Random Logic

A Night Before Diggmas

2008-11-30T19:22:00.000-08:00

The people over at Blog-a-torium has done it again with this Christmas poem about Digg. Run on over there and take a gander at "The Night Before Diggmas".

'Twas the night before Diggmas, when all through the site,
Not a Digger was stirring, not even MediaSight.
The submittals were posted on Digg with great care,
In hopes that Kevin Rose soon would be there;"

Zombies walk the earth...

2008-10-21T11:15:00.000-07:00

... or rather they roam the internet it seems!

The very idea of the dead walking the earth eating brains and body parts of the living is a repelling thought to many, and unthinkable to many more... but are the Dead alive and well and using the internet?

It seems that way, to this reporter, even if it's only in the abstract sense of the idea. It seems that the "Dead", also known as 'The Banned", are returning from the afterlife and returning to Digg.

In an article found on LewP's Weblog, "Can banned Digg friends come back to life?", Lew says:

"Now that Digg has banned half of North America, I am proposing a new game for us banned folks with the number 666 tatooed on our foreheads. Just come back as another person. I’m pretty sure this is being done already, but let me be the first to go out on a limb here and make it public."

Ashmadai, a noted blogger of small notoriety (as well as a blogger who seems to relish picking at digg every chance he gets), stated:

"… it is my `considered opinion’(do you like that choice of wording? LoL) that Digg wants the majority of it’s members to come back. Hey, the fact is that they allow people to come back fairly easy - therefore they must want them to come back."

Ashmadai states the case that as an experienced Message Board admin/owner he is well aware of a minimum of 3 ways to ban a member... and it seems that Digg has shown that it knows of two of the ways. In short, since Digg only bans screen names of most of it's Diggers - then Digg must want to leave the option open to these 'Walking Dead" to return to Digg under other names (under certain conditions, of course). It seems Diggers are taking them up on the offer by returning from the "Dead" to roam Digg once more.

Who am I to oppose the powers that be, at least in this case. Many of those banned from Digg were either banned under questionable reasons anyway or they had valid reasons and a mere warning would have sufficed. In any event the warning given of being banned for violating the Digg TOU would have made it's point with the many 'undugg' roaming the net looking for new homes.

It's a win-win situation, really. The Diggers get a second chance, or third, and Digg gets to show it really does stick by it's own rules.

Stay tuned for "Dawn of the Digger" to find out the outcome of this move.

Digg Uproar: What's Going On With Digg?

2008-09-22T18:58:00.000-07:00

Over the course of the past few days I've been reading about the shenanigans going on over at Digg and felt it is time to comment upon it, besides it's time I've done another blog post. and this is a handy topic. :)

The whole Digg Uproar thing seemed to begin with an attack on Mr. Babyman and Blind Digging.
It seems that some people were unhappy with Mr. Babyman because the number of items Mr. Babyman had go front page and the fact that Mr. Babyman seemed to not click through and read some of the articles he has dugg. It seemed to escape many that if a person submitted 20 or 30 articles a day, then the odds are that 1 to 3 of the articles will go front page -- providing you are submitting the type of items that you have seen go front page time and again. It also escaped people's notice that the mere fact that Mr. Babyman was the Top Digger, he would gather a cultlike following whether he wanted one or not. This following would be more than happy to digg Mr. Babyman's submittals just to try to gain his notice, one blogger calls this "The Suck-up Factor". :)

The attack on Mr. Babyman seemed to lead quickly into an attack against blind digging in general. The loudest of those voicing their outrage at Blind Digging never seemed to define the term "Blind Digging". In general Blind Digging is the digging of an item with-out looking at the article, but how do we know if someone is actually blind digging? Sure we can say things like "If you digg 89 posts in 3 minutes, you're blind digging... but everyone overlooks the fact of "It depends on what you digg as to whether you have to click through or not". For example:

1. Some items submittted to Digg are single images and when the item is submitted the image is sometimes shown next to the description. Quite often a person can see the reduced image and say "Oh, I have seen that 1,000 times over, there's no need to go look at it again.". So all they have to do is click the Digg button and go onto the next item to digg.

2. Another thing is that many of the items on Digg are news items and we are saturated with the news 24 hours a day from multiple sources. When one sees a headline and description that is often enough to judge whether you need to read the article or say "I've seen this before". Once again, no sense in reinventing the wheel everytime... you simply digg the item because you've seen it already.

3. A third thing is that Top Users and normal Users alike are not careful in what they submit. Quite often you will see the same item posted from different sources. The choice of the Digger is to bury all duplicates and risk making people mad at you or just digg the articles even though they say the same thing. The idea behind Digg is to be social, pissing off your fellow Diggers isn't exactly classified as "Being Social"... so many diggers will simply digg the item and be done with it. This appeases friends and fans on Digg alike and is basically harmless. The point is that there is no need to click through to the item in order to Digg it.

There are many valid reasons why a person does not have to waste the time and resources to click on every single item they digg. Yes I said "Resources", which is something many people don't seem to worry about. The fact is that not everyone has 2 gigs of memory to waste, some people operate on much less and every window being opened affects that memory. Windows has always been a lousy resource manager, it's not so quick to return resources it uses. The end result is that by opening screens unnecessarily, this can (and often does) tie up resources on the person's computer.

This uproar over Babyman and Blind Digging seemed to quiet down for a few days, but never fear - there is always something on Digg to cause unrest. This time it was the fact that familiar "faces" seemed to disappear. It quickly became known that Diggers were being banned, as many as 600 bannings were said to have happened. There is a list of 150 Diggers who were banned on the net The fascinating thing about this list is that it only contains 5 out of the Top 100 Users (about 3.33%), 72 more (about 48%) were ranked from 101 to 1000 on the Social Blade list. This meant that about 48.67% of those being banned by Digg were 'Normal Users". This is an interesting piece of data for it indicates that the normal, everyday digger who is not a part of the Top 1,000 abuse Digg as much as the Top Diggers are said to abuse the system.

At this point let's back things up a little, Zaibatsu posted an article on a blog and said that he was not banned for using scripts. Zaibatsu was banned for posting a link from a Spam Site, so the accusation by Digg states. No one brought forth evidence about Zaibatsu to the contrary. Next we have ZoomTechTV who resigned from Digg, I believe his resignation was in the Grim Reaper Visits Digg blog post. So why were these Diggers banned?

It appears that many of them used scripts, but some used a script that was not designed to Digg or submit. This script was one to keep track of one's Digg Friends, according to Diggboss. So what's the harm in utilizing a script to help one keep track of one's friends on Digg? Don't ask me, ask Digg... they are the ones making the call. As far as I am concerned Digg should have methods to keep better track of one's friends on Digg, afterall it is one's friends who mostly will digg our submittals and isn't that what friends do - they look out for each other?

One of the newest articles on the net goes by the headline of Thinking Like Kevin Rose: What Does The Digg Founder Have in His Mind? This article is written by a man named Manish Pandey and it's a fairly good read. I don't agree with all of Manish's views on the subject, but I respect them and will go a step further... he might actually be right! :) The one issue I disagree over is about Blind Digging. When I was on Digg I have done more blind digging through the Upcoming pages than anywhere else. On the Upcoming Pages all you have to do is click on 15 Digg Badges and move onto the next page... the amount of time to digg a page was about 10 to 15 seconds. Others I've talked to has accomplished this feat in as low as 7 or 8 seconds and there were times that it took a whole 20 -25 seconds to digg a page of 15 items because of the load time to bring up the next page or because of scrolling too far and having to backtrack to catch a missed item. When friends sent their shouts, you had to at least go to the page to get at the digg badge. This usually only had taken up 1 to 3 seconds to load the browser screen and set the page so you could see the digg badge, plus the time to scan the description and title. As you can see, there wasn't a great deal of difference in time, but there was enough loss to make a shout from a friend slower. Quite often the title and description were enough info to tell a person whether they had to go to the actual item or not.

