Cross posted from DeMediacratic Nation:

Free opinion here, no TimeSelect fee necessary.

From the editorial board over at the toilet "paper" of record:

"It’s almost enough to make us nostalgic for streaking and sitting on flagpoles. College students from Michigan to Florida have found a new way to get attention, offend others and make a right-wing statement all at once. It’s a game with a name that says it all: “Catch the Illegal Immigrant.”

Hey, I'm all for seeing a few "streakers," however, if you're into sitting on "flagpoles," I'm sure there is an appropriate fetish site for that; but I regress digress.

Do you ever notice how certain "free speech" on campuses shouldn't be "free?" Do you ever notice that it is usually speech or activity from groups labeled "Rightwing," that tend to raise the ire of the Times/School Administrators/Liberal college groups?

This mornings Times pines for the days when life was as simple as making your statement the "old fashioned" way; with your flesh. Flashback to the day when re-writing reality wasn't more easily countenanced. To a day when running naked was inappropriately appropriate. Fighting the message is much easier when you don't know what the action was supposed to represent.

Today, unfortunately we have some (on the Right oddly), that now use an offensive game called "Catch the Illegal Immigrant," and according to the board:

"have declared piously that they’re just trying to spark debate"

No "piety" detected from the board......

The editorial also concerns itself with the "fact" that:

"Administrators are in a tough spot, trying to balance free speech with offensive behavior."

The tough spot being that we're watching, waiting and listening to see how you react to something you don't agree with, yet tend to accept, allow and justify from just about any college group from the Left (campus center). "Behavior," the schools and Times find offensive perhaps because people with this type of opinion/behavior could easily have been aborted to avoid activities like this, yet Right wingers, being the zealots we are tend to prefer extermination later in life, i.e. wars, death penalty, etc.

In order to silence those the Times deems sub-intelligent, they close by simplifying the debate in terms that allow them to understand the opposition; as anyone with any semblance of thought can certainly understand this:

'“Catch the Immigrant” also reflects a larger misunderstanding of the immigration issue. The more than 11 million illegal immigrants cannot be caught. Even if they could be, rounding them up and deporting them would be disastrous, economically and socially. Educators should teach the game players about the real world."

See how stupid these crazy kids are? Don't they understand the simplicity of immigration reform the paper supports is?

11 million is an estimate and I've always wondered how one deals face to face with an estimate. Legislation put forward thus far of the "comprehensive" variety will send a certain number of the "estimates (based on time "illegally" in the country)," back "home," then allow them to return and file for "legal" citizenship at the front of the line. Some "estimates," will be allowed to remain, pay a fine, then receive their "amnesty, regularization, legalization, normalization, permanence, earned adjustment, phased-in access to earned regularization," or whatever term the Times may use to cloud the issue to their liking/understanding.

That last line? "Educators should teach the game players about the real world." Starting with one of the "star" players sitting comfortably passing judgment at the Times.

Recent posts from the CAII:

"More on the Memphis Cabbie," from The Bear Creek Ledger."

"The "Gun of Navarette" Fires Again - Immigration debate between wall and wallet" from Demediacratic Nation

Mexican Wives Tell U.S. To Close Border from Common Sense America

Imaginary Friend - Real Credit at Bank of America from Liberally Conservative

Export Dollars to Mexico Free with Bank of America from Liberally Conservative

**This was a production of The Coalition Against Illegal Immigration (CAII). If you would like to participate, please go to the above link to learn more. Afterwards, email stiknstein-at-gmail-dot-com and let us know at what level you would like to participate.**

Cross posted from DeMediacratic Nation:

"Hopefully, at the end of it all, we'll have comprehensive immigration reform that gives illegal immigrants a path to legal residency. Until that happens, the popular view is that towns, cities, and states will take it upon themselves to try to end illegal immigration -- for better or worse."

"I'm ready for some better. I've seen plenty of the worse."

Ruben Navarette with commentary at CNN.Com

I have read and posted regarding Mr. Navarette's commentary on the subject of "illegal" immigration before. The quote above outlines one of his major (if not only) concerns about the need for "comprehensive" immigration reform; citizenship for the "illegals" in country now.

Previously he has taken issue with Lou Dobbs and Dobbs' being critical of "illegal immigration, as a means of "growing fame and fortune." There was also the time Navarette took issue with the "cynical and cowardly" GOP immigration hearings; which I guess wasn't quite the vote getter they had hoped for.

