The embarassing cyber boobs at the head of the Democratic Party

The following are the facts we know about Russian hacking of the DNC:

1. Russian hackers utilized the well-known technique of spear-phishing, a species of phishing, to obtain the credentials of individuals within the DNC. The Russian hackers then used these credentials to access the email accounts of those individuals.

   Wikipedia describes phishing and spear-phishing as follows:

   Phishing is the attempt to obtain sensitive information such as usernames [and] passwords, ... often for malicious reasons, by disguising as a trustworthy entity in an electronic communication. Phishing is typically carried out by email spoofing or instant messaging, and it often directs users to enter personal information at a fake website whose look and feel are almost identical to the legitimate one. Communications purporting to be from social web sites, auction sites, banks, online payment processors or IT administrators are often used to lure victims. Phishing emails may contain links to websites that are infected with malware. ... Phishing attempts directed at specific individuals or companies have been termed spear phishing. Attackers may gather personal information about their target to increase their probability of success. This technique is, by far, the most successful on the internet today, accounting for 91% of attacks.

   This technique has been well-known for years and cyber security experts have issued detailed warnings against it. For example, Symantec, the cyber security company, issued a white paper in 2012 in which it described the technique of spear-phishing as follows:

   The more traditional technique is to send a “spear-phishing” email, containing an attachment, to the target. That attachment is a document containing an exploit which, when opened, then drops a Trojan onto the target computer. This works if the exploit is embeddable in a document. If not, then an alternative approach is to host the exploit on a Web server and then email the target with a link to that Web server. The link used is quite unique, it is not hosted on a common Web site, so it will only be encountered by the chosen target. When the target clicks on the link, the exploit is triggered and a back door is installed.

2. The DNC knew that phishing attacks were being launched against it and the FBI warned the DNC repeatedly in September and October of 2015 that their computer systems were being subjected to phishing attacks, but the DNC did little about it. As the New York Times reports:
   In September of 2015, a call [from Special Agent Adrian Hawkins of the FBI] was transferred from the main DNC switchboard to the Help Desk [at the DNC; Yared Tamene, a tech support contractor at the DNC] was handed the phone by a Help Desk staff member who stated that the FBI was looking for the person in charge of technology at the DNC. [Yamene] took the call and learned that the FBI thinks the DNC has at least one compromised computer on its network and the FBI wanted to know if the DNC is aware, and, if so, what the DNC is doing about it. ... [Yamene] did say [to Agent Hawkins] that the DNC has, in the past, received phishing attack attempts. ... [W]hen Special Agent Hawkins called repeatedly in October, leaving voice mail messages for Mr. Tamene, urging him to call back, [Yamene] did not return his calls, as [he] had nothing to report.

3. Phishing attacks were also mounted against the RNC, but were thwarted by the RNC's security software. As WSJ reports:
   Russian hackers tried to penetrate the computer networks of the Republican National Committee, using the same techniques that allowed them to infiltrate its Democratic counterpart, according to U.S. officials who have been briefed on the attempted intrusion. But the intruders failed to get past security defenses on the RNC’s computer networks, the officials said. ... Until now, few details had been disclosed about the nature of the targeting of Republican organizations, especially the flagship Republican National Committee, where hackers sent so-called phishing emails last spring to an email address there. Those emails were quarantined by a filter meant to detect spam as well as potentially malicious traffic that may carry viruses or trick recipients into divulging passwords, two officials said. ... RNC officials, concerned they too might have been compromised, called a private computer security firm, which in turn called the FBI and obtained information about what kinds of malicious emails to look for, the person said. Upon inspection, the RNC found that its electronic filters had blocked emails sent to a former employee matching the description they’d been warned about.

