nyt editorial

nyt editorial: Page 1

Discussed in (click each link for the full post):

Democrats, far-left praise Marco Rubio's immigration moves (NCLR; Sharry; IPC; Obama and Gutierrez spox) - 01/20/13

In a January 18, 2013 press release, Marco Rubio lists some of the supposed conservatives who support his immigration amnesty plan ( peekURL.com/zycdzeU ).

To be balanced, here are some positive mentions of his plan (or at least support for his actions on comprehensive immigration reform) from those Rubio should be opposing on immigration: the Democrats and the far-left.

An example of rightwing blogger incompetence (Tim Scott as a token) - 12/19/12

Needless to say, there are far too many examples of the incompetence of rightwing bloggers than I could ever cover. However, to pick one out of the hat, take a look at the reaction to "The Puzzle of Black Republicans" by University of Pennsylvania professor Adolph L. Reed Jr (link).

Andrew Rosenthal of NYT co-opts St. Patrick's Day to support massive and illegal immigration - 03/17/10

Andrew Rosenthal - editorial page editor of the New York Times - has no concept of shame, willing to bend any and all subjects to his favorite: supporting massive and illegal immigration. Just the latest instance comes in "San Patricio" (nytimes.com/2010/03/17/opinion/17wed4.html):

New York Times, admitting that illegal aliens are taking jobs from unemployed Americans, still supports amnesty - 01/06/10

The New York Times offers "Immigration’s New Year" (nytimes.com/2010/01/06/opinion/06wed1.html) which contains this:

Opponents of (comprehensive immigration reform) say the downturn is a terrible time to fix the system, but they are wrong... It is not a question of adding new people to the work force; they are here, many helping keep the economy afloat while tolerating low pay and abuse from lawbreaking employers who prefer them to American workers.

A corollary to the above - one that either the NYT can't figure out or thinks their readers can't figure out - is that those who are here now are taking jobs from U.S. citizens, and that if we had immigration enforcement that would free up jobs for unemployed Americans. Clearly, the NYT's interest isn't with the plight of unemployed Americans, but with illegal aliens and the money and power they would confer once legalized. A reduction in the current number of illegal aliens would also increase innovation, such as increased farm mechanization, automation, and so on. There are enough people in the U.S. that various labor shortages - if they exist at all and aren't simply a fiction created by corrupt employers - can be dealt with through means other than massive immigration.

They also use a phrase I haven't seen before; they want to put "12 million people on a path to being assimilated". The usual phrase is the "path to citizenship"; apparently their Frank Luntz is trying a new trick to fool people. Even that intentionally deceptive phrase raises the hackles of some [1].

The editorial also mentions the latest pro-massive immigration thoughts of Michael Bloomberg and it promotes a march (of four people) for the anti-American DREAM Act, a bill that would let illegal aliens take college educations from U.S. citizens. When it comes to limited resources, the NYT tends to side opposite Americans.

[1] vivirlatino.com/2010/01/06/
should-the-goal-of-immigration-reform-be-assimiliation.php

New York Times opposes Secure Communities - 11/27/09

Channeling their inner ACLU, the New York Times offers "Immigrants, Criminalized" (nytimes.com/2009/11/27/opinion/27fri2.html) in which they come out against the Department of Homeland Security's Secure Communities program that chec

NYT admits massive problems caused by massive immigration, a policy they support - 11/18/09

In an editorial, the New York Times is basically admitting how much trouble we're going to be in in coming years due to the massive immigration that the NYT supports. The NYT editorial "Their Future Is Ours" discusses the findings of a recent academic study (link):

There are 16 million children in immigrant families in the United States, one of the fastest-growing segments of the population. It’s an old American story made new in the age of globalization, when waves of human displacement in recent decades have led to immigration on a scale not seen since Ellis Island. But a country that has been so good for so long at integrating new Americans is stumbling under the challenge... ...Dislocation breeds a host of difficulties, starting with family separation...

...The children from separated families were, perhaps unsurprising, more likely to show signs of depression. Those symptoms were often accompanied by poverty, isolation and - despite an early period of hopefulness and engagement - a downward academic slide. Immigrant children lagged in mastering standard academic English, the passport to college and to brighter futures. Whereas native-born children’s language skills follow a bell curve, immigrants’ children were crowded in the lower ranks: More than three-quarters of the sample scored below the 85th percentile in English proficiency...

...This is the great challenge that is forgotten in the heat of the immigration debate. The children of immigrants are Americans. "They" are "us," a cohort of newcomers who will be filling the demographic void left as the baby boomers start fading away. Their future is our country’s future. The job of integrating them is not only unfinished but in many critical ways has hardly begun.

First, not all of them are citizens, and some or many of the citizens are the children of recent illegal aliens. In any case, the NYT has played its own role in bringing about the situation they whine about, and they should be held accountable in order to minimize any more damage that they can do. One way to do this is to go to public events where NYT editors and officials appear and really press them on the situation they helped cause on video.

