2016, when he re-upped. 
It turns out the president had some inside information -- perhaps from one of Limbaugh's visits to Trump's properties. 
Trump and the radio host were seen eating launch and chatting with others at Trump's West Palm Beach golf club a few days before Christmas. 
The two men have been allies for many years, pre-dating the president's run for office.

The cult of Trumpism continues to destroy America.  Hooray!

The Drums Of War, Con't

It's hard to overstate just how much Trump screwed up by assassinating Iran's Gen. Suleimani on Iraqi soil on Friday, but we're about to reap that whirlwind in an impressive way.

Lawmakers in Iraq heeded the demands of angry citizens and voted on Sunday to expel United States troops from the country, as hundreds of thousands of mourners poured into the streets of Iran to pay their respects to the slain leader of the elite Quds Force, Maj. General Qassim Suleimani.

The vote in Parliament on Sunday to oust the United States-led coalition is not final until Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi signs the draft bill. Earlier on Sunday, Mr. Mahdi indicated he would, having urged lawmakers to take action after President Trump ordered a fatal drone strike against General Suleimani in Baghdad.

The body of the general, the most powerful figure in Iran after the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was brought back early Sunday from Iraq, where he was killed on Friday near the Baghdad airport. Among the others killed in the attack was Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, the deputy head of the Iraqi Popular Mobilization Forces, which includes at least half a dozen pro-Iranian militias.

Members of Iraq’s Parliament were divided on the demands to expel American troops from the country. While factions that grew out of Shiite militia organizations have pushed hard for the expulsion, Sunni Muslim factions and the Kurds want the United States to stay.

The legal agreement between Baghdad and Washington states that American troops are in Iraq “at the invitation” of the Iraqi government. Presumably, if Baghdad withdrew that invitation, the United States would have to withdraw.

The killing of General Suleimani unleashed calls for vengeance in both Iraq and Iran, and reinforced a general solidarity among hard-liners and moderates in Iran against the United States. In Iraq, the attack was seen as a violation of the nation’s sovereignty. On Sunday, Iraq’s Foreign Ministry said it had summoned the American ambassador in Baghdad.

In Iran, it was viewed as tantamount to an act of war. Hossein Dehghan, a military adviser to Mr. Khamenei, told CNN that Iran’s response would include an attack on “U.S. military targets.”

As the Middle East braced for Iranian retaliation, which analysts said was all but inevitable and American officials said they expected within weeks, Tehran and Washington ratcheted up the rhetoric.

We're getting kicked out of Iraq, the anti-ISIS coalition headed by the US is now all but over as troops scramble to defend themselves on the way out, and Trump has united Iran under the banner of hating his orange ass.  The miscalculations by the Trump regime on this go all the way down the line.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Sunday defended the continued U.S. presence in Iraq even as the Iraqi parliament convened a special session to discuss expelling American troops after the U.S. killing of Iranian military commander Qasim Soleimani in Baghdad.

“The prime minister is the acting prime minister … he’s under enormous threats from the very Iranian leadership that we are pushing back against,” Pompeo said on “Fox News Sunday,” adding “we’re confident the Iraqi people want the United States to continue to be there.”

Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi told the nation’s parliament on Sunday the Iraqi government must establish a timetable for the exit of all foreign troops "for the sake of our national sovereignty."

Asked by Fox’s Chris Wallace how the U.S. would respond if the Iraqi government calls for the expulsion of U.S. troops, Pompeo said “we’ll have to take a look at what we do when the Iraqi leadership and government makes a decision.”

Well, that decision was made, and it's "Yankee go home."

Or are we going to invade Iraq all over again?

At this point, who knows?  Trump's as likely to tweet that we're staying in Iraq as he is to claim getting us kicked out was his plan all along and that he's "the one who got our troops home out of Baghdad".

Trump had no plan beyond this.  That much is absolutely clear.

In the chaotic days leading to the death of Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, Iran’s most powerful commander, top American military officials put the option of killing him — which they viewed as the most extreme response to recent Iranian-led violence in Iraq — on the menu they presented to President Trump.