How about the time Ruby "generalized," that "prejudice - and its cousins, racism and xenophobia - are intrinsic to the immigration debate." That's me and CAII, it's a lot easier to argue against proponents of the law if you believe this is how we all feel; you don't actually have to listen because we're "racists and xenophobes."

The last time I felt like reading anything by Ruben Navarette was upon his offer of a free class entitled, "Immigration Reform for Dummies;" I understand now why it's free....

Here are the "plenty of the worse," from "Gun of Navarette" (I used red font):

• Texas State Rep. Leo Berman has written a bill that would deny U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants access to state programs. The Republican is targeting what he tactlessly calls "anchor babies."

• I guess the only thing that bothers Ruben here is "tactless" term for U.S. born children of illegal immigrants. I don't however think so; my only issue is whether it's retroactive or not. What ever is made more difficult, the less likely it is for people to try it. Although, I suppose it would be more effective with consequences, but.....
  

• Some state legislatures are considering leveling taxes on the billions of dollars that illegal immigrants send home annually to other countries (read: Mexico).

• Doesn't the Mexican government do this on the Southern side? (read: Mexico, per Navarettes suggestion)
  

• States such as Utah and Virginia are threatening to eliminate in-state tuition rates for illegal immigrant students who attend public colleges and universities.

• This is a mistaken distinction that opponents of the law/proponents of "illegal immigration," often seem to make, which I believe is: well, if a resident of one state can move and live in another state for a period of time can get "in-state" tuition rates, why shouldn't "illegal aliens;" there's no difference right?
  

• In Maryland, State Delegate Ronald A. George and Sen. Janet Greenip, both Republicans, have filed bills that would require anyone applying for a state driver's license to show proof that they're in the country legally.

• This is just unthinkable; closing a illogical loophole that allows anyone in line at the DMV a drivers license regardless of citizenship or burkha.
  

• Last year, the Colorado Legislature approved legislation that requires that those who apply for state-funded programs must prove they are legal U.S. residents and sign an affidavit to that effect.

• Terrible, terrible....it must be the thin air that causes this "racism and xenophobia." There is nothing illogical in requiring citizenship for state services rendered.
  

• And city councils in Escondido, California, Hazelton, Pennsylvania and Farmers Branch, Texas, last year passed ordinances fining landlords that rent to illegal immigrants and declaring English their towns' official language.

• The Fed has ignored this problem for too long, so you know, don't pull over any speeding "illegals," or anything that might hamper these "illegal" activities that might clean things up a bit.
  

All of the above "issues" are what Navarette has with localities and states taking matters into their own hands, which according to him is a no-no, since he feels they deserve much of the blame. So, you make the mess, how dare you try to clean it up; let the real "professional" "wind directional" politicians in Washington take care of it for you; at least one of them is really good at "multi-tasking" can change our diapers. If citizenship no longer means any form of patriotism or pride etc., can't we Americans at least have perks signifying we actually legally belong here?

But hey, you can take what I have to say with a grain of salt since I'm "racist and xenophobic," at least Ruben is convinced of that.

More postings of late from other "racists and xenophobes," these from the CAII:

From Liberally Conservative, “Mexico Condemns U.S. Trespassing”

“Mexico's Congress has condemned what it says is a border violation by US workers building a controversial barrier between the two countries….” MORE

Bear Creek Ledger fires two shots with, “Don’t need no stinkin’ Social Security Number” and “Surrendering our Sovereignty”

From Common Sense America, Christi shares, “Mexican Wives Tell U.S. To Close Border.”

**This was a production of The Coalition Against Illegal Immigration (CAII). If you would like to participate, please go to the above link to learn more. Afterwards, email stiknstein-at-gmail-dot-com and let us know at what level you would like to participate.**

Cross posted from DeMediacratic Nation:

“It’s harder and harder, and that’s the reason why people are dying in the desert, it makes no sense.” - Miguel Pérez, a 24-year-old migrant from Guerrero

A New Class of Victim:

The quote above is from one of the misnomered "illegal" migrants not, as the Times would prefer to have you believe. I wonder if people would be "dying in the desert," if they were not in the desert? Miguel fits into the category of those described by the toilet "paper" that:

"are indignant that the United States would treat them like enemies or criminals."

Where is the World is Eduardo?

