abc news: Page 1
Univision opposes New York Times over term "illegal immigrant" (HuffPost, Maria Hinojosa, NAHJ, Chris Hayes) - 10/09/12
Jose Vargas (see the link) recently set off an intramural battle in the left-leaning media with his misleading campaign to get the New York Times and the Associated Press drop the term "illegal immigrant".
The pro-illegal immigration group Define American is beginning a campaign to monitor the media for uses of the term "illegal immigrant".
Instead of using "illegal immigrant" - or the more accurate "illegal alien" - they want the media to use the misleading euphemism "undocumented immigrant".
Jon Huntsman would still help illegal aliens take college educations from Americans (immigration, George Stephanopoulos) - 05/20/11
George Stephanopoulos interviewed potential presidential candidate Jon Huntsman yesterday; a transcript is here and the quotes are at . In the interview , Huntsman doesn't back down from his previous support for giving in-state tuition to illegal aliens.
As discussed in greater depth on the DREAM Act page, that would allow those illegal aliens to take college educations away from Americans. Whether Huntsman supports the (national) DREAM Act or just state-only versions isn't known; in either case Huntsman would hurt Americans in order to help citizens of other countries.
The pro-American solution would be to encourage illegal aliens to return home via attrition. That would free up college educations and discounts for Americans at the same time as helping the foreign countries from which those illegal aliens came. It would also discourage future illegal immigration.
Huntsman's plan would deprive some citizens of college, would help further braindrain struggling foreign countries, and would encourage more illegal immigration.
George Stephanopoulos: On civil unions and on immigration, no walking away from your past positions?
Jon Huntsman: No. No. I think, in the case of civil unions, I think it's a fairness issue. I believe in traditional marriage. But subordinate to that, I think we probably can do a better job when it comes to fairness and equality. And I don't believe in penalizing the younger generation coming across our borders who have no say whatsoever over their journey and destiny.
They want to integrate into the American system. If they're willing what needs to do be done and work hard, then I think if we're giving them an in-house tuition break, that integrates them into the system, and makes them part of ultimately contributing to our country.
 Needless to say, George Stephanopoulos only asked Huntsman horserace and other light questions and didn't call Huntsman on supporting depriving some citizens of college. Stephanopoulos - probably in an attempt to mislead - referred to "the children of illegal immigrants be able to pay in-state tuition in your state". In fact, the bill Huntsman supported was for those who are themselves illegal aliens, irrespective of the status of their parents.
Michele Bachmann fails to expose George Stephanopoulos' deceptive game ("Birther", Obama's certificate) - 04/20/11
George Stephanopoulos interviewed Michelle Bachmann on ABC News' Good Morning America today (link), discussing in part the "Birthers" issue (see our extensive coverage at Obama citizenship). Neither of them came off very well in the exchange: Stephanopoulos acted (not surprisingly) like a deceptive partisan hack. And, Bachmann failed to show clear thinking by calling him on it.
Stephanopoulos acted the part of a three-card monty dealer, holding up a supposed print out of "the president’s certificate". Bachmann said that the issue would be solved if that were "introduced". Stephanopoulos said that it had been introduced, ending with this exchange:
Bachmann: Well as long as someone introduces it I guess it’s over.
Stephanopoulos: It’s right there.
Bachmann: Yeah, there you go. Because that is not the main issue facing the United States right now.
The problem is that Obama's certificate - whatever it is - has not been "introduced" in anything approaching a legal sense. He's posted a picture of what he claims is his certificate (actually just a "certification of live birth") on his website. The printout that Stephanopoulos is even more questionable: only he got a good look at it; it's unclear whether Bachmann even knew what it was; and, there's no independent verification that Stephanopoulos - an obvious partisan hack - tampered with it.
And, even if we assume that Stephanopoulos held up an accurate printout of what Factcheck posted, major questions remain because FactCheck is not a credible source (see the link). Not only have they misled for Obama in the past, but they edited the supposed pictures of Obama's COLB after initially posting them. And, they didn't note that they'd edited those photos.
Obviously, Bachmann should have called Stephanopoulos on the above rather than enabling him to mislead. And, she should have pointed out that the "Birther" issue is indeed vitally important for the reasons discussed at that link.
