theodore M I R A L D I mpa ... editor, publisher, writer. katherine molé mfa ... art director

Thursday, November 30, 2017

End CHAIN Migration

Image result for End Chain Migration
Chain Migration refers to the endless chains of foreign nationals who are allowed to immigrate to the United States because citizens and lawful permanent residents are allowed to sponsor their non-nuclear family members.
It is the primary mechanism that has caused legal immigration in the U.S. to quadruple from about 250,000 per year in the 1950s and 1960s to more than 1 million annually since 1990. As such, it is one of the chief culprits in America's current record-breaking population boom and all the attendant sprawl, congestion, and school overcrowding that damage Americans’ quality of life.


Chain Migration starts with a foreign citizen chosen by our government to be admitted on the basis of what he/she is supposed to offer in our national interest. The Original Immigrant is allowed to bring in his/her nuclear family consisting of a spouse and minor children. After that, the chain begins. Once the Original Immigrant and his/her spouse becomes a U.S. citizen, they can petition for their parents, adult sons/daughters and their spouses and children, and their adult siblings.
The Family-Chain categories are divided into four separate preferences:
  • 1st Preference: Unmarried sons/daughters of U.S. citizens and their children (capped at 23,400/year)
  • 2nd Preference: Spouses, children, and unmarried sons/daughters of green card holders (capped at 114,000/year)
  • 3rd Preference: Married sons/daughters of U.S. citizens and their spouses and children (capped at 23,400/year)
  • 4th Preference: Brothers/sisters of U.S. citizens (at least 21 years of age) and their spouses and children (capped at (65,000/year)


    Due to Chain Migration, distant relatives of original immigrants may come to see immigration as a right or entitlement. When they realize that they may, in fact, have to wait years for a visa to become available because of annual caps and per-country limits on several of the family-based immigration categories, many decide to come illegally while they wait for their turn.
    According to recent Visa Bulletins prepared by the U.S. Department of State, green cards are currently being issued to Philippino-born adult brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens (the fourth preference under the family-sponsored categories) who first filed their green card applications in the early-1990s. While these adult family members are guaranteed green cards under current law, the wait time is so long, these family members instead choose to come to the United States and remain here illegally until their green card becomes available. In fact, the long wait times created by Chain Migration was one factor leading to Congress' decision to increase the annual caps on legal immigration in 1990.


    Immigration Act of 1924 -- Congress exempted spouses and unmarried adult children between 18-21 from per-country quotas
    Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 -- Congress created chain categories for parents, adult children, and adult siblings in a limited number of countries. Highly-educated or skilled immigrants, however, received priority.
    Immigration Act of 1965 (Hart-Celler Act) -- Congress extended the chains to every country of the world and reversed the priority so that the chain categories had preference over skill categories.
    Immigration Act of 1990 -- Congress raised the caps on chain categories.
    The 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act established a four-category selection system for countries in the Eastern Hemisphere (Northern and Western Europe were heavily favored). As in the past, the Western Hemisphere was not subject to numerical limitations. The first preference, accounting for 50 percent of all green cards issues, went to skilled immigrants. The next three categories were divided among specified relatives of U.S. citizens and permanent resident aliens.
    • 30 percent were made available to parents of U.S. citizens aged 21 or older.
    • 20 percent were made available to the spouses and children of lawful permanent residents.
    • Unused visas (capped at 25 percent per country) were made available to adult siblings and adult children of U.S. citizens.
    From "A Brief History of U.S. Immigration Policy" by Joyce Vialet, Congressional Research Service, December 22, 1980:
    Although U.S. immigration policy incorporated family relationships as a basis for admitting immigrants as early as the 1920s, the promotion of family reunification found in current law originated with the passage of the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act (INA, P.L. 82-414). While the 1952 act largely retained the national origins quota system established in the Immigration Act of 1924, it also established a hierarchy of family-based preferences that continues to govern contemporary U.S. immigration policy today, including prioritizing spouses and minor children over other relatives and relatives of U.S. citizens over those of lawful permanent residents (LPRs).
    Immigration numbers soared during the second half of the 1950s and early-1960s, with more than half of all immigration coming from the Western Hemisphere which was not subject to numerical limitations. According to the Congressional Research Service:
    The gradual recognition that the national origins quota system was not functioning effectively as a means of regulating immigration was an important factor leading to the major policy revision which came in 1965.
    The 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act made two significant changes that, in combination with the chain categories, doubled immigration over the next 25 years.
    • Revised the means by which immigration was regulated by replacing the national origin quotas with annual limits:
      • 170,000 annual limit for the Eastern Hemisphere
        • 20,000 per country
      • 120,000 annual limit for the Western Hemisphere
        • 20,000 per country (added in 1976)
    • Reversed the priority system for the Eastern Hemisphere so the chain categories gained preference over education and skills.
      • Amendments in 1976 applied the preference system to the Western Hemisphere as well.
    In 1976, Congress amended the 1965 bill by reversing the priority system -- family-sponsored then employment-based -- for both the Eastern and Western Hemispheres. Then, In 1978, Congress ended the per-county limits and replaced them with a single worldwide cap of 290,000. Through passage of the Refugee Act of 1980, Congress reduced the worldwide cap to 270,000, but removed Refugees as a preference.
    The 1990 Immigration Act raised the annual caps on these chain categories in bold (P.L. 101-649, Section 111):
    • unlimited for parents of adult U.S. citizens
    • 23,400 for unmarried adult children of citizens
    • 114,200 for spouses and minor children of legal permanent residents; and unmarried adult children of LPRs (with 77% reserved for spouses and minor children)
    • 23,400 for married children of citizens
    • 65,000 for adult siblings of citizens age 21 and over


    The Immigration Act of 1990 called for a bi-partisan commission to "review and evaluate the impact of this Act and the amendments made by this Act" and to issue findings and recommendations on (among other things) the "impact of immigration...on labor needs, employment, and other economic and domestic conditions in the United States."
    The commission, chaired by Barbara Jordan, recommended the elimination of the chain migration categories.
    "Unless there is a compelling national interest to do otherwise, immigrants should be chosen on the basis of the skills they contribute to the U.S. economy. The Commission believes that admission of nuclear family members and refugees provide such a compelling national interest, even if they are low-skilled. Reunification of adult children and siblings of adult citizens solely because of their family relationship is not as compelling." – Barbara Jordan, June 28, 1995

    Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) introduced legislation that would end Chain Migration based on the Jordan Commission's recommendations – the Reforming American Immigration for Strong Employment (RAISE) Act (S. 354). The bill would reduce legal immigration by up to 50% by ending future chain migration and the diversity visa lottery.

    Speaker Ryan: Dems BLEW DACA Negotiations by Skipping Trump Meeting

    House Speaker Paul Ryan of Wis., speaks during a meeting with President Donald Trump in the Roosevelt Room of the White House in Washington, Tuesday, Nov. 28, 2017, along with Republican congressional leaders. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)

    Stephen Dinan

    House Speaker Paul D. Ryan said Thursday that Democrats squandered their ability to demand a so-called “DACA fix” as part of the year-end spending bill when their leaders refused to show up for a meeting with President Trump this week to conduct negotiations.
    Mr. Ryan also rejected the year-end deadline Democrats have set up for granting citizenship to illegal immigrants, saying the phaseout for the Obama-era deportation amnesty runs through March, giving Congress until next year to figure out what to do.
    He took a tough line on Democrats’ decision to ditch Mr. Trump in a bipartisan leaders meeting Tuesday, saying that if Democrats had been serious about wanting to protect those in the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, then they would have come to the meeting to defend them.
    “You’ve got to show up if you want to make your point,” he said. “I don’t think Ds are in a very good position to be making demands if they’re not even going to participate in the negotiations.”
    Mr. Ryan said a short-term bill will be needed to keep the government funded beyond the Dec. 8 expiration of current government funding.
    Without new funding, the government would go into a partial shutdown.
    Mr. Ryan said the length of the new bill, known in Washington as a “continuing resolution” or “CR,” is still being negotiated.
    It’s unclear, though, whether such measure could pass without including provisions dealing with Dreamers.
    Many Democrats have said they won’t lend support to any bill that doesn’t accommodate the Dreamers — the nearly 2 million illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. as children.

