The AP fact-checks its own ass
How’s this for sophistry?
The AP’s Erica Werner begins her supposed fact-checking of the issue of whether Rep. Joe Wilson was right in calling Obama a liar last night with the unequivocal sentence: “Rep. Joe Wilson is wrong.”
But after a paragraph in support of Obama, in which Werner notes that there is language in the health care reform bill that explicitly prohibits illegals from receiving federal monies to purchase health care, she adds the following paragraph that indicates that Joe Wilson was in fact right:
For [Wilson] and other Republicans, the problem is not what’s in the bill, it’s what the bill leaves out. There’s no provision for how the prohibition would be enforced, or any requirement for people to prove they are citizens or legal residents before getting health care benefits. In fact, Democrats on the Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means committees defeated Republican-offered amendments that would have required people to verify their legal status before getting care, with some Democrats saying such requirements would be unnecessarily burdensome for people legally entitled to coverage. Wilson cited the defeat of those two amendments Thursday when he discussed his outburst with reporters.
So tell me again, Ms. Werner, just what is it that Joe Wilson is “wrong” about?
But there’s even more to find fault with in her article. Just take a look at the paragraph that purports to give the reasons Joe Wilson is wrong and Obama is right [I’ve put the AP quotes in bold; my comments follow]:
The House version of the health care bill explicitly prohibits spending any federal money to help illegal immigrants get health care coverage.
As stated before, the bill can’t actually prohibit this if there’s no enforcement. In this case, the means of enforcement proposed by Republicans has been purposely removed from the bill by Democrats.
Illegal immigrants could buy private health insurance, as many do now,
No one is proposing any change in this, Democrat or Republican, so this statement is fine.
…and they could also buy into a new government-run insurance plan if Congress creates one.
Obama claims this plan will be deficit-neutral and self-supporting. But very few people believe this is possible; it is certainly highly unlikely. Our tax dollars—and, for example, the penalties that will be paid by those who choose not to buy insurance (penalties Obama alluded to in his speech)—will in all likelihood be subsidizing any such plan. If this occurs, illegals will undoubtedly be able to buy into such a plan, which is presumed to feature lower rates than private insurance can offer (that’s the whole point, isn’t it?) Therefore, anyone on the public plan (including illegals) would be subsidized by others, through funds collected and disbursed by the federal government. Sounds like “federal money” to me. And since Obama also said in his speech that, “[A]n additional step we can take to keep insurance companies honest is by making a not-for-profit public option available in the insurance exchange,” it sure sounds as though he’s advocating just that.
But unlike legal residents, they wouldn’t get federal subsidies to help them. The bill’s exact language: “Nothing in this subtitle shall allow federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully in the United States.”
Nope, nothing will allow these payments. But I will repeat at the risk of redundancy that if there is no method of enforcement of the rule than it’s a meaningless one—in fact, it’s a lie embedded within the bill itself.
Health care legislation in the Senate is also being crafted to exclude illegal immigrants from coverage.
“Being crafted?” That’s not a bill in its present form. Obama is supposed to be talking about the bill as is, not as someone thinks it might be some day.
[NOTE: There’s a bit of a tempest-in-a-teapot aspect to the whole argument, by the way, because we all are currently paying for the health care of illegal immigrants through our subsidies of emergency room visits of the uninsured. I don’t know that there’s any great remedy for this; I’m not advocating that these people (or especially their children) be turned away. But although technically these are not federal monies, we are all paying for the health care of illegal immigrants now, and will continue to pay for them in the future. What’s more, my guess is that one of the next items on Obama’s agenda will be some sort of amnesty bill to make these illegals legal and thus render the whole argument moot. That would be rather clever, wouldn’t it?]
[ADDENDUM: Commenter “huxley” points out that in this article the AP actually does a fairly good job of fact-checking at least some of the misrepresentations Obama made in last night’s speech. Regarding the illegal aliens controversy discussed in this post, however, it repeats the “on the one hand on the other hand” points in Werner’s article, and is similar in beginning its discussion of that issue with the misleading statement, “The facts back up Obama.”]
[ADDENDUM II: Get the T-shirt here.]
[ADDENDUM III: And how did such a fair guy as this get a gig writing for CBS? It’s heartwarming.]
It appears to be all about the headline. Here is how it reads on Yahoo News:
“Health coverage for illegal immigrants? Wilson in wrong.”
They are probably betting few people will look further than that.
Why does anyone believe anything our bloated govt proclaims to “make better”? I not only don’t want to hear these beauracrats proposals anymore. I want zero legislation affecting my life coming out of such an incompetent bunch of fools.
and think of what an amnesty play would do to the voting next term if it succeeded before then
It’s the way Washington does a lot of things: by misdirection. You don’t put specific language in the legislation that would frighten or anger the public, you simply include provisions in the bill that will insure that whatever you want to happen is certain of achievement, albeit indirectly. It’s also a nice touch if you can ascribe, falsely of course, ostensibly benign or even noble purposes to the bogus provisions.
A perfect example is affirmative action. Look for the word, “quota,” in the various laws regarding affirmative action and you will see it only in the context of cautioning against or denying its legitimacy(“be it known that this law is not intended to set up quotas, etc,”), yet quotas are what we have.
NEO, NEO ,NEO- you are going to alienate the Latino vote. Specifically those whose anscestors have been here longer than my family, which is at least a couple of centuries, yet still have parents, cousins and siblings in Mexico.
A century and a half is a long time to wait to be reunited with your close brother who just happened to be on the other side of the river when the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was signed in 1848.
and think of what an amnesty play would do to the voting next term if it succeeded before then
I don’t think a new immigration bill will be passed or even seriously proposed, although some pundits on the Right(Kristol, for one) predict hearings will be held on the subject just before the mid-term elections.
What the Democrats want to do is hold hearings on the subject of immigration. However, they do NOT actually want to vote on any legislation. I believe there are 3 reasons for this:
Hearings generate examples of Republicans and others on the Right saying things that turn off Latino voters. That’s good for the Democrats.
Legislation generates specifics within the legislation that the Republicans can use against the Democrats. That’s bad for the Democrats.
Actually passing immigration legislation could resolve the controversy and the Democrats would lose a cash cow. You don’t kill the goose that lays golden eggs.
We see echoes of this dynamic with the healthcare issue. If healthcare reform is kept a nebulous, formless, unspecific issue — as it was by Obama in his campaign — a lot of folks will go for it.
But when specifics begin to float up to the surface as actual proposals begin circulating in the halls of Congress, uh-oh!
I’ll note without comment that one Dem required ID to attend his town hall meetings, but doesn’t feel that showing ID is necessary to vote.
And probably not necessary to receive health care…
The subsections in HR3200 that prohibit subsidies for illegals or no coverage of abortion without any enforcement plans are typical of Federal legislation.
It opens the way for (gasp) fraud. Yet the legislators or president can say with a straight face, “It’s against the law to provide healthcare subsidies to illegal aliens.” And that was what President Obama was doing last night. Yep, it’s against the law. The inconvenient fact is that the law is not enforced.
I wonder how many things in Medicare and Medicaid are that way? Is there really enough waste and fraud there to pay for reform? Well, why not just undertake that reform for now? Show us the money and maybe we might trust them to get insurance reform right.
Obama’s aunt is an illegal alien living in government housing. Is that technically illegal but not enforced?
Dear Neo,
On Neal Cavauto’s Fox Business show, Judge Napolotano states that if we have universal health care coverage, we can’t constitutionally not give it to anyone in this country which would naturally include illegal aliens. It is a mute point whether this specific legislation has it or not. Why would illegals buy insurance when even now they just go to the emergency department and are treated. He used the example of Brown vs Board of education that requires us to educate illegals – all children regardless
Healthcare will be a “right” for all.
I’ve never had to bring my passport or birth certificate with me to the doctor’s office.
I understand that in this circle here that is a problem. You think that people should be required to prove citizenship before they are provided health care. You regret that a bill requiring that did not pass.
I guess the inconvenience of this requirement for all citizens will be outweighed by the relief you will gain from the anxiety you feel when you contemplate that a sick or injured immigrant might be given medical attention.
There is an additional problem to your approach that hospitals treat illegal immigrants who come to the emergency room. That’s the culture of the Hippocratic oath. We are going to to pay for that care one way or another. Everyone seems to agree that we won’t pay it explicitly, so we have to pretend that this care doesn’t cost us anything. Perhaps you could look into outlawing the Hippocratic oath as well for a comprehensive solution.
Another problem will be to consider if you were injured while you weren’t carrying your passport or birth certificate. Should doctors delay your medical care until such verification can be retrieved? Perhaps we should pass a law so that medical care is provided if you “look American” but if you don’t “look American” we’ll take you out with the rest of the trash.
I wonder if Miss Dicey houses at least under privledged illegal immigrants in her house? If not, why not? Just because they don’t look like your family or offspring? And who exactly is stopping you from showing the world just how superiorly moral you are?
Hypocrite.
miss disey,
Under the current system, illegal immigrants already use the emergency room as their *doctor*.
Once inside, the hospital is required by law to provide treatment. They cannot turn anyone away, and the illegals know it and take advantage of that fact.
Once treated, they can leave, and since they have no qualms about using false or stolen identities, how is the hospital going to catch up to them later for payment?
It ain’t happening.
The hospital has to pass that cost onto the legitimate citizens who use the same facility, driving up the cost for everyone as the illegals skip out on their financial obligations.
I don’t believe, however, that you have heard anyone here argue that if someone shows up in the ER that they should not receive treatment.
What I don’t want to see is this fraudulent activity taking place in the private practice sphere be expanded into a vast unaccountable government program that dwarfs the current costs being shouldered by the citizen.
Those additional costs will come in the form of taxes, and will be far more than what the citizen is paying now for the private sphere to handle.
I consider it to be the lesser of two evils….
A century and a half is a long time to wait to be reunited with your close brother who just happened to be on the other side of the river when the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was signed in 1848.
what the heck are you talking about? this is the US not the damned east germany. have the people in the US go over the border and visit. why wait for globalizm to erase all borders if the problem is s big?
sheesh
Joe the Plumber
Joe Wilson
There must be something about the name Joe.
In any case, regarding immigration. It just so happens that I am of Latin background (the “J” in J.L. stands not for Joe but for Jorge). But I want the border closed and the immigration laws tightly enforced. As the child of immigrants, I sympathize with people seeking a better life, but immigration has to be done in an organized manner, with a sense of what is good for this country.
It is not a good idea to import an entire alien underclass, especially one which, due to its sheer numbers, would not be inclined to go through the “melting pot” process of becoming dutiful Americans. The “melting pot” means learning and developing a capacity to interact in the language and with the customs of this country, developing feelings of loyalty to this country, with obtaining the ingrained sense of individual personal responsibility which is necessary to succeed in this country. If youv’e got an entire subculture of people who are self-sustaining and have no need to assimilate, they become a permanent underclass, with harmful effects to the overall cultural cohesivenss and stability of the society they are in.
I understand that in this circle here that is a problem. You think that people should be required to prove citizenship before they are provided health care. You regret that a bill requiring that did not pass.
no… not at all… you miss out entirely what people who love freedom are all about. and that is NOT being beholden to someone that stole your money and bribed you with it.
what it is, is we realize that such a bill will HAVE to lead to the internal passports that marcus wolfe and another man worked on for the US. another similarity to the history of the past which we deny.
so what we dont like is that one thing can leverage another thing after the first thing has been put in and they describe this as the only way to plug up all the leaks… (forgetting that not building the dam in the first place would have not necessitated plugging leaks).
since our leaders and friends are a certain type of socialist its easy to tell what they are going to do next. of course, knowing that and saying it doesnt mean anything but luck no matter how much you guess correct. right?
An internal passport is an identity document that can be compared to identity card used in some countries to control the internal movement and residence of people. Countries that currently have internal passports include Russia, Ukraine, China and North Korea.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
In the past, internal passports were used by Imperial Russia, the Confederate States of America, the Soviet Union, the Ottoman Empire and during the apartheid era in South Africa.
they facilitate a whole lof of their agenda and the chess pieces are all arrayed for that end.
you can tell what people eat and if they are going to be overweight and so you can use the passports to control eating. if the economy tanks you can use them to control what people have access to, like the different books they used in soviet russia.
you can tell who gets health care, who doesnt. you can restrict travel under carbon usage and lack of a good enough reason (entertainment will not be a good enough reason to destroy the earth).
Internal passports were used in the Soviet Union for identification of persons for various purposes. In particular, passports were used to control and monitor the place of residence by means of propiska, a regulation in the Soviet Union designed to control internal population movement by binding a person to his or her permanent place of residence. Officially, propiska was introduced for statistical reasons: since in the planned economy of the Soviet Union the distribution of goods and services was centralized, the overall distribution of population was to be monitored. For example, a valid propiska was necessary to receive higher education or medical treatment (though not limited to the location registered – in fact, besides marriage to a resident of another area, university education was the other most popular way of circumventing one’s propiska and residing elsewhere). Also, since there was no private ownership of real estate, having a propiska for an address meant that you had the right to live there.
All residents were required by law to record their address on the document, and to report any changes to a local office of the Ministry of Internal Affairs (e.g., by the age of 45, a person has to have three photographs of themselves in the passport due to the effects of aging, taken at the age of 16 (when it is issued), 25 and 45). In Ukraine, these laws were struck down by its Constitutional Court in 2001 on the grounds of unconstitutionality. In Russia, similar cases have so far failed, and the system remains in place, although largely reduced. The system of internal passport registration remains strongly in place in Moscow, which uses the recent terrorist attacks on that city as a justification for their continued use.
and to cover marcus wolfe for you.
first who he is (or rather was, he is now dead):
Markus Johannes “Mischa” Wolf (19 January 1923 — 9 November 2006) was head of the General Intelligence Administration (Hauptverwaltung Aufklé¤rung), the foreign intelligence division of East Germany’s Ministry for State Security (MfS, commonly known as the Stasi). He was the MfS’s number two for 34 years, which spanned most of the Cold War. He is generally regarded as the best spymaster in the world.