Teaparty: 52% unfavorable, just 35% favorable (WaPo ABC poll) (socialism gets 36% favorable) - 01/19/11
[See the March 2011 update below]
Per their enablers, the tea parties are as American as apple pie with a U.S. flag on top. So, why do many Americans have an unfavorable opinion of them?
According to a new Washington Post / ABC News poll (link), just 35% of Americans have a favorable opinion of the teaparty movement, down from 38% in September 2010 and from 41% in March 2010. Meanwhile, their unfavorable rating has jumped to 52%, from a low of 39% in March 2010. Only 16% are strongly favorable on the teaparties.
If the partiers were as mainstream and all-American as they say, wouldn't their favorability be higher? Or, did Russia and China secretly conspire to replace their otherwise supporters with COMMUNISTS?
More likely, regular Americans who are smeared as likely tea party supporters are starting to wake up to the fact that the teaparties are useful idiots for the Koch family, Freedomworks, and other interests. And, regular Americans are starting to wake up to the corrosive nature of the teaparty's rhetoric: 49% think teaparty's "political discourse" "has crossed the line", just two points down from both conservative and liberal political commentators.
More than one-third of Americans (36%) have a positive image of "socialism," while 58% have a negative image. Views differ by party and ideology, with a majority of Democrats and liberals saying they have a positive view of socialism, compared to a minority of Republicans and conservatives.
Obviously, the two polls probably differ in methodology, but having an unfavorability that's comparable to socialism probably won't make the teapartiers feel too good.
Forty-seven percent of people questioned say they have an unfavorable view of the tea party, up four points from December and an increase of 21 points from January 2010. That 47 percent is virtually identical to the 48 percent unfavorable ratings for both the Democratic party and the Republican party in the same poll.
Just 32% have a favorable opinion of the teaparties, and apparently most of the movement has been among those who'd most be negatively impacted by teaparty's Libertarian Lite policies:
The tea party movement's unfavorable rating rose 15 points since October among lower-income Americans, compared to only five points among those making more than $50,000. Roughly half of all American households have incomes under $50,000, and half make more than that.
The teaparties are all about the money, so it's surprising that their popularity isn't much lower among low-income Americans. Not only would teaparty economic policies not help low-income Americans, but by not being willing to engage in the culture wars against the "liberal" elite, the teaparties have cut themselves off from any social issues-related reason why low-income Americans might support them. All they have left is their pretend-patriotism, and maybe even more lower-income Americans will see through that in time.
On Good Morning America, Zach Osler - a former friend of Gabrielle Giffords shooter Jared Lee Loughner - said the following about Loughner (video below):
He did not watch TV. He disliked the news. He didn’t listen to political radio. He didn’t take sides. He wasn’t on the left. He wasn’t on the right.
However, in the same interview, Osler admits not having seen Loughner for two years. Obviously, a lot can happen in two years, but don't expect partisan hacks to acknowledge that or in some cases even mention that Osler's information is two years out of date.
Osler's claims also contradict claims from another former classmate that in 2007 Loughner was left-wing (although her abilities at political classification aren't clear). And, the last two years has seen the rise of the tea parties, a group that specializes in loud, anti-intellectual rants against politicians, intimidating politicians, bringing guns to public meetings, waving "We came unarmed [this time]" signs, and on and on. The chance that Loughner didn't see some of that is indeed slim, whether on TV or on Youtube.
Note also that Osler places the blame for Loughner's slide in part on the drug Salvia and in part on the libertarian documentary Zeitgeist. As I've stated many times, some of Loughner's ideas are those of a deranged libertarian extremist. That doesn't make him a libertarian however, just that he was influenced by their ideas. And, when it comes to committing violence against politicians, he may have been influenced by the tea parties. Perhaps his Youtube viewing history or similar will come out at his trial.
