Corrupt Media Watchdogs

Watchdogs?

(by R.P.Edwards)

Lying in the corner

Chewing on a steak

Given by the robbers

This dog is on the take!

His job: to guard the mansion

Defend with bark and bite!

But now he lies contented

As intruders

Steal

The night

I suppose it's common knowledge: the--what used to be called--"Main stream media," has a liberal bias. No surprise there. Abortion, Gay rights, unleashed immigration, Pro-Union, Big government, etc....predictable prose and posturing. However, I recently heard the phrase, "corrupt media," used by a notable commentator and...I have to agree.  You see, it's one thing to lean that way, but it's quite another (especially if you're supposed to be an organ of revelation and truth-telling) to actively be...inactive.

Case in point: the IRS scandal. The targeting (alright, "alleged") of conservative groups in order to hinder their opposition to the person and policies of...President Obama. From what has been gleaned (not by the Majors, of course)...something obviously stinks. And, since EVERY tax-payer has a vested interest in the workings of the "audit-wielder," the media should be all over this thing: probing, prodding, pushing for answers. But are they? No. They turn their eyes; they walk on the other side (Good Samaritan story reference), they, en masse, betray our trust. They, by their purposeful silence (on this and MANY other distasteful doings) evidence not just simple journalistic preference (if it bleeds it leads) but, in their egregious omissions and inactivity they display a distasteful complicitness. I.e...corruption.

So, let me make a proposition; a suggestion."Ok, (I'm talking to the moguls), you helped your guy get reelected. Fine. But, don't you want his administration; the champion of your "causes," to be clean and free from corruption? Don't you want your "ideals" untethered from dirty dealings? Then, do your job! Root out the truth! Demand answers and, if they (as in, people) deserve the boot, or the bastille...so be it. Better to have the wrong righted and your reputation restored than to let the history books and your fellow Americans refer to you as the Corrupt media."

**** 

Our betters (Not!)

Who owe we?

(by R.P.Edwards)

Tell me, Sir

Who owe we?

The lofty

or

The less

Those who speak with eloquence 

Or those who beat...the breast

Those from Ivory towers

Or those who bend the knee

Tell me, Sir

For freedom's sake!

To whom

The debtors

We?

Now, some would say

The former

Who rule the words

And waves

Who view themselves

As masters

All others

Merely

Slaves

But I contend the latter

Who grasp the ancient thread

That ties them to Creator

Whose power

Raised...the dead

The question, sent by a viewer, carefully coddled and displayed affectionately before the Republican candidates for President at a debate last week. Thus: 

"Given that you oppose gay marriage, what do you want gay people to do who want to form loving, committed, long-term relationships? What is your solution?"

After going down the line--each "debater" gently offering a palatable defense of the sacred institution of traditional marriage--former speaker, Newt Gingrich, offered this addendum:

"Since we're spending this much time on these issues; I just want to raise a point about the news media bias. You don't hear the opposite question asked [he then listed difficulties that certain Catholic institutions had and have encountered because of their stand on traditional marriage, and then he concluded with]...the bigotry goes both ways, and there's a lot more anti-christian bigotry today than there is concerning the other side; and none of it gets covered by the news media."

Now, the reason for this simple piece--as the primaries amble on--is that there really is an adversarial force to be recognized and reckoned with. It's a body of believers, if you will, that preach a gospel quite foreign to the faith of the founders; quite distant from the traditionalists whose long ago contributions in blood in treasure secured the ease and idleness of this present age that has spawned, from godless institutions (whose beginnings were not so), the reprehensible persuasion that those with the "media microphone"--whose appearance is appealing, and words wooing--that these somehow "know" right from wrong; good from evil; truth from error.  Truly, they often do not.  But, since they "own" much of the communication venues...theirs is the filter through which sympathetic "choices" are often given preference.  And so...we decline a bit faster.

Now, I'm not offering a solution.  Just a hope that we be a bit wiser in the future and, since much that has been "championed" by the chosen is now proving to be without foundation; perhaps more than just we conservative types will be less apt to ascribe wisdom to the polished prose and purrings that gush from the biased media.

I recall writing a poem a couple years back concerning the influence of the media.  For your enjoyment:

4 + 5 = 0
(by R.P.Edwards)

The fourth estate
The column…five
A champion…that takes a dive
Depending on objective words
Instead…a swooning sound is heard
And we, the bearers of their lack
May never have our nation back
For Murrow’s children
Gone astray
Espouse “their” whims
Their preference…say
The heralds voice
A barkers jive
The fourth estate
Now…column five

Here's a link to hear Newt's remarks:  Media Bias

It's a fact? Really?

