cnn: Page 1
Another misleading Public Religion Research Institute immigration poll (Saperstein, Preston, CNN) - 11/25/13
The Public Religion Research Institute describes itself in the highest terms possible :
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".
Piers Morgan is incapable of discrediting even John Leguizamo's absurd immigration ideas (CNN, Ice Age: Continental Drift) - 07/13/12
How weak an interviewer is Piers Morgan of CNN? So weak that he can't and won't show how a celebrity airhead like John Leguizamo is wrong about immigration policy. In an appearance last night to promote the Ice Age: Continental Drift movie, Leguizamo also promoted a racialist immigration policy for the U.S., with Morgan saying nary a peep:
Soledad O'Brien of CNN, Huffington Post fall for obvious hoax (banker 1% restaurant tip, OWS, Political Carnival) - 02/28/12
If you dislike CNN and their completely inaccurate self description of being a real news site as much as I do, the video below (cached) might just be absolutely hilarious. It features Soledad OBrien and three guests discussing a picture of a supposed restaurant receipt which shows a 1% tip and which includes a supposed note from the patron saying, "Get a real job".
"Governor Romney, the few times and I think it was only once, that they experimented with self-deportation, only a handful of individuals voluntarily left. What makes you think that -- that program could work?"
CNN Republican Presidential Debate October 18, 2011 (Las Vegas, GOP, Romney, Cain, Perry, Ron Paul, Bachmann, Gingrich, Santorum) - 10/18/11
Tonight CNN will be conducting yet another of their worthless debates, this time a GOP debate in Las Vegas in conjunction with the Western Republican Leadership Conference (WRLC). Show time is at 8pm Eastern, 5pm Pacific. Feel free to leave comments below before, during or after the debate. This post will be updated after a transcript becomes available.
Last year, Teapartiers threw dollars bills at and mocked a Parkinson's victim (see the video on tea parties). Their encore was at last night's GOP debate where at least two teapartiers shouted "Yeah!" on whether to allow the uninsured to just die. Video below. Yes, it was just two or three teapartiers, but it's an illustration of the teapartier mindset and where libertarian policies lead.
Tonight CNN will be conducting a GOP debate in conjunction with the Teaparty Express organization. Feel free to leave comments below before, during or after the debate. This post will be updated after a transcript becomes available.
Tonight at 8pm Eastern, seven declared or possible GOP presidential candidates will debate at New Hampshire's St. Anselm College. Feel free to leave your comments about the debate below; some live coverage might also be provided. When a transcript is available I'll highlight the immigration-related parts in an update.
Those debating are (see each link for more):
Brendan Nyhan shows yet again why he isn't a credible source and how he's simply an establishment toady with "Why conspiracy theories die hard" . His article is something that would have been right at home in totalitarian regimes where those who disagreed with the regime's leaders were declared insane.
His article is also highly ironic:
[In a study he conducted] undergraduate participants were given news articles in which a political figure made a misleading claim. In some cases, this claim was followed by a correction that set the record straight. Disturbingly, we found that corrective information in news articles often fails to reduce misperceptions among the ideological or partisan group that is most vulnerable to the false belief.
The irony is that every mainstream media article about the Obama citizenship issue has contained one or more lies or misleading statements about the indisputable facts of the issue. In some cases they've just made things up. Nyhan would fault the American public for not believing articles that lie to them and that smear millions of Americans. A "Brendan Nyhanovich" would have faulted Russians for not believing that grain production grew 43% last quarter as Comrade Stalin said.
For an example of how Obama supporters - whether media reporters or minor academics - can't be trusted, Nyhan writes:
In this case, the birther movement has grown to its current prominence despite the release of a certification of live birth and the discovery of contemporaneous announcements of Obama's birth in two Honolulu newspapers.