On the other hand, like Manish I have mixed feelings on this. It seems to me that the Digg Fixes are like putting a tire patch on the Hindenberg... i.e not enough to actually fix the problem. The root problem with Digg are those who want to dictate how a digger is to use the site. It doesn't lie in blind digging or the top users monopolizing the front page, it lies with those who are on Digg and trying to control it when they have no legal or moral right to control it. Each Digger should be allowed to handle their accounts as they wish... as long as they are not using scripts or bots to cheat the system. A person should be able to give his or her diggs out as they see fit, there is no requirement on Digg that states you have to love the item you digg... and how could they tell whether you loved it or not anyway?

If Digg felt it was necessary to put 'stops' into their system then that would be fine. Let's say it takes an average person 3 minutes to view a Youtube video, 1 minute to read an average story or news article, and 5 seconds to view a static image. This averages out to about:

180 seconds + 60 Seconds + 5 seconds = 245 seconds/3 = 81.67 seconds (1 Minute, 22 seconds)

There are 86,400 seconds in a day (60 seconds x 60 minutes x 24 hours), this averages out to a person being able to digg approximately 1,057.92 posts per day. Now if Digg simply said the upper limit for the amount of diggs per day were 1,000 diggs, or 42 Diggs/hour... they could be perfectly justified and still give people plenty of diggs per day. Hell with 1,000 friends, that is a potential of 42,000 diggs per hour or 1,000,000 Diggs/day... and how many of us really gets that kind of response? :)

The fact is that if a person is happy digging only 1 post every 3 years, they are free to do so... but if a person wants to digg 1,000 items a day - that also should be their perogative. Signing up to Digg isn't like signing up to the military, it's a damn social site on the internet... let it remain social. For those who are disgruntled because they can't get the diggs they want -- let them find the right friends who will give them the numbers they want. It's absolutely impossible to be friends equally with 5 million other Diggers, when groups are that large then the main group will break up into smaller sub-groups. It's just the way things work. If Digg wants to give everyone an equal chance then perhaps a new formula for Digg needs set up to where the program automatically applies a digg from each member to each member and take the abillity for the freedom of choice out of the equation entirely. The one thing Digg can't do is allow the Digg Mafia and Bury Brigade to dictate policy.

Another Digg Uproar

2008-09-14T20:25:00.000-07:00

It is reported by the article entitled "Digg Uproar: Attack on Mr. Babyman and Blind Digging", on Ashmadai's Blog, some members of Digg raised the roof last week over one of the Digg Top Users known as Mr. Babyman. It seems some members of Digg were disgruntled over the fact that Mr. Babyman achieved great success on Digg and the allegations flew around about how he gained his status and kept it for over a year like finger nail's at a bar room cat fight. The accusations were so intense that Mr. Babyman felt compelled to conduct an interview to explain a few things, of course this really resolved nothing in the long run. The major complaints of Babyman using scripts and blind digging remained with some of those in attendence and it seemed to fuel their agendas.

One of the things I've seen happening in the past week or two over at Digg is not really dealing with the subject of Blind Digging or Mr. Babyman, these two topics are only the tip of the ice berg. If these bully groups get their way, then they will target new people and new things. I've seen this happen many times on the net, people who have no power often get drunk with it when they find out they can manipulate people and events.

There is a poem that I've always liked, which fits this occassion. I am sure most of you have heard it before, but I will repeat it here:

First they came for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak upbecause I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me.

This was said to be written by the Reverand Martin Niemoller in 1945, I never checked to
insure that if this information was correct. I don't think it really matters. What matters is the thoughts being conveyed.

Mr. Babyman is under attack and many allegations are made about him, none of the allegations come along with hard fact to prove the claims. The detractors of Mr. Babyman state their case as if they have enough proof to crucify the man, expecting others on Digg to drop into line like good little sheeple. Along with this comes the pleadings of some to ban Mr. Babyman because of baseless accusations. In the old days they would say a person in Mr. Babyman's position was being "Railroaded". On the heels of the Mr. Babyman upheavel comes the agenda guided people who want to alter Digg's Rules and Policies to suit themselves. To those who have seen this done many times over in other forums, it is easy to see the drive for some to manipulate Digg and it's staff.

If these people get their way with Mr. Babyman, then who's next and where will it stop? The members of Digg need to be made to realize that their input and opinions are important, but that does not mean that just because they say something that Digg will do as they say. Digg controls Digg and they are gracious enough to say, at least, that there is a democratic process that is involved with their site. The baseline is that it is Digg who will catch the heat from the state or feds if something happens on their site that draws attention and those at Digg have to protect that, so the illusion of Digg being Democratic has it's limitations -- and this is one of them. Digg has to maintain the reins of control and not allow it to slip to special interest groups.

Google-Digg Merge New Format Chosen

2008-07-18T10:03:00.000-07:00

Google-Digg Merge: New Format Chosen
Google McDigg Born

San Francisco - Today a new corporation was born when Digg was sold to Google at 11:45 AM. Sources report that the company was sold for $1 plus other considerations, but our sources would not hint at what the other considerations were.

Google McDigg standing in front of new sign The formal announcement was made by the
famed comedian/actress Ellen DeGeneris. "We wanted someone famous, but our first choice of George Carlin was unavaible and Robin Williams declined.", stated the spokesman. Sources close to Kevin Rose said that Bill Cosby was asked to make the formal announcement, but our phone call to the world's most famous father received the reply "Mr. Cosby was never asked to make the announcement, besides he doesn't need the money that bad."

The Google spokesman made the announcement that the new company name for Digg will be McDigg. "It's a harmless steal from McDonald's restaurants," said the spokesman, "but they don't mind - they can use all the free advertising they can get now-a-days." The spokesman went on to say that the new logo of McDigg will be none other than Kevin Rose as Google McDigg. "We most likely could have gotten Erin Moran, ex-Happy Days star, or Stephen Erkel to do the new logo... but they both wanted too much money." It is now rumored that secret dealings are underway with Coors and Budweiser to use the McDigg poster child in their ads.

How To Get More Diggs

2008-06-12T08:40:00.000-07:00

Today I ran across another How To Get More Diggs article, and found it interesting enough to post an article concerning this blog post. The article tells of the author's attempts to succeed through social book marking sites ends with the author's short testimonial of listening to Chris Lang and then advisinge to buy his book. Take a look at this site and check out the other blogs.

The Media

2007-08-19T11:21:00.000-07:00

What is the Mass Media?

Mass media is a term used to denote a section of the media specifically envisioned and designed to reach a very large audiences, such as the population of a nation state. It is sometimes referred to as “The Media”, the “Broadcast Media” or even the “Corporate Media”.

Many of those who post on the various message forums and blogs have a tendency to refer to the electronic media (ABC, Fox News, CNN, CBS MSNBC, et al.) as the “Mass Media”, “Mainstream Media” or simply the “MSM“. However, we also find that some sites on the internet fall under the header or the “Mass Media” or “MSM”. In addition to the electronic news agencies we find that many magazines, newspapers and other forms of media are included in the term.