Who hired him (along with Gen. Oleg Kalugin retired KGB), to work on our “internal passports”? actually they didnt refer to them as that (well oleg did and so did primikov). they referred to them as the “real id” or a “national id”. eventually many states opposed this singular national ID system.
but something like health care, and carbon, and other things will create the artificual need to have it. then they tie biometrics, your history, health, and can then make sure you are “taken care of” as befits your station.
How Wolf and the Stasi are being forgotton
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/obituaries/article1086955.ece
As of April 2, 2008, all 50 states have either applied for extensions of the original May 11, 2008 compliance deadline or received unsolicited extensions.[1] With 23 states, as of May 26, 2009, having approved resolutions not to participate in the program and Obama’s selection of Janet Napolitano, a prominent critic of the program, to head the Department of Homeland Security, the future of the law remains uncertain,[2] and bills have been introduced into Congress to amend or repeal it.[3] The most recent of these, dubbed PASS ID, would eliminate many of the more burdensome technological requirements but still require states to meet federal standards in order to have their ID cards accepted by federal agencies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REAL_ID_Act
so they already ahve a law that would create the ID that your mentioning… and like chess pieces they converge on a political point later on.
“There is disagreement about whether the Real ID Act institutes a “national identification card” system.[31] The new law only sets forth national standards, but leaves the issuance of cards and the maintenance of databases in state hands; therefore, the Department of Homeland Security claims it is not a “national ID” system.[32] Web sites such as no2realid.org, unrealid.com, and realnightmare.org argue that this is a trivial distinction, and that the new cards are in fact national ID cards, thanks to the uniform national standards created by the AAMVA and (especially) the linked databases, and by the fact that such identification is mandatory if people wish to travel out of the US.”
Another problem will be to consider if you were injured while you weren’t carrying your passport or birth certificate. Should doctors delay your medical care until such verification can be retrieved?
http://www.verichipcorp.com/.
VeriMed Health Link
Health Link is the connection between you and your personal health record. Health Link utilizes a tiny, passive microchip (the first and only microchip cleared for patient identification by the FDA) and a secure online database that links you to your personal health record.
so you can be identified and tagged under the guise of the need for healthcare.
off topic question:
Anti-abortion activist shot in front of Owosso High School
http://www.mlive.com/news/flint/index.ssf/2009/09/antiabortion_activist_shot_in.html
why isnt this getting the same national crazy coverage as the wingnut that shot someone in the jewish museum? oh, i see… because they are on the left, it will fade… right?
[i dont agree with the person standing out side of a school with those graphic signs… but i even more disagree with shooting said person!]
if one were to collect articles on property damage, fingers bitten off, violence and intimidation at poles, elderly getting assaulted, bombings, shootings, and even the creation of false events that get blamed on the other side (like broken windows, swastikas on doors, nooses, etc) making history.
i will guess that this will not lead to outrage over leftism, but outrage against hand guns. that is the idiot that did this, which they refuse to describe (like the three that put a fireman in a coma past weekend), would be an example of why guns should be illegal…
its much the same as it was in the last century in certain places, but no matter how many parallels, everyone will just be too busy in their nutshells.
search google news and only that one paper covered it.
“We have two murders,” Shiawassee County sheriff George Braidwood said. “We believe they are related and we have a suspect in custody.
Witnesses identified the victim at OHS as long-time abortion protester Jim Pouillon of Owosso. Pouillon was killed.
turns out they went and shot a second.
press conference at 11:30
and why this isnt national?
looks like its crazy day today…
time to change the bill of rights by 2020
In 2004, Sunstein penned a book, “The Second Bill of Rights: FDR’S Unfinished Revolution and Why We Need It More than Ever,” in which he advanced the radical notion that welfare rights, including some controversial inceptions, be granted by the state. His inspiration for a new bill of rights came from President Roosevelt’s 1944 proposal of a different, new set of bill of rights.
its interesting how much his mandates parallel certain planks.
In his book, Sunstein laid out what he wants to become the new bill of rights, which he calls the Second Bill of Rights:
Among his mandates are:
The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
The right of every family to a decent home;
The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
The right to a good education.
welcome to soviet america…
as i said, you can even tell WHICH brand they are copying… they arent even bright enough to come up with their own.
“Nothing in this subtitle shall allow federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully in the United States.”
They should also include the corollary in the bill:
“Nothing in this subtitle would prevent federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully in the United States.”
How about adding these rights to the mandate:
The right to ignore the laws of supply and demand;
The right to ignore the constraints of human nature;
The right to ignore the concept of personal responsibility;
The right to keep someone locked up in your basement as a personal slave to do for you what you won’t do for yourself (of course, you don’t need a basement when you can imprison them through confiscatory taxation);
The right to ignore the fact that we live on a big, crazy, unstable ball of matter in the middle of a violent universe that doesn’t guarantee our very existence, let alone our material well-being;
The right to ignore the fact that to the extent that we have a decent life it is the result of generations of our forebears scratching out an existence in the face of brutal odds and many setbacks and passing on their hard work to us as a precious gift;
And lastly, but not leastly, the right to pretend that money grows on trees and free stuff appears out of thin air like manna from heaven.
The one article I’ve seen so far, which of course may not be accurate, indicated that the terrible, shocking, graphic, gory sign that the activist who was shot was holding consisted of a picture of a baby and the word “Life.” Now, if that isn’t a good reason to shoot somebody, I don’t know what is.
Neo,
I have long advocated for a well controlled guest worker program (like the one Canada has – why are we not adopting that yet want to adopt their health care model which is terrible). If we had something like that where all foreign workers were identified then it would be a very simple step to withhold money from their paychecks to pay for the health care of themselves and their families. In large cities they could have clinics and in more rural areas (and in the case of migrant workers they could have mobile clinics. It would pay for itself.
As other have stated here – illegals use the emergency room as their primary care and know they will not have to pay for it. how many billions does that add to the cost of health care for those who pay for it? No different than the extra we all pay for auto insurance for many illegals who drive without insurance and with phony driver’s licenses.
And Miss Disey – why in the world would you think it would be okay to call a lot of people you don’t even know unfeeling and uncaring. Sad
I’m not full on board with Rep. Joe Wilson because DISRUPTING FREE SPEECH IS NOT FREE SPEECH — this ever was the American democratic tradition. Obama was the speaker and no one had a right to disrupt the proceedings, it was undemocratic.
But to be fully critical, come on, it wasn’t that much of a disruption, it wasn’t like Wilson went on and on and on and on — and if the President was lying (or misrepresenting information) then he should be challenged, so I’m leaning towards Wilson but not completely sure yet.
It is not a good idea to import an entire alien underclass, especially one which, due to its sheer numbers, would not be inclined to go through the “melting pot” process of becoming dutiful Americans.
Hola, Jorge. J.L., as much as it pains me to do so I have to somewhat disagree. When you refer to “underclass,” there’s an implication, perhaps unintentional, of a lower vs. upper class dichotomy. What I’m getting at is this: There’s an opinion that the thing to do is to eliminate the lower classes from south of the border but allow the educated, professional upper classes.