ADDED: See also
* FAQ: Is Jared Lee Loughner linked to Tea Party, conservatives, or libertarians? (Gabrielle Giffords shooting)
* Jared Loughner: anti-Bush, pro-small government? Intellectually dishonest Tea Party defenders
* Claims by Tea Party enablers that Pima Sheriff Dupnik could have stopped Loughner are false
* Loughner's "Genocide school" video
* Jared Loughner's AboveTopSecret postings show no clear political slant
* Arizona state Fusion Center uses Giffords shooting to smear American Renaissance)
* Glenn Reynolds denies Tea Party's history of intimidation
* first post on Gabrielle Giffords shooting
John Quinones to lie about Arizona SB 1070, immigration enforcement (ABC, "What Would You Do?") - 12/20/10
In early 2011, ABC News' "What Would You Do?" series - hosted by John Quinones - will broadcast an episode in which they'll lie about Arizona's new immigration law SB 1070. In fact, the segment described here would very likely be illegal and would probably generate a lawsuit.
Specifically, security guards aren't empowered to enforce SB 1070, whether they're U.S. citizens or not. Arizona cops can only question someone's status after having detained them for something else and after having reasonable suspicion that those being detained are here illegally. Federal agents charged with enforcing immigration laws - such as the Border Patrol - have wider latitude but it's highly unlikely they'd do something as described below. The Border Patrol and related agencies have been doing their jobs for decades without valid complaints about their right to detain suspected illegal aliens. And, of course, there's the "papers" bit trying to compare a law designed to reduce illegal activity with the Nazis:
When a man dressed like a security guard demanded "papers" from two Hispanic patrons at a local Mexican restaurant recently, Andrea Morken stood up.
"Excuse me. I don't think you can do that," Morken said loudly enough for the rest of the diners at BK Carne Asada and Hot Dogs to hear.
The Anglo guard struck an aggressive pose and repeated his demand.
"Actually you can't do that and that's not going to happen right now, right here, today," said Morken, who owns a day spa in Tucson. "So you just need to get on out of here now."
Others agreed, telling the security guard to leave the men alone.
"I am an American citizen," he shot back, "and I have the right to see if these two are illegals or not."
The man eventually left - to the applause of the diners - but he returned shortly and said he had called the authorities to come pick up the two men.
Fed up, Morken offered the patrons a ride. The older of the two stood to comply, then took off his sunglasses.
"Do you know who I am?" he asked.
It was ABC's John Quinones. The man eating with him and the security guard were both actors. And the entire incident was being filmed by hidden cameras inside BK, 2680 N. First Ave., for an upcoming episode of the ABC show "What Would You Do?"
Note that Brady McCombs of the Arizona Daily Star is quite starstruck and doesn't call Quinones on misleading about Arizona's law. Please send him an email and suggest he act like a real reporter and not Quinones' publicist.
Dalia Fahmy of ABC News offers "Expensive Aliens: How Much Do Illegal Immigrants Really Cost?" (link), an article similar in scope to the recently-discussed misleading article by FactCheck. She's slightly more balanced then the other article, but this at the end jumps out:
Jeffrey Passel, a senior demographer at the Pew Hispanic Center, takes the debate one step further. He points out that most attempts to find a meaningful number are usually futile, since the data are so difficult to collect. And anyway, he says, what is the point?
"We don't generally ask these questions about anybody else," says Passel. He points out that using the "cost" argument, one could make a case against parents who generally benefit more from public schools than the taxes they pay. "It's not a subject that there is a definitive answer to."
Obviously, the reason why people ask that question is because illegal aliens aren't supposed to be here. There are plenty of Americans who we'd be very lucky if they picked up and moved to another country, but we can't force them to leave. Foreign citizens who are here illegally are a different matter entirely: if enough people worked at it in an intelligent and effective fashion, we could encourage many or most to return home. That's the goal of things like the new Arizona immigration law; perhaps Passel needs to pay more attention to current events.
Eric Holder admits hasn't read Arizona immigration law (despite previously criticizing it) - 05/13/10
Despite having criticized the new Arizona immigration law at least a few times, Attorney General Eric Holder today admitted (link) that he hasn't read the law but has only "glanced" at it. Pressed by Rep. Ted Poe, Holder said:
"I've just expressed concerns on the basis of what I've heard about the law. But I'm not in a position to say at this point, not having read the law, not having had the chance to interact with people are doing the review, exactly what my position is."
