Calling Out the Media on Trayvon Martin Case

Isn't It Interesting....

that the media who have no idea (and apparently no interest) in digging up anything about Barack Obama's education at Harvard or Columbia or anything from his past, have now dug up 50-year-old allegations against Mitt Romney in high school. We are told he was a bad old bully who hated gays although the target in the story is conveniently dead and can't corroborate it.

And the story teller? Guess what...he's an "anonymous" source who can tell you that just everybody in high school thought Romney was an elitist rich kid who hated gays. Convenient timing right after Obama comes out for same-sex marriage.

Hmmm....I wonder if this story-teller is related to Anita Hill who wanted to deep six Clarence Thomas' Supreme Court nomination while hiding in the dark.

Well, we all know the mainstream media would never tell us something that isn't true...except for all the things they tell us that aren't true.

As for the Romney story, I know enough real stuff not to trust the guy. I sure don't need 50-year-old unsubstantiated gossip from an anonymous source to make my judgments. But it's the kind of "research" the media loves so they can carry water for their candidate. I wonder if the "anonymous source" works in the New York Times newsroom or at the Huffington Post.

And here's another take...

Question: Does anybody believe the Washington Post on anything? I buy it occasionally for the Samurai Sudoku on the back of the comics. Come to think of it, the entire paper should be called the liberal comics.

Where Was the Media at the March? AWOL as usual!

Just imagine: dozens of politicians from Capitol Hill come out in the freezing cold to hail abortion on demand or same sex "marriage" and hundreds of enthusiastic supporters come out to hail them. Don't you think the story would make the front page above the fold in the national newspapers? I'm sure of it. Even beforehand, the Washington Post would be carrying the schedule, the parade route, and a list of speakers to encourage as big a crowd as possible to attend. (That's what they always do for the feminist and gay marches.)

BUT....

What happens when hundreds of thousands of pro-lifers take to the streets to defend the right to life of the innocent?

Media AWOL...
You can almost hear the bored comments of the reporters, "Gosh, this happens every year so it's not news any more. Ho-hum (yawn).

Really? All those Congressmen on the podium, a large representation of the tea party freshmen class, and they aren't newsworthy? Women witnessing to their profound regret for abortion, dozens of them -- they aren't newsworthy? A growing black presence who recognize that abortion is genocide for their race which represents about 12% of the population but has almost 40% of the abortions? Not newsworthy?

No, it's not about news, it's about bias. The Washington Post had a short blog entry calling the enormous 38th March an "anti-abortion" rally in a photo caption of a girl with a few other people in the background. You can always identify the Post's pictures because they go out of their way to avoid showing the crowd. Wouldn't want people to see how many pro-lifers there really are out there.

What about the New York Times, you ask? What do you think the "paper of record" had to say? Nix, nada, nothing, no how, no way. At least I couldn't find a single entry in an internet search.

Then there was TV. We got home from the March in time for the national network news and the March was ignored. Of course, the regular networks had important news to cover like Oprah finding the sister her mom put up for adoption years ago. Now wouldn't that have fit nicely with the pro-life slogan, "adoption, not abortion?"

I have long stopped expecting anything but bias from the mainstream media. But that's why we in the alternative media need to be the trumpeters for the movement. We will not be silenced, we will never stop fighting, and God is on the side of the lives He creates. As I told the administrator of an abortion mill during a rescue in the 1970s. "Sharon, you can never win because those who support killing do not have the staying power of we who support life." Besides, liberals kill their babies at a pretty rapid clip. How will you fight when you have no arrows in your quiver? The most pro-life thing a family can do is have another baby, as Fr. Paul Marx frequently said. Can there ever be too many flowers in God's garden? The victory is ultimately ours because the culture of death cannot win against the kingdom of God. And when the victory comes it will be a glorious one because all the institutions of worldly power are on the other side. But the Holy Spirit is on ours and He cannot be defeated!

Praised be the Lord Jesus Christ. now and forever!

