UPDATE: Take two… this time more militant
Cause the kids at U Mass at Amherst might be able to soon…
Here’s the original post.
And here’s NewsBuster’s concerns:
Let me go through these concerns one by one because they have all crossed my mind at one point or another:
1. I am absolutely positive that the screenshot NB is talking about IS from Rubico himself. I make this judgment based off of what Michelle Malkin (and others) have been reporting about what Rubico said on 4chan.com and what appears in the screenshot. You see, Rubico says while looking for an answer to one of the security questions he searched for the term “palin husband eloped” (which is what the search term is in the screenshot) on google and guess what the number two ranking site for that term is? Yup, Classless Alan Colmes: OMG the Palins Eloped! by NewsBusters (its the #1 result for palin eloped). And it seems really unlikely that anybody else other than Rubico would care to be doing the research that is evident in the screenshot i referenced. Also if you go through the other screen shots posted on Gawker you can easily tell which ones are from Rubico and which ones are from the so called “white knight”. All you need to do is look at the URL in each screen shot, the ones by the “white knight” are not sheilded by a proxy where as all of the Rubico screenshots are sheilded by ctunnel.com’s proxy service.
2. I thought that for a second as evidenced by the first update. However, after some further observation I can now say confidently that he was NOT sheilded by a proxy when viewing the NewsBusters post, he only used the proxy on the yahoo site. There is a simple way to tell, all you have to do is look at the tabs in the screenshot. Unlike the yahoo, which shows the proxy url as the title of the tab, the Newsbusters tab shows the actual title of the story. Therefor he was NOT using a proxy to visit the NewsBusters post. Let me use some pictures to illustrate what I’m talking about:
Here is the close up of Rubico’s screenshot (Click on the pictures for their full size versions):
And here is what the tab looks like when you visit the NewsBusters post through the ctunnel.com proxy Rubico used to hack Palin’s email:
And here is a comparison of Rubico’s non-proxy visit to NewsBusters and my proxied visit (Rubico is on top and my visit is on the bottom):
So as you can see through the pictures… he wasn’t using a proxy to visit NewsBusters. Which means they do have his actual IP address, somewhere.
3. Yea the time zone thing could be a minor problem. I guess it means that NewsBusters would have to check their logs for a visitor from the University of Tennesse, where David Kernell goes to school, at 4:23am EST and Pacific Time which I guess would be 8:23 am EST. But I would assume that’s possible? I don’t understand why it wouldn’t be?
But while I can’t be positive about the time zone for the email in the screenshot I think that we can safely guess that it is EST because, according to a report by Malkin, the original post by the hacker came around 4am EST (4chan.com shows times in EST) on Tuesday. If the email had referred to Pacific Time then the earliest Rubico could’ve posted something would’ve been 8:23 am EST.
4. Well, according to a tech-savvy guest over at Malkin:
“Sarah Palin’s email account was hacked by one person. Not a group.
This person read her emails, then posted the username and password on /b/. This happened at about 4 in the morning on Tuesday.”
Combine that with what Rubico said himself (again via Malkin):
“THIS internet was serious business, yes I was behind a proxy, only one, if this s*** ever got to the FBI I was f*****, I panicked, i still wanted the stuff out there but I didn’t know how to rapids*** all that stuff, so I posted the pass on /b/, and then promptly deleted everything, and unplugged my internet and just sat there in a comatose state”.
Basically what he’s saying in this later post (from Wednesday) is that he almost immediately uploaded the info he had and then deleted everything because he got scared. That would mean that his screenshot must have come from sometime after 4:23 am EST and sometime before 5am EST. But since the visit to the NewsBusters website was for research on the answer to a Yahoo mail security question I would assume that it came sometime before 4:23 am EST and he probably only registered 1 pageview, since he would only have been interested in one piece of information from NewsBusters, where Todd and Sarah Palin met.