As could be expected, the NYT proposes a laundry list of solutions, which I guess we're going to have to do. At the same time, we're also going to need to prevent the situation from getting any worse by reducing immigration overall. For that effort it's important to keep in mind that, while most of the "liberal" support for massive/illegal immigration is because they want to obtain money or power, some of it is also because they wanted a "project". Some "liberals" encouraged massive numbers of low-skilled workers to move to the U.S. so that they could them feel high-minded and in order to give them oppressed groups to look after. Instead, those "liberals" should be encouraged to support low-skilled workers staying in their countries while working towards reforming those countries' policies. It shouldn't be that difficult to discredit "liberal" leaders by pointing out to them on video at their public appearances just how faulty their policies are.

Andrew Rosenthal/NYT supports AgJobs (indentured servitude bill) - 05/16/09

The NYT editorial "Farms and Immigrants" (link) supports the recently re-introduced AgJobs farmworker amnesty/indentured servitude bill:

Because it’s hard to find Americans willing to endure the heat, cold and misery of stooping in the fields - or the low wages - growers overwhelmingly use undocumented workers. An estimated 75 percent or more of the agricultural work force is here illegally. This is bad for everybody. Undocumented workers are easy prey for exploitation and unable to assert their rights. Growers constantly complain about labor shortages and are vulnerable to disruptive immigration raids.

The NYT solution to the problem of "jobs americans wont do" is to import a foreign serf class rather than making changes to farm work - such as mechanization and easier working conditions - where it would be appealing to more Americans. And, through their constant support for illegal immigration, the NYT has played a role in enabling the exploitation they complain about. As for the growers complaining, much of that is simply propaganda that was "planted" into sympathetic news sources; see the crops rotting in the fields entries.

New York Times' immigration editorial is so obviously absurd they must think their readers are four years old - 04/22/09

Andrew Rosenthal of the New York Times offers the editorial "Immigration and the Unions" (link). He makes the usual mistakes and smears, and then shows that he thinks his readers are all four years old:

"Workers don’t depress wages. Unscrupulous employers do," said Terence O’Sullivan, president of the Laborers' International Union of North America. Unemployment in his industry is above 21 percent. Nearly two million construction workers are out of work. So what does Mr. O’Sullivan want? Reform that allows immigrants to legalize. "If we can free them so they can come out of the shadows, we can not only improve their lives, but all workers' lives," he said.

1. Apparently Sullivan has never heard of supply and demand; an excess of workers (such as from massive immigration) will indeed depress wages.

2. With two million construction workers out of work, O'Sullivan and the NYT want to increase the swamping effect on that labor market by legalizing millions of potential construction workers rather than supporting enforcement of our laws in order to encourage those illegal aliens to return home over time.

Andrew Rosenthal /NYT: no immigration raids during Census - 03/31/09

Andrew Rosenthal, editorial page editor of the New York Times, offers "A Champion for the Census?" (link) about new Department of Commerce secretary Gary Locke. It contains this not very surprising suggestion:

For instance, in the run-up to other censuses, the federal government has eased up on immigration raids and other intimidating forms of immigration enforcement in an effort to cut down on the number of people who are afraid to be counted. The word must go out from the Obama administration that it expects the same cooperation as the 2010 count approaches.

Andrew Rosenthal /NYT melting down: lies about opponents; defends MALDEF; wrong about Saenz? - 03/23/09

Andrew Rosenthal - editorial page editor of the New York Times - continues his slow-motion melt-down in "Obama Flinches on Immigration" (link).

Andrew Rosenthal/New York Times wants stimulus money to go to illegal aliens - 02/15/09

The New York Times offers the editorial "Helping Workers in Hard Times" (link) in which they explicitly support stimulus plan jobs going to illegal aliens.

NYT: illegal immigration is "New York's special gift to America" (unhinged anti-Gillibrand editorial) - 01/31/09

The part Mexican-owned New York Times offers the editorial "Listening to Ms. Gillibrand" (link). They're wrong as usual, and they're even more unhinged than usual too. Red-faced with anger at country mouse Kirsten Gillibrand's Upstate ways, they lose it right about here:

Mitt Romney joins Marriott International (hotels) board; NYT misleads to support illegal activity - 01/08/09

Mitt Romney has joined the board of Marriott International of hotels fame. Their chairman Bill Marriott is a strong supporter of comprehensive immigration reform, and, due to media corruption, Romney's exact position on that was never cleared up however he was generally against some forms of amnesty. The New York Times editorial board takes note of this in "Mitt Romney in the Amnesty Hotel" (link):

Mr. Romney distinguished himself in the Republican primaries for the vapidity and hypocrisy of his stance on immigration. He proudly professed a rigid hostility to comprehensive immigration reform, waving the word "amnesty" like a bludgeon while conveniently sidestepping his previous endorsements of such reform. In ads, speeches and debates, he displayed a profound fuzziness over what the word actually meant. He once defended a strategy of mass deportations and then admitted the strategy wouldn't work - in the same debate.

That's a reference to the January 5, 2008 debate; see this. The charitable interpretation of his remarks is that he was supporting attrition, a possibility that the NYT doesn't allow.

They then point out that the hospitality industry employs illegal aliens, without explicitly accusing Marriott of engaging in illegal activity. Not that they'd consider looking into that newsworthy or anything. Then, they further mislead, saying that Romney "fired" the landscaping company which - due to a months-long Boston Globe "investigation" - was determined to have employed illegal aliens despite assuring him that their workers were legal. However, Romney wasn't that company's employer; he had a contract with them.

