Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
"Official" story line begins to come apart
Posted by: McQ on Saturday, November 01, 2008

The woman who was ordered to run the check on "Joe the Plumber" contradicts the official story line the Director of the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, Helen Jones-Kelley, has given as the offical reason for the check.

Jones-Kelly has stated her agency "checks people who are "thrust into the public spotlight," amid suggestions they may have come into money, to see if they owe support or are receiving undeserved public assistance."

That just doesn't seem to be the case according to Vanessa Niekamp who is identified as a 'senior manager' with the department:
Niekamp told The Dispatch she is unfamiliar with the practice of checking on the newly famous. "I've never done that before, I don't know of anybody in my office who does that and I don't remember anyone ever doing that," she said today.
Niekamp claims not to have known she was running a check on "Joe the Plumber" until about a week after she had done so.

At that time her boss demanded she write an email "to the agency's chief privacy officer stating she checked the case for child-support purposes."

Sounds like a bit of CYA to me. That email was not found in the documents released to the press on a public-records request. The state did acknowledge one email was withheld although it wouldn't identify it.

Jones-Kelly is now refusing comment due to the fact that there is an ongoing investigation. Jones-Kelly is a registered Democrat and contributor to the Obama campaign. Niekamp is a registered Republican.

Privacy rights, as I've always understood them, are non-partisan in nature.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Privacy rights, as I’ve always understood them, are non-partisan in nature.


That this post follows the one on Obama’s aunt is hilarious. Sometimes I believe that McQ sets out to satirize himself.

Just how did the Times of London (aka Murdoch) find out about her immmigration status?

From the AP:
Information about the deportation case was disclosed and confirmed by two separate sources, one a federal law enforcement official. The information they made available is known to officials in the federal government, but the AP could not establish whether anyone at a political level in the Bush administration or in the McCain campaign had been involved in its release.
Let’s see, not a matter of public record, disclosed by unnamed federal officials. And, according to Murdoch, Homeland Security (ICE) says it cannot comment on any individual person’s residency status per department policy.

There is a word for people who invoke principle only when it benefits their side. Now what is that word?

I guess I will keep checking back to see if the post on Obama’s aunt is updated for a similar complaint about privacy rights.

I won’t hold my breath.

 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
Information about the deportation case was disclosed and confirmed by two separate sources, one a federal law enforcement official. The information they made available is known to officials in the federal government, but the AP could not establish whether anyone at a political level in the Bush administration or in the McCain campaign had been involved in its release.
So what’s your point?

Go after ’em. Prosecute them. I have no problem with that.

The point of that post, however, is apparently Mr. "We are our brother’s keeper" Obama didn’t even know an apparently "favorite aunt" was in the country, much less living in a slum.

I’m sure after your obvious attempt to change the subject here, you won’t have a thing to say about that, will you?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
I expect that the unlawful checking in ohio and everywhere goes on all of the time. The question will be who told the press and/or requested it.
 
Written By: dude1394
URL: http://
Privacy rights, as I’ve always understood them, are non-partisan in nature.
I think this will be progressively less true until we amend the Constitution to ensure it. More of our lives become a matter of "public record" every year, and if you think "I have nothing to hide" you seriously underestimate the creativity of character assassins.

We must work actively to establish that just because your personal data is in a government database, it doesn’t give anyone (member of the public or beaurocrat) the right to publish it. This is such a juicy political weapon that I don’t see those in power relinquishing it without that being inarguably the law of the land.

In any case, we have given up so much of the protection that the Constitution offered us in order to pretend that it included a right to privacy. Emanations and penubmras my *ss, let’s just add a privacy amendment and be done with it!
 
Written By: Skorj
URL: http://
The point of that post, however, is apparently Mr. "We are our brother’s keeper" Obama didn’t even know an apparently "favorite aunt" was in the country, much less living in a slum.

I’m sure after your obvious attempt to change the subject here, you won’t have a thing to say about that, will you?
Of course that was the point you wanted to make. Which is why you quoted the part of the AP article that referred to her confidential immigration status.

