fox news: Page 1
Larry Kudlow offers "Immigration reform is pro-growth and pro-GOP" (cnbc . com/id/101685285). I'll briefly describe how it's wrong and what he's intentionally or not ignoring.
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".
Earlier today, the Washington Post published allegations that Mitt Romney was a bully back in prep school (link). I didn't read the story, but that's not what this post is about.
For examples, see the videos below. In the first, they block a woman in a wheelchair from leaving a building. In the second, they use little kids as human shields.
Tonight Fox News will be conducting a GOP debate in conjunction with Youtube, with some of the questions to be asked having been submitted via Youtube. Feel free to leave comments below before, during or after the debate. This post will be updated after a transcript becomes available. This debate stands to be just as bad and as much of a public disservice as all the others, especially considering the involvement of Youtube.
Michigan gov Rick Snyder against Arizona-style immigration law, wants to "celebrate diversity" - 05/22/11
Michigan governor Rick Snyder (GOP) has scored a hat trick: he's not fiscally extremist enough for the tea parties , the far-left is on the march against him , and he's also weak on immigration. From this:
Speaking to the Michigan Hispanic Chamber of Commerce on Thursday, Gov. Rick Snyder said that an immigration law such as the one passed last year in Arizona [note: something similar is proposed in Michigan] would "encourage a divisive atmosphere."
...Earlier this year, in a talk before a Muslim group, Snyder said Census 2010 data showed a steep decline in Michigan’s population, and therefore the state needed to attract immigrants.
At that talk, Snyder said the state’s diversity – it is home to the nation’s largest Arab and Muslim population and a growing community of Latinos – could attract more businesses to Michigan.
"We need to celebrate diversity; it's one of our strengths,” Snyder said, according to published reports. “One of the things I'm proud to say I'm already encouraging, that was in my state of the state message, is the idea of more immigration, particularly for advanced degree people."
1. Obviously, "celebrating diversity" is a far-left concept that some (perhaps including Snyder) might use without knowing what it actually means. His celebration of diversity would lead to Balkanization, the further rise of racial power groups, campaigns against "hate speech", and so on. Perhaps he learned about "diversity" in the far-left sense when heading up Gateway (the computer company).
2. The "immigrants" who would be affected by the Arizona-style bill in Michigan are actually illegal aliens, most or almost all of whom would be low-skilled and not those who'd create large numbers of jobs. Snyder is presenting a false choice: it would be possible for Michigan to have both an Arizona-style bill and be welcoming to high-skilled immigration. Instead of promoting that possibility, Snyder is trying to undercut it for political reasons (for instance, by pandering to the Michigan Hispanic Chamber of Commerce).
4. There are around 300 million people in the U.S., many of whom are very bright and creative. Snyder could encourage some of them to move to Michigan rather than having to deal with all of the issues involved with immigrants from other countries.
 "Tea Party Michigan Governor Rick Snyder Adopts Soviet-style Authoritarian Powers Over Michigan Cities"
One of the current top stories on Fox News' Latino site is 'I Was Undocumented on "Sesame Street"' , an attempt to promote illegal immigration that also promotes a culture of illegality. It's a first-person tale by Carlo Alban, who worked for the character "Mr. Hooper" on that show from 1993 to 1998. He had gotten the acting job using fake documents, and the article is full of tales of abusing the U.S. system in illegal ways:
My family had come from Ecuador when I was seven and my older brother Angelo was nine. We came on a tourist visa, and the moment my parents had gotten it, we knew we were not coming back. They sold all our furniture before we left.
...So I did a couple of plays, and in the beginning, “Sesame Street” was just another audition... Then, I was offered a regular role. I wasn’t about to turn that down. We had counterfeit green cards, but we never showed the actual card. We turned in photocopies, crossed our fingers, and hoped it worked. And this time it did.
...(In fact, we tried to get (drivers licenses). My father heard of a guy that was selling Puerto Rican birth certificates, and we bought two. My brother’s worked, and he was able to drive. Mine didn’t, and the people at the DMV took it away and told me if I wanted it back, I’d have to go pick it up at the state’s central office. I didn’t, of course.)
...One year, I was supposed to be part of the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade. For that, you get hired by Macy’s, so again I had to give a social security number and show paperwork. I was scared and wanted my father to change a number on the Xerox. And he didn’t, because he didn’t know how to. I was so angry, we got into a physical altercation.
In the long run, the culture of illegality expressed in the article is very corrosive to U.S. society. We're probably never going to be as corrupt as Mexico or other third world countries, but allowing millions of people who think it's OK to use fake documents isn't helping. Kids who think it's OK to use fake documents might grow up to be those who try to bribe local officials and the like. And, Fox News isn't helping by promoting stories like this.
It's also not like there's a shortage of U.S. child actors; in addition to taking a Sesame Street role from a citizen or legal resident, he also took other resources from citizens or legal residents:
One day, we went to visit our cousins, and they were on their way to try-outs for a community theater production of “Oliver!” It was through a program put on by the city, to get disadvantaged kids off the street.
And, there's also an example of the network effect, such as might happen after some form of amnesty:
My mother had a sister living legally in the United States, and my parents planned to have her sponsor us for residency. Soon after landing in New York, my parents saw a lawyer. But we were told the process would take four or five years.
Please tweet @foxnewslatino with your thoughts.
