Posted on 09/10/2016 3:44:34 PM PDT by Kaslin
On September 2 (appearing in the Sept. 3 print edition), New York Times op-ed columnist and correspondent Timothy Egan moved the smear meter to 11 reacting to Donald Trump's August 31 speech in Arizona on immigration.
Thanks to the intervening holiday weekend, it took Bill O'Reilly at Fox News a bit of time to hit back at Egan — but when he did Wednesday evening, he made it count.
Here's a bit of what Egan wrote, for those who can stand it (the ellipse after the second paragraph skips Egan's tired and typical exercise in guilt by association; bolds are mine throughout this post):
The Immigrants Turned Away
Give me your extreme-vetted, your ideologically certified, your elite. Send only the smartest, the best-connected, the richest to our shores. No losers, no freethinkers, and no ugly people, please.
In the hate speech that Donald Trump gave on immigration in Phoenix on Wednesday night, he all but deported the Statue of Liberty, laying out one of the darkest visions of the American experience that any major-party nominee has ever given. ...
In Trump’s America, those working in the shadows are not the lawn cutters, Sheetrock hangers, fruit pickers or nannies we see in every community, but the criminal dregs. Under his rules, this country would have closed its doors long ago to those who made the United States the great experiment, unique to the world. He would have shut off the flow of people whose best and perhaps only asset at the time was desire for a better life.
So, the Kennedys from County Wexford, the family that eventually gave us the first Irish Catholic president — not worthy of entry. Famine rejects! No prospects. From a nation whose people were already filling New York’s jails in the 1850s. Enough with potato-panicked Paddys.
That's enough. What rubbish.
The U.S. has been "the great experiment" because of the willingness of those admitted here legally to assimilate while bringing their uniqueness into the melting pot. The left's objective since the late Ted Kennedy's immigration bill became law in 1965 has been to ruin that — and it has mostly been working.
Egan appears to think he's being clever by citing the Kennedys, who emigrated in 1849, six years before "The country's first immigration station, Castle Garden, opened in New York City in 1855," and 43 years before Ellis Island opened. Nonetheless, if there was no formal immigrant processing before then, it would still be true that the Kennedys broke no laws in settling here. Currently, every person who has arrived and remained here without going through proper channels broke current law to do so, and is by definition an "illegal alien."
The obvious question for Egan, given that his hallowed "lawn cutters" and others in all too many cases did not come here legally, is, "What about 'illegal' don't you understand?" It's a waste of time to wait for an answer, because it's obvious that he doesn't care, nor do the rest of the residents of the echo chamber at the Times. But the vast majority of American citizens, including O'Reilly, certainly do, and they take special umbrage at the idea that saying something or even anything about addressing the problem is automatically "hate speech."
The video which follows begins with O'Reilly commenting on Trump's more recent speech on the military and national security, after which he went to Egan's way over-the-top op-ed and the "strategy of hate" in general:
O'Reilly On NYT's Timothy Egan 'Hate Speech' Charge 090816
Hateful speech: That is the subject of this evening's Talking Points Memo.
Donald Trump gave a national security speech in Philadelphia today, concentrating on how he would bolster the military and pay for it by cutting back on civil federal employees, among other things. As we reported last night, Mr. Trump is making gains across the country, primarily because Hillary Clinton is getting pounded by scandal. Day after day it's more reporting about the Clinton Foundation and the destroyed emails when she was Secretary of State.
That has taken pressure off Mr. Trump who is now getting more specific about what he would do as president. So, with two months left in the presidential campaign, it is a very close race.
Enter the strategy of hate. On the Democratic side, the beat goes on portraying Donald Trump as a bigot and hate inciter. Here is what columnist Timothy Egan recently wrote in the New York Times, "In the hate speech that Donald Trump gave on immigration in Phoenix on Wednesday night, he all but deported the Statue of Liberty, laying out one of the darkest visions of the American experience at that any major party nominee has ever given."
Now, this is not boosterism for Donald Trump. But Mr. Egan's analysis is unfair and inaccurate. In Arizona, Mr. Trump restated that he would build a wall on the Mexican border to stem the flow of narcotics and illegal aliens. He also said he would crack down on alien criminals who commit violence in the U.S.A. Is that hate speech? Is that deporting the Statue of Liberty? I mean, think about it. Trump believes the nation is not secure when hard drugs and undocumented people can freely flow into the U.S.A. Is that a hateful position?
Talking Points believes this demonization by the left of anyone, including me, your humble correspondent, who disagrees with their uber, uber liberal policies will fail. The fact is Donald Trump's Arizona speech helped him as the new polls show. Americans are tired, sick and tired of far left media people accusing others of racism, bigotry, and hatred. That's a cheap tactic and it should be rejected by all fair-minded people. That same thing is true to a much lesser extent on the right. Demonizing Hillary Clinton is foolish, let the facts speak for themselves.
