The 1965 Immigration Reform Act, the creation of radical, far-left "Down With The Establishment" ideologues hellbent on reversing what had been an effective and manageable system of legalized immigration into the United States since 1924, were steering the civil rights juggernaut smack dab into the heart of traditional America. In its wake, the ideologues, partnered with like-minded members of Congress, destroyed a rational quota system that, according to FrontPageMag.com's Ben Johnson, "had regulated the ethnic composition of immigration in fair proportion to each group's existing presence in the population," and was serving the nation well.
So, what is this wonderful 1924 immigration law that was so "effective and manageable" that Dougherty would apparently like to go back to it? According to Wikipedia:
The Immigration Act of 1924, which included the National Origins Act, Asian Exclusion Act or the Johnson-Reed Act, was a United States federal law that limited the number of immigrants who could be admitted from any country to 2% of the number of people from that country who were already living in the United States in 1890, according to the Census of 1890. It excluded immigration to the US of Asians. It superseded the 1921 Emergency Quota Act. The law was aimed at further restricting the Southern and Eastern Europeans who had begun to enter the country in large numbers beginning in the 1890s, as well as East Asians and Asian Indians, who were prohibited from immigrating entirely. It set no limits on immigration from Latin America.
Some of the law's strongest supporters were influenced by Madison Grant and his 1916 book, The Passing of the Great Race. Grant was a eugenicist and an advocate of the racial hygiene theory. His data purported to show the superiority of the founding Northern European races. But most proponents of the law were rather concerned with upholding an ethnic status quo and avoiding competition with foreign workers.
The act halted "undesirable" immigration with quotas. The act barred specific origins from the Asia-Pacific Triangle which included Japan, China, the Philippines, Laos, Siam (Thailand), Cambodia, Singapore (then a British colony), Korea, Vietnam, Indonesia, Burma (Myanmar), India, Ceylon (Sri Lanka), and Malaysia. It barred these immigrants because they were deemed to be of an "undesirable" race. As an example of its effect, in the ten years following 1900 about 200,000 Italians immigrated every year. With the imposition of the 1924 quota, only 4,000 per year were allowed. At the same time, the annual quota for Germany was over 57,000. 86% of the 165,000 permitted entries were from the British Isles, France, Germany, and other Northern European countries.
The quotas remained in place with minor alterations until the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.
So, Dougherty would see immigration laws that are favored by racists and eugenicists? It would seem so.
Oh, and Ben Johnson, whose 2002 FrontPageMag article Dougherty approvingly cites, similarly fails to mention the racist and eugenicist aspects of the 1924 law.
UPDATE: WND has been critical of the 1924 immigration law when that suited its purposes. From an April 5 WND column by Logan Paul Gage of the anti-Darwin, anti-evolution Discovery Institute:
In the run-up to the Immigration Restriction Act of 1924, Congress relied on eugenics arguments and even heard testimony from an "expert eugenics agent." The intent was to restrict the access of Italians, Jews and other "defectives" to American shores. In the Executive Branch, Secretary of Agriculture James Wilson promoted eugenics through the American Breeders Association.
So, WND, which is it? Was the 1924 immigration law bad because it was based on eugenics, or was it good because it kept brown, yellow and/or swarthy people out?
Sheppard Hides Background of 'Scientific' Group Topic: NewsBusters
A June 5 NewsBusters post by Noel Sheppard claimed that the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change -- which published a "detailed analysis" attacking NASA global warming specialist James Hansen's claims about "a dire global warming future" -- is a "scientific organization." Sheppard adds: "Think this study will get much air or print space tonight or tomorrow? Neither do I."
Nowhere does Sheppard mention the main reason the study will not get the attention he thinks it deserves -- the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change has close ties to the energy industry, which typically funds global warming skeptics like the Center.
The organization's principals -- Sherwood Idso and his sons, Craig and Keith, have all worked for the Western Fuels Association, a cooperative that supplies coal and transportation services to consumer-owned electric utilities in the Western United States.
Further, the organization has received $90,000 from ExxonMobil Corp. between 1998 and 2005. Sherwood Idso has defended receiving such funding, insisting that "the mere existence of funding, whether from private or public sources, does not, in and of itself, prove malfeasance on the part of the funds' recipients." ExxonSecrets.org, though, reports that beyond this, the Center "does not reveal its funding sources," which makes it difficult to judge whether how believeable Idso is on this subject.