As can be seen at the first link in this post, what Holder has "heard about the law" is probably inaccurate since the mainstream media has consistently lied and misled about what the various versions of the bills and the laws actually say.
Compare what Holder said today to his comments on May 11 (video: peekURL.com/vbd3nxz ) and on May 11 or before ( video: peekURL.com/v3dei8p ).
UPDATE: Video added. A longer, audio-only excerpt is at youtube.com/watch?v=mFO30lCSEc0
Devin Dwyer of ABC News offers "Defying Cops and Klan, Immigrants Trek 1,500 Miles to Washington" . It promotes the anti-American DREAM Act, but (as with almost all the other articles about that bill) fails to note that the bill would allow illegal aliens to take college educations away from U.S. citizens.
Two behind Detroit airline terror plot were released from Gitmo; "art therapy rehabilitation program" - 12/28/09
Two of the four leaders allegedly behind the al Qaeda plot to blow up a Northwest Airlines passenger jet over Detroit were released by the U.S. from the Guantanamo prison in November, 2007, according to American officials and Department of Defense documents. Al Qaeda claimed responsibility for the Northwest bombing in a Monday statement that vowed more attacks on Americans.
American officials agreed to send the two terrorists from Guantanamo to Saudi Arabia where they entered into an "art therapy rehabilitation program" and were set free, according to U.S. and Saudi officials.
Obama gives INTERPOL immunity from U.S. law; Constitution doesn't apply; precursor to ICC? - 12/28/09
On December 17, Barack Obama signed "Executive Order -- Amending Executive Order 12425"  which lifts Ronald Reagan-era limitation on how the international police force INTERPOL can operate inside the U.S. From Andrew McCarthy of National Review (link):
Interpol's property and assets are no longer subject to search and confiscation, and its archives are now considered inviolable. This international police force (whose U.S. headquarters is in the Justice Department in Washington) will be unrestrained by the U.S. Constitution and American law while it operates in the United States and affects both Americans and American interests outside the United States... ...Why would we elevate an international police force above American law? Why would we immunize an international police force from the limitations that constrain the FBI and other American law-enforcement agencies? Why is it suddenly necessary to have, within the Justice Department, a repository for stashing government files which, therefore, will be beyond the ability of Congress, American law-enforcement, the media, and the American people to scrutinize?
this immunity and protection - and elevation above the US Constitution - afforded INTERPOL is likely a precursor to the White House subjecting the United States under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC). INTERPOL provides a significant enforcement function for the ICC, just as our FBI provides a significant function for our Department of Justice.
12/30/09 UPDATE: Orin Kerr of the Volokh Conspiracy isn't worried about this:
However, he also admits that he isn't familiar with these topics; he asks for those more knowledgable to weigh in in comments, and I didn't see anyone like that.
And, Jake Tapper of ABC News throws cold water on this here, quoting a "counterterrorism official from the Bush years" as saying "Conservatives can't have it both ways... You can't be complaining about the hypothetical abdication of US jurisdiction at the same time you're complaining the Obama administration is not being tough enough on national security." Not exactly reassuring, especially if Tapper's unnamed source is Richard Clarke, someone not of high integrity.
1/12/10 UPDATE: The National Rifle Association - more credible than the above on issues like this - says there's nothing to worry about (link). However, Michael Isikoff of Newsweek says the same, offering a standard establishment mocking rebuttal of a Chuck Norris column about this issue (link).
Obama state dinner guests incl. Couric, Brian Williams, GE chairman, DreamWorks, NYT and WaPo reporters... - 11/24/09
A full list of those invited to tonight's White House state dinner - the one featuring arugula (no, really) - is here. In addition to a large number of Indian names that I don't recognize, here are some that seem more than a bit interesting:
ABC News gives Obama healthcare infomercial, refuses opposition ads (and what you can do) - 06/17/09
ABC is refusing to air paid ads during its White House health care presentation, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned, including a paid-for alternative viewpoint!
The development comes a day after the network denied a request by the Republican National Committee to feature a representative of the party's views during the Obama special.