 

 

 

Bad Science
(by R.P.Edwards)

Science is subjective
By definition…shouldn’t be
But scientists are human
With biases
like you and me

It wasn’t farfetched.  I knew it could be done (people on TV could do it!). So, why could not I, a tot of sub-kindergarten age, jump off the brick wall (a railing of sorts; perhaps two feet tall) dive, do a mid-air flip, and land safely and triumphantly on my feet in the meager pile of leaves I had gathered adjacent my launch-point. And so, with a simple bend at the knees and a vigorous bound, I took off! And, a second later, I landed squarely on my head (the leaves offering little comfort).  Yes, my experimentation ended with this sore-headed performance.  I concluded, therefore, that it was not as easy as, at first, supposed.  And, if I had not had the knowledge that there were actually people who could do this feat; perhaps I would have surmised through my “failed” experiment that it could not be done…at all.
____

You start with a question.  You gather data. You propose a hypothesis, a solution, an answer; and then you test, test, test to see if the hypothesis holds water.  It’s called the scientific method and it is absolutely essential in the hard sciences, such as Physics and Chemistry.  It is not, however, a tool that can be used in the area of history, or origins.  Oh, there are plenty of questions, and educated guesses, but there can never be testing.  And, even though a “majority” may repeat the mantra, and though armies of lock-step lab-coated men and women with impressive titles in front and letters behind their names swear their allegiance to Darwin’s child and shout with full conviction, “Scientific Fact!;” it can never, never be more than an untested theory.  And though they love to malign and belittle those whose faith reaches beyond the natural realm; those who believe that the human spirit is more than the result of the astronomical alignment of blind chance mutations; these men of science remind us all that they are indeed human.  Filled with bias.  Biases that would not be tolerated in the “hard sciences” from which we all have benefited. 

And so they come out.  Those who would label Christians such as Rick Perry as anti-science.  But, as the previous paragraph infers, there is a big difference between the evidence-heavy “hard sciences” and the mushy, malleable “believings” of Darwinists and their ilk who, seeing the left-overs of long ago events, and grasping for even the hint of an evolutionary “change,” (and taking, as a given, no “unnatural” influences) these, with abandon, extrapolate wildly backward and boldly assert, “Evolution is a Fact!” What utter hogwash!

I’ll not go on and on.  But I will name a few of the results of the two experiments we "have" seen in our lifetime (if you have a few years on you, that is).  On the one hand we have seen a great--though imperfect--nation; one where the majority of its people held to the belief in the God mentioned in the Declaration of Independence; this nation was unmatched in strength, moral virtue, wealth and prosperity; and, on the other hand we now see the results as evolutionary thought has taken hold in the Universities, the courts, public schools, the media and government.  Now, this nation that is rejecting our former beholdence to God, it is, and has become anemic (not yet militarily, thankfully), sickly and bankrupt.  We, following the tenets of the proclaimed “scientific fact” murder our children and muddy our institutions.  Yes, even our credit rating is down; but our moral rating is, as a result, far lower.  And, though I doubt any reasonable candidate would seek my advice; if they did, he or she, when challenged, might dare to read the list of the test results.  Then…let the social scientists among us (those who vote), based on the data, decide the better of the two “theories.”

Here’s a site you might find interesting:  Answers in Genesis


****

Angela Michael for Congress

 

 

300,000 and counting

The Fourth estate

(by R.P.Edwards)

Ignorance
May bring mercy
But only by
Degree
But what of those
Who “know” the truth
And “keep” that truth
From thee?

The thought came to me, “I’m a supporter; not a reporter.”

The setting: in front of one of the largest abortion mills in the Midwest.  Name: the Hope Clinic for Women.  The occasion: a courageous pro-life advocate named, Angela Michael, is running on the democratic ticket…for congress.  To introduce her; a man of some notoriety, Randall Terry.  If you’re a little older that name may sound familiar.  He was the former head of Operation Rescue; a group known for blockading abortion providers with their bodies; a kind of civil disobedience thing.  And, he’s also running for president.

Well, you might think this “official announcement” might warrant a reporter or two.  Nope.  Even though the “heads up” press release came out two days prior, the regional rag…would have none of it.