* See the Rupert Murdoch page
* Chicago: fake document raid leads to pro-illegal immigration protest
Two recent but unrelated stories about immigration terrorism:
A book celebrating suicide bombers has been found in the Arizona desert just north of the U.S.- Mexican border, authorities tell Fox News.
The book, "In Memory of Our Martyrs," was spotted Tuesday by a U.S. Border Patrol agent out of the Casa Grande substation who was patrolling a route known for smuggling illegal immigrants and drugs.
Published in Iran, it consists of short biographies of Islamic suicide bombers and other Islamic militants who died carrying out attacks.
2. From this:
U.S. border authorities have arrested a controversial Muslim cleric who was deported from Canada to Tunisia three years ago and was caught earlier this month trying to sneak into California inside the trunk of a BMW, according to court documents.
Said Jaziri, the former Imam of a Muslim congregation in Montreal, was hidden inside a car driven by a San Diego-area man who was pulled over by U.S. Border Patrol agents near an Indian casino east of San Diego. Jaziri allegedly paid a Tijuana-based smuggling group $5,000 to get him across the border near Tecate, saying he wanted to be taken to a “safe place anywhere in the U.S.”...
...But Jaziri’s supporters said he was targeted for his fundamentalist views: Jaziri backed Sharia law for Canadian Muslims and led protests over the publication of the prophet Muhammad cartoons in a Danish newspaper in 2006.
For background on extremists and potential terrorists crossing the border, see all the entries at the first link in this post such as Reading the 9/11 Commission Staff Reports: Chapter 3 (2004), "Terror-Linked Migrants Crossing Into U.S." (2005), and "U.S. Fears Terrorism Via Mexico's Time-Tested Smuggling Routes" (2004).
If you want to help resolve this issue before something disastrous happens, promote the question authority plan.
Jared Loughner: anti-Bush, pro-small government? Intellectually dishonest Tea Party defenders - 01/17/11
Enablers of the tea parties have, of course, been completely intellectually dishonest when attempting to defend themselves against claims that Jared Loughner is linked to them in one way or another. One example is here, and today's example involves the New York Times piece "Looking Behind the Mug-Shot Grin" (link).
Based on the relevant portion of that article , Loughner sounds a bit like a libertarian or perhaps anarchist . Instead of considering the whole of the relevant portion of the NYT article, Tea Party enablers stop at the part about not liking George W Bush, attempting to portray Loughner as a liberal. (Personally, I think he had no clear ideology but might have been motivated by Tea Party tactics.)
The NYT article gives the impression of someone who leans more to the libertarian side, and teaparty enablers are trying to transmogrify it into making him a liberal:
* Gateway Pundit offers "Finally We Know What Drove Insane Left-Wing Pothead Loughner to Violence: GEORGE BUSH" .
* Glenn Reynolds links to the Lowry post with "LOUGHNER: NOT EXACTLY A TEA PARTIER: “His anger would well up at the sight of President George W. Bush, or in discussing what he considered to be the nefarious designs of government.”" (pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/113333)
* Pat Dollard offered at post linking Loughner's school to George Soros and quoting the Bush part of the NYT piece (but not the rest). He also seems to have deleted the post which was at:
patdollard.com/2011/01/soros-educated-loughner-bush-hater and bit.ly/hHeNpf
* Andrew Breitbart tweeted a link to the Dollard post before it was apparently deleted:
Why did Soros put target on Jared Loughner's young brain? Will MSM scrutinize #HeatedPoliticalStudentIndoctrination? http://bit.ly/hHeNpf
- twitter dot com/AndrewBreitbart/status/27077637046280194
* Dana Loesch tweeted a link to the NYT article:
So Loughner hated Bush http://bit.ly/hQXdxb . Lots of people still owe others an apology. Let's see if they have the character to do it. - twitter dot com/DLoesch/statuses/27038728664915968
* Matt Drudge at post time is linking to Page 3 of the NYT piece with the text "AZ SHOOTER: BUSH HATER..."
* Fox News offers the blog post "NYT: Arizona Shooter Was a Bush Hater" which stops at the Bush part of the relevant portion:
* IowaHawk tweets:
Loughner a 9-11 Truther whose "anger would well up at the sight of G.W. Bush" http://nyti.ms/g5vkMa Mission Accomplished, @markos
- twitter dot com/iowahawkblog/status/27015807926009856
UPDATE: Earlier I said Loesch linked to the Dollard post; she just linked to the NYT piece. I've updated this with their full tweets.
UPDATE 2: The Dollard blog post is back at:
It was unavailable while he "[e]xpanded the story." (twitter dot com/PatDollard/status/27125395375529984).
I've added an image he included with his post to show the types of people who enable the teaparties.
* FAQ: Is Jared Lee Loughner linked to Tea Party, conservatives, or libertarians? (Gabrielle Giffords shooting)
* Claims by Tea Party enablers that Pima Sheriff Dupnik could have stopped Loughner are false
* Friend's claim that Loughner wasn't political is two years out of date
* 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
But Jared, a curious teenager who at times could be intellectually intimidating, stood out because of his passionate opinions about government — and his obsession with dreams.
He became intrigued by antigovernment conspiracy theories, including that the Sept. 11 attacks were perpetrated by the government and that the country’s central banking system was enslaving its citizens. His anger would well up at the sight of President George W. Bush, or in discussing what he considered to be the nefarious designs of government.