Shooting Their Own: The Final Chapter Topic: NewsBusters
A June 6 NewsBusters post by Ken Shepherd delcares that it's the "Final Chapter of Scarborough Pole-Gate." (That, of course, would be the Joe Scarborough comment wondering if Fred Thompson's wife "works the pole.") Indeed: Shepherd writes that Joe Scarborough sent him "the relevant transcript from his June 1 'Morning Joe' program, lamenting in an e-mail that our 'follow up blog on Newsbusters... actually omits fact that there was a long discussion started by female athlete re pole exercising. Transcript shows whole thing taken wildly out of context.' " Shepherd reprinted the transcript, adding no further comment.
So it was not overly offensive after all. Still, the question weasked earlier remains: Given that Shepherd and his MRC co-workers couldn't work up much outrage over Don Imus' "nappy-headed hos" comment, why did Shepherd focus on Scarborough's comment, beyond punishing Scarborough for not being a loyal enough conservative?
UPDATE: Indeed, nobody at the MRC has made a peep about San Francisco radio host Lee Rodgers saying that Condoleezza Rice looks "the hostess at an S&M parlor." Oh, that's right: Rodgers is a loyal conservative whom NewsBusters has previously defended, so it's OK.
Folger Misleads on Gays -- Again Topic: WorldNetDaily
Janet Folger's June 5 WorldNetDaily column is another anti-gay rant. Ostensibly a criticism of gays for suing the online dating site eHarmony for not providing for same-sex relationships, Folger likens homosexuality to pedophilia and "[t]he Mary Kay LeTerneau's of the world" and wrote of the woman suing eHarmony: "They don't offer a category for 'lesbian bullies seeking women,' so she wants to bully eHarmony until they do."
Folger then cites anti-gay "researcher" Jeffrey Satinover as an authority on the background of the American Psychiatric Association's decision to remove homosexuality from the DSM list of mental illnesses. As we noted the last time Folger cited him, Satinover has called homosexuality "psychologically unhealthy," "an inferior way of life,"and a "sociopathy" akin to "grow[ing] up in a Cosa Nostra family," and that "homosexuality--like narcissism--is best viewed as a spiritual and moral illness." So he's a tad biased on the issue.
Finally, Folger claimed:
The American Psychological Association recently published a study favorable to pedophilia – you know, child molestation. If you call it "Adult-child sex," it doesn't sound as bad.
As we reported when Jerome Corsi tried to use that study against Ted Strickland, the candidate running against (and electorally stomping) Corsi co-author Ken Blackwell, the APA-published study was not "favorable to pedophilia"; rather, it reviewed previous studies on child sexual abuse to test the belief, held by "[m]any lay persons and professionals," that "child sexual abuse (CSA) causes intense harm, regardless of gender, pervasively in the general population," finding that "negative effects were neither pervasive nor typically intense, and that men reacted much less negatively than women." And far from being the endorsement of pedophilia Folger claims, the authors of the study explicitly stated that its findings "do not imply that moral or legal definitions of or views on behaviors currently classified as CSA should be abandoned or even altered."
Doesn't Folger ever get tired of being caught in the act of spouting anti-gay falsehoods and scaretactics? Apparently not.
Sheffield Admits Double Standard on NYT Topic: NewsBusters
In a June 6 NewsBusters post on Rupert Murdoch's attempted purchase of Dow Jones, a company with a dual-tier stock structure that keeps control of the company in the hands of the Bancroft family, Matthew Sheffield admitted that he has not held the company to the same criticism he has inflicted on the New York Times Co., which has the same structure:
Of course, the fact that [NYT Co. CEO] Pinch [Sulzburger] deliberately steers his paper in a leftward direction is what makes his corporate control a non-issue in the eyes of the left. The fact is the Bancrofts have been unique in the newspaper business in keeping a hands-off policy for media empire. It's also why I have refrained from criticizing their similarly cushy stock arrangement which gives them control of Dow Jones.
As we've previouslynoted, Sheffield has repeatedly criticized the the New York Times Co.'s dual-tier structure without acknowledging that other companies, including Dow Jones, have the same structure.
Sheffield also suggests that Dow Jones is unique in "keeping a hands-off policy" on editorial policy. In fact, most media companies generally don't dictate editorial policy. One exception that comes to mind is Freedom Newspapers, whose flagship is the Orange County Register in California (and also owns papers in Colorado Springs and suburban Phoenix); the company dictates that all its newspapers promote a ... libertarian viewpoint. Sheffield would be hard-pressed to find a "liberal" media company -- even the New York Times -- that's so dogmatic.
We once asked of Sheffield: If dual-tier stock is bad for the Times, why isn't bad for Dow Jones? We have our answer: Sheffield's political agenda. His railing against the NYT's dual-tier structure is meaningless because it's structually the same as Dow Jones, whose editorial policies he likes. Sheffield merely opposes the New York Times' brand of journalism and not that of Dow Jones and its notoriously right-wing Wall Street Journal editorial page.
