NY Times Boldly Lies About Obama's Illegal Amnesty
By Gina Miller
RenewAmerica.com
Listen to an audio
version of this column
On Tuesday I took a look at the New York Times
website and made the mistake of reading a short
piece from the opinion page. I say "mistake,"
because I needlessly subjected myself to a piece of
lying propaganda that would make any communist
regime proud. Billed as having been written by the
"Editorial Board," the column, "Nativist
Lawsuit on the Texas Border," is one of
the most blatant examples of misinformation put out
by an ostensibly "legitimate" news source I've ever
seen. The title of the piece alone is enough to
induce vomiting, as if wanting to protect our
borders, national sovereignty and rule of law is a
bad, "nativist" thing, but it gets worse. Take the
opening paragraph (please!):
The first thing to know about the lawsuit brought
by two dozen states to block President Obama's
executive actions on immigration is that it is a
meritless screed wrapped in flimsy legal cloth and
deposited on the doorstep of a federal district
judge in Brownsville, Tex.
You know when leftists whip out the "screed"
pejorative, they're usually trying desperately to
counter something true. A "meritless screed" of a
lawsuit? Really? The guys writing this actual screed
in the New York Times know darned well they're
lying. They know darned well that Barack Obama (or
whatever his name is) has no authority to write law
from the Oval Office or the golf course. They know
darned well that Obama repeatedly told his zombie
supporters that he does not have the rightful power
to do what he did. They know darned well that
Obama's border-busting executive orders – excuse me,
"executive actions" – are illegal. They know darned
well that this lawsuit by half the states is fully
justified.
They go on to note the likelihood that the federal
judge will be sympathetic to the plaintiffs' claims,
since he has already written an order accusing the
Obama administration of conspiring
to smuggle illegal alien children into
the United States. The Times also cites the gossamer
defense of "prosecutorial discretion" as the
justification for Obama breaking the law with his
executive dictates and policies, which they claim
rest on "rock-solid legal footing." Obama does not
have "prosecutorial discretion" to make or break the
laws of the United States.
The Times column continued with the whoppers, like
these:
The states' standing to sue is dubious; their
claims of damage are speculative at
best. There is no evidence that executive action
will do anything to increase illegal immigration,
and there is clear data showing that giving work
permits to immigrants who are already here helps,
not hurts, state economies.
The New York Times "Editorial Board" apparently
wrote these things with a straight face. Perhaps
they believe their readers really are that
stupid, or maybe they don't care either way. That's
their party line, and they're sticking to it, but
for the rest of us rational Americans, the
destructive reality of the illegal alien invasion of
the United States is clear and tangible, as is the
fact that Obama broke the law when he moved to
demolish our immigration laws with despotic strokes
of his commie pen.
Demonstrating that the states' claims of damage are
anything but "speculative,"here
are some points the New York Times
"Editorial Board" neglects to mention. The billions
of taxpayer dollars in welfare fraud stolen by
illegal aliens each year is certainly not
"speculative," nor are the billions spent on illegal
aliens' schooling, medical care, prison
incarceration and social services. Illegal aliens
also send billions of tax-free dollars back to their
home countries. The cost of lives lost
(incalculable) and property stolen at the hands of
illegal alien criminals, drug smugglers, murderers,
rapists, kidnappers and gangsters is also much more
than speculative. We know, too, that Muslim
terrorists have stepped across our wide-open
southern border. And, let's not forget all the
diseases that are being brought back into the United
States by unscreened illegals, some diseases that
have long been eradicated in this nation.
This piece of New York Times tripe is nothing more
than a desperate attempt to give cover to a lawless
commie in the White House, as he illegally
facilitates the third-world invasion of the United
States by a permanent, Democrat-voting underclass
intended to seal the commie Democrats' power in
perpetuity.