Needless to say, that's similar to the way things are done in Venezuela. Obama hasn't threatened to take Fox News off the air as Hugo Chavez is threatening to do with the last major opposition TV station in Venezuela (link), but he and his proxies have done their best to smear Fox, Rush Limbaugh, and other opponents. They may also have something that would have the same impact as the Fairness Doctrine in mind. And, of course, most of the mainstream media frequently acts as little more than proxies for the Obama administration.
So much for the whining.
Now, unlike almost anyone else, I'm going to tell you what you can - and must - do about about this.
You the reader need to get involved in some way with a local group that will go out and hold politicians and political leaders accountable. The mainstream media will not do that. By filling that gap, you'll not only cause politicians to promote better policies, you'll also undercut the mainstream media. While they're covering egg rolls on the White House lawn, you'll be out there engaging political leaders in debate and having an impact on policy.
Please note that none of that has to be difficult; with enough group members the responsibilities of each role can be relatively light. If you can't or don't want to ask the questions, you can serve in the role of spotter, promoter, or whatever. But, if you want to lessen the slide into totalitarianism, you have to do something. And, don't expect the leaders of the supposed opposition to Obama to do anything. They're more interested in their careers or in promoting extreme philosophies such as objectivism. If someone tells you to hold up a sign on a street corner just like ACORN does, they're only wasting your time.
There's an action plan in the question authority summary. Even if you can't start a local group, you can still encourage others to start such groups. But, you the reader have to do something.
One of the games that illegal immigration supporters like to play is to pretend that comprehensive immigration reform isn't amnesty; they use a variety of misleading euphemisms, such as "earned legalization" and so on. But, sometimes the mask slips, as it did with Angela Kelley of the Center for American Progress. Referring to the recent Washington Post/ABC News poll, she says (americanprogress.org/issues/2009/05/immigration_friends.html):
In fact, in the poll a majority of Democrats, Republicans, Independents, moderates, and conservatives supported an Amnesty Program. "Seven in 10 liberals and 68 percent of Democrats support an amnesty program. But so do majorities of Republicans and independents (59 percent in both cases), moderates (63 percent) and conservatives (56 percent) alike."
On immigration, while support for a path to citizenship is up, interest in greater border control remains high and strong. Seventy-four percent say the United States is not doing enough to keep illegal immigrants out of the country; 59 percent feel "strongly" about it.
In fact, as detailed at the discussion of the poll, it doesn't mention a "path to citizenship" at all; legalization doesn't necessarily imply that all those legalized would be able to become citizens.
Washington Post /ABC News poll shows 61% favor illegal alien legalization; didn't ask about citizenship - 05/12/09
Would you support or oppose a program giving ILLEGAL immigrants now living in the United States the right to live here LEGALLY if they pay a fine and meet other requirements?
61% supported that vs. 35% against, up from 49/46, 51/44, and 52/44 in the second half of 2007. The uptick in support is slightly worrisome, as is the fact that this poll can be spun as supportive of comprehensive immigration reform when it doesn't include a main component of most CIR plans: a "path to citizenship" where former illegal aliens would eventually become citizens. The poll question is mostly useless and could also be read as supportive of a massive guest workers plan. And, as with other questions along these lines it fails to inform respondents of all the downsides of such schemes; many or most people are ignorant of those downsides because the mainstream media has done a terrific job at misleading people on this topic.
Jon Stewart "The Naturalized" on History Channel will be pro-massive immigration propaganda - 05/11/09
[It] follows eight individuals through the bureaucratic morass of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. The special will also include interviews with undocumented and deported illegal immigrants... It's a look at that process that is very much in Jon's tone and manner," says Nancy Dubuc, History's executive VP and general manager. "The early stuff we're seeing is quite funny but really poignant and relevant."
In other words, it's going to be a snarkfest with a gooey center, designed to smear opponents of massive/illegal immigration on one hand and present a PIIPP-level view of the topic on the other. If it includes any contrary arguments, those will be minimized or misrepresented. I could include a disclaimer just in case I'm wrong, but I don't have to because I'm not going to be wrong.
Few companies contacted by ABC News were willing to talk on the record about their experiences with E-Verify. For instance, the giant poultry company Perdue sent the following statement :
"We are doing all that the law allows to verify each applicant's identity and employment eligibility. If we find that an associate has presented false information on an employment application, that person will be immediately terminated."
