huffington post: 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".
At the Huffington Post, immigration-related law professor Bill Ong Hing of the University of San Francisco offers "Honor Trayvon Martin's Death: Declare War on Racism" . His ideas for that war are not only Orwellian, but ironic too: the "war" he has in mind would clearly just be directed at white people.
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".
Immigrants' List are immigration lawyers; Daniel Strauss and Huffington Post don't reveal that (Immigration Heroes List) - 01/17/12
Immigrants List is a pro-massive immigration PAC that recently named their list of top 10 immigration heroes , i.e., those who support massive and/or illegal immigration. One man's hero is another man's villain, and in the case of their Heroes all are villains to most Americans who oppose massive and/or illegal immigration.
Freedomworks is going to actively try to prevent Mitt Romney from getting the GOP nomination . I'm not a fan, but Romney is one of the few electable current or potential candidates. So, the tea parties - controlled in large part by Freedomworks even if they don't know it - might bring their NY-26 magic to the national stage and help elect Barack Obama to four more years.
What the GOP can do about this is to declare "war" on Freedomworks right back:
1. Somehow, some way make an argument that libertarian-oriented policies (or the LibertarianLite version that teapartiers favor) just don't work. It's extremely easy to show that libertarian ideas are the stuff of rainbows and unicorns. The hard part is presenting it in a way that isn't automatically rejected by the teapartiers, who have a very unhealthy mix of emotional failings. In this, the GOP would need to consult the top psychologists in the U.S.
2. (Legally) buy people off. Give slots on Fox News to leading teapartiers to force them into line. I wouldn't do that myself, but that is one way the GOP and their helpers operate.
3. Turn one teaparty group against another or distract them in other ways with shiny objects. To an extent that's already happening; take steps to increase it.
5. And, most importantly of all, help discredit Freedomworks to the teaparty base. That isn't that difficult either since the head of the organization, Dick Armey, supports illegal immigration.
While most of the teaparty base opposes illegal immigration, the teapartiers as a whole have been very quiet about the issue. If the GOP elevated immigration to the key issue it is (much more vital and fundamental than spending) and used that against those like Armey and other teaparty leaders, they could help the U.S. while helping themselves.
[Freedomworks] knows they cannot impose their will on the fiercely independent conservative organizers fueling the Tea Party. But they say the activist base is just as anti-Romney as they are.
(Matt Kibbe) said in an interview that FreedomWorks has no plans at the moment to endorse an opponent of Romney’s in the primary. But others in the organization made clear they will devote considerable resources toward helping whoever emerges as the most viable Republican in the primary other than the putative front runner.
Brendan Steinhauser, who travels around the country meeting with activists as FreedomWorks’ top liaison to the grassroots, said most people he talks to are “definitely trying to stop Romney.”
“I don’t think I’ve met any groups or any local activists that like him or want him to be president,” Steinhauser said. “They just don’t believe he’s authentic. That’s the biggest problem in addition to the health care thing.”
Illinois' state Senate recently passed a state version of the DREAM Act; the bill is designed to make it easier for illegal aliens to attend college (and, it's not the same as the national bill; see ). One Tea Parties group in that state is opposing it, but for the completely wrong reasons; see below.
The National Council of La Raza has sent an open letter  to senators Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell urging them to pass the anti-American DREAM Act. That bill would let the illegal aliens covered by it take college resources from Americans: it would deprive some Americans of college educations. And, the NCLR's letter is misleading and signed by a small grab bag of very questionable people.
As Latino leaders in government, business, entertainment, and sports, we urge members of Congress to support the "Development, Relief, and Education of Alien Minors (DREAM) Act." This modest and sensible piece of legislation would allow young people who were brought to the United States by their parents at a very young age to pursue higher education or serve in the military.
1. The DREAM Act ("DA") is a power grab by various forces: the Democratic leadership, religious leaders, the far-left, and so on. The NCLR letter makes clear that to a great extent it's a race-based power grab. Those signing on don't care about American citizens not being able to attend college; obtaining race-based power is a much higher priority.
