Looks like someone needs a WHAAAAAAAA-mbulance.
From Newsday May 23rd.
Newsday sings a false note
Newsday is becoming less coherent and increasingly vacuous as it careens from issue to issue. A case in point is your editorial "Officially, English" [May 5], regarding singing "The Star-Spangled Banner" in a foreign language.
First you grudgingly acknowledge that I was "at least partly right" in calling for our national anthem to be sung in English. That was nice of you, since my position is entirely in keeping with our traditions and represents the belief of the majority of Americans.
Bowing to shameless political correctness, however, Newsday goes on to question my motives by resorting to shabby ad hominem attacks (jingoistic) and an ultimate non sequitur (a felony provision in the immigration bill).
If Newsday believes it is jingoistic to protect our national anthem, that is your prerogative. I am content to let the people decide who is right on that.
As to Newsday's continued distortion of the immigration bill, let me say it again for the slow learners on your editorial board - 191 Democrats voted to retain the provision making it a felony to stay in the country illegally; 156 Republicans, including myself, voted to make it a misdemeanor. Clearly it is the Democrats and their accomplices on the Newsday editorial board who have the "explaining to do."
Newsday says the nation is "divided" over the immigration issue and that we would "benefit [by] ... more efforts to find common ground." Maybe Newsday could start by telling the truth, at least some of the time.
Rep. Peter King
King tries to take a jab at the Newsday with “slow learners on your editorial board” about the felony amendment that 191 Democrats voted against. Too bad that like so many other issues, King is either ignorant or lying. The fact is that the 191 Democrats who voted against the amendment were quiet clear about their opposition. King says the Democrats have "explaining to do" but Rep. Lofgren of California said on the House floor where presumably King was for the debate “the amendment before us changes the degree of punishment, but it does not alter the underlying issue of criminalizing being alive in the country without documents.”
So what happpend is that the Democrats saw the amendment was an empty gesture and they voted against it.
There it was explained but King is either once again ignorant and lying. Two traits we don't need in a representative. Two traits which King is well known for.
Senator Reid and Congresswoman Pelosi issued a statement that said “The fact is that Congressman Sensenbrenner's amendment, if adopted, would have still criminalized an entire population for the first time in our history, rather than charging presence violations as civil offenses as provided under current law. 11 million men, women, and children, with no exceptions, would still go to jail for up to six months under the revised Sensenbrenner amendment. That is why many Democrats voted against the Sensenbrenner amendment.”
King seems to be the “slow learner” who should heed his own words and “start telling the truth at least some of the time.”
It’s funny that King complains of “shabby ad hominem attacks” using them himself like "less coherent and increasingly vacuous" and "shameless political correctness."
Perhaps King ought to stop throwing those stones because every piece of glass in his house seems to be broken already.
We've already gone over the national anthem issue. There's more to come on Kings english-first rhetoric.