After all of this I really think there are several things we can learn about these screenshots. They are, in fact, from Rubico. They show he is on a NewsBusters post while hacking into Palin’s email. They show that he is NOT using a proxy to view the NewsBuster post. They give us a specific time frame that he was on the NewsBusters post. Those things are important because they mean that NewsBusters, most likely, can figure out if David Kernell (or rather someone from the University of Tennessee, who I would assume is David Kernell) was on that specific post durring that specific time frame. Is it evidence that you could use in court? Certainly not, but is it enough to get one step closer to convincing me and put a clearer focus on Kernell? Absolutely.
Also, on a side note, NewsBusters said: “We have the log files at our disposal should the feds come asking for more details. I’m not holding my breath for a request, however, based on the above reasons.”
Now, I still agree that the feds most likely will not be looking into this lead because of how circumstantial it is but I decided that I should submit my original post to the FBI. I figured it couldn’t hurt…
And shortly after I submitted my original post as a tip I got an interesting visitor to that post.
Here is a screenshot of that visit:
Yup… the Department of Justice. And they only looked at that site. And they looked at the full size versions of every picture.
Probably a coincidence…
But still Interesting, isn’t it?
UPDATE: Check out this hilarious tirade from the LA Times… they complain that the conservative blog-o-sphere is jumping to conclusions to fast and without enough evidence. Oh LAT, you’re ironic outrage makes me giggle. (but let’s not disregard their point completely, let’s all keep in mind that there is no hard proof against anyone, yet)(Allah made this point already)
BIG UPDATE: FBI searched David Kernell’s apartment?
So, I guess I’m the first to look really closely at some of those screen shots the hacker, Rubico, posted on the internet. Either that or I should have done a lot more digging before posting this…
Either way it seems that Rubico was looking at one of the biggest conservative blogs out there, NewsBusters. And he was looking at a specific post on NewsBusters none the less…
Seems plain as day to me but you guys can judge for yourselves, keep in mind that the Rubico pictures are most likely screen shots of screen shots since I got them off of Gawker.com who got it from posters on 4chan.com where Rubico posted the pictures. That would most likely account for why they are so blurry compared to my screen shots…
Here is the full screen shot from Rubico (click on the images to see them full size):
UPDATE: I have found a higher quality image of the screen capture that Rubio posted online. Click here to view it full screen.
Here is the same picture zoomed in and cropped:
Now, yes they are blurry but simply looking at the fourth tab made me think that it looked like a tab that was open to an article on NewsBusters. So I went and did a search for the words I could make out which where “Classless Alan Colmes” because that’s what it seemed like and because I remembered there being a recent NewsBusters article on some baseless attacks Alan Colmes had made recently. What did I find? A post called “Classless Alan Colmes: OMG, the Palins Eloped“.
And furthermore, when you open that post in Firefox (like Rubico) with five other tabs open (like Rubico) you get this (I edited out some stuff to be on the safe side):
Here it is upclose:
Now, here’s the two close ups on top of one another (My screen shot is on top and Rubico’s is on the bottom):
So then, why was Rubico on NewsBusters? And more specifically why that article?
Well, if what Malkin has been reporting is true, my best guess is that Rubico, since he said he was looking for dirt on Palin, was looking into Alan Colmes’ claim that the Palins eloped because Sarah was pregnant and not to save money.
Of course, its easy for us rational people to realize that, even if Colmes’ pathetic accusations were true, Sarah Palin probably wasn’t casually discussing the secret reason behind her wedding somewhere in her last 174 emails. But, hey, its also easy for us rational people to realize that hacking into the private email account of an elected official running for vice president is a terrible idea that entails drastic consequences… you know, like jail time.
But besides all of that, the reason I started looking so closely at those screen shots was to hopefully get some clues as to who this hacker was… Well, while it might not seem like it right away, this may help to do that.
How, you might ask? Well, in the screen shot where you can tell that the hacker is looking at NewsBusters there is a clue as to the general time when he was looking at the site. That time would be somewhere around 4:23 am based off of the last email received, which was undoubtedly recieved shortly after the hacker logged in since it is a password change notification. Now, that probably isn’t enough information to pinpoint who the person is.
But when you combine that information with the speculation that David Kernell may have been the one who hacked Palin’s email you can at least prove that theory right or wrong to a certain degree.
