How unbiased is the media?

Paris, Texas, has been splattered all over the state and national news lately because a little group of racist blacks get upset when black criminals are arrested, tried, and sentenced. They also get upset when white criminals aren't immediately lynched when they are arrested. There are about half a dozen of these people in Paris, and a few outside agitators that they bring in for their rallies.

What irritates me is all the coverage they get. Why would the media cover the New Black Panther party? Have you ever read their agenda? It includes, among other things, all blacks being exempt from taxes, all blacks being given billions of dollars in assets, all blacks being given free health care, all blacks being exempt from military service (they are now, guess they don't know we don't have a draft), and all blacks being released from all jails and prisons. That's just a few of their inane points.

Anyway, at their latest rally, The Paris News decided to cover the coverers -- they did an article on all the news media that were there. I found what J. D. Myles, a reporter with Channel 11, said to be very revealing of the media mindset. He said that he was a little disappointed in the crowd mumbers at the noon rally. "I covered the incident in Jasper and there was certainly more intensity in that situation."

Disinterested reporter covering what he saw, or a yellow journalist itching for a big brawl to splash on the evening news?

"Observing from the sidelines." The Paris News; November 18, 2008; p. 1A.

Those crazy Peruvians!

Have you seen the dog the Peruvians have offered to Barack Obama? I think the Peruvians must be hysterical with laughter. "Let's offer him this dog. He can't refuse it without running the risk of offending a friendly country. But if he takes it, he has to parade it around for photo-ops for four years!"

Can't you just see this dog running out to greet the presidential helicopter as it lands on the White House lawn? Can't you just see this dog on the Obama family Christmas card? Can't you just see this dog lying by Obama's feet as he delivers a "fireside chat" from the White House? I think it's entirely appropriate -- it fits at the White House about as much as Obama does!

Do we really have to?

President-elect Obama (doesn't that kind of make your tongue stick to the roof of your mouth when you say it?) said this week, "We've got to set up a negotiation between banks and borrowers so that people can stay in their homes. And, you know, one thing I'm determined is that if we don't have a clear, focused program for homeowners by the time I take office, we will after I take office."

I have a problem with that philosophy. Most of the people in trouble on their mortgages (and I know there are exceptions) made foolish decisions. They bought $250,000 homes when they could afford only $80,000 homes. They took out second liens to finance trips or pay credit card bills. They signed notes with ridiculous terms. Why should we bail them out?

I heard Sean Hannity on his radio program the other day talking about the economic situation our country is in. He said that even though he could afford a much larger house then he has, and even though he could drive a much nicer vehicle than he does, he always buys with the thought that "I may be fired tomorrow. I want to be sure that even if that happens, I'll still be OK for awhile." Our economic "crisis" goes back to an "I deserve it even if I can't afford it" mentality -- I deserve a new car every three years; I deserve to live in a house as big as yours; I deserve lobster and steak instead of hamburger; I deserve a cruise every year; and even though I'll have to charge it all, I'm going to have it. So people got in hock up to their eyeballs; then the government said, "We have to bail them out"; then all of us hardworking people who made wise decisions have our money confiscated through higher taxes, higher prices, and devalued retirement funds.

So, back to my original question -- do we really have to make sure homeowners (who aren't really homeowners -- they're debtors) stay in houses they can't afford by bailing them out with our money?

Will legitimizing gay rights affect you?

Gays like to tell us they're "just like everybody else," and they deserve the same rights as everybody else. I disagree that they're just like everybody else. And they already have the same rights as everybody else -- gays are not precluded from shopping in stores, from voting, or from any other public or government service. "But we aren't allowed to marry," they complain. Sure they are -- they have the same rights everyone else has. Homosexuals are not allowed to marry a person of the same gender in 48 right-thinking states, but neither are heterosexuals; ergo, they have the same rights.

Eugene Volokh is a UCLA law professor who backs the gay rights agenda. He says that a goal of the gay rights agenda is "delegitimizing and legally punishing private behavior that discriminates against or condemns homosexuals." What does that mean? Your pastor will no longer be allowed to say homosexuality is a sin. If he does, your church's tax exempt status may be yanked. Your First Amendment right to voice your opinion on depravity will be revoked -- if you say, "Those queers are freaks," you will probably be accused of a hate crime.

