Ever since we first broke this story on Big Government and Big Journalism, we’ve been cautious in our reporting, making every effort to present the facts of the story in a fair and accurate way. For example, in connection with our original report, we noted that Congressman Weiner claimed his Facebook account was hacked, and we withheld the name and identity of the woman who allegedly received the offending photo from Congressman Weiner’s account.

What we know is that a link to a lewd photo was published from a sitting Congressman’s Twitter account, directed at a female recipient, whom he was “following,” but visible to everyone. Two broad possibilities exist: (1) the Congressman’s Twitter account (and perhaps other accounts) were hacked, or (2) the Congressman or someone with authorized access to his Twitter account sent the photo.

From here, we think the story most immediately goes two places: forensic analysis to determine the veracity of Congressman Weiner’s hacking allegation, which certainly bears criminal implications; and investigation into the veracity of developing reports of young women among the relatively few people Congressman Weiner “followed” on Twitter and who now claim they had direct communications with him.

(more…)

The latest statement from Rep. Anthony Weiner’s spokesman on the Weinergate saga makes a subtle but perhaps important rhetorical shift.

Apparently, Weiner’s office no longer uses the word “hack”; it now refers to the incident, in which a link to a lewd photograph was published on Weiner’s Twitter feed, as a “prank.”

Could that change reflect an attempt to walk back earlier “hacking” accusations?

In a possibly related development, the intended recipient of Weiner’s message (who first spoke on the record to the New York Daily News) has indicated in tweets earlier today: “Expressed my dissatisfaction to NYDN over their implication that I backed the hacking theory,” and “I do not back, nor do I doubt, any hacking theory.”

These statements, plus the fact that there is no indication yet that Weiner has reported the alleged hack to authorities, suggest a new possibility: the offensive tweet may not have been a “hack,” but perhaps an inside job by someone with access to Weiner’s social networking accounts.

It is fairly standard practice in congressional offices and on congressional campaigns for multiple staffers to have access to the politician’s social networking accounts.

I recently had the opportunity to ask North Carolina’s 2nd District Freshman Rep. Renee Ellmers a few questions about the state of affairs in Congress in the wake of the battle between Speaker Boehner, Senate Majority Leader Reid, and President Obama over what to do with the budget for the remainder of the fiscal year. What follows are her responses, and a brief wrap at the close.

The debate over the budget for the remainder of this year was very contentious. There’s been a tremendous amount of pressure; from the media, to the President and the Democrats (including a great deal of rancor within the Republican caucus itself), the Continuing Resolution (H.R. 1473) to fund the Government through September 30 had the attention of the entire country.

Many people have been very critical of Speaker Boehner and the process that got this deal done as well as what it actually contains. A great deal of attention has been paid to this fight by Tea Party folks and many others. A lot of Americans, both left AND right, believe they were “played” by Leadership on both sides of the aisle – sold a bill of goods filled with what we once called “fuzzy math” – and they are not happy. But the vote is done now, the bill has passed, and we’re moving ahead.

Q: In 2010 Americans sent a lot of new faces to Washington to change the direction of the country. Right now, people are feeling they’ve been sold out. Were they?

Congressman Ellmers – The American people are angry and they should be. We had an overwhelming mandate in the 2010 elections to stop the reckless spending, government over reach, and unsustainable debt and since my freshman colleagues and I have come to Washington, we have faced opposition every step of the way from the Administration and leadership in the Senate. Our first vote in office was to repeal Obamacare and since then have continued week after week to send forth powerful legislation to cut billions…and now trillions of dollars in government spending and waste. The problem is we are merely one half of one third of the government and because of this, we have to first block any new spending proposals and then move on to more dramatic initiatives.

Q: What happened, how are you going to handle negotiations differently going forward, and what do we all need to be paying closer attention to?

Congressman Ellmers – The real fight going forward will be the debate over the debt ceiling. While we were able to cut billions from this year’s budget during the continuing resolution an even more important battle looms over the debt ceiling.

Q: Do you think the Leadership fully understands just how strongly the American people feel about jobs, the economy (including the crisis with fuel prices), the need to reduce spending, put an end to Corporate Welfare, the Ethanol scam, unconstitutional lawmaking power in the cabinet departments, endless trillion dollar deficits, and the need for Congress to restore the rule of law?

