wall street journal
wall street journal: Page 1
Michael Barone's shallow, 2470-word logical fallacy ("A Nation Built for Immigrants", WSJ) - 09/22/13
In the Wall Street Journal, Michael Barone offers "A Nation Built for Immigrants" , a 2470-word article designed to make elites feel good about the mass immigration they support. The entire article is a logical fallacy: it claims that current immigration will work out just like former immigration did. That claim is hardly certain because the U.S.
Former Wall Street Journal publisher Gordon Crovitz is wrong about many things, and one of those is where the Internet came from (link):
Wall Street Journal's Colonial America revisionism (Frank Fleming, Independence Day, "What America Was Really Like In 1776") - 07/04/12
To celebrate the Fourth of July, the Wall Street Journal offers a bit of historical revisionism from Frank Fleming  designed to portray Colonial America as a libertarian-leaning wonderland (link):
Fiscal conservatives side with America-denouncing billionaire (Cato, Dan Mitchell, Heritage, Brownfield, Sean Medlock, Daily Caller, HotAir) - 05/11/12
Facebook co-founder Eduardo Saverin recently denounced his U.S. citizenship to avoid paying U.S. taxes he'd owe when that company goes public. Hopefully to most people the idea of turning your back on your country  to save money would be abhorrent.
Former Microsoft COO Robert Herbold, writing in the Wall Street Journal offers "China vs. America: Which Is the Developing Country? /From new roads to wise leadership, sound financials and five-year plans, Beijing has the winning approach" (link). If you aren't laughing/crying already, consider this:
WSJ and SEIU complain about immigration audits, show no concern for American workers (Miriam Jordan, Harvard Maintenance, Minnesota) - 03/15/11
As an alternative to the showy immigration raids conducted during the George W Bush administration, the Barack Obama administration has been conducting "paper raids" (see this for an example with the downsides noted; the guidelines were discussed here).
Needless to say, any form of immigration enforcement doesn't sit well with those who seek to profit or enable others to profit from cheap illegal labor. Thus, Miriam Jordan of the Wall Street Journal offers "Immigration Audit Takes Toll/Janitorial Firm Harvard Maintenance to Lose Over Half of Minnesota Work Force" (link). It features the WSJ highlighting complaints about that audit from the Service Employees International Union, without mentioning the fact that the raid might have opened up hundreds of jobs for American citizens and legal workers. The SEIU gets untold millions in dues from illegally-earned paychecks, and illegal aliens also give them poliltical power. Supporting American workers over illegal aliens isn't in their best interests. For the WSJ, supporting American workers over cheaper, more pliable illegal aliens isn't in the interests of those they serve.
Excerpts follow; see if you can find anything supportive of American workers either below or in the whole article:
Harvard Maintenance Inc., a national janitorial company, will lose over half its Minnesota work force after an immigration audit, making it the second major business in that state to be hit by an Obama administration crackdown on employers of illegal immigrants.
The audit by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement will result in about 240 workers losing their jobs, the Service Employees International Union said on Monday...
...Harvard Maintenance began issuing dismissal letters to employees in early March and is in the process of terminating workers, according to the SEIU, which represents the workers...
..."Our community is traumatized," said Javier Morillo, president of SEIU Local 26 in the Twin Cities. He estimated Harvard Maintenance has 350 workers in the state. Mr. Morillo said following the audit the union worked with Harvard Maintenance to keep the workers employed as long as possible...
...DeAnne Hilgers, an attorney who advises Minnesota companies, said the business community there was shocked by "what appears to be a surge in audits." She said 10 of her clients in the construction and restaurant industries were being investigated by ICE, a unit of the Department of Homeland Security. "These audits are of great consequence to their businesses" because they result in lost workers and thousands of dollars in fines, she said...
...About 11 million illegal immigrants live in the U.S., according to the Pew Hispanic Center, a nonpartisan research group. Without illegal immigrants, business executives in industries like construction, agriculture and restaurants say they would be forced to radically change how they operate.
3/19/11 UPDATE: Morillo of the SEIU has issued a statement (excerpt from here). He's partially correct, albeit for the wrong reasons:
Under the leadership of Secretary Napolitano the federal government has become an employment agency for the country’s worst employers. With each I-9 audit, the government is systematically pushing hardworking people into the underground economy where they face exploitation. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) reports targeting egregious employers that exploit workers – but it’s become increasingly obvious that this policy is nothing short of lip service. Let’s be clear: I-9 audits, by definition, do not go after egregious employers who break immigration laws because many of them do not use I-9 forms. Human traffickers do not ask their victims for their social security cards.
Secretary Napolitano, Director Morton and the agencies they represent are at the forefront of a damaging policy shift in this country – one in which good, hardworking people are hand-delivered to the underground economy. SEIU fights for economic justice across this country, and we can no longer sit silently while communities are devastated by reckless policies.
As this site has been saying since they started, the "paper raids" simply put illegal aliens back in the labor pool, and many of them will simply find work at other, less-reputable employers. So, Morillo is correct about that, at least partially. What he, the SEIU, and the DHS aren't correct about is the solution to the problem. Those groups want to legalize illegal aliens. The solution that supports U.S. workers is to deport illegal aliens and take them out of the labor pool so that U.S. workers can take those jobs. Due to unemployment and other factors, that would be a net financial gain. The SEIU's idea of "economic justice" is perverse, involving obtaining dues money and political power from those here illegally who are depressing wages and taking jobs from American workers. The SEIU's loyalty is to themselves and to illegal aliens and not so much to American workers.
