DICK Durbin Not Sure If Bloggers Deserve Constitutional Protection

DICK Durbin Not Sure If Bloggers Deserve Constitutional Protection

On the May 26 broadcast of the Sunday show, Durbin told host Chris Wallace that he wasn't sure if bloggers or "someone who is Tweeting" should be given protections under a media shield law.

DICK "guards at Gitmo same as Gestapo" Durbin the Turban, doesn't know if bloggers and people using Twitter have the right of free speech? The 1st Amendment is very specific on this issue DICK: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Perhaps DICK should enroll in some remedial reading classes or maybe a basic course in understanding the English language would be in order.

IIRC the old Soviet Union, the USSR, made it illegal to speak out against the ruling class. We all know where that wound up. You think it can't happen here?

It already is.

Really Hacked or Red Herring?

If his account was hacked, it needs to be investigated. If security was breached, Weiner should be the one out front demanding to know who's responsible. The fact that he is not, and is actually being a real weiner about the subject, tells me there's more to this than just a hacked Twitter account.

This could all just be a planned diversion to keep the conservative bloggers occupied while the really dirty deeds go unnoticed. I can almost hear the phone call..."Tony-boy this is Plouffe. We're gonna need you to take a hit over Memorial weekend to keep those damn right-wing bloggers busy. Make it about sex and college girls; they love going after Democrats for that."

If something seems so stupid as to be ridiculous bordering on asinine, then chances are good its something else entirely.

Congressman says #Weinergate cybersecurity investigation vital in order to ‘ensure our national security’

Duh, Ya THINK???

Florida Republican Rep. Cliff Stearns is demanding an investigation into cybersecurity issues raised by #Weinergate, saying it is vital to “ensure our national security.”

Though New York Democratic Rep. Anthony Weiner remains silent on whether or not he’ll be seeking an investigation into his claims that his Twitter and Facebook accounts were hacked, leading to his Twitter account’s posting of a picture of a man’s erect penis underneath gray boxer-briefs, Stearns told The Daily Caller that the imbroglio raises troubling questions that should be looked into by Congress.
“Although this particular incident is a matter for law enforcement, it clearly indicates that hacking is a serious problem and as Chairman it would be appropriate for the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee to examine the issue of cybersecurity to protect our privacy and to ensure our national security,” Stearns said in an email to The Daily Caller.

Stearns is the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, a committee on which Weiner sits.
Neither Weiner nor his spokesman Dave Arnold will say whether or not it is Weiner in the lewd photo, nor will they say if they’re seeking an official FBI or U.S. Capitol police investigation into the alleged hacking.

UPDATE: Weiner responded to Stearns’s call for a cybersecurity investigation by telling Politico he doesn’t “respond to distractions, particularly ones named Cliff Stearns.”

This Story Has So Many Things Wrong On So Many Levels

Oh I wish I were an Oscar-Mayer...sorry, the devil made me do it. I swear. Look, this guy has been a target his entire life. How would YOU like to go through high school with that last name? Ya think he might have had it rough? Crikey, Mate. However, he's bringing all of this on himself by not being direct with the answers.

The only thing missing here is the wagging finger.

Weiner grilled --

If Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) wants to convince us he's the innocent victim of a hacker, he might not be doing the best job. Yesterday during a Capitol Hill press conference, he repeatedly and angrily refused to answer simple yes/no questions such as, "Is that you in that picture?" and "Did you send that picture?" and "Are the police investigating?" Instead, he claimed his previous statements answered those questions already, even though they really didn't. Oh yeah, and he called one guy a rude name for asking.

NY Post: "[Weiner] flashed a tight, uncomfortable smile and avoided eye contact as he tried to deflect point-blank questions from reporters about whether or not he had sent a crotch shot of himself in underwear to a 21-year-old co-ed in Seattle. 'Was it from you or not,' demanded CNN's Capitol Hill producer Ted Barrett.

To which the squirming Weiner replied: 'If I were giving a speech to 45,000 people and someone in the back threw a pie or yelled out an insult, I would not spend the next two hours of my speech responding to that pie or that insult...'

Then in another cringeworthy exchange, the Brooklyn-Queens Democrat unloaded a snarky insult instead of saying why he didn't pass on to Capitol Police his claim that his Twitter account had been hacked -- which would be a federal crime.

'I'm going to have to ask that we follow some rules here. One of them is going to be you ask questions and I'll do the answers. That seem reasonable? . . . You do the questions, I do the answers, and this jackass interrupts me?' a fuming Weiner said of Barrett."

If Rep. Weiner is the victim here, it makes sense that he's angry. It makes less sense that his anger is directed not at the person who allegedly stole his identity, but rather at the people asking him about it. As of this morning, it's unclear whether Rep. Weiner will apologize to Mr. Barrett or just insist that his previous statements covered that.

NY-23 Re-Count May Overturn Election

H/T to an old friend K. Pickett via Twitter

Run-off. Have a head-to-head runoff.