(more…)

“War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight; nothing he cares about more than his own personal safety; is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better persons than himself.”

– John Stuart Mill

There are 26 million veterans in the United States.  This weekend we honor them and our fallen heroes.  No one appreciates peace more than a veteran.   The crazy “peace” protestors who are the media darlings and who get all the attention for their juvenile antics have no idea either what is peace or how it’s achieved.  It’s not achieved by holding hands with  your enemies and singing Kumbaya in a circle.  Peace is not free, and often comes only with bloodshed.  If you need confirmation, just ask our Founding Fathers.

“When politicians leave this earth, their bodies lie in state, while thousands note their passing, and proclaim that they were great. The papers tell of their life stories, from the time that they were young. But the passing of a Veteran goes unnoticed and unsung. Is the greatest contribution to the welfare of this land, Some jerk who breaks his promise and cons his fellow man? Or the ordinary fellow, who in time of war and strife, Goes off to serve his country and offers up his life?” A. Lawrence Vaincourt

There is no better tribute to our fallen on this Memorial Day than to watch this video of a class of 3rd graders singing this love song.  Get out your hanky.  If you don’t need it while watching, you’re either not an American or you need therapy.

(more…)

Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., May 30, 1884:

Not long ago I heard a young man ask why people still kept up Memorial Day, and it set me thinking of the answer. Not the answer that you and I should give to each other-not the expression of those feelings that, so long as you live, will make this day sacred to memories of love and grief and heroic youth–but an answer which should command the assent of those who do not share our memories, and in which we of the North and our brethren of the South could join in perfect accord.

So far as this last is concerned, to be sure, there is no trouble. The soldiers who were doing their best to kill one another felt less of personal hostility, I am very certain, than some who were not imperilled by their mutual endeavors. I have heard more than one of those who had been gallant and distinguished officers on the Confederate side say that they had had no such feeling. I know that I and those whom I knew best had not. We believed that it was most desirable that the North should win; we believed in the principle that the Union is indissoluable; we, or many of us at least, also believed that the conflict was inevitable, and that slavery had lasted long enough. But we equally believed that those who stood against us held just as sacred conviction that were the opposite of ours, and we respected them as every men with a heart must respect those who give all for their belief. The experience of battle soon taught its lesson even to those who came into the field more bitterly disposed. You could not stand up day after day in those indecisive contests where overwhelming victory was impossible because neither side would run as they ought when beaten, without getting at least something of the same brotherhood for the enemy that the north pole of a magnet has for the south–each working in an opposite sense to the other, but each unable to get along without the other. As it was then , it is now. The soldiers of the war need no explanations; they can join in commemorating a soldier’s death with feelings not different in kind, whether he fell toward them or by their side.

But Memorial Day may and ought to have a meaning also for those who do not share our memories. When men have instinctively agreed to celebrate an anniversary, it will be found that there is some thought of feeling behind it which is too large to be dependent upon associations alone. The Fourth of July, for instance, has still its serious aspect, although we no longer should think of rejoicing like children that we have escaped from an outgrown control, although we have achieved not only our national but our moral independence and know it far too profoundly to make a talk about it, and although an Englishman can join in the celebration without a scruple. For, stripped of the temporary associations which gives rise to it, it is now the moment when by common consent we pause to become conscious of our national life and to rejoice in it, to recall what our country has done for each of us, and to ask ourselves what we can do for the country in return.

So to the indifferent inquirer who asks why Memorial Day is still kept up we may answer, it celebrates and solemnly reaffirms from year to year a national act of enthusiasm and faith. It embodies in the most impressive form our belief that to act with enthusiam and faith is the condition of acting greatly. To fight out a war, you must believe something and want something with all your might. So must you do to carry anything else to an end worth reaching. More than that, you must be willing to commit yourself to a course, perhpas a long and hard one, without being able to foresee exactly where you will come out. All that is required of you is that you should go somewhither as hard as ever you can. The rest belongs to fate. One may fall-at the beginning of the charge or at the top of the earthworks; but in no other way can he reach the rewards of victory.

(more…)

The spin-doctors at the White House are, no doubt, busily patting themselves on the back about how well the President has finessed his “67 border precondition” (yes, he has made it a defacto pre-condition) which he recklessly inserted into the Israeli/Palestinian conundrum during his middle east speech on May 19.