3/24/11 UPDATE: More from Morillo (link):
"The janitors of the Twin Cities that are in the union, they're not depressing wages for janitors. They're the highest paid janitors," said Morillo. "There are janitorial companies that pay much, much less that actually depress wages that are not being targeted for ICE audits."
Morillo claims ICE targets companies that already check the paperwork of their employees. Employers who pay under the table wouldn't get caught in this net. That underground economy is where he says most of the former janitors will go.
SEIU has tracked the ABM janitors who lost their jobs in 2009. Morillo says hardly any of them have returned to their home countries.
Obviously, Minneapolis only needs so many janitors so the illegal aliens that the SEIU is protecting are taking good-paying jobs away from Americans who might be forced out of work or who might be forced to take lower-paying jobs. And, the last paragraph underlines how Napolitano's "paper raids" simply add illegal aliens back into the labor pool.
Glenn Reynolds takes to the pages of the Wall Street Journal to offer "The Arizona Tragedy and the Politics of Blood Libel" (link) in which he tries to run away from the toxic political environment that the tea parties movement - of which he is a leader - has created:
With only the barest outline of events available, pundits and reporters seemed to agree that the massacre had to be the fault of the tea party movement in general, and of Sarah Palin in particular. Why? Because they had created, in New York Times columnist Paul Krugman's words, a "climate of hate." ...There's a climate of hate out there, all right, but it doesn't derive from the innocuous use of political clichés. And former Gov. Palin and the tea party movement are more the targets than the source... ...To be clear, if you're using this event to criticize the "rhetoric" of Mrs. Palin or others with whom you disagree, then you're either: (a) asserting a connection between the "rhetoric" and the shooting, which based on evidence to date would be what we call a vicious lie; or (b) you're not, in which case you're just seizing on a tragedy to try to score unrelated political points, which is contemptible. Which is it?
The latter is, of course, a false choice. While Jared Lee Loughner was almost certainly not affiliated with the teaparties, the environment that they created certainly didn't help. If the news were full of high-level intellectual debate - instead of screaming, threatening teapartiers - would someone like Loughner be prompted to do what he did? Perhaps, but the possibility seems to be more remote than in the current hyperventilated environment. And, whether Loughner himself was motivated by the environment that the teapartiers have created, there are plenty of other nuts out there who might one day take their apocalyptic rhetoric the wrong way. The teapartiers would be wise to at least take the Loughner tragedy as a warning of where their rhetoric could lead, but they won't.
And, Reynolds has apparently forgotten about all the things the tea partiers and their leaders have said and done. Here's a short list:
* Sharron Angle's talk of "Second Amendment remedies"...
* Reynolds own frequent snarky comments against all government workers...
* Linking this (instapundit.com/72077) which contains "[Tea Party] Protestors held signs demanding lower Hoboken taxes, shouted for a recall of elected officials and someone even held a tarred-and-feathered effigy of Mayor Dave Roberts."
* instapundit.com/92043, with the "tarred and feathered" coming from Reynolds: "TAXPROF: A Government Takeover of 401(k)s? If that happens, we may see members of Congress literally, not just figuratively, tarred and feathered. But I think Congress knows that. . . ."
* instapundit.com/109543: "I am entirely serious when I say that all the officials involved should be tarred and feathered."
* instapundit.com/68007: "Obviously, we need more people willing to insist on their rights. These guys [judges who sent "children to jail in return for kickbacks"] should be tarred and feathered."
* In June 2009, Reynolds promoted teapartiers swarming a politician...
* In July 2009, he promoted giving politicians "bunny ears" (instead of promoting discrediting them by intellectually engaging them)...
* In October 2009, he promoted shouting down politicians...
See the Glenn Reynolds page for much more.
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
* Arizona state Fusion Center uses Giffords shooting to smear American Renaissance)
* first post on Gabrielle Giffords shooting
The Wall Street Journal offers the immigration editorial "A Worthy Immigration Bill" (link) in which they endorse the anti-American DREAM Act (S. 3827), a bill that would let the illegal aliens covered by it take college slots and possibly discounts away from U.S. citizens.
Not only does the Wall Street Journal endorse a bill that would harm American citizens, they also mislead about the bill:
Restrictionists dismiss the Dream Act as an amnesty that rewards people who entered the country illegally. But the bill targets individuals brought here by their parents as children. What is to be gained by holding otherwise law-abiding young people, who had no say in coming to this country, responsible for the illegal actions of others? The Dream Act also makes legal status contingent on school achievement and military service, the type of behavior that ought to be encouraged and rewarded.
1. Those covered have to be "younger than 16 years of age on the date the alien initially entered the United States", but there's nothing in the bill requiring them to prove that they were brought here by their parents; older children do occasionally cross the border alone.
2. The DREAM Act grants "conditional permanent resident status" - lasting six years - and the minimum requirements are to have "earned a high school diploma or obtained a general education development certificate in the United States". Not to diminish those who have GEDs, but is that what most people have in mind when they hear the phrase "school achievement"?
3. Many things would be gained from not passing the DREAM Act. If we could encourage those illegal aliens to return home they could help their own countries. The alternative the WSJ wants would continue braindraining Mexico and other sending countries. We'd also free up education slots and possibly discounts for American citizens, something that's vitally important due to cut backs in community college budgets that cause many Americans not to be able to obtain retraining.
