Back to Journalism 101 for the Worldnetdaily

Fascist Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio already has his own lawsuit against President Obama’s immigration orders but now he’s filed a brief, written by Larry Klayman, in the Texas case in which the judge issued a preliminary injunction against those orders last week. I haven’t read the brief, but I’m sure it’s as inane as Klayman’s briefs always are. Here’s the Worldnetdaily report on it:

A legal brief filed in a federal court in Texas warns that if the judge decides to reverse himself and allow President Obama’s amnesty program to move forward right away it could cost U.S. taxpayers $144 billion.

The friend-of-the-court brief contends Obama’s executive immigration actions delaying deportation and offering benefits to an estimated 5 million illegal aliens could forever change the legitimacy of elections in America because of the possibility the illegal aliens could be allowed to vote.

The filing from attorney Larry Klayman of Freedom Watch was on behalf of Maricopa County, Arizona, Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who has a separate lawsuit against the government over amnesty.

I’d love to read the brief to see by what bizarre and convoluted logic he claims it will cost $144 billion. In reality, it will be a positive thing fiscally because more people will now be in the real economy instead of the underground one, where no taxes are paid. But here’s my favorite part:

WND broke the story last week when U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen in Texas granted a preliminary injunction that prevents the government from enforcing Obama’s amnesty orders. Hanen also confirmed WND’s exclusive report that contrary to popular perception, the order to delay deportation was not an executive order by the president. Instead, it was a memorandum issued by Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson at Obama’s direction.

I think it’s time to return to Journalism 101. WND did not “break the story” of the judge’s ruling. The judge issued the ruling and hundreds of media outlets reported on it. And WND did not have an “exclusive report” on the fact that the orders were administrative rather than executive. Again, this has been widely reported. Those words have meanings and WND obviously doesn’t know what they are. They’re just trying to make themselves sound far more important than they could ever be.

"I have a solution. Since, these statues are obvious there so we don't forget history, ..."

Barton’s Bizarre Diatribe on Confederate Statues
"Well, I would make more edits, but Disqus doesn't let me change other people's comments. ..."

Barton’s Bizarre Diatribe on Confederate Statues
""What does God need with an irony meter?" ~ Captain Kirk, Startrek V: The Final ..."

Barton’s Bizarre Diatribe on Confederate Statues
"What is he on about? Doesn't he know that all of those guys with torches ..."

Cernovich: Charlottesville was Government Plot to ..."
Follow Us!
POPULAR AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • http://artk.typepad.com ArtK

    Back? I’d be in favor of them going the first time, if I thought that anything might get through.

  • Chiroptera

    The friend-of-the-court brief contends Obama’s executive immigration actions delaying deportation and offering benefits to an estimated 5 million illegal aliens could forever change the legitimacy of elections in America because of the possibility the illegal aliens could be allowed to vote.

    If there is anything that undermines the legitimacy of elections in the US, it’s the red state gerrymandering that gives the Republicans a much larger number of members in the US House of Representatives than they are really entitled to, and the way Republicans try to deny African-Americans their right to vote by their voter suppression tactics.

  • John Pieret

    immigration actions delaying deportation and offering benefits to an estimated 5 million illegal aliens could forever change the legitimacy of elections in America because of the possibility the illegal aliens could be allowed to vote

    Here they reveal their real fear: changing demographics. They are not against illegal immigration (where else are rich white Americans going to get their maids and landscapers?). They are afraid that these immigrants will eventually become American citizens (the only way they can vote) and white people will be out voted by those brown people. Unfortunately for them, that’s going to happen whether or not these few million illegal immigrants are deported or not. In fact, we simply can’t deport them all because Congress won’t pay for enough immigration judges to handle the caseload. All that’s going to happen is that, instead of shifting the focus away from people who are likely to be law abiding and productive residents towards those who might not be, the deportation process will remain random and arbitrary.

  • abb3w

    John Pieret:

    In fact, we simply can’t deport them all because Congress won’t pay for enough immigration judges to handle the caseload.

    Nor, even if such judgeships were created, would the Senate confirm sufficient judges to fill the positions.

  • http://zenoferox.blogspot.com/ Zeno

    WND needs to enroll in bonehead remedial journalism before it aspires to such lofty educational endeavors as Journalism 101.

  • blf

    You would first need to teach Witless Nofact Delusions that what it means to take a course before enrolling them in any Journalism course — which presents a bit of a problem, of the Chicken-and-Egg variety (Green Ham optional)…

  • Michael Heath

    I took Journalism 101 in High School. Using those standards, all the media sources I consume or watch in derision would fail to pass that class.

  • lorn

    The fact, as I understand it after digging in a bit, is that the Obama rules are not rooted in any new option or law. Years ago congress added a law saying that children could not be sent back without an hearing. law enforcement on and near the border had, previously, simply ignored the requirements and the Obama new rule is simply an order by the executive, in charge of enforcement, that agencies would comply with the letter of the law.

    In effect, the fight against Obama’s rules is a matter of going back to ignoring the law, and ‘the will of the people’.

  • Pierce R. Butler

    … by what bizarre and convoluted logic he claims it will cost $144 billion.

    The WND brain trust contemplated an imaginary horde of well-tanned, muscularly-calved speakers of Latin and said, “Ewww, mega-gross!” – then added a few more zeros on general principles.

  • anubisprime

    Ahh…ain’t that sweet…an amateurish juvenile comic pretending to be a grown up newspaper…how cute!…time for a nap though and they can take ‘Mr Teddy of the Nugent’ with them to lah lah land!

  • D. C. Sessions

    by what bizarre and convoluted logic he claims it will cost $144 billion.

    Maybe. As the law stands, putting the judges, attorneys, etc. in place (and all on the Federal budget) for ten years is not going to be cheap. Of course, “the rule of law” crowd solves that by ignoring the law and just kicking people out without a hearing. Obama solves it by letting them stay with family (etc.) until there is a hearing. Congressional Democrats propose to solve it by changing the law.

    As far as I can tell, nobody is seriously proposing to actually fund the law as it stands.

  • eric

    Those words have meanings and WND obviously doesn’t know what they are. They’re just trying to make themselves sound far more important than they could ever be.

    Sadly I think they are not unusual in how they have redefined these words. I’ve noticed that cable TV stations now refer to a movie as an “exclusive” or “premier” if it is being shown for the first time on that channel – even if the same movie showed a week before on another channel. It seems that media outlets in general are now using these words to basically mean “first of our coverage” or “our coverage exclusively” rather than “first of any media outlet” or “a source/story nobody else has access to” (respectively).

  • http://festeringscabofrealityblogspot.com fifthdentist

    @ 7

    ‘The video produced by the students systematically took apart the Watters segment revealing O’Reilly, Watters, and Fox News to be blatant propagandists with no regard for journalistic integrity. In one short segment they found examples of stereotyping, distortions, manipulation, questionable sourcing, and predetermining outcome.”

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/01/23/1359793/-High-Schoolers-Post-Video-That-Scorches-Bill-O-Reilly-And-Fox-News-For-Lack-Of-Journalistic-Ethics#