Purposes for the Mass Media

The Media was originally intended to inform the general public about news and information, which would be of interest to the people. The newspapers would not only cover local issues and events, but they would cover items which were more of a regional or national interest. The media now, and most probably always, had a variety of purposes, which can be broken down into 5 main groups:

Advocacy: Advocacy is the act of arguing on behalf of a particular issue, idea or person. Individuals, organizations, businesses, and governments can engage in advocacy. It can include advertising, marketing, propaganda, public relations, political communication and social justice.

Enrichment and Education: Education means 'to draw out', facilitating realization of self-potential and latent talents of an individual.

Entertainment: Entertainment is an event, performance, or activity designed to give pleasure or relaxation to an audience. This includes, but is not limited to, sports, music, plays, opera, movies, sitcoms, and even computer games. The audience may participate in the entertainment passively or actively.

Journalism: Journalism is a discipline of gathering, writing and reporting news, news, and more broadly it includes the process of editing and presenting the news articles. Journalism applies to various media, including but not limited to newspapers, magazines, radio and television.

Public Service Announcements: Public Service Announcements, or Community Service Announcements, are non-commercial advertisements typically on radio or television, ostensibly broadcast for the public good. The main concept is to modify public attitudes by raising awareness about specific issues.

The Effects of the Mass Media.

The effects of mass media exposure, as indicated by decades of studies, are varied and reciprocal. It is found that not only does the media impact it’s audiences, but also that the audiences impact the media by the intensity and frequency that it is used. In other words, those involved in the Mass Media give the people what they want and this is judged by “ratings” and the amount of publications sold. For example, if no one cared a fig about Paris Hilton, then those in the media would not provide us much news and information, if any, about her.

J. R. Finnegan Jr. and K. Viswanath (1997) has identified three effects, or functions, of media, they are the knowledge gap, agenda setting, and cultivation of shared public perceptions.

The Knowledge Gap. Health knowledge is differentially distributed in the population, resulting in knowledge gaps. Unfortunately, mass media are insufficient for distributing information in an egalitarian fashion—changes in social structure and institutions are also necessary for this to occur. Thus, the impact of mass media on audience knowledge gaps is influenced by such factors as the extent to which the content is appealing, the degree to which information channels are accessible and desirable, and the amount of social conflict and diversity there is in a community. Hence, public health media campaigns are more effective when structural factors that impede the distribution of knowledge are addressed.

Agenda Setting. The selective nature of what members of the media choose for public consumption influences how people think about health issues, and what they think about them. When Rudolph Giuliani, the mayor of New York City, publicly disclosed he had prostate cancer prior to the 2000 New York senatorial election, many news media reported the risks of prostate cancer, prompting greater public awareness about the incidence of the disease and the need for screening. A similar episode occurred in the mid-1970s when Betty Ford, wife of President Gerald R. Ford, and Happy Rockefeller, wife of Vice President Nelson Rockefeller, were both diagnosed with breast cancer.

A related theme is the extent to which the media set the public's perception of health risks. According to J. J. Davis, when risks are highlighted in the media, particularly in great detail, the extent of agenda setting is likely to be based on the degree to which a public sense of outrage and threat is provoked. Where mass media can be especially valuable is in the framing of issues. "Framing" means taking a leadership role in the organization of public discourse about an issue. Media, of course, are influenced by pressures to offer balance in coverage, and these pressures may come from persons and groups with particular political action and advocacy positions. According to Finnegan and Viswanath, "groups, institutions, and advocates compete to identify problems, to move them onto the public agenda, and to define the issues symbolically" (1997, p. 324). Thus, persons who desire to access mass media's agenda-setting potential must be aware of the competition.

Cultivation of Perceptions. Cultivation is the extent to which media exposure, over time, shapes audience perceptions. Television is a common experience, especially in the United States, and it serves as what S. W. Littlejohn calls a "homogenizing agent." However, the effect is often based on several conditions, particularly socioeconomic factors. Prolonged exposure to TV or movie violence may affect the extent to which people think community violence is a problem, though that belief is likely moderated by where they live. However, the actual determinants of people's impressions of violence are complex, and consensus in this area is lacking.

Perceived Inherent Negative Characteristics of the Media.

The “Central Media” is another term used in connection with the “Mass Media”. The Central Media is when the same identical stories emanate from a central point to numerous recipients. It is claimed this forces certain inherent limitations on the information which we are told, such as an inability to transmit tacit knowledge, that is “knowledge which people carry around in their minds and is difficult to access” (or perhaps it can only transfer bad tacit knowledge as opposed to good). A focus on the unusual and sensational rather than a restatement of wisdom, the promotion of anxiety and fear to sell the newspaper/channel, etc. inability to deal with complex issues so a need to simplify.

This view of central media can be contrasted with the “Lateral Media“, such as emails networks, where messages are all slightly different and spread by a process of “Lateral Diffusion“. Lateral diffusion is basically the “knowledge that people carry in their minds and is, therefore, difficult to access”.

What is the Main Stream Media?

"MSM" or "Main Stream Media" is a term used frequently by bloggers, and media critics in general, in discussions concerning the mass media and media bias. It’s used to mean the “corporate media” and includes outlets that are in harmony with the prevailing direction of influence in the culture at large. Most often the MSM is applied to news or information in order to give some sense of “unfairness” or an evil overtone.

In the United States, usage of these terms often depend upon the connotations which the speaker wishes to invoke. For example, the leftists use it to imply that the MSM consists of large multinational corporations, or are controlled by elements of the right, and promotes their interests. Meanwhile the right wing claim that the majority of the mass media sources are dominated, or controlled entirely, by far left wing radical elements who use the MSM to further their agenda. Over half of all Americans say US news organizations are politically biased, inaccurate, and don't care about the people. .

Error in Media Reporting

The first observation to note is the obvious concerning the “Errors” which we often can find in media reporting. In the past there have been many instances where people of all walks of life have noticed and commented upon “errors” which they found in news reports they read or heard. The reasons these errors have been spotted are due to a wide variety of reasons, such as someone being involved in the situation, or event, in some way and they noticed the reporters didn‘t report the news accurately for some reason. For example, an auto accident occurred and the person was a passenger in the car which was involved. The media reports that the cause of the accident seemed to be due to the driver being on the cell phone and the person knew the driver was not on the cell phone before or during the accident.

Another way which the information given was in error is known may be due to the story dealing with the subject matter being discussed in the news story. For example, a news story being reported has to deal with a traffic study causing a road closure. The viewer, or reader, works in the field and has done many traffic studies. He or she knows that one cannot do a traffic study on a closed road, in order to perform a traffic study… the traffic must be flowing. The person may not know why the road closed, as reported, but does know that it was not due to the reason given by the reporter..

A third possible way to know the original story was in error comes from listening to follow up stories and seeing the story change from report to report. For example, a news bulletin interrupts the regular 4 PM programming and states that a plane is being held in a landing pattern because someone noticed “tire damage” on the landing gear and another plane was sent to check it out. A report 5 minutes later says the damage is to the landing gear itself and another plane is on it’s way to check out the situation. The very next report heard says there is damage to the wing and a plane is being checking out the damage. It is obvious that the media is clueless as to what is actually going on but are simply reporting rumors or what they think might be wrong.

The reasons for why a news story, given in error, was noticed truly doesn’t matter a great deal, what does matter is that we are aware the media doesn’t always get the story right for whatever the reason… especially in the initial reports. .

Why the Media doesn’t get it right?

There are many reasons why the media gets the story wrong, or doesn’t tell the full story properly. The following are just a few possible reasons:

Time and Space restrictions

News Articles generally have to fit into a certain amount of space allotted for the story, or a certain amount of time. The guiding factor could be how many words or the reporter given only 20 seconds to a minute get the story told. In order to fit a complex story into the amount of time or space allowed, the information given is condensed or left out completely.. When editing an article, especially when it is done by someone other than the original reporter, mistakes can be made which alters the article due to the lack of knowledge on the subject.

