NY Times on Jewish Lobby Article

The New York Times finally ran an article about the paper written by the professors from Harvard and Chic ago about the Jewish Lobby. However, the article consists mainly of derogatory comments by mostly Jewish commentators without explaining what the article said. The NYT article also says the Atlantic magazine refused to publish the article.

I was at first disappointed at the Atlantic for not publishing the article, and at the NYT for publishing an article about it that only publishes the criticism of it, while saying very little about the article itself. Then, I realized that this is exactly the result of the Jewish lobby. It could destroy the Atlantic, and could do major damage to the NYT. The lesson is, from those the Lobby has already destroyed, like former Senator Charles Percy, "Be afraid, be very afraid."

An article by Alfred Lilienthal tells what happened to the NYT when it refused a Zionist ad shortly before Israel's creation:

To his great regret, Sulzberger [the owner of the NYT], some years earlier, had rejected an advertisement submitted by the American League for a Free Palestine, the U.S. counterpart of Menachem Begin’s extremist Irgun Zvai Leumi. The ad had defended their leader’s terrorist activity against the British and called for immediate establishment of the Zionist state of Palestine. The Times rejection of the extremist Zionist advertisement had been met with what Sulzberger later was to describe to me as “a frightening experience,” a virtual boycott of the paper, the details of which remain one of the most guarded secrets tucked away in a Times Square safe.

Senate Immigration Bill Fails

Reuters reports that the compromise Senate immigration bill has failed. Hooray! No amnesty today.

As several people have said, the US just ought to enforce the laws on the books. Contrary to Sen. John McCain's argument that it would be impossible to send 12 million illegals back home on buses, if we enforced the laws, they would mostly go of their own accord. They got here on their own. It would require some toughness. Life for them would have to be as bad here as in Mexico. We would have to make sure that illegals can't work, can't get food stamps, and in general can't get medical care, except for life threatening conditions. The Catholic church could help them by giving them food and shelter if it wanted to, but if they became a huge burden on the church, rather than contributors, the church would probably eventually encourage them to go home.

More on AIPAC article

Here's some more comment on the AIPAC article: Globalist 1; Globalist 2. The best thing is that it is a reply written by a Jew, but it does not accuse the authors of anti-Semitism.

Proposed Senate Immigration Bill Is Amnesty

The proposed Senate immigration bill as reported by the New York Times is an amnesty for illegal aliens. Anything that rewards them for an illegal act is an amnesty, and this bill proposes to do that for aliens who have been in this country for more than five years, i.e., the worst offenders.

This bill is racism at its worst. It favors Mexicans over all other races and nationalities because they are the main people who sneak over the border illegally. Sure, there are illegal Africans, Asians, and South Americans, but they mainly have to come in by the planeload and clear immigration at an airport. A few, but very few, non-Mexicans come sealed in shipping containers or by other unorthodox methods. Of the millions of aliens under consideration, the vast majority are Mexican. Indians, Russians, and Chinese be damned, especially if they have Ph.D.s or are highly skilled. The Senate doesn't want them! It wants uneducated Mexicans who sneak across the border.

The main thing that bothers me is the disregard of the rule of law. We have immigration laws, but now the Senate says they are only hortatory. I was upset at Republican disdain for international law early in the Bush administration, but now -- with increasing domestic acceptance of torture, denial of habeas corpus, warrantless wiretapping and other horrible things that it took the common law and the Constitution hundreds of years to outlaw -- deciding that there is no immigration law is consistent with the general Republican disdain for law. No wonder Enron's Ken Lay and company were good friends of the President, and they probably will be again when the press spotlight dims.

Perhaps I am upset because of my past job as a consular officer in Brazil issuing American visas. It breaks your heart to refuse a visa to someone, for example, who wants to visit his mother who is working illegally in the States, and whom he has not seen for years. But under the law, he is almost certain to stay and work in the US as his mother did, and thus, he is not eligible for a visa. But if he were Mexican, he could just sneak across the border. Why should there be one law for Mexicans and another for Brazilians (and Poles, and Thais, and Nigerians)? What's the point of breaking his heart, and yours, if Congress doesn't really care?