As far as Obama not knowing she was here illegally, do you have any information to the contrary? No? I didn’t think so.

Moreover, you misrepresent what the article said.

You said:
Apparently she’s been here 4 years without Obama knowing it:
The article itself says:
Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama said Saturday he didn’t know his aunt was living in the United States illegally
Now, there is a difference between not knowing that someone has been here at all for the last four years, and not knowing their immigration status. Indeed, the article itself says that the campaign was contacted by her two years ago when she called to tell it she was living in Boston.

In short, there is nothing in the AP article that says Obama did not know that she has not been here for the last four years. Nothing in the Times article either.

So your "point" is not backed up the facts. Close read much?

But why let the facts get in the way?
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
the article itself says that the campaign was contacted by her two years ago when she called to tell it she was living in Boston.
That is NOT what the article stated.

Close read much, MK? Or are you purposely misrepresenting the article?
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
Close read much, MK? Or are you purposely misrepresenting the article?
The Obama campaign said it didn’t know she was "living here illegally." Which of course means it knew she was living here, just not illegally - in Boston, where she said she "was." If it didn’t know she was living here it all, it would make no sense to phrase the statement that way. The campaign would have simply said it did know she was "living here at all."

Nice try. Funny how wingnuts criticize others for "missing the point" - but then happily avoid it themselves.

You, like McQ, seem incapable of acknowledging there is nothing in the article to suggest that the campaign is saying that Obama did not know she was here at all.

That’s the "point," right McQ?

 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
You, like McQ, seem incapable of acknowledging there is nothing in the article to suggest that the campaign is saying that Obama did not know she was here at all.
Which, of course, would make Obama look better, her living in a slum and all, wouldn’t it, MK?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
The woman who was ordered to run the check on "Joe the Plumber" contradicts the official story line the Director of the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, Helen Jones-Kelley, has given as the offical reason for the check.
Nothing will happen to the person who did this.

But we can trust the gov. to manage our healthcare records for us!
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
"there is nothing in the AP article that says Obama did not know that she has not been here for the last four years."

Did he know she was also living at the taxpayers’ expense?
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Which of course means it knew she was living here
1) You added the "living" part to the quote about her informing Obama she was "in" Boston.

2) However, if you want to argue that Obama "knew" that she was in fact living in America, then you are just adding to Obama’s problem.

2a) Does any reasonable person really think that she would not have asked Obama, a US Senator, to help her navigate through the paperwork necessary to achieve asylum?
2b) If she didn’t, then how would the phone call have gone when she informed him that she was "in" Boston? If she told him that she was living in Boston (as MK is assuming), wouldn’t Obama have asked her a few questions about that? "Hey, that’s great! What made you decide to move permanently from Kenya?" Did she lie to him about the immigration violation?

2c) If Obama knew she was "living" in Boston, why wouldn’t he have ever stopped in on her during his many campaign stops? Is it because he knew she was illegal? Or is it because he didn’t know she was actually living in Boston rather than visiting two years ago?

Clearly, it is better for Obama if he didn’t know she was actually living in the US, which is why he won’t specifically state it (because he DID know and he doesn’t want to make an obvious lie). He leaves it up to MK to decipher the meaning while maintaining enough ambiguity to allow McQ to claim the opposite.

Classic Obama.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
Oh, and mkultura also conveniently omits the fact that her immigration status is a matter of public record, since a judgment was rendered against her in open court. That makes her an "absconder". And, of course, Obama certainly should have known she was giving money illegally.... if he hadn’t deliberately disabled all verification checks on his donation site.

Copperheads: lying comes so naturally.
 
Written By: SDN
URL: http://
1
) You added the "living" part to the quote about her informing Obama she was "in" Boston
False. That is a lie. It’s demonstrable.

Go back and look at what I said. I did not not quote anyone on that point. Quoting is quoting, and you know what it means. I never quoted any article that said she was "living" anywhere. I simply drew an obvious conclusion from the article.

You are a liar.