Sensationalism over Fact Reporting

Much of the news today seems to concern itself more with sensationalism rather than reporting the facts. Over the past decade or two several respected news reporters have came out with comments concerning the standards of news reporting in today‘s media. One notable journalist, either Cronkite or Rather, made a comment which amounted to “…in their (the journalist speaking) day they needed a minimum of 3 sources of which 2 had to be unimpeachable, then that changed to the requirement of only 1 source which was unimpeachable. Today the journalists don’t even require one solid source“. When the reporter doesn’t have to get his, or her, facts right by the use of several valid sources, sensationalism arises because the news is reduced to the “he said/she said” reporting. .

The “News First” Phenomena

Today we are saturated with the “News First” style of news reporting where the importance is getting the story out first, regardless of what the reporters find out. The objective is not so much as to keep ‘the people“ informed, as it is to boost ratings for that particular news channel.
A media outlet hears of a situation going on and deploys their reporters out to get the story. The reporters get on the scene and the news crew performs whatever set up that is required, then immediately goes on the air. The reporter often talks to a few people, gets the gist of what is going on, and begins reporting the “news”. The facts, which we are often given, are mostly rumors and conjectures at this point… yet the news reports this as if it was ‘real news”. Worse, most of those listening hear what is going on and are still confused over the situation. All of this doesn’t matter, where the news organization is concerned, because they can say the story is “developing” and correct whatever errors they tell us later. Meanwhile the information conveyed can have various effects on the listeners, such as a mother becoming needlessly worried about her son because he could have been in that area at the time and she hasn’t heard from him.

The whole idea is that it’s more important that the station gets the story out, instead of getting the story out right. Quite often the media would do the public a better service if they wait awhile before giving in depth reports and only dole out the information required in the early reports.
Where printed media is concerned, it’s a similar idea. Instead of taking the time to find out if the allegations are fact or fiction, they rush to meet deadlines and tell us faulty news… often filled with opinion. This is called “News”, however, and to do anything to impede it in any way would bring screams of “the people having the right to know“ and “that is a violation of the first amendment“. It doesn‘t matter if logic and reason apply to the situation, what matters is ratings and sales. No one in the media ever seems to think things like “What does it matter if we hold this story for half an hour until the evening news comes on?”.

Agenda Setting

As much as we may not like to think it, the various news agencies are controlled by people, or groups, who have definite views about the ecology, politics, religion, etc.. Fox News, for example, definitely has a more conservative slant; while MSNBC has a definite liberal slant. These beliefs are often reflected in the way those working for these organizations report the news… or are allowed to report the news. On the other hand, in order to be fair to some news organizations, reporters and commentators are hired by the company due to their beliefs in order to help give us a more rounded opinion of current events. If you look at most news organizations, you will see they hire conservatives, as well as liberals… even if one set of beliefs are outweighed by the other. PBS is especially good at presenting more than one view.

The point for consideration is that it’s not always those who run the news organization who guide and manipulate the news, sometimes it’s those who work for the company. For example, over the past 4 years we have seen several of the “giants“ come under fire because their reporters, photographers, or some other employee manipulated the facts in order to support a particular agenda. When it was found out that the facts used for the story were wrong, or slanted, the old “Newsroom Two-step“ ensued and a variety of reasons were given to try to excuse the news organization, or reporter, from their responsibility.

Whenever the news we are given is not presented in a fair and just manner, it furthers someone’s agenda. The media loves to promote the idea that they are their “for the people” or “for truth and justice”, however we find that mainly the news is their for the news. Whether they are mainly their to promote an agenda or because the information they give is simply due to sloppy work, the facts remain that the media is more concerned with their own self-image than they are there for what is best ‘for the people’.

Honesty in Reporting:

One of the things I notice is that people tend to believe media sources which has the tendency to agree with their opinions. For example, Jim Smith likes Fox News because they tend to give pro-conservative views, while Annie Bailey loves MSNBC because they are heavy in attacking the conservative viewpoint. On the other hand Jackson Willoughby likes ABC because the facts most often given when it comes to the military are facts he knows to be true… and let’s not leave out Shel Silverstein who loves HonestReporting.com because it exposes the lies and errors given by the mainstream media.

The fact is that all media outlets, including internet sites and blogs, are prone to error and even personal opinions. Sometimes those views are similar to ours, sometimes they aren’t. Another thing to remember is that facts can be manipulated to give the appearance of truth. All news reports should be taken at face value with the knowledge that even the best of them sometimes makes mistakes.

Belief in the idea that Blogs are real news

It astounds me the number of people on the net who speak with great authority on subjects which they have very little first hand knowledge, then supports their views with mostly blog sites. Some people are so disenchanted with the MSM that they seem to put forth the idea that only bloggers will give us the real story.

The fact is that many bloggers primarily get their information from the same sources the rest of us get our news. They get their stories from the AP, CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, Various Newspapers, Talk Shows, Propaganda Films, and even internet sites. They then, often, write their blogs with their own set of opinions.

The truth is that some bloggers do have personal experience and knowledge which they can fall back when formulating their opinions, but most do not. Many bloggers are merely restating what others say, while adding their own twist. Some don’t even twist, they just rewrite things they have read. The only difference between most bloggers and you is that they are writing blogs and you are not. That doesn’t make them any more knowledgable than you. Anyone can be an editorialist, all you have to do is write your opinion, but to be a good one you need to use facts to back up what you say.

Believing the propagandists over the Media

The MSM has a bad reputation and in some cases it’s probably deserved, however we should strive to remember that these people are in the business of reporting the news and they are not only formally educated in the field of journalism… but many have years of experience in the field and they know it‘s ins and outs.

Every reporter has two options, or paths to follow. The first is presenting him, or her, self in such a way that he/she is considered to be a top notched, serious news journalist. To do this they have to present the image to the public of being a dedicated, well-informed news person who strives for accuracy in their reporting. The second path is followed when the reporter presents him, or her, self to be a “Fluff Reporter”. This is accomplished when the reporter is nailed too many times of presenting inaccurate information and/or is best noted for sensationalistic reports and basically “garbage news“.. The fact that a reporter may attract thousands of faithful followers in no way shows the reporter as being a serious news journalist.
Geraldo Rivera, for example, was taken as a ‘garbage news’ reporter for many years because of the sensationalistic stories he presented… however when he was given the chance of being a serious journalist, he actually did very well (even though he made a mistake or two which cost him where his reputation was concerned). The man did show the talent to be a good news reporter.

Summary

There is no denying that much of the media is using it’s position to shamelessly promote the views and agendas of those in it to dictate how they tell a news story, and which stories they report. We also shouldn’t deny to ourselves that sometimes the media is actually doing it’s job, with in respectable tolerances, but it’s getting a bad rap by viewers, listeners and readers who simply have opposing agenda’s and views. As one who is analyzing the news, we should strive to realize that just because someone says something we agree with does not mean they are reporting the information in a fair, just and truthful manner. The same goes for those in the media with whom we disagree.

We must realize that just because a reporter sits in the White House press room on a daily basis does not mean that he or she knows more about what is going on than we do. Reporters get their information from “sources” but even those sources do not always tell those in the media the full story, or the correct one. The reporter has to judge what information he or she hears and try to find out whether the facts given were correct. When a reporter fails to find out that the information is truthful and accurate, then reports it as fact, he or she is guilty of not upholding their promise of honest reporting.

