Monday, April 10, 2006

Cincinnati Newspaper Failed To Note Columnist Is Military Spokeswoman

The Cincinnati Enquirer's "Grandma in Iraq" blog is literally true in that Suzanne Fournier is a grandmother.

But she is also a spokeswoman for the U.S. military. Which may explain why the blog is relentlessly upbeat about what a great job American soldiers are doing.

Enquirer Editor Tom Callinan told Editor & Publisher that he had to change the description of Fournier: "She never hid the fact that she worked for them. But we did not put a disclaimer at the top, we had overlooked that. We have now corrected it."

-- Washington Post "Media Notes," April 10

32 Comments:

Anonymous Froggy said...

Disgraceful. I mean, there are 150,000 U.S. soldiers in Iraq. We all know they suck at their job, right. How could there be anything good going on in Iraq? Americans suck at their jobs - at home and abroad. Why should Iraq be any different.

4:31 PM  
Anonymous alias: "cutiepie" johnson said...

Froggy, you're sarcasm (I hope it's sarcasm, not stupidity) aside, you clearly missed the point.

The point is not whether there is good news or not from Iraq. The point is disclosure. The newspaper should have said that the column was being written by a military spokeswoman.

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the concept of military propaganda. Certainly, the Bush Administration is.

When did conservatives begin favoring propaganda? Let's learn from history -- conservatives used to fight propaganda from the Soviet Union and China to the death. Now too often they are making excuses for it. My, how the world has changed.

5:15 PM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

Just as with this grandma, the Bushie CONs and the Rethuglicans will resort to any propaganda to distort the U.S. military situation in Iraq.
Facts be damned.
Here's another example, we read today the U.S. military has planted stories in Iraq exaggerating the very very small role of Al Queda leader Musab al-Zarqawi in the attacks on U.S. forces -- just so the Bush Administration can continue the propaganda of Iraq as the "front on the War on Terror" and to support a connection with 9-11.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/09/AR2006040900890.html
The Bushie Iraq mantra: when reality does not support your point of view, simply make up the reality. Our dominant friends in the MSM won't sort it out, anyway.
You know, it works sort of like fixing intelligence around a preemptive invasion.

5:26 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Apr 9, 2006

Welcome to Michael Yon's Frontline Forum


The Frontline Forum is an alternative channel for compelling stories from those now wearing boots and carrying rifles and not comments or those endlessly forwarded unattributed "true" stories that always seem airbrushed. This is a place for those deployed in harm's way to tell real stories about the ground situation.

Our goal is for frontline information to break through and be heard. We hope that over time, a more comprehensive and accurate picture of what is happening on the ground can emerge.

This virtual organization primarily is run by a volunteer group of retired military personnel. They will read every story, with the bar set high for accuracy and our radar on full alert for embellishment and operational security. Over 100 volunteers have stepped forward, from all branches of the military, from grunts to generals, veterans from the Korean War forward. They are joined by more than a dozen professional editors, reporters, and published authors, and a team of subject matter experts on topics as diverse as explosives, oil industry technology, law enforcement, computer programming, satellite communications and meteorology.

Not every submission will be published and authors of those submissions will be notified when we decline. Stories selected for publication we will perhaps polish a bit, edit for length and content, and then post ASAP or as the situation in the field allows.

Our troops are living at the pointy end of history. We invite visitors to read, comment and suggest, track back, and spread the word about what they see here.