“I think he feels the people should be able to govern themselves,” said Ms. Figueroa, his former girlfriend. “We didn’t need a higher authority.”
Breanna Castle, 21, another friend from junior and senior high school, agreed. “He was all about less government and less America,” she said, adding, “He thought it was full of conspiracies and that the government censored the Internet and banned certain books from being read by us.”
Among the books that he would later cite as his favorites: “Animal Farm,” “Fahrenheit 451,” “Mein Kampf” and “The Communist Manifesto.” Also: “Peter Pan.”
 Many libertarians were opposed to George W Bush, and libertarians, the Teapartiers, and conservatives in general are "all about less government".
Finally, we know what drove Tucson shooter mad… GEORGE BUSH.
The Corner discovered this buried in a New York Times article, via Instapundit:
(This little nugget was hidden on page 3 of the online article.)
DHS uses Giffords shooting to push loose borders political agenda (Jared Lee Loughner, American Renaissance) - 01/09/11
[IMPORTANT UPDATE: AmRen has been cleared, and Fox's memo wasn't even from the DHS. See the updates below.]
The Department of Homeland Security and various media sources are using the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords by Jared Lee Loughner as an opportunity to try to smear opponents of illegal immigration, focusing on the higher-level white racial separatist group American Renaissance (DHS memo at , report at ). Not only do they get that group's ideas wrong, but they mislead about what was in Loughner's videos and what appears to have been on his MySpace page.
From the memo at :
no direct connection - but strong suspicion is being directed at AmRen / American Renaissance. Suspect is possibly linked to this group. (through videos posted on his myspace and YouTube account.). The group’s ideology is anti government, anti immigration, anti ZOG (Zionist Occupational Government), anti Semitic.
I didn't see Loughner's MySpace page, which has since been taken down. There's a supposed picture of it here, with nothing I can see about AmRen. I watched (and saved) his Youtube videos and there was nothing in there about AmRen. Further, AmRen responds here:
American Renaissance condemns violence in the strongest possible terms, and nothing that has ever appeared in it pages could be interpreted as countenancing it.
AR is not anti-government, anti-Semitic, or anti-ZOG, as is clear from the 20 years of back issues that are posted on our website. The expression “ZOG” has never appeared in the pages of AR, and we have has always welcomed Jewish participation in our work. Many of the speakers at American Renaissance conferences have been Jewish.
Not only did the memo get their ideas wrong, but Google shows just eight other pages mentioning Giffords at their site; none of those focus on her or contain any questionable mentions of her.
This latest smear is of a piece with the DHS' rightwing extremists report, something that they were even criticized for by Democratic Rep. Bennie Thompson. In this case, you don't have to be an AmRen supporter to oppose smears of them, especially when done to push a loose borders agenda.
The DHS has always been a highly political agency, whether under George W Bush or under Barack Obama, and the goal of their leadership is the same under both: look like they're doing their job while - at least when it comes to immigration - trying not to do the job they should be doing.
The entry point of the smear was a blog posting by Greta van Susteren of Fox News . A later Fox News report  subtly changes the provenance of the memo, and an Associated Press report by Eileen Sullivan refers not to the memo but an anonymous source .
a DHS official tells me that the department has not established any such possibility [as outlined in the memo], undercutting what appears to be the primary basis for this claim...
But DHS has not officially provided any such information to any law enforcement officials, the DHS official says.
"We have not established any such possible link," the official says...
The official cautions it's conceivable that a law enforcement official got unofficial info from a DHS official somewhere along the lines of what Fox reported. But he emphasizes that DHS has not even concluded in any official way that even the possibility of such ties exists. The official adds that it wouldn't be DHS's place to reach any such conclusion in the first place, since the FBI is leading the investigation.
1/11/11 UPDATE 1: On the ninth (before Sargent's post above), Patrik Jonsson of the Christian Science Monitor offered "American Renaissance: Was Jared Lee Loughner tied to anti-immigrant group?" (link). While it includes AmRen's denial and a "hate" monitor questioning whether there could be a link, the article also smears by asking the titular question and not, for instance, by questioning the DHS over what they were thinking.
Jared Lee Loughner, is reported to have admired Mein Kampf and claimed ties to the anti-Semitic hate group called American Renaissance.
If he had claimed such ties, we certainly would have heard about it; Greenberg apparently can't read.
1/11/11 UPDATE 2: AmRen has been cleared and Fox's memo wasn't even from the DHS. From this:
David Denlinger, commander of the Arizona Counter Terrorism Information Center acknowledged that the document came from his agency, but contained errors and overstated the link between Jared Loughner, the 22-year-old charged with shooting Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and others outside a Tucson supermarket, and American Renaissance.
“I do have no reason to believe in anything that we did that (Loughner) had any direct connection or was being directed by American Renaissance,” Denlinger, an Arizona state police major, told POLITICO Tuesday.
The ACTIC - also known as the "Arizona Fusion Center" is per azactic.gov "a joint effort between the Department of Public Safety, Arizona Department of Homeland Security, Federal Bureau of Investigation and other participating agencies".
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
* Friend's claim that Loughner wasn't political is two years out of date
* Jared Loughner's AboveTopSecret postings show no clear political slant
* Glenn Reynolds denies Tea Party's history of intimidation
* first post on Gabrielle Giffords shooting
 From this:
Below is a note from my FNC colleague Jennifer Griffin: (by the way, the fact that my blogs focus on Congresswoman Giffords in no way is meant to take away from the other victims and their families. The tragedy is immeasurable and words inadequate.)