For the last time, McQ said Obama (or his campaign0) said that he did not know that this woman was in the United States for the last four years. He not only did McQ assert that point, he made it more than once. McQ plainly said that. And that was false.

Hey. McQ, tell us why that is not false. C’mon

Another typical wingnut smear job.

Man up, McQ, and admit you were flatly wrong about your "point."





 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
He didn’t know she was here illegally. He apparently didn’t know she planned to stay. She apparently never asked for any help or advice or anything in order to become a citizen. And now that he does know what he was not aware of before... he says that of course, all appropriate laws should be followed. Whatever the heck that means.

I’m not sure what difference there is between not knowing she was *there* and knowing she was there but not knowing a blessed thing about her life.
 
Written By: Synova
URL: http://synova.blogspot.com
Here is what MK wrote:
the article itself says that the campaign was contacted by her two years ago when she called to tell it she was living in Boston.
Here is what the article said:
The campaign said he last heard from her about two years ago when she called saying she was in Boston, but he did not see her there.
So in fact the article does NOT "say" that she called and said she was "living" in Boston.

MK is a proven liar.

(And an idiot, but we already knew that.)
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
MK is a proven liar.
Hilarious.

 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
Actually, MK, it’s not hilarious. It’s sad and pathetic. Your words are right there for the world to see.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
Actually, MK, it’s not hilarious. It’s sad and pathetic. Your words are right there for the world to see.
My original point was the McQ was mistaken when he claimed that Obama had gone on the record claiming that he had not known that his aunt was in the Untied States since 2004. Mistaken is the wrong word. I believe he lied.

You are sad and pathetic JWG for defending a liar.

McQ will not or cannot admit he lied. All else is noise. And his defenders.

Good night.
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
MK is merely putting up a smokescreen for the hideous action taken against "Joe the Plumber", an average guy who had the temerity to ask an honest question of a presidential candidate.

MK’s typical game is tu quoque.

You would all do well to ignore him. The fact that he’s dumping all over this thread with stuff from another thread is because he has no defense.

 
Written By: steverino
URL: http://
Well, the story is about this,
"The woman who was ordered to run the check on "Joe the Plumber" contradicts the official story line the Director of the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, Helen Jones-Kelley, has given as the official reason for the check."
Mk, there is a post about the story you want. Why don’t you post it there? Otherwise you come off as a reject from the short bus.
McQ will not or cannot admit he lied. All else is noise. And his defenders.
McQ doesn’t need defenders in a battle of wits with an unarmed girl like you.
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
That this post follows the one on Obama’s aunt is hilarious. Sometimes I believe that McQ sets out to satirize himself.

Just how did the Times of London (aka Murdoch) find out about her immmigration status?
MK, after all these years your reading comprehension still sucks. Nowhere in the AP article (which is the only story I am aware of on this issue and which is the story to which McQ linked) does it say that the immigration status or the immigration court’s ruling on Obama’s aunt’s asylum request was not public information. I am not an immigration attorney but I have filed multiple requests to seal records in federal and state court and it is very difficult to have court proceedings sealed (with the possible exception of certain proceedings in family court).

This fact sheet describes the asylum process and it doesn’t say whether or not the EOIR court’s ruling on asylum applications would be sealed or otherwise not available to the public. My understanding is that the asylum application is confidential, but any ruling by an EOIR court on said application is distinct and I don’t know why the ruling would be non-public given that law enforcement should know about her immigration status. Until there is evidence that auntie’s immigration status wasn’t available to the public, there isn’t anything contradictory or funny about McQ’s post.
 
Written By: jt007
URL: http://
The Democrats are thugs. Who would have thought?
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Hey MK, anyone you know?

Oh wait, I know, Bush made her do it.
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
Hey, MK!

Looks like the "leaker" was - BARACK OBAMA! (Or whoever *coughBillayers* ghostwrote his Autobiography).

There is a word for people who speak before they have all the facts when it benefits their side. Now what is that word?

I guess I will keep checking back to see if we have an "oops" from you.

I won’t hold my breath.

But we all know it.
 
Written By: The Gonzman
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider