In recognition of Martin Luther King Day, Time Magazine ran an article comparing President Obama’s executive orders on amnesty to some of the courageous presidential gambits of the past, including Abraham Lincoln’s most famous decree. In “Brief History,” writer Maya Rhodan ran through a list of significant executive orders and how they ultimately played out.
“After Congress failed to pass a comprehensive bill, Obama directed his Administration in 2014 to grant temporary legal status and work permits to over 4 million undocumented immigrants who are the parents of legal residents,” wrote Rhodan. “Status: stalled. A judge issued an injunction on the order while most Republican-led states challenge it in court.”
Rhodan goes on to directly compare this order to Harry Truman’s 1948 order to end racial segregation in the military and Lincoln’s move to abolish slavery.
“In direct defiance of the Confederate States, President Lincoln issued an order on Jan 1, 1863, that emancipated slaves in the rebel territories and allowed blacks to serve alongside Union forces. Status: successful. The move served as a prequel to eventual abolishment of slavery in the U.S.,” Rhodan wrote.
See, this is the liberal media at their most dangerous. Rhodan doesn’t directly claim that opponents of Obama’s amnesty are the descendants of those who supported segregation and slavery. She doesn’t have to. That would be too obvious. Instead, she presents this as an objective look back through history. And hey, if readers happen to draw the conclusion that Obama, like Lincoln and Truman, is on the right side of history, that’s not Time’s fault. They’re just reporting the facts.
It’s relatively rare to see the kind of abject bias that we saw in that disgraceful CNBC Republican debate a few months back. Liberals know that they have to at least paint over their political beliefs with a veneer of objectivity, even if it’s only a light coat. They have to retain plausible deniability. Viewers and readers can only be influenced when they believe they are able to make up their own minds. Thus, the media omits a fact here, interviews the right person there, misstates the “wrong” side of the argument, and leaves the audience thinking that they’ve heard the whole story.
Granted, the average Time Magazine subscriber is likely inclined to see Obama as the heir to Lincoln anyway, so maybe it’s a wash. But it wouldn’t have been surprising to see this kind of comparison on CBS, CNN, or any other liberal network or newspaper. The scary thing is realizing that millions of Americans could hear these comparisons, nod sagely, and say, “Yeah, that’s probably right. Gee, I don’t want to go down in history with all the racists of yesteryear. I’d better support amnesty just to be on the safe side.”