Sources:

Wikipedia: Mass Media
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_media

Answers.com: Mass Medium
http://www.answers.com/topic/mass-media?cat=biz-fin

The Illegal Immigration Issue

2007-08-12T20:12:00.000-07:00

Forward:

The legal immigrant comes to America in accordance with the laws and policies set by the United States government and the U.S. Department of Immigration. The majority of these people come here for a better life, to escape problems in their own countries or other reasons; and while they are here, they make a reasonable effort to adhere to our laws and attempt to fulfill the requirements set up by the U.S. government. Sometimes a legal immigrant fails to meet the requirements they are expected to meet, or have brushes with the law, and end up being deported. Many times they are not responsible for the problems which fall upon their shoulders, or the responsibility is not theirs alone. We may consider these people as the “victims of circumstance”

Other times the legal immigrant may forget to file for new visas extensions on time or simply fail to make an appointment. This could be because they put off doing as they should right away and other things came up which drove the idea of what they needed to do out of their mind. These could be considered as “accidents” and accidents are a part of life. Even the best of us sometimes forget things.

Our immigration policies should grant allowances for such things, with-in reason. For example, a legal immigrant who overstays his visa should not be classified automatically as “Illegal Immigrants” or “Illegal Aliens” and be slated for deportation until the immigrant has a chance to give an explanation and try to correct the problem. Another example would be that if an immigrant is here legally under one type of visa (a work visa, let‘s say), then attempts to get a different type of visa (political asylum, for example) , then his first visa should not expire prematurely or made null and void until the other type of visa is approved. This means if the immigrant is attempting to get a different type of visa that he or she still should be covered by his or her current visa and act accordingly. For example, If the date of expiration is approaching then they are responsible for renewing it, then they should renew the visa.

A small portion of the legal immigrant come into this country and chose to ignore our laws or they willfully become a part of the criminal element. These people should be treated as the law says they should be treated and dealt with properly. That could mean automatic deportation if found guilty.

This article is not about these Legal Immigrants, whether he (or she) is a law-abiding citizen or a criminal because no matter what they do here, they entered the country legally. Let it suffice to say that there are problems in the U.S. Immigration policies, but those problems are for other discussions and not for this topic of “Illegal Immigration”.

The Illegal Immigrant:

One of the best definitions I’ve seen for the term “Illegal Immigrant” comes from Wikipedia:

The term “Illegal immigration” refers to immigration across national borders in a way that violates the immigration laws of the destination country. Under this definition, an illegal immigrant is a foreigner who either has illegally crossed an international political border, be it by land, sea or air, or a foreigner who has entered a country legally but then overstays his/her visa in order to live and/or work therein. In politics, the term may imply a larger set of social issues and time constraints with disputed consequences in areas such as economy, social welfare, education, health care, slavery, prostitution, crime, legal protections, public services, and human rights. Illegal emigration would be leaving a country in a manner that violates the laws of the country being exited.
(Source: Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undocumented_immigrant)

Some Facts on Illegal Immigration

Prior to our discussion concerning illegal immigration, we should look at some facts concerning the subject.

Basic Facts:

It is estimated that there are between 8 and 22 million plus “Illegal Immigrants” in the United States, most estimates fall with-in the 10 to 12 million range.

An estimated 50% of all illegal immigrants are Mexican, with estimates up to 57%.

Approximately 75% of undocumented illegal immigrants enter the United States through its southern border with Mexico and come mostly from Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala, Colombia and other Central and South American countries.

Time magazine stated in 2004 that a third of all illegal immigrants in the US live in California. Other states with large illegal populations are, in descending order, Texas, New York, Illinois, Florida and Arizona.

Money Wired to Mexico City since January 2006: $34,648,085,563.

Lifestyle:

Nearly 60% of all occupants of HUD properties in the United States are illegal aliens

More than 300,000 illegal aliens in Los Angeles County are living in garages

Illegal Immigrant Births:

More than 380,000 “anchor babies” were born in the United States in 2005 were to parents who are illegal aliens; making those 380,000 babies automatically U.S. citizens. 97.2% of all costs incurred from those births were paid by the American taxpayer

More than 66% of all births in California are to illegal alien Mexicans on Medi-Cal whose births were paid for by taxpayers

Education:

Number of Children of Illegal Aliens in Public Schools: 4.071,971.

In 2000, more than half of California’s 5.5 million Latinos age 25 and older did not have a high school diploma

32.6 percent - Less than a ninth-grade education

20.8 percent - Ninth to 12th-grade education, no diploma

More than 34% of Arizona students in grades 1-12 are illegal aliens

More than 39% of California students in grades 1-12 are illegal aliens

The Cost of Immigrants:

The cost of immigration to the American taxpayer in 1997 was a NET (after subtracting taxes immigrants pay) $70 BILLION a year, [Professor Donald Huddle, Rice University]
29% (630,000) convicted illegal alien felons fill our state and federal prisons at a cost of $1.6 billion annually

Cost of Illegal Aliens Incarcerated since 2001: $1,437,741,781.

Employment, Income and Profiteering from Illegal Immigration:

Skilled Jobs Taken by Illegal Aliens: 10,052,905.

Less than 2% of illegal aliens in the United States are picking crops , but 41% are on welfare

62% of all “undocumented immigrants” in the United States work for cash and not paying taxes, predominantly illegal aliens, working without a green card

The estimated profit to U.S. corporations and businesses employing ILLEGAL aliens in 2005 was more than $2.36 TRILLION dollars

Undocumented persons fill 29% of all roofing positions.

Undocumented persons fill 27% of all meat processing positions.

Undocumented persons fill 26% of all maintenance positions.

Undocumented persons fill 24% of all farming positions.

Undocumented persons fill 17% of all food-preparation positions

Taxes and Social Security:

More than 41% of all unemployment checks issued in the United States are to illegal aliens

More than 43% of all Food Stamps issued are to illegal aliens

58% of all Welfare payments in the United States are issued to illegal aliens

Cost of Social Security Services for Illegal Aliens since 1996: $397,465,864,322.

The lifetime fiscal impact (taxes paid minus services used) for the average adult Mexican ILLEGAL alien is $55,000.00 cost to the American taxpayer in a 5-year span. You, personally, are giving $11,000 every year to ILLEGAL aliens

Crime and Punishment:

Number of Illegal Alien Fugitives: 653,088.

More than 71% of all apprehended cars stolen in 2005 in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada and California were stolen by illegal aliens or transport coyotes”

47% of cited/stopped drivers in California have no license, no insurance and no registration for the vehicle. Of that 47%, 92% are illegal aliens

63% of cited/stopped drivers in Arizona have no license, no insurance and no registration for the vehicle. Of that 63%, 97% are illegal aliens

66% of cited/stopped drivers in New Mexico have no license, no insurance and no registration for the vehicle. Of that 66%, 98% are illegal aliens

More than half of all gang members in Los Angeles are illegal aliens from south of the border

More than 53% of all investigated burglaries reported in California, New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona and Texas are perpetrated by illegal aliens

83% of warrants for murder in Phoenix are for illegal aliens

86% of warrants for murder in Albuquerque are for illegal aliens

95% of warrants for murder in Los Angeles are for illegal aliens

24.9% of all inmates in California detention centers are Mexican nationals here illegally

40.1% of all inmates in Arizona detention centers are Mexican nationals here illegally

48.2% of all inmates in New Mexico detention centers are Mexican nationals here illegally

75% of people on the most wanted list in Los Angeles, Phoenix, and Albuquerque are illegal aliens

Media:

14 out of 31 TV stations in L.A. are Spanish-only

16 out of 28 TV stations in Phoenix are Spanish-only

15 out of 24 TV stations in Albuquerque are Spanish-only

21 radio stations in L.A. are Spanish-only

17 radio stations in Phoenix are Spanish-only

17 radio stations in Albuquerque are Spanish-only

Language:

More than 24% of Arizona students in grades 1-12 are non-English-speaking

More than 42% of California students in grades 1-12 are non-English-speaking

In Los Angeles County, 5.1 million people speak English. 3.9 million speak Spanish

Arguments concerning “Illegal Immigration:

“America Is A Nation Of Immigrants!”