2. The DA is hardly a "modest and sensible piece of legislation". It could cover one to two million illegal aliens, and those covered could eventually sponsor other family members. That would take many years, but it would happen. It would also encourage even more illegal immigration with others seeking to take part in a "DREAM Act 2". Passing one amnesty would give even more power to those who'd push for yet more amnesties in the future. So, it's hardly "modest".
3. There's no requirement that those covered would have had to have been brought here by their parents; some older children cross on their own. They have to have arrived here before they were sixteen, which is hardly "a very young age".
Then, the NCLR misleads about who'd be covered:
These students are success stories in their communities, serving as student body presidents, star athletes, and performers, graduating often with honors from schools in their hometowns.
Certainly, some are as described. However, the educational requirements in the bills are minimal; there are no requirements that those covered must have graduated with honors or anything similar.
In addition to a few minor celebrities, those signing on include (see each link for more on them):
* Janet Murguia of the NCLR
* Antonio Villaraigosa (former leader of a racial separatist group)
* Linda Chavez (sits or sat on boards of two large companies that employ large numbers of low-wage workers)
* Carlos Gutierrez (George W Bush Commerce Secretary who promoted amnesty while in office; see his name's link for much more)
* Lionel Sosa (wanted to and may have taken money from the Mexican government to promote amnesty inside the U.S.)
* Henry Cisneros (see the other letter he signed on to at the link)
* Maria Contreras-Sweet (affiliated with Promerica Bank)
* America Ferrera
* Monica Lozano
* Federico Pena
* Bill Richardson
* Solomon D. Trujillo (U.S.-born business executive who led an Australian company but who left that country in disgrace)
Sam Stein misleads about Sharron Angle (unemployment insurance "really doesn't benefit anyone") - 09/03/10
Sam Stein of the Huffington Post offers "Sharron Angle Claims Unemployment Insurance 'Really Doesn't Benefit Anyone'" (link), a sleazy attack that shows once again that he's just a Democratic proxy and is willing to try to mislead.
In a radio interview on Wednesday, Angle said this:
"People don't want to be unemployed... They want to have real, full-time, permanent jobs with a future. That's what they want, and we need to create that climate in Washington, D.C. that encourages businesses to create those full-time, permanent jobs with a future, and all [Rep.] Shelley Berkeley and [Senate Majority Leader] Harry Reid want to do is put a band-aid on this by extending unemployment, which really doesn't benefit anyone. What happens is of course that your skills stagnate. You become demoralized yourself, you know, feeling that I can't ever get a job, and these are not the solutions to the problem. We have real solutions, but they won't look at the real solutions."
It should be obvious that she's right about full-time jobs, and it's difficult to imagine anyone disagreeing with her full remarks considered in context. We can disagree about the way she'd create jobs, but not about the fact that having a full-time job is preferable to collecting unemployment insurance. If she were wrong, then we should just extend unemployment benefits indefinitely and everyone in the country can go on them. Obviously, that wouldn't work.
Just as obviously, she doesn't mean that unemployment insurance can't help you survive and pay your bills, although that's the impression that Sam Stein is trying to give, writing:
Until this week, it doesn't appear that she's ever argued that UI doesn't "benefit anyone." -- a rather bold proclamation that even the most doctrinaire of Republicans probably wouldn't make. It's pretty easy, after all, to find people who benefit from unemployment insurance. They're called the unemployed.
Once again, she doesn't mean it in that way. Third graders should be able to figure out what she's talking about: unemployment insurance isn't a long-term option but should just be a temporary stop-gap for the reasons she mentions in the quote. Sam Stein is intentionally trying to start a smear.