This is an internal memo obtained by Fox News put out by DHS compiling facts known so far about the case - new - shooter's mother worked for Pima board of supervisers and the suspected anti-Semitic motivation of the shooter.
"The investigation has been taken over by the FBI, and is being run through the Tucson Command Post. Here's what can be confirmed at this time (1800 hrs)... * Gabrielle Giffords Is in ICU.* Federal judge John Roll is deceased. He did rule on a 32 million dollar civil rights lawsuit in February, 2010. That ruling brought death threats to Roll and his family, and for a time he was given a protection detail.* 6 deaths attributed to the shooting. 19 total people hit by gunfire.* suspect’s mother works for the Pima County Board of Supervisors* the suspect has multiple arrests ... But no criminal record? Intervention by someone?* no direct connection - but strong suspicion is being directed at AmRen / American Renaissance. Suspect is possibly linked to this group. (through videos posted on his myspace and YouTube account.). The group’s ideology is anti government, anti immigration, anti ZOG (Zionist Occupational Government), anti Semitic. Gabrielle Gifford is the first Jewish female elected to such a high position in the US government. She was also opposite this group’s ideology when it came to immigration debate.* DHS have a list of names and dates of birth of all victims.* the ACTIC is still playing a major role in the investigation... Computer forensics is cleaning up the surveillance videos, and images from around the scene, and involved in the investigation - working together, was MCSO, DPS, Phoenix PD, ICE, and of course the FBI. It did just come in from the command post, that the federal judge was Not originally scheduled to attend the meeting, according to wife. She stated that he received a phone call about an hour before and was invited to attend. Wrong place - wrong time. For the planning side, there are impromptu memorials popping up all over the state, but the largest one is downtown phoenix, at the capital."
A Department of Homeland Security memo quoted by Fox News says the agency is looking into whether Loughner is “possibly linked” to the fanatical group American Renaissance... The group promotes views that are “anti-government, anti-immigration, anti-ZOG (Zionist Occupation Government), anti-Semitic,” the memo says... Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, the target of Loughner’s firing frenzy, is “the first Jewish female elected to such a high position in the U.S. government. She was also opposite the group’s ideology when it came to immigration debate,” according the memo.
 A newer report by Fox (link) only refers to the memo as a "law enforcement memo based on information provided by the Department of Homeland Security".
 From this:
An official familiar with the Arizona shooting investigation said Sunday that local authorities are looking at a possible connection between accused gunman Jared Loughner and an online group known for white supremacist, anti-immigrant rhetoric.
The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the ongoing investigation, said local authorities were examining the American Renaissance website for possible motives for Saturday's shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz.
"Fox News Viewers are Most Uninformed" study gets facts wrong (World Public Opinion, Clay Ramsay, Steven Kull, Evan Lewis) - 12/17/10
A group of researchers from the University of Maryland's "Program on International Policy Attitudes"  (link) have released a study attempting to show that the most misinformed voters are those who are viewers of Fox News. One problem: those researchers can't even get their facts straight on one of the issues they used to determine whether voters knew the truth. Those researchers set themselves up as the arbiters of truth, and then invented their own facts.
Now, since the issue they got wrong is the Obama citizenship issue, don't expect anyone who promotes their study to point out that it's flawed. The establishment works night and day to silence debate on that issue and to try to present as fact that Obama was born in the U.S., when it's not a fact but just a belief. It's very highly likely that Obama was indeed born in the U.S., but there's no definitive proof. All of the supposed proof so far offered does not stand up to scrutiny. That doesn't mean he wasn't born in the U.S., simply that he has not provided definitive proof.
In their study, the researchers can't tell the difference between belief and fact. They refer to "the misinformation that Barack Obama was not born in the United States" and say that "[f]ifty-six percent knew it is clear that Obama was born in the United States"  . Once again, it's not "clear": all the forms of proof that have been offered are flawed; there's good evidence that Obama was born in the U.S. but it hasn't been definitively proven.
And, they provide this information box to go with :
The claim that Obama was not born within the United States was proven to be false in 2008. Researchers for the site Factcheck.org examined the physical birth certificate authenticated by the state of Hawaii and provided an exhaustive account of it, together with five photographs from various angles. Factcheck’s article also reproduces the birth announcement that Barack Obama’s parents posted in the Sunday edition of the Honolulu Advertiser on August 13, 1961.
1. That links to Fact Check's "Born in the U.S.A." article in which FactCheck lied about what the state of Hawaii said in their 10/31/08 statement. In that statement, the state of Hawaii only said that they had Obama's "original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures". Fact Check falsely stated that they'd said he was born there when that's not what Hawaii said. Compare the 10/31/08 statement to what Fact Check said about that statement and it's clear that Fact Check lied. For further proof that Fact Check lied, note that Hawaii released a second statement on July 27, 2009 in which they explicitly stated that Obama was born there. If Fact Check were telling the truth about the first statement, why did Hawaii have to release a second statement?
2. The only people who claim that the "physical birth certificate" was "authenticated by the state of Hawaii" are Fact Check themselves. The two FactCheck researchers who claim to have seen the document are not document experts, and no one else has authenticated either the physical document those researchers claim to have seen nor has any official authenticated the pictures that FactCheck posted nor has any official authenticated the picture that Obama posted to his website. Specifically, the state of Hawaii admits that it has never authenticated the photo on Obama's site.
