Posted on 10/29/2008 11:56:25 PM PDT by Chet 99
A state agency has revealed that its checks of computer systems for potential information on "Joe the Plumber" were more extensive than it first acknowledged.
Helen Jones-Kelley, director of the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, disclosed today that computer inquiries on Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher were not restricted to a child-support system.
The agency also checked Wurzelbacher in its computer systems to determine whether he was receiving welfare assistance or owed unemployment compensation taxes, she wrote.
Jones-Kelley made the revelations in a letter to Ohio Senate President Bill M. Harris, R-Ashland, who demanded answers on why state officials checked out Wurzelbacher.
(Excerpt) Read more at dispatch.com ...
That's the sheer, unmitigated hell of it. They've already got the tape. The lazy, lousy, stinking press doesn't have to do any work (they never do, except when it comes to helping 'Rats). They just won't do their jobs of informing the public about what's in it. But, then again, informing the public isn't the modern media's job. Electing 'Rats is.
you forgot "gun-totin' Bible-thumpers"...
Computers and phone records should be seized from anyone involved in this.
We can all hope she's held accountable for her actions, but I'm not holding my breath...
Several comments. First, this shouldn't be treated much differently than an IRS employee satisfying personal curiousity by accessing neighbor's returns. There's no government reason for this. Second, the clerk may experience some discomfort, but her higher ups were defending (and may indeed have asked for) the information. This is what should be investigated and punished.
I wouldn't hold my breath, though, since the ONE is so important. If he gets elected, forget it. If he doesn't the GOP is too screwed up to follow up. ACORN should have been put out of business in 2000 or 2004. Both elections had well advertised vote fraud in Philly and Milwaukee.
>> What she wrote: The results of the searches were not publicly released and remain confidential.
What she means: We didn’t find anything damaging to Joe.
No, no no...what she REALLY means is “We released the information to be printed in the LA Times but they are protecting his interests” /sarc
Because they have no morals, they gave up the Church and Synagogue long ago for evil so why would anybody be surprised that the people who vote to kill babies, steal other peoples money with their vote and not defend this country but sit down and negotiate with terrorist live the way they vote? And half our country thinks that people with no morals should be in leadership positions.
Our founders said when Christianity was gone so would our freedoms found in the Constitution because it takes a moral people to have those freedoms. Looks like they were right.
bttt
BUMP!
I was speaking to an old (blind Obama supporter) last night. She lives in Texas and has read NOTHING about this gigantic invasion into Joe’s privacy, altho she is still ranting about Pres. Bush’s wiretaps of innocent Americans.
These people are deluded.
He needs to sue and sue LOUDLY - maybe he needs to ask the ACLU to take his case, and then make very public their refusal, if they are dumb enough to do so. And their acceptance, if they are dumb enough to do so.
That civil servant needs to be put in jail. I blame Taft for not being on the ball (I think he never really liked being in the public eye) for us being stuck with a worthless governor like Strickland.
At my Agency, such improper use of govt data would get the offender, in a high profile case like this, fired.
Typically, Libs use tactics like that as a matter of course, and about ten times more often than Republicans.
All the hullabaloo over the Patriot Act was an attempt to create sinister Big Brother associations with it that weren’t there, in order to “counter” it with tactics that are supposed to make it look like the Dems are just “protecting themselves”. ‘Tis a farce, but perfected during the Clinton Years. Freud called it “projection”.
One other manifestation of it was Obama’s compulsion to tell you “what they were going to tell you to scare you” about him.(He has a funny name, he doesn’t look like the guys on the currency, etc, etc, barf) Of course no one ever did that or played the race card but him. And THAT particular tactic was given a trial balloon MANY months before Obama was the anointed one in the primaries. Remember Shaheen of Maryland and what he said?
never heard that “broken guns” simile before. It is OUTSTANDING>
CORRECTION: I meant Shaheen (’Billy’) Shaheen of NEW HAMPSHIRE. He was co chair of the Hillary campaign in New Hampshire. He was ‘criticized’ by Hillary for making a statement that Obama’s admitted cocaine use would make him vulnerable to attacks by the GOP. Of course, he pre-empted the attacks himself , for the sake of Hillary, and it backfired. I think he lost his position. But sometimes, as in this instance, the tactics are used WITHIN the party.
Among my circle of friends, “broken guns” has become a sort of “code speak” for a certain type of worker, usually found in government.
Why are these people still on the job. They should have been fired as soon as their crimes were known. We have more of this to look forward to if “The One” gets in.
“WHAT IS ZIS MAN DOING HEEEEERE?”
The agency also checked Wurzelbacher in its computer systems to determine whether he was receiving welfare assistance or owed unemployment compensation taxes, she wrote.
So apparently, those who are in a state's child-support system or are receiving welfare assistance or owe unemployment compensation taxes are not allowed to ask a pol a question when he approaches them while they are outside the house, playing football with the kids on the front lawn. Okee dokee, just wanted to get the rules straight.
So let me get this straight - Jones-Kelley is saying that if someone states publicly that they have the desire and/or financial means to purchase a business the state government apparatus has a DUTY to check confidential data bases to make sure said person is or isn't currently paying child support or receiving public assistance? Can Jones-Kelley list other such inquiries to back this up? Of course not.
Jones-Kelley says the info is still confidential and yet her statement takes the presumptive, "...when a person behind in child support payments or receiving public assistance...", that Joe was indeed one or both. This leads to the question of how she knew Joe was or wasn't involved in both issues, the very status of which she is now using to justify her current actions.
Joe has a tailor-made lawsuit and I hope he pursues it and forces the guilty to testify under oath.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.