But the problems of the nations south to us from Central on down through the South American continent come largely from the elite. It’s the upper classes down there that run things and have always run things and they have been the problem from the beginning — from Cortez on up to today. The elite down south, as a group, is corrupted beyond redemption, almost beyond belief. Bribery, for instance, is a way of life — La Mordita.
One of the things I did not like about the ditched McCain-sponsored Comprehensive Immigration Bill was that it allowed the elite an easier path to legitimacy. I’ll take the peasants any day over the elite.
The “melting pot” means learning and developing a capacity to interact in the language …
There has never been a requirement for, say, Polish, or Hungarian immigrants to be forced to take language classes, unless at some point after entry they also sought citizenship. I don’t believe the language problem has ever really been a problem and shouldn’t be treated as such.
The first generation speaks Spanish in the home and outside, learning perhaps a few English words and phrases. The second generation speaks Spanish in the home and English outside. The third generation speaks English in the home and outside. The fourth generation doesn’t know any Spanish at all. It’s a problem that is mostly self-repairing.
However, I do want to make it clear that I believe that to become a citizen a functional knowledge of English should be a requirement. I believe in much more stringent requirements for citizenship than for mere residency. What bothers me about some of the debate is that many people confuse the two.
While I’m at it I should probably also add that I think we’ve gotten to the point to where proof of citizenship should be required to vote, even though it would be problematic to figure out a way to do this. Most voter fraud is nipped in the bud by an ID requirement.
… and with the customs of this country,
I agree.
developing feelings of loyalty to this country,
I agree.
with obtaining the ingrained sense of individual personal responsibility which is necessary to succeed in this country.
Sure, but it’s been my experience, admittedly anecdotal, that most illegal immigrants from the South have a “sense of individual personal responsibility” to a high degree. I know for certain that they possess a strong work ethic.
If you’ve got an entire subculture of people who are self-sustaining and have no need to assimilate, they become a permanent underclass, with harmful effects to the overall cultural cohesiveness and stability of the society they are in.
I agree, especially the part about “permanent underclass” in regards to, say, a European-style Muslim underclass. That’s why I believe that welfare should be limited and our laws and regulations should be geared toward encouraging or even forcing recipients to work. The workplace is a major site of assimilation.
But the history of folks from south of the border is quite the opposite of “permanent underclass”. Their children become professionals and technicians as well as laborers. They have traditionally been among our most patriotic segments. A bunch of medals are always won by Hispanics in all our wars. And no segment of our society has more regard for Family. Their family values are beyond reproach.
Grackle,
– while you make some good points I think the dynamic has changed over the past 15-20 years. Many more of those that come here now from south of the border are not acting responsibly – and in fact are often engaged in illegal activities. How many cases have you heard of in the last five years that tell of illegals murdering police and college students, and committing vehicular homicide while under the influence? Quite a few. Fifteen years ago you didn’t (or rarely heard of that). In a way I blame the government. We do not enforce (or barely enforce) our immigration laws so too many feel they can ignore ALL our laws.
A few years back on I went to the local convenience store on Sunday morning to buy the newspaper. In front of me was a young man who was still obviously (and I can say obviously because I could smell the alcohol coming off him) drunk from the previous night’s partying. He was trying to buy cigarettes and the clerk wanted to see some ID to verify his age. The guy didn’t have any ID (or if he did he didn’t want to show it) and got very belligerent with the clerk – exclaiming “Hey, I am from Mexico I don’t have to show ID”. The clerk (one of our underpaid military working a second job) didn’t budge and didn’t get angry. Rather he responded that EVERYONE needed to show proof of age – that was the LAW.
The only positive thing I can say is the kid rode away on a bike – so at least he wasn’t behind the wheel of a car in his condition.
headlines change alert…
Detroit Free Press actually changed its headline from “Pro-life activist shot dead near Owosso High” to “Owosso police look into two murders” to play down the highly relevant antiabortion angle. Funny, I don’t recall that happening with George Tiller.
its wackaloon day…
Second Video Shows ACORN Officials Helping ‘Pimp,’ ‘Prostitute’ in Washington Office http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,549241,00.html
so maybe its not a fluke of one place.
seems to be that they use you up, and when no longer useful, your under the bus on your own.
i would BET that they want to do this because this hurts the US on many levels. from giving a story to the rest of the world, tax evasion, children, deseases…
if it was just two people, it wouldnt work across the coutnry…
same is true of rose and her videos with planned parenthood!!!!
One day after two ACORN officials in Baltimore were fired for offering to help a man and woman posing as a pimp and prostitute to engage in child prostitution and a series of tax crimes, another secretly shot videotape has surfaced that shows the same couple getting similar advice from ACORN officers in Washington.
[want to bet they may have nore vids and will release them one at a time till acorn starts to look ridiculous… one can hope]
Obama sets stage for using budget maneuver to pass health reform
thehill.com/homenews/administration/58233-obama-sets-stage-for-using-budget-maneuver-to-pass-health-reform
By offering Republicans olive branches during his address to Congress on Wednesday, Obama has set up a win-win situation. If GOP lawmakers embrace compromise, a healthcare bill would pass Congress easily. But the more likely scenario is that Republicans will continue to oppose Obama’s plan, and the president later this fall will be able to note he tried to strike a deal with the GOP but could not.
That will set up a Democratic argument that Senate leaders have been forced to use a partisan budget tool known as reconciliation to pass a health bill through the Senate by a simple majority, instead of 60 votes. Under the budget plan they passed earlier this year, Democrats could invoke the reconciliation process on Oct. 15.
If we went just with what laws say (without considering the enforcement side) there would be no illegals to begin with. Ergo, their argument is absurd.
This sorta vaguely reminds me of why third trimester abortion is legal. It’s not specifically legal but the left squashes any attempt to enforce its being illegal… ergo, defacto legal.
Similar to the games they use to enable illegal immigration itself by not allowing people to ask citizenship status for many things….
Anyway, it’s a pattern just as sure as calling people racist for not being on board with their program. 🙂
miss disey Says:
“Should doctors delay your medical care until such verification can be retrieved? Perhaps we should pass a law so that medical care is provided if you “look American” but if you don’t “look American” we’ll take you out with the rest of the trash.”
We can patch them up and deport them. 🙂
incredibly good video lesson on american government!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://www.wimp.com/thegovernment
… I think the dynamic has changed over the past 15-20 years. Many more of those that come here now from south of the border are not acting responsibly – and in fact are often engaged in illegal activities.
Immigrant groups have always contained a component of the unlawful. The Mafia is still going strong, the Irish had their gangs and the Russian Mafia is taken for granted these days. Even the Jewish immigrants had their crooks. Sorry, dane, I respect your opinion but I don’t buy it just yet.
J.L. Says:
“If youv’e got an entire subculture of people who are self-sustaining and have no need to assimilate, they become a permanent underclass, with harmful effects to the overall cultural cohesivenss and stability of the society they are in.”
