OK, it was funny for a few years. Then, for a few years I snorted in derision at their audacity. But now, when the manipulation and distortions have begun to threaten our country and the way of live I want for my children and their children, it’s not funny any more. It makes me sick.

Of course, as always, I’m talking about the liberal media. Today’s topic is a continuation of an earlier thread. Let me bring you up to speed:

1) A Colorado preacher named Haggard is a spokesman for an 30,000-member organization that advocated the status quo regarding marriage laws.

2) He is out-ed as bisexual.

3) The liberal media butchers him and his family and his church and the organization for which he spoke. He resigns in disgrace, his wife and children are the laughingstock of their community. His crime? He’s been charged with none to my knowledge.

4) Charles Rust-Tierney, a Chapter President of the ACLU, a 500,000-member organization, is an outspoken opponent of laws enacted to restrict children’s access to pornography over computers at public libraries.

5) He is arrested for possession of horrific child pornography.

6) The liberal media virtually ignores the story. Thousands of headlines running for weeks on end about Haggard; yet, only two buried stories about Rust-Tierney.

I read Bill O’Reilley complaining about the disparity and agreed with him in a U-K article. Liberals on site rebutted me claiming, essentially, that:

1) Since Haggard was more "prominent," he deserved more coverage. I countered that he did not deserve to be more prominent. That, too, was liberal media bias using Haggard to exaggerate the extremist opposition to gay marriage, and thus paint anyone who disagreed with gay marriage (about 70% of Americans) as extremist.

2) And, I said, that theory explains why he might get more coverage, but it doesn’t explain why Rust-Tierney got no coverage.

3) I also noted that the ACLU is much, much more "prominent," and it is a much bigger and has more power over public policy than the Colorado preacher does. Since Rust-Tierney was one of its top leaders, it was a worthy news story.

Our local liberals didn’t say much else, just that Charles Rust-Tierney wasn’t prominent enough. They challenged me to find another example like him, a non-prominent person getting in trouble in his locality and yet it becomes a national headline.

So, lo and behold, the story of William Ayres, appears in my newspaper. He is a San Francisco-area psychiatrist who was arrested for child molestation. No way is this guy prominent. He is certainly unknown here in Texas, yet the story takes up a quarter page in the front section of the Dallas Morning News? The story I read originated in the New York Times and was picked up by a dozen large papers from a quick review of Google. What would make these papers think their local readers would care about this pedophile in San Francisco?

The U-K liberals never responded to that. One tried, suggesting that the Virginia Tech tragedy overwhelmed it. I responded that the story actually appeared a week before VT. Never heard from him again.

Now we have the latest example. An unknown bureaucrat named Tobias resigns his job admitting that he has partaken of the services of an escort service. Is he prominent? No way, no one knows this guy. He is buried on some desk overseeing AIDS relief in Africa, just one of a hundred thousand Washington bureaucrats. What is his crime? Well, he hasn’t been charged with one yet, but at most it would be a misdemeanor solicitation charge. Certainly, nothing has asocial as violent child porn.

Soooo, non-story, right? As in the case of William Ayres and Rust-Tierney, it just has local interest, if any. WRONG! Tobias can somehow be linked to Bush and conservatives, so the story is blown out of the roof, appearing in thousands of headlines.

I’m expecting our local liberals to ignore this one. They started slinking away with their ridiculous excuses after the last example. Now they are running at full speed.

The Liberal Media sucks.

	Web useless-knowledge.com