NYT: subsidize unemployed illegal alien day laborers to keep them in U.S. until economy improves - 12/30/08

The New York Times offers the editorial "Immigration Riddle" (link), a plea to keep illegal alien day laborers in a Long Island community during the economic downturn rather than taking actions to cause them to return to their home countries. The town of Huntington Station (together with Hagedorn Foundation and the Long Island Community Foundation), has been paying for a day laborer center operated by the Family Service League since around 2001. See " Tempers Rise Over Immigrants" by Elissa Gootman from that year, where they admit that "most are also illegal aliens" (link).

Now, per the NYT, there isn't much work available. Rather than giving in to calls to shut the center down, the NYT wants the center to keep providing their usual fare including "food, warm clothing and English lessons."

In other words, rather than reducing the competition that U.S. citizens face for what little work is available by encouraging illegal aliens to leave, the NYT wants the city to underwrite a permanent labor pool of illegal workers. The sleazy support for illegal activity practically drips from the NYT's pages, putting them once again in the position of fully supporting illegal immigration.

Note that the NYT implicitly admits that they're discussing illegal aliens with the "shadows" bit below:

(Town supervisor Frank Petrone) deserves credit for resisting - so far - the simple solution, which is to pull the plug and to chase the laborers into the shadows. That would defy common sense and the Constitution. The town should commit itself to keep some services going, and thus keep homelessness, vagrancy, sickness and blight at bay until the good times return.

Most of them wouldn't be chased into the shadows; they'd move to another town. Eventually, many of them would return to their home countries. If the NYT wanted a non-crooked solution, they could encourage some sort of program that would help the illegal aliens self-deport. Perhaps they could even call on their friends at the Mexican consulate to repatriate their own citizens. Instead:

And until then, the Suffolk County executive, Steve Levy, could also step in, with funds and leadership, to show the rest of Long Island how a community helps all its members, in good times and bad.

The only "help" the NYT is interested in is their own pocketbooks or those of their friends, or of assisting the Democratic Party with obtaining new voters. The only sustainable help would be discouraging illegal immigration rather than doing as the NYT wants and underwriting it.

NYT editorial hopeful about Obama immigration picks; Bush "terrorized", "hunted down" illegal aliens - 12/26/08

As their Christmas gift to the world, the New York Times offered the editorial "Getting Immigration Right" (link). As with all their other editorials on this topic, it's wrong, beginning with their sleazy inability to admit that they and George W Bush are on the same side:

This is why it is so important to reverse the Bush administration’s immigration tactics, which for years have attacked the problem upside down and backward. To appease Republican nativists, it lavished scarce resources solely on hunting down and punishing illegal immigrants. Its campaign of raids, detentions and border fencing was a moral failure. Among other things, it terrorized and broke apart families and led to some gruesome deaths in shoddy prisons. It mocked the American tradition of welcoming and assimilating immigrant workers.

Bush and the NYT want the same thing; Bush just put on a few show raids at the same time as he allowed millions of illegal aliens to enter the U.S. And, the NYT's support for assimilation is as shallow as that of the Bush administration.

They also praise Obama's cabinet picks: Janet Napolitano, Bill Richardson, and Hilda Solis. Of the latter, they say that she's "built a reputation as a staunch defender of immigrants and workers." To translate that, she's been a strong supporter of illegal activity; see the last link.

They also live in a fantasy world where we can enforce labor but not immigration laws.

New York Times: if the "nativists" weren't really "anti-immigration", they'd support massive immigration - 10/03/08

The New York Times editorial board is back with yet another very special editorial (link):

One of the false pieties uttered by anti-immigration politicians is that they love immigrants. If that were true, Congress would not be having so much trouble passing a simple law to smooth out a serious kink in the legal immigration pipeline.

Seriously, does anyone - even those in their target market - buy this? One doesn't have to support all types and all levels of immigration in order to "love immigrants". That should have been obvious to even the writers of their screed.

What they're advocating for is "visa recapture", where visas that weren't used for one reason or other can be applied to the current year's limit. If this were a video they'd have a Harry Shearer-narrated animation of their sales job:

Every year thousands of potential green cards vanish, like unused cellphone minutes.

The visas they're discussing are green cards, although I haven't checked whether H1Bs and the like would be covered as well. The two bills they mention are sponsored by immigration lawyer Zoe Lofgren and Robert Menendez, so there's probably a lot more they aren't mentioning; see also this.

Barack Obama lies about Rush Limbaugh in Spanish-language ads - 09/17/08

The Barack Obama campaign has a new Spanish-language ad that features racial demagoguery and a distortion of Rush Limbaugh quotes. You can see the ad here:
"They want us to forget the insults we've put up with, the intolerance," the television ad's announcer says in Spanish as a picture of Rush Limbaugh appears onscreen with quotes of him saying, "Mexicans are stupid and unqualified" and "Shut your mouth or get out."

"They made us feel marginalized in a country we love so much," the ad continues. "John McCain and his Republican friends have two faces. One that says lies just to get our vote and another, even worse, that continues the failed policies of George Bush that put special interests ahead of working families."

[The radio ad goes on:] "Don't forget that John McCain abandoned us rather than confront the leaders of the Republican Party. Many of us were born here, and others came to work and achieve a better life for their families -- not to commit crimes or drain the system like many of John McCain's friends claim. Let's not be fooled by political tricks from John McCain and the Republicans. Vote so they respect us. Vote for a change."
This isn't the first time that Obama smeared Limbaugh, and there's much to discuss about this ad. First let's deal with the misleading Rush quotes. The first quote is actually from 1993 (link):
"If you are unskilled and uneducated, your job is going south. Skilled workers, educated people are going to do fine 'cause those are the kinds of jobs NAFTA is going to create. If we are going to start rewarding no skills and stupid people, I'm serious, let the unskilled jobs that take absolutely no knowledge whatsoever to do -- let stupid and unskilled Mexicans do that work."
The Obama campaign misquoted Rush by omitting the context; the context certainly doesn't show Rush in a good light, but it's far different from what the Obama campaign is trying to do: pretend that Rush said that all Mexicans are "stupid and unqualified". The BHO campaign is lying.

The second quote is just as bad; it was actually from a satire in which Rush proposed a series of draconian immigration laws, only to reveal at the end that those were the actual laws of the Mexican government (link). "Shut your mouth or get out" was actually his distillation of one of Mexico's laws; see for instance this example of meddling foreigners being ejected from Mexico. For video of Rush's satire, see this.

And, the first quote referred to "Mexicans" in the sense of "Mexican citizens who live in Mexico". Democrats frequently have trouble understanding the fact that (according to our laws), Mexicans can't vote in U.S. elections. Only U.S. citizens can, including those of Mexican descent. Certainly, those U.S. citizens of Mexican descent will sympathize with actual Mexicans, but some in the former camp look down on, say, illegal aliens. Obviously, to the BHO campaign there's little difference between an actual Mexican and a U.S. citizen of Mexican descent.

And, of course, some segment of immigrants do come here to engage in criminal behavior, and all those in the U.S. receive a wide range of public benefits. Those who are low-wage workers - the great majority of illegal aliens from Mexico - do take more than they pay in. And, the crimes committed by immigrants would not occur if they weren't here in the first place. As is their habit, the BHO campaign is trying to shut down a discussion of vital matters rather than having an open debate.

As for who's helping Barack Obama spread his lies:

* The first link is to an Ed O'Keefe post at the Washington Post. Needless to say, he just passes the ad on without doing what I did: spend a few minutes searching. Please write the WaPo and ask them to stop helping BHO lie: ombudsman *at* washpost.com

* Ben Smith of the Politico likewise can't be bothered to do even basic research; he also refers to the largely non-existent "anti-Immigration wing of the Republican Party": politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0908/Obama_vs_Rush_en_Espanol.html

* Mark Silva of the Chicago Tribune (mdsilva *at* tribune.com) also can't be bothered to do simple searches: swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/09/limbaugh_latinos_tv_ad_wars.html

* Eric Kleefeld is yet another searchophobe: tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/09/obama_spanishlanguage_ad_ties.php

UPDATE: Rush comments on this here; he also calls Obama a liar who took Rush's quotes out of context.

UPDATE 2: The end is nigh! Worthless hack Jake Tapper fact-checks the ad and the BHO campaign's response to his concerns, finishing by saying "the Obama campaign has crossed a line into misleading the viewers of its new TV ad" (blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/from-the-fact-1.html).

Meanwhile:
* Mori Dinauer passes along the lies (prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=09&year=2008&base_name=lightning_round_fiorina_gets_w)
* Jeralyn Merritt does the same, only worse (talkleft.com/story/2008/9/17/172619/529)
* Alex Koppelman comes close, but does including Rush's objections to the ad (letters.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/09/17/obama_limbaugh/view).

UPDATE 3:
* Eunice Moscoso of the Austin American Statesman does provide the McCain camp response to the ad (defending their previous support of amnesty, a support that continues) but fails to note that the BHO campaign lied. A comment I left has not been approved (link)

* Nick Timiraos of the Wall Street Journal includes some of the response from Limbaugh here, but also downplays the extent to which the BHO campaign took the quotes out of context. A quote I left was deleted; I left it again and that might be deleted as well.

* Beltway lightweight Ana Marie Cox links to the Tapper piece, but fails to note that taking quotes out of context was involved, only saying "An ad attempts to tie McCain to some particularly unpleasant Republicanness [in this case, a closed borders approach to immigration], but it turns out McCain was not at all associated with that particular nastiness." (link)

* Kathleen Hennessey of the Associated Press discusses a BHO campaign stop and works this in as well: One [BHO] commercial airing in Nevada, New Mexico and Colorado links McCain to comments apparently hostile to immigrants made by conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh. (link)

UPDATE 4: Even a day after Jake Tapper called the ad misleading, others are valiantly struggling with the truth.

* Tim Gaynor of Reuters offers "Controversial Obama ad revives immigration issue". He includes the muted response from McCain and correctly points out that, at the end of day, BHO and McCain are basically on the same page on this issue. However, Gayner completely fails to point out the problems with the quotes. A comment I left was not approved. (link).