    “Democrats are not going to help them on any of these issues unless we have a DACA fix,” said Rep. Michelle Lujan Grisham, New Mexico Democrat and chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus.

    Pelosi to Conyers, RESIGN!

     Marisa Schultz

    WASHINGTON –The Republican and Democratic leaders of the House both called on Rep. John Conyers to resign Thursday amid mounting allegations of sexual harassment from his former staffers.
    Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi said the allegations are “very credible” and the Detroit Democrat should no longer serve in Congress.
    “The allegations against Congressman Conyers, as we have learned more since Sunday, are serious, disappointing and very credible,’’ Pelosi told reporters.
    “It’s very sad. The brave women who came forward are owed justice. I pray for Congressman Conyers and his family; however, Congressman Conyers should resign.”
    Minutes later, at a separate press conference, Republican leader Paul Ryan agreed.
    “I think he should resign immediately,” Ryan said citing the “torrent of allegations.”
    It’s a reversal for both leaders.
    Ryan on Wednesday declined to ask for Conyers’ resignation. “I will leave it up to him to decide what he wants to do,” he said at the time.
    Pelosi on Sunday said Conyers is an “icon” who is owed “due process.” She wouldn’t say that she believed the former staffers who said Conyers harassed them.
    But under mounting pressure and more allegations, both Pelosi and Ryan changed their stance.
    Conyers, 88, is the longest serving member of the House. He already stepped down as Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee pending the results of an Ethics Committee investigation.
    He was hospitalized Thursday morning in Detroit, according to his spokesman, Sam Riddle.
    “I just spoke with Monica Conyers on the phone and we want you to know that the congressman is resting comfortably in an area hospital. He’s doing OK, as well as he can be expected for a gentleman that’s approaching 90 years of age,” Riddle said. “The congressman’s health is not what it should be and lot of that is directly attributable to this media assault.”
    Conyers has denied the allegations and resisted calls for his resignation.
    BuzzFeed first reported that Conyers used $27,000 of taxpayer funds to settle a complaint in 2015 with a former staffer who said she was fired for rejecting Conyers’ sexual advances.

    Millennials, Unschooled in POLITICAL TRUTHS, Pine for Third Party


    Apparently, neither Democrats nor Republicans are resonating with the youth of America.
    But rather than fight it out, millennials want an entirely new system.
    Fully 71 percent of millennials say the country needs a third political party.
    That’s according to a new NBC News/GenForward poll released this week.
    And the anti-status quo showing in this survey likely has a lot to do with millennials’ views of President Donald Trump. Sixty-three percent think he’s doing pretty much a lousy job as president, while 65 percent see America, circa 2017, headed on the wrong track.
    Meanwhile, six in 10 also currently disapprove of Congress, with 59 percent holding negative views of Republicans on Capitol Hill and 42 percent, of Democrats.
    Of course, these are the same millennials who just pined for America to turn away from capitalism and toward socialism. In a YouGov survey published last month, 44 percent of millennial-age Americans said they’d rather live in a socialist country — and 7 percent said they’d prefer communism.
    So their present third-party aspirations? Their anti-Trump points of view?
    To be expected.
    These are people who love socialism — or at least the idea of socialism. But if they were actually educated on the evils of socialism, if they stepped outside of America and entered a socialist country and tried to establish themselves in a socialist society, perhaps their views would change. Perhaps then millennials wouldn’t be so quick to hate on Trump, hate on America’s political system, hate on capitalism, hate on a government system that puts individual rights — God-given rights — before those of the collective and state.
    Truly, it’s not a new political party that America needs.
    It’s a better public school system, one that teaches the truths of U.S. history, the Constitution, Founding Father intents — and the utter despicable outcomes of nations that live under socialistic-minded dreamers who think nothing of tearing away individual rights for the greater good of government, or, more to truth, of the select few.