When reading, or discussing, the topics of illegal immigration, the argument of "This is a nation of immigrants" or a similar argument arises. The facts are that as of 04:09 GMT (EST+5) Aug 10, 2007, there is an estimated 302,565,195 people in the United States of America. In addition there is an estimated 8 to 22 million in the country “Illegally”, the most commonly accepted figure being around 12 million “illegal immigrants“. Various figures show that anywhere from 80% to 85% of all those living in America were born here, of those the majority had one or more parent born as a U.S. Citizen. No matter what figures you wish to dredge up, the simple fact is that “the U.S. (America) is not a nation of immigrants”, but rather the majority of those who were U.S. born.

On the other hand to say “America is a nation descended from Immigrants” is closer to the truth, but even though the argument is valid - it’s also a moot point for the same can be said of anyone of any nation. According to accepted scientific theory man was born someplace in Africa eons ago and they migrated over the centuries to other areas of the world. Even the American Indian is said to have emigrated from some place other than the areas which became the continents of North and South America.

So, most certainly we are descendants of immigrants, everyone is a descendent of some immigrant, but that is not the same thing as being an immigrant nation, nor does it have any real bearing on the issues. Statements, such as this, are not valid justifications for illegal immigration… let alone immigration, because it infers the ideology of "Since we are a nation of immigrants, therefore, we must not limit immigration". This is a fallacy of Logic called “Circulus in demonstrando (The Circular Argument)“. The Circular Argument is when someone uses what they are trying to prove as part of the proof of their claim.

“Immigrants Built This Country”

According to the facts, the United States (America) declared it’s independence in 1776, however we did not win our independence until the Treaty of Paris was signed and the U.S. was formally recognized the new nation in 1783. Figures for immigration to the U.S. averaged only about 235,000 persons per year prior to the 1965 Immigration Act. This means that approximately 47.7 million immigrants over the course of the 182 years our nation's history from 1783 to 1965 entered the U.S. There have been literally billions of people born as American citizens or naturalized (in the case of the early years of America) who helped “build” this country, not to mention those who were foreign born yet never set foot in this country. To say that immigrants who built this country stands at about 4 to 6% is not out of line as a guess, however it is much simpler to say that “Immigrants helped build America” and not try to use it to justify the “Illegal Immigrant” issue. In actuality to make such claims either way is no more than the employment of the logical fallacy of “Argumentum ad misericordiam (argument or appeal to pity)”.

“Immigrants Do the Jobs Americans Won't Do!”

This comment is not precise, in fact it’s another logical fallacy made for an emotional appeal. Now if someone said “Immigrants will do the jobs that some Americans won’t do!” or “Immigrants will do the jobs that Americans generally will not do for the money being offered!” then they would be closer to the mark.

Generally speaking, Americans will do any job offered, however they will not do so for low or unfair wages. If the truth be known, you would probably find that quite often Americans won’t do certain jobs for a wage less than they think the job is worth and it matters not whether the pay being offered is a fair wage or not… but that is another discussion entirely.

Another comment that has a basis in truth, but isn’t quite true, is that Americans will do a sloppier job than their immigrant counterparts, at least where the employers are concerned. However not all immigrants will do satisfactory jobs either and to think that just because someone is an immigrant makes them a better worker is a tad bit racist in and of itself. People are people and their work ethics vary depending on many reasons, including their own laziness, ambition, knowledge of the job, experience in the job, health and many other factors.

Take a good look around you sometime and note the number of people who are “Americans” yet they put in long hours, work hard, and strive to perform their jobs to the best of their abilities. Even though they may be earning “good money”, the actual amount they earn when broken down to an hourly wage is often far less than it should be due to the amount of time they worked. While looking around also keep your mind opened to the amount of people who could care less about doing quality work and you’ll see not all of the slackers are American.

The real problem is money, Americans will generally not stick with jobs that demand long hours, hard work and pay next to nothing. If offered a better paying job and better hours, you’d see immigrants and illegal immigrants pass on the lower paying jobs as well as Americans.
These types of arguments, however, on all sides of the debate sound nice to those looking for justification but they are all moot points due to the topic is “Illegal Immigration” and not “(legal) immigrants. Even if the jobs that no American would do are only done by immigrants in this country, there are still many legal immigrants waiting to fill those positions even though they offer low wages. So by deporting the illegal immigrant, America is no worse for the wear.

“Immigrants Just Want a Better Life”

In a nutshell… “Not our problem”. This sounds cold hearted, but the truth often is cold sounding. If it wasn’t why do so many people get upset when you tell them the truth? The fact is that everyone wants a better life, or most people do, but as Mick Jagger once sang “You don’t always get what you want, but if you try, sometimes, you just might find that ya get what you need!”

According to the 2006 Ranking of Countries by Wealth there are 182 countries who are members of the International Monetary Fund which have information available. On that list the United States ranks 9th and is outranked by Luxembourg, Norway, Monaco, Qatar, Iceland, Ireland, Switzerland, and Denmark. Mexico is number 56 on that list, which means about 126 countries are poorer than Mexico. This translates to a figure of 4 to 5 billion people who live in countries which are poor than Mexico. It is safe to assume that most of those people would love to come to America, or Mexico for that matter, and receive higher wages and benefits in order to have a better life.

Wealth is relative, however, and figures sometimes don‘t always show the reality of real life. It is astonishing how many people don’t realize how expensive it can be to live in the U.S. Minimum wage is called minimum wage for a reason, and basically that reasoning is that it’s the minimum dollar value that a person can live on and still have what he or she needs… but try living on it sometime and you’ll see quickly that it isn’t enough money to live on reasonably.

“It will cure us of our awful homogeneity”

Immigration policy should not be decided on racial or ethnic grounds, or we will end up turning immigration into a tussle between the races. Furthermore, whatever the benefits of ethnic or racial diversity, we are already one of the most diverse countries in the world. It is not clear we need more of it. (And besides, who decides how much is enough or too little diversity?)

Though we often hear the mantra "Diversity is our strength," polls show that Americans of all ethnic backgrounds are less than convinced.

Almost everyone agrees that balkanization—the deterioration of a population into warring ethnically defined political groups—would be a bad thing. Yet, even a cursory glance around can not fail to impress upon the observer that, as our country becomes more diverse, it is also becoming more politically Balkanized. "Identity politics" is increasing not decreasing. Why do we continue to pursue a policy that can only intensify this tendency to balkanization?

“Immigration is good for the economy”

Immigration to the United States of America, between the years 1925 and 1965, averaged about 178,000 people per year (or a total of approximately 7,120,000 people over a span of 40 years). In today‘s world the U.S. is taking in approximately 1.1 million legal immigrants and up to 700,000 illegal aliens annually. During the 1925 to 1965 period Americans managed to build the richest country the world has ever seen or one of them at least. America can be rich without an endless flood of mass immigration. Immigration does help the economy grow, that is a fact that is undeniable, but to say Immigration is good for the economy in such a way to make it seem that we have to have mass immigration to make the economy good is a fallacy of logic.