3. FactCheck later recompressed and removed EXIF (camera) data from the photos that they posted, and they did so silently: they edited the photos they uploaded without noting what they'd done. That EXIF data showed that the photos had been taken months before FactCheck claimed they were taken, although that might be due just to an incorrect camera setting. Nevertheless, it's not a good sign that they'd remove that information. The one photo that I'd saved looks identical to the recompressed version, but I'm not a digital photography expert. Overall, it's not a good sign that the supposed source for the truth about this issue modified evidence and did so without noting what they did.
4. There is absolutely no proof that "Barack Obama’s parents posted" those newspaper announcements. The University of Maryland researchers state that as a fact, so where's the evidence? There's no proof at all of where those announcements came from; see that link for the details. If Obama was indeed born in Hawaii then those announcements would most likely have come from the birth hospital, not his parents as the University of Maryland researchers state. But, there's no definitive proof of any source for those announcements. The only extremely weak evidence that those announcements could only come from a birth hospital and would definitively indicate a Hawaiian birth was the vague recollection of someone who wasn't even employed by one of the papers when the announcements appeared. One other possible explanation is that the grandparents placed the announcements in order to strengthen a possible divorce case. But, that's just speculation because once again there's no proof where the announcements came from. The University of Maryland researchers are stating their speculation as a fact; they're confused between belief and fact.
Unfortunately, because many people of low integrity are wont to mislead about this issue I have to point out again: I'm not claiming that Obama wasn't born in Hawaii. I'm simply pointing out the truth: there's no definitive proof of where he was born. All the evidence points to a Hawaiian birth, but that evidence is not solid, it doesn't provide definitive proof even if University of Maryland researchers want to invent their own version of the truth.
 The researchers are Clay Ramsay, Steven Kull, and Evan Lewis from the Program on International Policy Attitudes's WorldPublicOpinion.org
 Aside from the information box, this is the section on that question:
From approximately spring 2008 onward, the misinformation that Barack Obama was not born in the United States has circulated widely. Respondents were asked the following:
As you may know, some people have suggested that President Obama was not born in the United States. Do you think that Obama was not born in the US, Obama was born in the US, or it is not clear whether Obama was born in the US or not?”
Forty-two percent of voters believed either that Obama was not born in the US (15%) or that it is unclear whether he was or not (27%). Fifty-six percent knew it is clear that Obama was born in the United States.
 31% of Fox viewers said it wasn't clear whether Obama was born in the U.S., as did 24% of public broadcasting (NPR or PBS) consumers. Don't worry: they have an explanation for that and other things public broadcasting consumers got "wrong":
This suggests that misinformation cannot simply be attributed to news sources, but are part of the larger information environment that includes statements by candidates, political ads and so on.
Harry Reid recently announced he'd offer the anti-American DREAM Act amnesty as an amendment to the Defense bill. Now, four days later, the most his opponent Sharron Angle has done in opposition is to appear on Fox News and oppose that anti-American amnesty from procedural grounds.
Not only that, but she seems to be adopting an immigration stance that's weaker than her previous comments. She appears to now be taking a "secure the border first" posture which begs the question of what exactly she'd support after the borders are secured. If she won't oppose a smaller anti-American amnesty now, exactly what would she support if she makes it into the Senate?
Angle was interviewed about various topics yesterday by Bret Baier; a video is at peekURL.com/vxhfdig Comments after the transcript:
ANGLE: He's incentivizing amnesty, this is just one of those ways. But, he's politicized this, he's looking for votes, he's looking for votes in those places where he thinks he can find them. And to attach them to the defense bill is truly an outrageous act of political maneuvering...
BAIER: Some Republicans support [the DREAM Act]. You're obviously not one of those.
ANGLE: Well, obviously, the American people believe that we're a country of the rule of law and anytime that we start to go around that rule of law and make one segment of our society outside the rule of law we're in trouble. The answer to these problems is first of all, secure our borders and then enforce the laws that we have. Then we can deal with the internal problems that we have left. But, first we've got to get those borders secure. We're a sovereign nation. We have a northern border that is more porous than our southern border and of course our coastal borders are also porous so let's get the borders secured, enforce the laws, and then we can talk about these other things but don't incentivize illegal behavior.
Note that she can't answer a straight question. Anyone who truly opposes amnesty in any form would answer directly that they oppose the DREAM Act. Angle just dances around the question . This is the same opposition to Reid's amendment that some GOP senators have offered, such as McCain: purely on political and procedural grounds and not based out of any real opposition to the DREAM Act.
A glimmer of a good argument does shine through in the "one segment of our society" part, but then she dashes all that with a stock GOP establishment response of securing the borders. Yes, obviously, the borders need to be secured. However, harping on secure the border - as discussed at the link - is frequently a dodge some use to mask how weak they are on illegal immigration and amnesty.
She then apparently realized she needed to fill space - instead of directly opposing the anti-American DREAM Act amnesty - and went off on a tear about our Canadian and coastal borders.
The final part is not in any way an unmitigated opposition to amnesty. In fact, she's leaving the door open to her supporting an amnesty after the borders are secure.
If you're an Angle supporter, read her comments or watch the video: nothing she says is something that John McCain or other politicians who are soft on amnesty couldn't have also said.