* "shovelhood" shows the level of thinking at DailyKos by noting that Rush says the quotes were taken out of context... then using other quotes in an attempt to show that Rush is a racist and without dealing with the quotes in the ad. Whether that's an intentional attempt at distraction or an issue with the thinking processes of "shovelhood" isn't clear. Some commenters don't care about the ad being misleading, but a couple do seem to expres qualms about the BHO campaign lying (dailykos.com/story/2008/9/18/154144/680/122/602969).

UPDATE 5: Ed O'Keefe at the Washington Post - the blogger who first started promoting BHO's lying ad - offers a bit of a non-correction correction in "McCain Camp Decries Obama Spanish Ads" (link), which links to both Rush's comments and those from Tapper. I suppose the latter were key; when another member of the "club" points out that you've promoted a lying ad you just have to admit defeat.

UPDATE 6: The end is nigher! In an editorial, the New York Times says "Mr. Obama's retaliatory ad, also in Spanish, was just as fraudulent. It slimed Mr. McCain as a friend and full-bore ally of restrictionists like Rush Limbaugh, even though Mr. Limbaugh has long attacked Mr. McCain's immigration moderation. It quotes Mr. Limbaugh as calling all Mexicans stupid and ordering them to "shut your mouth or get out," which he never did.".

UPDATE 7: Rush offers "Obama Is Stoking Racial Antagonism" here. This has provoked a new round of those willing to lie for Obama at any cost to whatever reputations they had.

* Digby (digbysblog.blogspot.com/2008/09/black-kettle-by-digby-limbaugh-is-so.html) offers "Black Kettle". It uses the "shovelhood" technique (see above) without even acknowledging the bit about the BHO campaign taking quotes out of context. The quote she provides as a distraction from the original lies is probably taken out of context as well.

* Jonathan Stein from MoJo links to the Rush piece, and continues to take his second quote out of context. (link) Unbelievable? No, just in line with his previous "thinking".

* Adam Serwer first admits that the quotes were taken out of context and that' was "stupid". Then, he launches into the "shovelhood" technique (link).

UPDATE 8: Joe Klein offers "Take It Down, Barack" (link). Klein is such an obsequious hack that even Jake Tapper calling BHO out wasn't enough. It took a far greater authority to spur him to action: "The New York Times editorial board--once again calling a lie a lie--slams both McCain and Obama for their Spanish-language ads about immigration policy. I've given up any hope of McCain running an honest campaign, but if Obama really wants to present an honorable alternative to McCain's non-stop sleaze, he should take down his immigration ad immediately."

UPDATE 9 (9/22/08): * Mark Silva of the Chicago Tribune (mdsilva *at* tribune.com) - even after all the above - continues trying to help BHO lie (swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/09/john_mccain_immigration_reform.html) by saying "McCain's Democratic rival, Sen. Barack Obama, has been going after McCain lately on immigration -- attempting to tag the Republican with radio's Rush Limbaugh and intolerant words that the talk show host has had for immigrants in Spanish-language ads airing in hotly contested Western states."

John McCain ad was right and Barack Obama, MSM misled about BHO's kindergartener sex education bill - 09/16/08

Earlier this month the John McCain campaign released an ad (link, video link) saying in part:
"Obama's one accomplishment?

Legislation to teach "comprehensive sex education" to kindergartners.

Learning about sex before learning to read?

Barack Obama.
This has led to a wide variety of BHO supporters - specifically those in the MSM - calling McCain a liar. To a certain extent, they have somewhat of a point: the bill might not be an "accomplishment" for BHO since he was just a supporter and not a co-sponsor and since it never passed. And, the McCain campaign might not have correctly contextualized some of the other quotes they provide in the ad relating to BHO's educational plans.

However, their complaints don't usually involve those points but instead revolve around the middle sentences quoted above; they try to pretend that kindergarteners were just covered by the bill in order to prevent abuse when in fact the bill was much more far-reaching than BHO and his helpers would have you believe. For an example of what Obama would have you believe, see this or this quote from campaign spokeswoman Jen Psaki (link):
"Barack Obama supports sensible, community-driven education for children because, among other things, he believes it could help protect them from pedophiles. A child's knowledge of the difference between appropriate and inappropriate touching is crucial to keeping them safe from predators."
Now, for the truth about the bill, read this:
Within moments of the ad's appearance, the Obama campaign called it "shameful and downright perverse." The legislation in question, a bill [Senate Bill 99] in the Illinois State Senate that was supported but not sponsored by Obama, was, according to Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton, "written to protect young children from sexual predators" and had nothing to do with comprehensive sex education for kindergartners...

Newspaper, magazine, and television commentators quickly piled on. "The kindergarten ad flat-out lies," wrote the New York Times, arguing that "at most, kindergarteners were to be taught the dangers of sexual predators." The Washington Post wrote that "McCain's 'Education' Spot is Dishonest, Deceptive." And in a column in The Hill, the influential blogger Josh Marshall called the sex-education spot "a rancid, race-baiting ad based on [a] lie. Willie Horton looks mild by comparison."
Read the rest, which includes a discussion of how what was originally meant for those in the sixth grade and up was changed to everyone in K-12 because urban areas might require different topics to be covered than more rural areas. The article also includes Byron York trying to get in touch with three of the four original sponsors and for some unknown reason or other not getting his calls returned. Only one of the four spoke with him about the bill:
After we discussed other aspects of the bill, I told [original co-sponsor state senator Iris Martinez] that reading the bill, I just didn't see it as being exclusively, or even mostly, about inappropriate touching. "I didn't see it that way, either," Martinez said. "It's just more information about a whole variety of things that have to go into a sex education class, the things that are outdated that you want to amend with things that are much more current."