Katherine Fennelly of the University of Minnesota offers "What Does the Morality of Americans Have to Do With Immigration in America?" . Summary: illegal immigration is all your fault, because you're too childlike to have achieved the proper state of moral reasoning. In fact, the person lacking in reason is Fennelly as she supports bad, immoral public policy and smears Americans who are opposed to illegal immigration:
...Analysis of much of the recent angry rhetoric over "illegal immigration" suggests that many Americans are stuck at the conventional level of moral development, in which the statement "they broke the law" becomes the main criterion for crafting policy responses. If you Google the phrase "what about illegal don't you understand," you will find thousands of adherents to this level of reasoning...
That phrase is generally directed at those who try to mislead by, for instance, saying that Arizona's immigration law is "anti-immigration". While sometimes I've seen that phrase used alone, it's usually accompanied by other arguments such as those involving border security, employment and spending issues, and so on. Fennelly is in such an amnesty-supporting bubble that she thinks that illegality is the only argument "many Americans" have when that's provably wrong.
She then goes into the standard far-left excuse for illegal immigration: there aren't enough visas for low-wage workers and thus:
...our government policies have led to a ritualized game of "Gotcha," in which immigrants are drawn to the U.S. because of the prospect of jobs that have gone unfilled by American workers; but once they cross the border, they are increasingly victimized by public anger and by mean-spirited local ordinances and laws.
She's missing the point: if most Americans had their way, there would be millions fewer illegal aliens in the U.S. and the border would be secure enough to prevent more people coming here illegally. The only reason there's a conflict is due to political corruption: those like George W Bush and Barack Obama only enforce the laws to the extent that they think they can get away with. Their actual policy is to allow as many people to come here illegally as they can. The situation Fennelly describes isn't due to de jure policy, but the de facto policy brought about by a conflict between the wishes of most Americans and the wishes of corrupt politicians.
Further, what Fennelly supports would make things worse for both countries, hollowing out Mexico even more at the same time as making the illegal/massive immigration situation in the U.S. even worse. Her policy is to prop up a corrupt government rather than to force them to reform and support their own citizens. And, her policies are even more immoral in that they'd encourage even more people to try to come here illegally, with many not making it; see the false compassion page.
If you have a Huffington Post account, link this post in comments there or make an argument in comments there showing her readers how she's wrong; her post currently has 624 comments with at least some disagreeing with her.
Sam Stein of HuffPost, lacking information, lets speculation run wild (Rand Paul, border fence) - 06/25/10
Sam Stein of Huffington Post offers "Rand Paul's Underground Electric Border Fence Baffles Cornyn, Libertarians" (huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/24/rand-pauls-underground-el_n_624535.html). It's one small step up from something you'd see on "Rock Bottom" (peekURL.com/vt2fh5z).
On his site, Rand Paul says:
Reason #73218 why you can't trust Steve Benen, Alex Pareene, John Aravosis, HuffPost, and GottaLaff (McCain on illegal aliens "intentionally causing accidents") - 04/21/10
Yesterday in an appearance on the Bill O'Reilly show, John McCain said among other, more important things, that he supports Arizona's tough new immigration bill (not yet a law) because "the people whose homes and property are being violated. It's the drive-by that -- the drivers of cars with illegals in it that are intentionally causing accidents on the freeway." You can watch it here: peekURL.com/vztpe5h
In May, 2008, Barack Obama smeared Lou Dobbs and Rush Limbaugh, falsely claiming that hate crimes against Hispanics had "doubled" the year before. In fact, they only went up 7.8%. Not only that, but they've decreased as a percentage of the Hispanic population between 1995 and 2006.
Given that, you might not expect Andrea Nill of ThinkProgress to write the following, unless you were familiar with that site and her work. In that case, you - like me - would realize just how truth-challenged both she and the others associated with that site are. Referring to a new report from the Southern Poverty Law Center (perhaps more on that later), she writes (thinkprogress.org/2010/03/03/dobbs-splc-hate-groups):
While campaigning in 2008, Obama himself accused Dobbs of "ginning things up" to such an extent that hate crimes against Latinos soared.
The last sentence links links to the contemporaneous Huffington Post report at huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/23/
obama-rush-limbaugh-lou-d_n_103315.html which, of course, doesn't even hint at how much Obama was lying.