We'd prefer that border reform start by expanding legal channels of entry for people who come here to work. There would be little need for a Dream Act if more U.S. work visas had been available for the parents of these children. The U.S. focus on border security has, along with the economic downturn, had some effect on reducing illegal entries. But walls, fences and employer crackdowns mainly produce thriving markets in human smuggling and document fraud and make a mockery of the rule of law, especially in some border areas.
1. If all the work visas in the world were available and everything else were the same, we'd still have a large illegal alien population, and it would probably be higher due to the network effect.
2. Those making "a mockery of the rule of law" include the WSJ and all the other sources that oppose immigration enforcement.
Supporting the Dream Act also makes political sense for Republicans, who will have a tough time winning national elections without more Hispanic support. Polls show that Hispanic-American priorities tend to match those of other voters—the economy, jobs, education and so forth. Nevertheless, immigration has symbolic importance among Hispanics as a sign of political recognition and respect.
The DREAM Act is an openly anti-American bill that would help foreign citizens who are here illegally at the same time as it hurt some American citizens who won't be able to go to college. Most GOP leaders are certainly corrupt enough to put their political interests well ahead of the interests of the U.S. To some extent many Hispanics are willing to put their ethnic solidarity interests ahead of the interests of the U.S. as a whole; if most GOP leaders weren't corrupt they'd realize how serious a problem that is and take pro-American steps to counter it.
WSJ/NBC poll shows little support for fiscal conservatism; 70% "uncomfortable" with cuts to Medicare, Social Security, defense - 11/18/10
[The poll] shows Americans skeptical of deficit-cutting proposals laid out by the chairmen of a commission appointed by the White House. In the survey, 57% of respondents said they were uncomfortable with gradually raising the Social Security retirement age to 69 over the next 60 years. Some 41% said they were somewhat or very comfortable with the idea.
Roughly 70% were uncomfortable with making cuts to programs such as Medicare, Social Security and defense in order to reduce the deficit, with 27% saying they were comfortable.
And nearly 60% said they were uncomfortable with raising tax revenue through such measures as boosting the gasoline tax, limiting deductions on many home mortgages and altering corporate taxation. Nearly 40% said they were comfortable with those ideas.
But the findings show the national debate is still developing. Asked their views of the draft as a whole, 30% of respondents said they had no opinion.
Many fiscal conservatives live in a fantasy world where we can have massive immigration combined with low spending, despite there being absolutely no evidence of that ever happening and despite there being countless examples of how massive immigration leads to increased spending. The way many of those people get around this massive flaw in their policy proposals is to simply ignore immigration's impact.
In fact, the opposite of what Gerald Seib says is true: the tea parties have almost completely ignored immigration, and some of their leaders strongly support massive or illegal immigration. For instance, their leaders such as Dick Armey from FreedomWorks, Grover Norquist, and groups linked to the Koch family are about as far from "close-the-borders" types as you can get. The "Tea Party Declaration of Independence" completely ignored immigration, as did the "Tea Party Contract From America". And, by ignoring that issue, they're depriving themselves of a perfect way to oppose the corrupt DC establishment and in effect helping the Democrats costs them money and reduce their power. One of the dirty little secrets of the tea parties is how they're a Trojan Horse for libertarianism, an ideology that the vast majority of adherents think must involve a "free movement of people", i.e., open or loose borders. Certainly, some in the tea parties might support border enforcement, but they're very, very quiet about it; no actual leaders of the movement have highlighted that issue despite how fundamental it is. ALIPAC held some anti-illegal immigration "tea parties", but they were never supported by the leaders of the movement.
The only example of tea partiers supporting border enforcement that Gerry Sieb can provide comes from Tom Tancredo, someone who's not only not a leader of their movement, but who's been smeared by those in the tea parties orbit such as Reason Magazine. Tancredo spoke at the National Tea Party Convention, which was covered by PajamasMedia and others in the vanguard of the actual movement, but that doesn't make him a leader of the movement. About the speech, Gerald Sieb says:
Mr. Tancredo declared that if Republican nominee McCain had won last year's presidential election, he and Rep. Luis Gutierrez, an Illinois Democrat, "would have been posing in the Rose Garden with big smiles as they received accolades from (the National Council of La Raza) for having finally passed an amnesty" for illegal immigrants. Moreover, he added, Mr. McCain and Mexican President Felipe Calderon "would be toasting the elimination of those pesky things called borders and major steps taken toward creation of a North American Union." ...That is cringe-producing rhetoric for Republicans who are straining to show they are, simultaneously, tough on illegal immigration yet empathetic with the nation's growing bloc of Hispanic voters.
That rhetoric is certainly hyperbolic, but one wonders why Gerrald Seibe would think that Hispanics would be in favor of a NAU or are fans of a foreign leader? They're Americans, right? If Hispanics respond negatively to criticisms of a far-left fringe character like Gutierrez, where does the problem lie? Clearly, Seibe isn't honest enough to consider whether him cringing is correct or not.
 Very few people want to "close the borders", which would involve blocking all traffic both legal and illegal; Seib is just trying to smear his opponents.
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...
Peter Wallsten of the Wall Street Journal offers the misleading "GOP's Demographic Wager: Wooing Latino Candidates" (link). Much could be said about the false assumptions that Wallsten and those quoted make, but I'll save that for another time and just summarize who's involved:
Some high-profile Republicans are adopting a softer vocabulary on immigration and trying to recruit more Hispanic candidates, a response to the party's soul-searching about tactics that many strategists believe have alienated the country's fastest-growing voter bloc...
