The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Neal Rauhauser: FBI Informant?

Posted on | January 13, 2013 | 28 Comments

New information about Neal Rauhauser’s activities has been published recently, and I’m trying to figure out where to begin.

Recall that it was Rauhauser’s involvement in the legal battle between Brett Kimberlin and Aaron Walker that first interested me in that story. Rauhauser’s interest in the 2011 WeinerGate scandal brought him into conflict with SWATting target Mike Stack, who today published links to e-mails between Rauhauser and an online researcher named Kelly Hallissey.

This involves a 50-page PDF document published by a site allied with Anonymous, which has also published several other files related to Rauhauser, including: Phone conversations involving “Project Vigilant” — a government-connected information research operation — and a phone conversation in which Neal admits to being “Carlito2000,” who played a key role in the Barrett Brown meltdown. (Brown, a former spokesman for Anonymous, was arrested in September for a video rant in which he threatened to “destroy” an FBI agent.)

What seems to be clear from the e-mails is that Rauhauser was trying to recruit Hallissey to particpate in one of his schemes. At one point in July — see Page 44 of the PDF document — Rauhauser put Hallissey in touch with an FBI agent. The e-mail shows Neal falsely accusing Brandon Darby of three SWATtings. In a September 16 phone call, Rauhauser tried to direct Hallissey to online chat logs involving Barrett Brown, including the one with Neal as “Carlito2000.”

OK, so what’s going on here? Why has someone within Anonymous started publishing these recorded phone calls and other documents?

We can speculate on motives, but my best guess is that Rauhauser is suspected of being a government snitch, and this evidence is being published by someone who is trying to make Rauhauser “radioactive” — an untouchable, an enemy of Anonymous — so that every hacker will be warned to stay away from Rauhauser.

There is also the clear suggestion that Rauhauser is under federal investigation, so that anyone communicating with him might be under surveillance. Thus, by the logic of Anonymous, hackers connected to Rauhauser are also potential security risks and should be avoided.

How all this fits together, I don’t know yet. but I was intrigued by the publication of an e-mail from January 2012 — a year ago —  in which Rauhauser is asked to meet with two FBI agents. Within two months of that date, the LulzSec raids went down. Hmmm . . .

One final note: Neal is a very convincing liar. In his conversation with Kelly Hallissey, Rauhauser tells outright lies with such apparent sincerity that it sounds like he actually believes what he’s saying. And if you didn’t know the truth, you might be tempted to believe him, too.

Category: Crime, The Kimberlin Files

Rule 5 Sunday: Body Love

Posted on | January 13, 2013 | 11 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho


Not to open the links at the wrong times and places, this is our suggestion.


Fishersville Mike leads off with some NHL-related Carrie Underwood Rule 5,Laughing Conservative goes with Katherine Webb, and Randy’s Roundtable offers Tashia McIntosh. Animal Magnetism is back with Rule 5 Friday and the Saturday Gingermageddon, while First Street Journal this week looks at the women of the Bundeswehr and Reaganite Republican spotlights Miss Universe, a/k/a Miss Rhode Island, a/k/a Olivia Culpo.


EBL says Roll Tide! Also, Fighting Irish cheerleaders (mostly), Katherine Webb, Rule 5 underwater, and Kirsten Dunst turning Japanese.


A View From The Beach has Girls Being Human, Girls Who Love Quarterbacks, Bikini Skiing, an important physics experiment pertaining to Lucy Pinder’s boobs, Midnite Music with Jennifer Paige, an Egyptian Nude Protest, and a Hot Chick Explaining Cold Temperatures.


Soylent Green kicks off the week with A.M. Awesome Alexis Adams, Monday Motivationer Mariela, Orthodox Christmas Greetings, Tuesday Titillation Elisabetta, Humpday Hawt Tierra Lee, Falconsword Fursday 2, Thanks, Tim, Corsetcare: HMO, and Your Morning Monik. Also, Vanessa, the cure for AGW!


El Opinador Compulsivo starts with a hat-tip to Soylent Green for Baltic bombshell Jurgita Valts, then continues with Tess Taylor, Elaine Alden, happy Canadian hockey fans, and some summer breeze.


Proof Positive also took note of Katherine Webb; his vintage babe was Carrie Fisher, while Jennifer Aniston covered the Sex in Advertising beat and this week’s NFL cheerleader is from Green Bay. Dustbury chips in with Zooeypalooza #17, and The Camp of the Saints goes with Brook Little and the Rule 5 News.


The Daley Gator’s Daleybabes this week included Carmen Villalobo, Azealia Banks, Brande Roderick, Katherine Webb, Tina Yuzuki, Meagan Tandy, Yasmine Bleeth, and Nicci Pisarri.


