Minister of Education Reports


PBS and BBC:

Bite the Hand Department



Let me make it clear from the outset of this article that I frequently listen to the Public Broadcasting Stations on the radio and watch some of their programming on television. When I lived overseas, the BBC World News Service was the place you would find my personal multi-band receiver tuned. So I am qualified to say some things about both broadcasting organizations from the perspective of long attention to their content.

         One of the things I am absolutely convinced about is that both these organizations have in common one thing. They are both completely disloyal to the nations that brought them both into being. I am not saying that they are merely opposed to the governments now in power in their respective nations, even though they are. I am saying they are against the very nations that pay to keep them on the air.

         One example of what I am talking about is the PBS treatment of the PLO and other organizations that hate the United States. One writer remarked about the PBS support of the PLO cause that "Every year PBS spends 50 weeks pushing the PLO's political line on Israel and two weeks asking Jews to send in their donations. And of course, even if a few of us refuse, our tax money pays…" I do not support PBS even though I like classical music and other infrequent performances they carry. Why? Because I do not want my name connected with direct support of their politics and liberal, pro-homosexual, pro-communist causes.

         To illustrate my issue let me point to the PBS contribution to 9/11 media memorials. There was a documentary called "Caught In The Crossfire." It focused (are you ready?) on three Arab American New Yorkers and their struggles after the attack on the World Trade Center. One of these was of course a Palestinian by birth. The way PBS has used the millions of dollars it receives to promote the people who danced in the streets when thousands of Americans were burned to dust is just one recent example of the reasons for my ire toward the Public Broadcasting System.

         PBS has been eclipsed by its sister in whoredoms, the BBC, when it comes to the subject of the War for Iraqi Freedom. The reporters for this organization began a concerted attack first on the war, and then to discredit the liberation of Iraq. One writer remarked that "Because Tony Blair's Labour Party dominates the government in a way that America's Republicans do not (yet), the role of disloyal opposition is being played not by a formal political party but by the taxpayer-funded British Broadcasting Corp." The writer of that sentence was actually shortsighted. While BBC is disloyal opposition, it is disloyal to Great Britain as a whole.

            In the most recent debate relating to Iraq the BBC has been particularly virulent in its attack on the current government. On May 29, a story by reporter Andrew Gilligan aired on a BBC radio station. It included claims by an unnamed intelligence source that Downing Street exaggerated the dossier on alleged weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Gilligan accused communications chief Alistair Campbell of having inserted into a report a claim that Iraq could deploy weapons of mass destruction "within 45 minutes." The Foreign Affairs Committee of Britain's Parliament investigated and cleared Campbell of Gilligan's charge.

         The BBC would not admit that their allegations were false nor does it still insist that the story was correct. It merely stated that it has the right to broadcast what it wants. Greg Dyke, the BBC Director-General, has persuaded his governing board that a high principle of independence is at stake and an apology would cede editorial control to No 10. The BBC, which is a creation of the British government, claims it is holding the government accountable for alleged dishonesty. But faced with admitting it sensationalized its own report, the BBC proclaims its immunity from accountability as a matter of high principle.

         Down here in Georgia we define the sorriest kind of dog that can live as one that will bite the hand that feeds it. The PBS and the BBC are adding new insight into the definition. I would not have either organization to be hostage to the spouting of a party line. But since they are antagonistic to the very nations that feed them do the same thing with them you should do with a hand biting dog. Starve the dog into submission. Cut off the money.


Minister of Education Reports





         When I wrote the piece on the common betrayal of their country, that is the activity of the two broadcasting organizations known as PBS and BBC, David Kelly's name was being bandied about. But the big news was that gentleman was missing.

         Now he has been found dead of an apparent suicide. At this moment I miss Tommy Norton very much. Were he still alive we would be going over every scrap of information around to come to a conclusion about whether or not we believe the suicide story or not. Without him I am missing a strong right arm when it comes to criminal analysis, but I keep asking myself who benefited most from his death? The man is gone and now must appear before the Judgement Seat of the Righteous Judge who knows all things.

         Now that David Kelly is dead, the BBC has claimed that he is the source of their opinion that the British government enhanced its report on Saddan Hussein's efforts to get nuclear material. Apparently Kelly's own family did not know this because the BBC admitted in a statement they released that they had to inform them. David Kelly, when he was alive, on the 15th of July, testified that he was not the source of the report made by BBC reporter Andrew Gilligan. Two days later, Gilligan was accused by the Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman, Donald Anderson of being a man whose story kept changing. That very night David Kelly was reported to be missing. Now he cannot respond to anything more they claim. I think that is very convenient.

         From this point in my conclusion, I could go on to remark in a secular vein, but there are spiritual issues in this story that I do not think should be overlooked. The spiritual issue is that some, maybe a number of people, are lying. We may never find out who all the liars are in this life, but not one of them has escaped the notice of heaven. There will indeed one day be a reckoning for those who deal in lies and deceit. I am reminded that Mussolini used the big lie oft repeated to create and support his fascist regime. But in the end his body that was publicly debased.


            Jonsquill Ministries

P. O. Box 752

Buchanan, Georgia 30113