Mystery blogger takes off mask

In August of 1968 a fascinating exchange took place on television. Gore Vidal called William F. Buckley a “crypto-Nazi” and Buckley retorted “Now listen, you queer, stop calling me a crypto-Nazi or I’ll sock you in your goddamned face and you’ll stay plastered.” Buckley later apologized for calling Vidal a “queer” in a burst of anger rather than a clinical context and there were libel suits all around. Buckley ended up the winner, in terms of attorney’s fees covered and a public apology. The reason why? Buckley wasn’t a Nazi but Vidal was a “queer”, a derogatory term to be sure, but ultimately, accurate.

Let’s take a look at what is defamation and what is merely derogatory. Let’s also consider, given the current tempest in a teapot over almostinnocentbystander, what constitutes an assertion, and just what constitutes a question. That also counts in a defamation suit, or it should. If a sentence asks a question and ends in a question mark (or three), it’s a question. Defamation is an assertion of a known falsehood. So was the question “Is that the missing $10,000 from Kootenai County Central Committee funds actually stuffed inside Tina’s blouse???” an assertion? Nope. It was a sarcastic, facetious query meant to highlight a well-known problem in a venue big enough that Tina Jacobson could not stifle it due to loyalty or intimidation.

The question was definitely derogatory. That’s why I apologized on the same site where the comment was briefly posted. Yet the real issue was whether that question was justified. Was it accurate? If a child is out of sight and not in a location where it can be located and this goes on for a lengthy period of time, then that child is frequently referred to as ‘missing’.

Now we must ask was the money missing? I did not say it was ‘stolen’, I just called it missing. Why did I do that? Well, fact checkers should know that Tina was overseeing disbursements from the account of a non-profit organization and she would not allow members of her executive board to know where the funds were going. The executive board had deep concerns regarding the whereabouts of club funds. So when they asked to see the records, the response was “ Since the KCRCC is currently very busy with the presidential caucus, Lincoln Day and the primary we will not be able [to] accommodate you until after May 15th.” (email from Tina Jacobson dated 2/10/12) The request for open accounting of disbursal of club funds was made February 8, 2012. Madame Chair would not acquiesce until May 15th. What’s magical about that date? Perhaps she wouldn’t be so busy, or perhaps a vote would be taking place where the offensively inquisitive member of the executive board could be replaced with someone more loyal and compliant, and the question would never be raised again.

You see, Tina doesn’t like questions. This is clear from the fact that she has filed a lawsuit over a question posted on a blog. So why did I pose such a confrontational question in a public venue? I’ve known Tina Jacobson by reputation for many years and it’s just not a good idea to go poking Mama Bear. The recent ‘proxy-gate’ is proof enough. When a proxy vote she did not like was presented at a Central Committee meeting, a private investigator was hired, the police were summoned (they didn’t find anything wrong) and the county prosecutor was pressured to start an investigation. After several weeks, the answer came “nothing to see here.” Now if she’d call the police over a vote, she would certainly file suit over an insult.

So why exactly would someone desire to post an anonymous inquiry/comment about a peach like that? What could possibly be the ramifications of attempting to break through the obstruction and shed a little light on the whereabouts of money from a non-profit bank account? Tina has the personality of a blunt force instrument. You can quote me on that, I’m the one who coined it and sat in the audience of the Central Committee when she repeated that phrase and proclaimed “So be it!”

So I pretty much knew what I was getting into by having the temerity to ask the question that has been on so many lips since 2010. The truth is, it’s not like I’ve let some big ‘ol cat out of the bag. Many outstanding members of this community who are Republicans have been troubled and curious about the machinations of the Kootenai County Central Committee after the reins had been handed from Brad Corkill to Tina Jacobson. Brad has gone on the record as stating that at the time he stepped down as Chairman and she stepped up, the account of the club held approximately $18,000. 2010 was an election year and the clear understanding was that a great proportion of those funds would be dispersed to local candidates. Two candidates, the county coroner and the county clerk, each received $250.00 from the central committee. So the question was being asked back in 2010 . . . “Where did the money go?”

This particular emperor has been parading around with naked ambition and unbridled actions and it’s about time that someone stood up and proclaimed the emperor has no clothes. Are the Republicans willing to allow their party to become a vehicle of oppression and intimidation run by an authoritarian mindset that casts aside by-laws and any vestiges of restraint? Yes, I said by-laws. The rules of the club mandate that disbursements in excess of $500.00 be voted on by the club. How then, did $964.20 get disbursed directly to Tina Jacobson on March 5, 2012? Was that voted on? What was it used for? The notation on the Sunshine Report says ‘Newspaper & Other Periodical Advertising’. I did not know that Tina Jacobson was a newspaper or advertising outlet. You see, I’m still asking questions.

Tina Jacobson has a managerial manner that isn’t exactly light handed, she will not tolerate dissent or inquiry and now, like it or not, she has the authority of the court in the pursuit of any who will question her. Methinks she doth protest too much. So I’ll end with, should she be given that power? The 1st Amendment was created with the idea that concerned citizens should be able to raise questions about issues of public interest without fear of reprisals. Does the court care? Does anyone?

More on this Republican Central Committee fracas can be read HERE.

Certainly all members of the Central Committee should be allowed to see the accounting books of the Committee - particularly since apparently $10 grand went missing, with no explanation.

I read prolifically. I read and read and read and read. I am of the type that will finish any book that I pick up, even if I hate it, because by golly, I started it and I will finish it. My best freind has told me repeatedly to just drip books I’m not enjoying as life is too short...and one, she is right and I should, but two, I have only encountered a very few books that became almost intolerable. So after this unending screed, I must say that I have only in my entire life just plain given up on two books. One of them was given to me to enlighten me, and it was written by Gore Vidal...it made me physically ill, and now that you know my tolerance for bad writing, it should tell you how horrific this man’s ideas truly are

ummmm....okay.

Now can we have some context?
(Just askin’...lol)

And - an article titled "Paper to confirm mystery blogger Tuesday" - supposedly tomorrow - is already on-line HERE.

So the question I have, as a former GOP central committee member - since when can't the members of the committee see the full financial reports?

*** ummmm....okay. ~~ Now can we have some context? ~~ (Just askin’...lol) ***

Scroll down to post number eight. There's your 'context'.
Better still I'll save you the time, here:
S-R must provide info on anonymous commenter (Idaho) July 10, 2012 | Thomas Clouse

And to save you more time, here's the Reader's Digest condensed version:

Judge rules no one posting on the Internet is really anonymous. Screen Names mean squat and be careful of what you post about 'public figures'.

You were in in June so you should have seen the thread, it's pretty important and pertinent to FReepers. There were other threads besides this one on this Judge's ruling.

For a depressing century the left had complete control over the arts, media and schooling. Through the blessings of the Internet reality is being restored, but Vidal and others like him were placed at the forefront of society not due to their skill, but do to there perversions and willingness to subvert American values.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.