Thanks to everyone for their linkagery! Links for next week’s rule 5 roundup should be in the Rule 5 Wombat mailbox by Saturday, January 19th.

 

 

Category: Rule 5

‘Anonymous’ and Steubenville: Online Lynch Mob Complicates Rape Case

Posted on | January 13, 2013 | 69 Comments

Call it “The Steubenville Horror”: A 16-year-old girl passed out drunk at a party with members of the high school football team in Steubenville, Ohio. She was sexually assaulted and reports quickly circulated online:

By sunrise, though, some people in and around Steubenville had gotten word that the night of fun on Aug. 11 might have taken a grim turn, and that members of the Steubenville High football team might have been involved. Twitter posts, videos and photographs circulated by some who attended the nightlong set of parties suggested that an unconscious girl had been sexually assaulted over several hours while others watched. She may have even been urinated on.
In one photograph posted on Instagram by a Steubenville High football player, the girl, who was from across the Ohio River in Weirton, W.Va., is shown looking unresponsive as two boys carry her by her wrists and ankles. Twitter users wrote the words “rape” and “drunk girl” in their posts.

That’s from a Dec. 17 New York Times news article, which named two Steubenville players — Trent Mays and Ma’lik Richmond — as having been arrested and charged in August. But there were many angles to the story, including (a) the fact that others allegedly witnessed the assault and did nothing to stop it, and (b) the involvement of a blogger:

Alexandria Goddard, a 45-year-old Web analyst who once lived in Steubenville and writes about national crime on a blog, heard about the case early on and rushed to investigate it herself. She told The Cleveland Plain Dealer in September that she did so because she had little faith that the authorities would do a thorough job.

All this was known in mid-December, reported in a nearly 6,000-word article in the New York Times, and you might think this would be enough journalistic scrutiny to ensure that justice would be done in the case. It’s kind of hard to orchestrate a cover-up, or to railroad innocent suspects, once the story’s gotten that kind of attention.

Alas, welcome to the 21st century, where everyone with Internet access can play at being an “investigative journalist,” and every random rumor can be portrayed as a serious accusation which is allegedly being covered up by authorities. This conspiratorial motif and the proliferation of the Amateur Detective mentality online has had consequences in Steubenville, as Michelle Dean of the New Yorker reports:

[The New York Times article] piqued the interest of a cell of the hacktivist collective Anonymous. On Christmas Eve, the cell released what its members called a “partial dox” — a list of names and addresses, mostly — along with a threat of more leaks if the alleged perpetrators (and what Anonymous alleges are the officials protecting them) didn’t apologize to the victim by January 1st. When no apology was forthcoming, they posted the twelve-minute video, which suddenly opened up the case to the attention of clip-hungry cable-news machine. Now, coverage is everywhere.
So, apparently, is a feeling of persecution. Over the weekend, a local resident complained to ABC News that the town had been subjected to a “witch hunt.” The young man in the video had to drop out of school and has reportedly received threats, as has the town’s sheriff. Another young man’s family sued a blogger for defamation, then quickly settled and withdrew the suit without receiving any money or even a retraction. A couple of days ago, the foster father of one of the young men charged appeared on the “Today” show and said, “At the end of the day, we have the best judicial system in the world; you gotta embrace the process and let it work.”

Why do people who never set foot in Steubenville, Ohio, feel the need to involve themselves in this case, targeting people they’ve never met, and exposing these people to harassment? Doesn’t involvement of a “hacktivist collective” in this case bring with it obvious risks?

Even as a digital lynch mob is denouncing law enforcement for allegedly protecting members of the “Big Red” football team, Lee Stranahan reported Thursday that some hackers have published the name and photo of the alleged victim in the Steubenville case.

The involvement of an Anonymous cell in the case drew Stranahan’s attention. Yesterday and today he filed a series of reports at his blog:

This represents a substantial effort to establish the known facts of the case, to clarify details and dispel rumors. And guess what? Trolls claiming affiliation with Anonymous don’t like it:

As I’ve been covering the Steubenville story, I’ve been getting attacked relentlessly on Twitter by the same usual group of no accomplishment Team Kimberlin nobodies and their army of sock puppets. They harass anyone I talk to on Twitter, post vile slander about my family and have tried to get me fired.
Well, of course they are. Team Kimberlin is directly connected to the shenanigans in Steubenville. LocalLeaks — the site that has put out the false facts that Anonymous keeps promoting — has an attorney: Jay Leiderman.