All NewsBusters would need to do, assuming they still have the visitor data for that post from two days ago, which is admittedly a big assumption, is check out their visitor logs for around 4:23 am EST and look for a visitor from the University of Tennessee who looked at “Classless Alan Colmes: OMG the Palins Eloped”.
If that visitor exists that would all but prove, for me at least, that it was David Kernell who hacked Sarah Palin’s email.
So what do you say NewsBusters? Will (can) you look for this visit? I would love to hear back from you guys on this one…
UPDATE: After some more thinking and some sleep I’ve refined a couple of things in my theory. After looking over Malkin’s story again I realized that Rubico was probably looking for an answer to one of the security questions in order to change the account’s password. And also Newsbusters may not be able to look for a visit from the University of Tennessee since the hacker used a proxy to visit the yahoo mail site. However, it is very possible that he only used that proxy to visit yahoo and not the other sites opened in the screenshot of his Firefox. So maybe my original theory stands, except that the visitor would have shown up sometime before 4:23 am EST since he was looking for answers to security questions.
Investigation UPDATE: Ongoing…
I think his name is Chevy Chase? I’m not quite sure who he is…
Maybe he was famous before I was born? and not since then…
From the video (included below) it seems maybe he was a comedian? I mean he seems to be trying to make jokes, I think.
Idk… he looks and sounds like hes about 90 years old. Yet I still can’t imagine how he became famous in the first place?
Maybe he was in silent films? Seems to me thats the only way that people could have bared him.
Apparently Oprah Winfrey and Us Weekly (and now MTV) need to do a little more market research and figure out that their audience consists of more that Huffpo readers and Obamatons because today the Drudge Report broke a story which claimed that Oprah is ignoring fans and staff requests to book Republican Vice Presidential pick Sarah Palin.
And according to Oprah’s response Drudge was wrong. You see, Oprah didn’t block Palin from coming on the show… as Oprah tells it, she never even considered it. Way to tamp down the controversy, people were upset that you didn’t want to book Palin so you tell them “don’t worry, its not that I don’t want to book her, its that I never even considered booking her”.
Although, just judging from the statement Oprah released, it seems that she must have considered booking her since she explains why she isn’t going to book her…
And whats that explanation?
P.s. Will Oprah follow in Us Weekly’s footprints and start begging people not to be mad at them? (The begging continues)(More Us Weekly free give aways… guess they aren’t gonna bother trying to sell them anymore)
UPDATE: Looks like MTV has pulled an “Us Weekly” and gone Palin bashing… the new sport of fancy on the left. Here’s what happened (here’s video of a Geico caveman bashing palin and her family) and here’s the reaction.
UPDATE: Us Weekly manages to out “Us Weekly” themselves…
SHOCKING UPDATE: Even the nut bags over at the Democratic Underground have experienced Palin Bashing Backlash from pulling an “Us Weekly”… wow
YET ANOTHER UPDATE: Will the “Us Weekly” moments never stop? Here’s a new one from an author who I can only assume was on crack at the time he penned this masterpiece over at salon.com… and of course, the reaction. (more mixed but still exceedingly negative for a site like salon)
WILL THE UPDATES EVER STOP?: Who’s turn is it this time? looks like its Perez Hilton… Here’s the post and the reaction all at once this time. (on a side note… compare the picture of Perez in this Malkin post to the cartoon of Perez on his site, then compare both to the picture of Palin)
A REAL BITCH OF AN UPDATE: (sorry for the profanity but wow is it appropriate) The Washington Post and Newsweek have apparently decided to pull a collaborative “Us Weekly” by letting a woman who can only be described as an absolute bitch post this pile of excrement on their shared website. Here’s the reaction which is all too predictable, yet somehow unseen by anyone at either publication. (Hotair plucked this passage so you don’t have to torture yourself and read the entire thing…)
SICK UPDATE: Looks like the Palin bashing has hit the streets…
EVEN FOX NEWS UPDATE: Yup… Even Fox News pulls an US Weekly.
ANYBODY SURPRISED? UPDATE: NBC puts Olbermann on Football Night in America. Olbermann manages to pull an Us Weekly.