    Wednesday, November 29, 2017

    Brown University to ALLOW Students to ‘SELF IDENTIFY’ as Persons of COLOR

    School officials refuse to clarify how and why policy will be implemented

    Image result for Brown University to allow students to ‘self-identify’ as persons of color

    Brown University is implementing a change to its graduate school application that will allow applicants to “self-identify” as persons of color. Multiple efforts by The College Fix to clarify the details of this change were ignored by campus officials.
    The policy comes as a result of complaints made by graduate students on the Graduate School advisory board that international and Asian American students are not treated as members of historically underrepresented groups by the university, according to The Brown Daily Herald.
    One graduate student, Lydia Kelow-Bennett, told The Herald that this decision has led to “institutional invisibility” for these students. Brown defines historically underrepresented groups as “American Indian, Alaskan Native, African American, Hispanic or Latinx and Native Hawaiian and/or Pacific Islander.” The school’s diversity initiatives are intended to benefit members of these groups.
    Brown’s criteria for historical underrepresentation “caused some students to not receive invitations to certain events, such as a multicultural student dinner,” The Herald reported.
    How allowing applicants to self-identify as persons of color will affect policy relating to the diversity initiatives, and whether the university will take any steps to verify applicants’ self-identification, remain unclear. The Fix reached out multiple times to Brown’s graduate admissions office to inquire into how Brown would ensure that applicants were telling the truth about their self-identified ethnicity. The office did not respond.
    The Fix also reached out to Marlina Duncan, the dean of diversity initiatives, to learn whether or not self-identifying as a person of color has any impact on an applicant’s prospects for admission. Duncan did not respond.
    Reached by email, campus spokesman Brian Clark provided The Fix with a link to an article from Brown’s online news department celebrating the graduate school’s “most diverse class to date.” The article did not actually address the matter of minority self-identification.
    When pressed about the change to the graduate school application–specifically how the option to “self-identify” as a minority differs from the standard ethnicity queries on other college applications–Clark gave no response.
    Other universities allow students to “identify” a certain way in order to qualify for admissions or receive various benefits. The University of California, Davis, awards financial grants to students who identify as LGBT or as an illegal immigrant.

    And in recent years, several all-women’s colleges have permitted men who identify as women to apply. Some sororities have followed suit.

    Jesus BANNED From BUSES in DC, But GAY HOOKUP Ads Allowed


    Todd Starnes

    The Archdiocese of Washington wanted to extend an invitation to commuters to find the perfect Christmas gift by advertising on city buses, but the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) threw up a roadblock.
    The advertisement depicted silhouettes of three shepherds walking at night with tall canes and sheep beneath a shining North Star. Emblazoned across the ad is the phrase: “FIND THE PERFECT GIFT.”
    But the transit authority rejected the ad because it “depicts a religious scene and thus seeks to promote religion,” according to a federal lawsuit filed by the Archdiocese of Washington against the WMATA.
    “To borrow from a favorite Christmas story, under WMATA’s guidelines, if the ads are about packages, boxes or bags... if Christmas comes from a store... then it seems WMATA approves,” spokesman Ed McFadden said in a statement. “But if Christmas means a little bit more, WMATA plays Grinch.”
    The transit authority might have reconsidered its ban on the Catholic Church’s advertisement had they been selling goods and services, the lawsuit alleges. However, as we all know – the perfect Christmas gift cannot be bought. The perfect gift came from a much Higher Authority.
    The WMATA issued this statement:
    "In 2015, WMATA changed its advertising space to a nonpublic and prohibits issue-oriented advertising, including political, religious and advocacy advertising. The ad in question was declined because it is prohibited by WMATA’s current advertising guidelines."
    WMATA's revised advertising guidelines prohibit “advertisements that promote or oppose any religion, religious practice or belief,” the Archdiocese alleges.
    “We believe rejection of this ad to be a clear violation of fundamental free speech and a limitation on the exercise of our faith,” general counsel Kim Fiorentino said in a statement. “We look forward to presenting our case to affirm the right of all to express such viewpoints in the public square.”
    And while the Archdiocese of Washington may not be welcome to advertise on public buses, the transit authority is more than happy to promote other enterprises – like gay hookup websites.
    In 2016 the transit authority defended its decision to allow to advertise citing First Amendment rights, CNS News reported.

    In other words, the transit authority’s decision to banish the Archdiocese is not nice – and definitely naughty.