http://flf.michaelyon-online.com/article.php?ID=10

8:14 PM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

The other side of the story?
I checked out this Michael Yoon website. The world might need a more objective source of info of the true reality on the ground in Iraq. This website does not appear to be it.
The bias is immediately apparent in the 9-minute CNN news clip featured on the home page
http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/the-full-picture.htm
Lot of ranting and raving about how the reporting in Iraq is biased, how it is not telling the full story, and being used by the insurgency to exhaust the will of the American people, and even responsible for getting U.S. soldiers killed.
Those of us who have been around awhile recall hearing similar criticisms of the reporting on the War in Vietnam.
The sources in the clip insist the U.S. population is bitterly opposed to the media's reporting of "all the bad news" from Iraq. Never mind that every poll shows Americans opposed to the war by an overwhelming margin.
At the same time there is nothing in the CNN clip to suggest that these alleged biased reporters are not indeed making an attempt to be fair and objective as possible, or, in other words, to report the truth.
I take reservation that the site censors out stories it doesn't like. Translation: it appears to mean any report from any soldiers opposed to the war or who are strongly questioning their involvement there. Let's only hear only from those soldiers who think the American media is screwing them over.
The site contains many stories from U.S. soldiers angry about the insurgents killing children. Of course, there no mention that if not for the U.S. forces in Iraq there would be no insurgents killing children.
There's also no mention of the many Iraq children blown to bits by U.S. carpet bombing.
In my opinion, I take objection to the glorification of war in any shape or form. It's disturbing to read on this website some of the stories cheering on the "flattening of Fallujah."
Again, I think people would appreciate a website without this site's preconceived bias.
I have not seen enough convincing evidence the reporting we are getting from Iraq is overtly biased against the war. The violence does seem to be the reality.
We can become suspicious when a real loon like Michelle Malkin believes Yoon deserves a Pulitzer prize.
Yoon is likely among those who share in the opinion that there should be no reporting of the bad news from Iraq at all. A true supporter of Bush Administration propaganda.

10:37 PM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

I apologize for getting Yon's name wrong above. It is Michael Yon.

10:47 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

I can't believe JABBS has done no blogging on the Illegal Immigrant issue.

http://jabbs.blogspot.com/2006/04/stewart-quips-at-bushs-expense-about.html#comments

10:15 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

As a reporter on the ground in Iraq, CNN's Lara Logan vigorously disputes media bias of the coverage of Iraq. She calls those within the Bush Administration and others who accuse the media of having a bias against the war completely unfair.
She says in so many words these critics do not know what the hell they are talking about.

Watch the clip for yourself:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=OYPuO-E5n-0

9:38 AM  
Anonymous alias: "cutiepie" johnson said...

According to JABBS archives, he has written about border control several times, including the Jon Stewart joke.

http://jabbs.blogspot.com/2006/03/gao-slips-radioactive-material-past.html

http://jabbs.blogspot.com/2006/03/gregg-takes-lead-in-attacking-bushs.html

http://jabbs.blogspot.com/2005/07/dhs-protecting-us-from-legal-visitors.html

http://jabbs.blogspot.com/2005/03/savage-blames-liberalism-for-border.html

http://jabbs.blogspot.com/2005/02/bush-promised-2000-more-border-patrol.html

http://jabbs.blogspot.com/2004/09/on-homeland-security-bushs-words-speak.html

All things considered, it would seem David was in favor of strengthening our borders for homeland security. That would suggest he's against the immigration reform movement.

That's just my take on it, but I suppose David will have to speak for himself.

11:21 AM  
Anonymous trinity said...

alias: "cutiepie" johnson said...
"All things considered, it would seem David was in favor of strengthening our borders for homeland security. That would suggest he's against the immigration reform movement."


Thank you for taking the time to go back and check the archives, cutiepie. :) It's true that those older posts from '04 and '05, and the two from March of this year, mention the borders and refer to the Homeland Security Budget and matters of national security etc., and of course, those are very important issues, but I was referring specifically to the events that are going on right now. I was just wondering where most of the liberal posters here stood on the current controversy that has been all over the news 24/7.

Certainly nobody is going to say that they are against making improvements to our border security. I just wanted to get a feel for what everyone thought of the pro-illegal immigrant rallies that are being held all over the country at this time.

You know. Specifics such as should the 11 million (or more) illegals be given amnesty? Should they be sent back to their own country? Should businesses who knowingly hire these illegals be prosecuted? Should sneaking into this country illegally be made a felony offense? Should pregnant women who cross our borders illegally in order to give birth to an anchor baby be allowed to stay and take advantage of free healthcare at our expense? Should that baby be considered an American? Should illegals who are felons be allowed to stay and become citizens who vote?

Those are the types of questions I had for the liberals here. I know what your leadership is saying. I was just wondering if you agree with them.

1:02 PM  
Anonymous alias: "cutiepie" johnson said...

Trinity, you have to remember, this isn't a "liberal" site, per se. It's a site designed to battle so-called conservative spin.

If the sides are pretty clear, then there's not much for this site to write about.