Perdue confirmed it uses E-Verify, but referred questions to (Tamar Jacoby) at ImmigrationWorks USA.
There's nothing wrong about that, it's just a bit curious. Are they a client, or just a fan? She did conduct a seminar that included one of their officials: immigrationworksusa.org/index.php?p=127
John Stossel /ABC: "Bailouts, Big Spending, and Bull" (TV, libertarian, Drew Carey, Reason, cosmos, rainbows...) - 03/13/09
Briefly emerging from Galt's Gulch, ABC News host John Stossel will offer a segment called "Bailouts, Big Spending, and Bull" on tonight's 20/20 TV show airing at 10:00PM Eastern and Pacific. During the show he'll discuss various topics of interest to libertarians, such as pot, the stimulus plan, pot, did I mention pot?, and so on. And, he'll be joined by washed-up TV host Drew Carey. Carey will discuss his dramatic political enlightenment thanks to Reason Magazine. Yes, that's right: the "cosmotarian" publication that helped block the Ron Paul movement is having their big TV break.
If you want to strike back a bit, go to reason.com/blog and other sites that discuss the segment and point out all the ways it was wrong. For instance, here's the bit about the border (link):
Run for the Border: Do you sleep better at night knowing there's an expensive fence on America's southern border? Will a giant wall really secure our country? So far, those wanting to come here just go around the wall, or climb over it, or cut holes in it. If we further reinforce the entire southern border, then what about Canada? And what about the miles of east and west coast beaches? Will we patrol our coastline with machine guns? In fact, half the illegals in America entered legally by using tourist or student visas, then staying after their visas expired.
The border fence is effective where it's used, the reason it's not that effective in some areas is because there's no fence there. Duh. And, if there had been a fence all along the southern border - or at least where necessary - millions of people would not have been able to enter the U.S. illegally. Fixing the problems with illegal crossings and illegal overstays are two separate issues. And, obviously, it would be much more difficult for large numbers of people to enter the U.S. illegally through the coasts. And, there's a problem with possible infiltration of terrorists and the like from Canada but, since they aren't a failed state we don't have to worry about millions of Canadians streaming over the border. Double duh.
Thus it is that Justin Rood of ABC News offers "Record Refutes Palin's Sudan Claim/Palin Administration Against Sudan Divestment Before It Was For It, Documents Show" (link). The main quote source in the article is Alaskan Democratic politician Les Gara, who's also the "validator" for a highly misleading "fact check" from the Barack Obama campaign: factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/10/02/debate_reality_check_palin_wro_1.php
That BHO page says "Palin's administration was complicit in killing Darfur divestment bill" and provides a few quotes in support of that claim. However, the BHO campaign "forgets" to point out that Palin later supported the bill when it was reintroduced in the next session.
Taking his cues from the BHO campaign, ABC's Rood says:
In Thursday's debate, Palin said she had advocated the state divest from Sudan. "When I and others in the legislature found out that we had some millions of dollars [of Permanent Fund investments] in Sudan, we called for divestment through legislation of those dollars," Palin said.Rood himself and the subhead both admit that the most that can be said is that she (i.e., her administration) were against it to begin with for one reason or other. There are only two angles for an honest reporter: why was her administration was against it initially, and does her statement above imply some sort of immediate action rather than allowing for initial opposition. Rood is trying to give the impression that she was outright lying about supporting divestment, something that this April 03, 2008 article shows to be false (link):
But a search of news clips and transcripts from the time do not turn up an instance in which Palin mentioned the Sudanese crisis or concerns about Alaska's investments tied to the ruling regime. Moreover, Palin's administration openly opposed the bill, and stated its opposition in a public hearing on the measure.
Gov. Sarah Palin's administration signaled support Tuesday for the Legislature to order the divestment of Alaska's public funds from Sudan, where thousands of people have died in the Darfur region.Also, the bill that ABC discusses was sponsored by Democrat Les Gara and Republican Bob Lynn. The latter couldn't be reached, but Gara is quite eager to pin blame on Palin and lays it on thick:
Department of Revenue Commissioner Patrick Galvin endorsed a bill promoting divestment in Sudan at a hearing before the Senate State Affairs Committee.