They didn’t think he would take it. In the wars waged since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Pentagon officials have often offered improbable options to presidents to make other possibilities appear more palatable
.

After initially rejecting the Suleimani option on Dec. 28 and authorizing airstrikes on an Iranian-backed Shia militia group instead, a few days later Mr. Trump watched, fuming, as television reports showed Iranian-backed attacks on the American Embassy in Baghdad, according to Defense Department and administration officials.

By late Thursday, the president had gone for the extreme option. Top Pentagon officials were stunned.

Here there be dragons. Once again, Trump started a war to derail his impeachment trial.  This cannot be repeated enough.  Nobody knows for sure what happens next.

Nobody.

Sunday Long Read: A Deeper Shade Of Gray Hat

This week's Sunday Long Read comes from Bloomberg Businessweek, the story of British/Israeli hacker Daniel "Spdrman" Kaye, a self-taught code jockey who ended up behind one of the biggest botnet attacks the world had seen, one he put together himself, for the highest bidder.

The attack against Liberia began in October 2016. More than a half-million security cameras around the world tried to connect to a handful of servers used by Lonestar Cell MTN, a local mobile phone operator, and Lonestar’s network was overwhelmed. Internet access for its 1.5 million customers slowed to a crawl, then stopped.

The technical term for this sort of assault is distributed denial of service, or DDoS. Crude but effective, a DDoS attack uses an army of commandeered machines, called a botnet, to simultaneously connect to a single point online. This botnet, though, was the biggest ever witnessed anywhere, let alone in Liberia, one of the poorest countries in Africa. The result was similar to what would happen if 500,000 extra cars joined the New Jersey Turnpike one morning at rush hour. While most DDoS attacks last only moments, the assault on Lonestar dragged on for days. And since Liberia has had virtually no landlines since the brutal civil war that ended in 2003, that meant half the country was cut off from bank transactions, farmers couldn’t check crop prices, and students couldn’t Google anything. In the capital of Monrovia, the largest hospital went offline for about a week. Infectious disease specialists dealing with the aftermath of a deadly Ebola outbreak lost contact with international health agencies.

Eugene Nagbe, Liberia’s minister for information, was in Paris on business when the crisis began. He struggled to marshal a response, unable to access his email or a reliable phone connection. Then his bank card stopped working. On Nov. 8, with hundreds of thousands of people still disconnected, Nagbe went on French radio to appeal for help. “The scale of the attack tells us that this is a matter of grave concern, not just to Liberia but to the global community that is connected to the internet,” he said. The onslaught continued. No one seemed to know why, but there was speculation that the hack was a test run for something bigger, perhaps even an act of war.

Then, on Nov. 27, Deutsche Telekom AG in Germany started getting tens of thousands of calls from its customers angry that their internet service was down. At a water treatment plant in Cologne, workers noticed the computer system was offline and had to send a technician to check each pump by hand. Deutsche Telekom discovered that a gigantic botnet, the same one targeting Liberia, was affecting its routers. The company devised and circulated a software fix within days, but the boldness and scale of the incident convinced at least one security researcher that Russia or China was to blame.

When the botnet took down the websites of two British banks, the U.K. National Crime Agency got involved, as did Germany’s BKA, with support from the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation. German police identified a username, which led to an email address, which led to a Skype account, which led to a Facebook page, which belonged to one Daniel Kaye, a lanky, pale, 29-year-old British citizen who’d been raised in Israel and described himself as a freelance security researcher. 
When Kaye checked in for a flight to Cyprus at London’s Luton Airport on the morning of Feb. 22, 2017, he triggered a silent alarm linked to a European arrest warrant in his name. He was in line at the gate when the cops arrived. “That’s him!” an officer said, and Kaye felt hands grab him roughly under the arms. He was taken to a secure room, where officers searched him and found $10,000 in a neat stack of $100 bills. Afterward they drove him to a nearby police station and locked him up. That was until Kaye, a severe diabetic, began nodding in and out of consciousness, then collapsed in his cell. He was rushed to a nearby hospital, where two police officers stood guard outside his room just in case their prisoner managed to overcome his hypoglycemic coma and escape. 
But Kaye was no Kremlin spy or criminal mastermind, according to court filings, police reports, and interviews with law enforcement, government officials, Kaye’s associates, and Kaye himself. He was just a mercenary, and a frail one at that.

