Letter to the Editor re: barry’s eligibility

January 17, 2009

Very interesting. The Washington Times actually printed a letter to the editor about barry’s eligibility. Guess they’re starting to cover themselves. AOL had one of it’s nonscientific poll that showed 48% thought it needed investigating – 45% no merit. That was back in December. Wonder what folks think now…especially after the bizarre double swearing in with no video of the second. Have you even known barry not to want to be on video? His “radio addresses” are on video. It was like a blago tape without the eff words. And then there’s VP Biden’s joke about Justice Roberts’ memory and his wife revealing Biden had a choice between Secretary of State and VP. One heck of a first week.

“Supreme Court accountablity”
Louisville, Ky.

Statistically sound polls:

IFC/Zogby poll (11-5/6)

73% believed media is biased in general

93% thought barry got more coverage

75% believed media bias influenced the outcome of the presidential election.

Rasmussen Poll (11-5-08)

51% felt reporters tried to help obama (44% polled in June)
47% believed most reporters would hide information

55% media bias more of a problem than big campaign donations

74% thought media reported more on negative campaigning than the issues

Which directly goes to proobama media bias considering his opponents universally polled more negative. What was hidden will eventually be revealed. It wasn’t as much hidden as it was intentionally not covered.

2 Responses to “Letter to the Editor re: barry’s eligibility”

  1. mattie14 Says:

    Hi Sally. Thanks for your thoughts.

    Yes, the media bias directly affected the outcome. 93% believe barry got more media coverage and 75% said it affected the outcome. That is remarkable. And, yes, the proobamedia gave a huge assist to barry in the primary. That also was born out in a scientific poll. I’ll have to find it.

    Remember how they called on Sen Clinton to quit everyday when barry was tanking? And now all they can do is praise her knowledge, experience and skill. barama matthews has has a Madame Secretary conversion worthy of Saul. If I had the time and energy I’d go back and find video clips of their before and after statements. They can’t deny what came from their own mouths.

    barry did not “win” the primary – he was given the nomination – which hinged on caucus wins 13/14 with 4 of them blue. I haven’t kept track anymore, but there was clear caucus fraud in Iowa, which lead directly to his win. As well as edwards the adulterer, who was allowed to run to divide the vote. The DNC knew what he was doing. Howard Dean, who took an oath to first do no harm, knew what he was doing. Edwards’ wife knew what he was doing. The Inquirer of all people broke the story in March 2007 I think.

    This will all come out. The suits are teaming across the US – but what will be the punishment? They knew that too. He stands for nothing, as you can see. How many times has he changes his positions to suit the polls? His MO is political expedience since day one in his career, really all the way back to his Harvard Law review. This brilliant man did not graduate with honors from Columbia, waits a couple of years, gets into Harvard and becomes head of the Law Review? How does one explain that? He never authored anything on file – just some scratching on abortion. And he won’t release his records. His autobiography is a myth that he concocted that no one can corroborate but his sister and she isn’t talking. Can’t blame her – she has her own family – why should she be disgraced?

    His supporters are the most I can’t even find the words. The amount of vile comments we get is unreal. We thought about posting all of them so it would be obvious, but we didn’t want that all those hateful words on our neutral site. They have nothing to use in defense, so they attack. It’s really sad. Have you ever tried to have a debate with one? Fruitless. I don’t know why they are defending him, still. I don’t know why they continue to call us racists. It’s so insane since most of them are white, but what else have they?

    Like leader, like cult followers, I guess. Look at how barry allowed his opponents to be attacked. It was beyond disgusting. All three plus Mr Bill left racists when none of them were going in. The only way he could win was if he made it about race. Take away race and what’s left? It was clear going into South Carolina, where they had a memo already made up planning to paint the Clintons as racists. And the proobamedia, beyond infatuated in a truly disturbing way and quite willing to attack, gave barry an assist by baiting Mr Bill. Jesse Jackson wasn’t even offended. Did you hear about that in the MSM other than the original NY Times article? And using the term POW card? Does it get any more reprehensible than that? And the things he allowed to be said about Gov Palin reveals his complete lack of conscience. One day his daughters will see how he behaved. They will be the ones hurt by all of this.

    Oh well. The truth doesn’t matter – it never has – because with barry there isn’t any. They will see that soon enough. He has people around him he can easily throw under the bus. How many will last a year?

    Feel free to vent. It’s all that’s left. Except documenting the madness. Take care.

  2. mattie14 Says:

    Hello. Thank you for your thoughts. Curious name to accompany them. I might suggest If you took a minute to look at our title you would see that our site is politically neutral – as in “not affiliated with, nor endorsed by, any candidate, political party or organization.”

    I did not vote for Bush or anyone else.

    Why is it anyone who raises questions about barry is automatically a hater, a racist, a liar, a conspiracist, a crazy and someone who can’t come to grips with losing? Why is it the name callers can never promote barry in a positive light – instead of attacking?


    Here is a statistically sound poll you might be interested in.

    IFC/Zogby Poll (Nov 4-6)

    73% believed the news they read/see is biased.

    93% thought barry got more media coverage.

    75% thought media bias influenced the outcome of the presidential election.

    For details.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s