Have you noticed how every sitcom, drama, movie, etc. has to have a homosexual character? And how at least 99% of the time they're loveable, witty, wise and quite charming? That's the gay agenda conditioning us to accept what God has called an abomination. We better wake up and quit laughing along with them -- they are out to destroy America! That may sound fanatical and off the wall, but God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because of that particular sin. If He destroyed them, why would He spare us?

To all the media . . . .

Let's see if you can get these facts straight. The Brandon McClelland death in Paris is in no way "similar to the James Byrd killing." Quit calling the McClelland case a "dragging death."

1) James Byrd was chained to a truck -- Brandon McClelland was not.
2) James Byrd was probably killed because he was black -- Brandon McClelland was not.
3) I don't think James Byrd even knew his attackers -- Brandon McClelland did.
4) James Byrd was purposely dragged for miles -- Brandon McClelland was accidentally dragged a few yards.
5) James Byrd was intentionally tortured and killed -- evidence indicates Brandon McClelland may have been accidentally killed.

Why does the media deliberately distort the facts? Well, they won't sell as many newspapers and have such sensational tv news "ticklers" if they report the truth -- that Brandon McClelland was out drunk in the middle of the night with his low class thuggy cohorts who he had been running with and getting into trouble with since high school, and they got into an argument and he ended up dead.

If they'd all been white, nobody would be saying a word. And if they'd all been black, nobody would be saying a word. And if Brandon had been white and the other two black, nobody would be saying a word.

This is a case I happen to know about -- it makes me wonder about the reporting on all those cases I don't know about. How skewed are the media on those? Moral: take everything you hear with a great big old grain of salt!

Maybe I'm unclear on the concept, but . . .

Do you remember the day after the election all the brouhaha about a noose being found hanging in a tree at Baylor University and reports of students burning Obama campaign signs in their barbecue grills? The blacks were outraged! A clear case of racism! This must be investigated!

It turns out, the rope was not a noose -- it was a rope swing a bunch of students had been trying to rig up. It turns out, the signs were not signs -- they were empty cartons some students were getting rid of. Yet this Saturday's newspaper pictures a weeping young woman at a "silent march against racism" on the campus. What racism??!!! Looks to me like it's a bunch of excitable wannabe Malcolm X's and MLK's who spy racists behind every tree and shrub.

"Highlighting race concerns." The Dallas Morning News; November 15, 2008; p. 3A.

Don't have a social security number -- let's just make one up!

Just when you think you've heard it all with the Dallas Independent School District, they come up with something else that boggles the mind. Superintendents buying extravagant furniture for their homes, secretaries and teachers buying all sorts of things on district credit cards, purchasing agents taking kickbacks, failure to budget for 700 new teachers -- and I'm sure I've left something out. Now it's been reported that payroll personnel at the district have been very accommodating to teachers who lack a social security number. "That's OK -- we'll just make one up for you."

Any normal person would know that you can't go around just making up social security numbers! As it happens, the numbers they made up belong to other people in Pennsylvania. Even when state agencies realized what they were doing several years ago and told them the practice was illegal and they should stop, they continued to do it.

Not only are these people (mostly bilingual teachers) illegal (if they were legal, they would have the proper documentation), but they are not paying taxes properly, and they have messed up social security records for the poor innocent victims whose numbers they have stolen. It was also noted that DISD has not been submitting "New Hire" reports to the Attorney General. A new hire report is what the AG uses to track those who owe child support. I work for a very small business with an almost non-existent turnover, but we faithfully submit new hire reports. If we knew to do it, surely an entity as large as a school district knows these reports are required.How many kids out there is the taxpayer supporting because deadbeat dad or mom who owes child support is working for DISD and the AG doesn't know where they are?

In a related article, it was noted that this district that is so strapped for money they've fired hundreds of teachers last week threw away stacks of new reading and math workbooks ($15 apiece) still in the cellophane wrappers. And these people have been entrusted with the responsibility of teaching the children. Sheesh! Maybe the district ought to just fire everybody and start all over.

"DISD ignored ID rule." The Dallas Morning News; November 14, 2008; p. 1A.
"Unused school workbooks tossed out." The Dallas Morning News; November 14, 2008; p. 3A.