I would suggest you check out Daily Kos or Talking Point Memo.

1:57 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

alias: "cutiepie" johnson said...
Trinity, you have to remember, this isn't a "liberal" site, per se. It's a site designed to battle so-called conservative spin.


Cutiepie, come on! Of course it is a liberal site. If it were an objective site, then it would battle liberal spin, as well as conservative spin.

The fact that JABBS has no problem that I can discern with liberal spin, would seem to indicate to me they're coming from a more left-wing ideology, and are extremely partisan.

And if anyone says that there is no liberal spin in anything that David posts here, that would be even more proof positive that this site is very much left of center.

Of course, from what I've observed listening to liberal journalists explain it, that perception would be fairly typical, because most of them believe that they are actually quite objective and mainstream, and so do not acknowledge their own liberal bias.

5:11 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

alias: "cutiepie" johnson said...
"All things considered, it would seem David was in favor of strengthening our borders for homeland security. That would suggest he's against the immigration reform movement."


I'm sorry if I seem dense, cutiepie, but I just want to clarify what you said. I understood the part about David favoring strengthening our borders, but I'm not sure what reform movement he is against.

I'm wondering how he, and/or the rest of the posters here, would like to see our government handle the millions and millions of illegals who have already crossed over into our country. Is anyone in favor of granting them amnesty, like Reagan did in 1986? Although that was only something like 3 million back then.

alias: "cutiepie" johnson said...
"I would suggest you check out Daily Kos or Talking Point Memo."


So, does that mean that nobody here is interested in discussing this issue? Or is it that it would be considered "off-topic" because David hasn't posted anything about it?

5:38 PM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

In the conservative mind, being objective, or rather telling the truth, displays a liberal bias.

Conservatives do not have a problem with lying -- or at best distorting or ignoring the facts -- because the ends of heaping a narrow ideology and action plan upon the masses justify those means.
Here's an example.
The piece of amazingly dishonest garbage editorial "The Good Leak" the other day in the Washington Post, which is getting the newspaper a lot of heat for blatantly ignoring its own reporting on page one in the same issue, is enough proof of the conservative mind in action.

The fact-starved editorial:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/08/AR2006040800895.html

And the contradictory, fact-based report in the same issue:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/08/AR2006040800916.html

5:59 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Yeah. Right. Whatever.

thewaronterrible said...
"In the conservative mind, being objective, or rather telling the truth, displays a liberal bias.

Conservatives do not have a problem with lying -- or at best distorting or ignoring the facts -- because the ends of heaping a narrow ideology and action plan upon the masses justify those means."


Freudian Projection

The following is a collection of definitions of projection from orthodox psychology texts. In this system the distinct mechanism of projecting own unconscious or undesirable characteristics onto an opponent is called Freudian Projection.

"A defense mechanism in which the individual attributes to other people impulses and traits that he himself has but cannot accept. It is especially likely to occur when the person lacks insight into his own impulses and traits."

"The externalisation of internal unconscious wishes, desires or emotions on to other people. So, for example, someone who feels subconsciously that they have a powerful latent homosexual drive may not acknowledge this consciously, but it may show in their readiness to suspect others of being homosexual."

"Attributing one's own undesirable traits to other people or agencies, e.g., an aggressive man accuses other people of being hostile."

"The individual perceives in others the motive he denies having himself. Thus the cheat is sure that everyone else is dishonest. The would-be adulterer accuses his wife of infidelity."

"People attribute their own undesirable traits onto others. An individual who unconsciously recognises his or her aggressive tendencies may then see other people acting in an excessively aggressive way."

"Projection is the opposite defence mechanism to identification. We project our own unpleasant feelings onto someone else and blame

Fitzgerald Retreats on a Claim Critics Had Used Against Bush

http://www.nysun.com/article/30834

12:38 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

More FYI....

April 13, 2006, 8:52 a.m.

Libby: Cheney Never Told Me To Discuss Valerie Plame Wilson
A new court filing lays out the defense.

"A new court filing by CIA leak defendant Lewis Libby suggests that Libby has testified that Vice President Dick Cheney never told him to reveal the identity of CIA employee Valerie Wilson. The filing also suggests that Libby, the vice president's former chief of staff, testified that neither President Bush nor anyone else told him to discuss Valerie Wilson, either.

