Airlines Are Hiring Mechanics Who Can’t Speak English Or Even Read The Maintenance Manuals

If you’ve never had a fear of flying before, you ought to consider developing one now. Here we have yet another impact of illegal immigration, not only on our economy, but on the safety of travelers who fly our major airlines.

From Fox News:

Aircraft repair requires even experienced mechanics to frequently consult manuals that are written in English and leave a detailed record of what repairs they have made, according to WFAA-TV.

Still, hundreds of mechanics working in the more than 236 FAA-certified aircraft repair stations in Texas were not familiar enough with the English language to even read the manuals that coincide with the kinds of planes they were expected to fix, WFAA reported.

“There are people [where I work] who do not know how to read maintenance manuals as they are spelled out, because they don’t have a clue,” one Texas aircraft mechanic told the station.

But hiring a certified mechanic in Texas costs upwards of $25 an hour, compared to the less than $10 technicians who can’t speak English will do the work for.

So, allowing illegals to come in and depress the wages of legitimate American mechanics is more important than the safety of airline passengers?

One thing you can be sure of. The next airline crash that occurs here in the U.S. is going to be followed by lawsuits from victims families demanding to know if the plane had been serviced by illegals who couldn’t speak English.

You can access the Fox news story on-line here:

Report: Airlines Are Hiring Mechanics Who Can’t Speak English, Read Manuals
Fox News
May 19, 2009

You can access the WFAA report on-line here:

News 8 Investigates: Airline Mechanics Who Can’t Read English (Video Included)
Byron Harris
WFAA Dallas/Ft. Worth
May 16, 2009

New York Times Kills Story Detailing Obama/ACORN Relationship And Violation Of Campaign Finance Laws

Now, you know that if this had happened to a Conservative Republican, the NYT would have run it as front page news for two weeks. But because Obama is a leftist socialist, the NYT spiked it.

Back in 2008, the Obama campaign conspired with the voter-fraud group ACORN to violate campaign finance laws. When the NYT learned of the story, they immediately buried it.

Powerline Blog has a very comprehensive report:

Times reporter Stephanie Strom was looking into ACORN, and she had a source, a former ACORN employee named Anita Moncrief. Moncrief told Strom that she had evidence of “constant contact” between ACORN’s Project Vote and both the Obama and Clinton campaigns:

On Sept. 7, Moncrief wrote to Strom that she had donor lists from the campaigns of Obama and Hillary Clinton and that there had been “constant contact” between the campaigns and Project Vote, an Acorn affiliate whose tax-exempt status forbids it to engage in partisan politics. Moncrief said she had withheld that information earlier but was disclosing it now that the conservative columnist Michelle Malkin was “all over it.”

“I am sorry,” she wrote, “but I believe in Obama and did not want to help the Republicans.”

A key part of Moncrief’s story was that the Obama campaign had furnished ACORN with lists of maxed-out donors so that ACORN could mine them for contributions. In fact, Moncrief provided the Times reporter, Strom, with such a list that ACORN allegedly obtained from the Obama campaign. Hoyt does not dispute that this story, if true, was evidence of violation of the campaign finance laws.

Now, you would think that a news outlet that claims to be the “watchdog of government” would have been all over this story and reporting it to the people. Not the NYT. They immediately began to cover it up in an effort to help Barack Obama get away with breaking the law during his run for the presidency.

New York Times Public Editor Clark Hoyt had been “investigating” the whole situation, but what he was looking at seemed to be completely different from what everyone else was seeing.

More:

The story became public because a Republican lawyer named Heather Heidelbaugh testified, apparently based on information she got from Anita Moncrief, that the Times had been working on an Obama-ACORN story but that “Ms. Strom reported to Ms. Moncrief that her editors at The New York Times wanted her to kill the story because, and I quote, ‘it was a game-changer.’” Hoyt undertakes to show that this charge was false.

He admits, though, that Strom’s editor, Suzanne Daley, “called a halt to Strom’s pursuit of the Obama angle.” So the Times did kill the investigation and any further reporting. The only question is why. Hoyt uncritically accepts Daley’s explanation:

“We had worked on that story for a while and had come up empty-handed,” Daley said. “You have to cut bait after a while.” She said she never thought of the story as a game-changer and never used that term with Strom.

But wait! Hoyt also relates that shortly before Daley pulled the plug, “Moncrief finally agreed to go on the record” and Strom had scheduled a meeting with her. It was when she called Moncrief to cancel the meeting that Strom allegedly told her that her bosses had killed the investigation to protect Obama. Obviously, if Strom was about to hit pay-dirt with an on-the-record witness, Daley’s assertion that she killed the story because Strom “had come up empty-handed” is false.

As I’ve said before. Only the most naive and gullible would believe that leftist news outlets like the NYT are fair and objective.

You can access the complete story on-line here:

Killing A Story: How It’s Done
Power Line
May 17, 2009

You can read about Anita Moncrief’s involvement on-line here:

Fired ACORN Affiliate Staffer Links Donor List To Obama
Brad Bumsted
Pittsburgh Tribune-Review
October 30, 2008

You can also watch a good video about this story over at Hot Air:

O’Reilly: How The NYT Buried An Obama/ACORN Expose Just Before The Election
Hot Air
May 18, 2009

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.