Michelle Malkin » Will the privacy champions come to Joe the Plumber’s defense?

Will the privacy champions come to Joe the Plumber’s defense?

By Michelle Malkin • October 25, 2008 11:29 AM

There is something in the water in Ohio.

They’ve got a fraud-friendly Secretary of State, infestations of out-of-state students and Obama workers sabotaging electoral integrity, and now…government employees or accomplices thereof rifling through the records of Joe the Plumber immediately after the last presidential debate.

You’ll remember that a national media uproar ensued after it was discovered that State Department contractors had snooped through Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John McCain’s passports. (Later, it turned out that the CEO of a company whose employee was involved in Passport-gate was a consultant to the Barack Obama campaign.)

Will the privacy champs come to Joe the Plumber’s defense?

The Columbus Dispatch reports:

Public records requested by The Dispatch disclose that information on Wurzelbacher’s driver’s license or his sport-utility vehicle was pulled from the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles database three times shortly after the debate.

Information on Wurzelbacher was accessed by accounts assigned to the office of Ohio Attorney General Nancy H. Rogers, the Cuyahoga County Child Support Enforcement Agency and the Toledo Police Department.

It has not been determined who checked on Wurzelbacher, or why. Direct access to driver’s license and vehicle registration information from BMV computers is restricted to legitimate law enforcement and government business.

The paper characterizes a McCain spokesman as “attemping to portray” the breach as “politically motivated.”

Geez Louise. Is there any other reason such a breach would take place immediately after Wurzelbacher was mentioned in a national presidential debate?

Of course it’s politically motivated. The question is not whether. The question is who.

The attorney general’s office is investigating if the access of Wuzelbacher’s BMV information through the office’s Ohio Law Enforcement Gateway computer system was unauthorized, said spokeswoman Jennifer Brindisi.

“We’re trying to pinpoint where it came from,” she said. The investigation could become “criminal in nature,” she said. Brindisi would not identify the account that pulled the information on Oct. 16.

Records show it was a “test account” assigned to the information technology section of the attorney general’s office, said Department of Public Safety spokesman Thomas Hunter.

Brindisi later said investigators have confirmed that Wurzelbacher’s information was not accessed within the attorney general’s office. She declined to provide details. The office’s test accounts are shared with and used by other law enforcement-related agencies, she said.

On Oct. 17, BMV information on Wurzelbacher was obtained through an account used by the Cuyahoga County Child Support Enforcement Agency in Cleveland, records show.

Mary Denihan, spokeswoman for the county agency, said the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services contacted the agency today and requested an investigation of the access to Wurzelbacher’s information. Cuyahoga County court records do not show any child-support cases involving Wurzelbacher.

The State Highway Patrol, which administers the Law Enforcement Automated Data System in Ohio, asked Toledo police to explain why it pulled BMV information on Wurzelbacher within 48 hours of the debate, Hunter said.

After the State Department passport fiasco, heads rolled. Obama spokesman Bill Burton raged: “Our government’s duty is to protect the private information of the American people, not use it for political purposes.”

Are plumbers who oppose socialism exempt?

Posted in: Joe The Plumber

Printer Friendly

comments (388)

trackbacks (39)

See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

Trackback URL

Comments

« Older Comments

#515726

On October 26th, 2008 at 10:06 pm, happy2behere said:

We the people. People who need people. All of us together everywhere. La La La. Join hands together and sing Kum Ba Ya. Change we can belive in. Hope for tomorrow. Health Care for everyone. Take from me and give to you, you and you.
#515728

On October 26th, 2008 at 10:11 pm, Rob said:

GOD DAMN AMERICA!
GOD DAMN AMERICA!
GOD DAMN AMERICA!
GOD DAMN AMERICA!
GOD DAMN AMERICA!
GOD DAMN AMERICA!
GOD DAMN AMERICA!
GOD DAMN AMERICA!
GOD DAMN AMERICA!
GOD DAMN AMERICA!
GOD DAMN AMERICA!
GOD DAMN AMERICA!

WHERE THE HELL ARE THE COMMERCIALS???

Doesn’t McAmnesty WANT to win???

THE CHICKENS HAVE COME HOME TO ROOST!

Come on!!!!!
#515737

On October 26th, 2008 at 10:48 pm, Edouard said:

#376 powerpro …

That video is HOTTER THAN HELL!

That thing needs to go viral

Obama discussing continually not WHETHER to redistribute wealth, but HOW to do it!

Also check out Obama’s view of how the Supreme Court should function! He says the Warren Court wasn’t that radical because it “didn’t break down the fundamental constraints of the Constitution as laid down by the Founding Fathers” (!)

This guy seriously has a yen to remake America in his own socialist image! Spread this video to all corners of redstate America!
#515742

On October 26th, 2008 at 11:10 pm, ITookTheRedPill said:

Alert Joe the Plumber!