Did you know that:

"For 10 years, Eduardo Valenzuela has been crossing the border illegally near Yuma, Ariz., trekking over desert scrub and hopping a freight train to get back to his job with a construction company in Phoenix. The clandestine trip has become an annual ritual for him, as he goes home each winter to see his children."

According to the paper of "mis-record" he and four travel companions (italics mine), had a little trouble this time around as:

"Border Patrol agents had caught them twice over three days, hounding them with helicopters and four-wheel-drive trucks."

Can you imagine being "hounded" by the long arm of the law for breaking laws? It is galling to the Times and "migrant" illegals, that a sovereign nation would actually try to reverse the "migrant" "Illegal migrant" trend.

This all according to NY Times reporter/journalist/editorialist, James C. McKinley, Jr.. Reading this article, one gets the impression that "enforcement" is looked down upon. I also find it interesting that "clandestine" activities are acceptable for border crossing law breakers; but not acceptable for a government attempting to protect itself and its citizens in a much wider puzzle; a puzzle of which the border is just a piece.

Tougher tactics may be leading to the recent success of the border agents, as Sector Chief Randy Hill said:

“Word is getting around out there that if you cross in this area and get apprehended you are probably going to go to jail, and that is a deterrent.”

This border patrol "success," is based in part on the "zero tolerance" that began in December of '05, which allows for the prosecution of those caught by the border guards; quite a novel idea.

"Though it seems cruel to many migrants, the zero-tolerance policy appears to be working, Border Patrol commanders say. Along the river the Del Rio sector patrols, arrests are a third of what they were a year ago, only about 35 a day. In the meantime, drug seizures have doubled, as more agents have been freed up to patrol."

This of course leads to reactions and subjective writing from "balanced," journalists like this (italics mine):

"On a recent morning, 78 immigrants shuffled into the federal courtroom of Judge Victor Roberto Garcia. The migrants were shackled around the feet and hands as if they were dangerous criminals."

A balanced reader might think perhaps some may be "dangerous." As Mr. McKinley appears to know for sure, perhaps he could work with the courts in these cases and identify which, if any are "dangerous." Whether his words are appropriate to reporting, I don't know as I am not a member of the "elite media in the knows." The choice of words and mixed angle used in the article are at the very least distressing, as one needs to spend as much time removing the attempted "opinion implants," as one does to read the article.

An Interesting Quandary:

North of the border, most children are familiar with the saying, "ignorance is not above the law." South of it however, some may not:

"(Yet) across the river in Ciudad Acuña, where migrants arrive bewildered and penniless every afternoon after serving their prison sentences, several said they had no idea they ran the risk of jail. The smugglers they hired never told them."

Good reason to regulate and unionize the coyote industry, no? Perhaps the Mexican government can include this little tidbit in their pamphlets printed to assist those entering a country illegally.

A friend of mine, Benning (author extraordinaire of "Bennings War"), recently commented on one of my posts that:

"I never click on a link to head to the NYT. I refuse! They probably count all the hits, multiply by the number of Americans, double, because they like to, and then sit back and sip their bad wine. Why give them the satisfaction?"

I can agree with him on this as I have begrudgingly read articles at the Times and other places after a much deserved respite from these sources. My recent spate of posts from the Times were in reaction to its further slide into subjectivity. I'll need a break shortly, but for now they can have my hits as I read with mouth agape.

Other Coalition members posts today:

“They’re At It Again!” From My Country - My View

“Is Border Control Working?” From Liberally Conservative

“Birthright Citizenship up for Debate in GA” From GA CRIME WATCH

Cross posted from DeMediacratic Nation:

I was alerted to the existence of this “piece” by an article written my James S. Robbins at National Review Online, entitled, “Al Qaeda is back?”

The Robbins article questions the nearly unanimous opinion as fact, that the U.S. is losing or fighting a losing battle against the almost omnipotent al Qaeda. The article here, may appear to some as a piece preaching to the choir, but isn’t to anyone that may be interested in weighing the possibilities/points themselves.

That said I’m off in a slightly different direction; that being questioning the “balance,” of the decision(s) made by the msm writers and editorialists as to which “facts” are the appropriate ones for a given article.

Last week I posted regarding an editorial or two, the writers of which appeared to use their own paper as the source for the “facts.” This I believe is part of the msms problem; that being the bubble they inhabit forces them to use their own material, which in turn strengthens the belief that they know these tidbits as fact because they read it in the paper.

