Listen to the audio version of this article

On Tuesday I took a look at the New York Times website and made the mistake of reading a short piece from the opinion page. I say "mistake," because I needlessly subjected myself to a piece of lying propaganda that would make any communist regime proud. Billed as having been written by the "Editorial Board," the column, "Nativist Lawsuit on the Texas Border," is one of the most blatant examples of misinformation put out by an ostensibly "legitimate" news source I've ever seen. The title of the piece alone is enough to induce vomiting, as if wanting to protect our borders, national sovereignty and rule of law is a bad, "nativist" thing, but it gets worse. Take the opening paragraph (please!):

The first thing to know about the lawsuit brought by two dozen states to block President Obama's executive actions on immigration is that it is a meritless screed wrapped in flimsy legal cloth and deposited on the doorstep of a federal district judge in Brownsville, Tex.

You know when leftists whip out the "screed" pejorative, they're usually trying desperately to counter something true. A "meritless screed" of a lawsuit? Really? The guys writing this actual screed in the New York Times know darned well they're lying. They know darned well that Barack Obama (or whatever his name is) has no authority to write law from the Oval Office or the golf course. They know darned well that Obama repeatedly told his zombie supporters that he does not have the rightful power to do what he did. They know darned well that Obama's border-busting executive orders—excuse me, "executive actions"—are illegal. They know darned well that this lawsuit by half the states is fully justified.

They go on to note the likelihood that the federal judge will be sympathetic to the plaintiffs' claims, since he has already written an order accusing the Obama administration of conspiring to smuggle illegal alien children into the United States. The Times also cites the gossamer defense of "prosecutorial discretion" as the justification for Obama breaking the law with his executive dictates and policies, which they claim rest on "rock-solid legal footing." Obama does not have "prosecutorial discretion" to make or break the laws of the United States.

The Times column continued with the whoppers, like these:

The states' standing to sue is dubious; their claims of damage are speculative at best. There is no evidence that executive action will do anything to increase illegal immigration, and there is clear data showing that giving work permits to immigrants who are already here helps, not hurts, state economies.

The New York Times "Editorial Board" apparently wrote these things with a straight face. Perhaps they believe their readers really are that stupid, or maybe they don't care either way. That's their party line, and they're sticking to it, but for the rest of us rational Americans, the destructive reality of the illegal alien invasion of the United States is clear and tangible, as is the fact that Obama broke the law when he moved to demolish our immigration laws with despotic strokes of his commie pen.

Demonstrating that the states' claims of damage are anything but "speculative," here are some points the New York Times "Editorial Board" neglects to mention. The billions of taxpayer dollars in welfare fraud stolen by illegal aliens each year is certainly not "speculative," nor are the billions spent on illegal aliens' schooling, medical care, prison incarceration, and social services. Illegal aliens also send billions of tax-free dollars back to their home countries. The cost of lives lost (incalculable) and property stolen at the hands of illegal alien criminals, drug smugglers, murderers, rapists, kidnappers, and gangsters is also much more than speculative. We know, too, that Muslim terrorists have stepped across our wide-open southern border. And, let's not forget all the diseases that are being brought back into the United States by unscreened illegals, some diseases that have long been eradicated in this nation.

This piece of New York Times tripe is nothing more than a desperate attempt to give cover to a lawless commie in the White House, as he illegally facilitates the third-world invasion of the United States by a permanent, Democrat-voting underclass intended to seal the commie Democrats' power in perpetuity.

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.