Could Palin Invasion of Privacy be Obama's Watergate?

Privacy in America is guaranteed by the Constitution and an invasion of privacy is a criminal violation with dire consequences which is why it seems odd how little the Obama campaign has had to say about the illegal hacking into Sarah Palin's private email, the posting of the stolen emails on the internet, and the fact the liberal media all seemed to have copies of the emails.

About 36 years ago another well financed presidential campaign that expected to win the election did something equally as stupid, denied it to the world, and then got caught in the lie later costing the winner the presidency. Back then the President was Richard Nixon and the break in was called Watergate.

Watergate was not about approving the act, nor even knowing about the act. Watergate was all about covering up the act for campaign functionaries whose enthusiasm to win at all costs made them ignore the laws. We are far better prepared to investigate this illegal act than we were 36 years ago and it is serious enough that the FBI and the Secret Service have already launched an investigation.

If the private emails of our presidential and vice presidential candidates can be stolen all those involved must be prosecuted. The Obama campaign denies involvement. Barack Obama claims he personally runs the campaign, he has said so as a claim of his executive experience during the campaign so we should give him the benefit of the doubt on both counts.

But if his campaign was involved in any way in the theft, in encouraging the theft, or the distribution of the stolen materials by notifying the liberal media where to find them and give them talking points on what to say about them, then he should stand ready to withdraw from the race in disgrace.

In watching the various liberal media outlets comment about the stolen emails they used almost the exact words as Obama campaign representatives dismissing the seriousness of the theft and turning attention to the fact Sarah Palin had a private email account. Then insinuating she must have had the account to hide things from the State of Alaska. How stupid is that? Nearly everyone in America has a private email account including most members of the media.

Why did the liberal media and the campaign spokespersons have the exact same script? Why did they raise the exact same issue? Why weren't they outraged by the invasion of privacy? And why did they keep looking at the emails in their possession? If the Obama campaign was involved in the theft or any of these following actions it is the most serious breach of faith possible to the American public and would only demonstrate that a secret agenda must be driving them, one called Big Brother, where the right to privacy will no longer exist.

In one of the true ironies of history, Julie Nixon Eisenhower, daughter of President Richard Nixon, who grew up in the White House, is a supporter of Barack Obama and gave him the maximum financial contribution possible in the primary election. You certainly don't hear much about her from the Obama campaign. We shall await the results of the federal criminal investigation.

Obama Says Governor Palin Not Experienced to Lead Nation

Barack Obama has challenged the experience of Sarah Palin, governor of Alaska, saying being governor is inadequate experience to be president of the US even though Palin is running for vice president, not president. But she will be a heart beat from the presidency so we can accept his hypothetical claim.

To make such a claim, the Obama campaign and the entire biased liberal media echoing the same propaganda surely must be suffering from temporary memory loss. The governor is not qualified to be president? Can animosity be so blind? Having been in many campaigns I know it is not the candidate but the campaign staff that undertakes these missions so I do not hold the candidates totally responsible.

The truth. In the last 32 years a former state governor has served as US president during 28 of those years! Four of the past five US presidents were governors including the last two Democrats to serve as president. Bush, Clinton, Reagan and Carter all went from the statehouse directly to the White House and the American public had no trouble entrusting the future of the nation to them.

Fact is whenever America faced the darkest hours the voters turned to the governors to save the day, not the professional politicians in our nation's capitol. In modern times former governor Teddy Roosevelt became the youngest president in our history in 1901 when President McKinley was assassinated and Teddy helped us through economic chaos.

Former Governor Wilson guided us through World War I while former Governor Franklin Roosevelt brought us through the Great Depression and World War II. The Cold War was brought to an end by former Governor Reagan while former Governors Clinton and Bush drove the ship of state through the era of rampant international terrorism.

In total 18 former governors beginning with Thomas Jefferson went on to serve as president of the US, 42% of all US presidents. Four of the past five presidents were governors. So before anyone states that governors are not qualified or able to run the United States perhaps they better take a refresher course on the history of the US. In America the will of the people decides who has the necessary experience, not the claims of the candidates or the wayward whims of the media.