It also has a corrupting influence on the larger culture. IMO too many Americans are too comfortable having so much cheap ‘help’ (re: it makes them lazy, entitled, et cetera… which then plays into other areas of life… such as the notion of a ‘right’ to healthcare). I do have a handyman I call for things out of my ablity range… but I still try to fix as many things myself as I can… I like being self sufficient…
Also, the Mexican underclass is more willing to put up with too much IMO… thus enabling Americans to become a sort of unpleasant upper class (re: I think a poor American would smack middle class or upper class American for saying things I’ve seen said to Mexican illegals… and I think they should be smacked / this social equality was a good thing)… I’ve read stories from after the American revolution of the ‘help’ punching their employers (and then walking off the job) for just calling them a servant…. This, in many ways, is a good cultural trait for a republic (everyone, regardless of income or social status, is a good citizen and equal… especially if they do work and try to carry their own weight).
Pingback:Amused Cynic » Blog Archive » I got a fever, and the only prescription is more Congressman Joe Wilson….
There are really only two forms of STABLE government — Republics, and Oligarchies…
Anarchy degrades and becomes a Oligarchy
Democracy degrades to anarchy and then becomes an Oligarchy
Royalty, Communism, Despotism, Nazism, Fascism, Maoism, Socialism, and all the others are Oligarchies…
(Even if there is rule by one, that one is supported by others who are elite too)
A Republic is rule by law, and is the ONLY form of government that has a middle class, and a government that serves the people.
CHANGE….
If we WERE a Republic, we are going to end up an Oligarchy (if we change)
If we WERE ruled by law in a Republic, we are going to be ruled by Whims of the Elite
Where we had order, it will become capricious
Where we had stability, we will have constant change
Where we had freedom, we will have servitude
Change you can believe in…
this is why obama talks of the democracy..
for if they can get us to believe that, we will believe that we can as a majority vote anything. anarchy will eventually ensue, riots, and the return to peace as administered by the oligarchs that started it all…
Artfldgr, I see that in my abscence you took my sarcastic comments seriously about having to wait a century and a half to see your close brother. LOL
Grackle assures us that there is language assimilation going on. Apparently he does not live in one of those areas where the spanish speakers have reached a critical mass and do not have to learn english. In our area, I have watched as bilingual billboards are being replaced with Spanish only billboards. I have even been watching English television and have now seen Spanish only commercials- on the english station.
Elements within the Mexican government are working to ensure National loyalties to Mexico are maintained. Dr Juan Hernandez, who was John Mccain’s “hispanic Outreach director” is just one example. He is a dual US- Mexican citizen who previously worked for Mexican President Vicente Fox. He has stated he wanted Mexicans in the US to think Mexico first for generations to come. In other words, he want them to drink from the fruit of the US, while being loyal Mexican citizens.
Let me remind you folks there are around 50 Mexican consulates in the US working to help Illegals from Mexico stay in the US. Look up the role of the “Matricular Consular” card and how it opens doors for illegals. Go into a Sprint Store and see the “Accepto matricular consular Card” sign and you will begin to understand what I mean.
Thomass, I agree with what you said about the corrupting influence of too much cheap labor. I abhor seeing able bodied young people hiring somebody to mow their lawn.
I have this theory that a healthy republic needs lots of “generalist”. Watch how the global alarmist keep saying we have to listen the “experts” on climate change. never mind that the “experts” cannot predict next month’s conditions. When you have to do things yourself, you learn skills outside your official “job”. The more you learn, the more you become a “generalist”. It gives you confidence to question “experts” in other areas.
Here is a superb video which illustrates Artfldgr’s 2:40 p.m. comment. I’ve seen it before:
http://www.casttv.com/video/btl5ae/types-of-government-republic-vs-democracy-vs-oligarchy-video
Ok, nothing of real interest to comment on, other than I keep getting a kick out of seeing Neo using the word “ass”…lol
😀
The Truth About the Health Care Bills
http://www.freedomtorch.com/blog.php?user=2619&blogentry_id=297
Well, I have done it! I have read the entire text of proposed House Bill 3200: The Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009. I studied it with particular emphasis from my area of expertise, constitutional law. I was frankly concerned that parts of the proposed law that were being discussed might be unconstitutional. What I found was far worse than what I had heard or expected.
However, as scary as all of that it, it just scratches the surface. In fact, I have concluded that this legislation really has no intention of providing affordable health care choices. Instead it is a convenient cover for the most massive transfer of power to the Executive Branch of government that has ever occurred, or even been contemplated. If this law or a similar one is adopted, major portions of the Constitution of the United States will effectively have been destroyed.
The first thing to go will be the masterfully crafted balance of power between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the U.S. Government. The Congress will be transferring to the Obama Administration authority in a number of different areas over the lives of the American people and the businesses they own. The irony is that the Congress doesn’t have any authority to legislate in most of those areas to begin with. I defy anyone to read the text of the U.S. Constitution and find any authority granted to the members of Congress to regulate health care.
This legislation also provides for access by the appointees of the Obama administration of all of your personal healthcare information, your personal financial information, and the information of your employer, physician, and hospital. All of this is a direct violation of the specific provisions of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures. You can also forget about the right to privacy. That will have been legislated into oblivion regardless of what the 3rd and 4th Amendments may provide.
Grackle assures us that there is language assimilation going on. Apparently he does not live in one of those areas where the spanish speakers have reached a critical mass and do not have to learn english.
Where are these areas?
In our area, I have watched as bilingual billboards are being replaced with Spanish only billboards.
There’s some Spanish billboards in my area also but I don’t feel threatened because of it.
I have even been watching English television and have now seen Spanish only commercials- on the english station.
I live in an area that’s over 50% Latino. There are 3 Spanish language TV channels that come with my cable package. I have NEVER seen a Spanish commercial on any but those. But I’m wondering again — why the resentment?
He[Dr. Juan Hernandez] has stated he wanted Mexicans in the US to think Mexico first for generations to come. In other words, he want them to drink from the fruit of the US, while being loyal Mexican citizens.
I would have to see some links to the commentor’s sources for these claims before I could comment on them.
Look up the role of the “Matricula Consular” card and how it opens doors for illegals.
Here I think the commentor definitely has a point at which we are in agreement. Accepting these Matricula Consular IDs as valid IDs could be dangerous. My concern is not so much the “illegals” over here to work but rather the opportunity such a lax policy gives to terrorists. Given the level of corruption in Mexico I would be suspicious of any ID issued by the Mexican government.
grackle, you could start learning about “Mexico First” Hernandez, who worked for John “Country first” McCain here:
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/01/25/john-mccains-open-borders-outreach-director-the-next-dhs-secretary/
And try this one also,
http://www.diggersrealm.com/mt/archives/002666.html
I’m a pro-immigration conservative, but I draw the line at this nonsense. Immigrants (legal or not) should not be eligible for government hand outs of any kind. If you’re here on a VISA, you’re here on probation. There are 6 Billion human beings on this planet that would love to be here. I think we can find a few hundred thousand with the right stuff to come here and make it on their own.
Vieux Charles, What do you think should be the maximum number of LEGAL immigrations, including Naturalizations, into the US per year?
grackle, you could start learning about “Mexico First” Hernandez, who worked for John “Country first” McCain here: http://tinyurl.com/yqluzj
I did go to the link provided by the commentor which is Michelle Malkin’s site, a site I used to visit fairly often until I realized she was unfair and loose with the facts, especially on the subject of immigration. She often does what some others do — offering up the commonplace and innocuous and giving undue significance to them. An example of one of her irritating habits is this statement at the link:
[Dr. Juan Hernandez] defended Mexican bus operators carrying illegal aliens to the USA, and promoted extending banking privileges to illegal aliens.