Stranahan explains Leiderman’s association with “Team Kimberlin,” and this raises questions: What is Anonymous trying to accomplish by its digital vigilante act in Steubenville? Who is lurking behind those Guy Fawkes masks and sockpuppet accounts, and what are their real motives? What are we to make of “Occupy Steubenville” and their bizarre claims that the local sheriff is part of a conspiracy?

We don’t know the answers to those questions. But the proximity of Jay Leiderman to this story is certainly very interesting.

UPDATE: Huffington Post reports on the case:

STEUBENVILLE, Ohio — Shortly after Police Chief William McCafferty arrived at the office one day this week, he found an email from someone claiming to be a hacker from Ontario with a tip. Moments later, a warning message popped up, and the chief’s computer was disabled. Within hours, the FBI had the email, and McCafferty’s computer technician was trying to transfer files off the hard drive.
It was another reminder for McCafferty of the attention being paid to his department’s investigation of the alleged rape of a 16-year-old girl at a party last summer by two local football players, both of whom have been charged and are going on trial next month. The chief had already been warned to stop using his home computer for fear of hacking. . . .
The FBI is investigating a Facebook death threat against the family of the local sheriff, who took his office’s website down as a precaution. Last week, a threat made on a student’s Facebook page caused a 90-minute lockdown at the high school and led the district to add unarmed guards to its four buildings.

Hacking the police chief’s computer? Threatening the sheriff’s family? Facebook threats to students? How does this kind of harassment help?

Category: Conspiracy Theories, Crime, Ohio

France Battles Islamists in Mali

Posted on | January 13, 2013 | 18 Comments

American political commentators have shown little interest in the war that France is fighting against an al-Qaeda-linked uprising in Africa:

As a new round of French military raids targeted Islamist rebels in Mali on Sunday, both sides of the battle said they were determined to win.
Sunday’s raids were the latest in a French operation to help the Malian government stop advances by militant Islamist forces. France has sent several hundred troops to join the fight and plans more raids on Monday, French Defense Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian told Radio Europe 1.
“We have to eradicate this terrorism,” he said Sunday.
Islamist rebels in Mali acknowledged Sunday that they had suffered heavy losses in a battle against the country’s military and French troops.
“This is a holy war. The deaths are normal,” said Sanda Ould Boumama, spokesman for the rebel group Ansar Dine, which is linked to al Qaeda.
“Our fighters are prepared to die for our cause,” he told CNN by phone.

More news and background from the BBC:

French warplanes have bombed the town of Gao in eastern Mali, extending their attacks deep into rebel-held territory.
France’s military has been in action against Islamist militants in Mali since Friday, helping government forces recapture the central town of Konna.
A resident in Gao told AFP news agency all Islamist bases in the town had been destroyed and the militants had fled.
Earlier, a presidential official in Paris had described the militants as “well-trained” and “well-armed”.
Islamist groups and secular Tuareg rebels seized northern Mali in April 2011, but the Islamists soon took control of the region’s major towns.
For months, Gao has been in the hands of the Movement for Oneness and Jihad in West Africa (Mujao).

OK, you’re probably asking, “Why France?” Beginning in the 1890s, France held Mali as part of its colonial possessions in West Africa. Mali became an independent country in 1960. This history, and the fact that French is the most common European language in Mali, explains why French troops were sent to fight the Islamist rebels.

Category: France, Islam, Mali, Military, Terrorism

Ed Said Nix Flick: Odd ‘Squad’ Cop Flop, Mugs Thugs With Lame Gang Bang-Bang

Posted on | January 13, 2013 | 20 Comments

Ed Morrisey pans the new movie Gangster Squad as an all-star ripoff:

Contrast this with The Untouchables, which I think is overrated but at least addressed the moral issue of crossing the line between law enforcement and thuggery.  For that matter, skip The Untouchables and watch the infinitely superior L.A. Confidential , which dealt with the same issues in nearly the same time and place — but put the thugs in the right moral position, and managed to get the Cohen story more accurately than this movie did even as a subplot.

L.A. Confidential is one of the few movies of recent years to come close to capturing the film noir feel, and especially the moral tension that Morrissey finds woefully missing in Gangster Squad.

The classic film noir set-up requires a flawed protagonist who finds himself trapped in a situation where right and wrong are not clear, where sinister individuals are trying to deceive him, and he must rely on his wits to survive. Also, there is usually a dame involved in the problem.

The 1947 noir classic Out of the Past (Robert Mitchum, Kirk Douglas, Jane Greer) was successfully re-made in 1984 as Against All Odds (Jeff Bridges, James Woods, Rachel Ward), but it is otherwise difficult to find good recent examples of the genre.