We also know that cyber attacks by one nation on another are a fact of modern life. For example, Wikipedia describes how the United States attacked Iran with the Stuxnet virus:

Stuxnet is a malicious computer worm believed to be a jointly built American-Israeli cyberweapon, although no organization or state has officially admitted responsibility. Anonymous US officials speaking to The Washington Post claimed the worm was developed during the Bush administration to sabotage Iran’s nuclear program with what would seem like a long series of unfortunate accidents. Stuxnet specifically targets programmable logic controllers (PLCs), which allow the automation of electromechanical processes such as those used to control machinery on factory assembly lines, amusement rides, or centrifuges for separating nuclear material. Exploiting four zero-day flaws, Stuxnet functions by targeting machines using the Microsoft Windows operating system and networks, then seeking out Siemens Step7 software. Stuxnet reportedly compromised Iranian PLCs, collecting information on industrial systems and causing the fast-spinning centrifuges to tear themselves apart. Stuxnet’s design and architecture are not domain-specific and it could be tailored as a platform for attacking modern SCADA and PLC systems (e.g., in automobile assembly lines[vague] or power plants), the majority of which reside in Europe, Japan and the US. Stuxnet reportedly ruined almost one fifth of Iran's nuclear centrifuges.

It is also a well-known fact that the NSA, on President Obama's watch, tapped the cellphone of German Prime Minister Angela Merkel and many of her ministers.

We may summarize as follows:

The existence of phishing attacks has been well known for years and cyber security experts have published detailed descriptions about how to recognize and thwart these attacks. Security personnel at the DNC knew in September 2015 that phishing attacks had already been launched against the DNC. Those same personnel were warned repeatedly by the FBI itself in September and October 2015 that phishing attacks were being mounted against the DNC. And yet, DNC personnel did not take these attacks and warnings seriously or inform their superiors that they were being subjected to these attacks. As a result, the leaders of the DNC were so naive and uninformed that they were duped by cyber exploits that they should have recognized immediately as obvious phishing attacks. And yet, we are asked to believe that these boobs, these cyber simpletons, basically the same ones who decided to set up an insecure email server in Hillary's basement, should have been elected in November and entrusted with our entire national security apparatus.

Instead of being outraged that cyber attacks were mounted by the Russians against the DNC -- attacks of the kind that every sophisticated government, including our own, mounts every day against other governments -- we should be deeply embarrassed that leaders of the Democratic Party were so naive and unsophisticated that they were fooled by the kind of simple cyber phishing exploit that most teenagers in Silicon Valley have learned to recognize and avoid on a daily basis. Even worse, President Obama's report describing the Russian hacking and his expulsion of Russian diplomats only serve to draw even more embarrassing attention to the cyber laughing-stocks who head up the Democratic Party. Obama doesn't seem to realize that his report only serves to show what buffoons the leaders of the Democratic Party are.

The villains who attempt to influence democratic elections

We have been hearing howls from the Democrats and their allies in the liberal mainstream media about how terrible it is that Russia sought to influence the election in the United States.

And yet, no such howls went up when President Obama's State Department attempted to influence the most recent Israeli election.

If Putin is a villain for attempting to undermine Hillary Clinton, then Barack Obama must likewise be a villain for attempting to undermine Benjamin Netanyahu.

Obama's final foreign policy monstrosity

Obama's decision to have the United States abstain from the vote on the UN resolution condemning Israeli settlements on the West Bank is the most monstrous foreign policy decision an American president has made in decades.

Mr Obama once again acted unilaterally, ignoring the objections of many in the legislative branch, including senators Chuck Schumer and Richard Blumenthal from his own party. He once again ceded American sovereignty in foreign policy to the UN, the first time being when he sought approval from the UN Security Council for the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action with Iran instead of seeking approval for it as a treaty in the US Senate. Mr Obama's action reveals the dangers to the United States of being a member of the UN: by simply abstaining from a vote, a single rogue President, in this case Mr Obama, can bypass the requirement to seek Senate approval for foreign treaties and allow international law to be determined. Finally, Vladimir Putin is ecstatic. The international community now has a new cudgel with which to hammer the Israelis, while at the same time Russian ally Bashar al-Assad has been restored to power and Russia has become the dominant non-Muslim player in the Middle East. Leading from behind, President Obama now weakly condemns the settlements on the West Bank, while having done nothing to stop the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of civilians in Syria, even after drawing his infamous red line.

It is difficult to imagine a more feckless, while at the same time a more dangerous, foreign policy performance from a president than what we have seen from Mr Obama over the last 8 years.

Our anti-Semite-in-Chief is at it again

President Obama ordered the US Ambassador to the United Nations, Samantha Power, to abstain from a UN resolution condemning Israeli settlements on the West Bank, thereby allowing the resolution to pass.