Kaye gets out of prison this year, and you can bet a whole lot of people will be watching where he goes.  Some will want him contained, some will want him hired, and some may want something far more sinister.  But these are the new rock stars of the decade: the gray hats, hackers who aren't playing good guy or bad guy, but whoever hires them gets their services.  Expect to see a lot more of them this decade.

Another Day In Gunmerica, Con't

The dangerous Second Amendment movement popping up in Virginia is no joke as local officials there are openly calling for armed resistance against anticipated gun safety legislation.

A vigorous and reactionary movement has sprung up throughout Virginia to declare cities and counties “Second Amendment sanctuaries” that will not enforce gun-control laws that the Democratic-controlled General Assembly may pass.

Generating passion, hysteria and even personal threats, the ugly movement has driven throngs of people to show up at boards of supervisors meetings. Their numbers are remarkable — 400, 800, even 2,000 in attendance.

It has prompted Scott H. Jenkins, the sheriff of Culpeper County, to offer to “deputize” thousands of county residents as a ruse to avoid compliance with future gun restrictions. He said he could deputize 5,000 concealed-weapons permit-holders and perhaps 1,000 more. Tazewell County is considering forming a “militia” that would allow residents to skirt new regulations.

By mid-December, 93 cities and counties had passed some kind of resolution opposing new gun-control rules, according to Philip Van Cleave, president of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, an ardent anti-gun-control organization. “It’s really very simple,” he told me. “If it affects any law-abiding person, then we oppose it.”

For years, the Republican legislature has spiked any gun-control legislation despite a slew of mass shootings, such as the 2007 massacre at Virginia Tech and another at a Virginia Beach municipal office building on May 31.

That is about to change. Democrats seized the House of Delegates and the state Senate in November elections. Gov. Ralph Northam (D) has called for tighter rules. Among the possibilities are “red flag” laws that would require a person deemed dangerous to hand over his or her weapons, a ban on some types of assault rifles, mandatory background checks for people buying guns and restrictions such as limiting the number of rounds a magazine can have and devices that allow fast firing, such as bump stocks.

How you know this movement is about forming armed mobs in order to intimidate people with the blessing of local law enforcement and not protecting rights is the fact that this is now happening here in Kentucky, a state with zero chance of passing any new gun regulations.

Adorned in military-pattern camouflage from head to toe, David Johnson stood in front of a packed courthouse in Letcher County this week and proclaimed his support for a local resolution to designate Letcher County a “2nd Amendment Sanctuary.” 
The crowd roared in support as Johnson ended his speech, as it did for every other speaker who warned of a perceived impending threat: the federal and state governments’ incursion on gun rights. 
Letcher County is one of the latest Kentucky counties to pass such a resolution. It joined about half a dozen others, including Harlan, Leslie and Cumberland counties. Dozens of others have meetings or votes scheduled to consider making their counties Second Amendment “sanctuaries.” 
“Tonight, I feel that we the people of Letcher County, and not just Letcher County but the state of Kentucky, and not just the state of Kentucky but of these United States of America, can stand up as law abiding citizens and proclaim that we are constitutional to the bitter end,” Johnson said to the crowd.

And why are armed creeps in camouflage needed to descend upon county courthouses?  Because Kentucky Democrats want to get a red flag law passed that has no chance of making it to Gov. Beshear's desk.

So now, armed mobs are showing up to "remind" politicians of how they should vote.

This is just cosplay idiocy here in Kentucky, but in Virginia I foresee people getting hurt or killed because of these militia mobs.

Besides, if there were a dozen armed black folks carrying near a courthouse, they'd be kettled or shot within 30 minutes.  That's what really pisses me off.