Why was that particular sensibility so distinct to a certain period of time? It’s hard to explain, but notice this: The producers of Gangster Squad, while making a movie set in Hollywood during the same era of the late 1940s — and quite conscious of the visual elements of the noir style — neverthless can’t capture the moral element. Ed Morrissey observes:

This film does nothing but glorify violence, not just as stylish entertainment but also as the answer to crime and social problems.  It’s an almost-unending series of bullet eruptions that numbs much more than it excites. . . .
It’s not appropriate for children of any age, and I’d argue not really appropriate for anyone else, either.

Film noir is never just a shoot-’em-up. The danger of violence — a sense of menace — is very real in film noir, but the movie is not about violence.

 


Category: Ed Morrissey, Movies

New Year, New Awesomeness: Jimmie Is Ready for His Instalanche, Professor

Posted on | January 13, 2013 | 6 Comments

Jimmie Bise Jr. describes improvements to his Sundries Shack blog, including “a new webhost that will give me a lot more bandwidth so that the next time Glenn Reynolds wants to Instalanche me, my blog will withstand the traffic onslaught like Lieutenant Dan strapped to the main mast.”

Two words of advice, Jimmie: Dog sex.

2012 was all about elections and “issues.” 2013 . . . dog sex.

Category: Instapundit, Jimmie Bise Jr.

WaPo’s Cillizza Says Political Party Power Dying for GOP, But What Does it Mean?

Posted on | January 13, 2013 | 32 Comments

Guest Post by Warner Todd Huston

In a recent item at The Fix Blog, Washington Post reporter Chris Cillizza focused on the apparent waning power of the Republican Party among the center right coalition. Cillizza makes some good points, of course, but I do have at least one warning to our side over the points Cillizza makes.

Cillizza’s focus is on the recent departure from the Senate of South Carolina’s Jim DeMint who abruptly left a high profile political career to take the top spot leading the conservative Heritage Foundation.

Cillizza doesn’t mention it, but DeMint wasn’t just any old faceless senator. He had made himself an important voice in conservative circles even going so far as to become a major national player in elections whereby candidates would make a pilgrimage to his offices to seek his endorsement.

So, when DeMint left the power of the Senate behind, it was a big shock to conservatives who had hoped he’d continue to be a major conservative voice inside Washington.

Anyway, Cillizza quotes DeMint as saying that the “election taught conservatives that we can no longer entrust political parties to carry our message.” This, DeMint explained, is why he left politics proper to sign on as head of the Heritage Foundation. He felt he was going to a place where he could do far more for conservatism than he could while wrapped in the straitjacket of elected office.

Cillizza says:

As we wrote at the time, DeMint’s decision to walk away from the Senate–long considered the pinnacle of power and influence in American politics–was, in and of itself, a potent symbol of the broader shift away from traditional political parties and toward outside interest groups.
And, DeMint’s opinion piece represents a broader sentiment within the conservative movement, that its establishment leaders simply lack the ability to point a way out of the political wilderness.

Yes, this rings true. Such as it is.

But why do we conservatives feel this way?

It isn’t because there is any lack of conservative talk in Washington, really. In actuality, an increasing number of Senators and Representatives on the GOP side of the aisle pay fealty to conservatism. It is inarguable that the center right in Congress has grown more rightward over the last 30 years in both rhetoric and often in votes.

But the problem is, Democrats have gone even further to the left than Republicans have gone right. This drags the final outcomes of the political debate too often to the extreme left and too many Republicans feel it is their job to “compromise” and arrive at that vaunted middle ground with the increasingly far left Democrat Party.

It is a myth, of course, that compromise is good merely because agreement was reached. There were compromises for decades upon decades that kept slavery in existence, after all. Principles are principles for a reason and today we have Democrats that care nothing for America, its traditions or its mores and with that Republicans simply should never compromise.

But, with all that said, here is the thing. It is far easier to be a member of Americans for Tax Reform and concern yourselfonly about your one, pet issue: taxes. It is easier to be a member of Americans for Prosperity and worry yourself only over budgetary issues or the occasional other single issue that you work on there. It is easier to be a member of the Heritage Foundation and worry only about advocating strictly for your conservative principles on whatever issue is at hand. It is easier to do all of this than to have to go to Congress and actually work with an enemy that wants to materially damage this country (I’m looking at you Barack Obama) and be forced to record an actual, meaningful vote on issues that affect your constituents–people you are accountable to for those votes.

See what I am saying? It is easier to stand with Heritage, AFP, or ATR and be staunch in your positions than it is to have to get down in the weeds and actually govern.

That is and has always been the biggest problem with the right. It is easy to plant your feet, throw out your hands, and say “here but no farther” than it is to actually do the messy work of governing. Easier to stand outside the system and carp about what should be than to actually take the reins in your hands and do the guiding from the driver’s seat.

