The ‘Lugenpresse’ NYT Lies Again

“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.” – The New York Times, Nativist Lawsuit on the Texas Border, The Editorial Board 1/20/15.

Fact Check: Now that Congress has failed to block President Obama’s unconstitutional amnesty edict, they only thing stopping it from going into effect is the temporary injunction of Federal District Judge Andrew Hanen. The Times article, written before Hanen hand down his injunction, reflects the contempt that the elite media have for our country’s rule of law with respect to immigration.

The Times describes the lawsuit brought by the states as “nativist,” a smear word commonly used to discredit opposition to open borders and the rest of the mass immigration agenda. If the Times doesn’t like what is nativist, then might its agenda be described as alienist—the preference for foreigners over citizens? That seems to fit.

The Timesmen loftily inform us that “sound legal scholars” support Obama’s edict based on “the principle of prosecutorial discretion.” The claim is laughable. Under that principle, authorities with limited resources can set priorities of enforcement. The Obama Administration, however, has simply used it an excuse to disregard all immigration laws that it opposes. Furthermore, Obama goes far beyond setting priorities by offering work permits to millions of illegal aliens in violation of the federal law that prohibits their employment.

The Times seems totally indifferent to the crucial issue at stake, namely that Obama is acting as a dictator by proclaiming law on his own initiative and ignoring the constitutional division of authority that designates Congress as the law-making branch of the federal government. This is the principle that Judge Hanen’s ruling seeks to uphold. Undermining the constitutional separation of powers undermines our American freedoms.

But for the Times, the Obama edict was “one of the most positive developments on immigration reform in years” and that attempts by “the anti-immigrant side” to block it “spread chaos, confusion and anxiety.” Notice the verbal trick of the term “anti-immigrant.” The implication is that if you oppose the rewarding illegal aliens with amnesty, you are against all immigrants—presumably the legal law-abiding ones too.

Just what accounts for the Times’ strident alienism? The old saying “follow the money” may be one explanation. Recently the Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim became the largest investor in the New York Times Co. Like most members of Mexico’s wealthy ruling class, Slim doesn’t like the idea of the U.S. controlling its borders effectively. Mexican elites want an open border to export people who might cause instability at home.

The Times doesn’t care for truth, any more than it seems to care for America. Recently German patriots described their pro-mass immigration media as “die lugenpresse” (the lying press). Certainly that name fits the Times and its journalistic ilk. With their treasonous work to subvert out nation’s rule of law, they are truly the agents of “chaos, confusion, and anxiety.”

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here