Get Over Big Bird Already

I am aware that journalists, reporters, and other members of the media love to report on awkward statements that politicians make, because it creates great ratings, and I’m fine with that.  As long as the reporter or journalist accurately reports what the politician said, and doesn’t take it out of context, or try to change the meaning of what was said.  If you watched the first presidential debate, you heard what Romney said about cutting funding, and he used PBS as an example.  I found a video of the first presidential debate, and to quote Mr. Romney, “First I will eliminate all programs by this test if they don’t pass it.  Is the program so critical that it’s worth borrowing money from China to pay for it, and if it’s not then I’ll get rid of it.  Obama Care is on my list…  I’m sorry Jim, I’m going to stop the subsidy to PBS…” Somehow the far leftwing media, and other liberal nut jobs interpret this statement, as Mitt Romney hates Big Bird. 

I happen to agree with Mitt Romney’s plan to stop funding non-critical programs that are not worth borrowing money from china.  On the other hand Charles M. Blow, a Grambling State University graduate and art director of The New York Times, decided to write a column in the New York Times editorial page about how Mitt Romney can’t relate to Big Bird, and all the poor, poor people who will be lost without Sesame Street.  Give me a break!  This is just another liberal, who happens to be a minority, trying to paint Mitt Romney as an evil, white, Republican who is not in touch with the poor black American man.  This is typical class warfare.  Blow goes on to say that Sesame Street taught him, as well as many other poor people, to read, write, and count.  I guess Mr. Blow’s school had nothing to do with that, it was all Big Bird, Elmo, and Count Von Count.

Secondly, it’s not like Sesame Street will go off the air if it stops receiving it’s government subsidy.  PBS earns enough money through various charities and donations to keep Big Bird, Grover, and Oscar the Grouch employed and living well (Oscar chooses to live in a dump).  It is clear that Blow’s intent in writing this article is to make Romney look bad, and win votes for President Obama. 

I just can’t wrap my head around the fact that an educated man, like Mr. Blow, can take a statement so far out of context.  It’s borderline unethical.  I just hope the readers of Mr. Blow’s column can see through all that smoke Mr. Blow is blowing.

Common Sense for the First Amendment

  Today I am blogging about a article I read on ABC News about the Kountze High School cheer leading squad located in a small East Texas town just north of Beaumont.  The cheerleaders thought it would be a great idea to hold up signs portraying christian bible versus at the school's football games. The signs were meant to support and motivate the players.  For example, one sign read, "If God is for us, who can be against us?".  Somehow, this lighthearted sign offended someone, and the school superintendent forced the cheerleaders to discontinue using the signs.  However, the cheerleaders refuse to go down without a fight and hired a lawyer to defend their right to use the signs.

I believe this to be an important topic in America, because somewhere down the road, atheist groups have twisted the wording and meaning of the First Amendment.  The First Amendment states, word for word, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Someone tell me how a group of cheerleaders holding up religious signs is a form of congress making a law respecting an establishment of religion.  Secondly, tell me how a group of cheerleaders holding up a religious sign is PROHIBITING the free exercise of religion?  

This article is important to me because I'm tired of these anti-religious groups crying and complaining every time the word God is thrown out.  In my mind, if the courts rule against the cheerleaders, the government will have prohibited the cheerleaders free exercise of religion, therefore violating their First Amendment.  I do agree that religion should stay out of government, but this story is about a cheer leading squad holding signs.  It's not like President Obama is saying the lords prayer on public television during a Christmas day parade.  

Come on government, use some common sense!