Saturday, January 4, 2020

Conflagration Nation, Con't


Strong winds that have changed direction are hampering efforts by firefighters to contain bushfires in Australia's south-east.

A southerly change with powerful gusts up to 80mph (128km/h) threatened to spread huge fires raging in New South Wales (NSW), officials said.

In the neighbouring state of Victoria, army helicopters have been deployed to evacuate people trapped by the flames.

Since September, fires in Australia have killed at least 23 people.

More than 1,200 homes have been destroyed and millions of hectares of land scorched. Although much attention has centred on worst-hit NSW, every state and territory has been affected.

On Saturday, NSW fire commissioner Shane Fitzsimmons warned of "volatile" conditions to come.

Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison, who has been harshly criticised for his handling of the emergency, has announced the deployment of 3,000 reserve troops to help the fire-fighting effort.

On Saturday he came under fire again for posting an advert on Twitter showing how the government was responding to the crisis, accompanied by an upbeat backing track.

Australia is about the same size as the mainland US.  Imagine wildfires burning on the West Coast, East Coast, Gulf Coast, the Texas border with Mexico, and the northern border with Canada all at the same time and you'll have a pretty good idea of what's going on in Oz right now.

The bigger issue is of course Morrison is a virulent climate-change denier like the rest of Australia's Liberal Party, and when Tasmanian bushfires rocked the state in 2016, a proposal to expand a national air tanker firefighting fleet was scrapped by Morrison's predecessor, Malcolm Turnbull.

The nation's aerial firefighting centre called four years ago for a "national large air-tanker" fleet to confront a growing bushfire threat but was turned down in a federal government ruling that the task was one for the states.

The National Aerial Firefighting Centre, which oversees a fleet of 145 aircraft, warned of hotter and more extended bushfire seasons in a call on governments in May 2016 to establish the major new capability.

The rejected proposal intensifies the debate over the response to bushfires that are spreading across all six states and have destroyed about 1500 homes and burnt more than 5 million hectares.

Prime Minister Scott Morrison will convene the national security committee of federal cabinet in a phone hook-up on Saturday morning to consider the federal response to the crisis, including "options available to us to source other aircraft" to douse fires.

But the government has resisted the idea of a national water-bombing fleet for years in an argument over federal and state responsibilities and funding, raising questions over whether a bigger fleet could have slowed this summer's wildfires.

"Given suitable funding, there is an opportunity to develop, in future years, a sophisticated national large air-tanker capability for Australia," the centre told a Senate inquiry into Tasmanian bushfires.

"Firefighters are likely to face extended, hotter fire seasons in the future, with more days of extreme fire danger. Along with changing demographics and land use pattern, this is likely to increase demand for aerial firefighting resources.

"A shared, national large fixed-wing air-tanker capability is logical and is an attractive strategy."

The Senate inquiry backed the proposal but the government dismissed it in September 2017, saying it would continue its $15 million annual support for the National Aerial Firefighting Centre without expanding the national capability.

Suddenly, Morrison is really interested in funding this proposal now that there's been far more than the cost of funding done in damage this year, and there's zero end in sight to these fires.

But here's the killer.  Australia's wildfires may be the political trigger here for Republicans to use climate change as impetus for their white nationalist takeover, what Jon Katz writes about as the next stage of disaster capitalism: disaster fascism, demonstrated by GOP Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida.

Congressman Gaetz is an obvious candidate to help lead the charge to the armed lifeboats. He represents a district in Florida where climate reality is undeniable. He is also an unabashed xenophobe, who rushed to Trump’s defense—and added to the racist pile-on—when the president called Haiti a “shithole.”

In 2019, Gaetz unveiled a climate change proposal he dubbed the “Green Real Deal.” It was an obvious trolling job, a sort of regulation-killing, tax-cutting parody of Sen. Ed Markey and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal. The resolution was filled with signaling language about “unilateral disarmament,” and the U.S. becoming the “world’s patsy” by taking on polluting industries at home. He focused on military adaptation and expansion into the Arctic.