That part of the statement in bold font is not true. But Michelle and others opposed to immigration often confuse, in Michelle’s case I think knowingly, illegal immigrants with legal immigrants and even with U.S. citizens of Hispanic descent.
As for the banking privileges, it’s one thing to oppose them being here, an opinion I respect if not totally agree with but in my mind it is quite another thing to be in favor of their exploitation by the venal and unscrupulous.
grackle said : “That part of the statement in bold font is not true.”
Prove it!
John Baker,
thats funny!! 🙂
ah well…
but at least i have a reason….
in my family with the iron curtain, we couldnt see our brothers, sisters, and family. we couldnt write letters or call… their receiving a letter could put them in prison for knowing someone outside the curtain, or in germanies case, the wall.
so it wasnt too hard to believe the attitude, and having that, not believe that there was a way.
but if you grew up and spend 15 years trying to get a 80 year old woman out to liver her last days with family, you could understandably make the mistake.
though that really doesnt lessen how funny it is in the bigger picture 🙂
nothing like “liver” your last days i say 🙂
To me, the first question that matters is, “What does it mean to be a citizen of the United States of America?” Somehow we have lost sight of that. Yet the sovereignty and stability of the Republic rest on the rights and obligations of citizenship. A lot of the discussion of illegal immigration completely misses the importance of citizenship and its psychological importance to people who take it seriously.
The second question is, “Who is an American? What are the requirements?” Perhaps being an American doesn’t mean anything in particular. Clearly, it’s not an ethnic description. Does that mean that there is no such thing as the American People or that we are not a nation?
Only after we know the answers to these questions can we know how to treat our guests and visitors.
Michelle Malkin’s statement … [Dr. Juan Hernandez] defended Mexican bus operators carrying illegal aliens to the USA …
I said: “That part of the statement in bold font is not true.”
The commentor said: “Prove it!”
Really, when such a statement is made by Malkin, alleging questionable acts, we should be thinking of Michelle Malkin, “Prove it!” The burden of proof should fall on Michelle Malkin.
But let’s proceed – the statement on Malkin’s site is a link to Dr. Juan Hernandez’s site where the reader will find this statement, which is Michelle Malkin’s ‘proof’:
He[Dr. Juan Hernandez] has been seen in Texas defending Mexican bus operators who carry immigrants to the USA and often are subject to onerous regulations on both sides of the border.
This statement is a quote from an article from USA Today, written by Elliot Blair Smithy, and reproduced on Dr. Juan Hernandez’s site. It should be obvious to the reader that the USA Today article is not alleging any wrong-doing by Dr. Juan Hernandez. The tone of the article is without exception laudatory of Hernandez.
It should also be obvious to the reader that Michelle Malkin paraphrased the statement for her website and added the words “carrying illegal aliens.” A common tactic of someone with a weak case is to insert defamatory words and false facts into a paraphrase.
But let’s apply a bit of commonsense to the USA Today statement. To interpret it as Malkin did would be to assume that bus drivers with illegal immigrants are, as the USA Today article asserts, “subject to onerous regulations.”
I can confidently tell the readers that if a truck full of illegals are found attempting to cross at one of the bridges or roads on the border that the illegals are immediately detained and the driver arrested. Period. “Onerous regulations” would be the least of the driver’s worries; the arrested driver would be facing prosecution and probable jail-time. In fact a driver who transports illegals rarely chooses bridges or other checkpoints for unlawful entry, thus border-crossing regulations do not matter.
Seen in this light it becomes obvious that the USA Today article reproduced on Dr. Hernandez’s site and falsely paraphrased by Michelle Malkin is referring to legal immigrants, of which there are considerable numbers, and lawful truck drivers.
What Michelle Malkin does in this vein is quite subtle and not immediately detectable so any reader can be forgiven for being taken in by her. We tend to accept what is offered without question by those who we believe share our viewpoint.
grackle, if you want to be precise, Malkin’s statement is not proven by the evidence at hand. Nevertheless her statement might be true or it might be false as far as we know. You expressed an opinion that the statement was not true as a way to impeach Malkin’s views generally. You thereby incurred the burden of proof to support your opinion.
I looked at Hernandez’s site and searched for 3rd party reports of his activities in Texas on behalf of Mexican bus drivers, without results. He claims to have done public service spots for Mexican bus companies targeted at would-be illegal immigrants, so apparently he believes that buses in northern Mexico will be carrying some people who fit the description.
From Oblio: He claims to have done public service spots for Mexican bus companies targeted at would-be illegal immigrants, so apparently he believes that buses in northern Mexico will be carrying some people who fit the description.
Here again I would have to have a link to the commentor’s source before commenting about his assertion above.
What I do know is that the USA Today article, part of which Malkin obviously paraphrased, and was linked to by Malkin, did not say what Malkin alleged it said. The words “carrying illegal aliens,” was obviously inserted by Malkin.
And it really IS Malkin’s burden to prove it when she claims someone(in her opinion) has acted questionably. Where is her source for the statement? The only source used by her was a link to something that said no such thing and did not even imply anything of the sort.
grackle, I wouldn’t make things up while we are talking about facts and proof.
http://www.juanhernandez.org/index-37.html
Article by Virginia Cueto, Hispanic Online Staff, about 1/3 of the way down.
Let’s be clear: this doesn’t prove that Malkin is right. Maybe she has additional information that she doesn’t share, and maybe she doesn’t and she is playing fast and loose on this point. No one has to believe her. What we don’t have is proof that she is making assertions that are not true, which was your assertion. It’s clear that you find her story at least improbable, and that’s OK: everyone is entitled to his opinion. But without some facts of your own about the case in question, you cannot impeach Malkin’s credibility with regard to her opinions about Juan Hernandez with this argument.
Or to say it another way, Malkin bears the burden of proof to get people to agree with her assertions, and you bear the burden of proof to get anyone to agree with your assertions. I don’t have a stake in the outcome either way. I would just like to know the truth.
Re-reading my post, I see I used the verb “claims,” which might cause a reader to think I am implying Hernandez might not be telling the truth about the public service spots; on the contrary, I see no reason not to take him at his word.
From Oblio: grackle, I wouldn’t make things up while we are talking about facts and proof.
No one has said anything about the commentor making “things up.” Tsk, tsk, a straw man. Let’s leave THOSE to Obama and his MSM fan club.
But back to the Malkin falsity: … [Dr. Hernandez]defended Mexican bus operators carrying illegal aliens to the USA ….
Due to Oblio’s research we find that Hernandez actually made an effort to convince Mexicans to NOT illegally cross the border into the US, but to STAY IN MEXICO. Holy bat guano! Malkin was even MORE dishonest than I originally thought.
Her statement, which becomes more obviously misleading the more we learn, would cause the unwary reader to believe that Dr. Hernandez had ENCOURAGED illegal immigration, that Dr. Hernandez had “defended”(as if in a court of law) Mexican bus drivers who were “carrying illegal aliens” to the US. Wow.