So, now we get to my real reason for writing this. Are we excluding ourselves from any possibility of pulling the levers of power by running off to Heritage or AFP, et al and abandoning party politics?

One has to say yes and one also has to keep this in mind going forward.

Now, I won’t try to claim that I am smart enough to determine how to meld the two needs; that of advocating good policy along with getting said policy enacted. But we must not run from elected office and party politics merely because it is so hard to get our ideas enacted in the messy world of Washington D.C.

It would be a self-defeating mistake to think we can win solely by advocacy alone. All the organizations I mentioned above are important and worthy groups (and I have worked with all of them and will do so in the future). But they just can’t get the job done without politicians who agree with their issues and vote their way.

Finally, remember this: if elected officials don’t feel they will get support from a group, they have no reason at all to cater to that group. If all we do is advocate, but we don’t then move to support, we will be talking ourselves blue in the face–or red in the face, as the case may be–and we won’t win a single vote if no politicians are beholden to us for any material, real world support.

(Follow Warner Todd Huston on Twitter)

Category: Republicans

Michael Moore’s Politics of Prejudice

Posted on | January 12, 2013 | 37 Comments

Tonight, surfing around the channels, I happened onto Current TV — the progressive network that environmentally concerned Al Gore just sold to the oil-rich sheikhs of Qatar — and the network was showing Michael Moore’s 2009 documentary, Capitalism: A Love Story.

Watching it, I noticed that Michael Moore wasn’t really trying to explain what caused the mortgage meltdown. No, he was telling his audience who (and what) to blame for the mortgage meltdown.

A preference for blame over understanding is a hallmark of prejudice. There’s not really that much difference in hating “the rich” and hating any other group of people.

Using loaded language about “greed” and labels like “Corporate America” isn’t any less prejudicial than talking about how Mexicans are sneaking over the border to take away American jobs. As a matter of fact, Democrats spent a lot of time the past year talking about “outsourcing” and “shipping jobs overseas,” which is really just another method of xenophobic blame-shifting: The Foreigners! Are Taking! Our Jobs!

Why don’t we recognize the language of the Left as expressions of prejudice? Why is demonization of “the rich” accepted as a substitute for actual understanding of how the economy works?

While we’re asking rhetorical questions, here’s another one: Why are liberals afraid to mention that Michael Moore’s movie sucks?

Capitalism: A Love Story stinks to high heaven. Never mind Moore’s deliberately dumbed-down approach to economics. It’s just a bad movie.

Moore is supposed to be one of the world’s finest documentary makers, but I’ve seen one-hour specials on CNBC that had better production values than Capitalism: A Love Story.

Subtlety? Nuance? No, Michael Moore imagines an audience full of idiots who need to be told what to think, and who must have every point made for them explicitly, then have that point pounded into their dull brains over and over and over again.

Such tired clichés of ignorant left-wing populism! Wall Street is likened to a casino and mortage lenders are compared to Mafia loansharks.

You won’t really learn anything from Capitalism: A Love Story, except that Michael Moore hates rich people and Republicans, but you knew that before the movie ever started, so it’s really just a colossal waste of time. And the same is true of the politics of prejudice of which Moore’s movie is such a typical example: Vote for people who appeal to your ignorant hatred — The Rich! Are Sending! Our Jobs! To China! — and you’ll find that their policies don’t really solve your problems.

What is it that Michael Moore wants? Well, he wants a lot of protests and strikes — the Workers (yea!) against the Rich (boo!) — without much thought as to how this will generate demand, or attract capital investment, or do anything else that will actually lead to . . . well, jobs.

In the end, Michael Moore’s solution boils down to (a) nostalgia for FDR, and (b) resentment about Katrina and New Orleans.

No — really. This is the peroration of his sermonette, and then he does an idiotic stunt, rolling out crime-scene tape around big Wall Street bank office buildings and shouting through a megaphone that he’s there to make a “citizen’s arrest.”

But the real crime is Michael Moore’s lousy movie.

He reportedly got a budget of $20 million from Harvey Weinstein’s production company and, evidently, spent the majority of it on jelly donuts. It sure as hell doesn’t look like a $20 million movie.

Having paid himself handsomely for delivering this craptastic ripoff of a movie — financed by capitalists — Moore wants you to know that “capitalism is evil” and must be eliminated.

A colossal waste of time, like I said.

Category: Economics, Movies
« go back — keep looking »

    About

    This is an area on your website where you can add text. This will serve as an informative location on your website, where you can talk about your site.

    Subscribe to our feed

    Search

    Admin