On Valentines Day of all times, the NY Times railed on the Bush Administration regarding the tentative agreement with North Korea asking (italics mine):

“The obvious question to ask is: What took so long? And even more important: Will President Bush learn from this belated success? Will he finally allow his diplomats to try negotiation and even compromise with other bad and undeniably dangerous governments?”

I in turn asked:

"What took so long? What is taking the Times so long? The Times and those opposed to “anything Bush,” insisted upon a “multi-lateral (while ignoring anything “multi” about it),” response to Saddam’s Iraq, while insisting upon a “uni-lateral (is there a pattern of opposites here?),” approach to North Koreas snubbing of the infamous 1994 “Agreed Framework.”

The day previous found the editorial board up in arms over the “nameless briefers,” involved in the “supersecret briefing in Baghdad by a group of American military officials whose names could not be revealed.” Yet another instance of lessons not learned; “how little this administration has learned from its failures is a constant source of amazement. It seems the bigger the failure, the less it learns.”

I wondered which scenario the paper felt would suffice in satisfying its unquenchable need for meat from either the left or right buttock of the president, since the editorial took both sides, which leaves nothing to counter with. Here, they expect conclusiveness:

“And perhaps in time, the administration will be able to prove conclusively that the weapons came from arms factories in Iran.”

Yet, a little further down:

“We have no doubt about Iran’s malign intent. Iran is defying the Security Council’s order to halt its nuclear activities, and it is certainly meddling inside Iraq.”

Ultimately, I guess neither scenario will satisfy the paper.

The Washington Post had an article that does not allow for any possibility of anything, save for what it sees as obvious, which can be found in my post “The Demuring Pace on Iran and the Possibility Denying Media.” The Post also uses various language and “facts” to “color our news.”

Today, thanks to Mr. Robbins (I had no time for perusing today, except for Robbins and the article in question), I get to note the hypocritical “balance,” of the NY Times again, and only one paragraph is needed as example:

“The intelligence and counterterrorism officials would discuss the classified intelligence only on the condition of anonymity. They would not provide some of the evidence that led them to their assessments, saying that revealing the information would disclose too much about the sources and methods of intelligence collection.”

An awful wordy and redundant post on my part if only to illustrate the obvious (though not to them or are they just dishonest); the msm is not a font of balanced honesty or its most trusted source for information, facts and history is itself. Oh yeah, and the impression one gets that "anonymity" is only acceptable to the "trusted" elite media.

From DeMediacratic Nation:

Opinion from a former ambassador, that honed his creative writing skills as a staff writer for TIME, Edward M. Gomez revels in Barack Obama's retort to Australian Prime Minister John Howard's recent comment:

"If I was running al-Qaeda in Iraq, I would put a circle around March 2008 and pray, as many times as possible, for a victory not only for Obama, but also for the Democrats"

In exultation, Gomez writes at the San Francisco Chronicle:

"Cutting through what the whole world now knows has been a thick cloud of lies, misinformation and disingenuousness surrounding the war in Iraq whipped up by its most partisan, ideological backers, just-announced U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama isn't letting Australian Prime Minister John Howard easily off the hook."

"The conservative Aussie pol, whose approval ratings are plummeting as he faces re-election, is seen to have played a role second only to that of British PM Tony Blair as a leading cheerleader and fawning "lapdog" of George W. Bush, as some of his own countrymen have described him."

The quotation under the image of Barack Obama, fawns over the Senator's remarks as:

(Obama),"didn't let Howard get away with his debate-silencing remarks."

Barack Obama replied with his own "disingenuous, partisan, and ideological debate-silencing remarks (not defined as such when lobbed from the Left)":

"I think it's flattering that one of George Bush's allies on the other side of the world started attacking me the day after I announced....I would also note that we have close to 140,000 troops in Iraq, and my understanding is Mr. Howard has deployed 1400, so if he is...to fight the good fight in Iraq, I would suggest that he calls up another 20,000 Australians and sends them to Iraq....Otherwise it's just a bunch of empty rhetoric."

A new twist on the "you didn't serve, so you don't have a say," maneuver. If it had been up to Senator Obama, Australia would have 1,400 more military people there than the U.S. Obama thinks it's flattering of Howard; I think it's flattering to George Bush that Mr. Obama would use the very same troops he feels should not be there as a volley back at the comment of Howard.

Odd that.