    Dershowitz: Trump Needs to AGGRESSIVELY Challenge Mueller

    Special counsel is on a dubious fishing expedition, Harvard Law professor tells 'The Ingraham Angle'

    Image result for Dershowitz: Trump Needs to Aggressively Challenge Mueller

    Jim Stinson

    President Donald Trump’s attorneys are not being aggressive enough with the Justice Department’s special counsel investigating Russian hacking into the 2016 presidential campaign, says one of the nation’s top defense attorneys.

    Robert Mueller is the special counsel investigating Russian hacking, and that involves looking into alleged ties between Trump’s campaign and the Russian government.

    Alan Dershowitz, a Harvard Law professor for 50 years, told Laura Ingraham on Tuesday night's edition of "The Ingraham Angle" that Trump's personal attorneys should be reining in Mueller.

    One example Dershowitz gave was Mueller's investigation of Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, who advised Trump during the campaign and the transition. Kushner is being questioned on Israeli policy, the professor said.

    "They should be in court challenging what Mueller has been doing," Dershowitz said on the Fox News show. "He is going so far beyond any possible scope of his investigation. For example, there were reports ... that they were investigating whether or not Jared Kushner tried to get the United States to change its policy toward Israel — the resolution condemning Israel for occupying the Western Wall, the holiest place in Judaism. Let's assume that Jared Kushner did that. He should be praised for it. There is nothing criminal about that. What is Mueller doing investigating whether or not somebody during the transition was trying to influence American foreign policy to the benefit of the American people?"

    Dershowitz said the Trump attorneys should be objecting to the scope of the investigation and challenging subpoenas.

    Mueller was given a narrow scope, not a broad one, by the U.S. deputy attorney general, Dershowitz told Ingraham. And Dershowitz has long noted that "collusion" with a foreign state on campaign issues is not a crime.

    "This is supposed to be a narrow investigation about whether or not there was illegal, unlawful collusion with Russia," said Dershowitz. "Collusion itself is not a crime. But now they are going after people for the equivalent of jaywalking. Did they sign the right form? Did they include this in the form? It's all an attempt to try to squeeze them into testifying against the Oval Office."

    "Collusion itself is not a crime. But now they are going after people for the equivalent of jaywalking."

    Dershowitz said reports that Michael Flynn, Trump's former national security adviser, is now cooperating with Mueller is not impressive. Flynn was forced to resign by Trump on February 13 for misleading the vice president pertaining to a call, during the transition, with the Russian ambassador.

    Dershowitz said Flynn is trying to get out of trouble, but he likely has nothing to say about Trump and Russia.

    "What his lawyer ... is doing is offering his client for sale, or at least for rent," said Dershowitz. "He is saying he is up for grabs. If the Trump administration wants him, they can have him. Give him the pardon. If the Trump administration doesn't give him a pardon, we are available to make a deal with the special counsel. I don't think the special counsel is ready to make a deal yet. It's not clear that Flynn has anything to offer. First of all, his credibility is worthless. He has already been accused of perjury. Second, he is a witness that has already been bought or rented."

    Flynn's troubled legal status would make it easy for Trump's attorneys to bash him on the stand, Dershowitz said, thus making reports of a deal doubtful.

    "Any decent defense attorney could shred him by saying that he will sell you his mother," said Dershowitz. "He is trying to save his son, he is trying to save himself ... I don't think we are anywhere close to ... a deal with Mueller."


    Both Parties KILLED Off Good CHARACTER in Politics

    A.B. Stoddard

    The outcome of a Senate race in Alabama may become a dividing line in history, but it won’t change things. Sure, one party will get a vote in the Senate, on most days anyway, but our political system won’t get back what it lost in 2017. That Judge Roy Moore, accused by numerous women of preying upon them as young girls, has remained a candidate and retained substantial support in polls is proof enough that tribalism has vanquished integrity.

    A moral code, standards for ethical conduct, once defined the threshold for viability for elected office. No matter the political party, leaders weren’t just deemed able, but decent, empathetic, optimistic, dignified and honest. That disappeared long ago, with the help of Democrats and Republicans, but until just weeks ago even partisanship was expected to fold its tent in the face of something like alleged pedophilia. That bar for leadership has been invalidated as many voters in Alabama either say they cannot believe the credible and public accusations about Moore, or that what he did to children doesn’t matter since he isn’t a Democrat.