The filing, released shortly before midnight Wednesday night, contains a footnote which says, "Consistent with his grand jury testimony, Mr. Libby does not contend that he was instructed to make any disclosures concerning Ms. Wilson by President Bush, Vice President Cheney, or anyone else."

In his most recent court motion, CIA leak prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald wrote that "the President was unaware of the role that [Libby] had in fact played in disclosing Ms. Wilson's CIA employment." But Fitzgerald made no such statement about Cheney, and the prosecutor's indictment of Libby hints that the vice president might have been behind the disclosure of Wilson's identity, saying that the process that led to the disclosure was set in motion in early June 2003, when "Libby learned from the Vice President that [Joseph] Wilson's wife worked for the CIA in the Counterproliferation Division........."

............The new Libby filing also says there is evidence to support Libby's claim that he was never instructed to discuss Valerie Wilson with reporters. The Libby legal team says that "contemporaneous documents" contain a point-by-point summary of the case Libby was to make for journalists, and those points do not contain any reference to Valerie Wilson: ......."


http://nationalreview.com/york/york200604130852.asp

1:42 PM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

When you look at the totality of evidences, including the Butler Report, Senate Intelligence Committee Report, Joe Wilson's report, the court filings in the Libby case, the statements of the CIA agents, all Republican, who insisted the outing of Plame's name caused serious problems for the agency and demanded the independent investigation; when you look at the totality of Fitzgerald's statements in the investgation, the latest evidences of what the Bush Administration knew at the time it was making a case for WMDs, including the latest disclosures which find Bush repeated myths about the mobile labs for a year after an official report debunked the theory, when you look at the preponderance of evidences and when you do not take things out of context, or place more authority to a few publications with a strong conservative bias than what's being reported in the main stream media, and when you do not afford credibility to an indicted-for lying-with-a-strong-incentive-to cover-his-ass-and-others in the Bush Administration former chief of staff over more authoritative voices on the subject -- when you look at Bush's falling poll numbers and the overwhelming majority of people who no longer find him credible on anything pertaining to Iraq, when you take into consideration all of this and other factors, one is led to the conclusion that the only purpose one would side with the Bush Administration would be a blind, ignorant Right-wing bias.
Yeah, yeah I know you probably defended Nixon in the Watergate era, or, if you are too young for that, then you were right in the front lines a few years ago with the rest of the Republican ogres condemning Clinton.
So harmful to the good of the country. So predictable. So sad.

12:47 AM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

Here, Trinity:
I throw into the pot of truths this article which offers evidence York in the National Review article you cite as credible was nothing more than a dishonest distortion of Fitzgerald's findings in the Plame leak investigation.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200604140004
Media Matters is a more honest objective observer of conservative spin in the news, i.e. telling the truth, than National Review is honest or objective.

8:52 AM  
Anonymous Sniffer said...

“The point is not whether there is good news or not from Iraq. The point is disclosure. The newspaper should have said that the column was being written by a military spokeswoman.”

What difference does it make? It would only make a difference if she if “lying” about what is going on.
C’mon CPJ, I guess liberal Democrat types NEVER engage in political party spin or media manipulation. Dude you are you kidding?

“Just as with this grandma, the Bushie CONs and the Rethuglicans will resort to any propaganda to distort the U.S. military situation in Iraq.
Facts be damned. “

Oh man that’s like, so like, real like, creative! I have never heard that before.

Let’s does Demmunist, Demothugs, Demoliars…..naw socialists sheep shall do.

1:02 PM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

The statement of the Bush Administration resorting to propaganda is supportable by hard facts, including the known planting of newsstories in Iraq publications and, more recently, the playing up the tiny role of Al Queda in the insurgency in order to falsly prop up the farce of Iraq as the front on the global war on terror.
Then Democrats are labeled as socialists.
Democrats are no more in favor of socialism than Republicans are in favor of dictatorships.
(But then again I say this about Republicans with some hesistency seeing that they blindly accept whatever Bush determines to be his rights under the constitution).

2:18 PM  
Anonymous rob of wilmington, del. said...

Sniffer, two points:

1) Propaganda is lying. If she was "relentlessly upbeat," it stands to reason she wasn't providing a truthful account of what's happening in Iraq. That's why the paper admitted that it erred in not identifying the author's role with the military.