Thanks, Oblio.
grackle, you seemed not to believe my representation of the bus story from Hernandez’s web site. Otherwise, you could have commented. Not that it was necessary for you to comment on this or any other tangential point–and this is a tangent off a tangent.
As it is, my research doesn’t help your case at all. It doesn’t say anything about your case, and it doesn’t make Malkin’s statement “more obviously misleading.” You still haven’t offered an iota of evidence that Malkin’s claim is a “falsity.” Can’t you see that?
You are acting like you have a blind spot when the issue turns to immigration.
Apparently Grackle, the self proclaimed moderate has no problem with a dual US – Mexican citizen who worked for both the Mexican government and later the republican Presidential canidate to say that he wants Mexicans in the United States to “to the 3rd, to the 7th generation , all of them to think Mexico First.”
that is colonization. I guess “moderates ” are to influenced by pc to understand how dangerous that is.
Listen to these clips- he is only against illegal immigration in the sense that he wants amnesty for them so they are not illegal.
Here is the vid on you -tube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1i7dyp_nK_Q&feature=related
The National Organization my parents church is a part of financially supports spanish Speaking churches here in the US. One of their mission magazines showed a meeting at one of those churches. Behind the speaker, you could see the Mexican Flag in the place where the US flag is in the English speaking churches.
If citizenship could be compared to marriage, then what we have with many of the Mexican’s in the US should be more adequately described as Prostitution. They want the sex without the commitment. I see to many Mexican flags around town to think otherwise.
Oblio says: grackle, you seemed not to believe my representation of the bus story from Hernandez’s web site.
What I believed and commented on was the source material, not the commentor’s interpretation of the source material. I did not offer an opinion about the commentor’s interpretation nor do I believe I am obligated to offer an opinion.
You still haven’t offered an iota of evidence that Malkin’s claim is a “falsity.” Can’t you see that?
No, I do not “see that” at all. What I can plainly see is that Dr. Hernandez was misrepresented by Michelle Malkin. Her statement would lead the reader to believe that Dr. Hernandez had ENCOURAGED illegal immigration, that Dr. Hernandez had “defended”(as if in a court of law) Mexican bus drivers who were “carrying illegal aliens” to the US — all of which is obviously NOT true, but FALSE. The source material itself, quoted by the commentor, clearly illustrates this to the reader. The source material is the evidence.
In fact the source material demonstrates that Dr. Hernandez actually worked to convince Mexicans to NOT illegally cross the border into the US and shows that he encouraged Mexicans to STAY IN MEXICO.
You are acting like you have a blind spot when the issue turns to immigration.
I do not know what the commentor means by “blind spot.” Perhaps the commentor could elaborate.
Apparently Grackle, the self proclaimed moderate
Could the commentor offer a quote by me where I proclaim myself as a “moderate”? We’ll be waiting.
has no problem with a dual US – Mexican citizen
No, I have no problem with someone who has dual citizenship, which is as much an accident of birth as name or color of hair. Perhaps the commentor could explain why I should have a “problem” with someone who has dual citizenship. I’ll be waiting.
who worked for both the Mexican government and later the republican Presidential candidate
A lot of folks have more than one employer in their careers these days. The old days when grandfathers would go to work for Acme Co. and retire after 30 years with the same company are long gone.
to say that he wants Mexicans in the United States to “to the 3rd, to the 7th generation , all of them to think Mexico First.”
Dr. Hernandez said he wanted Mexican Americans to be more like Jewish Americans with Israel, Puerto Rican Americans with Puerto Rico. I don’t totally agree with such a viewpoint but neither do I find it ominous.
that is colonization. I guess “moderates ” are to influenced by pc to understand how dangerous that is.
To desire Mexican Americans to have the same attitude toward Mexico as the Jewish Americans have with Israel is “colonization”? I don’t see it but perhaps I am not understanding the commentor’s meaning.
Listen to these clips- he is only against illegal immigration in the sense that he wants amnesty for them so they are not illegal.
Oblio has already quoted a source illustrating that Dr. Hernandez actually worked to convince Mexicans to NOT illegally cross the border into the US and shows that he encouraged Mexicans to STAY IN MEXICO. Was there some point at which Dr. Hernandez changed his mind? If the commentor would quote from the clips perhaps we could know what he means.
Here is the vid on you —tube
I viewed the YouTube video and found it to be a rather obvious hatchet job. Dr. Hernandez is edited down to partial sentences in many instances on the clip — sometimes just 5 or 6 words edited from the middle of a longer sentence. The thing jumps around from venue to venue, never offering anything more than a few seconds at most of Dr. Hernandez.
Using this technique, as is sometimes used on Letterman and other late night shows for comedic effect, anyone could be portrayed unfairly. I urge the commentor to view complete episodes containing the edited-out material if he wants to find out what Dr. Hernandez’s views are. Or better yet, go to Dr. Hernandez’s website, as Oblio did. Get it from the horse’s mouth, not from some video that’s been edited to death.
OK, grackle, I give up. When you start fisking me and feigning incomprehension, I know you aren’t listening. I consider fisking to indicate hostility and aggression. It is very bad form if one is trying to have an exchange of ideas in good faith.
If you don’t know what “fisking” is, go look it up.
OK, grackle, I give up. When you start fisking me and feigning incomprehension, I know you aren’t listening. I consider fisking to indicate hostility and aggression. It is very bad form if one is trying to have an exchange of ideas in good faith.
If you don’t know what “fisking” is, go look it up.
I’m going to have to ask the commentor to quote where I have been “hostile.” I think it is fair to request that such a pejorative adjective be justified by some facts other than that the commentor does not care for my method of debate or the fact that he and I do not share exactly the same opinion. The commentor is concerned about an “exchange of ideas in good faith” yet resorts to an abusive adjective. I have not used similar words to characterize the commentor.
I do admit to possessing my own opinions and viewpoint and even to defending my opinion as I believe anyone would do and should do. If I am feigning incomprehension it ought to be a simple thing to point out in a factual way just exactly WHAT I should be comprehending. In this way the readers and I can know what the commentor is talking about.
As for “fisking,” yes, I am aware that the term means a point by point method of addressing written material. Apparently, in the commentor’s mind such a thing is not permissible. That opinion is his right but at the risk of being characterized as “hostile” I must gently point out that it is also my right to disagree. The commentor, or anyone else, is welcome, indeed, encouraged, to use a point by point method when addressing my comment.
One of their mission magazines showed a meeting at one of those churches. Behind the speaker, you could see the Mexican Flag in the place where the US flag is in the English speaking churches.
I would be reluctant to condemn some Mexican worshipers for having a Mexican flag in one of their churches. If there were a conclave of Americans in their church in Mexico and they had an American flag on the wall would the commentor be wanting the Mexicans to be condemning them?
grackle, as Ed Koch used to say, “I can explain it to you, but I can’t understand it for you.” Your entire post at 2.51 am was a mess and non-responsive.
I said that I consider fisking to be hostile in form. What makes it especially obnoxious is that you don’t respond to the substance of my point when you are going line-by-line. You change the topic rather than grant any points, as I have been scrupulous about doing. You don’t add new facts or ground your assertions. That is not how one conducts a discussion in good faith.