In other words, it's a double standard. Just say the words, Matt ...
Whitlock Misrepresents Cuomo, Ignores Criticism of Gerth-Van Natta Book Topic: Media Research Center
The headline on a June 4 NewsBusters post by Scott Whitlock on a TV appearance by Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta, authors of a new Hillary-bashing book (repeated as a June 5 MRC CyberAlert item) reads, "ABC's Cuomo Derides Anti-Hillary Book as an 'Ambien Substitute' and a 'Sleeper.' " Whitlock wrote:
On Monday's Good Morning America, ABC co-anchor Chris Cuomo acted as lawyer for the defense when he interviewed the co-authors of a new book that contains critical revelations about 2008 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Cuomo grilled Don Van Natta and Jeff Gerth, the New York Times investigative journalists behind "Her Way," asking if their book was a "sleeper" and an "Ambien substitute."
But Whitlock falsely portrayed what Cuomo said, as is made clear in the transcript Whitlock himself quoted:
CUOMO: The [Clinton] campaign said it is an Ambien substitute. They say the book is just a rehash. How do you respond to that, that your book is a sleeper? It's all been done before. You only needed a library card to report this out. Your response?
"Ambien substitute" and "sleeper" were not Cuomo's opinions of the book, as Whitlock claimed; Cuomo was merely repeating the Clinton campaign's characterization of the book and asking Gerth and Van Natta to react to it.
We've seen this sort of misrepresentation by the MRC before, as we noted when it claimed that Katie Couric called Ronald Reagan an "airhead" when, in fact, she was merely repeating what others had been saying about the conclusions of a newly released Reagan biography.
Whitlock also falsely attributed the "library card" comment to Cuomo in order to launch another attack on him:
How insulting is it for Cuomo, who was parroting Clinton talking points and taking his information off of cue cards, to claim that these Pulitzer Prize winning journalists simply needed "a library card" for their book on the New York politician?
Whitlock went on to assert without evidence that Cuomo "didn't appear comfortable even discussing a book critical of Senator Clinton" and that Cuomo "seemed hesitant to discuss Gerth and Van Natta's claim that Hillary Clinton made a secret political pact when she married Bill Clinton."
Whitlock is too busy defending Gerth and Van Natta as "Pulitzer Prize winning journalists" to mention that the "secret political pact" claim rests on shaky factual ground. Nor does Whitlock note Gerth's history of dubious reporting during the Clinton administration and for the stories on U.S. military information allegedly shared with the Chinese -- for which Gerth won that Pulitzer -- in which Gerth falsely implicated scientist Wen Ho Lee.
Baker Thinks Armitage Is Relevant to Libby's Crime Topic: NewsBusters
A June 5 NewsBusters post by Brent Baker noted of network news coverage of Scooter Libby's sentencing: "As occurred back on March 6, neither CBS or ABC uttered the name of the leaker: Richard Armitage."
But Armitage wasn't "the leaker"; he was, like Libby, one of the leakers. (The guy Armitage leaked to, Robert Novak, was merely the first to print the leak.) And as we noted last time the MRC did this, Armitage's role in leaking the name of Valerie Plame is irrelevant to Libby's lying and obstructing the investigation into the leak, so beating up on CBS and ABC for not mentioning Armitage is nothing more than meaningless, nonsensical media-bashing.
As we'venoted, the bloggers at the Media Research Center's NewsBusters who claim that "the MSM" is out to get Fred Thompson conveniently ignore the fact that the major attacks to date have been coming from conservatives. The latest evidence for this comes from ... another MRC division, CNSNews.com:
While many Republican voters view likely presidential candidate Fred Thompson as the great conservative hope of 2008, a review of Thompson's Senate voting record and past comments could change the minds of some conservatives.
The June 5 article by Fred Lucas went on to note that rankings by conservative interest groups of Thompson's senatorial record "are comparable to interest groups' scores for [John] McCain, who is often scorned by the right" and that "Thompson's reputation as a lady's man between the nearly two decades he was divorced and remarried could also come up in the presidential race."
For the second time in as many days, NewsBusters' Ken Shepherd has written a post about Joe Scarborough's comment wondering if Fred Thompson's wife "works the pole." As we've noted, NewsBusters and the MRC had trouble working up similar outrage over Don Imus' "nappy-headed hos" remark.
Indeed, Shepherd himself was largely silent about the Imus controversy at the time. His only NewsBusters contribution during the height of the controversy was an April 10 post on the correct way to spell "hos."