Obama never "released" a certification of live birth ("COLB"). He posted on his website a picture of what he claimed was his COLB. The state of Hawaii never officially verified that it matched what they had on file. As for the announcements, they are not now and never were proof. No one has ever provided any evidence beyond the flimsiest that they'd only indicate a Hawaiian birth. The supposed long-form birth certificate has raised even more questions than the COLB, such as exactly how the image itself was composed. None of that means that Obama was born outside the U.S., but he also hasn't proven he was born there either. There's an excellent chance that he was in fact born there, but the fact is that - when examined in a scientific or legal manner - this issue is not closed. Anyone who says it's closed is basing their determination not on facts but on faith: faith in Obama. If his supporters would simply admit that a component of their determinations was based on faith in Obama, then I wouldn't have an issue. The issue arises when they confuse facts with faith.
To compound the problems, Nyhan has advice:
The best hope for killing this myth -- or any similar one -- is to create a bipartisan consensus that it is false. If conservative elites speak out aggressively against it, Republicans who are distrustful of Obama and the mainstream media might change their minds. Unfortunately, this seems unlikely -- the political incentives to pander to birthers are still too strong (as Donald Trump has recently demonstrated).
Memo to the GOP: do not take advice from an establishment hack who can't distinguish between faith and fact. Conservative leaders have spoken out against the "Birthers" issue countless times, and their base isn't buying it. Those leaders are in effect enabling smears originating in the White House and the Democratic Party instead of fighting against those smears.
If Nyhan wants to end this myth, he should follow those four finger pointing back his way and demand that the establishment finally tell the absolute truth about this issue instead of trying to paper over their lies with smears.
Gary Tuchman works for CNN, thus we know at least three things about him: he's going to mislead about immigration, he's going to mislead about trade, and he's going to mislead about the Obama citizenship issue.
Examples of the last are found in "CNN investigation: Obama born in U.S." (link). To start, consider this sentence from the article:
Obama's 2008 campaign produced a certification of live birth, a document legally accepted as confirmation of a birth and routinely used for official purposes.
A certification of live birth ("COLB") is in many cases legally acceptable proof of birth . However, that's not what Obama "produced". All he produced is a *picture* of what he claims is his COLB. No Hawaiian official has verified that what's on that picture matches whatever might be on file. Chiyome Fukino - after she left office - claimed that they match, but that's not an official statement and whether she's trustworthy isn't clear. FactCheck posted photos of what they claim is the COLB, but they also edited those photos after initially posting them without indicating that they'd edited them. They've also lied and mislead for Obama on this and other matters.
Fukino went one step further, taking advantage of a state law that allows certain public officials to examine a person's actual birth certificate if there is a "direct and tangible interest."
Take a look at the law in question, 338-18: link. One would have to be very creative to twist anything in that law into allowing Fukino to reveal Obama's personal information. Various Hawaiian officials (Janice Okubo, Linda Lingle, Neil Abercrombie) have repeatedly stressed that it would be illegal for them to reveal someone's vital records. Yet, Fukino did it, and with the involvement of Hawaii's then-Attorney General. Tuchman is confused: Fukino did what she did in contravention of Hawaii's laws, knowing that "the fix is in": no one would seek to punish her under those laws.
Now, let's look at this:
Could Obama's 1961 birth announcement in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin be a fake? Some conspiracy theorists say yes. Longtime Honolulu newspaper reporter Dan Nakaso says no.
"It's not possible," Nakaso said. "Under the system that existed back then, there was no avenue for people to submit information that way. ... The information came directly from the state Department of Health."
Indeed, as CNN confirmed, all birth announcements at the time came directly from hospital birth records.
Nakaso has not only lied about this issue in the past (see his name's link above), he appears to be in his 40s at the most (twitter dot com/dannakaso). Someone who has first-hand knowledge of how announcements appeared in the papers would have to be at the very least in their mid-sixties, and more likely in their mid-seventies. CNN doesn't reveal what their "confirmation" consisted of. Considering how they've repeatedly lied about this issue I have no intention of believing their "confirmation" unless they reveal exactly who they talked to and I see the statements from those persons. There's an excellent chance that CNN's "confirmation" consists of little more than what Nakaso said.
Tuchman then discusses who could have seen Obama shortly after birth, first relying on a statement by Neil Abercrombie. Abercrombie would probably do handstands across burning coals if Obama asked. He's also made some possibly inconsistent statements about when he saw Obama. So, whatever he says has to be taken with a grain of salt.