So, I asked, you didn't see it specifically as being about inappropriate touching?

"Absolutely not."
That doesn't mean that the parts involving kindergarteners wouldn't be restricted to just inappropriate touching. However, the age range was lowered specifically to allow different school districts to offer teaching appropriate to their areas, and thus those in lower grades could be taught much more than BHO is letting on. For a discussion of that, see this or this.

A list of just some of those who've helped Barack Obama hide the truth about the bill is in the extended entry:



* Adam Nagourney and Jeff Zeleny of the New York Times say the ad "misleadingly accused Obama of endorsing sex education for kindergarten students" (link)

* A New York Times editorial falsely states "At most, kindergarteners were to be taught the dangers of sexual predators." (link) What they could have been taught was left up to the localities.

* Following the party line boilerplate, Paul Krugman says 'In reality, he supported legislation calling for "age and developmentally appropriate education"; in the case of young children, that would have meant guidance to help them avoid sexual predators.'

* Larry Rohter of the New York Times pretends the ad was implying that "comprehensive" meant that kindergarteners would receive the information as high school students; he's probably the only person coming to that conclusion. He also takes Obama's word for his understanding of the bill rather than discussing what the bill actually says and what others intended by it (link).

* Emi Kolawole of FactCheck correctly points out some of the minor errors in the ad, but says 'It's true that the phrase "comprehensive sex education" appeared in the bill, but little else in McCain's claim is accurate.' (link)

* Michael Scherer of Time says "[t]he sex-education bill in question had called only for age-appropriate instruction..."

* Brave New Films promotes a Planned Parenthood ad (alternet.org/blogs/video/98697/ planned_parenthood_rips_into_mccain_for_sex-ed_smear_campaign): 'In an ad, they say that Obama was helping children protect themselves from sex offenders, while McCain seemingly doesn't care.'

* Nedra Pickler and Charles Babbington of the Associated Press claim that the ad "misrepresent[ed] [BHO's] position on sex education for kindergartners." (link). That's not completely inaccurate, but it fails to note that BHO either hasn't read, hasn't understood, or is misrepresenting the bill.

* Joe Garofali of the San Francisco Chronicle falsely states 'Obama doesn't support explicit sex education for kindergarteners. The bill -- which never was passed out of the Illinois legislature --included teaching "age-appropriate sex education" -- you know, what is inappropriate touching, that sort of stuff'. (link)

* Richard Cohen offered "The Ugly New McCain" (link) and called the ad a "lie". That referenced a McCain appearance on The View (!) where Joy Behar called it a lie as well.

* "Hilzoy" of the Washington Monthly pretends it was just about inappropriate touching (link).

* Joe Sudbay tries to pretend it was just about preventing abuse (americablog.com/2008/09/mccain-got-nasty-defending-his-negative.html)

* Democratic consultant Mark Mellman says "There is not an iota of reality in McCain's attack on Obama's supporting comprehensive sex education for kindergartners. As we all know, he voted to help children avoid sexual predators."

* A Tampa Bay Tribune editorial says 'The facts: Obama, while a state lawmaker in Illinois, supported a measure to provide older students with age and developmentally appropriate sex education. Younger children, such as those kindergarten-age, would be taught "age-appropriate" things such as how to protect themselves from sexual predators.'

* A Minneapolis Star-Tribune editorial says "There is no evidence that Obama supported explicit sex education in kindergarten, as a McCain ad implied."

* Not even understanding BHO talking points, Cox Newspapers columnist Tom Teepen says 'No, as an Illinois state legislator Obama did not push for "comprehensive sex education" for kindergarteners. He supported a proposal for age appropriate sex education -- which, for kindergarteners, would have meant only making them aware of the possibility of sex abuse and teaching them means to counter it.'

UPDATE:
* Darrell West from the Brookings Institution falsely states "The McCain campaign ran another spot erroneously claiming Obama favored comprehensive sex education for kindergarteners." (link)

* It's an Anderson Cooper from CNN and "FactCheck" two-fer. CNN aired a "Fact Checking" episode that hewed to the party line (link):
[RANDI KAYE, CNN CORRESPONDENT]: Did Obama want to teach sex education to kindergartners? Not really. The programming question was intended to teach kids how to avoid sexual predators, says the nonpartisan group FactCheck.org.

VIVECA NOVAK, FACTCHECK.ORG: What he wanted to do was increase the range of some -- some sort of sex education, K-12. But the kind of thing he was interested in having kids at a young age learn about was inappropriate sexual advances that might be made against them.
What BHO says he wants and what was in the bill he voted for are, of course, two entirely different things.

New York Times supports illegal activity, identity theft - 07/13/08

The New York Times editorial board continues to hit new lows, this time offering "The Shame of Postville, Iowa" (nytimes . com/2008/07/13/opinion/13sun2.html) about the May immigration raid at Agriprocessors meat packing plant in that town.

