Ay Carumba! Death Record For #JudgeCuriel Papa’s Proves New York Times Lying About U.S. Citizenship

The death certificate for the father of the controversial Mexican judge confirms that Curiel’s parents were not U.S. citizens when he was born.

Death records from Indiana records confirm that Salvador Curiel died a Mexican citizen in 1964… not as the New York Times’s Alan Rappeport reported in an anti-Donald Trump article.

But Rappeport claimed that the elder Curiel had died a U.S. citizen. He didn’t.

Judge Curiel, 62, was born in East Chicago, Ind., to parents who had emigrated from Mexico. Raul Curiel said their father, Salvador, arrived in Arizona as a laborer in the 1920s, eventually receiving citizenship and becoming a steelworker. Their parents were married in Mexico in 1946, and their mother, Francisca, became a citizen after joining her husband in the United States.

In fact Salvador Curiel never received U.S. citizenship and Francisca became a citizen in 1969–five years after her husband died and 18 years after her last son — the future judge Gonzalo Curiel — was born.

Could the fact that Mexican telecom billionaire Carlos Slim’s ownership of The New York Times have played a role?

What?? A New York Times hitman got something wrong (as usual)? I’m no longer “Shocked, Shocked I Say”. Haven’t been since the late 60’s when we founded Accuracy in Media (AIM) to take on the NY Slimes and the Washington Compost.

If it weren’t for lies, coverups, disinformation, misinformation, omissions, commissions of lies, and liberal/Democrat asskissing, neither paper could exist.

Decent writers for them are now on the Endangered Species List.

I would like to see the liars and leftists put on an Endangered Feces List like we did in the past. Name names, show their lies, and then demand that they be fired (ain’t gonna happen but the negative attention shows them that loyal Americans are watching them.

In fact Mark Levin is playing “I’ll be watching you” right now. The perfect theme-song for media watchers.

Trump would cast some chum on the water, and the sharks would go nuts eating it.

But here's a thought experiment that questions whether the MSM are really in the tank (pun intended) for HRC:

1. Hollywood/media/entertainment all know about kayfabe; hell, they're the one who invented it.

2. Therefore, if they're experts on the concepts of fake alternate realities, then wouldn't it be reasonable to expect that they understand perfectly well what DT is doing? That is, he's developed a script, complete with an anticipated outcome, based on facts which were the entire basis of the story line in the first place.

3. If that's the case eg when DT said the judge was a Mexican, it wasn't an ethnic slur, but a point of national fact, then why did the MSM act like they were going bonkers?

4. Which leads one to suspect that the MSM is engaged in their own fake kayfabe alternate reality: they feign outrage & offense in order to gin up their own ratings & advertising revenues.

So here we have two parties using each other, with full knowledge of the game within the game they are both playing. DT throws up a gopher ball, the MSM hits it out of the park, DT claims a technicality (ie truth is a defense), and the score is retracted.

End result? DT gains political strength, media generates add' ad revenues. Everyone goes home happy.

If they were really in HRC's camp, they would do what any critic of reality TV, pro wrestling, etc would do if they really wanted to mute & downplay the effectiveness: laugh & point out the absurdity of the script.

You bring up an interesting possible.

As ancient simple minded 77 year old with a little MI training. I tend to go with:

Occam’s Razor: A Useful Tool in Logic

The term “Occam’s Razor” comes from a misspelling of the name William of Ockham. Ockham was a brilliant theologian, philosopher, and logician in the medieval period. One of his rules of thumb has become a standard guideline for thinking through issues logically. Occam’s Razor is the principle that, “non sunt multiplicanda entia praeter necessitatem” [i.e., “don’t multiply the agents in a theory beyond what’s necessary.”] What does that mean? If two competing theories explain a single phenomenon, and they both generally reach the same conclusion, and they are both equally persuasive and convincing, and they both explain the problem or situation satisfactorily, the logician should always pick the less complex one. The one with the fewer number of moving parts, so to speak, is most likely to be correct. The idea is always to cut out extra unnecessary bits, hence the name “razor.” An example will help illustrate this.

Suppose you come home and discover that your dog has escaped from the kennel and chewed large chunks out of the couch. Two possible theories occur to you. (1) Theory number one is that you forgot to latch the kennel door, and the dog pressed against it and opened it, and then the dog was free to run around the inside of the house. This explanation requires two entities (you and the dog) and two actions (you forgetting to lock the kennel door and the dog pressing against the door). (2) Theory number two is that some unknown person skilled at picking locks managed to disable the front door, then came inside the house, set the dog free from the kennel, then snuck out again covering up any sign of his presence, and then relocked the front-door, leaving the dog free inside to run amok in the house. This theory requires three entities (you, the dog, and the lockpicking intruder) and several actions (picking the lock, entering, releasing the dog, hiding evidence, relocking the front door). It also requires us to come up with a plausible motivation for the intruder—a motivation that is absent at this point.

Either theory would be an adequate and plausible explanation. Both explain the same phenomenon (the escaped dog) and both employ the same theory of how, i.e., that the latch was opened somehow, as opposed to some far-fetched theory about canine teleportation or something crazy like that.

Which theory is most likely correct? If you don’t find evidence like strange fingerprints or human footprints or missing possessions to support theory #2, William of Ockham would say that the simpler solution (#1) is most likely to be correct in this case. The first solution only involves two parts—two entities and two actions. On the other hand, the second theory requires at least five parts—you, the dog, a hypothetical unknown intruder, some plausible motivation, and various actions. It is needlessly complex. Occam’s basic rule was “Thou shalt not multiply extra entities unnecessarily,” or to phrase it in modern terms, “Don’t speculate about extra hypothetical components if you can find an explanation that is equally plausible without them.” All things being equal, the simpler theory is more likely to be correct, rather than one that relies upon many hypothetical additions to the evidence already collected.

https://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/logic_occam.html

DT has some good investigators.

To really understand what Trump is doing, you have to reverse the process:

1. He has his core platform: wall, deportation, cessation, rule of law, reform. Halt judicial activism, restore basic constitutional rights, etc.

2. He therefore has his team of crack investigators identify, locate & research key FACTUAL elements that support this agenda. It can be any & everything, domestic & foreign.

For example, it isn't necessary that the Mexican judge is hearing his case; it could be ANY Mexican judge hearing any random US citizen's case. In this regard, DT actually got lucky, because he's able to personalize the issue.

3. Once he's got the rock solid facts locked in, then his creative team begins the process of script development. Since it's designed to sensationalize, it's as provocative as possible. So much so that people who don't understand what is occurring really believe that "he's really done it this time - he's gone to far".

4. DT (and his media cohorts who benefit from the increased ad revenues) then reap the whirlwind of controversy, once again dominating the news cycle.

5. Then, just when defeat looks most imminent (and the concern trolls are screaming bloody murder), the long pre-established facts are first dribbled out to establish an initial beach head, by which time the main force lands to begin the counter-onslaught.

6. Because Trump had the particular case dead-to-right long before he laid his chips down, he takes the entire hand. It wasn't even a fair bet. In essence, he's the house, and he wins every time.

Note: HRC's team has got to know this is happening. So what will be their defense? The cannot allow DT to win every single week.

You are giving the MSM way too much credit. Kayfabe is used in particular shows, or it may be done as part of a narrative by the left.

But you have to remember that the left is extremely good at believing their own lies. They do not believe in objective truth, or consistency.

They operate off the principle that if they say it so, often enough, it *is* so.

Now there is enough alternate media to hold them accountable, something that has been building for about 20 years.

Trump is the first person to take full advantage of it, but there will be others.

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.