Tuchman quotes University of Hawaii professor Alice Dewey, someone who's made a series of small donations to the Democratic Congressional Campaign (link). That's her right, but her recollections of Ann Stanley Dunham claiming that Obama was born in the U.S. also has to be taken with a grain of salt. (On a sidenote, the Dean of the University of Hawaii Law School hung up on me when I asked him valid, non-conspiratorial questions about this law )
Tuchman then quotes someone who thinks she might have seen Obama in the birth hospital. Then, he ends with a plea for "respect" from Abercrombie.
One thing is clear: CNN and the rest of the media have no respect for the millions of people who have legitimate questions about Obama's past and instead keep trying to sell them on the official story even if they need to lie and mislead.
Send a tweet to @GaryTuchmanCNN with your thoughts.
 Hawaii's "Home Lands" program used to require a full birth certificate, until they changed the rules (link). That was probably due to this controversy.
You can't trust CNN, especially on controversial topics like immigration, trade, and the Obama citizenship issue. An example was provided yesterday as John King lied and misled about the indisputable facts of this matter.
Another example is provided by Ed Hornick of CNN (helped by Brian Todd, who in his report just makes something up that never happened ("Debunking the birther claim", politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/15/
The Obama team and the state of Hawaii released a certification of live birth, which documents the president’s birth on August 4, 1961, in Honolulu. This is not the original birth certificate. In Hawaii and other states, original birth certificates are not released when requested later.
Click to watch video
CNN has seen a copy of the document and verified that it is official.
That's either a heretofore-unheard-of bombshell, or Hornick is just making things up. The only group that has publicly claimed to have seen a physical copy of Obama's certification of live birth ("COLB") is FactCheck. No one at CNN has ever claimed to have seen a physical copy of the COLB.
One explanation Hornick might provide is that by "copy" he means the picture that Obama posted to his website. Such an explanation doesn't wash: Hornick makes it sound like CNN has some sort of special knowledge, yet anyone who's discussed this issue has seen the picture on Obama's site dozens of times.
Further, no one at CNN has (unless Hornick is releasing a bombshell) ever "verified" the COLB - either a paper copy or the picture on Obama's site as "official". Hawaii has never said that the picture on Obama's site is "official". (Chiyome Fukino did make that claim recently, but she's no longer in office.)
So, either Hornick has chosen to release two bombshells in one in a CNN blog post, or Hornick is just making things up. Which do you think it is?
To help you decide, Hornick also states:
Former Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle, a Republican, has been quoted as saying, "I had my health director, who is a physician by background, go personally view the birth certificate in the birth records at the Department of Health. We issued a news release at the time saying the president was, in fact, born at Kapi'olani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii. And that is just a fact."
In that quote, Hornick is enabling a lie: neither of the two statements from the Hawaii Department of Health named a birth hospital. Lingle lied in that quote: she made a false statement and she has no interest in correcting it. Instead, she's allowing her false statement to continue to be repeated by those like Hornick. Instead of pointing out that she lied and trying to get a retraction, Hornick enables Lingle to lie.
Hornick also says:
Health Department spokeswoman Janice Okubo told the Star-Advertiser in July 2009 that vital statistics such as birth announcements were sent to the newspapers by the Health Department, which received the information from the hospital. These announcements were not sent in by the general public, Okubu said.
The article in question is here. I've spoken with Okubo, and I'd put her age in the twenties or thirties. The idea that she'd know the procedures involved almost 50 years ago is absurd, as is the idea that the procedures used in the 60s are the same as the ones used today. The past years have seen great strides in electronic information transmission, medical procedures, and patient privacy and the idea that they did things fifty years ago as they do today is absurd. Further, my knowledge of her is that she is not a reliable source. She even contradicted herself in quotes from the same article.
Hornick also states:
Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie, a Democrat, was a close friend of the Obamas and has repeatedly said he was around during the future president’s birth and childhood.
For those of you who haven't been following the Abercrombie issue, see his name's link above: he first said he was going to find the real certificate, then he said he had found a "recording of the birth" that was "written down", then he said he couldn't release anything. And, he misled about seeing Obama in the birth hospital and may have misled about seeing him as a baby.