    The accusers’ stories are so believable that Alabama’s sitting senior Republican senator, Richard Shelby, admitted he wrote in some other Republican’s name on his absentee ballot and Attorney General Jeff Sessions, whose seat will be filled by the winner, has said he has no reason not to believe the women who have gone public with their allegations. Indeed, not one GOP senator has expressed doubt over the accusations, many of them have called for Moore to step aside and some have called for him -- if victorious on Dec. 12 -- to be expelled from the chamber.

    Expulsion is an empty threat, however, and should Moore win he will ride into town on his horse with his pistol in his hand, for good. If elected he will serve, with the approval of President Trump and his chief benefactor, Breitbart Executive Chairman Steve Bannon. Trump, who faced allegations from more than a dozen women of improprieties ranging from sexual harassment to assault, is supporting Moore’s election by campaigning against Democrat Doug Jones, calling the latter “WEAK on crime.” If proven, Moore’s alleged conduct with the then-children would make him an actual criminal. Now, partisans hungry to smear Moore’s victims set up a sting operation to plant a similar but fake story with the Washington Post -- which broke the original story regarding the GOP nominee’s past -- that was revealed to be fraudulent. This is where we are -- taking no prisoners means not even victims of likely acts of pedophilia.

    Yet Democrats who hope despairing Republicans will join energized independents and liberals to push Jones over the top in the race are not the guardians of morality nor do they represent the party of women. They tolerated Sen. Ted Kennedy after Chappaquiddick and through his many years of drunken groping that may have constituted assault. And after Republicans failed to believe Anita Hill and defended and confirmed Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas against her accusations of harassment, Democrats surrendered their credibility on the matter by then tolerating President Bill Clinton after several accusations of assault by Juanita Broderick, Paula Jones and Kathleen Willey. Later they would defend him after he had a sexual relationship with a young intern and lied under oath about it -- blaming Republicans who impeached him for their sanctimony and political overreach. It was then, in the 1990s, that Democrats officially severed governance and leadership from good character, laying the groundwork for the election of President Trump. Only now are Democrats, with Hillary Clinton no longer dominating their party, shamelessly revisiting their support for her husband, decades later.

    Just last weekend Democrats were aghast to watch the implosion of House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi on NBC's “Meet the Press.” Choking on her situational ethics, Pelosi tried to protect her support among members of the Congressional Black Caucus who had defended Rep. John Conyers following revelations he has paid out a settlement to a former staff member alleging harassment and in another case has been sued by an accuser, while remaining a champion of women. She called Conyers an “icon” but then insisted there would be “zero tolerance” for such conduct.

    Republicans delighted in Pelosi’s epic fail, but while the Democrats have tried withholding judgment on Conyers as well as Sen. Al Franken -- who thinks squeezing women’s buttocks at the state fair while taking pictures together is just friendly hugging -- Republicans largely have gone mute on Franken and Conyers too. They are smarter than Trump, whom they will be asked about if they judge other accused predators, but the president couldn’t resist attacking Franken nonetheless. Referring to the picture where Franken is groping a sleeping woman’s breasts, Trump tweeted: “the Al Frankenstein picture is really bad, speaks a thousand words.” Then, in another tweet, Trump marveled “to think that just last week he was lecturing anyone who would listen about sexual harassment and respect for women…”

    According to a new story in the New York Times, Trump is now claiming he believes the infamous “Access Hollywood” recording -- on which he brags about sexual assault, and for which he apologized -- is a fake. His supporters, some of whom are deeply religious and forgave him for his indiscreet “locker room talk,” will now abide Trump’s latest fantasy, no matter how frightening.

    We can no longer demand the truth and agree on a set of facts. If we do, and those facts are inconvenient, tribalism will prevail anyway. But voters must accept if they no longer ask officeholders to have good character, they cannot ask for it elsewhere. Not at church, or in school, or at work. Not of anyone, not even for their young daughters.