2) No one is talking about Democrats or Republicans engaging in "political party spin or media manipulation." What JABBS is talking about is propaganda.

The question needs to be asked again and again. Why do any Americans -- particularly conservatives trolling this site -- stand up for any U.S. propaganda efforts, military or otherwise? Why do any Americans stand up for something that their fathers and grandfathers fought against when it emanated from the Soviet Union or China?

2:58 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

rob of wilmington, del. said...
"1) Propaganda is lying.


Rob, you are just flat out wrong here. Propaganda doesn't necessarily mean "lying". By definition, propaganda is information that is spread for the purpose of promoting some cause, in this case, the cause being support for all of the positive work that our troops are doing over in Iraq.

Sniffer is right when he says that it would only matter if "Grandma In Iraq" were lying about what they were doing. She's not lying. She's telling the truth. She's putting information out there that is not being reported by other media sources, and there is nothing whatsoever either dishonest or wrong about that.

rob of wilmington, del. said...
"If she was "relentlessly upbeat," it stands to reason she wasn't providing a truthful account of what's happening in Iraq."


Again, Rob, what JABBS wrote was that her blog was "relentlessly upbeat about what a great job American soldiers are doing." Since our soldiers ARE doing a great job, I'd love for you to explain exactly what your problem might be with that sentence.

As far as this individual being identified by The Cincinnati Enquirer as working for the military, I have no problem with that, but for anyone to summarily dismiss her blog as a bunch of lies is both baseless and unfair.

But don't be so hypocritical. You don't seem to expect the same level of disclosure from other people in the media who constantly write negative stories about the war. If they were held to the same standard, some of them would have to preface their reporting by identifying themselves as anti-war, anti-Bush, anti-military "progressives". As we both know, they do NOT disclose where THEY are coming from.

Another question for you. Why is reporting only the negative, critical, depressing Iraqi stories all right in your book, but reporting all the positive, supportive and uplifting Iraqi stories a baaaaaaaad thing? Aren't they opposite sides of the same coin?

12:54 AM  
Anonymous trinity said...

thewaronterrible said...
"Media Matters is a more honest objective observer of conservative spin in the news, i.e. telling the truth, than National Review is honest or objective."


Seriously, twot. If you believe that, you are not well! David Brock, the confused former "right-winger" turned lib is about as honest and objective as John Podesta, George Soros, and all the other far-left people that pay his bills for him.

1:09 AM  
Anonymous rob of wilmington, del. said...

Trinity, propaganda is not the same thing as truth. A government turns to propaganda when it doesn't think the people can handle the truth.

The U.S. fought against the Soviet Union, North Vietnam, China, Cuba, etc., for using propaganda, for only telling part of the story, for not admitting anything was wrong.

I have no problem with a columnist writing upbeat, truthful items about Iraq. This has nothing to do with supporting the troops, and it has nothing to do with not acknowledging their hard work.

But for a newspaper to fail to identify the columnist as a military spokeswoman is ridiculous. It led readers to believe they were receiving something they weren't.

But beyond that, why would you support propaganda over a truthful acocunt? Let's go down the choices:

1) Bush Administration sends out undocumented video news releases touting HHS programs, hiring public relations people and actors to pose as journalists and man-on-the-street interviewees, then sends this material without clear documentation to television stations in swing states, some of which put the material on the air thinking it came from freelance journalists. The main p.r. person chosen to serve as the "reporter" was in fact, a former reporter, adding to the confusion.

Does this make your proud of the Bush Administration? The GAO said it was propaganda, and could only find a couple of other examples, during the Reagan Administration, of the use of undocumented video releases from the government.

How about the U.S. military hiring Lincoln Group to write propaganda for Iraqi media, posing as Iraqi writers? How about the U.S. military manufacturing pro-U.S. quotes and attributing them to anonymous Iraqis? The military has admitted each of these things occurred, saying the former was fine and the latter was an accident (although it was an accident that happened twice ...)

What about scientific reports being changed by mid-level people in the Bush Administration, to disprove global warming, or to cloud any link between the administation's energy policy and mercury pollution in our rivers? The Bush Administration, after such things were exposed by the media, had the appropriate people resign. But what if the "liberal" media hadn't found the appropriate memos or rough drafts of papers? Would you support this use of propaganda?