Why bother to make a point of this? It shows the MRC's highly selective outrage. It was more upset that Imus got fired than outraged by what Imus said, it ignores or excuses inflammatory statements by stalwart conservatives like Ann Coulter -- for instance, calling anyone offended at Limbaugh's depiction of Barack Obama as "Halfrican" as "humor-challenged" -- yet Shepherd is targeting Scarborough for (as he indicated in his previous post on the subject) being insufficiently conservative.
Pandagon reports on the extreme anti-gay views of Chicago street preacher Ruben Israel not mentioned in a June 1 WorldNetDaily article by Bob Unruh on Israel's quest to appear in a gay-pride parade. Israel claims that homosexuality is a threat to national security and adds:
WHEN YOU HAVE A BUNCH OF GIRLY MEN ABUSING THEMSELVES WITH EACH OTHER IN SEXUALLY PERVERTED WAYS…THEIR BRAIN CHEMISTRY CHANGES AND THEY NO LONGER DESIRE GOD’S GIFT TO THEM….A.K.A. WOMEN.
Indeed, Unruh seems to have made an effort to soften Israel. In addition to ignoring his extreme anti-gay views, the caption for a picture of Israel accompanying Unruh's article stated that he was at an "earlier protest that said condemned abortionist killer Paul Hill was a murderer, not a Christian." WND has generally ignored Hill's story; as we've noted, WND has also printed a seven-part series by Jack Cashill falsely depicting another accused killer of an abortion doctor, James Kopp, as an innocent man -- just a few months before Kopp admitted the murder.
One big surprise in this article: Unruh actually makes an effort to contact the attorney for the gay-pride parade to tell the other side of the story -- something Unruh is generally loath to do.
In a June 4 NewsBusters post, Ken Shepherd bashed Joe Scarborough for wondering if Fred Thompson's wife "works the pole." While Shepherd noted that Don Imus "was canned for his 'nappy-headed hos' remark about the Rutgers women's basketball team," it's worth remembering that he and his MRC co-workers had trouble mustering up much condemnation for Imus' remark.
The presumed real reason for Shepherd's criticism pops up later in his post. Scarborough, you see, is something of an apostate, a conservative who has committed the sin of not being conservative enough, who has stated that he had "been bashing my party more than the Democratic Party" and -- gasp! -- has said nice things about Hillary Clinton, a mortal sin.
That's apparently more offensive to the folks at NewsBusters than Imus' racist remark.
Note to NewsBusters: Conservatives Are the Ones Attacking Thompson Topic: NewsBusters
A June 4 NewsBusters post by Warner Todd Huston reprises an earlier post by Mark Finkelstein by speculating how "the MSM" will attack Fred Thompson's presidential campaign -- and ignoring that conservatives are the ones leading those attacks.
Balloon #3 - Thompson is Lazy
With this one, I think we have the winner as I have seen this line thrown off a few times, though this is the first time I've seen a full story on the charge. Newsweek has come out full bore on Thompson's supposed "laziness".
Does Fred Thompson have what it takes to be president? The former senator turned "Law & Order" actor, who launched an exploratory committee last week, has been dogged by rumors that he doesn't have the work ethic for a long campaign. "The book on him is he's lazy," David Keene, president of the American Conservative Union, said last week.
Huston overlooks the fact that a conservative is, in fact, the one making the "lazy" charge, instead bashing Newsweek for reporting it. Indeed, as we've noted, NewsMax's Ronald Kessler has been leading the conservative attack on Thompson, calling him not only lazy but a supporter of McCain-Feingold-style campaign finance reform.
If Huston and Finkelstein really care so much about attacks on Thompson, shouldn't they also acknowledge that their fellow conservatives are leading the way?
We've occasionally wondered whether conservatives recognize conservative media bias, let alone consider it equivalent to liberal media bias.
One answer confirming a negative answer to that question came from Mark Finkelstein, who expressed in a June 3 NewsBusters post on Fred Thompson's potential presidential candidacy that a conservative appeared unchallenged on NBC's "Today":
You would normally expect the guest in these situations to be Tim Russert or Chris Matthews. If ever a conservative were to be on, you could be virtually certain that he would be balanced by a liberal. But, lo and behold, there was Stephen Hayes, who has a major piece on Thompson in the Weekly Standard. And nary a James Carville or facsimile thereof in sight.
What made it remarkable was [host Campbell] Brown's willingness to play the straight woman, neither accentuating the negative nor saddling Hayes with a liberal sidekick.
Finkelstein spent the rest of his post pondering how "the MSM" will attack Fred Thompson without noting that the first major attack on Thompson following the announcement of his prospective candidacy -- as a lazy politician who supported the un-conservative idea of campaign finance reform -- came from a conservative, NewsMax's Ronald Kessler.