Senator Bob Menendez uses alleged ICE abuses to hamper immigration enforcement (SPLC, NYT) - 06/16/08

Senator Robert Menendez is a racial demagogue who supports massive Hispanic immigration (of any kind) in order to obtain political power. His latest trick to oppose immigration enforcement was a speech he gave on the Senate floor last week [1] in which he made several inflammatory statements about the government he supposedly works for and highlighted rare examples of abuses - some merely alleged - by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). He also promised legislation concerning this issue. You can view the speech here and here.

From the inflammatory side of things, he refers to agents who "stormed" a house; he claims that there are "US citizens who are targeted because of their race, targeted because of their color"; he claims that "their accent, their name, the color of their skin, the place where they lived would have put them at risk" and that "fundamental Constitutional rights still might not apply to them, in today's America"; and that the "authorities harass U.S. citizens of Hispanic descent in other ways". And, much more. It won't be surprising that the New York Times editorial board calls it a "brave" speech (link). From Menendez' summary of the speech:
This afternoon, U.S. Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) took to the floor of the Senate to deliver a major speech on immigration raids and detentions. He cited the numerous incidences of American citizens and legal permanent residents of Hispanic or other minority descent getting swept up in raids and the fear this has engendered in minority communities. Senator Menendez, who is the Senate sponsor of legislation to ensure basic medical care for detainees, also announced that he will be introducing legislation to prevent the unlawful detention of American citizens and permanent residents.

"The legitimate desire to get control over our borders has too often turned into a witch-hunt against Hispanic Americans and other people of color," said Senator Menendez. American citizens "are targeted because of their race, targeted because of their color--denied every fundamental right guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Common sense repeatedly loses out to hysteria, and agents of intolerance repeatedly jump over the legal protections to which every single American is entitled."
Consider this anecdote from his speech:
Another U.S. citizen named Gladis was at her home one day when eighteen vehicles drove into her front yard, and twenty agents jumped out.

Agents banged on the door and threatened to throw gas inside the house if they didn't let them in. While the children in the house ran and hid in the bedroom, the agents broke down the door.

One of the agents grabbed Gladis and attempted to handcuff her.

Gladis said she could prove her citizenship, and gave them her social security card. After interrogating Gladis and her family for twenty more minutes, the agents left as fast as they came - they had no warrant, no probable cause, no reason for their actions besides suspicion about someone's name, their accent, and the color of their skin.
What Menendez forgot to state is that that incident occurred during the raid in Stillmore, Georgia. In addition to raiding the chicken processing plant in that town, ICE also arrested illegal aliens in residential areas, and they claim that they visited specific locations in those residential areas based on information they obtained during the main raid. She and others are part of a lawsuit [2] brought by the Southern Poverty Law Center, a group indirectly linked to the Mexican government. See this for a description of the raid, with an ICE statement at the end. See the attempted class action complaint at [3]. Some abuses may have occurred, or the plaintiffs could be telling tall tales; in any case the situation is mitigated by the facts that Menendez didn't reveal. And, it's worth noting that after the raid the plant was forced to raise wages in order to hire legal workers; whose side is Menendez on?

Like others, Menendez also brings up the case of Pedro Guzman, a mentally impaired U.S. citizen who was deported to Mexico and only made it back three months later. He also discusses the recent Washington Post series, which is disputed by ICE.

And, he brings up the case of Maria Argueta, who's also currently suing ICE. She makes some generally unbelievable claims (link):
Once inside, the agents asked Argueta about her immigration status, and when Argueta presented her Temporary Protection Status documents, they tossed them aside without looking at them, the suit alleges.

According to the lawsuit, Argueta was taken to a detention center in Elizabeth, where agents mocked her with a popular Latino song "Maria Has Gone," and was later transferred to a Newark facility, where she was held for nearly 36 hours. Argueta was held without food or water for the first 24 hours after her arrest, the lawsuit claims.
Once again, while I'm sure that ICE abuses do occur, I tend to doubt her version of events.

[1] menendez.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=299036
[2] splcenter.org/legal/news/article.jsp?site_area=1&aid=221
[3] splcenter.org/pdf/dynamic/legal/manchaICE.pdf

New York Times editorial mind reads the "immigrant vote", gets it wrong - 01/19/08

Earlier today, the New York Times offered "The Immigrant Vote" [1], promising wrath and ruin upon those who dare stand in the way of corrupt businesses profiting from illegal activity:

Nevada is the first state on the election calendar with a sizable Hispanic vote, and among them will be a substantial number of immigrants. We don't know who they'll choose, but we do know they are anxious. They have endured the racially tinged rhetoric used to sink immigration reform; they have witnessed Republican candidates exploiting the xenophobic nastiness. Families have been torn apart as illegal immigrants have been deported, leaving their citizen children behind.

According to the exit entrance polls from the Nevada caucuses (link), among Republicans identifying themselves as Latinos: Mitt Romney got 41%, followed by Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee with 9% each, Rudy Giuliani with 8%, Duncan Hunter with 6%, and Fred Thompson with 1%. The only openly pro-amnesty candidate, John McCain, got 25%. Rudy supports an amnesty, he just doesn't push it that much. But, to be fair let's add them together and come up with around a third selecting someone who's in favor of amnesty. And, other factors may have come in to play with that third.