 That same dance is one I'm familiar with: in a Twitter conversation I had with her months ago she refused to come out against comprehensive immigration reform, and that's despite me suggesting she take the time to answer.
[See the updates too]
Partnership for a New American Economy: Murdoch, Bloomberg, CEOs, mayors, (Fox News?) to push amnesty - 06/24/10
Don't trust what you see on Fox News. Rupert Murdoch, Michael Bloomberg, big-city mayors, Hewlett Packard, Boeing, and Disney have formed a new group called "Partnership for a New American Economy" to push comprehensive immigration reform, aka amnesty (link):
The group says it intends to make its point to policymakers by "publishing studies, conducting polls, convening forums and sponsoring public education campaigns."
...The group's main immigration goals are to secure the borders, develop an easy system for employers to verify work eligibility, hold companies accountable for breaking the laws and improve the use of technology to prevent illegal immigration.
The group also wants more opportunities for immigrants to join the U.S. work force and a path to legal status for all undocumented immigrants.
Big business joining to spread propaganda in support of amnesty has been tried before; for years, the Essential Worker Immigration Coalition has been pushing amnesty, and in 2005 George W Bush, Dick Armey (now heading the tea parties stringpullers at FreedomWorks), and others created "Americans for Border and Economic Security" to push his plans.
The key difference in this case is that three members of the new coalition are media: Bloomberg, Fox, and Disney. During the last big amnesty push, Fox News wasn't much help: they largely ignored the anti-amnesty firestorm growing across the U.S. Don't expect ABC or Fox to, for instance, follow the money on immigration. And, be on the lookout for their coverage of this issue being more like the coverage to be found on MSNBC.
Cristina Corbin of Fox tries to distance Tea Party from fringe "conspiracy theories", gets facts wrong - 04/12/10
Fox News is apparently realizing that the 99.99% (or more) of those in the tea parties who engage in hyperbole, conspiracy theories, or just general lunacy are making the other 0.01% (to be generous) look bad. So, Cristina Corbin offers "Tea Party Rallies Remain a Cauldron for Conspiracy Theories" (link). In her quest to distance the partiers from fringe ideas, she gets her facts wrong:
Other Tea Party members continue to question the president's citizenship -- a sign reading "Show Us Your Birth Certificate" popped up at a recent rally in Traverse City, Mich.
"What's more disturbing is that he's not answering them," Tea Party member and conservative blogger Andrea Shay King said of the questions over Obama's birthplace.
The Hawaiian government twice confirmed during the 2008 presidential election that a copy of Obama's birth certificate was authentic. Factcheck.org tracked down the birth certificate and posted copies of it online.
See the Obama citizenship page for the facts. Hawaii has released two statements, one on 10/31/08 and the other on 7/27/09. The second, of course, was after the election and not before as Corbin states. Further, her use of "copy" is highly misleading since Hawaii admits that they never authenticated the picture shown on Obama's website (or shown by FactCheck). And, her use of "tracked down" is problematic since they were supposedly shown the certificate by the Obama campaign at their campaign office in Chicago, and that was after having been invited there. What they posted online also wasn't a "certificate" but a "certification of live birth" or COLB.
If you're going to claim that concerns over this issue are a "conspiracy theory", at least try to get simple facts right.
Sarah Palin has some good qualities, but also bad qualities. And, some of the many latter involves her knowing nothing about immigration, Palin supporting McCain's position on immigration during the campaign, and her just today supporting McCain's worthless posturing on immigration.
Ron Paul was right: Federal Reserve had involvement in Watergate, money sent to Saddam Hussein (Ben Bernanke) - 02/25/10
Yesterday, Rep. Ron Paul quizzed Ben Bernanke of the Federal Reserve about that group's involvement in relation to Watergate and to the funding of Saddam Hussein of Iraq (video: peekURL.com/vqxfnme ). Bernanke called that questioning "absolutely bizarre", and several sources (some listed below) joined in.
As it turns out, the Fed in fact did have some sort of involvement with both Watergate and with money that was sent to Saddam, as documented in the book "Deception and Abuse at the Fed: Henry B. Gonzalez Battles Alan Greenspan's Bank" (link). From the blurb:
...Robert Auerbach, a former [U.S. House of Representatives] banking committee investigator, recounts major instances of Fed mismanagement and abuse of power that were exposed by Rep. Gonzalez, including: * Blocking Congress and the public from holding powerful Fed officials accountable by falsely declaring--for 17 years--it had no transcripts of its meetings; * Manipulating the stock and bond markets in 1994 under cover of a preemptive strike against inflation; * Allowing $5.5 billion to be sent to Saddam Hussein from a small Atlanta branch of a foreign bank--the result of faulty bank examination practices by the Fed; * Stonewalling Congressional investigations and misleading the Washington Post about the $6,300 found on the Watergate burglars. Auerbach provides documentation of these and other abuses at the Fed, which confirms Rep. Gonzalez's belief that no government agency should be allowed to operate with the secrecy and independence in which the Federal Reserve has shrouded itself. Auerbach concludes with recommendations for specific, broad-ranging reforms that will make the Fed accountable to the government and the people of the United States.
See also hnn.us/blogs/entries/123737.html and this.