It was, however, a serious and deliberate slap…not a misstep or a fumble, but a serious and intentional slap…and a wake up call.  “Here’s how it’s going to be” he, essentially, told the world a day before his scheduled meeting with Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who had next to no advance notice of the President’s intentions.  Mr. Obama is, if nothing else, a very bright man.  He knew he was sandbagging the Prime Minister by making the 67 borders a starting point.  Even with agreed adjustments, he has robbed the Israelis of their trump card …the amount of territory they were prepared to concede.  As the Washington Post editorialized in a May 20 editorial:

“Now, of all times, the Israeli and U.S. governments ought to be working closely together; they should be trying to defuse the U.N. threat, induce Mr. Abbas to change course, and above all prevent a resumption of violence between Israelis and Palestinians.  Instead, Friday found Mr. Obama and Mr. Netanyahu once again publicly and poisonously at odds with each other, thanks to a handful of lines added by Mr. Obama to his Middle East speech on Thursday.  The President’s decision to publicly endorse terms for a peace settlement seemingly calculated to appeal to Mr. Abbas, over the strong objections of Mr. Netanyahu, has had the effect of distracting attention from the new U.S. agenda for the region.”

True, the president did mention two states, one Israeli and one Palestinian living side by side.  When he spoke at the American-Israeli Political Action Committee (“AIPAC”) conference  he said he had chosen the hard road to peace. So why did he later state that there was really nothing new in his proposal?

Essentially, the president has called for a withdrawal to the 1967 lines with some formulaic border adjustments as a new precondition for talks, which of course, will become incorporated by Mahmoud Abbas into his demands before he comes to the table.  Israel will be expected to agree to the boundaries before the issues of Jerusalem and the so-called right of return have ever been discussed.  And while Mr. Obama referred to Israel as a Jewish state why not say that the adjacent state of Palestine will be the homeland for the Palestinians, many of who have been held by the Arabs in refugee camps for 63 years.

(more…)

Give thanks.

The Daily News has a statement from Gennette Nicole regarding the controversy swirling around an explicit image Tweeted via Rep. Anthony Weiner’s Twitter account.  Mediaite has a fair assessment of where the story stands for now:

It may be too soon to say for sure, but this Memorial Day weekend may go down in the annals of Twitter history as one of the strangest ones imaginable. Rep. Anthony Weiner claimed that his Twitter account had been hacked after an inappropriate photo surfaced that was alleged to have been sent to a college student via the social media platform. There are a slew of legitimate questions, however, that remain. Once answered, they could do irreparable damage to some high profile personalities, particularly if there is more to the story, as there most certainly is.

As for Gennette Nicole’s statement, Big Government and associated Breitbart sites made the decision to redact or withhold Gennette’s name and personal information as it was determined unnecessary for an accurate reporting of the still developing story.

The notion that a verified Twitter account, in this instance, belonging to a member of Congress, can allegedly be hacked and continue to remain verified raises serious questions for Twitter. That an official account of a member of Congress can be hacked has even broader ramifications. Many taxpayers may not think it the laughing matter Rep. Anthony Weiner appeared to think it was, given his own reaction.

Also from Gennette’s statement:

The last 36 hours have been the most confusing, anxiety-ridden hours of my life. I’ve watched in sheer disbelief as my name, age, location, links to any social networking site I’ve ever used, my old phone numbers and pictures have been passed along from stranger to stranger.

When contacted, sources on Capitol Hill raised serious concerns given that such a hacked account could potentially provide access to confidential, if not classified, information, by facilitating access to government servers via an existing Virtual Private Network. The extent of any hack would have to be investigated before any determination in that regard could be made. (more…)

Some Internet news outlets have speculated that a man named Dan Wolfe, who uses the twitter handle @patritousa76, is the Weinergate hacker.  Mr. Wolfe was the first and likely only person to copy the yfrog URL of the now infamous lewd image sent from the @RepWeiner twitter account and then tweet it from his own account.