Owens May Have to Be Removed
Northern NY News
Written by Nathan Barker

The election was close enough even on election night that the New York State Board of Elections was unable to present a "clear decision" in the race according to John Conklin, Communications Director for the department. He said that the Board sent a letter to the Clerk of the House of Representatives in Washington indicating that they could not yet determine a winner and could therefore not certify the election until after the recanvas and absentee ballot count. Those final numbers will not be available until at least mid-December.

Daily Kossack Un-endorses Scozzafava

Just got that tidbit off Twitter a few minutes ago.
Moulitsas' plan backfired on the little kossack. SO sad.

Looks like a two-man race in New York 23
By: Michael Barone
Senior Political Analyst
10/29/09 5:52 PM EDT

The special election in the 23rd congressional district of New York increasingly looks like a two-man race, with the woman candidate, Republican nominee Dede Scozzafava, skittering into third place. Yesterday I referenced Mark Blumenthal’s analysis of two polls, both commissioned by supporters of Conservative nominee Doug Hoffman, showing Hoffman ahead of Democratic nominee Bill Owens, with Scozzafava well behind. I agreed with Blumenthal’s conclusion that there was nothing indicating the polls were bogus, though polls in any special election, especially one with three candidates, need to be viewed with caution.

Now comes a third poll which tends to confirm those two, and this one was commissioned not by Hoffman supporters but by the pro-Democratic website Daily Kos; moreover, Kos himself endorsed Scozzafava. This one shows Owens leading Hoffman, but by the statistically insignificant margin of 33%-32%, with only 21% for Scozzafava. Averaging the three polls together, we get Hoffman 33%, Owens 30% and Scozzafava 18%. It sure looks like a two-man race to me. Maybe Scozzafava's husband shouldn't have called the cops on the Weekly Standard's John McCormack when he asked the Republican nominee some civil questions.

SSL Certs, White House and Privacy

Huge H/T to my bud Bigg Bill in PA for sending out the email. Hand salute to SWWBO over at Castle Arrghh for taking the initiative.

This is serious stuff, friends, if its true.

Glen Reynolds had a short post that the White House is looking to harvest personal data from Social Networking Websites like Twitter and Facebook. He doesn’t think that’s as scary as it sounds.
I do.
In fact, I wonder if someone at the White House has already been fiddling around with trying to insert SSL Certificates on unsuspecting users’ computers.
Last week, I made a somewhat disparaging remark about the Obama White House (not at all an unusual thing for me to do). I shut down Twitter, then about an hour
later, reopened it and saw this warning:

You'll have to click this link for the images.

President Bush fulfilled his pledge to U.S.

via Twitter

H/T to Jeff Emanuel.

Regardless of your opinions on whether we should have gone into Iraq or not, one thing is for certain:
We have not been attacked on our soil in the past 7 1/2 years.
Thank You President Bush for keeping us safe.
Thank You Troops for keeping us safe.

Earl Harrison

Guest Columnist

Sunday, January 11, 2009

The main burr under everyone’s saddle is the Iraq War.

In this respect, I challenge you to read the book “Dereliction of Duty” by Lt. Col. Robert “Buzz” Patterson. In this book, the basic planning of 9/11 was fermented in the Clinton administration.

When the 9/11 calamities struck our nation, President Bush pledged to the American people that he would do everything possible through the powers of his office to prevent another occurrence of such calamity from striking our nation again. He also pledged to hunt down the terrorists responsible for 9/11 and destroy them. President Bush had to challenge Congress to give him the “power of office” to check phone calls and other means to detect and apprehend anyone with tendencies toward terrorism.

He had to bang heads of the FBI and CIA to work together and apprehend undesirable people in our effort to prevent terrorist acts.

The world governments knew that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). His army used them on a segment of his nation. Hussein gassed thousands of people. It was common knowledge by many nations that Hussein was in cohorts with the terrorists. He paid homage to the families of the suicide bombers that were killing the Israeli people. He supported training camps for terrorists located in Iraq. Although it was determined that Hussein did not direct the 9/11 terrorist acts.

The United Nations gave a number of directives to Hussein; that he acknowledge having WMDs and dispose of them. Obviously, Hussein ignored all the referendums. The final referendum warned Hussein to comply with the directives or suffer the
consequences. At this point, President Bush implied that the consequences would be an invasion of Iraq to destroy the WMDs and the terrorists. President Bush concluded that it would be better to fight the terrorists on their streets than have to fight them on our streets. Hence, the invasion of Iraq. In addition, he wanted to make sure that the terrorists would not acquire any WMDs and use them in an attack on our nation.

President Bush sought approval and assistance from the United Nations, but they refused, and because of the danger from WMDs to the world, President Bush pledged that we would do it alone. In spite of the protesters, he stayed the course of his commitment.

On the invasion of Iraq, the military determined that Hussein had removed the WMDs from Iraq, but the military found large caches of military equipment designed for gas warfare. This was proof enough of his possession of WMDs.

The Iraq conflict has been prolonged by the invasion of terrorist elements from the neighboring countries. President Bush has permitted the military to conduct the operations. In contrast, civilian Washington micromanaged the Vietnam operation, which proved much more disastrous than Iraq.

I thank President Bush for trying to fulfill his pledge to the United States of America.