Now, the above doesn't mean that Obama was born in Kenya; he was most likely born in Hawaii as he says. The issue is that he hasn't provided definitive proof. Instead, his defenders - Ed Hornick, Brian Todd, CNN, the rest of the mainstream media, political leaders, and so on - tie themselves into deceptive knots trying to delude people into thinking that Obama's proved where he was born. All of those who've taken Obama's side in this matter have lied and misled and have shown that they have no credibility.
Yesterday, Anderson Cooper of CNN interviewed Montana state representative Bob Wagner about the Obama citizenship issue and - no big surprise - Anderson Cooper lied about the basic, indisputable facts of this matter. Obviously, Obama fans like Cooper don't care about getting the facts right, but if you do and you want to find out how Cooper tries to mislead you, keep reading.
Video of the appearance is attached  First, here's what Cooper said, followed by why he's lying to you:
Here's the president's official certificate of live birth from the state of Hawaii [on screen: what appears to be the picture from Obama's site]. This is the official document from the state of Hawaii. It's what they send you when you ask for a birth certificate, it's valid at the passport office as a form of identification. It's got the signature stamp and raised seal [on screen: two pictures from FactCheck].
Hawaii's Republican governor, when the controversy erupted, said, quote, "it's been established he was born here." She said she had her health director actually go and view the original electronic copy of the birth certificate in their records.
And, here's the birth announcement ran in both Honolulu newspapers. Today, on another network, another reporter saying that the papers would get their information directly from the state health department. So, those are the facts.
1. The first graphic in the video certainly looks like a "Certification of Live Birth" ("COLB"). However, it's not in any way "the president's official certificate of live birth". It's a picture, not the document itself. And, it's a picture with an uncertain "chain of custody". In order to believe that what CNN is showing you is an accurate copy, one would need to trust both CNN and Barack Obama. Considering that both have repeatedly lied about this and unrelated matters, that perhaps would not be a wise choice. On the video, Cooper gives off the aura of someone trying to sell a car with questionable title online using a picture of a pink slip, or of someone trying a similar scam.
2. That barely-legible picture - if we assume that it matches what Obama uploaded to his site - isn't official for the additional reason that the state of Hawaii refuses to authenticate it. Anderson Cooper told you it's the official document, yet the state that supposedly issued it won't authenticate it.
3. The picture on Obama's site says right at the top that it's a "Certification of Live Birth". On the video, Anderson Cooper continually refers to it as a "certificate", and he's done the same in other interviews. To many Obama fans that doesn't matter, but try getting the name of a document wrong in a legal filing or using the wrong form when dealing with a government agency. Anderson Cooper is obviously trying to mislead his viewers into thinking that the COLB is the same as what most of us think of when we hear "birth certificate".
4. The pictures of the supposed COLB that FactCheck uploaded to their site were later edited without notice. Yes, that's right: FactCheck uploaded large images containing original camera data (EXIF) and then later - without posting any sort of notice - uploaded recompressed pictures that were missing that EXIF data. FactCheck's main document about this issue ("Born in the U.S.A") also blatantly lied about the 10/31/08 statement by Chiyome Fukino. They've also lied and misled for Obama about unrelated issues. And, they're funded by the same general group that funded Obama's Chicago Annenberg Challenge. They are not in any way a credible source.
5. The statement by "Hawaii's Republican governor" (Linda Lingle) that Cooper references didn't take place "when the controversy erupted" but in May, 2010. In that radio interview, Linda Lingle lied about what her state Health Director said. She did state that she'd had Health Director Chiyome Fukino "view the birth certificate in the birth records of the Department of Health", but I don't believe she stated that it involved an "original electronic copy" as Cooper states. And, of course, any original copy wouldn't be in electronic form. Note also that Lingle doesn't claim to have seen any documents herself, and that before the statements in that radio interview she sent out a form letter saying that under Hawaiian law she couldn't reveal the details of someone's birth record. Lingle isn't a credible source: credible sources don't make false statements and then refuse to correct them.
