Home Store In Memoriam Deborah Newsletter Forum Topics Blogfeed Blogroll Facebook MySpace Contact Us About

O'Reilly spins NYT immigration editorial into partisan election manipulation conspiracy

Reported by Chrish - April 9, 2008 -

Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points Memo tonight 4/9/08 was a carnival ride of connections, collusion and conclusions, stemming from an editorial in today's New York Times - that 'commited left" newspaper is reportedly "furious" about the border fence and a crackdown on illegal immigrants. Mmm, read it again, pal.

Under a new federal program local authorities are "asking people about their immigration status" and passing the information on to federal enforcement agencies. O'Reilly claimed the NYTimes said "this was an unjust war on illegal immigrants." Even paraphrasing, you can't find a passage in the editorial that suggests that. They criticize the process, certainly, the primary target being Maricopa County sheriff Joe Arpaio:

"If this doesn’t look to you like a carefully regulated, federally supervised effort to catch dangerous criminals, that’s because it isn’t. It is a series of stunts focused mostly on day laborers, as Sheriff Joe bulldozes his way toward re-election. [snip]

Mayor Phil Gordon of Phoenix has denounced him, saying the raids are interfering with undercover city police officers and federal agents. The mayor of Guadalupe implored him to leave her community alone. State and county officials have pointed out that Sheriff Joe has ignored tens of thousands of outstanding criminal warrants while chasing day laborers and headlines. They say he has grossly violated the terms of his 287(g) agreement — which calls for federal oversight of local police — and have called on Washington to rein him in."

Arapaio himself seems to contradict O'Reilly's contention that he is reporting to the feds:

“Do you think I’m going to report to the federal government?” he said. “I don’t report to them. If they don’t like the contract, they can close it up. That’s all.”

“By the way,” he said, “we do have a 3,000-person posse — and about 500 have guns. They have their own airplanes, jeeps, motorcycles, everything. They can only operate under the sheriff. I swear ’em in. I can put up 30 airplanes tomorrow if I wanted.”

Under the guise of explaining "what's really going on here," O'Reilly zoomed over to San Francisco and Mayor Gavin Newsome, who has put out a big welcome mat for illegal immigrants, and conflated the two situations, allowing him to justify his smear of the NYTimes. He tied the two together by declaring that it is an ideological (read: partisan political) struggle - the left wants an open border, the right wants a crackdown.

O'Reilly said conservatives don't want America changed by a massive influx of foreign workers, period. That ship has sailed, baby, with a substantial increase under your leader Bush. Liberals, he declares, want big change and the only way to get it is to change voting patterns. That ship has sailed also, thanks again to Bush. But O'Reilly posits that millions of new immigrant voters would help Democrats, because they are poor and "need entitlements." Note, this has nothing to do with illegal immigrants.

Why, when his ancestors arrived from ireland in the 19th century, Democrats immediately signed them up. (By force? And can we see that documentation? And when in the 19th Century? Peace Democrats? War Democrats? Bourbon Democrats?) What a load of crappola.

So, what's happening in Arizona and San Francisco are examples of the battle - drastic change versus traditionalism a la Loofah. Coming fill circle (spin, spin, spin) he again blasts the NYTimes (and "others") for allegedly "wanting amnesty and continuation of the alien flow - future votes for their side."

O'Reilly routinely sneers and jeers at people who ask questions about events during the Bush administration, writing them off as kooks and loons, yet he daily promotes his pet conspiracy theory, that the so-called liberal media is colluding with liberals and Democrats to take over the country. His paranoid statement of May 30, 2007 reverberates still:

"The New York Times and the far left want to break down the white christian male power structure".