A key problem with this debate is that the NYT knowingly and deliberately prints falsehoods on numerous facets of politics in which it has taken an editorial position.<p>A key example is their reference to this story, as if it supports the editorial case:
<a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nytimes.com&#x2F;2015&#x2F;12&#x2F;04&#x2F;opinion&#x2F;tough-talk-and-a-cowardly-vote-on-terrorism.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nytimes.com&#x2F;2015&#x2F;12&#x2F;04&#x2F;opinion&#x2F;tough-talk-and-a-c...</a><p>With the accompanying quote: &quot;on Thursday every Senate Republican except Mark Kirk of Illinois voted against legislation to prevent people on the F.B.I.’s consolidated terrorist watchlist from purchasing guns or explosives.&quot;<p>Well, the problem with this claim is that the amendment didn&#x27;t fail because of anything to do with terrorism -- it&#x27;s because that amendment would have <i>overridden the language regarding the repeal of elements of Obamacare.</i><p>Here&#x27;s the proposed language it is looking to overlay:
<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.congress.gov&#x2F;congressional-record&#x2F;2015&#x2F;12&#x2F;01&#x2F;senate-section&#x2F;article&#x2F;S8245-2" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.congress.gov&#x2F;congressional-record&#x2F;2015&#x2F;12&#x2F;01&#x2F;sen...</a>
(the Obamacare component repeal)<p>Now, here&#x27;s the Feinstein amendment (scroll down to &quot;SA 2910&quot; portion, read it only):
<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.congress.gov&#x2F;amendment&#x2F;114th-congress&#x2F;senate-amendment&#x2F;2910&#x2F;text" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.congress.gov&#x2F;amendment&#x2F;114th-congress&#x2F;senate-ame...</a><p>Now, if you look at the amendment in a vacuum, it looks sorta like what it claims (but it looks odd, to the experienced eye, because there is no mention of a specific criteria for &quot;terrorist&quot; or refer to the FBI watchlist by its proper statute name).  So it wouldn&#x27;t have any effect on its own, being unenforceable vague.<p>But that&#x27;s not the point.<p>Now, note carefully how the legislation starts:
<i>&quot;In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted, insert the following:&quot;</i><p>See THAT: In LIEU OF the matter (&quot;the matter&quot; being ALL of SA 2874, the Obamacare repeal).<p>The parent bill is H.R.3762 - Restoring Americans&#x27; Healthcare Freedom Reconciliation Act of 2015, which had NOTHING to do with terrorism, or guns.  That&#x27;s the first clue right there.<p>Congressional Democrats have used this tactic (overwriting legislation they oppose with <i>unrelated</i> content that sounds obviously beneficial in order to trick the media into carrying water for their politicking) clear back to the Tom Foley days, if not Tip O&#x27;Neill or beyond.<p>The ignorant media consumers have been duped, successfully, because few bother to look at the bills...<p>...which, in this case, took me all of about 8-10 clicks in total.