News-Record.com

I wasn’t around when the N&R did it’s 30+ articles on the shenanigans at Project Homestead, but I have tried to do some research on my own and have read Joe Guarino’s summary of the N&R research and was very impressed with the reporting. This whole thing stinks to high heaven and might just be worth the N&R running another few articles summarizing what you found before. Bloggers at least are calling for something to be done. In my blog I also state that In my opinion it was indeed a racist deal, but in quite opposite way of the opinion of the Hammers. I stated with no hesitation that it seems Blacks can do anything at all they want to do in Greensboro and Guilford County and get away with it! Mr. Johnson as you have said, this is a racist county, but it is the Blacks who are the racists not the Whites. Why are the White officials bending over backwards to accommodate Black criminals? Of course not all Black criminals, but just those who own a business suit. Is it left over guilt for something they personally had nothing to do with? Or, is it that the PAC has the politicians and city/county officials buffaloed?

Henderson's decision creates an enormous dilemma as we enter into the upcoming election season. How can the general public objectively assess his decision on this matter unless they can see the SBI report? His use of discretion regarding Project Homestead is probably the most significant public action he has taken upon which voters can assess his candidacy.

If the extensive News and Record reporting on the subject is on balance accurate, then there are serious issues with Henderson's handling of this matter-- notwithstanding Jones' and Hammer's comments.

One thing no one can accuse the N&R of is looking the other way with respect to shady dealings in the black political/economic elite. Feet--Jones's, Alston's, King's--are continually held to the fire.

Although Hammer is nuttily committed to King, I still have to defend his journalism. In some ways, the RT's partisan reporting is more informative that the N&R's ostensibly objective reporting. For one thing, having a clear political position makes the significance of political actions more salient. I always get a clearer sense of what's _important_ or controversial about meeting X from the RT, whereas the N&R's reporting reads (to me) like a mere summary. It's European-style partisan journalism, and there's an argument to be made for it. And their long, blow-by-blow accounts of meetings are meatier than the N&R's.

MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE MEGSPASE

this is bull shit go to hell