"At the last minute they showed up" and supported the divestment effort, Gara said. But by then the legislative session was almost over, and there wasn't enough time to get it passed.Rood's timeline appears to place that "early this year". Yet, the Alaskan legislature began its session on January 15 (link), and according to this, state senator Hollis French was to co-sponsor a new version of the bill. Rood's timeline is obviously off.
For the details, one possibility would be to contact "Save Darfur Anchorage"; if she were the sticking point I'm sure they would have covered it (link). When a Chinese company that invests in the Sudan (Sinopec) wanted a major state contract (link,link) and was rejected for one reason or other, they took her to task for not publicly rejecting that company over Darfur (link); they also met with her over divestment in December 2007 (link).
And, concerning Sinopec, this December 7, 2007 report says:
Alaska Revenue Commissioner Pat Galvin said concerns about either exports or alleged human-rights violations could be valid considerations during the months-long review process of the gas project proposals.Galvin is also quoted at some of the previous links as a representative of the Palin administration dealing with divestment.
~ Who's pushing the smear ~
* Needless to say, someone else is buying it and trying to resell it: andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/10/the-odd-lies--2.html. He calls that a "lie", when in fact Sully is the liar.
* Martin Kaste of NPR fails to point out that she later supported divestment: npr.org/blogs/politics/2008/10/palins_budget.html
* Americablog does the same: americablog.com/2008/10/sarah-palins-18-lies-tonight.html That same list was posted by Lowell (raisingkaine.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=16416), this site (yestodemocracy.com/yes_to_democracy_no_to_pu/2008/10/sarah-palins-18.html), and a large number of other blogs and forums. Some don't have a link back, and the ones that do link back to Americablog. However, the list screams "sent from the BHO campaign".
* Americablog again, with John Aravosis quoting only the "good parts" of the ABC piece, the ones that don't mention that the Palin administration later came out in support of divestiture: americablog.com/2008/10/abc-palin-lied-last-night-about.html
In June, Palin gave a speech at the Wasilla Assembly of God, her former church, in which she exhorted ministry students to pray for American soldiers in Iraq. "Our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God," she told them. "That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that plan is God's plan."That makes it sound like she thinks the war in Iraq is a "task that is from God", but that's not really what she meant. The Alternet article takes their quote from the NYT (link), and omits a key part which is boldened below:
She also told the group that her eldest child, Track, would soon be deployed by the Army to Iraq, and that they should pray "that our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God, that's what we have to make sure we are praying for, that there is a plan, and that plan is God's plan."Assuming that the NYT itself didn't misquote her, I read that as her hoping that our leaders aren't sending them out on a task that's disreputable, not that she thinks of the Iraq war as a modern-day Crusade. However, this smear will probably be hitting your mailbox - and mailboxes in the Middle East - any second now.
9/11/08 UPDATE: Alternet appears to have taken their smear from the Associated Press. On Sep. 3, Gene Johnson of the AP offered what's called here "Palin: Iraq war 'a task that is from God'". See the full quote here. And, in his interview with Palin, Charlie Gibson reached Alternet level (link, see also this):
GIBSON: You said recently, in your old church, "Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God." Are we fighting a holy war?
PALIN: You know, I don't know if that was my exact quote.
GIBSON: Exact words.
PALIN: But the reference there is a repeat of Abraham Lincoln's words when he said - first, he suggested never presume to know what God's will is, and I would never presume to know God's will or to speak God's words.
But what Abraham Lincoln had said, and that's a repeat in my comments, was let us not pray that God is on our side in a war or any other time, but let us pray that we are on God's side.
That's what that comment was all about, Charlie.
GIBSON: I take your point about Lincoln's words, but you went on and said, "There is a plan and it is God’s plan."
Horrors: Jake Tapper says Sarah Palin was member of "fringe" party (Alaskan Independence Party) - 09/01/08
Officials of the Alaskan Independence Party say that Palin was once so independent, she was once a member of their party, which, since the 1970s, has been pushing for a legal vote for Alaskans to decide whether or not residents of the 49th state can secede from the United States.Oh, horrors! Here's their platform, and I'll bet if you lived in Alaska it wouldn't seem so "fringe", unless your point of reference is the Beltway establishment. While I'm sure some of their members are indeed "fringe", their platform isn't all that extreme. It's not like they're running around in robes, supporting race-based irredentism, consorting with foreign countries, supporting illegal activity in order to gain race-based power, or supporting giving the UN their own army or things like that. Those would be, in the eyes of hacks like Tapper, not just acceptable but admirable.