Earlier this evening, Big Government contributor Lee Stranahan reached out to Mr. Wolfe via twitter; Wolfe went on record denying hacking into Congressman Anthony Weiner’s verified account:

*** (more…)

From The Law, by Frederic Bastiat:

Actually, what is the political struggle that we witness? It is the instinctive struggle of all people toward liberty. And what is this liberty, whose very name makes the heart beat faster and shakes the world? Is it not the union of all liberties — liberty of conscience, of education, of association, of the press, of travel, of labor, of trade? In short, is not liberty the freedom of every person to make full use of his faculties, so long as he does not harm other persons while doing so? Is not liberty the destruction of all despotism — including, of course, legal despotism? Finally, is not liberty the restricting of the law only to its rational sphere of organizing the right of the individual to lawful self- defense; of punishing injustice?

It must be admitted that the tendency of the human race toward liberty is largely thwarted, especially in France. This is greatly due to a fatal desire — learned from the teachings of antiquity — that our writers on public affairs have in common: They desire to set themselves above mankind in order to arrange, organize, and regulate it according to their fancy.

Philanthropic Tyranny

While society is struggling toward liberty, these famous men who put themselves at its head are filled with the spirit of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. They think only of subjecting mankind to the philanthropic tyranny of their own social inventions. Like Rousseau, they desire to force mankind docilely to bear this yoke of the public welfare that they have dreamed up in their own imaginations.

This was especially true in 1789. No sooner was the old regime destroyed than society was subjected to still other artificial arrangements, always starting from the same point: the omnipotence of the law.

Listen to the ideas of a few of the writers and politicians during that period:

SAINT-JUST: “The legislator commands the future. It is for him to will the good of mankind. It is for him to make men what he wills them to be.”

ROBESPIERRE: “The function of government is to direct the physical and moral powers of the nation toward the end for which the commonwealth has come into being.”

BILLAUD-VARENNES: “A people who are to be returned to liberty must be formed anew. A strong force and vigorous action are necessary to destroy old prejudices, to change old customs, to correct depraved affections, to restrict superfluous wants, and to destroy ingrained vices…. Citizens, the inexible austerity of Lycurgus created the firm foundation of the Spartan republic. The weak and trusting character of Solon plunged Athens into slavery. This parallel embraces the whole science of government.”

LE PELLETIER: “Considering the extent of human degradation, I am convinced that it is necessary to effect a total regeneration and, if I may so express myself, of creating a new people.”

The Socialists Want Dictatorship

Again, it is claimed that persons are nothing but raw material. It is not for them to will their own improvement; they are incapable of it. According to Saint- Just, only the legislator is capable of doing this. Persons are merely to be what the legislator wills them to be. According to Robespierre, who copies Rousseau literally, the legislator begins by decreeing the end for which the commonwealth has come into being. Once this is determined, the government has only to direct the physical and moral forces of the nation toward that end. Meanwhile, the inhabitants of the nation are to remain completely passive. And according to the teachings of Billaud- Varennes, the people should have no prejudices, no affections, and no desires except those authorized by the legislator. He even goes so far as to say that the inflexible austerity of one man is the foundation of a republic.

In cases where the alleged evil is so great that ordinary governmental procedures cannot cure it, Mably recommends a dictatorship to promote virtue: “Resort,” he says, “to an extraordinary tribunal with considerable powers for a short time. The imagination of the citizens needs to be struck a hard blow.” This doctrine has not been forgotten. Listen to Robespierre:

“The principle of the republican government is virtue, and the means required to establish virtue is terror. In our country we desire to substitute morality for selfishness, honesty for honor, principles for customs, duties for manners, the empire of reason for the tyranny of fashion, contempt of vice for contempt of poverty, pride for insolence, greatness of soul for vanity, love of glory for love of money, good people for good companions, merit for intrigue, genius for wit, truth for glitter, the charm of happiness for the boredom of pleasure, the greatness of man for the littleness of the great, a generous, strong, happy people for a good-natured, frivolous, degraded people; in short, we desire to substitute all the virtues and miracles of a republic for all the vices and absurdities of a monarchy.”

Dictatorial Arrogance

At what a tremendous height above the rest of mankind does Robespierre here place himself! And note the arrogance with which he speaks. He is not content to pray for a great reawakening of the human spirit. Nor does he expect such a result from a well-ordered government. No, he himself will remake mankind, and by means of terror.