Obama Discussed Redistribution of Wealth on February 27, 2001:

Obama Bombshell Audio Uncovered.
He wants to Radically Reinterpret the Constitution to Redistribute Wealth!!
In a 2001 Chicago Public Radio Interview
Obama is discussing the best way to bring about a Redistribution of Wealth!!!
This Video Exposes the radical underneath the rhetoric!!!

Some excerpts of Barack Obama’s comments (emphasis mine):

If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossed peoples. So that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I would be OK.

But the Supreme court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.

And to that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it has been interpreted…that generally the Constitution as a charter of negative liberties says what the states can’t do to you or what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.

And that hasn’t shifted. And one of the I think the tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and the activities on the ground that are able to put together the coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change. And in some ways we still suffer from that.

He goes on to explain, in a response to a caller’s question, how redistibution of wealth is better accomplished through the legislative branch than the judicial branch. In Barack’s mind, there is no question that redistribution of wealth is what must be done, even if it means changing or reinterpreting the Constitution! It’s not a question of if it should be done, but rather how best to do it!

The YouTube video is a 4:17 edit of the original 52:59 program found on this page.
#515744

On October 26th, 2008 at 11:11 pm, ITookTheRedPill said:

I just saw powerpro beat me to it. Hopefully my partial transcript is helpful (although I left out the typical Obama “um, uh, um” )
#515745

On October 26th, 2008 at 11:13 pm, powerpro said:

This is the transcript of the 2001 Obama Redistribution of Wealth audio, courtesy Perdogg on the Sean Hannity board (I haven’t proofread it but it looks like it’s an accurate portrayal):

TRANSCRIPT:

MODERATOR: Good morning and welcome to Odyssey on WBEZ Chicago 91.5 FM and we’re joined by Barack Obama who is Illinois State Senator from the 13th district and senior lecturer in the law school at the University of Chicago.

OBAMA: If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples. So that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be okay.

But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent as radical as people tried to characterize the Warren court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren court interpreted it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can’t do to you, it says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasn’t shifted. One of the I think tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change and in some ways we still suffer from that.

MODERATOR: Let’s talk with Karen. Good morning, Karen, you’re on Chicago Public Radio.

KAREN: Hi. The gentleman made the point that the Warren court wasn’t terribly radical with economic changes. My question is, is it too late for that kind of reparative work economically and is that that the appropriate place for reparative economic work to take place – the court – or would it be legislation at this point?

OBAMA: Maybe I’m showing my bias here as a legislator as well as a law professor, but I’m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. The institution just isn’t structured that way.
You just look at very rare examples during the desegregation era the court was willing to for example order changes that cost money to a local school district. The court was very uncomfortable with it. It was very hard to manage, it was hard to figure out. You start getting into all sorts of separation of powers issues in terms of the court monitoring or engaging in a process that essentially is administrative and takes a lot of time.
The court’s just not very good at it and politically it’s very hard to legitimize opinions from the court in that regard. So I think that although you can craft theoretical justifications for it legally. Any three of us sitting here could come up with a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts.

**************

In a nutshell…this discussion is about the best way to bring about economic justice through redistribution of wealth.

Again…this is not about the merits of redistribution…but rather the best way to make it happen.
#515748

On October 26th, 2008 at 11:23 pm, RealImmigrantChick said:

Obama is not even waiting to be elected, and he acts like Hitler, Stalin and LEnin. But of course, we have John McShame on our side. The man is PATHETIC. He had victory in sight and refuses to win because he is sooo anti-conservative, he can’t help but love the democrats and hate and not understand the conservative position. I have to tell you, I think it may be better to have BO as president. If McCain wins, he will face a veto and filabuster proof congress and he is so lame, that he will buckle to every dem pressure, including the supreme court. If BO wins, we will have 2 years of perverse dem socialist rule, and Americans will suffer tremendously, and hopefully wake up. I am so sad this country is turning communist like the hell hole escaped from, and only within the last 20 years. WOW, what a shame.
#515753

On October 26th, 2008 at 11:38 pm, ErinF said:

All this, for asking a simple question to The One.

I would say this is “unbelievable”, however nothing the left does shocks me anymore.

Hopefully, Joe W. can feel some comfort in knowing he is an absolute hero to millions in America.
#515756

On October 26th, 2008 at 11:43 pm, ITookTheRedPill said:

On October 26th, 2008 at 11:23 pm, RealImmigrantChick said:

I have to tell you, I think it may be better to have BO as president.

Only if you think the genocide of 25 million+ people is better than a McCain Presidency.
#523164

On October 31st, 2008 at 9:37 am, jbirish said:

Where’s those dirtbag lawyers from the ACLU?
That’s what I thought!