“There’s plenty of room in the USA for the Illegal Immigrant”

America, a.k.a. the United States of America, is a big country. The U.S. is the 3rd largest country in the world, with 3,718,691 square miles. It is comprised of a total amount of 3,537,418 square land miles and the rest being water. The population Density is approximately 84 people per square mile. The U.S.A. is made up of 50 states, 48 of which are contiguous. Within America’s borders you will find vast plains, rugged mountains, hills; broad river valleys; volcanoes, deserts, plush coastlines, huge forests, and all sorts of topography. America has farms and ranches of all sizes, populated areas ranging from small villages to huge metropolitan areas and areas virtually uninhabitable by man.

Viewing the country by air or land can give a person the sensation of immense wasted space, however many areas of the country have water on it which is vital to life. Other areas are out in the middle of nowhere and not a good location for starting new towns and cities. In the southwest it takes quite a bit more land to raise cattle than it does back east. There are also areas of the U.S., such as Yosemite National Park, which could sustain homes, businesses and recreational areas, but if the land is taken for such purposes then you get the environmentalists screaming about destroying nature… and maybe the environmentalists are not so far wrong.

The deciding factor of any question dealing with public policy should be the simple question of “Is it good for the country?” Is it good for us to destroy natural habitats of wild life just because someone wants to allow illegal immigrants into the country? This is a thing up to Americans to decide, and to decide the answers we first must realize that we can’t have everything we’d like. We can’t allow our country to become overpopulated to the extent of destroying the trees which help provide the very air we breathe and help cool the climate for the water we drink.
Despite the amount of land that we seem to have, it is not good for our country to continue allowing ourselves to be overpopulated, like Chins, and one way to help curb that is by having responsible immigration policies.

Impacts of Illegal Immigration: Diseases

It’s time to bring up the subject of Diseases and how Illegal Immigration enters the picture. Legal immigrants have the requirement of having to undergo a medical screening before entering our country. This is done in order to ensure they do not bring any contagious diseases into the country… Illegal immigrants do not get screened and many are carrying diseases into the USA. Many of these diseases are highly contagious and can infect any citizens who come in contact with the infected person. Let’s look at a few of these diseases:
Malaria: Malaria was eradicated from the USA in the 1940s but recently there were outbreaks in southern California, New Jersey, New York City, and Houston. Additionally, Malaria tainted blood has been discovered in the blood supply.

Dengue: Dengue is a flu-like viral disease spread by the bite of infected mosquitoes. Dengue Hemorrhagic Fever is a severe, often fatal, complication of dengue. The disease was first recognized in the 1950s, affects most Asian countries and has become a leading cause of death among children in the infected areas. Most U.S. cases occur in travelers returning from abroad, but the dengue risk is increasing for persons living along the Texas-Mexico border and in other parts of the southern United States.

Leprosy: Leprosy a scourge of Biblical days is caused by a bacillus agent and is now know as Hansen's disease. In the 40 years prior to 2002, there were only 900 total cases of leprosy in the US. In the following three years there have been 9,000 cases and most were illegal aliens.
As noted in the article Leprosy in America: New Cause for Concern by Dr. William Levis, head of the New York Hansen's disease Clinic. "It's creeping into the U.S. ... This is a real phenomenon. It's a public health threat. New York is endemic now, and nobody's noticed." In the same article, Dr. Terry Williams, who runs a Houston-based clinic serving leprosy patients across southern Texas, said that the bulk of the cases treated by his clinic were immigrants. "A lot of our cases are imported," he said. "We see patients from everywhere--Africa, the Philippines, China, and South America."

Hepatitis A - E: Hepatitis is a viral infection that primarily attacks the liver. In 2004, more than 650 people contacted Hepatitis A at a single Chi-Chi's Mexican restaurant in Pennsylvania. Four latter died. Hepatitis B is one of the major diseases of mankind and is a serious global public health problem. It is estimated that 2 BILLION people are infected and about one million persons die each year. The new vaccine is only 95% effective in preventing an infection and will not cure a person who already has Hepatitis B, which results in a lifelong infection, cirrhosis (scarring) of the liver, liver cancer, liver failure, and early death. An estimated 1.3 million people in the US are currently infected. No vaccine is currently available to prevent Hepatitis C-E and treatment for chronic Hepatitis C costs about $1,500 per person.

Tuberculosis: TB kills approximately 2 million people each year. It is estimated that between 2002 and 2020, approximately 1,000,000,000 people will be newly infected, over 150 million people will get sick, and 36 million will die. TB is a highly contagious disease.
The United States currently has one of the lowest rates of TB in the world. Mexico has 10 times the rate of prevalence and many African countries along with Afghanistan, Cambodia, the Philippines, and Indonesia have rates that are 100 – 150 times higher. Making matters worse, a few years ago a Multi-Drug-Resistant (MDR) strain of TB has emerged that is resistant to all standard anti-TB drugs. Treating a single case of MDR TB costs over $250,000 and as much as $1,200,000 per person, and even with treatment about half of the patients with MDR-TB prematurely die.

In an article in the Journal of the American Medical Assn., Dr. Reuben Grunich, a lead investigator for the CDC commented on MDR-TD:

"Evidence of it (TB) has surfaced in 38 of 61 California health jurisdictions, and it could ‘threaten the efficacy of TB control efforts,' Granich said. The infected were said to be four times as likely to die from the disease and twice as likely to transmit the disease to others ... Reluctant to label the infected as ‘illegal' or even ‘undocumented' aliens, the report notes that of the 407 known cases of MDR-TB, 84% were ‘foreign-born' patients, mainly from Mexico and the Philippines who'd been in the U.S. less than five years. The percentage of TB cases among the ‘foreign-born' jumped from 29% in 1993 to 53% as of last year."

For more information on TB and the link to illegal aliens, see:
Is CDC covering up skyrocketing TB rate?
Immigration helps disease spread in the Valley
Mayor favors tougher stance against illegals.

Chagas Disease: Chagas Disease (American Trypanosomiasis), endemic to South and Central America, is spread by infected triatomine bugs, known as the "kissing bugs," that bite people. It was unknown in the United States until fairly recently. It is now estimated that between 100,000 and 500,000 people in the US have Chagas Disease. Who is infected? Mostly illegal aliens.

Since Chagas Disease is basically unknown outside of the illegal alien community most doctors won't recognize it and the blood supply just started being screened for it. Most cases of Chagas Disease that occur in patients other than illegal aliens are thought to be contracted from tainted blood – blood sold by illegal aliens with Chagas Disease before the blood supply started being tested for it as of August of 2006.

HIV: The number of illegal Mexican and Central American immigrants with HIV or AIDS is unknown, mostly because researchers rarely ask about immigration status. However, it is known that the rate of HIV infection among Latino women in California is about twice the rate of white women. At one free California health clinic, all of the women have HIV or AIDS. Most are Mexican or Central American "immigrants."

Crime and the Illegal Alien:

Illegal Immigration means a higher population and higher population means more people. Along with having more people - you will naturally get more crime. This is a fact of life. Now when you add in the aspect that these illegal immigrants are not screened in any way, you get more of a chance of having criminal elements of other countries sneaking into the country. This is also a fact of life, whether we wish to acknowledge it or not.

The criminality concerning the illegal immigrant begins with the mere fact that he or she is coming into the U.S. illegally, hence the word “Illegal” in the term “Illegal Immigrant”. Illegally entering the country is against the law, once again… whether we wish to acknowledge the fact or not.

