Image: Washington Post Ad Media Kit.

On “pooling sovereignty”, blacklists and far-left open borders newspapers…

The Washington Post editors may want to consider “pooling” journalistic integrity in order to find a measurable amount – or how proud am I to be banned from the Washington Post editorial page?
————————————

*Update, January 18, 2021: I didn’t know it at the time, but CIS Director and National Review writer Mark Krikorian also took note of the original WaPo OPED described here and then posted a note about me being blacklisted and this post on NRO.

___________

“As you know, I liked the letter, but an editor here said that The Post will not print letters from your group.” – A June 6, 2008 e-mail response to a question from me to Tom Rowe, a copy editor in the letters to the editor department at the Washington Post.

My question was “did my letter get in pls sir”?

As someone who studies – and is active in trying to stop – the illegal immigration and illegal employment crisis created by the Bush administration’s refusal to secure American borders – war on terror be damned – I wish I could say that I am surprised that the Washington Post, one of the more aggressive proponents of open borders keeps a “no publish” blacklist for its letters to the editor.

My only surprise comes from the admission and confirmation from an editor inside the newspaper that the suspected censorship is reality.

I take it as a personal point of pride and endorsement to learn that I am on their blacklist.

My June 3, 2008 letter to the Washington Post editor was in response to a Sunday Op-Ed titled “The Orthodoxy of Hope” by Jim Hoagland, in which he outlines some of his ideas for a President Obama and what he describes as “new thinking” that “is desperately needed in U.S. foreign policy”.

Here is the part of Hoagland’s Op-Ed that caused this long time American to dash off a letter to the Washington Post:

“…Here’s one example of new thinking he should pursue: The United States should apply to relations with hemispheric neighbors many of the lessons of the European Union and its half-century of economic and political integration. A functioning American Union that pools sovereignty is a goal worth introducing now. But that quest cannot start by tearing down the North American Free Trade Agreement and other hemispheric trade accords. A President Obama has to be willing to sit down with the prime minister of Canada and the president of Mexico without preconditions, such as demands for treaty renegotiations….”

Because I study the motivation behind the refusal to secure American borders, I have heard the American Union, political and economic “integration”, free flow of people concept many times before. But the smarmy, spineless and dare I say it…Orwellian Newspeak involved in Hoagland’s term “pooling sovereignty” may have set the benchmark for cowardice in advocating – while not admitting – the open borders agenda shared by so many of the new American “elite”.

My letter below, one that Rowe told me in a phone call that he “liked” and would “try to get in” the Post’s Saturday’s “Free for All” page:

Dear editor,

In his June 1 column, Jim Hoagland writes about forming an “American Union that pools sovereignty”.

“Pooling sovereignty” is merely a transparent way of saying that we should sacrifice ours in order to form a more profitable market- place that happens to be located in the middle of North America and was once a proud, independent nation of laws with defended, defined borders and a common language.

The majority of Americans will oppose this long held nation busting agenda of the elite.

However “déclassé” of us.

Hoagland and the rest of the open borders crowd must be hoping that we will not realize that with the present convoluted interpretation of the 14th amendment to the US constitution (remember that?), we would make American citizens of much of the hemisphere in but one generation. We would soon all merely be “citizens of the continent” and no doubt pledge allegiance to the commerce for which it stands.

Ben Franklin’s challenge in his answer when asked what government was created by the Constitutional Convention of 1787 was ” a Republic …if you can keep it”.

He must have seen Hoagland & Co. coming.

Not on my watch Mr. Hoagland.

D.A. King
Marietta, Ga.

For those who haven’t sent a letter to the Post and had it catch the eye of an editor for publication, this is what is sent back from the Post in response:

The Post is considering publishing your letter on the June 7 Free For All
page. I need to know the following information:

* Did you write the letter yourself and under your own name?

* Did you send the letter to any other publications or post it on a blog?

* Do you have any connection to the subject matter, such as a political
connection or employment in goverment?

RSVP.

Tom Rowe
Editorial
202-334-****

My email reply was quick and clear, “YES”, “NO” and to the last question, I made it clear that I am president of the Dustin Inman Society, which is opposed to open borders – I even included a link to the “Who was Dustin Inman” page on our Website.

I later called Mr. Rowe and had a 4-5 minute conversation again making it clear that I in no way work for any branch of any government and that I do have an education on and interest in border security and the crime of illegal immigration. Rowe began a conversation about Dustin Inman’s chances of being killed by “anyone” and we talked about how many cases I have knowledge of concerning Americans losing their lives to illegal immigration.

I told him that because many reporters shield their readers from the immigration status of perpetrators in news stories, it was difficult to illustrate or verify my educated estimate that since the horror of 9/11, more Americans have been killed by people with no legal right to be in the U.S. than were killed on 9/11.

I could hear the doubt in his voice, but we had a polite, honest, business-like conversation which ended with him telling me that, while he could not promise publication, if my letter was going in, the next day he would send me the final letter for Saturday publication – I assumed he meant with a typo correction I had sent after the original letter.

When I didn’t hear from Rowe I sent my e-mail asking about its status.

Let me write it again: The Washington Post has an agenda of open borders and amnesty-again and has a blacklist that is aimed at keeping silent educated voices who do not share their far-left doctrine.

I wonder when the last time those folks read this?

Eugene Meyer’s Principles for The Washington Post

Eugene Meyer had a vision of what makes a newspaper truly great, and that vision included serving the public according to seven principles. He offered them in a speech on March 5, 1935 and published them on his newspaper’s front page.

The first mission of a newspaper is to tell the truth as nearly as the truth can be ascertained.

The newspaper shall tell ALL the truth so far as it can learn it, concerning the important affairs of America and the world.

As a disseminator of news, the paper shall observe the decencies that are obligatory upon a private gentleman.

What it prints shall be fit reading for the young as well as the old.

The newspaper’s duty is to its readers and to the public at large, and not to the private interests of its owners.
In the pursuit of truth, the newspaper shall be prepared to make sacrifices of its material fortunes, if such a course be necessary for the public good.

The newspaper shall not be the ally of any special interest, but shall be fair and free and wholesome in its outlook on public affairs and public men.

Memo to the editors at the Washington Post: Yuck.

( I also wonder if MALDEF and La Raza are on the Post’s blacklist?) Just kidding. Of course they aren’t.

DIS Mission Statement HERE