    Agitprop That Sows PARANOIA


    The arrogance of the legacy media doesn’t begin and end with biased coverage of existing events; it also involves stories meant to convince Americans of something about themselves and their neighbors which is ugly and untrue.
    Their latest? A remarkable piece of agitprop, in the form of a profile of a neo-Nazi who helped organize the white supremacist contingent of the Nazi and antifa Charlottesville Confederate statue demonstrations.
    Most readers, understandably, were shocked at what they saw as a strangely sympathetic profile of a Nazi, dwelling on the banal aspects of his life. And they were right to be appalled at what they were reading, but they were wrong about what the The New York Times’ agenda really was.
    The Times’ agenda wasn’t to generate sympathy for the Nazi, it was to inject into the public discourse the notion that the average American was, and could actually be, a literal Nazi. Without you knowing. It was a story meant to change, in the most horrific of ways, how Americans think about their neighbors. It was meant to sow paranoia and division.
    “Tony and Maria Hovater were married this fall. They registered at Target. On their list was a muffin pan, a four-drawer dresser and a pineapple slicer,” is how this profile opened. “Ms. Hovater, 25, was worried about Antifa bashing up the ceremony. Weddings are hard enough to plan for when your fiance is not an avowed white nationalist.”
    Why would The New York Times seek to portray a racist, fascist Nazi (but I repeat myself) as a normal, everyday guy?
    Because that was their point. For years, people who do not pay allegiance to the liberal narrative have been condemned as Nazis. President Trump and his supporters are accused regularly. This favorite accusation of the left is meant to shut down debate and isolate the nonconformist, the challenger of orthodoxy.
    The Times’ effort to reframe reality as a Nazi America backfired. And big time.
    Fielding a firestorm of outrage, The Times issued a statement of regret, and pushed back on the accusations they were being soft on a Nazi. No, no, they insisted, they were doing a good thing: “The point of the story was not to normalize anything but to describe the degree to which hate and extremism have become far more normal in American life than many of us want to think.”
    The Times National Editor Marc Lacey wrote the pseudo-apology. He doubled down, making sure everyone knew their intentions were pure. “Shane Bauer, a senior reporter at Mother Jones and a winner of the National Magazine Award, tweeted: ‘People mad about this article want to believe that Nazis are monsters we cannot relate to. White supremacists are normal ass white people and it’s been that way in America since 1776. We will continue to be in trouble till we understand that.’ “
    So now The New York Times is reduced to having someone from Mother Jones explain on Twitter what The New York Times really meant.
    You see, The Times knows how awful it is to agitate for more division, as they work to convince their readers that Americans are awful, disgusting racists masquerading as your next-door neighbor. Perhaps this is why they whined, “Our reporter and his editors agonized over the tone and content of the article.” But they did it anyway, because they really do want Americans to be punished for rejecting the liberal status quo, which has been ruining peoples’ lives for generations.
    As their reporter “agonized” over the piece, here are some facts of the matter that also would have shed some light on the state of Nazis in America, found right in The New York Times itself.
    In a story from 2011, the “newspaper of record” reported on the “decaying” condition of the Nazi movement in America as they followed around the leader of “the largest supremacist group, with about 400 members in 32 states, though much of its prominence followed the decay of Aryan Nation and other neo-Nazi groups.”
    The Charlottesville, Virginia, rally catastrophe of Nazis, the Klan and antifa that cost three people their lives, was, and is, universally condemned. After the horror, the Daily Beast wondered “How Many Nazis Are There In America, Really?” A good question, which The New York Times would have been well-served asking.
    In their story, the Daily Beast remarked on how a few hundred Nazis and Klansmen were present and noted, “But hundreds of protesters do not a country make. Their universal condemnation should further the point that no matter how soft-pedaled, how rebranded, how memed, this juvenile garbage has a diminishing foothold in American culture. … Only hundreds showed up to the biggest “alt-right’ meeting in the country. A single New York City subway car can hold around 200 people.”
    Having even one Nazi around is disgusting. Getting a crowd of racist malcontents and losers in one place intent on violence is also unacceptable. The good news is, America has rejected however few there are.
    Yet, we now have The New York Times, admittedly, trying to convince people that “hate and extremism have become far more normal in American life than many of us want to think,” when the opposite is true. Our becoming a better country has ruined many political agendas, but it’s dangerous when some attempt to artificially recreate what we have worked so hard to banish.