If Nill had even a smidgen of intellectual honesty she would note that Obama lied. As it is, I strongly suspect that her use of "soared" instead of what Obama said ("doubled") is an outright attempt to deceive her readers but at the same time not raise red flags by repeating something so obviously false.
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...
"I think the public rightfully is still making it an issue... I don't have a problem with that. I don't know if I would have to bother to make it an issue, because I think that members of the electorate still want answers... I think it's a fair question just like I think past associations and past voting records. All of that is fair game... ...the McCain-Palin campaign didn't do a good enough job in that area. We didn't call out Obama and some of his associates on their records and what their beliefs were, and perhaps what their future plans were, and I don't think that was fair to voters to not have done our job as candidates and a campaign to bring to light a lot of things that now we're seeing manifest in the administration."
UPDATE: She's commented on this on her Facebook page, see .
Meanwhile, her supporters will most likely do things that are ineffective and things that won't strike back at her detractors.
If you're a Palin supporter, here's what you have to do: point out that many of those detractors have lied about the basic, easy-to-understand facts of this matter. You have to work to discredit those detractors. Simply saying they're wrong won't cut it: you have to take steps to discredit them and point out to their audience that they aren't credible. That is the only way to blunt attacks from those detractors: point out to their audience that they can't be trusted. And, you have to do that while only discussing facts, not wild theories.
Note that you don't have to believe that Obama was born outside the U.S. All you have to be able to do is understand what a fact is and how it differs from belief. Believing that Obama was born in Hawaii is perfectly valid, but claiming that he's definitively proved it is not because, while he's provided evidence, he has not provided definitive proof. That doesn't mean he was born outside the U.S. or isn't eligible to be president. I'm not trying to prove he was born outside the U.S. or isn't eligible. My angle on this story involves those who can't get their facts straight. My goal is to discredit those sources in order to improve their coverage of this and a myriad of other issues.
There's a list of those who've lied about the facts in the Obama citizenship issue. What I need Palin supporters to do is to find those listed discussing this issue and then in comments on their posts point out to their readers how they lied about the basic facts of this matter. Please do not engage in wild theories, only facts. Point out to their readers that they lied or misled about the basic facts of this matter and point out to their readers that they aren't credible.
UPDATE 2: Once again, this isn't about "kicking Obama out of office", at least from my perspective. This is about using this issue to discredit MSM and sub-MSM sources who've lied about the basic facts of this issue. Whatever someone's position on this issue, the MSM and others are going to use it against Palin time and time again. And, when they do that, they're going to link to "debunkers" like FactCheck. If people would concentrate on helping me discredit FactCheck using the fact that they've lied about this and other issues, that would blunt their attacks. It would also, for instance, reduce FactCheck's ability to mislead about illegal aliens and healthcare. And, it would send a message to the Beltway establishment that they can't just make things up, which they have done about aspects of this issue. They're going to attack Palin and others over this issue, and her supporters and others aren't fighting back in the right way but are more or less just helping the attackers. I made that point over four months ago, but few others have caught on.
UPDATE 3: Beth Fouhy and Justin Juozapavicius of the Associated Press offer "Sarah Palin's fans push for 2012 presidential run" (link). It shows a) how the MSM will use this issue to try to discredit Palin, and b) how her supporters who aren't trying to discredit the MSM are in effect helping the MSM with their goal. These are the 9th through 11th paragraphs:
"B.O. scares me," said Miki Booth, 59, of the president, adding that Palin "is as American as it gets."... Palin played into that fear on a radio show Thursday, telling host Rusty Humphries that voters "rightfully" have questions about the legitimacy of Obama's birth certificate. The so-called birther conspiracy around Obama's U.S. citizenship has been widely discredited, and state health officials in Hawaii have repeatedly confirmed that the president was born there in 1961... Palin later backed off the comment on her Facebook page, saying she had never questioned Obama's citizenship but believes that voters and reporters had a right to ask candidates whatever questions they wish.