This mass of rotten and contradictory statements is extracted from a discourse by Robespierre in which he aims to explain the principles of morality which ought to guide a revolutionary government. Note that Robespierre’s request for dictatorship is not made merely for the purpose of repelling a foreign invasion or putting down the opposing groups. Rather he wants a dictatorship in order that he may use terror to force upon the country his own principles of morality. He says that this act is only to be a temporary measure preceding a new constitution. But in reality, he desires nothing short of using terror to extinguish from France selfishness, honor, customs, manners, fashion, vanity, love of money, good companionship, intrigue, wit, sensuousness, and poverty. Not until he, Robespierre, shall have accomplished these miracles, as he so rightly calls them, will he permit the law to reign again

On June 28^th and 29^th in Silver Spring, Maryland, cancer patients and their families will gather in protest of the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) effort to ration the late-stage breast cancer drug Avastin.  These patients credit the drug for extending their lives well beyond what was to be expected.

Unfortunately for patients, the FDA has adopted a Marxist position on the issue – not Karl Marx but Groucho Marx.  Groucho Marx once quipped, “who are you going to believe me or your lying eyes?”

Supporters of the FDA’s proposal to limit access to the drug to those who can pay for it out of pocket, argue that since the drug does not affect all patients the same way, the government should save health care costs by moving to deny insurance coverage.  That is the basis of rationing and the basis of ObamaCare.

The FDA and their apologists like oncologist Fred Tucker, who took to the New York Times to defend the agency, argue the law of averages ignoring the reality that some patients respond better than others.  Greg Conko brilliantly responded to their arguments at OpenMarkets.org in an article entitled “The Medium is not the Message.”

Conko retorted:

Technocrats, including Dr. Tucker, have applauded the decision, arguing that Avastin doesn’t work very well, and that it has significant side effects. On the other side are patient advocates and thousands of women who have benefited from the drug, who argue that it’s unfair for the agency to take away an option for patients who are at risk of dying. ”We want to be sure that women who are using Avastin, and for whom it is working, can continue to have access to it,” said Elizabeth Thompson, president of Susan G. Komen for the Cure. The real question ought to be, who gets to decide?

(more…)

Mitt’s not my first choice.

If Perry (c’mon Governor!) doesn’t run, I prefer(ed) Daniels and Christie because they are heroic public employee  union slayers.  And I love Drew’s dream Tea Party ticket of Cain and West to confront Obama’s cheap thinking: Black = Socialist.   That’s a winner, too.

Make no mistake; there are lots and lots and lots of ways to beat Obama.

But the issue at hand is Romney, and far too many who claim the mantle of the Tea Party are not being honest about blue state Republicans. We have to grow up.  Romney can wipe the floor with Obama.

Does ANYONE think that if Mitt were Governor of South Carolina, he’d have overseen the creation of the Massachusetts healthcare law?

Of course not.  Romney did what a Republican in MA had to do to be the Governor of Harvard Intellectuals:  He gave them the most conservative market-driven universal healthcare plan he could.   If Mitt Romney were President, he’d be far more conservative than he was as Governor of Baby Blue Massachusetts.

And folks screaming RINO need to stop.   Now.

(more…)

With the exception of Jonathan Allen and Ben Smith of Politico, who both deserve credit for covering the Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) story we broke here at the Bigs on Friday night, the mainstream media’s silence on this objectively important story has been deafening. And now that 24 hours have passed since the story originally broke, there’s simply no way to blame the MSM’s lack of interest on the holiday weekend.

After all, this isn’t just any story. Regardless of how it all eventually breaks, what we have here is either the story of a high profile, recently married New York Congressman who’s seriously considering a Mayoral run in Manhattan, tweeting his “junk” to a young woman two decades his junior — and lying to the media about it. Or we have a story involving a high-profile Congressman’s Facebook and Twitter account being hacked with pornographic pictures.

So ask yourself: how does the MSM justify all but ignoring something so juicy? And then if you’re still not convinced of the story’s newsworthiness, remind yourself that these events are not unfolding in one of those odd, square-shaped states our journalist-class fly over every once in a while. This is a New York story that involves the trifecta of politics, sex, and a rising political star. Furthermore, the icing on the cake is Bill and Hillary Clinton. Last July, in a ceremony officiated by former President Clinton himself, Rep. Weiner married Hillary’s top aide, Huma Abedin.