6. The announcements aren't proof. I don't know which "reporter" on which "network" Cooper is referring to, but there's an excellent chance they didn't have their facts right. See the discussion in #3 here; until contemporaneous documentation of procedures or first-person testimony of someone who was employed by the Health Department at the time is produced, the word of "reporters" and current Health Department employees means nothing.
If the above hasn't convinced you that Anderson Cooper is a liar, I invite you to leave a comment below defending his specific statements. I don't expect that, because that's not how "Anti-Birthers" operate: the truth means little to them.
 On another video page (link), the video uploader makes unverified legal claims disputing some of what Cooper and Jeffrey Toobin say on the video. Verifying those is left as an exercise. My issues are with Cooper's other claims. Note also that Toobin was forced to apologize for smearing another "Birther". Neither he nor Cooper are credible - or in any way impartial - sources.
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.
The video at peekURL.com/vw8kycs shows CNN contributor Jeffrey Toobin apologizing for smearing a "Birther" who Toobin had - perhaps unwittingly - accused of being among other things a racist. It's great to see Toobin forced to give a correction, but if others who discuss the Obama citizenship issue were smarter and competent and understood why this issue is important we could get much more meaningful corrections from more powerful people.
The backstory: a few weeks ago, CNN's Anderson Cooper interviewed Army Doctor LTC Terry Lakin about his court martial over this issue, which was followed by a segment featuring Toobin claiming:
"You know, these people are bigots, they're racists, they're freaks, they're lunatics, these are not rational players in American politics."
That was apparently broadcast with a picture of Lakin in the background, and Toobin now says he didn't mean to single him out, he was just speaking generally. This wasn't that great of a smackdown - Toobin did it with a smile on his face. If others would endeavor to understand this issue - and my take on it (see the links above) - we could make a lot of very obnoxious people look bad. Instead, some of the supposed opposition to Obama, the Democrats, and the MSM ends up helping those groups.
Shannon Travis of CNN offers "CNN Poll: Quarter doubt Obama was born in U.S." (link) which contains three lies about the Obama citizenship issue. Now, of course, just because Shannon Travis and dozens of other mainstream media sources have lied and misled about the easy-to-understand facts of that issue doesn't mean that Obama was born outside the U.S.: it just means those aren't reliable sources.
(Note: If you aren't familiar with my coverage of this issue, please take a minute first and see my discussion of why this is an important issue and my angle on it at that link. Please don't jump to conclusions as those who use words like "Birther" encourage you to do: they don't want you to think for yourself. instead, please read that last link if you haven't already.)
Here's a list of Shannon Travis' lies:
Travis says: Hawaii has released a copy of the president's birth certificate - officially called a "certificate of live birth."
In fact, Hawaii hasn't "released" anything besides a couple of statements (first, second). The only release of a document is what was provided by the Obama campaign: a picture on his website. That picture was not released by the State of Hawaii: it was released by the Obama campaign. Who releases a document makes a very great deal of difference; Shannon Travis is implying that the picture on Obama's site was released by the State of Hawaii itself when that's not true.
Travis says: And in 1961 the hospital where the president was born placed announcements in two Hawaiian newspapers regarding Obama's birth.
In fact, there's no proof that those announcements were placed by the birth hospital; see the post about Obama's birth announcements. Those announcements could have been placed by, for instance, Obama's grandparents and for a series of reasons. No one has proved they could have only come from a birth hospital or would indicate a Hawaiian birth. That doesn't mean that they were placed by the grandparents, just that no proof they could have only come from a hospital has been provided. See the link for the details.
Travis says: President Obama’s birth certificate (left) has been certified authentic by the Republican governor of Hawaii. That's located under a picture of the certificate from Obama's site.
Please read what Linda Lingle said at that link. The key part of her quote is: "So I had my health director... go personally view the birth certificate in the birth records of the Department of Health, and we issued a news release at that time saying that the president was, in fact, born at Kapi'olani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii."