Congressman Bob Etheridge (D-NC) Manhandles Students

Let's see, two students ask a Congressman on a public sidewalk whether he supports Obama's agenda and the Democrat goes nuts. He begins manhandling the student with the mike, demanding he identify himself The young man could bring criminal charges of assault and battery against the congressman  if he chose. The Congressman subsequently apologized, but his behavior against two young men for the audicity of daring to ask him a simple question is shocking. Watch the video and then see how liberal bootlicker Chris Matthews addresses it in the second video.



As you watch Matthews in the video below note the loaded language about the students who "ambushed" the Congressman. Is he serious? And then note how he tries to excuse the Etheridge because the students didn't choose to identify themselves. If someone is grabbing and slapping you would you tell him where you live? This guy needs a straightjacket! As for Matthews, he's scheduled to speak at the Franciscan Monastery next week at an award ceremony of the Catholic Network of Volunteer Service. Let the friars know his presence on sacred ground is an abomination.



Democrats like Bob Etheridge and their liberal accomplices in the media seem to think they are above the law. All the congressman had to do if he objected to the students' question was walk on by with a wave and a smile. Instead, he acted like an official in a banana republic. If he had the power, is there any doubt he would have had these students dragged off to the local Gulag? Wake up America! This is our country ruled by Democrat demagogues. Can you imagine what the Democrats would be doing if a Republican treated a young student like that? But they are all mum at present. Are we surprised?

Take a look at Etheridge's opponent, Renee Ellmers. She's a conservative who is pro-life and wants smaller government and lower taxes. This is the year of the pro-life woman candidate. Visit Renee Ellmers' website and consider contributing to her campaign. Etheridge has to go. How can a man who can't handle a question from students on a public sidewalk be trusted to handle anything else?

New York Times Covers Up Homosexuality of Abusers

The media hypocrisy is staggering. While attacking the Church and the pope, the New York Times is doing everything possible to hide the homosexual nature of the abuse. Check it out here. These folks want to take down the Church while protecting their homosexual friends. Considering how many there are in show biz (and isn't that what network news is these days?) it's not really surprising.

Cardinal Ratzinger's Letter: The Smoking Gun Fires a Blank

The 1985 letter from Cardinal Ratzinger is being hyped by the media as proof that the Cardinal was soft on sex abuse. When I read the letter I sort of scratched my head. This is the smoking gun that proves the Church was soft on sex abuse?

Fr. Joseph Fessio puts this in perspective. (Read the complete column here.) Here's a portion of what he writes:

When John Paul II was elevated to the papacy in the Fall of 1978, he immediately changed the policy on priestly dispensations. I don't have the exact dates and numbers at hand, but I remember at the time that many of us were amazed that the hundreds of dispensations per year (and it may have been thousands) under John Paul II's predecessor, Paul VI, suddenly were reduced to almost zero. It was almost impossible to get a dispensation in 1980.

What was John Paul's intent? To restore the integrity of the priesthood and of marriage. These commitments are permanent. A priest may be removed from ministry, but he will not be given a dispensation to marry. Priests are to be made to take their commitments with utmost seriousness. They will be an example to married couples to take theirs seriously also. When a priest makes a promise of celibacy, it's forever; when a couple make vows of marriage, it's forever.

This is the decisive context of Cardinal Ratzinger's letter to Bishop Cummins. It is not a smoking gun. It did not mean that Ratzinger was not taking the priest's sins seriously. (He called the accusations "very serious" [gravis momenti].) It meant that he, following the policy of John Paul II, was taking the priesthood and its commitments very seriously.

And again, this entire affair had nothing to do with preventing further abuse by this priest. That had already been done, or should have been done, by the local bishop.

I think the media will have to come up with something more substantive than this before they string up Pope Benedict. But have no fear, they will keep trying.

It is certainly interesting how little attention the media gives to cleaning up the abuse in the public schools where children can be sent off to abortion mills without telling their parents, and where teachers and coaches in large numbers have abused kids. Somehow the media isn't particularly interested in that story. In fact they aid and abet the psychological and emotional molesting of children by gay activists.

The American College of Pediatricians recently warned about the damage to children from pro-gay promotion of gender confusion. But don't hold your breath waiting for the mainstream media to report that story. The kids are just collateral damage in the homosexual war against straight America.