Archive for the ‘Obama problem’ Category

The Media, Sen. Obama And He Who Must Not Be Named.

May 27, 2008

Larry Sinclair’s allegations of gay sex and drug use in 1999 with Sen. Obama – Why hasn’t the media reported this story?

This story has been percolating on the internet for a few months now and more people are starting to take notice. It appears to have taken on a life of its own with a sort of trench warfare, a cat and mouse game, developing which has been brutal in many instances. As of this morning, there have been around 800,000 visits to Larry Sinclair’s site and the numbers are increasing by 10 to 20 thousand per day.There’s a substantial number of committed people who believe Mr. Sinclair’s story completely, those who just want the truth no matter what it turns out to be, a few who are trying to get their candidate elected and those who are fighting for Mr. Sinclair’s right to be heard on one side trying to bring these allegations to public’s awareness. Then there’s the opposition who find Mr. Sinclair’s allegations slanderous, those who support Sen. Obama and are trying to insulate him, paid campaign staff (apparently) and a few who just seem to enjoy bullying.The tactics in trying to keep this story from going public have been a story in and of themselves. (There have been attacks, insults, lurking, impersonation, threats, and disclosures of identities.) But the big question is: Where is the media and why hasn’t it reported these allegations?

In seems that ALL are choosing to be on the sidelines, lurking, observing, trying hide their presence on the blogs, waiting for someone to present additional tangible evidence, worrying about protecting their reputations and credibility, cruising the penumbra of the story ready to pounce when it fits their criteria or when the train leaves the station To many of Mr. Sinclair’s supporters they must seem like cowards. From responses that I’ve received from editors, it is clear that everyone knows about this story – the press, the candidates, the candidates’ staff, everyone but the general public.

This election season, it’s obvious to most that much of the main street media has developed some type of emotional attachment to Sen. Obama. It has the appearance of a high school crush. They’ve become very protective of the Senator and when anyone, in the comment sections of one of their stories, dares to ask questions about Mr. Sinclair’s allegations they do whatever they can to quash the attempt. They clearly have forgotten their responsibilities to the news process and to the rights of free speech. Through the moderation process most of the stories never see the light of day. The ones that do find a way onto the comment section are remove as quickly as possible. It doesn’t matter how nasty the other comments responding to the news article might be, if a post contains the words that must not be spoken are named – the comment is gone. The media has determined that no one can utter the Senator’s middle name without reprisal and absolutely no one can utter the words Larry Sinclair. I firmly believe that had Mr. Sinclair’s allegations been about either Sen. Clinton or Sen. McCain, the media would be running advertisements telling us when we could hear the latest news, how kindergarteners feel about it, and on, and on, and on.

I believe that the remaining media that have not fallen for the Senator are scared to death to have even a remote possibly that the charges might be false and have the star struck newsmen and women turn their pens toward them. I seem to remember a group of Lacrosse players at Duke who ran into the main stream media when they were not infatuated. They ran into a media that convicted them in the press without a second thought. After that incident, the media at large took no responsibility for its role whatsoever. In this instance, Mr. Sinclair is not asking for the media to convict Sen. Obama. What needs to happen is for someone in the media to have the courage to simply listen to Mr. Sinclair’s allegations, talk to him, look at the allegations, turn them upside down, inside out, try to verify facts, try to disprove them and do what the press that reports news is supposed to do. I don’t believe it is their role to try to shape the news so it conforms to their own narrative. I don’t believe they are supposed to ask for comments relating to articles and then only allow the ones that don’t include the forbidden words – Larry Sinclair.

Therefore, Mr. Newsman and Ms. Newswoman – step up.

To read the complete article with endnotes it is here.

U. S. Diplomacy and Why Larry Sinclair’s allegations of gay sex and drug use must be investigated.

May 27, 2008

U. S. Diplomacy and Why Larry Sinclair’s allegations of gay sex and drug use must be investigated.

As we know, Sen. Obama has stated that he would sit down with the enemies of the United States as part of his foreign diplomacy position. The degree of preparation before such meetings and whether it would be interpreted as appeasement or lack of resolve are questions for others. I just wonder if the Democratic leadership has thought about the huge logistical consequences and embarrassment to the United States’ diplomacy efforts if the next President is discovered at some point to be bisexual and an adulterer.

Are they willing to be responsible for those and any other legitimate consequences, especially given that they are fully aware of the allegations and have chosen not to act or require investigation into the veracity of the charges? I would bet that Al Jazeera and other foreign news services are monitoring the rumors about the candidates that are circulating on the internet and that they would likely withhold their comments until the most politically damaging effect to the United States can be achieved. The U.S., the great Satan, might beA being led by a bisexual adulterer as its President -WOW. It seems as though the Democratic leadership should think about this. Therefore, I suggest that not only must the allegations be investigated and the truth discovered, but if the charges have any possibility of being true – they need to be affirmatively disproved by Sen. Obama. All he needs to do is prove he was not in Chicago during the time in question. This allegation, true or not, could very well further damage the reputation of the United States.

Some would say that Mr. Sinclair completed the investigation himself by agreeing to take a polygraph examination. Evidently, the results indicated that there was some deception present on Mr. Sinclair’s part. However, the whole story about that polygraph examination is not being circulated and is being represented as some sort of equivocation of total deceit on Mr. Sinclair’s part. That representation is not true. Many problems were present before, during and after the administration of the polygraph.

A former news reporter and anchor, Delenn states: There’s a reason that polygraphs aren’t accepted as evidence in most American courtrooms: they’re grossly inaccurate. And in Larry Sinclair’s case, keep in mind; the (unbiased) computer passed Sinclair. It was the human examiner who considered SOME of Sinclair’s responses untruthful… the human examiner who a) hooked the machine up incorrectly; and b) got his supposed doctorate from an online diploma mill.Additional, the group that organized the polygraph and promised to make the complete polygraph available failed to do so.

Taken together with the new allegations that have come out regarding Sen. Obama and gay sex, the flawed polygraph looks even more suspect. There is now, once again, the possibility that Mr. Sinclair is telling the truth. The statements from Rev. Manning that Sen. Obama and Rev. Wright are closet homosexuals, the statement from a person on Mr. Sinclair’s blog that one of Obama’s pilots saw Obama kissing a male aid, and a Chicago restaurant owner learning from her patrons of Obama being on the “down low”– all tend to support Mr. Sinclair’s allegations. Mr. Sinclair and Rev. Manning claim to have evidence proving their allegations, but they each say they are waiting on disclosing the evidence. (It might be that advice of counsel or political timing is the reason.) However, it seems as though the main street media is determined to keep these allegations from seeing the light of day and truth.

In conclusion, given the enormous importance of having the best possible person in the Presidency, it is imperative that Mr. Sinclair’s allegations be thoroughly investigated.

To view the complete article with endnotes go here.