INEVITABLE UPDATE: Inevitably some one was gonna make up some idiotic claim that Palin is a racist for some idiotic reason. Here is that Us Weekly moment.
US WEEKLY MOMENT OR NOT, YOU DECIDE UPDATE: Its borderline at least… Newsweek does an extreme close up on Palin with no retouching.
NEWSWEEK USES FASHION IDIOT TO TRY AND BASH PALIN UPDATE: This dolt proves that she isn’t qualified to write about anything beyond Jennifer Lopez’s wedgies.
IN MY OWN BACKYARD UPDATE: Not surprisingly some people in Philly want to stone Sarah Palin…
ROSEANNE IS APPARENTLY STILL ALIVE UPDATE: Oh yea, shes also a nut job who thinks Sarah Palin is trying to incite a race war.
VIEW IDIOTS BEING VIEW IDIOTS UPDATE: They’re still laying it on thick…
ANYBODY WHO GOES TO COLLEGE SURPRISED BY THIS UPDATE: I’m certainly not… Nut job professor let off with a warning after forcing students to write Us Weekly-ish essays.
So, Bradley Jacobs, the senior editor of Us Weekly appeared on Fox News’ American Election HQ at 5:55 today to defend the hit piece they slapped on their increasingly worthless (and I mean by the minute) cover page. And as you may have already guessed, it was atrocious.
But, as the clearly unprepared, stumbling, and bumbling hack, Bradley Jacobs, fumbled his way through the first half of the interview… ok, actually the entire interview… I couldn’t help but be reminded of the scene in “Fun with Dick and Jane” where Jim Carey’s character is taken completely by surprise and gets utterly man-handled (or in this case woman-handled, gosh I’m so clever). I couldn’t help but laugh a little bit… (I can’t say the same of the rest of the content of the interview)
But don’t take my word for it… compare the videos yourself:
UPDATE: Do my eyes deceive me or did Us Weekly wipe (looks like their comments section is back up and running now… simple glitch or something more?) their site clean of the 5600 (looks like there’s almost 6000 comments now) negative comments they received on their hit piece? (here’s a cached version of the page so you can get an idea of the comments, you know… in case the comments section suddenly goes down again)
UPDATE: MASSIVE backlash directed towards Us Weekly…
I just rewound my Tivo after I was surprised at how little time they dedicated to trying to establish Barack Obama’s experience in his introduction video. And I’m not kidding on this… it was less than one minute, and that includes when they were talking about his “community organizer” and state senate days. According to my rough count they spent about 20-30 seconds (my exact count was 20 but I’ll throw in a buffer) on his national political experience.
And even more odd than the lack of time spent on his national experience, because lets face it there just isn’t much, was how they choose to highlight his time in the US Senate.
After quickly mentioning that fought for “energy independence”, “Nuclear Proliferation”, and “Ethics Reform” the video cuts to US Senator Claire McCaskill saying “I watched him stand in the middle where alot of the senior members of the Senate were saying “hey, go away and leave us alone”, he wouldn’t”.
I guess that was intended to make him sound determined… but it doesn’t give any context. I mean why were they telling him to go away? What were the senior Senators talking about? Why did Obama want to talk to them so badly? Honestly, without an explanation it just makes Obama sound annoying (or determined depending on your perspective I guess).
In stark contrast to the time allotted to talk about Obama’s experience about 5 minutes were dedicated to talking about his childhood…
Things can’t be good for your party when the 10 minute video introducing your candidate at his acceptance speech only spends 20 seconds talking about his experience in national politics…
UPDATE: Best line of the night for me was when Obama claimed that he wasn’t a celebrity… while delivering a speech to 85,000 adoring fans… in a converted football stadium… in front of a set that looks like a temple… with a massive fireworks display at the conclusion
UPDATE: Nomination acceptance speech or Super Bowl half time show? You Decide…
Added to her long line of falsehoods and mistruths (exactly like… um.. all politicians) is a fresh fabrication she made to Brokaw on meet the press. In a if-it-wasn’t-disturbing-it’d-be-funny kind of way she claimed that, on the issue of the Catholic Church’s position on abortion, “I have studied [it] for a long time”.