What about the NASA scientist, referenced above, who was initially silenced? What about the Medicare actuary who testified before Congress that he was told not to reveal the true cost of the Bush Administration's Medicare package -- until after it was passed by Congress?

Is this withholding of the truth something you support?

I'll ask the question again and again: Why do any Americans support propaganda? Why not support the truth, and trust the people?

And just to be clear -- writing upbeat stories that are truthful is not propaganda. Writing relentlessly upbeat stories at the expense of the truth (and without disclosure that you are part of the military, and not a third party) is propaganda.

10:33 AM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

Trinity, instead of making a baseless attack on David Brock, which you likely borrowed from Rush Limbaugh or Mark Levin (I might remind you that Media Matters has influenced corrections and retractions in various written and print media), why don't you address head-on the problem Media Matters has with the York piece in National Review in which you regard so highly?
Tell me. What is wrong with MM's argument demonstrating that York clearly misrepresented Fitzgerald's statements in court papers to forward a fraudulent argument in defense of the Bush Administration?
If MM is guilty of demonstrating a bias in this case, and the National Review in this case truely is not guilty of baseless conservative spin, give me the proof. I'm listening with open ears.

I also am filled with glee that the two reporters of the New York Times series on Bush's warrantless spying program won Pulitizer Prizes yesterday for their efforts:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/17/AR2006041700743.html?referrer=email
So we had Bush brand this now Pulitzer Prize winning reporting as treasonous?! The Bush Administration might hand down indictments for those responsible for this Pulizer Prize winning reporting?
Bush and his followers lose again.
A Pulitzer recognizes work on behalf of the betterment of society.
As a footnote, I'm sure the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld Mob is not happy reporters for the Washington Post also won a Pulitzer yesterday for having exposed the CIA's illegal torture prisons in Eastern Europe.

If the great Edward R. Murrow were alive today, he would force at least a partial smile.

10:34 AM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

I didn't mean to detract from Rob's post above.
I would add that propaganda is not putting information into any proper context, historical or otherwise.
I disagree that reporters responsible for all "the bad news" from Iraq are acting on bias, as Trinity argues.
There are reporters like CNN's Lara Logan (link above) as one of many possible examples of reporters on the ground in Iraq who insist they would stick their necks out to find and report some good news. They say they are hindered in most cases because they cannot even GET to the site of good news, such as a hospital under construction for example, without army escorts, which itself speaks volumes of the real conditions in Iraq.

12:30 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

rob of wilmington, del. said...
"And just to be clear -- writing upbeat stories that are truthful is not propaganda."


Good. At least we can agree upon that simple concept.

rob of wilmington, del. said...
"Writing relentlessly upbeat stories at the expense of the truth (and without disclosure that you are part of the military, and not a third party) is propaganda."


So wait, are you are saying that this woman is flat out lying about the stories she posts on her blog? That they are actually untrue?

As far as your accusation that she failed to disclose that she was affiliated with the military, I think you have your facts wrong, as the complete opposite is true.


"Enquirer Editor Tom Callinan told Editor & Publisher that he had to change the description of Fournier: "She never hid the fact that she worked for them. But we did not put a disclaimer at the top, we had overlooked that. We have now corrected it."


As you can read for yourself, since David made it perfectly clear, it was the Cincinnati Enquirer that neglected to disclose that fact, not Suzanne Fournier. She was upfront about who she was. And it seems that the mistake was immediately corrected as well.

12:36 PM  
Anonymous whoop4467 said...

trinity- can you answer all of the questions that you asked "Democrats" to answer about immigration?

1:47 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

whoop4467 said...
"trinity- can you answer all of the questions that you asked "Democrats" to answer about immigration?"


Of course I can. Why do you ask? Don't you have your own opinion concerning the things I mentioned? I know I don't agree with most of what the Democrats, and some of the Republicans are suggesting.

6:12 PM  
Anonymous whoop4467 said...

trinity - I do not know if my response was entered. If it did I am sorry for the repeat.
You are the one that asked the questions about immigration. The proper etiquette is for you to answer questions that you want someone to answer. You said you can answer your questions, but you did not say you would. If you answer your questions, then I will give my opinions(suggestions) to your questions.

