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.

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.

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, Hernández 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 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 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?

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.

If you don’t know what “fisking” is, go look it up.

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.