Let us construct a hypothetical. Barack Obama has a personal email account apart from his official account. Surely he does. At the very least, he has a campaign email account separate from his Senate account for official business. First does the very existence of other email accounts mean that Obama is trying to evade freedom of information laws? In other words, is a public official allowed to have a private email account for himself and his family? If you answer that a public official is not so allowed, then you belong on Politico.com. That is the position of that evil website.
However, we know that Obama's family has a private email account because a person hacked into that account and made sure emails he found there were distributed on the internet. The person did not stop there. They published private pictures as well, AND the private cell phone numbers of Obama's two children. What do you think of that? I assume you think it is an evil invasion of privacy, and that the person who would distribute this information is an doing an evil thing. If you do not believe that, then you work for Politico.com, or should apply there. Politico.com believes no such thing. Politico.com is an evil website.
Okay. Obama's personal website is invaded and his family privacy raped. But these hacked emails are out on the interent. What is your reaction to punishing the person who did it? If you first reaction is to trash the Federal investigators trying to track down the perpetrator, and you are uninterested in the person who actually committed the federal crime, then you work for Politico.com. Or you should apply there. That is the position of Politico.com. Politico.com is an evil website.
It appears that the person hacking into the Obama family email account is the son of a Republican state representative in Alaska. Are you interested in whether the father had anything to do with the distribution of teh emails, or maybe even participated in the whole thing? No, if you are Politco.com., you are not at all interested in that. You are only interested in whether the emails can be used to HURT Obama. Say that one of the emails was with a Senate Democratic colleague mutually complaining about how unfair the press coverage has been of the Obama campaign, including some actions Obama took in the Senate. A federal crime has been committed, and all you got out of it is some innocuous personal emails (language of the despicable AP in refusing to turn over the emails it had to Federal investigators). If you are Politico.com, what is your reaction? If your reaction is to mock the Federal investigators for asking the AP for any cooperation, then you work for Politico.com or are planning on working there. However, Politico.com was worse. They promoted the Big Lie (Orwell's "1984").
The reaction of Politico.com was to promote the LIE that Obama's personal email account was set up specifically to avoid the Freedom of Information Act for public documents, by conducting state business on the private email account. Now do you have any EVIDENCE, as Politico.com., that the email account was set up for that purpose. Nope. Do you have any EVIDENCE that ANY state business--much less sensitive state business--was conducted by email in the personal account. Nope. All you have is a personal email with another public official not talking about any real state business, and a bunch of personal information and emails. Nevertheless, you go on a TV cable network and state as a FACT that it is "ironic" that Obama set up this email account in order to avoid the freedom of information disclosure of emails that would otherwise have resulted. You appear SMUG that Obama has been punished for trying to do something so underhanded by having the emails "revealed" (federal crime, remember) anyway. If this is your reaction, you work for Politico.com. That is what Politico.com did. Politico.com is an evil website.
The above, of course, is all hypothetical, except it really happened. No. It did not happen to Barack "Wrold" Obama, as I would guess you quickly knew, or figured out. It happened to Sarah Palin.
It was Sarah Palin's personal website that was hacked, in an act constituting a federal crime, by the son of a Democratic Congressman (allegedly--not confirmed as this is being typed). I used the above hypothetical to try to get you to see how indefensible this all is, as I tried to take the emotional reaction to Sarah Palin (irrational on the left) out of it. The hacker did put this personal information out on the internet, including pictures and cell phone numbers, which consisted mainly of what the leftist AP called "innocuous" personal emails. that is what every objective reader of the emails has concluded. Politico.com is exposed as a BIASED reader of the emails, just like Gloria Allred. See the entry on this a day ago in this blog.