Now, please don’t bother to answer any of the above questions. They were rhetorical and answered by the “D” after Rep. Weiner’s name. Naturally, the hacking of a Facebook account connected to one of the best known and most outspoken Democrats in Congress is a bonafide story … unless you’re afraid of where that story might lead. And if you’re interested in what a WeinerGate story looks like when a news outlet is terrified afraid of where it might lead, read this.

(more…)

The question on the table today is whether revolutionary Tea Party sentiments that unseated 25 percent of the Democrats in Congress in 2010 have now vanished into a whimper.

Supporters of the current administration would have us believe that this is the case. And at first glance, it seems they may have a point. If it is the case, then in all likelihood, we have a second term of President Barack Obama to look forward to.

The latest “proof” of the fizzling of the Tea Party is the special election just held in New York’s 26th district in which a Democrat captured a congressional seat held by Republicans since 1970. Yes, the same seat held by legendary Republican tax cutter and reformer Jack Kemp.

The Republican proposal to reform Medicare was a key issue in the campaign, so Democrats are interpreting this as a generic Republican, and Tea Party, repudiation.

A Gallup poll of just a few weeks ago reported that 47 percent now have a negative view of the Tea Party, the highest negative reported since Gallup began tracking the movement.

And, along with this, President Obama’s approval ratings have now pushed again over 50 percent, ten points higher than his unfavorable ratings.

Fox commentator and Tea Party icon Glenn Beck, who attracted hundreds of thousands to the National Mall in Washington last summer with his “Restoring Honor” rally, will soon be packing his bags and leaving Fox.

Is it all over?

(more…)

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor turned the policy temperature down on austerity this week by rolling out a strong economic-growth agenda. Headlined by a 25 percent top tax rate for individuals and business, the Cantor package includes regulatory relief, free trade, and patent protection for entrepreneurs. It’s job creation and the economy, stupid.

Sounds Reaganesque? Well, Eric Cantor has a lot of Reagan blood in him. Back in 1980, while Cantor was still in high school, his father was the Virginia state treasurer of the Ronald Reagan presidential campaign. So the apple never falls far from the tree.

In fact, it looks like Cantor is restoring the supply-side incentive model of economic growth. Forget tax-the-rich class warfare. Throw out wild-eyed government-spending stimulus and dollar-depreciating Fed money-pumping. Make it pay more after tax to work, produce, and invest. Go for a growth spurt, something the economy badly needs. And — my thought — crown such a growth strategy with a stable King Dollar re-linked to gold.

When I interviewed Cantor this week, he made it clear that faster economic growth was crucial to holding down spending, deficits, and debt. As scored by the CBO, every 1 percent of faster growth lowers the budget gap by nearly $3 trillion from lower spending and higher revenues. “Grow the economy,” Cantor said. “It will help us manage-down the deficit and it will help get people back to work.”

This is not to say that spending cuts and structural entitlement reforms aren’t necessary. They are. But it is to argue that lately the GOP has forgotten the growth component that is so essential to spending restraint and deficit reduction.

(more…)

Today marks the commemoration of the fall of Constantinople and the end of the Byzantine Empire in 1453.

There are at least two demonstrably false statements issued to the New York Post on behalf of Representative Anthony Weiner by his spokesperson, Dave Arnold.

Here’s the first [emphasis mine]:

The tech-savvy congressman saw the picture almost immediately. He had been tweeting about a hockey game just a few minutes earlier.

An analysis of Rep. Anthony Weiner’s Twitter timeline has already been done here at Big Government that clearly shows Weiner’s Twitter account had been publicly silent for 3 hrs. and 24 mins. prior to the Tweeting of the inappropriate image. Consequently, there was no Tweet about a hockey game “just a few minutes earlier.”  Therefore, that statement simply isn’t true. 

Rep. Weiner’s spokesman then falsely claims that after removing the image in question, Weiner joked about the incident a mere 15 minutes later. Again, from the Post:

Weiner pulled the shot himself, but not before it had been retweeted and screen-grabbed by several followers. Weiner, a voracious user of Twitter, wrote a humorous response about 15 minutes later.

False. 

(more…)