Here are some of those who reflexively supported Bernanke without doing even a little bit of research. The reader is encouraged to add more in comments. Unless otherwise noted, all of the following mock Paul in one way or other, none of them even hint that the Fed was in fact involved in some ways with both issues, and none of them have corrections at post time:
* AllahPundit hotair.com/archives/2010/02/24/ron-paul-grills-bernanke-
wasnt-the-fed-involved-with-saddam-and-in-watergate (no correction at post time)
* NPR npr.org/blogs/money/2010/02/
* Huffington Post huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/24/ben-bernanke-snaps-at-ron_n_474874.html (Note that one of their contributors posted a link to the book at huffingtonpost.com/j-bradley-jansen/bizarre-bernanke_b_475230.html)
Please add more in comments.
UPDATE: Paul has read into the Congressional Record a statement he received from Auerbach (link):
I thank Congressman Ron Paul for bringing to the public’s attention the Federal Reserve coverup of the source of the Watergate burglars’ source of funding and the defective audit by the Federal Reserve of the bank that transferred $5.5 billion from the U.S. government to Saddam Hussein in the 1980s. Congressman Paul directed these comments to Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke at the House Financial Services Hearing February 24, 2010. I question Chairman Bernanke’s dismissive response...
Barack Obama appeared at a nationally-televised House Republican retreat in Baltimore yesterday at which several leading Republicans asked him questions which he then handled with ease. He "p0wned" them so badly that Fox News cut away from the coverage twenty minutes before it ended. What the House members asked were weak, open-ended question or simply requests. They weren't adversarial questions designed to reveal flaws in his policies or statements. Because of that, they allowed him to say things like this:
And the notion that I would somehow resist doing something that cost half as much but would produce twice as many jobs -- why would I resist that? I wouldn't. I mean, that's my point, is that -- I am not an ideologue. I'm not. It doesn't make sense if somebody could tell me, "You could do this cheaper and get increased results," that I wouldn't say, "Great." ...The problem is, I couldn't find credible economists who would back up the claims that you just made.
He also shined them on: "Here's what I'm going to do, Mike: What I'm going to do is I'm going to take a look at what you guys are proposing" and referenced those who say tea parties types of things: "But if you were to listen to the debate, and, frankly, how some of you went after this bill, you'd think that this thing was some Bolshevik plot."
This incident shows a structural problem the GOP has: their leaders are great at cashing checks, but not so great at representing the interests of the American public. They aren't going to change, so if you want to oppose Obama in a smart and effective way you'll have to do it yourself. See the question authority page for a plan (note especially that the questioner has to be experienced), and here's our guide to asking politicians tough questions.
Harvard Undergraduate Legal Committee wimps out over Jim Gilchrist appearance, not smart enough to debate - 10/16/09
Jim Gilchrist of the Minuteman Project was scheduled to speak at a Harvard University immigration conference tomorrow. However, he's now been disinvited by the group that organized the event, the Harvard Undergraduate Legal Committee (hcs.harvard.edu/~legalcom). Per them (link):
"Mr. Gilchrist’s participation in the conference on the behalf of the Minutemen Project was not compatible with providing an environment for civil, educational, and productive discourse on immigration, and we cannot host him at this time."
In other words, they're either far-lefties who don't appreciate open debate and/or far-lefties who don't appreciate open debate put pressure on them and they caved. They're also implicitly admitting that they aren't smart enough to show how they think Gilchrist is wrong.
Per Gilchrist (link):
"For almost six months student sponsors of Harvard’s Public Interest and Law Conference have planned for my appearance at Harvard University, but the minute they received threats from fellow students these pre-law students shied away from defending free speech... That future graduates of the most renowned university in the world are literally afraid to support the very cornerstone of the foundation of our nation, namely ‘free speech,’ ought to frighten anyone looking to America as the beacon of liberty, freedom, and justice for all."
I'm not a tremendous fan of either him or of Chris Simcox; illegal immigration can be reduced much more simply than with fences and civilian patrols by using leverage (discrediting politicians in order to force them to do their jobs; see the question authority summary). However, he should be allowed to speak and Harvard students should be grown-up enough to engage him in debate. Obviously, those students are lacking in various ways.
Please send polite emails to the two contacts for the Legal Committee: Dwight Pope (dbpope*at*fas.harvard.edu) and Ada Pema (adapema*at*fas.harvard.edu).
UPDATE: One of the little fascists who helped get Gilchrist disinvited is Harvard student Kyle de Beausset. He lamely tries to defend his actions at citizenorange.com/orange/2009/10/i-am-one-of-the-unnamed-anarch.html and he also appeared on Fox News with Juan Williams and basically just repeated what he wrote at the link. Even Williams could have shown de Beausette for what he is, if he had had more time. As it was, most people will have seen why those like Kyle de Bossette would not want to debate their opponents but instead try to silence them: he'd lose against anyone who's even slightly skilled at debating.
On Sunday 9/20/09, Barack Obama will be appearing on five (5) Sunday talk shows to promote Obama healthcare. One stop he won't be making is at Fox News; Chris Wallace isn't too happy about being snubbed  and neither are various GOP leaders .
Instead of reaching out to Fox's viewers and deflecting what would assuredly be lightweight questions, Obama will be appearing on Univision's "Al Punto with Jorge Ramos". Ramos is a Mexican citizen who has no interest in becoming a U.S. citizen; he says he might want to run for office in Mexico one day. Despite that, he has no qualms about interfering in our internal U.S. politics, supporting illegal immigration, and opposing assimilation (link, link).
