As with the Axis news media’s refusal to investigate or admit that Joe Biden was Demented POTUS Walking (sort of) while he was winning the Worst President Ever competition, as with the Hunter Biden laptop cover-up, as with so much that it was complicit in distorting or hiding from the American public during the past 5 (6…7…8….9…) years in alliance with America’s proto-totalitarians, the New York Times was either deliberately or negligently asleep a at the metaphorical switch as Biden’s Administration opened the floodgates at our southern border. (Yikes! What a long sentence!)

My eyeballs almost fell out onto the keyboard as I read the headline, “4 Takeaways From The Times’s Reporting on Biden’s Immigration Record: A New York Times review of President Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s actions on immigration showed that they created an opening for a more aggressive Trump administration agenda.” NOW the Times is looking at the issue? What about when such analysis might have stopped the disastrous wave of illegals, many of them criminals or criminally oriented? Moreover, even as it purports to do its job too late to do any good, the Times language still betrays its bias and dishonesty.

This was an illegal immigration crisis created by the Democrats, not “actions on immigration.” And, as usual, the emphasis is on the Republican response to the Times’s favorite party’s misconduct, blurring the real issue. The problem with Biden’s indefensible failure to enforce our immigration laws and keep the border secure is that it allowed millions of unvetted, dangerous, illegal foreigners into the U.S. to the detriment of Americans, making it expensive, burdensome and divisive to kick them out, and not that the dereliction of duty “created an opening” for Trump.

Aren’t you sick of this? I’m sick of it. I’m so sick of it that for the second time in a few days I’m going to invoke Instapundit’s bitter motto about our destructive, democracy-rotting journalists (especially after an esteemed commenter insisted that it is undeserved, because I’m in that kind of a mood): “No matter how much you hate these people, it isn’t enough!”

[OK, that’s three overly long sentences already. I promise: I’ll stay under 50 words for the rest.]

The Ethics Alarms “takeaway” from the Times’s four takeaways is that the “paper of record” was complicit in the illegal immigration invasion, and that accountability is essential. (See, only 25…)

Here’s my favorite quote from the article:

“But top aides to Mr. Biden worried that doing so would alienate Latino and progressive voters, former administration officials said.”

“So” refers to “enforcing the law,” one of the core duties of elected government officials and implicitly required by fealty to the Presidential Oath of Office. Does this sound familiar? It echoes the explanation for why Minnesota governor Tim “Knucklehead” Walz apparently decided that stopping members of the Somali community from stealing a billion or so dollars of human services funds was a bad idea. A core Democratic voting bloc wouldn’t, you know, like having the law enforced.

The four takeaways hardly required heavy thought by the Times, so one wonders (not really) why this article took so long to publish:

“Before Mr. Biden took office, advisers warned that his approach could lead to “chaos” at the border.” 

Huh! Deciding to virtually invite “migrants” to cross the border illegally by making it clear that there would be little enforcement, unlike the outgoing Trump administration, would lead to hoards of illegal crossings, unaccompanied children, and other predictable chaos! Who could have predicted that?

“The Biden team misread the politics of immigration.”

How? Oh, right, silly me: because the media allies of the “team” were pledged to deceive the public about what was happening, why it was wrong, and its certain consequences.

“The White House rejected pleas to help Democratic cities cope with migrants.”

Uh, the words you’re looking for there, Timesy ol’ chum, is “illegal immigrants,” but that aside…Here’s another favorite quote: “Only in the second half of his administration, after Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas began sending large numbers of migrants to cities like Washington, New York and Denver, did Mr. Biden begin trying aggressive new policies to address the problem, culminating in his decision last year to close the border.” “Aggressive new policies”…like enforcing the law.

“Mr. Biden kept waiting for Congress to act — a strategy that failed.”

That wasn’t a strategy, it was a dodge, as President Trump proved immediately upon taking office. The nation didn’t need any authorization from Congress to enforce existing laws.

The infuriating article concludes: “After the Senate talks failed, Mr. Biden used his authority to close the border without Congress. His efforts succeeded at reducing border crossings. But with just five months left before the election, his actions came too late to change voters’ minds about Democrats being the party of open borders.”

Yes, because that’s what the Democratic Party was, and still is.