Gerard Jackson
BrookesNews.Com
Monday 19 April 2004

Some readers think I've been too harsh on our heroic journalists, particularly Roy Eccleston. Furthermore, they suggest that perhaps I've been criticizing "their occasional lapses rather than a pattern of deliberate deceit". If only that were so. Let me draw attention to the case of Linda Chavez and the treatment that Eccleston and his leftwing media ilk dished out to her.

I had bet myself that as soon as Democratic goons dug up 'dirt' on a Bush appointee some Australian journalists — probably from Rupert Murdoch's stable — would leap in with the tar and feathers. Sure enough, the slimy Roy Eccleston, who had replaced the equally slimy Cameron Forbes, was one of the first to regurgitate Democrats' lies (Bush labour nominee forced to go and Chavez falls on sword but boss left to bleed, Rupert Murdoch’s Australian 11 January 2001)

In his first report, if you can call it that, Eccleston claimed that it is illegal to harbour immigrants and pay them without paying taxes. That Linda Chavez did not employ Marta Mercado in any capacity is a fact that Eccleston thought fit not to report.

He did report, however, that it was the ABC who reported that the FBI had investigated the housing of Mercado. What he didn't say is that it was a democratic set up and that the ABC, through George Stephanopolous, was involved.

In his second 'news item' Eccleston repeated the charge that it is illegal to harbour illegal immigrants. That the Democrats had put non-citizens on the voting rolls was another of those embarrassing facts he chose to ignore.

(The situation was even worse than simple electoral fraud. David Schippers , a Democrat and former Chicago prosecutor, revealed how Gore and Clinton had corrupted the INS and used it to turn the Citizenship USA program into "a pro-Democrat voter mill" [The Inside Story of President Clinton's Impeachment]. None of this was ever reported by the Australian media).

Despite Eccleston's claims about illegal immigrants, therefore insinuating that Chavez was a felon, federal immigration regulations actually exempt housekeepers who only provide "sporadic, irregular, and intermittent service."

Moreover, Paul Virtue, who was once general counsel for the INS, stated that it was not a crime to have an illegal immigrant living in one's home. Notwithstanding these facts, Eccleston still wrote as if Chavez had committed a criminal offence. (In the leftwing eyes of Eccleston being a conservative seems to be a crime in itself).

Continuing to toe the Democrats' line to the last millimetre Eccleston compared Chavez's charitable actions to Zoe Baird's illegal activities. Baird knowingly hired an illegal immigrant and deliberately evaded paying Social Security taxes. Chavez did nothing of the kind. In fact, Chavez already had housekeepers and had no need for another, something else he neglected to mention.

Another fact he chose to ignore is that Democratic Senator Joseph Biden defended Baird, calling her actions "insignificant lawbreaking". This is the same creep who went after Chavez. That Clinton nominees Ron Brown, Federico Pena and Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer also had similar problems to Baird was not reported by Eccleston. But then they are also Democrats.

Warming to his theme Eccleston called Chavez a "hypocrite" and stated that Chavez's neighbour had told the FBI that Chavez had tried to persuade her to deceive them about Mercado. That this neighbour, Margaret Zwisler, is a committed a Democrat who was associated with the Clinton spin team (or is it hit team?) was something that Eccleston did not consider worthy to report, along with the fact that Chavez called Zwisler a liar, a charge that Zwisler made no attempt to refute.

Furthermore, while Chavez and Mercado willingly discussed in public their relations, Zwisler avoided all questions by hiding behind her lawyer, one Neil Eggleston who is also a Clinton associate. (If you believe all of this is pure chance, you still believe in the tooth fairy).

Mark Riley is another Australian creep who toed the Democratic line on Chavez, insinuating that she had committed an offense by hiring Mercado, even though all the evidence shows that Mercado was a houseguest and not an employee (Clinton defers, and savors, the pleasure of revenge, The Age 11 January 2001.

Nevertheless, Riley had the decency to expose the link between Eggleston and Clinton though he still ignored Chavez's charge that Zwisler is a liar. Also ignored by Riley was Zwisler's commitment to the Democratic Party. What does emerge, however, is that Zwisler helped Clinton's hit team set up Chavez. So what does that make Zwisler?

Needless to say, Riley neglected to mention the spite, vindictiveness and utter hypocrisy of the Democrats. I mean to say, every leftwing journalists has his limits, isn't that so, Riley?

Now for some praise: Although Peter Hartcher's article (Chavez forced to fall on her sword, The Australian Financial Review 11/1/) left much to be desired (he called Chavez provocative for opposing racial quota's and job-destroying minimum wages) he was still the only one to point out that her mistake "was to be too compassionate."

Not one of the other two leftwing creeps had the common decency to make the slightest reference to her good works and her reputation for compassion and understanding. What a pair of leftwing hypocritical bastards.

Gerard Jackson is Brookes' economics editor