In Texas, George P Bush, the half Mexican-American son of former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, has founded Hispanic Republicans of Texas, a political action committee to promote Hispanics running for state and local offices...
Former Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie, who is coordinating some of the party's internal discussions, called the tandem effect of rising Hispanic population and dwindling Republican support an "untenable delta."
...The Latino Partnership for Conservative Principles, a group set up by Princeton University Professor Robert George, a leading intellectual voice among Christian conservatives, plans to spend at least $500,000 spread over a handful of races to help pro-immigration Republican candidates, according to Alfonso Aguilar, a former Bush administration immigration official who runs the group. A key position for the group, said Mr. Aguilar, is legalizing illegal workers...
Another GOP-affiliated group, the Hispanic Leadership Fund, plans to target about three races this year, supporting conservative Hispanic candidates and promoting other Republicans who back more liberal immigration laws.
(Rep. Tom Price of Georgia) said in an interview he began meeting with Hispanic groups in recent months to open a "line of communication so there is a reserve of trust." But he said he wasn't ready to talk about a path to legalization until he was convinced the U.S.-Mexico border is secured.
Glenn Reynolds' opinion of most things isn't trustworthy, with the latest example provided by his Wall Street Journal guest editorial "What I Saw at the Tea Party Convention" (link):
1. He says that Obama's actions have "brought millions of Americans to [take to] the streets over the past year". That number is at the least open to debate; Eric Boehlert questions that number and challenges Reynolds to provide an estimate here.
2. He says:
There were promises of transparency and of a new kind of collaborative politics where establishment figures listened to ordinary Americans. We were going to see net spending cuts, tax cuts for nearly all Americans, an end to earmarks, legislation posted online for the public to review before it is signed into law, and a line-by-line review of the federal budget to remove wasteful programs... These weren't the tea-party platforms I heard discussed in Nashville last weekend. They were the campaign promises of Barack Obama in 2008.
It should be obvious to all that there's a huge gulf between the policies of Obama and those of the tea partiers. The first is a liberal Democrat, the latter stresses fiscal conservatism with some being extreme fiscal conservatives. Obviously, any cuts that Obama would make would be far less than any cuts that libertarians would want made; no one ever thought Obama would eliminate the Department of Education or the like. So, why is Reynolds pretending there's an overlap between their positions?
3. He says:
[Obama's ideas were so] popular, it turns out, that average Americans are organizing themselves in pursuit of the kind of good government Mr. Obama promised, but has not delivered. And that, in a nutshell, was the feel of the National Tea Party Convention.
That is, like the quote above, highly misleading. They aren't organizing themselves in pursuit of an objectively-defined version of "good government", but of a fiscal conservative version of government. They think that would be "good government", even if the vast majority of Americans - once acquainted with what their ideology would lead to - would not consider it good government at all.
4. He says:
A year ago, many told me, they were depressed about the future of America. Watching television pundits talk about President Obama's transformative plans for big government, they felt alone, isolated and helpless. That changed when protests, organized by bloggers, met Mr. Obama a year ago in Denver, Colo., Mesa, Ariz., and Seattle, Wash. Then came CNBC talker Rick Santelli's famous on-air rant on Feb. 19, 2009, which gave the tea-party movement its name.
Once again, no one in their right mind thought Obama was anything but a big government liberal. As for the protests, they almost assuredly consisted simply of people waving loopy signs; they were almost assuredly completely anti-intellectual and ineffective protests that didn't attempt to intellectually engage Obama or one of his leading supporters. I tried to encourage people to intellectually engage Obama in March of last year; where was Reynolds?
5. He says "The political elites have failed, and citizens are stepping in to pick up the slack." For an example of what that means in practice, see this. The tea partiers picking up the slack involves them promoting plans that would make their situation even worse.
WSJ wants "amnesty" for Haitian illegal aliens; misleads; shows how can't be trusted (TPS) - 01/19/10
The Wall Street Journal offers the brief editorial "Haitian Amnesty/A humane decision for temporary refuge in America" (link). They show how the establishment is lying when it refers to Temporary Protected Status; the establishment has little intention of "temporary" being accurate:
You might even call [the decision to extend TPS to Haitian illegal aliens] amnesty of a sort, if we can use that politically taboo word. But we hope even the most restrictionist voices on the right and in the labor movement will understand the humanitarian imperative. The suffering and chaos since the earthquake should make it obvious that Haiti is no place to return people whose only crime was coming to America to escape the island's poverty and ill-governance.
They're offering a false choice: deportations could have been halted in various ways short of offering TPS. And, as previously discussed, what the WSJ wants will make Haiti's and the U.S.'s situation worse not better.
For that matter, we don't mind if they stay here permanently. Haitian immigrants as a group are among America's most successful, which demonstrates that Haiti's woes owe more to corruption, disdain for property rights and lack of public safety than to any flaw in its people. Their remittances to Haiti also help to sustain the impoverished population. Haitians received some $1.65 billion from overseas in 2006, according to the Inter-American Development Bank.
1. The WSJ is basically admitting that the "temporary" part of TPS is just a trick.
2. Either the WSJ can't figure things out or they think their readers can't figure things out. Those Haitians in the U.S. are probably more industrious on average than those who stayed behind, or have more education or more money. Just because some Haitians succeed in the U.S. doesn't mean that would be true of all or most.