Most of those who are undecided on Palin or who could be persuaded will read those paragraphs and probably side with the MSM in thinking she might be a bit "off". And, her supporters can't do anything about it unless they actually take the steps to discredit the MSM. For an example of that, Beth Fouhy and Justin Juozapavicius are lying: there's only been one statement from Hawaiian officials in which they stated he was born there, the one from 7/272009. The first statement, from 10/31/08, only said they had a valid certificate on file and, since Hawaii issues valid certificates for those born outside their state the 2008 statement was ambiguous. Fouhy and Juozapavicius said there were multiple confirmations, when in fact there was only one. If Palin supporters don't like AP articles such as the above, they need to start pointing out lies like that. The AP and the rest of the MSM are extremely vulnerable when it comes to their credibility, but if few are willing to point out their lies they'll just keep on lying.
 On Facebook, Palin has posted the following:
Voters have every right to ask candidates for information if they so choose. I’ve pointed out that it was seemingly fair game during the 2008 election for many on the left to badger my doctor and lawyer for proof that Trig is in fact my child. Conspiracy-minded reporters and voters had a right to ask... which they have repeatedly. But at no point – not during the campaign, and not during recent interviews – have I asked the president to produce his birth certificate or suggested that he was not born in the United States.
That's not going to have much of an impact: the HuffPost, HotAir, the MSM, and all the rest are still going to call her a "Birther", whether her supporters like it or not. The only way to blunt their attacks is using the method discussed above.
Frank Sharry of America's Voice offers "Latinos Poised to Shake Up 2010 Census, Politicians Beware" at the Huffington Post  in which he discusses a study showing how massive immigration by Latinos will affect congressional apportionment; more on that here. The piece is basically just a celebration of race-based "raw political power", and later on he quotes from a Washington Post blog post written by Ed OKeefe in which Sharry - someone who's apparently Irish-Italian  - says the following:
"This is going to set up a very interesting dynamic, because right now, the kind of bleached districts where candidates can get away with demonizing Latino immigrants -- because they're more worried about a primary challenge than a general election loss -- may end in the next decade."
The GOP has a problem with the "Birthers", but only in that they're too incompetent or corrupt to figure out how to turn the issue to their advantage or at least minimize its impact. Instead, establishment Republicans and their minor league helpers keep doing the opposite: helping Obama, the Democrats, and the mainstream media at the same time as they hurt their base.
Speaking at a conference in Washington D.C., the Huffington Post asked the former Senator about a recent survey which showed 47 percent of Tennessee Republicans and 34 percent of the entire state thought Obama was constitutionally ineligible to hold office.
Frist replied that there was a need to have "good people [in Washington] get facts out, explain to people, communicate with people, get rid of... a certain arrogance, and listen to real people on the ground."
"When a patient comes in I don't care where they are from or how much money they have. I spend the time and communicate," Frist, a doctor, concluded. "I listen to them and get a more educated populace out there."
After the event concluded, he told the Huffington Post that there was an onus on elected Republican leaders in Washington to reach out and calm some of the more extreme elements of the party.
The HuffPost's goal was to portray the GOP base as insane extremists, and Frist helped them with their goal to a certain extent. There are a lot of things he could have done instead but apparently did not; see the first link in this post.
Huffington Post "correction": deletes one bogus Limbaugh quote, but not both (Huberman, Nation Books) UPDATED: both quotes gone - 10/15/09
As has been in the news recently, Rush Limbaugh has been attacked for various quotes he's made, and some sources have gone as far as attacking him using bogus quotes. One of those completely bogus quotes concerned James Earl Ray and was discussed here back in June.