And no, I’m not going to point to examples for you. When I gave you close reading of a real example, you just ignored it. Go back and read the thread and figure it out for yourself.
It is a pity that you behave this way, because I think you might actually have something to say about illegal aliens.
I believe I have responded to the commentor’s points. I think it’s best to stick to facts and specifics, for instance, to request that if someone states without detail that I am wrong for them to quote something specific I’ve written that they believe is incorrect.
Contrary to what the commentor asserts I believe I have devoted much space to responding to the “substance” of his points.
Let us review what has been done with the “topic” that the commentor asserts that I am prone to change. The “topic” was an assertion made by Michelle Malkin on her blog:
[Dr. Hernandez]defended Mexican bus operators carrying illegal aliens to the USA …
My contention was that the part about bus operators carrying illegal aliens was false. Another commentor challenged me to, “Prove it.”
I pointed out that the link Michelle Malkin used to validate her assertion said no such thing. Instead it said:
He[Dr. Juan Hernandez] has been seen in Texas defending Mexican bus operators who carry immigrants to the USA and often are subject to onerous regulations on both sides of the border.
There was no mention of bus operators “carrying illegal aliens;” as alleged by Malkin’s statement. It was obvious to me from the first that Michelle had inserted that phrase gratuitously — that’s why I challenged it(forgive me, readers, if I seem to be too explanatory). A bit later in the exchange the commentor quoted some more material from Dr. Hernandez’s website which I reproduce below:
As if to prove it, Herné¡ndez has just filmed a series of public-service videos, to be shown on the bus line that transports some 350,000 passengers a month to northern Mexico, near the U.S. border, exhorting Mexicans not to fall prey to smugglers or risk an illegal crossing, but to look for opportunities at home.
I thanked the commentor for introducing this new material that supported my position, little knowing that the commentor would not grasp the significance of the quote that the commentor himself had introduced. But such is the nature of opinion. My method is to have my say and let the readers decide. I have definitely tried my best to stay on the “topic,” which is the original Malkin statement.
To elaborate: I can plainly see, though the commentor apparently cannot, that the quote introduced, NOT by me, but by the commentor himself, further contradicts Michelle Malkin’s statement. Her assertion would lead the unwary reader to believe that Dr. Hernandez had ENCOURAGED illegal immigration, that Dr. Hernandez had “defended”(as if in a court of law) Mexican bus drivers who were “carrying illegal aliens” to the US.
The quote introduced into the exchange by the commentor demonstrates the opposite, revealing that Dr. Hernandez had been instead exhorting Mexicans not to fall prey to smugglers or risk an illegal crossing, but to look for opportunities at home.
I believe I have grounded my assertions and that I have shown as many facts as I need to in order to get my point across.
And no, I’m not going to point to examples for you.
If the commentor does not want to point to examples that is his choice and his right. It is also my right to note the lack of examples and other specifics.
It becomes evident as the debate goes on that the commentor interprets someone having a different opinion than his opinion as evidence of bad behavior and as evidence of hostility.
He attacks not my facts but my style of writing. He attempts now to dictate to me how I respond. I can’t allow him to do that and keep my self respect. I feel that as long as I avoid insult and use facts, logic and quotes to illustrate my opinion that he has no good reason to object. He is entitled to air his opinion and I am entitled to offer mine — in any style or form I choose as long as I remain civil and avoid insult. I do not dictate how he should respond to comment and expect the same from him.
It is a pity that you behave this way …
Speaking of behavior and getting off topic(might as well), let’s review the commentor’s behavior. The first sour note was when he implied that I was claiming that he was “making things up.” I pointed out that such a claim was a straw man, having never questioned his truthfulness.
But the commentor was still not satisfied, still preferring to hang onto the idea that I did not “believe” him.
Without explanation I was told that I have a “blind spot.” I requested explanation but am realizing now that it probably will not be forthcoming.
Next, the commentor took fault with my point by point method of response, claiming it indicated “hostility and aggression,” calling it “very bad form” and implying a lack of “good faith” on my part.
Later on he called me “obnoxious,” reiterated the “hostile” fiction, accused me of changing the topic when I have faithfully tried to remain on topic and labeled one of my posts “a mess.” Evidently because he does not care for the facts that I have noted so far he demands I introduce “new facts.”
I will not respond in kind but instead will keep plugging away with facts, logic and quotes to make my points. I ask the readers to forgive the length of this comment.
I guess you get the last word, grackle.
“because we all are currently paying for the health care of illegal immigrants through our subsidies of emergency room visits of the uninsured. I don’t know that there’s any great remedy for this;”
It’s not about the paying, it’s about being able to actually know how much we’re spending on them- once that becomes a known quantity, you’ll see people crossing from supporting illegals to not supporting them real fast, especially in these tough economic times.
Grackle, perhaps you never have proclaimed yourself a moderate, but your toleration of RINOS and your inability/ unwillingness to see the danger of the growing US based Mexican population mainting loyalties to Mexico I cannot explain. you try to compare this with US Jews and Israel. Israel is not trying to colonize the US. Mexico is. And there is no comparison in scale to the population of those two countries either. As for Puerto Rico – it is a US territory. I do wish they would be given one more vote on the situation. This time the choice should be full statehood or independence. No more of this fence straddling.
Grackle, perhaps you never have proclaimed yourself a moderate, but your toleration of RINOS …
You know, I’m not afraid of the term, “moderate,” but I have never “proclaimed” myself as a moderate and I don’t like folks claiming I said something that I did not say. I’ve termed myself as a classic liberal with conservative traits and I’ve also likened my viewpoint to neoconservatism, especially in the area of foreign policy.
What may be confusing to some is that I don’t automatically buy into the standard array of political issues offered by the Right, Left or in between. I research each issue the best I can and come to my own conclusions, none of which are set in stone.
There’s been much debate about RINOs. But exactly who are RINOs and what is a RINO? There’s much ambiguity about this. I am more tolerant of some politicians than the commentor for sure. For example, I would have preferred McCain to be in the Whitehouse instead of Obama.
… and your inability/ unwillingness to see the danger of the growing US based Mexican population maintaining loyalties to Mexico I cannot explain.
I’m not sure of the commentor’s point here. For example, is he referring to Mexican Americans, undocumented Mexican workers, Mexican residents here legally or all three? I will wait for clarification.
you try to compare this with US Jews and Israel.
Well, to be precise, I did not. And neither did Dr. Hernandez. What Dr. Hernandez did was express a desire that Mexican Americans would become more like American Jews with Israel and Puerto Ricans with Puerto Rico. Such a wish is not a comparison. Wanting Mexican Americans to become more like Jewish American is not comparing Mexican Americans to Jewish Americans. If Dr, Hernandez had said that Mexican Americans like spicy food and Jewish Americans do not, THAT would have been a comparison. And I wrote, “I don’t totally agree with such a viewpoint but neither do I find it ominous,” which is not a comparison, either. Any comparison is in the mind of the commentor.
Israel is not trying to colonize the US. Mexico is.
I do not believe Mexico is trying to colonize the US.