Vice President Picks by CPT

The Coltons Point Times has already offered the best running mate for Barack Obama, Sam Nunn from Georgia. We stand by our choice and are confident he would greatly enhance the Democratic ticket because of experience, leadership, knowledge of foreign and economic affairs and ability to step in as President if necessary.

As for the Republican ticket, we believe McCain should pick Mitt Romney of Massachusett, a successful buinessmen and governor and expert on the economy whose youth and energy will complement McCain.

Both candidates will greatly aid their respective tickets and the US will be assured of a strong, responsible, moral ticket to lead our nation. In the next few days we shall see.

BARACK BUSHWHACKED BY BUSH LEAGUE BUSH MOVE

So we all heard about President Bush traveling to Israel for the 60th anniversary of the founding of the nation and then we heard about his speech to the Knesset, the Israeli parliament, where he took a cheap shot at presidential candidate Barack Obama. "Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along," Bush said.

The president went on to smugly mention terrorists, Nazis, Hitler and Iran implying he was talking about Obama although that implication was later denied by the White House Press Office in a most sarcastic manner. White House Press Secretary Dana Perino stated: “"I understand when you're running for office you sometimes think the world revolves around you. That is not always true. And it is not true in this case." That seems like a rather calculated and nasty response from the spokesperson for the president.

So Obama wanted to meet with those we don’t agree with in order to try and resolve our differences. Bush says that is bad. Of course Ronald Reagan, John Kennedy and many other presidents have entered into direct negotiations with the enemy to resolve conflicts and even people in the Bush Administration have met with Iran, Korea, Syria and others the Administration once called enemies so what in the world was Bush thinking?

Since it has always been an unwritten rule of American politics that we do not attack other politicians on foreign soil these statements seem little more than the typical bullying tactics that have helped drive the popularity of the Bush Administration into the ground making it the most unpopular presidency ever recorded. I wonder why?

McCain, who more and more sounds like a stalking horse for Bush in a failed race was quick to come to the defense of the president elevating the issue to a headline story but I am yet to understand how trashing an opponent is helping to explain the policy differences between candidates for president.

The White House must feel concerned that McCain needs help three months before he even becomes the official candidate for the Republicans, a good sign that the lame duck president has serious doubts about the new GOP candidate.

Bush has chosen to not stay above politics and has jumped into the action always eager for a fight whether there are any weapons of mass destruction or not. McCain has chosen to parrot the president so we can only hope his shoulders are strong enough to carry the sins of the president in the campaign.

The Democrats demonstrated that differences or not between their candidates, the most unifying force in America to bring the Democrats together in the fall is the president himself and the presidents’ own tendency to bully the opposition may just be the best advantage Obama needs to be the next president.

HILLARY STRANGELOVE TO "OBLITERATE" IRAN

On the eve of the Pennsylvania primary Hillary Clinton gave us a better idea yet of what she would do when the phone rang at 3 AM during her watch as president. In an interview airing on "Good Morning America" ABC News' Chris Cuomo asked Clinton what she would do if Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons.

"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran," Clinton said. "In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them."

We don't know why she spoke for the next ten years unless she has plans to violate the Constitution and run for a third term. We do know that 71 million Iranians would be dead as a result of her early morning call. We also know that Israel would be wipe out so most of the Middle East and much of the world oil reserves would be gone. It would be nice if we could prevent such an attack rather than respond after the fact but some people just don't get it when it comes to intelligence and security.

According to a new survey by the WorldPublicOpinion.org, WPO found Iranians markedly more open — by some 10 percentage points or more in most cases — to exchanges and diplomatic discussions with the U.S. than in December 2006. For example, seven out of 10 respondents said they favored more tourism between the two countries, compared to less than five out of 10 some 15 months before.

Nearly six in 10 Iranians said they favored direct talks between the two countries on "issues of mutual concern," compared to 48 percent who took that position in December 2006. Seven of 10 respondents said they favored talks "to stabilize the situation in Iraq."


It has taken a couple of decades for Iranians to begin to soften their attitude toward the USA and the positive change in Iranian youth is even stronger. Is this the time for our new president to be threatening to obliterate a nation of 71 million people? Hillary just might be colder than the cold war. Is that what experience teaches?