And what did the apparent expert on Catholic history and doctrine conclude about the issue of abortion?
Well when Brokaw reminded her that “The Catholic Church at the moment feels very strongly that it (life) begins at the point of conception”
She retorted him with her expert opinion that “I understand. And this is like maybe 50 years or something like that. So again, over the history of the church, this is an issue of controversy”
Now her comment of “and this is like maybe” might tip you off that she didn’t quite know what she was talking about but in case you weren’t sure here’s some helpful evidence that shes just flat out lying…
From the first written catechism of the christian church circa 70 AD: “You shall not procure [an] abortion, nor destroy a newborn child”
Then there’s what Saint Hippolytus said in 228 AD: “Women who were reputed to be believers began to take drugs to render themselves sterile, and to bind themselves tightly so as to expel what was being conceived, since they would not, on account of relatives and excess wealth, want to have a child by a slave or by any insignificant person. See, then, into what great impiety that lawless one has proceeded, by teaching adultery and murder at the same time!”
And then there’s the case of Tertullian, who is known as the founder of the Latin Church, who wrote this in198 AD: “In our case, murder being once for all forbidden, we may not destroy even the fœtus in the womb, while as yet the human being derives blood from other parts of the body for its sustenance. To hinder a birth is merely a speedier man-killing; nor does it matter whether you take away a life that is born, or destroy one that is coming to the birth. That is a man which is going to be one; you have the fruit already in its seed”
Now, of course, Nancy didn’t cite these fathers of Catholicism. Instead she cited another famous father who wrestled with “ensoulation” (not abortion, he thought it was always wrong). That famous father was Augustine and Pelosi tried to use his genuine and honest working through of the question of “ensoulation” to try and claim that her pro-abortion positions are acceptable to the Catholic church.
However, not only are her pro-abortion positions unacceptable to the Catholic church but they would have most assuredly been unacceptable to Augustine himself because he believed that “To deny that the young who are cut out limb by limb from the womb, lest if they were left there dead the mother should die too, have never been alive, seems too audacious”.
I think the best description of Augustine’s beliefs comes from The New Dictionary of Theology which states: “Augustine, while condemning abortion, wrestled with the question of ensoulment (at forty-six days for Augustine) and the formed and unformed fetus, concluding that there was no solution to this, but that the killing of either was to be condemned”
So this much is blatantly clear, the Catholic church isn’t now and never has waffled on its position regarding abortion. The Catholic church is and always was Pro-Life, not just over the past 50 years. This conclusion is supported by Archbishop Donald Wuerl who said “The current teaching of the Catholic Church on human life and abortion is the same teaching as it was 2,000 years ago”. (and no, I’m not Catholic but you don’t have to be just to know their consistent position on abortion)
But don’t worry Nancy, you’re not the only high profile Democrat to flat out lie about the history of the Catholic church’s position on abortion over the centuries. That’s right the new vice presidential candidate Joe Biden has a history of misrepresenting the history of his church in order to make it seem like his pro-abortion stances and his faith don’t really conflict.
In a 2006 interview he stated “That debate in our church has not morphed, but changed over a thousand years. It always is viewed by the church as something that is wrong, but there’s been gradations of whether it was wrong. You know, from venial or mortal sin, as we Catholics say, and versions of it”
Now naturally both of these remarks have pissed off many Catholic leaders and politicians. So much so that Biden has even been warned to stay away from communion by the Archbishop of Denver. I find these responses to be appropriate and overdue from the pro-life community.
I would urge the same kind of reactions from other prominent church and pro-life leaders. We, as a community, need to regrow a pair and start denying certain privileges from those who support actions that are so completely contrary to all that is good and decent on God’s creation… you know, like murdering your own children before they even have a chance to be born.
UPDATE: This isn’t exactly what I had in mind when I called for new action but atleast they are making a statement…
Looks like the Democrats don’t mind throwing racial slurs at each other…
I mean we all know they don’t mind tossing extremely serious accusations of racism at the other side without a single example or shred of evidence but thrashing each other that’s new!
No its not. (I could go on and on)
UPDATE: Union leaders calling their own white members racist just because they don’t support Obama…