“So strange,” thought I.  Surely “some” of their readership is interested (ironically: this paper is supposedly the “conservative” voice around here [alright, I’ll tell you, The Belleville News Democrat]).  Mr. Terry’s past, alone, is worth at least a paragraph.  And the story of “why” they’re running is compelling.  But, apparently the “paper powers” don’t want to know; and sadly, tragically, they don’t want “you” to know either. 

A while back I read a snippet of something that Pope Benedict XVI wrote: It was in reference to when Jesus asked the Father to “forgive them, for they know not what they do.”  And, there were a couple other instances in the scripture where the “ignorance defense” was given.  Said the Papal chief: “Ignorance diminishes guilt, and leaves open the path to conversion.”  I went “Hmmm” that sounds about right.  But then I ask myself, “When it comes to evil.  What of those who not only approve of it; but then actually go out of their way to make sure you remain…ignorant?”

In my rummaging about the web I found Mr. Terry’s website.  If you're concerned about the unborn, I would recommend a look.   Also, included is a link to Mrs Michael’s campaign site.
Angela Michael for Congress
Randall Terry


And, you may notice the dragon to your right.  It’s a book that was penned some time ago and is now available for download.  I recommend you read the “free portion” first, and then, (if you are so inclined) wait a week for the rest.  Why?  Because I want to read the thing for the millionth time to make sure I didn’t make a keystroke boo boo in the final phase (if found, it should be corrected by then). 

****

Sarah, don't despair

 

 

Sarah, don’t despair
(by R.P.Edwards)

Sarah, Sarah,
Don’t despair
They think we do
But we don’t care
They set you up
A hatchet job
A veiled elite
A liberal snob
Just trying to
Evoke a slip
And then exploit
To sink your ship
But we know them
They’re light as air
So Sarah, Sarah
Don’t despair

Sarah Palin talks gainfully with a disgruntled lady and (allegedly) rolls her eyes when the antagonist states her occupation as…teacher.  Around the world the keyboardists press and pass the story of the former governor’s apparent impropriety. But, for those of us who’ve been around the block (and there’s more all the time) it’s just another see-through attempt by the light weight media.

Oh, to be sure, a couple years back many were swayed by the silky words of the candidates and the glowing endorsements of the fourth estate.  But now, with reality staring us square in the face, we need more than airy promises and a free pass by the like-minded press.  Indeed, we’ve discovered that it’s results, not rants; substance, not slurs; bottom lines, not bottom feeders.  Yes, we need solid--know where they stand and what they’ve done--candidates…like Sarah Palin.

Reminder:  Once again; ours is an inherited greatness.  Without question this uniquely blessed America was effortlessly handed down to us from past generations whose values and beliefs were often very far removed from the many who currently dominate the classroom and television studio.  And, although today's "wise ones" speak authoritatively; it is not an earned honor.  And, frankly, we, whom they would influence--when it comes right down to it--we owe them…nothing.  They didn’t bring us here, and they (if the near past is any indication) can’t be trusted to bring us forward.

So, Sarah…relax.  We know who, and what they are.  And we certainly know who…you are.

****

Press depression

4 + 5 = 0
(by R.P.Edwards)

The fourth estate
The column…five
A champion…that takes a dive
Depending on objective words
Instead…a swooning sound is heard
And we, the bearers of their lack
May never have our nation back
For Murrow’s children
Gone astray
Espouse “their” whims
Their preference…say
The heralds voice
A barkers jive
The fourth estate
Now…column five

There were three estates, see: the clergy, the nobility, and the commoners. Edmund Burke (English fellow, a long time ago) said there was another power group to deal with…the press. These scribblers were the “fourth estate.” Now, Mr. Thomas Jefferson, writing to his bud, John Jay, said, “Our liberty cannot be guarded but by the freedom of the press, nor that be limited without danger of losing it.” A pretty important group, I’d say.

“The fifth column.” A phrase having to do with this guy named Emilio Mola who said he had a “fifth column” within the city of Madrid (Spanish Civil War) to go along with the four outside the walls. In other words: there’s a fox in the henhouse.

And so we have the joining. Here’s what I mean. Long before the November elections we had a media that overwhelmingly favored the “leftward” candidate. They loved his rhetoric, his vision, his promises, his poise. They “tingled” when he spoke and, when it came time to put pen to paper, the wunderkind candidate was seen through the glasses of rose. So…here we are, mere months into the new Camelot, and on the brink of disaster(s). And, I contend, should disaster come, then equal culpability must go to a media that has become the equivalent of a “fifth column.” Yes, if things go terribly wrong (and they very well might…to deadly effect) then we need to remember those who cosigned the loan.