(In a preview of Republican messaging to come, Gaetz also shifted blame away from the climate-denier-in-chief, Donald Trump. Instead he vaguely he cited “some in our government” as the source of denial and quipped nonsensically that the military does not have “the luxury of an academic debate about climate change”—as if academia is where that debate has been happening. As they did with the Iraq War, we can expect the right to shift blame for their decades of global destruction to liberals, and get much of the media to go along.)

Australia has a lot in common with the United States: a diverse, former British settler colony with a tradition of (white) individualism, corporate capitalism, and mass media owned by Rupert Murdoch, who was born in Melbourne. Its prime minister, Scott Morrison, is also a buffoonish climate denier, whose party’s fossil fuel cronyism is similarly papered over with clumsy appeals to white nationalism. Like Trump, he ran on a promise to bar the door to refugees. In office, he has threatened an authoritarian crackdown on protests and boycotts against companies that injure the environment.

Lurking behind them are deadlier forces. The white Australian who slaughtered 51 people at a mosque in Christchurch, New Zealand, declared himself an “ethno-nationalist eco-fascist,” bent on killing immigrants who he said “colonize other peoples lands.” The gunman who murdered 22 people, mostly Latinos, at an El Paso Walmart in August, framed his massacre in terms of environmental necessity: “The average American isn’t willing to change their lifestyle, even if the changes only cause a slight inconvenience … So the next logical step is to decrease the number of people in America using resources.”

“Ecofascism” is a misnomer. This is old-school fascism
. Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler both feared the exhaustion of resources, and authorized violence in the name of garnering more productive “living space” (spazio vitale in Italian; Lebensraum in German). In Mein Kampf, Hitler claimed that “we have to face the fact that the general standard of living is rising more quickly than even the birth rate,” and that the “right of self-preservation” meant Germans could take the resources they needed by force.

Taking the resources one needs from the unwashed horde remains a staple of right-wing messaging. As the ultimate elite panicker, Tucker Carlson opined in November: “Isn't crowding your country the fastest way to despoil it, to pollute it, to make it a place you wouldn't want to live?

And suddenly it all makes sense, doesn't it?  The xenophobia, Trump's screeches of "No more room!" in America, the projection that Democrats will use climate change as justification for government crackdowns, Stephen Miller's rush to deport as many brown faces as possible, the rage against the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause, all of it.

The "good Christians" are shutting the doors of the American ark.

That's what this always has been about.  Looting the palatial ocean liner before it sinks and heading to the lifeboats, firing into the crowds to keep them away from the ropes.

Australia is where we're heading, and very soon, under a second Trump term.

Impeachment Reached, Con't

As I've been saying for two days now, Trump started a war with Iran to justify the dismissal of impeachment charges against him. This is absolutely coming, and over the next few days I guarantee you that we will have Republican in Congress saying that Democrats allowing any impeachment trial proceedings to happen is directly helping Iranian terrorists to murder Americans.


President Trump’s order to kill an Iranian commander responsible for hundreds of American deaths has scrambled the politics of impeachment, putting Democrats on the defensive in their bid to remove Trump during a possible escalation into war.

Multiple senior congressional Democratic officials predicted that the House in the coming days will transmit to the Senate a pair of charges accusing Trump of abusing his power and obstructing Congress, though Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office says no decision has been made. But some privately worry that the timing will trigger GOP accusations that they’re undercutting the commander in chief during a national security crisis.

After the House impeached Trump on Dec. 18, Pelosi (D-Calif.) opted to hold on to the articles of impeachment over the two-week holiday break, a move aimed at giving Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) more leverage in negotiating with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) over witnesses in a Senate trial. However, McConnell has refused to budge — and now, the articles are likely to be carried across the Rotunda during a tense and potentially dangerous standoff in the Middle East.

Pelosi, however, has signaled that she has no intention of backing down. On Friday morning, just hours after the attack, she emailed impeachment talking points to Democrats, encouraging them to “call on McConnell to commit to a fair trial in the Senate,” then later issued a statement suggesting she would transmit the articles eventually, though the exact timing is unclear.