3. The 2005 Congressional Budget Office found (www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=6366) that remittances to Haiti were 100 times larger than Foreign Direct Investment. And, remittances were 156% of exports. Both of those are very strong indicators of pernicious problems, ones that the WSJ would make even worse.
We can argue later about whether to make this temporary amnesty permanent, but for now the U.S. decision to let the Haitians stay is evidence of the generosity that Americans typically show in a crisis.
The WSJ has no intention of having an open debate about this issue, because they'd lose. The establishment is going to try to make "temporary" status permanent, and the WSJ's opponents aren't going to be effective against it because they either don't know, don't care, or don't do things the right way. See the question authority summary for the right way to discredit the WSJ and reduce their ability to fool people and promote highly flawed policies.
Sandeep Gopalan of the National University of Ireland takes to the pages of the Wall Street Journal to promote a European Union-wide amnesty program in "Fixing Europe's Immigration Problem/ Without reforms across the European Union, the Italian race riots will prove only a hint of the darkness to come" (link).
Rather than spending time discussing why Fiorina is wrong, I encourage the readers of this site to go to Fund's appearances and ask him about this paragraph:
An issue that will give (Chuck DeVore) some traction in a primary is that Ms. Fiorina says she "probably" would have voted to confirm Sonia Sotomayor, because most presidential Supreme Court nominees who are qualified deserve a presumption of support. One can argue with that position on substantive grounds, but it's probably smart politics in a general election given that California is 37% Hispanic.
The great majority of Hispanics in California are Mexican-American (or Mexican). Puerto Ricans make up only about 10% of U.S. Hispanics, and their percentage is probably higher in New York City than in California. And, while the two groups are Hispanic in the broad sense, the two groups aren't known for being close friends. For an example right from the WSJ's hometown, see September 6, 2003's "Little but Language in Common; Mexicans and Puerto Ricans Quarrel in East Harlem" from the New York Times (link).
Why is Fund assuming that Mexican-Americans would reflexively fall behind a Puerto Rican candidate? In fact, some Mexican-American leaders grumbled about a non-Mexican-American Hispanic being selected and Hispanics were generally in line with everyone else about the nomination. Why is Fund in effect supporting pan-Hispanic nationalism, just as Bill Richardson, Bob Menendez, and the National Council of La Raza do? Wouldn't it be better for the U.S. to oppose pan-ethnic nationalism and thereby take power away from Richardson, Menendez, the NCLR, and all the other far-left racial power advocates and organizations? And, why is Fund suggesting capitulation over the choice of someone who was a member of the NCLR, a board member of the equally far-left PRLDEF, and who showed herself to be highly ethno-centric?
Peter Wallsten (formerly of the Los Angeles Times, now with the Wall Street Journal) offers "Dobbs Reaches Out to Latinos, With Politics in Mind" (link), which contains this misleading statement (bolding added):
(Lou Dobbs) is working to repair what a spokesman conceded is a glaring flaw: His reputation for antipathy toward Latino immigrants. In a little-noticed interview Friday, Mr. Dobbs told Spanish-language network Telemundo he now supports a plan to legalize millions of undocumented workers, a stance he long lambasted as an unfair "amnesty."
Now, to help illustrate why Wallsten is being misleading, here's what Dobbs said (video here, bolding added):
What I have said from the very beginning... which a lot of people have chosen to ignore: that we need a rational, effective, humane immigration policy in this country... we need the ability to legalize illegal immigrants on certain conditions and we need to be able to influence the direction of the conversation right now toward securing the border because until we can control immigration we cannot meaningfully, subtantively alter immigration law because it would have no point if we cannot establish the basis for the control of the flow of people across that border.
That said, this is not a welcome development, and Dobbs appears to be changing his position from what it was earlier, if the following actually represents his position:
Mr. Dobbs couldn't be reached Tuesday. Spokesman Bob Dilenschneider said Mr. Dobbs draws a distinction between illegal immigrants who have committed crimes since arriving in the U.S. and those who are "living upright, positive and constructive lives" who should be "integrated" into society. He said Mr. Dobbs recognizes the political importance of Latinos and is "smoothing the water and clearing the air."
Now, compare that to what Dobbs said in March 2006 (link):
My position on what the Senate is doing is that it's an amnesty program. It is putting at least 11, as many as 20 million people, to the front of the line. We have a backlog of legal immigrants to this country of three million waiting naturalization and visas... It is an unconscionable act that pits the lowest paid two million Hispanic workers in this country against illegal, predominantly Hispanic illegal aliens, as demonstrated in a study by the Pew Hispanic Center. This is unconscionable. It is a sell-out. Something we're used to seeing on the part of this Congress and this administration, frankly. It's a sell-out to corporate interests and illegal employers who should be being punished not given a free pass, because middle class, hardworking men and women and their families are paying the price for this.
That sounds stronger than his comments above, however what he said after that buttresses the claim that he's in the "secure the border first, then an amnesty" school:
ROBERTS: Does the Sensenbrenner bill which would criminalize all undocumented immigrants in this country and also provide for construction of a 700-mile fence along the border, does that meet your criteria for what an immigration bill -- immigration reform bill does should look like?
DOBBS: Well, frankly no, John, it does not, but it is the best attempt and at least moving toward enforcement of our borders and security at our borders.
Look, we can't reform -- let's be really honest about it. We can't reform immigration in this country if we can't control immigration. And we can only control immigration if we control and secure our borders.