Meanwhile, over on the Democratic side, among Latinos Hillary Clinton got 64% vs. Barack Obama's 24%, and he's slightly more pro-illegal immigration than She [2] is. Unlike Her, he supports driver's licenses for illegal aliens, and he also marched at 2006's pro-illegal immigration march in Chicago, the one that was organized by several people linked to the Mexican government. Of course, other factors which are not to be discussed may have played a role with some number of those who voted for Hillary. And, Bill Richardson is apparently still on the ballot and got 0%.

UPDATE: Numbers are crunched here.

[1] Generally speaking, there should be no such thing as the "immigrant vote", since anyone who can vote (at the federal level at least) must be a citizen and thus, even if they're a naturalized citizen they're no longer an "immigrant". A minor point? Well, yes. But, it goes to the already abysmal credibility of the New York Times.

[2] I'll be using the royal capitalization from here on out.

Desperate New York Times immigration editorial plays race card; afraid attrition might work? - 10/22/07

Like clockwork, the New York Times offers yet another immigration editorial and, of course, they're still wrong ("AinaLike clockwork, the New York Times offers yet another immigration editorial and, of course, they're still wrong ("Ain’t That America", link). Per them, not enacting comprehensive immigration "reform" is yet another in the long line of "greatest historical shames" perpetrated by the U.S. The national mood is slipping into "hatred and fear" against those "documented or not, who speak Spanish and are working-class or poor":

The evidence can be seen in any state or town that has passed constitutionally dubious laws to deny undocumented immigrants the basics of living, like housing or the right to gather or to seek work. It's in hot lines for citizens to turn in neighbors. It's on talk radio and blogs. It's on the campaign trail, where candidates are pressed to disown moderate positions. And it can be heard nearly every night on CNN, in the nativist drumming of Lou Dobbs, for whom immigration is an obsessive cause.

As evidenced by their coverage, supporting illegal immigration and cheap labor is an "obsessive cause" for the NYT. As for those questions, the fact that the NYT's "reporters" aren't out there taking the candidates to task for the gaping holes in their policies shows that they're just a propaganda source and not a real newspaper.

Then, after promoting Eliot Spitzer's scheme to give driver's licenses to illegal aliens, they offer three choices to solve the problem. The first is mass deportations, something that no national leaders are calling for. The second could have been written by either the Democrats or the Bush administration:

Find out who they are. Distinguish between criminals and people who just want to work. Get them on the books. Make them pay what they owe - not just the income, Social Security, sales and property taxes they already pay, but all their taxes, and a fine. Get a smooth legal flow of immigrants going, and then concentrate on catching and deporting bad people.

They can't even get that right: all of the amnesties so far proposed would have allowed terrorists and criminals to sneak through the cracks, with the latest Senate bill allowing the DHS to admit known gang members. At least one version would have forgiven two years of taxes. And, that "smooth legal flow" sounds vaguely like an attempt to flood the U.S. with cheap foreign labor.

Their last choice is a mischaracterization of attrition, and they appear to have done that because they're afraid it might work:

Catch the few you can, and harass and frighten the rest. Treat the entire group as a de facto class of criminals, and disrupt or shout down anyone or any plan seen as abetting their evildoing.

Most people who support attrition are obviously not guilty of what the NYT claims; they're simply playing the victim. In fact, the ones trying to do the "shouting down" are those on the NYT's side who continually try to racialize the issue, use misleading "news" reports (such as from the NYT), smear people like Lou Dobbs, and so on.

The New York Times doesn't want a real debate on this issue: they want to try to kneecap their opponents by calling them bigots rather than, for instance, doing real reporting on this issue and disclosing all the downsides of the "reform" they support or asking the presidential front-runners to defend their flawed policies.

New York Times editorial: pass anti-American DREAM Act - 09/24/07

From the 9/20 New York Times editorial called "Pass the Dream Act" (link):

...The idea is modest and smart, but modest and smart usually don’t get very far these days. The anti-immigrant forces that buried the Senate’s comprehensive reforms under a wave of faxes and phone calls are at it again over the revival of this small part of that much bigger bill. They are convinced that giving a break to blameless young men and women - maybe about a million - who want to earn a college degree or serve in the military weakens the country instead of strengthening it. Their hostility to nurturing a new cohort of American citizens, their reflexive "no" even to this limited attempt at immigration decency, lays bare the bankruptcy of their self-defeating passions... Passage would also give encouragement to the budding activists on college campuses around the country who have rallied behind the Dream Act for themselves and their schoolmates...

1. This appeared on the same day that Dick Durbin made his changes which may have somewhat reduced the hugely negative impacts of the bill. Before those changes, the DREAM Act still allowed illegal aliens to take college discounts from U.S. citizens. And, it was a massive amnesty with no upper age limit and could have amnestied far more than the million that the NYT claims (maybe that's why they say "maybe").

2. Needless to say, the NYT is trying to smear those opposed to massive illegal activity as not only being "anti-immigrant", but being ruled by their "passions" rather than reason.

3. All of the "activism" I've seen relating to the DREAM Act is either dishonest (the endless string of PIIPPs) or based entirely on emotion, illogical thought, and ethnic solidarity. None of that should be encouraged.