"Politically neutral"

January 25, 2009

cindyinatl:

Thank you for your thoughts. You have a very good point that people have been asking, so I am answering out here. Our blog is based on documenting the lack of vetting of barry by the media and the direct effect it had on the primaries and general election. That's how it started. Now since it seems it's just me and the bias has been proven many times over - I tend to write more opinion than strictly facts. Lately I've been doing whatever.

We began by compiling evidence of the actual events and ways the press was not vetting barry. The most obvious, indisputable, irrefutable proof of media corruption was the March 3, 2008 press conference, where they let barry walk away - c'mon guys, I already answered like eight questions. It was the night before he could have clinched the Democratic nomination and they did not ask him about NAFTA, Rezko whose trial began that day and whose indictment barry was named in, Dorothy Tillman's arrest and other matters. They let him walk away. They got him lying on camera about NAFTA and they did nothing

There is no way they would have let Sen Clinton walk away.

Pro-Obama media bias loud and clear.

Some of my fellow citizens stopped that day as it was proven outright. Some hung in and continued to document it in their posts. Some quit after the primary. Some still post partial drafts or links to examples but there's no way I can keep up by myself. There are 2186 drafts - some relating back to barry's Chicago days. Now they've all stopped, it seems, because the pro-obama media bias has been proven statistically and the media themselves has admitted to it.

There does not need to be any studies. Evidence abounds in just their daily interactions. One example: during the heat of the Wright controversy, Sen Clinton got more bad press than barry - documented by an impartial group. It's in here somewhere or maybe on the other site. The proobamedia deemed him Teflon.

Most of us aren't political in nature. I had never watched or been involved in politics until Jan last year. Many of us live in Chicago and have known of barry since he started in just a general sense. The first time I saw him I thought there's someone I might actually vote for. None of us voted for any of the candidates. I have never voted. Thus, we are politically neutral as in we came in with no bias toward anyone. We had no axe to grind and no need to denigrate barry to promote our candidate.

I think what you are getting at is an overall politically neutral site, as in we discuss the aspects of politics in general and give both sides of the issues? Besides not being the purpose of this blog, most of us - me most assuredly - have such a limited knowledge of politics we could never begin to accomplish that. I'm still learning about the Constitution. And I had no idea the primary voting process was so fundamentally flawed and crazy.

Thus, what Bush has done, what Keating 5 entailed, and whatever else has no specific relevance to the pro-Obama media bias. The press has already admitted they were partially to blame for Iraq because they did not ask tougher questions. And what will they say about their coverage and non-questioning of barry? And what will bring about that questioning?

barry reached the highest office in the land - the world - having never had to make a stand on anything. He had never once made a stand where his vote was the deciding one or made a decision where the consequences rested solely on him. Not once. And now he holds the whole world in his hands.

How many serious issues has he changed his mind on to suit the political winds?

For example, barry likes to speak of the evils of lobbyists, right?

His own chief advisor David Axelrod is a lobbyist. The technicality of Illinois laws is what keeps him from being named "lobbyist". His lobbying office is the same one he worked out of for barry. He handled a case for Commonwealth Edison (Ayers father was the longtime Chairman and CEO) while he was on the campaign trail for barry as barry stood there and spoke about how lobbyists will never work for him. And even if he were to admit to being a lobbyist - he's not a "Washington lobbyist". Problem is - his clients are.

Right to your face he said and is still saying these things.

We follow and document the birth certificate/constitutional eligibility to be POTUS not because we want barry deposed so our candidate can win or become president - we have none - but because it is clear straightforward evidence of the pro-obama media bias.

Is there a single political candidate in this country - besides barry - who could have become president without showing their original long form birth certificate? Clinton, McCain, Bush or Palin?

Not a chance.

That is the crux. Why hasn't the media forced him to? Even now? Why has there been a media blackout? Have you even heard of the cases before the Supreme Court? It wasn't just one or two "wild conspiracy theories". The crazy things that have hung up the process of getting them heard? Filing clerks intentionally misfiling the paper work to miss the deadline or mess up the appeal? Paper work filed by the same lawyer the week before sent for Anthrax quarantine? The guy responsible for Anthrax had already killed himself and quarantine does not take 10 days but the deadline would pass. Papers signed for by the Chief Justice's clerk getting "lost" for weeks?

And that's just what we're familiar with. Most folks haven't heard anything about it just like they didn't hear about Rezko or Blagojevich, who we had been mentioning since the beginning. Now who doesn't know who blagojevich is and what he's about?

These are real issues - not some crazy wingnuts or tinfoil heat wearers or Neo-cons crazies or the old tired refrain of racists. I don't even know what a "neocon" is. But I know what media bias, embargoing, propaganda and censorship is because it is still happening and that is wrong and unconstitutional.

No matter your candidate that should worry you especially after their terrible job on Iraq. Where would we have been if they had done their job?

And what would have happened if the press had favored Gore and Kerry like they have barry?

This world would have been a very different place.