President Clinton putting millions of people who are in this country illegally on a path to citizenship as a first condition is simply amnesty. If we are to be a nation of laws, as you say, how can we possibly put forward as a condition precedent the reward of those illegal aliens with citizenship for breaking our laws and crossing our borders?
I have said for some time, and I would urge you to talk to your wife about this particular idea, Mr. Clinton, we cannot reform our immigration laws if we can't control immigration. And we can't control immigration unless we control our borders and our ports. I invite you to consider that syllogism and show me where it's wrong.
Now, this isn't quite as surprising as it may seem. Dobbs has always been a supporter of mass immigration, it's just illegal immigration that he used to complain about — that was better than anyone else in the MSM, for sure, but if you keep following the string you'll end up supporting either mass immigration, regardless of status, or low immigration, likewise regardless of status. Dobbs's (and many others') approach to immigration of "legal, good/illegal, bad" is logically untenable.
The amusing thing is that his "growth" isn't going to help him in any case - the open-borders crowd won't believe him and immigration hawks will dismiss him as just another McCain-style phony maverick.
He's right about the open (or just loose) borders crowd, but I'd suggest a more nuanced point of view for the other group. Dobbs is, obviously, one of the favorite targets of the loose border crowd and as such defending him can be used to discredit groups such as the National Council of La Raza. Whether he would support amnesty for all illegal aliens or whether he'd seek to limit it remains to be seen; he's not at the John McCain level, and that's easily seen by watching the full video.
On the video, he takes Telemundo anchor Maria Celeste to task for lying about Joe Arpaio; she falsely states that Arpaio has "clearly violated the civil rights of undocumented immigrants". That is false since Arpaio hasn't been charged and is just the target of a Department of Justice fishing expedition conducted by someone who appears to be a bit far-left. Dobbs sticks up for Arpaio and says that the DOJ investigation is "kangaroo court antics". He also objects to her spending several minutes on the leprosy story and then the federal incarceration story, basically spouting Southern Poverty Law Center talking points. He also takes her to task for equating "illegal aliens" with "Hispanic" and for assuming that all Hispanics think alike. McCain would never do any of that. On the minus side, at the beginning of the interview he apologizes for not speaking Spanish, mentions "a bridge to the future in which there is legalization" and refers to "a regulated flow of immigration within the control of U.S. authorities", which is highly similar to the safe legal orderly talking point. However, having watched dozens of those willing to sell out the U.S. - such as McCain - I'm not convinced that Dobbs is in that camp; he's just wrong.
The bottom line is that you take the good with the bad. Those who don't support amnesty under any conditions or who would only support it years from now under very strict conditions should support Dobbs as a way to oppose the unsavory loose borders types at the same time as trying to push him away from any amnesty. Not supporting him or trying to discredit him would be a very big mistake and would help some truly unsavory people.
UPDATE: It's important to differentiate between legitimate criticism of Dobbs (such as Krikorian's) and attempts by interested parties to separate him from his base. Some of those interested parties might be affiliated with or supporters of corrupt businesses that profit from illegal activity. Others might be partisan hacks who put the interests of the Republican Party ahead of the interests of the U.S.
Just imagine Menendez’s attack ads against [Dobbs]; he wouldn’t have to venture outside of Media Matters’s clip vault to gather enough material for the entire campaign.
There's a reason why Dobbs' opponents keep bringing up the leprosy story years after he issued a correction: they don't have that much material to work with. It wouldn't be that difficult to turn attacks against the attackers, and show voters that Media Matters for America and Bob Menendez are far-left supporters of massive illegal activity. If they or journalists outrageously lied, that could be used to discredit them. Their position as supporters of massive illegal activity is invalid, and it wouldn't be that difficult to show how invalid it is. If your goal is to help the U.S. by helping to reduce massive illegal activity, that's what you'd do. Some people have different priorities.
In a letter to employees in English and Spanish, Chief Executive Dov Charney said he was "deeply saddened" that the company has to shed workers who have been at the company for several years.
Mr. Charney, a champion of immigration reform, promised to give the workers priority for jobs when "you are able to get your immigration papers in order."
...American Apparel is likely to face thousands of dollars in penalties for hiring workers who weren't eligible to be employed. The government has said fines may exceed $800 per employee.
While it's good that the DHS is taking some steps, most of the newly-unemployed illegal aliens probably won't return to their home countries. Most will probably remain in the U.S. and seek employment with the sweatshop down the street. See the enforce labor but not immigration laws posts; Janet Napolitano wants those workers to remain the U.S. in order to give them amnesty rather than doing her job and deporting them.
It's also worth noting that AA's lawyer is/was the Mexican government-linked Peter Schey, and that actions like this by the DHS - even if they could be stronger - run counter to the wishes of Antonio Villaraigosa and Fabian Nunez. They and others wanted to make AA a "protected" company.
UPDATE: A copy of Charney's letter is at gawker.com/5352731/dov-charneys-tear+stained-letter-to-his-1500-laid+off-employees
For once the snark exhibited at sites like that is welcome.
The flow of immigrants from Mexico to the U.S. declined to the lowest level in a decade during the past year, a sign that the recession is deterring economic migrants from heading north in search of jobs.
However, there is no evidence of an increase between March 2008 and March 2009 in the number of Mexicans returning home from the U.S., according to an analysis by the Pew Hispanic Center, an independent research group in Washington.