Now, the Huffington Post - apparently in response to this blog post - has issued a non-correction correction to a 2006 post containing the bogus quote. That HuffPost post was from Jack Huberman and was a promotion for his book "101 People Who Are REALLY Screwing America (and Bernard Goldberg is Only #73" (published by The Nation Books). Not only is it not a real correction, but they only deleted one of the bogus quotes dealing with slavery, and did not delete the bogus James Earl Ray quote. The page huffingtonpost.com/jack-huberman/rush-limbaugh-is-still-sc_b_24724.html now has this prepended:
Editor's Note: An earlier version of this post contained quotes attributed to Rush Limbaugh, which Limbaugh has since denied making. As is our policy when a fact in a blog post is called into question, we gave its author 24 hours to substantiate the quote. Since he has not been able to do so, the quotes have been deleted from the post.
I saved a copy of the page and took a screengrab, and only the slavery quote was deleted, not the Ray one. If that changes an update will be provided.
UPDATE: They've now deleted the Ray quote too.
Lindsey Graham slams Glenn Beck; "Birthers" are "crazy" (The Atlantic's First Draft of History) - 10/01/09
The Atlantic is conducting a corporate-sponsored series of interviews they call the "First Draft of History". Me, I call them EstablishmentHackapaooza. Earlier today, one segment featured Sen. Lindsay Graham being interviewed by Jeffrey Goldberg of the Atlantic (firstdraftofhistory.theatlantic.com/analysis/graham_the_loyal_opposition.php). As could be expected, Graham wasn't exactly challenged on the various things he said.
Josh Hoyt - director of the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights whose president is linked to the Mexican government - offers "Congressman Kirk's Immigrant Blind Spot May Cost Him Dearly" (huffingtonpost.com/joshua-hoyt/congressman-kirks-immigra_b_272713.html). He's very "concerned" (as in the type of troll) about Rep. Mark Kirk's stance on immigration-related matters. Unfortunately, "concerns" such as he has strike a chord with certain Republicans who then - instead of doing the smart thing and trying to take power away from people like Hoyt - give in to their far-left demands and give them even more power.
And, he's misleading about Kirk, a recent Newsweek article, and related issues:
At last week's heavily attended town hall meeting on health care reform in Arlington Heights Congressman Mark Kirk continued to propagate what Newsweek just called one of "The Five Biggest Lies in the Health Care Debate": that proposed reforms will provide health insurance to illegal immigrants.
Kirk questioned even the notion that reform is necessary, claiming that few of the estimated 50 million uninsured in the U.S. are needy U.S. citizens. He then thundered to the applauding crowd, "Should we provide taxpayer health care for people who are illegally here in the U. S.? I do not think we should provide federally-subsidized health care to illegal aliens." No matter that the House version of reform explicitly excludes "individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States".
1. He's misrepresenting what the Newsweek article said. The article was misleading in part because it was supposedly about lies but they then admitted the possibility that illegal aliens could get benefits under the House bill.
2. It's not clear who said it, but there aren't an "estimated 50 million uninsured in the U.S.". The latest Census Bureau statistics are for 2007, and they're considered a high estimate. Their figures were 45.7 million without healthcare insurance, 9.7 million of that number are not U.S. citizens. Considering the next point, it's likely that the 50 million came from Hoyt and not from Kirk.
3. Kirk presented his argument in this video; the exact numbers aren't clear, but after subtracting foreign citizens, those eligible for public programs, those who are only temporarily without insurance, and those who have higher incomes, he arrived at what looks like just 7.8 million people who are "lower-income and long-term uninsured". Hoyt didn't disclose that to his readers.
4. And, of course, contrary to what Hoyt claims, the CRS has confirmed that illegal aliens would be able to obtain coverage under the House bill.
It doesn't matter to me - I'm an Ethnic-American after all - but "Anglo-Americans" might want to remember the name Stu Kreisman in case they see his name on credits somewhere. The "Emmy award winning writer-producer" and proprietor of MediaCurves.com offers "Another Blow To White American Lunatics" (huffingtonpost.com/stu-kreisman/another-blow-to-white-ame_b_260700.html). It's not difficult at all to find liberal racism and it's trite to play the switcheroo game, but liberal racism isn't usually so overt:
The rich "Country Club" Republicans, radio talk show hosts and screaming town hall lunatics just got another reason to hate Barack Obama. A Korean, Y.E. Yang, just beat Tiger Woods to win the 2009 PGA Championship... ...President Barack Obama, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Attorney General Eric Holder, Serena Williams, Denzel Washington, Penelope Cruz, Professor Henry Louis Gates, Oprah Winfrey, Puff Daddy, Tiger Woods and now Y.E. Yang. Good grief! Where's the angry Anglo-American male going to turn now? Expect a huge up tick in bass fishing and swastikas.
