I've been commenting on the biased reporting done by the Raleigh, North Carolina News & Observer reporter, Kristin Collins for nearly a year. Every article she has written is in regard to illegal immigrants and every article has some spin applied to the headline to press her case that illegal immigrants deserve more of everything than any legal citizen or immigrant. It has been blatant biased reporting.
This morning's article is titled:
"ACLU seeks deportation data"
Once again, the slant is towards the poor illegal immigrants and how the local counties around Raleigh are working with ICE to profile and deport these poor, poor souls.
I saw one of them just yesterday riding into the parking lot of a local grocery store in a huge Ford F350 with the dark window tint and chrome and fancy rims---they checked out in front of me and used food stamps...yes, that's MY profiling...
Apparently I am not the only person who does not like the biased reporting. I went to comment on this latest article and guess what? I read this instead:
The commenting function on this story has been turned off because of abuse.
Well, yeah...if the paper will continue to let a reporter plant biased stories about the plight of people illegally in the US, I guess she, or they will have to expect the heat.
The article infers that local police officials have been profiling. What legal citizens will be angry about is that the ACLU - formerly the AMERICAN Civil Liberties Union and now known to some as the HCLU - HISPANIC Civil Liberties Union - is trying to force police departments to compile and turn over ALL info on any contact with ICE and anything else to do with immigration.
This is something police departments have a RIGHT to do and it is the law.
The ACLU and the News & Observer AND Kristin Collins are ALL supporting and now protecting illegal activity in the US. When they don't like what legal citizens have to say about it, they turn off the "comments" function". This is how we, who are footing the bills for ALL these groups and people, are treated.
I guess "freedom of speech" in this instance is by subject only as decided upon by this newspaper.