It is difficult to stand by and watch as this man's personal prejudices become American foreign policy. The Left will fall in line without any further reflection because he is "their guy." As a result, the practice of defending Israel, which has been the consistent policy of American presidents of both parties for decades, will be tossed aside and branded as Trumpian extremism. And Jeremiah Wright style anti-Semitism will become a new plank in the platform of the Left, who will cheer attacks on Israel without even realizing that the Pied Piper Obama has led them down the road to anti-Semitism.

And all this is happening a mere couple of weeks after the Left were flinging charges of anti-Semitism at Trump himself and wringing their hands because they were so worried that Trump would destabilize American foreign policy. Now we see that it is rather Obama who is undermining American foreign policy.

Just a couple of weeks ago there was an enormous uproar on the Left because Trump took a call from the President of Taiwan, thereby deviating from a policy that had been followed for decades. Now, the Left will say nothing as our President cavalierly discards one of the most constant and distinctive features of post-WWII American foreign policy.

What other destruction will this petulant lame duck President wreak in the next month out of sour grapes because the Democrats lost the election? It is as if the Democrats are trying to smash as many of the toys as possible on the way out because they will not be allowed to play with them any more.

Why Scott Pruitt to the EPA?

Why did Donald Trump choose Scott Pruitt, the Attorney General of Oklahoma and an expert in constitutional law, to be the next head of the EPA? Perhaps the best answer to this question was given by Laurence Tribe, a professor of constitutional law at Harvard Law School and the Carl M. Loeb University Professor at Harvard University.

According to his biography on the Massey & Gail website:

The New York Times describes Professor Tribe as "arguably the most famous constitutional scholar and Supreme Court practitioner in the country." The Northwestern Law Review has opined that no one else "in American history has . . . simultaneously achieved Tribe's preeminence . . . as a practitioner and . . . scholar of constitutional law."

Professor Tribe has successfully advised leading business corporations, members of Congress, states, and many other clients on constitutional questions, statutory and administrative issues, and complex legal matters of all types. Widely admired and unusually successful as an appellate advocate, he has argued 37 cases in the U.S. Supreme Court - orally argued 35 cases and presented 2 more in which the Court ruled in his clients' favors without argument - and has lost only 13. ... Professor Tribe has written 115 books and articles, including his treatise, "American Constitutional Law," which has been cited more often than any other legal text since 1950. He helped draft the constitutions of South Africa, the Czech Republic, and the Marshall Islands. Professor Tribe is one of only 60 professors in the history of Harvard to be designated "University Professor," the university's highest academic title.

According to Wikipedia:

Among [Professor Tribe's] law students and research assistants while on the faculty at Harvard have been President Barack Obama (a research assistant for two years), Chief Justice John Roberts (as a law student in his classes), US Senator Ted Cruz, Chief Judge and Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland, and Associate Justice Elena Kagan (as a research assistant).

Liberal and Democratic lawyers and legal experts have often mentioned Professor Tribe as a potential Supreme Court nominee by a Democratic president (see here).

Of the constitutionality of the Clean Power Plan promulgated by President Obama's EPA Professor Tribe has written:

I recently filed comments with the Environmental Protection Agency urging the agency to withdraw its Clean Power Plan, a regulatory proposal to reduce carbon emissions from the nation’s electric power plants. In my view, coping with climate change is a vital end, but it does not justify using unconstitutional means. ... After studying the only legal basis offered for the EPA’s proposed rule, I concluded that the agency is asserting executive power far beyond its lawful authority. ... [T]he EPA, like every administrative agency, is constitutionally forbidden to exercise powers Congress never delegated to it in the first place. The brute fact is that the Obama administration failed to get climate legislation through Congress. Yet the EPA is acting as though it has the legislative authority anyway to re-engineer the nation’s electric generating system and power grid. It does not. (emphasis added)

In other words, one of our nation's most respected constitutional law scholars and a potential Democratic nominee to the Supreme Court has concluded categorically that President Obama's Clean Power Plan is unconstitutional. Scott Pruitt was one of the state attorneys general who brought legal action to halt this illegal usurpation of power by the EPA. It would be difficult to imagine a candidate better qualified to rein in the unconstitutional expansion of the powers of the EPA under President Obama than Scott Pruitt.