Creators Syndicate founder Rick Newcombe takes to the pages of the Wall Street Journal to offer "Why We'll Leave L.A./The business climate is worse than the air quality" (link). He's threatening to move his company to another city or state because L.A. reversed their decision on his company's tax classification:
Everything was fine until the city started running out of money in 2007. Suddenly, the city announced that it was going to ignore its own ruling and reclassify us in the higher tax category. Even more incredible is the fact that the new classification was to be imposed retroactively to 2004 with interest and penalties. No explanation was given for the new classification, or for the city's decision to ignore its 1994 ruling...
...As long as City Hall operates like a banana republic, why is anyone surprised that jobs have left the city in droves and Los Angeles is teetering on the brink of bankruptcy?
Of course, this fails to note a couple points. Businesses and people have been leaving Los Angeles for many years, due in good part to massive immigration, most of it illegal. And, that massive immigration has led to more spending, causing the City to look for additional sources of revenue. One of those is his company. And, that massive immigration has led to a great deal of political power for people such as Antonio Villaraigosa and others who push for more spending.
Newcombe might know this and agree but left it out for innocent reasons. However, others I'm not too sure of. They keep whining about taxes, but they completely fail to note the role massive immigration plays in giving more power to the far-left and in increasing spending. In some cases (such as Reason Magazine), that's because they support massive/illegal immigration and are being dishonest in order to avoid admitting just how flawed their policies are.
Sonia Sotomayor: affirmative action nominee for Supreme Court? Close to far-left Puerto Rico extremists? - 05/26/09
[SEE THE UPDATES]
Judge Sonia Sotomayor is Barack Obama's choice to replace David Souter on the US Supreme Court. Weak GOP talking points are here; Peter Baker and Jeff Zeleny (remember him?) have the New York Times' take here.
Was she selected only because of her outstanding grasp of legal issues? Or, was at least part of the selection due to the fact that she's a woman and a Hispanic? Were there more qualified possibilities who didn't happen to fit the politically-friendly uniform? If so, then she is indeed an affirmative action pick, despite the many attempts to claim otherwise we'll be treated to in the months to come. See the quotes at .
Expect the Democrats and their helpers to try to present any opposition to her as anti-Hispanic, just as they constantly played the race card before the election. Three examples at . Note that many MSM reporters and politicians will, either through ignorance or simple dishonesty, fail to note that most Hispanics in the U.S. are Mexican-American, and pan-Hispanic ethnic nationalism will only go so far with most.
It will be interesting to see whether some interesting quotes will come to light; here's one:
Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.
And, one thing the MSM won't look into - and the GOP won't discuss - is whether she's an extremist or not. To what extent does she agree with Luis Gutierrez and Nydia Velazquez, both of whom are former U.S. leaders of the Puerto Rican Socialist Party? Sotomayer is a former member of the far-left, illegal immigration-supporting PRLDEF; did she say or do anything interesting while a member? With Mexican-American leaders it's easy for me to tell their level of support for reconquista sentiments; I'm not familiar with Puerto Rican issues, and it's probably going to be difficult to find anyone to give the straight scoop on her position on issues like sovereignty.
UPDATE: Regarding that possible extremism, we're getting there. From this:
After launching a public campaign to force Princeton University to hire faculty and administrators of "Puerto Rican or Chicano heritage," Sotomayor finally got her way. But she wasn't finished complaining. Despite being appointed to a student advisory board that would counsel the University on the hiring of a "minority dean," Sotomayor was ultimately unsatisfied by the appointment of Luis Garcia as Associate Dean of Student Affairs in September 1974. Sotomayor had a litany of complaints ranging from the manner in which the advisory board was selected to the manner in which the candidate was selected.
See also this.
Meanwhile, this says:
her legal theses included Race in the American Classroom, and Undying Injustice: American "Exceptionalism" and Permanent Bigotry, and Deadly Obsession: American Gun Culture. In this text, the student Sotomayor explained that the Second Amendment to the Constitution did not actually afford individual citizens the right to bear arms, but only duly conferred organizations, like the military. Instead of making guns illegal, she argues that they have been illegal for individuals to own since the passing of the Bill of Rights.
However: that quote is supposedly from americannews.com, a site that appears to have only existed as a parked domain for several years. Consider the last quote a hoax or at least inflation of some kind until a source is provided. UPDATE: The last post has a "satire" tag; I don't think it was there when this was posted but my assumptions were correct. If you ever run across that site again, please ignore them.
UPDATE 2: Video of some of her questionable statements is here.
Back in 1978, she dropped out of the running for a law firm job and filed a complaint after being asked whether he heritage had "culturally deprived" her (link).
Per this, as a District judge she ordered a "$10,000 fine to someone who pleads guilty to a federal charge of sharing in more than $200,000 in kickbacks".
Latino legal activists applauded Sotomayor's appointment. "This is a historic moment," said Cesar Perales, executive director of LatinoJustice PRLDEF, a New York-based civil rights group, where Sotomayor once served as a board member. "This is the most important Hispanic appointment that has been made in this country's history. It is a recognition that we are coming of age, that we can be one of nine wise people on the Supreme Court, making decisions that affect everyone in this country." ...During her years on the organization's board during the 1980s, the organization, then known as the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, focused its efforts on the creation of majority-Hispanic voting districts and the defense of bilingual education programs.
There's more on the PRLDEF here, specifically relating to their campaign against Bush nominee Miguel Estrada.
UPDATE 3: From this: Three of the five majority opinions written by Judge Sotomayor for the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals and reviewed by the Supreme Court were reversed...