This is what the representative of Politico.com said on Fox News this afternoon (speaking AS a representative of Politco.com, and not as merely his personal opinion): "It is ironic that Governor Palin set up this personal email account to avoid the Alaskan freedom of information laws making state business a public record, and now these emails are out there anyway." This was after the same person had dismissed the matter of the person who had committed the crime, and mocked the Federal investigators trying to solve it. I can state absolutely that the person from Politico.com was uninterested in the crime, the outrage of the invasion of privacy, or the solution of the crime. The person was also uninterested as to whether this was, at least in part, a political dirty trick in which the Democratic legislator participated, or encouraged, to some degree.
Thus, the people at Politico.com are LIARS. It is a LIE that there is any evidence that Sarah Palin set up a personal email account to avoid freedom of information laws. To state that as a fact, when it is MADE UP speculation for which no evidence exists, is a LIE. It is even a LIE that Palin "conducted" ANY state business through this personal email account. A passing reference or two to political matters is hardly state business, and only an EVIL website would be more interested in SPECULATING on that than on the federal crime and invasion of privacy involved.
Nope. The people at Politico.com are liars. They are also evil, and deliberately encouraging other people to do whatever it takes to smear Sarah Palin--even if it takes a federal crime and MISREPRESENTING the fruits of than federal crime in order to make up the smear.
These are the same kind of people who will tell you that we need to discuss the "issues" more. Well, as far as I am concerned, this HATE speech by supporters of Obama is a MAJOR issue. Yes, I as specifically saying that this was HATE SPEECH by Politico.com. It was certainly not "discussing the issues". Further, there is no doubt it is leftists supporting Obama. That is why I put the hypothetical at the beginning. You could not even imagine Obama being treated this way by supposed "experts" in the same situation. If Obama is supported by people so willing to MKE UP smears, and for whom the end clearly justifies the means--because of their HATE--then it says something about Obma. It says something not nice, and the Obama campaign itself is beginning to show this hateful, divisive, approach.
Now you may have doubted me when I suggested where this was going in my entry entitled: Sarah Palin: Evil, Evil, Evil, EVil Evil, Evil Leftists" (nope, I did not try to count the "evils" to make sure the number matched). I told you I recognized the "talking points" coming, and i was right (as I almost always am). I TOLD you that I suspected where Politico.com and Gloria Allred were going. They were aiming at MAKING UP the charge that Sarah Palin set up a private email account to avoid the public records law, even though there is NO evidence of that. Politico.com is one EVIL, lying website.
Politico.com may think this has no consequences, because it has more (many more) readeers than this blog. Wrong. First, Politico.com has made a lifelong enemy in me. I have nothing but CONTEMPT for them, and I will show that contempt at any opportunity for the rest of my life. Whoever does read this will be aware of that contempt, and the reasons for it.
Second, I have relatives and friends. I can see Politico.com quaking in its boots. Maybe it should. One of those relatives is my younger daughter, Kyla (the one now starting as a big time New York lawyer) If Sarah Palin (who she sort of likes, even though she is a radical feminist) is eventually elected or becomes President, it will deprive Kyla of her ambition: to become the first female President of the United States. She plans to use that as a stepping stone to become ruler of the world. Tougher opponents than Politic.com have underestimated Kyla. That includes marines. Now Kyla may not do what I tell her. But she pays attention to me. If I were Pollitico.com, I would HOPE she pays no attention to what I am telling her abut them. Otherwise, you are a dead website walking.
Bottom line: I will BOYCOTT Politico.com for the rest of my life, and I recommend everyone else do so. I will not refer to it again in this blog except to criticize it (because I see something from Politico on AOL or elsewhere).
I am tempted to boycott Fox News (long stated by me to be part of the mainstream media problem and not part of the solution). The blonde reporter weakly mentioned that the Politico.com assertion on her program was "disputed" (or words to that effect), and that she had read the emails and they seemed to contain nothing but personal information. Not enough. If you are going to put an outrageous liar on your program (I think it was Martha McCallum, but it could have been Megan Kelly or even another--the blondes at Fox blend together in my mind), you need to CONFRONT evil as it occurs. Just not enough.