Secretary Clinton denies any wrongdoing in the email and foundation controversies, but there are plenty of facts in play. So you, the voter, can easily decide whether her denials have credibility. Also, it's quite clear that Secretary Clinton believes Barack Obama has done a heck of a job. Again, facts are clear. Reality staring us in the face. So it's not difficult to make a decision about either candidate. We don't need despicable and hateful branding. We need clarity. And that's “The Memo”.
Whether O'Reilly's optimism about the strategy of hate being destined to fail is justified is, sadly, highly debatable.
Oh—Are we back to Trump’s position on immigration is hate speech?
Nothing else has worked, so they’re going back to the first thing that didn’t work?
Meanwhile, the “deplorables” are coming out of the woodwork.
Deplorable.
Trump is a Racist—its all the Democrat/Progressives can find to tar him with. It worked with others—but not with Trump.
Make no mistake about it, this is why they are so viciously attacking Trump.
The entire establishment is protecting a 30 year bipartisan policy and plan to alter the demographics of the United States.
The illegal alien inundation was INTENTIONAL.
They are not about to allow the citizens to stop their plans.
We have been successfully blocked from electing a President who would enforce the laws since the last amnesty.
Every GOP nominee has been an amnesty supporter.
The two who won are largely responsible for the 30 million illegal aliens we have now.
Exactly
The left knows they’re losing, and they’re scared. All they have left is the race card, played by white leftists.
The Left is setting up hate speech as a federal offense that will be enforced with mandatory prison sentences. Then, when they want to regulate speech, they will tag a hate speech label on it and their deed is done. The Supreme Court, of course, will buy into it.
Egan...Look up the definition of “lawful entry”...
Then look up the definition of “UNlawful entry”...
Then get back to us.....
Here, this leftist betrays what he really thinks of illegal aliens. They are the menial labor, barely above slave labor, who does all of those nasty jobs that enlightened Americans should never have to debase themselves to perform. They exist so that coddled elites like himself (and like he imagines most Americans to be) will never have to stoop to manual labor.
Sorry, dude, but most Americans do not see themselves as privileged elites who should never have to do something so base as clean a toilet. We would actually like to see Americans get hired for manual labor.
Quite correct. That includes rum runner, Nazi supporter ol Joe Kennedy, Mob mistress banging JFK and Murdering Drunk Teddy and all the rest of the raping murdering clan.
We would have been much better off as a nation if we had kept that bunch of shoe scrapings out of our country.
Dear Egan of the NYT, The Statue of Liberty was an uncommissioned gift from France, who engraved the saying to encourage US policy (and perhaps to remind the world of the significance of France in American history). Since we aren’t France, it’s a nice saying in an idealistic sort of way, but to remind you, at the time there were no lack of debtors’ prisons and workhouses in Europe - and the USA. The population, then as now, struggled to support a large urban indigent class. The Statue of Liberty stood in immediate eyesight of Ellis Island, where those who had no means of financial support and no skills or sponsors, or who’s idealogical values were incompatible were turned away from entry without apology. It was this careful process of balancing indigent immigration with the ability to provide for them that allowed the USA to flourish. As we will continue to flourish under the same sort of sane immigration law.
They cannot make a reasoned argument so they are name calling.
"As for how to stem the tide of illegal immigrants,
“A physical structure is obviously important," Hillary said.
"A wall in certain areas would be appropriate," as long as it was not a "dumb wall" that could be scaled or tunneled.
Advocating "smart fencing," Hillary added, "There is technology that would be in the fence that could spot people coming from 250 or 300 yards away and signal patrol agents who could respond.”
Hillary Clinton
http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/opinions/border-battler-hillary-build-u-s-mexico-fence-article-1.594388
Thus, in a 2003 interview with WABC radio in New York, she declared: “I am, you know, adamantly against illegal immigrants.”
“I am, you know, adamantly against illegal immigration.”
She called for a comprehensive system to track these immigrants, some form of entry and exit identification and tighter border controls, and she reluctantly suggested that an identification system for citizens might be needed.
“People have to stop employing illegal immigrants,” she said in the 2003 interview.
“I mean, come up to Westchester, go to Suffolk and Nassau Counties, stand on the street corners in Brooklyn or the Bronx — you’re going to see loads of people waiting to get picked up to go do yard work and construction work and domestic work.”
Not Fox News!
Uber lib Daily kos!
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/9/10/1420171/-HILLARY-I-m-adamantly-against-illegal-immigrants
Hillary Clinton on Immigration: Democrat Candidate Talks Voting for ‘Barrier’ to Prevent ‘Illegal’ Immigrants
“I voted numerous times when I was a senator to spend money to build a barrier to try to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in,” said Clinton.
“And I do think you have to control your borders.
We are deplorable.
That includes rum runner, Nazi supporter ol Joe Kennedy, Mob mistress banging JFK and Murdering Drunk Teddy and all the rest of the raping murdering clan.
This is what the globalists do in Europe.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.