Former Wall Street Journal publisher Gordon Crovitz offers "We Need an Immigration Stimulus/A recession is exactly when we want innovative outsiders" (link). Bracketed by various absurdities, he offers the following stats:
Companies founded by immigrants include Yahoo, eBay and Google. Half of Silicon Valley start-ups were founded by immigrants, up from 25% a decade ago. Some 40% of patents in the U.S. are awarded to immigrants. A recent study by the Kauffman Foundation found that immigrants are 50% likelier to start businesses than natives.
Someone who supports Americans (in Crovitz' words, a "nativist") might look at those stats and wonder how we could spur entrepreneurship among Americans, such as by making an entrepreneur class some sort of graduation requirement just as other subjects are. Someone of the WSJ's bent might look into taxes that make being an entrepreneur difficult for Americans; someone to the left might suggest some sort of government program. That would be the American approach. You don't need to guess Gordon Krovitz' approach:
Tea party hilarity: Randy Barnett promotes Constitutional Convention to repeal federal income tax - 04/24/09
The leaders of the tea parties are more hilarious - and incapable of doing math - than ever, as Randy Barnett takes to the pages of the Wall Street Journal to offer "The Case for a Federalism Amendment/How the Tea Partiers can make Washington pay attention" (link). He proposes a feint involving a Constitutional Convention which would then encourage Congress to do away with the federal income tax:
Article V provides that, "on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states," Congress "shall call a convention for proposing amendments." Before becoming law, any amendments produced by such a convention would then need to be ratified by three-quarters of the states... it is precisely the fear of a runaway convention that states can exploit to bring Congress to heel... Here's how: State legislatures can petition Congress for a convention to propose a specific amendment. Congress can then avert a convention by proposing this amendment to the states, before the number of petitions reaches two-thirds...
The short version of my reply was offered by Monty Python forty years ago: link.
The longer version involves someone sitting down with Barnett to repeat to him over and over: "you don't have the numbers." That same kind, patient person can explain to him that his plan requires a huge amount of support, yet all the tea parties could muster was around 0.2% of the U.S. population. By my count, there are less than 30 red states. He wouldn't get all of those and he almost certainly wouldn't get any blue states. Yet, he'd need 34 states just to get it called and 38 to get anything from it ratified. His feint has absolutely no chance of being taken seriously; all he'd do is waste peoples' time.
In other words, this is in no way, shape or form a realistic plan. Barnett subtitles this a "how" article, but it's more like a "how they could do it in a fantasy world where basic numerical realities no longer apply". He is, in brief, living in a dream world.
On the plus side, he's showing yet again just how clueless those who support the tea parties are.
"The Global Agenda 2009" report says that "sovereign states do not adequately address problems reaching across borders" and that "international taxation" may be needed to generate the "additional resources" for "global governance... ...As current global governance problems come from market failures, sovereign failures and intergovernmental failures that cross boundaries, sacrificing sovereignty for greater gain may become an option," the report says.
The report says the UN's Law of the Sea Treaty, which is a top priority for Senate ratification under the Obama Administration, is a measure that has "earned the acceptance and compliance" of most nations. The treaty would turn over oil, gas, and mineral resources to the UN and authorize access to them through payment of a global tax to a UN body.
The so-called "Council on Global Governance" of the World Economic Forum includes Anne Marie Slaughter, dean of the Princeton University Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs who has been picked by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to run the State Department's Office of Policy Planning. Slaughter wrote the 2004 book, A New World Order...
...[The report also says:] "Media has the capacity to connect the world, bridging cultures and peoples, and telling us who we are and what we mean to each other. The media can also ensure that no voice goes unheard," it says. "We believe that this new moment also calls for a new media platform, across all media channels, a global non-profit ‘CNN’ providing a new form of independent journalism to inform, illuminate and deepen knowledge about issues that improve the state of the world."
Whether she's really tough or not, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand's immigration position is already angering the right people.
Miriam Jordan/WSJ: American workers "crowding out" Hispanic immigrants (most illegal aliens) - 12/20/08
Miriam Jordan of the Wall Street Journal offers "U.S. Workers Crowding Out Immigrant Laborers" (link). The great majority of Americans prefer that, when a job is available, it goes to an American rather than a foreign citizen, whether legal immigrant or illegal alien. However, the brains of neither the profits-at-any-cost types nor many "liberals" aren't wired that way; both groups would gladly take things away from U.S. citizens in order to give them to illegal aliens. Both groups think Americans are too fat and happy; the WSJ types are thinking only of their profits; and, the "liberals" are also thinking of the glow that giving something to a member of the Oppressed will give them.
While the rest of the article contains several data points indicating rising unemployment among immigrants/illegal aliens - with some returning home - the "crowding out" bit occurs here:
For the first time in a decade, unskilled immigrants are competing with Americans for work. And evidence is emerging that tens of thousands of Hispanic immigrants are withdrawing from the labor market as U.S. workers crowd them out of potential jobs. At least some of the foreigners are returning home.
"We see competition from more nonimmigrant workers," says Abel Valenzuela, a professor at the University of California at Los Angeles who studies day laborers. "Employers are also paying less than in previous years," he says...
Dionne Searcey /Wall Street Journal lies about Obama birth certificate being "authenticated" - 12/04/08
Dionne Searcey of the Wall Street Journal offers "Obama’s Citizenship Again Questioned And Then Answered" (link), which links to and barely rewrites the article from Sara Olkon and James Janega of the Chicago Tribune.
"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."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):
"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."
"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).
* 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).
* 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."