Note also, of course, that he has no clue about rich "Country Club" Republicans; they're usually the ones giving in to far-left concepts in order to make money or maintain power.
Welcome to the premiere edition of BYOSAK: "Build Your Own Soviet Allusion Kit". Your words today are velikiy (great, as in Peter) and grozniy (terrible, as in Ivan). Your goal: use those (or, alternatively, allusions to 1984) in relation to "Joe The Nerd: The Man Who Challenged Obama On Health Care" by Arthur Delaney of the Huffington Post (huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/21/joe-the-nerd-the-man-who_n_265523.html) or the similar post from Greg Sargent .
During a super-tough interview with capitalist running dog and extreme reactionary rightist radio host Michael Smerconish, a regular Joe strongly challenged Leader Barack Obama with the following shocking question:
"Oh, I'm scared out of my mind talking to you here... I'm getting a little ticked off that it feels like the knees are buckling a little bit... We have overwhelming majorities in both the House and the Senate. And we own the whole shooting match. And I'm just getting...It's very frustrating to watch you try and compromise with these people who aren't willing to compromise with you."
Per Delaney, "it was the question of the week". Except, it's not really a question, it was from someone on Obama's side, Obama was (of course) able to "answer" it with ease, and one can only imagine the meltdown that would ensue at the HuffPost if Obama were finally "cross-examined" over his specific policies.
Janet Murguia of the National Council of La Raza takes to the pages of the Huffington Post to offer "There They Go Again: Tom Tancredo, Mark Krikorian and the Politics of Hate and Fear" (huffingtonpost.com/janet-murguia/there-they-go-again-tom-t_b_251584.html). See the earlier National Council of La Raza promotes radical groups for the backstory. She says:
Krikorian of CIS joined in yesterday trying to give Tancredo's rant some credence by harping on the term "La Raza," as in "The National Council of La Raza." Both Tancredo and CIS claim this term translates pejoratively into "The Race" instead of "the people" or "the community" as we use it (not unlike the way the Navajo use the term "the Dine"). Instead of quoting the man who coined the term, former Mexico Secretary of Education José Vasconcelos, who spoke of "La Raza Cósmica" as an ethnicity that welcomes diversity, CIS quotes others who claim a more sinister agenda is afoot.
Would, say, a Swede ever be eligible to be considered "Raza", "Dine", or part of the "Raza Cosmica"? Somehow I don't think so. In Mexican-American communities it's abundantly clear who's "raza" and who isn't, and it's a racial or at least ethnic signifier: someone is either "raza" or not depending on... ta da... their racial characteristics. And, while I'm sure sometimes exceptions are made, in order to join the Navajo tribe you would have to prove that you have Navajo blood.
In brief, Murguia's "community" is a gated one, depending on someone's race (or a mixture of races). Her "diversity" doesn't include those who don't have the "right" races/ethnicities in their backgrounds.
She also briefly mentions one of the core parts of Tancredo's article: the fact that the NCLR is promoting extremist groups. See the backstory link above for the details. Oddly enough, she just says that's been answered in their "The Truth about NCLR" article available from nclr.org without explaining why her group is promoting someone who joined the Brown Berets while in the sixth grade and why her group is promoting MEChA chapters including one that wants to "liberate" "Aztlan".
Remember Michael Dukakis? You know, former Massachusetts governor? The tank photo you see to the right? Ran for president in 1988? In case no one still remembers, raid a game of Trivial Pursuit, he's probably in there somewhere.