“Every Senator now faces a choice: to be loyal to the President or the Constitution,” she said.

Republicans, meanwhile, are relishing the optics. In an interview Friday, top Trump ally Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) argued that Democrats were “playing politics” with impeachment while Trump was “taking out a general who has American bloodstains on his hands.” House Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) agreed, declaring that Trump was focused on defending the country amid Democratic “harassment.”
“Clearly for the president, he’s shown that he’s been able to stay focused on the main job, and that’s keeping Americans safe,” Scalise said. “But it seems like Pelosi is just fixed with the obsession of impeachment of the president. . . . She can’t let it go.”

Republicans have planned this out.  Missouri GOP Sen. Josh Hawley tweeted just hours before the assassination of Suleimani that he would introduce a motion to dismiss the impeachment charges outright.  It was laughable kabuki at the time.  Now, the Senate GOP has the cover to dismiss. There was a reason that everyone but Democrats in Congress were informed of the strike before it happened.  In fact, all the evidence points to Trump choosing to start a war with Iran to derail his Senate impeachment trial.

They'll get away with it too.  Our media will return to the heady rah-rah days of 2003 when cable news cheerleaded Bush's way into Iraq after 18 months in Afghanistan, when questioning such a move destroyed careers in politics, journalism, and entertainment. It'll be the same for Iran, and with a war being a ratings bonanza, every piece of propaganda and manipulative "new development" fed to the media by the Trump regime will drown out reality.

Our media isn't up to the task, and neither frankly are the Democrats.  We're in dire trouble here of catastrophe, and it will move quickly.



Climate Of Disaster, Con't

The Trump regime is about to eliminate the need for climate change analysis from environmental impact studies from all future federal infrastructure projects, meaning the effects of massive infrastructure builds on the future literally won't matter to the government anymore.

Federal agencies would no longer have to take climate change into account when they assess the environmental impacts of highways, pipelines and other major infrastructure projects, according to a Trump administration plan that would weaken the nation’s benchmark environmental law.

The proposed changes to the 50-year-old National Environmental Policy Act could sharply reduce obstacles to the Keystone XL oil pipeline and other fossil fuel projects that have been stymied when courts ruled that the Trump administration did not properly consider climate change when analyzing the environmental effects of the projects.

According to one government official who has seen the proposed regulation but was not authorized to speak about it publicly, the administration will also narrow the range of projects that require environmental review. That could make it likely that more projects will sail through the approval process without having to disclose plans to do things like discharge waste, cut trees or increase air pollution.

The new rule would no longer require agencies to consider the “cumulative” consequences of new infrastructure. In recent years courts have interpreted that requirement as a mandate to study the effects of allowing more planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere. It also has meant understanding the impacts of rising sea levels and other results of climate change on a given project.

The act requires the federal government to prepare detailed analyses of projects that could have significant environmental effects, including long-term impacts that courts have said include climate change. Since 1970, when the law was enacted, it has undergone only one major change. That was in 1983, when the White House Council on Environmental Quality limited the use of worst-case scenarios in project reviews.

But the Trump administration has been aggressive in its efforts to roll back environmental regulations. The 50 or so pages of revisions that the Council on Environmental Quality is expected to make public on Wednesday would not amend the act itself. Rather, they would revise the rules that guide the implementation of the law.

Once the proposed rules are filed in the federal register, the public will have 60 days to comment on them, the official said. A final regulation is expected before the presidential election in November.

Dan Schneider, spokesman for the Council on Environmental Quality, said in a statement that the environmental law was overdue for an update. “The Trump administration is focused on improving the environmental review and permitting process while ensuring a safe, healthy, and productive environment for all Americans,” he said.

In other words, climate change impact on all projects and even environmental impact on a lot of projects would happen, and then simply be ignored by the Trump regime.  This will absolutely get tied up in the courts and make it to SCOTUS for sure.

We'll see what happens, but a second Trump term and its resulting SCOTUS picks would almost certainly spell the end of NEPA.

Oh, and severely damage humanity's survival on the planet.  No pressure.

Related Posts with Thumbnails