I would certainly hope our personal information is being kept in a very secure location. If that information got hacked, it could be very ugly, in the larger context of a full scale attack on the First Amendment by Obama’s thugs.
Protection devoutly to be wished - but frankly, it took me awhile to decide to FReep because I thought so little of Clinton's respect for the law, and my appreciation of the difficulty of keeping identity information secret. I have no illusions that I cannot be traced, any more than Buckhead could remain anonymous.Someone has said, "Free speech isn't free." Pray for the Robinsons, because they are the ones whose freedom of the press is at issue. With our post submittals we are mere contributors; they actually do the publishing.
Actually the First Amendment, in a way, is used by our opposition to confuse the issue of freedom of the press. Associated Press journalism, which calls itself "the press" and calls its employees "objective journalists," did not exist before the advent of the Associated Press in 1848 - which was enabled by the development of the telegraph and the Morse Code long after the composition and ratification of the First Amendment. Newspapers of the founding era lacked sources which were inaccessible to the general public, and so were usually weeklies rather than dailies since scoops were not crucial to their business.
The Bill of Rights is the first ten amendments to the Constitution, which were agreed to as a condition for the ratification of the Constitution as a whole. They exist as amendments rather than existing in the body of the document, not because the framers of the original document opposed the freedoms they specify but because they feared that the existence of an explicit "bill of rights" would ironically be used to denigrate rights which the "bill of rights" failed to articulate. Justices of the Supreme Court, including "liberal" ones, have recognized this, and understood that the First Amendment is a lower bound and not a limit to our rights to communicate. And that is how Associated Press Journalism, Obama, and the Democratic Party intend to euchre us out of our right to communicate with the public via this web site, and to do likewise to Rush Limbaugh et al and their rights to broadcast their political opinions.
The Constitution including the First Amendment plainly did not, and could not possibly have, include any mandate for the specific development of telegraphy - let alone the telephone, the radio, the TV, the Xerox copier, the computer with printer, cable TV, or the internet. But what the Constitution does explicitly do is to provide for incentive "to promote the progress of science and useful arts," (Article 1 Section 8). There can be no implication that the intention of the framers of the First Amendment intended to limit freedom of political advocacy to in-person speech and ink-on-paper printing - and certainly not to limit freedom of the press to members of an organization, The Associated Press, which did not even exist until two generations after the ratification of the First Amendment. of the framers of the Constitution.
BTTT
Should they try this, they will have one heck of a fight on their hands, especially if the Conservatives line up enough Constitutionally savvy lawyers.
And should Obama not be reelected to a second term, the Left needs to keep the following in mind: What goes around, comes around...and could bite them very hard.
That's why people really need to be careful what they wish for, particularly when you trade freedom for security.