And while McCain's motto -- as seen in a new TV ad -- is "Country First," the AIP's motto is the exact opposite -- "Alaska First -- Alaska Always."
And, it's not like the article has endeavored to find out the extent to which Palin supported their platform, nor does he provide a then-current copy of their platform. And, it's not like their ideas don't deserve serious consideration rather than being smeared as Tapper does, even if someone disagrees with some or all of their ideas.
UPDATE: As it turns out, while her husband might have been and might still be a member, Sarah Palin was never a card-carrying member (link):
In recent press reports, Lynette Clark, the AIP's chairman, has been quoted as saying Palin was at an AIP convention in 1994 and was an official party member at the time. Other sources within the party tell Mother Jones that the only way to become a member of the AIP is to register to vote with the AIP. Yet the state of Alaska released records confirming what the McCain-Palin campaign had maintained: Palin never registered as an AIP member.
For an unknown reason, on June 10, 2008 Jake Tapper of ABC News posted an entry entitled "Dragged Kicking and Screaming, Tancredo Will Pull Lever for McCain". The reader might remember that from a couple months ago, yet Tapper posted it like it happened just recently and with no acknowledgement that it was old news (link). The Tancredo quote referencing Hillary Clinton as a contender should have been a clue, but I guess Tapper needs all the help he can get. Note also that the earliest comment on the entry is from June 10, and that it's currently in their "Recent Posts" sidebar item.
I left the following comment, which was deleted. Note that I used the name "TLB" and with a link to this site. It can't just be because I used a link, since someone else whose comment remains on the page has a link, and surely they must know that since there are nofollow tags on the links there's no "danger" in letting people put links there, right? So, I'm forced to conclude that ABC News doesn't want people to know that Tapper is serving up old news.
Here's the shocking comment that ABC News doesn't want anyone to see:
Perhaps someone should tell Tapper that the linked article is from two months ago. Someone should also tell him that Barr's position is more or less the same as McCain's.
Earlier this month the Southern Poverty Law Center - a group indirectly linked to the Mexican government - released a report entitled "The Year in Hate", which continued their attempt to shut down debate about immigration matters. Per the AP:
If I didn't know better, I'd say the ad was great. And, if I were promoting Huck for some reason, I'd say it was great too!If that doesn't sound like me or make much sense, it's because ABC News edited my comment without notice. Here's the version that I left; this is how it appeared on the site before the edit:
If I didn't know better, I'd say the ad was great. And, if I were promoting Huck for some reason, I'd say it was great too! Thankfully, I'm actually familiar with Huck's record:This isn't the first time they've done something like this, and it's not too difficult to imagine them getting into legal hot water should they edit comments in the wrong way.
Maybe ABC could decide to do some real reporting about his record. (Or, perhaps they're waiting until after they've built him up.)
Previous coverage of comments being deleted, bannings, etc. begins in this entry about Kevin Tracy.
John Quinones of ABC Nightly News offers "Pear Crop Rots as Field Hands Kept from Crossing Border", a brazen pro-cheap labor slab of propaganda that reports on what growers say without offering even the slightest bit of contradictory information. It is so biased it could have been - and might have been - written by the growers themselves. It even includes a grower being emotional:
If the migrants don't show up for the next harvest, Ivicevich said he'll have to destroy entire orchards that were planted more than a century ago. ..."That makes them 120 years old," he said, in tears. "So, I mean, how could I take that tree out?"
What's worse is that the grower's statements seem to be to a good extent related to factors other than the lack of illegal and/or cheap labor. See Pearanoia - Latest Scam From The Cheap Labor Lobby, which links to this SacBee article that - unlike virtually all other articles discussing this topic - at least tried to fact-check grower statements.
If John Quinones wants to do some real reporting, perhaps he can start by looking into the forces that pushed and approved his "report".