Note that she doesn't say anything about the picture of a certification on Obama's site, nor does she say whether she even saw what they have on file. From her quote, it sounds more likely that she never saw anything they have on file: she only references the health director (Chiyome Fukino) viewing the certificate. Note that in her quote Lingle also lies: neither of the Fukino statements (as above: first, second) say anything about which hospital he was born in, and in fact there have been conflicting claims about the hospital. (Note also that it's correct to term what Lingle did a "lie" rather than just a "misstatement". She feels no need to correct the record and is consciously allowing a false statement to be promulgated.)
In addition to the lies above, Shannon Travis also says CNN and other news organizations have thoroughly debunked the rumors. In fact, Kitty Pilgrim of CNN lied about the facts of this issue, as discussed at the link.
In addition, Shannon Travis refers to the picture on Obama site as that which is officially called a "certificate of live birth." In fact, the very picture he provides says at the top that it's a "Certification of Live Birth", also known as a "COLB". Whether that's an attempt to mislead or just a mistake isn't known, but there was until recently a difference between the two Hawaiian documents.
Do you want to take the word of someone who lies and can't even get the name of a document correct?
Gallup poll: Hispanics 2-to-1 for Democrats both before and after Arizona immigration law - 06/11/10
Hispanic voters nationwide haven't shifted their congressional voting preferences since the signing of Arizona's new immigration law on April 23. Their preference for the Democratic candidate over the Republican candidate, 61% to 32%, in April 23 to June 8 interviewing almost identically matches the 60% to 32% margin recorded between March 1 and April 22. White voters and black voters also haven't changed their voting intentions.
Bear in mind, of course, that this was a nationwide poll and wasn't of, say, Mexican-Americans in Arizona or Southern California. However, it does contradict specific propaganda efforts like CNN's "Arizona Democrats say immigration law energizes Latinos" (link) as well as the more general predictions of electoral doom unless politicians basically turn immigration policy over to one ethnicity.
Questioning the official story of Obama's birthplace is the establishment's version of heresy, and Anderson Cooper - in the role of an Inquisition interrogator - yesterday interviewed Lt. Col. Terry Lakin about a lawsuit he's bringing over this issue (video: peekURL.com/v6ojxf9 ). In the segment, Cooper lies and misleads about various aspects of this issue:
Sanjay Gupta - CNN's idea of a journalist - interviewed fading pop star Shakira about Arizona's new immigration law; the video is at peekURL.com/vg9ff9k and as could be suspected it's a bit surreal. And, rather than calling her about an obvious lie, Gupta played along in order to smear the Arizona law.
Will Sam Feist correct CNN's lie about Arizona's immigration law? Ask CNN's political director. - 04/23/10
CNN pawns itself off as a source for real journalism when countless counter-examples show the opposite to be true. The latest example is a subtle but serious lie about the recently-signed Arizona immigration law. The page "What does Arizona's immigration law do?" (cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/23/immigration.faq) says:
Arizona's law orders immigrants to carry their alien registration documents at all times and requires police to question people if there's reason to suspect they're in the United States illegally.
The last sentence is a lie: police aren't just going to be running around questioning or arresting people on suspicion of being illegal aliens. They are allowed to question those who have been stopped for something else or if they have "probable cause to believe that the person has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the United States." And it can be guaranteed that a whole host of well-funded far-left organizations are going to be watching local police departments like hawks to make sure that they aren't engaging in unlawful arrests.
Note also that carrying ones green card is already federal law . While CNN isn't lying about that provision of the Arizona law, they also aren't telling their readers the whole truth.
Please take a few seconds and send a Tweet to @SamFeistCNN and also to @JonKleinCNN and ask them when they'll be correcting their misleading FAQ.
Yesterday, Rick Sanchez of CNN hosted a discussion with Jonathan Turley of George Washington University and Jim Wallis of Sojourners about the new, tough anti-illegal immigration bill in Arizona. And, as could be expected, Sanchez lied. On the video at peekURL.com/vq761e3 Rick Sanchez refers to:
The part of the bill that says that anyone with darker skin [pats hand] or that police *believe* might be an illegal immigrant has a right to be stopped and searched. Is that constitutional?