And, at the CNN Democratic debate of February 21, 2008, he was allowed to ask questions of the presidential candidates and CNN did not reveal that he isn't even a citizen of the U.S. Don't expect Obama to do that either.
UPDATE: The Univision interview is at univision.com/content/content.jhtml?chid=3&schid=160&secid=20208&cid=2094409
As could have been expected, Obama said mostly the same thing he's been saying. He said (yet again) that illegal aliens won't be covered under Obama healthcare (without acknowledging the loopholes that would let them be covered and without explicitly mentioning his magical plan to simply legalize them first then give them healthcare). Asked about comprehensive immigration reform, he responded in the same basic way as George W Bush did, saying he was working on it and he's met with leaders but there's no specific timetable. He also referenced that Janet Napolitano was making changes to eliminate the "most negative practices we've seen" (note: from his English to Univision back to English).
And, Ramos - someone who represents Mexican and not U.S. interests - asked Obama why during his last big speech he'd used the phrase "illegal immigrants" rather than "undocumented immigrants" as he'd done during the campaign:
Yo estaba abordando la información errónea aportada por la otra parte que estaba tratando de… asustarnos. Yo esencialmente los estaba citando. Yo dije: "Para aquellos de ustedes que dicen que los inmigrantes ilegales van a tener cobertura bajo este plan, dije que eso no es cierto". Así que estoy usando esas palabras porque estaba yo dirigiéndome a la información errónea que ellos están proporcionando, yo estaba hablando directamente a un público, al pueblo estadounidense, quienes, debido a esta información errónea que le han brindado, en sí, creo que… estaban respondiendo …muy a menudo de una manera muy negativa.
I was addressing the misinformation provided by the other party ... I was trying to scare us. Yo esencialmente los estaba citando. Essentially I was quoting. I said: "For those of you who say that illegal immigrants will be covered under this plan, I said that's not true." So I'm using those words because I was speaking to the wrong information they are providing, I was talking directly to an audience, the American people who, because of this misinformation that you have provided, in itself, I think ... were responding ... very often in a very negative way.
Obama, ADL, SPLC, Phil Gordon, Catherine Herridge, Shep Smith, Joan Walsh, Chris Matthews, others try to exploit shooting at Holocaust Museum - 06/11/09
Here are just some of those trying to use yesterday's shooting at the Holocaust Museum in Washington DC to score political points:
* Barack Obama says: "This outrageous act reminds us that we must remain vigilant against anti-Semitism and prejudice in all its forms". That sounds good, until one remembers things like Rev. Jeremiah Wright, "bitter cling", his campaign's constant attempts to race-bait, his smears of Lou Dobbs and Rush Limbaugh, and how he'd deal with "hate" (see #14).
* Josh Gerstein of the Politico in "Attacks validate DHS report, some say" (link). He quotes the Southern Poverty Law Center's Mark Potok: "I think this latest round of killing once again shows how ridiculous the criticism from the right of the Department of Homeland Security report was. That whole brouhaha was absurd... Rush Limbaugh and John Boehner can go on until the end of time about how [the report] was an attack on conservatives, but in reality it was a perfectly sober assessment of what was going on out there." That report was even criticized by Bennie Thompson. Gerstein also quotes the Anti Defamation League's Deborah Lauter: "We felt the DHS report was pretty right on... Clearly the election of Obama, the current financial crisis, and the discussion of immigration reform - those things have certainly fueled the right wing extremist movement in this country….There are clear indications that the rhetoric is manifesting. We hope it's not the tip of the iceberg.”
UPDATE: A list of others who've tried to exploit this tragedy is in "Holocaust Museum Shooter: Christian-Hating Socialist" (link). It includes this:
A review of his lengthy associations reveals Von Brunn hardly fits the stereotype of a Religious Right, GOP precinct captain. He denounced the Christian faith as a dastardly Jewish conspiracy, a “HOAX” invented by the Apostle Paul to “DESTROY ROMAN CULTURE” from within by undermining its pagan virility. (All screaming capitalization and grammatical errors in this piece appear in the original.) Like others on the racist fringe, the shooter proclaimed clearly: "SOCIALISM, represents the future of the West."
Extensive quotes are provided to show those aren't being taken out of context.
As previously discussed, someone claimed without providing any evidence whatsoever that ACORN was planning on infiltrating and sabotaging the tea parties. This rumor has now spread to Neil Cavuto on Fox News; they might have actual sources, or they might have just been relying on the original unsubstantiated claim.
I called up ACORN Executive Director Steve Kest and asked him about it. "I saw some mention of this on a blog, I have no idea even what the tea parties are," Kest said. He then asked me to explain to him what the tea parties were having only just heard about them yesterday. When I laughed, Kest said, "Seriously, do you know more about what the deal is here?"
Despite that, ACORN might in fact be doing something. However, it's beyond idiotic to go from one completely unsourced claim to actual accusations, and things like that can and will backfire and make ACORN look if not better at least not as bad as they could look if people would just concentrate on the things about them that are true. This is reminiscent of how some people spread false stories before the election when telling the truth would have been far more effective. We see how that worked out.
Unfortunately, getting through to these people (at least by me) is impossible. Any criticism is met with the accusation that you're on ACORN's side. And, perhaps it would be best if that wing were discredited. Their underlying philosophy is malign: they only care about themselves and have little interest in what's good for the U.S. as a whole. After the tea parties completely fail to have any impact, let them go off and form their own political party in Galt's Gulch or something.