9:53 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

whoop4467 said...
"You are the one that asked the questions about immigration. The proper etiquette is for you to answer questions that you want someone to answer. You said you can answer your questions, but you did not say you would. If you answer your questions, then I will give my opinions(suggestions) to your questions."


Hello, whoop! No problem. I didn't know I wasn't using proper etiquette. :)

It had just occurred to me that all anyone ever does over here is criticise/bash President Bush, without really divulging what they believe in or offering alternatives to what this president is doing. I was told I should really go elsewhere for this sort of give and take. But if you're willing, then I'm willing.

As far as the pro-illegal immigration people that were demonstrating last week, I would prefer that anyone who came here illegally from Mexico, go back to Mexico and demonstrate over there. The Mexican people should put pressure on their own government to do something about their sorry economic state.

Mexico is not a poor country, yet the elites who run it are very happy maintaining a permanent underclass and using America as their own personal pressure release valve whenever they need to export more of their poor. It's wrong.

Do I support any bill that gives illegal aliens amnesty? No I don't. It's not fair to immigrants who follow the rules and come into our country legally.

Before anything else is even considered, our borders have to be made secure. There is no sense in trying to figure out what to do about the people already here illegally, until we do something about that.

Should businesses who knowingly hire these illegals be prosecuted? Of course they should. That was the whole purpose of the Simpson-Mazzoli law in 1986 when three million illegals were granted amnesty. Unfortunately, the law was hardly ever enforced, which is why we now have four times as many illegals to consider.

And the talk of the possibility of some form of amnesty being granted again has resulted in an increase of illegals coming across our borders.

Should sneaking into this country
illegally be made a felony offense? On principle, I would have no problem with that. It's a felony in Mexico to cross into that country illegally. But I've read that making it a felony would only complicate things and slow down the deportation process, so if that is true, then I suppose we'd have to keep it a misdemeanor.

Should pregnant women who cross our borders illegally in order to give birth to an anchor baby be allowed to stay and take advantage of free healthcare at our expense? Should that baby be considered an American? I vote a resounding NO on both counts. It's time to rethink this misguided policy.

Should illegals who are felons be allowed to stay and become citizens who vote? Absolutely not. Our border state prisons are full of such people, and guess who is paying for them? They need to be sent back to the country they came from.

So, whoop, that pretty much sums up how I feel about the issue. Feel free to add your two cents. After listening to what the leaders of the Democrat party were saying we should do, I was curious how many of the Democrats here agreed with them.

11:48 PM  
Anonymous whoop4467 said...

Trinity - Thank you very much for your response. I take no exception to your response. In fact it pretty much reflects my thinking as well.
I have have absolutely no problem with legal immigration. I work in Medical Research using MRI(Magnetic Ressonance Immaging). I work with many MD's and PHDs that have come from other countries. Some come here for a one or two year research and go back to their home country(Sweden, Germany, Spain, Japan, England, China). Many have said at the end of their time that they would like to stay in the US, but they still return home. A few decide to stay but they went through all of the proper channels, did all of the proper paper work necessary to stay. One such person was from China(with his wife) and will be a great asset in Medical Research ( But he took a Research position for a lot less money that an American PHD would have). All of the ones that I have worked with have made tremendious efforts to learn English( some already know it when they come), learn about our way of life, learn our culture and learn about our laws.
There is absolutely something wrong with those that come here illegally. As you said they are violating an existing law that should be enforced. The illegals put a hugh burden on the working class in America because it affects our wages, increases our health care cost, slows our educational system and cramps our legal system.
As you stated indirectly, most illegals come from poor nations that are doing a lousy job of providing a good environment for them. In my opinion, the lack of vissionary family planning in those countries are causing a population growth they are not able or care to handle. As a statement goes, "A failure to plan on you part is no reason for me to solve your problem.".
I certainly agree there should be no amnesty for the illegals or for the companies that hire them. All illegals should have to go through the same process as any legal applicant to stay in our great country. I have heard over and over again that we are a nation of laws, therfore we should enforce the ones we have. It is like a saying in American football, "If you are not playing by the established rules of our game then you are not playing American football."

2:22 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Listed on BlogShares