The bill (House engrossed version here, might not be a permalink) makes clear that police aren't going to be just stopping and searching people for no reason; it has to be part of an unrelated police stop of some kind. And, of course, not only is there no "darker skin" provision, but the bill makes clear that any weight given to "race, color or national origin" must be in accordance with U.S. and Arizona law:
For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of this state or a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation. Any person who is arrested shall have the person's immigration status determined before the person is released. The person's immigration status shall be verified with the federal government pursuant to 8 United States code section 1373(c). A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not solely consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution.
Later it amends their current laws:
A. A peace officer may, without a warrant, may arrest a person if he the officer has probable cause to believe: ...4. A misdemeanor or a petty offense has been committed and probable cause to believe the person to be arrested has committed the offense... 5. The person to be arrested has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the United States... B. A peace officer may stop and detain a person as is reasonably necessary to investigate an actual or suspected violation of any traffic law committed in the officer's presence and may serve a copy of the traffic complaint for any alleged civil or criminal traffic violation. A peace officer who serves a copy of the traffic complaint shall do so within a reasonable time of the alleged criminal or civil traffic violation.
#5 might be, for example, the opposite of L.A.'s Special Order 40 and might be meant to apply in the case where a police officer knows that someone is a felon who was previously deported from the U.S.; some might consider that a bit broad although it's not exactly clear how that is meant to be applied.
In any case, none of these provisions have any even remotely close to Sanchez' "darker skin" claim.
Note also that Turley says, "I don't know how you could have reasonable suspicion, looking at two different people, I bet that one doesn't have papers." While a couple of the other things he says seem to imply that he did read the bill, that quote certainly does not. And, note also that he didn't call Sanchez on his outrageous lie.
Speaking to Candy Crowley of CNN earlier today, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano was asked about the failed terror attack that occurred on Christmas Day aboard a jet bound from Amsterdam to Detroit.
Per Napolitano, "the system worked" (see the video, also at peekURL.com/vcmnigh ).
Obviously, the system didn't work; the only things that averted tragedy were a failed detonator (link) and an alert passenger who subdued the terrorist. The DHS clearly failed, but so too did the State Department and perhaps other agencies.
Rep. Peter King responds to Napolitano, saying (link) "The fact is the system did not work, and we have to find a bipartisan way to fix it. He made it on the plane with explosives and detonated the explosive." Rep. Pete Hoekstra says: "It's important for the president or the secretary to be more out there and reminding people just how real this threat was and how deadly it is... For the first three months of this administration, they refused to use the word terrorism."
UPDATE: This is titled "Flight 253 passenger: Sharp-dressed man aided terror suspect Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab onto plane without passport". According to the passenger, Mutallab's alleged accomplice used (or just tried to use) social engineering to get Mutallab on the plane. If true, Mutallab might not have appeared in the passenger manifest, and how DHS could prevent people from coming here if they aren't on the manifest isn't entirely clear.
12/28/09 UPDATE: Napolitano has re-spun her earlier remarks. And, a chorus of administration defenders appear to be helping the Obama administration throw her under the Obama bus, although whether she'll resign remains to be seen. When even Matt Lauer asks her tough questions, you know she's not in great shape (link):
In an interview Monday on NBC’s Today Show, Napolitano said her words in Sunday’s CNN interview had been “taken out of context.” She said the comment referred to the reaction in the 60-90 minutes after the suspect attempted to blow up the plane. Up until that point, did the system fail miserably, Matt Lauer asked. “It did,” she responded... Lauer pressed: How does a guy who’s on this general terror list, who buys a one-way transtlantic ticket with cash, who checks no luggage, and who’s own father has flagged him to authorities, get on the plane? Napolitano said that “our system did not work in this instance” and no one “is happy or satisfied with that.” She maintained “air travel is safe.”
And, from this:
CBS News has learned the State Department system designed to keep track of active U.S. visas twice failed to reveal Nigerian terror suspect Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab had been issued an active visa allowing him multiple entries into the United States.
12/28/09 UPDATE 2: Per this, Mutallab was added to a general list of those with possible links to terrorism based on his father's visit to the U.S. embassy in Nigeria. However, he wasn't added to more selective lists because there wasn't enough proof.
12/29/09 UPDATE: There's more on which agencies had access to what information here.