This story shows why it's good policy not to let gays work in sensitive jobs or in the military. They are subject to blackmail or vicious "outings" by other gays for ideological reasons. The FBI has known this for decades.
Robert Kaplan wrote a book a few years ago about what he called "the coming anarchy." It was about Sierra Leone, but he said the conditions apply pretty much to nearly every country in Africa. Time will come when international airlines won't fly to airports on that continent because of fears their planes will be seized and held hostage. And that's just the beginning. Good book that explained at length what this article can only hint at. S
It has been a long time since you could expect anything but a liberal slant on any story appearing in the NTTimes. Just about anything published should be regarded as suspect.
Despite common sense and all the polling done on the question, the Democratic Party will support the gay agenda in the 2008 elections, thus answering the prayers of the Republic Party.
It seems White House aides are as baffled as anyone else over why Bush would alienate his strongest backers with his insane amnesty offer, a decision that could cost him support for the war effort. The only answer appears to be appalling incompetence. But at least he remains loyal to Alberto.
The Times must have hunted a long time to find this dissenting voice. Think they'll talk to anyone who thinks keeping jihadists in gaol until the WOT is over is a good idea? Me either. A good percentage of terrorists released from Gitmo to date have been either recaptured or killed in other battle fronts.
The Guardian is one of the most left-leaning publications in the British media, which is saying something. It also shares the anti-Americanism fashionable in the chattering class.
The New York Times doesn't mind judicial activism or 5-4 votes when the liberal agenda is being pushed by the high court.
This is a naive article, to put it charitably. The minor fines -- which likely would never be collected if past history is any guide -- compare to what one economic study estimated is the value of U.S. citizenship: $50,000. The issue was and is enforcement. People are tired on a wink-and-nod approach to keeping illegals -- or "non-native Americans," as Teddy K. calls them -- out to satisfy corporate America's greed and placate the Hispanic lobby.
President Bush has reached a point where no one, liberal or conservative, is listening to him anymore. So this is all shadow play on an important subject.
A historian able to take the long view says this period of national self-doubt will pass and American exceptionalism put the country back in the driver's seat. Perhaps he has looked in the crystal ball and seen Teddy Kennedy's coffin being lowered into the ground as mourners pour out the contents of aged Scotch to see him on his way
Corporate America won't be satisfied until the southern border is dismantled entirely and anyone who wants to immigrate to the U.S. has the green light.
Let's see, people who want a secure border and a clamp down on illegal immigration are -- as seen through the Times lenses -- "brittle hard-liners" and braying "Know-Nothings." This is most of us, folks, if you believe the polls. Now we must ask ourselves what this editorial says about the Times, described by its recent ombudsman as "a liberal newspaper." It's odd to see this organization working hand-in-glove with the Corporate America masters who want cheap labor to keep wages depressed for working class America.
The people on the front lines of the slow-motion invasion of the country say secure the border before anything else, otherwise see the problem grow steadily worse.
David Frum used to write speeches for George W. Bush. His defection shows how much this administration has betrayed movement conservatives and plain rank-and-file Republicans. The fat cats and country club set might be happy with Dubya, but that's about it. The GOP will pay the price in 2008.
Does anyone still wonder why Americans don't trust this administration? The payment of back taxes, proposed by Teddy Kennedy of all people, is jettisoned at the first opportunity. And if anyone believes the "fine" will be paid, look for the tooth fairy to pay a call next birthday.
It would have been nice if Professor Hing made a full disclosure of interest. Does he have family overseas he is trying to bring to the U.S.? Knowing this might not diminish the quality of his argument, but it would be worth knowing. Incidentally, does the LATimes ever present the other side of the argument? Just asking.
This article shows why this backroom deal cooked up between Teddy Kennedy and John McCain would never work on the enforcement end. Vicente Fox, co-president with George Bush before he left office, said the fence "would never be built." Credit him for timely advice on this proposal.
It would have been nice to remind the readers that conservatives are opposed to this immigration deal because the a predecessor that claimed to have the same goals led to an unprecedented influx of illegal immigrants with only derisory attempts to check the flood. That the left relies on the weary old trope of "racism" in lieu of argument demonstrates it doesn't have a leg to stand on.
The New York Times would of course hail any development that advances its open-borders position, one of the few shared with George Bush. So we have Bush-backing corporate America allied with the Bush-bashing left coming together on a deal that will have tragic consequences for the country.
I suppose there must be someone somewhere interested in the opinions of this old Klaxon of the KKK, but I've never met one. We must look forward to the grim reaper collecting this Paleolithic relic to put an end to his poitical career because it's clear he will never leave the Senate voluntarily. Quick quiz: Is there a public building in West Virginia that is not named for him?
Unlike the Reuters report, this one at least gives some sense that there is opposition to this plan.
Hardly anyone this side of moveon.org pays attention to the LA Times editorial page. Its lefty slant, always predictable, appears here in this paragraph: "After years of bruising debate over "amnesty" the misleading term preferred by legalization opponents it's remarkable that the Z visa gained bipartisan acceptance. There seems to be mounting appreciation for the fact that 12 million people living in legal shadows is corrosive to the rule of law." Why is "amnesty" misleading? People have broken the law, but now it is to be overlooked. And the fact they are "living in legal shadows" goes back to the fact ttheir first act in this country was to violate a sovereign border. The left in this country would prefer not to have ... More »
This story is reported entirely from the open-borders perspective. Where is anything critical? Reuters is well known for his left-wing slant.
As usual, opponents of illegal immigration get short shrift and their brief remarks get reported low in the story. CNN is the reason Fox had to be created.
Like a blind sow finding an acorn, every now and then the left is right about something. Bernie is spot on about how capitalism doesn't recognize borders unless the polity forces it to.
This is well written, but you don't have to read far into it to discover how artful the writer is in concealing his prejudice. He's against border barriers. "Naco residents found their homes broken into by desperate migrants." The second illegal act these immigrants committed -- the first was crossing the border in violation of the law -- was breaking into somebody's home. But the author excuses this because they were "desperate." I daresay a sense of "desperation" lies behind any crime that is committed. People can't get what they want by legal means, so they rob the bank or otherwise take what they want.