Since the Illegal Immigrants are not screened, there is no way in telling how many are already criminals in their own country and how many find their way into a life of crime once they reach the “New Land” and find out that their plans do not work out they way they wish. This means that we also have no way of knowing exactly how many illegal immigrants are criminals and how many are law-abiding citizens… the only thing we know is how many illegal aliens we pick up a year for breaking the Laws of the United States, the Laws of the state in which they are residing and the Laws of the cities and towns they in which they are living. There is also another fact of life that not every criminal is picked up by the police.

We do know, however, that in many places where illegal immigrants are found, crime also increased. According to Heather MacDonald, of the City Journal:

“Some of the most violent criminals at large today are illegal aliens. Yet in cities where the crime these aliens commit is highest, the police cannot use the most obvious tool to apprehend them: their immigration status. In Los Angeles, for example, dozens of members of a ruthless Salvadoran prison gang have sneaked back into town after having been deported for such crimes as murder, assault with a deadly weapon, and drug trafficking. Police officers know who they are and know that their mere presence in the country is a felony. Yet should a cop arrest an illegal gangbanger for felonious reentry, it is he who will be treated as a criminal, for violating the LAPD’s rule against enforcing immigration law.”

In the article “Third Arrested In Connection With Schoolyard Slayings”:

“NEWARK, New Jersey (CNN) -- A third suspect was arrested in connection with the execution-style slayings of three college students in a schoolyard, Newark Mayor Cory Booker said Friday night.

A shackled Jose Carranza pleaded not guilty Friday to murder and related charges.

That suspect, identified as a 15-year-old male by officials, was arrested earlier Friday.

Additional arrests are likely to be made soon, officials said.

The crime shocked residents of Newark, New Jersey, galvanizing them to express their outrage at the city's street violence.

Earlier Friday, an undocumented immigrant pleaded not guilty to murder and other charges.

According to Joseph Farah, in his article “Illegal Aliens murder 12 Americans Daily”:

“While the military "quagmire" in Iraq was said to tip the scales of power in the U.S. midterm elections, most Americans have no idea more of their fellow citizens – men, women and children – were murdered this year by illegal aliens than the combined death toll of U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan since those military campaigns began.”

According to “Illegal Alien Crime Statistics”:

“Fortunately, a number of congressmen requested that the General Accountability Office (GAO) investigate and report information on criminal aliens incarcerated in federal and state prisons and local jails. The resulting GAO report, published in April 2005, revealed that illegal aliens make up 27% of the prison population. (The oft-cited figure of 12 million illegal aliens in the country means that they make up just 4% of the general population.)

Since illegal aliens are unlikely to be committing white-collar crimes, that figure likely underestimates the amount of violent crime committed by illegal aliens. Using the GAO report, Representative Steve King of Iowa points out that 25 Americans, on average, are killed by illegal aliens every day (about evenly split between motor vehicle accidents and outright murder).”

According to a press release by the Department of Homeland Security:

“The new interior enforcement strategy represents the second phase of the Secure Border Initiative (SBI), which is the Department of Homeland Security’s multi-year plan to secure America’s borders and reduce illegal migration. The first phase of the SBI remains focused on gaining operational control of the nation’s borders through additional personnel and technology, while also re-engineering the detention and removal system to ensure that illegal aliens are removed from this country quickly and efficiently.

The interior enforcement strategy will complement the Department’s border security efforts by expanding existing efforts to target employers of illegal aliens and immigration violators inside this country, as well as the many criminal networks that support these activities. The primary objectives are to reverse the tolerance of illegal employment and illegal immigration in the United States. To meet these objectives, the strategy sets out three primary goals or courses of action that will be carried out simultaneously:

The first is to identify and remove criminal aliens, immigration fugitives and other immigration violators from this country.

The second is to build strong worksite enforcement and compliance programs to deter illegal employment in this country.

The third is to uproot the criminal infrastructures at home and abroad that support illegal immigration, including human smuggling / trafficking organizations and document / benefit fraud organizations. ”

The list of articles and information relating to Crime and the Illegal Alien are quite extensive and many can be found on the internet, especially on Media Sites. In no way can a person say, with all honesty, that illegal aliens do not help the crime rate rise in this country, however the real question is “How much is crime increased due to illegal aliens/immigrants?” Even though this is the most fair and honest question to ask, it’s still a moot point because the illegal immigrants are not supposed to be in this country at all, they are breaking the law by being here.

Deportation of Illegal Immigrants:
Racism or Legalities and Common Sense?

There are people on all sides of the illegal immigration issue who take their stands based upon their own opinions concerning the issue. Some of these people are racially motivated, that cannot be denied, but what also cannot be denied honestly is that racially motivated people are on all sides of the illegal immigration issue. Just because someone is racially motivated does not automatically mean that anyone against the Illegal Immigrant is not a racist, nor does it mean that the racist who opposes Illegal Immigration is only doing so because of his or her prejudicial views. Even racists can have valid points. One of the best comments I have seen about this was “For every David Duke, there is a Congressman Gutierrez”.

The Illegal Immigration Issue, and deportation, is not all about race, it’s about breaking the law. It’s as simple as that. If America really does need more immigrants then there are ways to bring in more immigrants legally, but by allowing people to break our laws just because those laws do not suit our personal views is just an invite for them to break other laws as well.

America may want, and even need, immigrants to help us grow. The answer to that is to change our policies to allow more immigrants into the country. Additionally these immigration policies should be fair, there are many more people in the world than Mexicans, Central Americans, South Americans, Cubans, etc. who are deserving of the chance to be here and contribute constructive things to America for the betterment of our society. Allowing illegal immigrants to cross our borders and snub their noses at our laws and society is not the answer.

Summary:

To reiterate, the one crime all “Illegal Aliens” and “Illegal Immigrants” have in common is that they are not here with the approval of the U.S. Government. They are breaking the law by being here. This is not only offensive to the U.S. Government, but also every U.S. Citizen and Legal Immigrant in this country.

Another thing to think about was best said, in my opinion, by a friend of mine. She said, “Every ‘economical’ reason for illegal immigration is to have another disenfranchised culture or group: I do lawns because I have no schooling and speak no English, etc. That says their value is because they are undereducated and incapable of greater and higher work.” When you think about it, the idea of even implying that any person in the world is incapable of anything else but the most menial of jobs is racist… and it doesn’t matter if it’s a pro-illegal immigrant or one against illegal immigration stating such a thing. Not everyone in the world is capable of doing the same things as another, but everyone is capable of improving themselves by learning to do something else. To allow ourselves to believe in such thoughts is truly disenfranchising another person because of race, color, creed or national origin… which is something Americans are supposed to abhor with a passion.

The drain on our infrastructure by allowing illegal immigrants to come willy-nilly into our country is appalling. Our resources are not endless and what we have is needed elsewhere. Our schools, prisons, hospitals and health care facilities are all over burdening. Insurance rates go up for the insured because the illegal is often not insured and someone has to pay for the accidents in which they are involved. The flagrant disregard for our laws by illegal immigrants should not be a thing tolerated by law-abiding people in this country. Gangbangers, such as the Salvadorans, are a danger to Americans and legal immigrants alike. The diseases spread by the illegal immigrants are a problem for us all. There are valid reasons why many countries control their borders.

Let’s not lay all this at the feet of the illegal immigrant, in order to be fair minded and just. Our own citizens also share in the blame for the illegal immigrant coming to America, along with other groups. Some business owners support the illegal because they are cheap labor, work long hours and the best part is if the illegal complains… they get deported and another illegal immigrant simply takes their place. Same goes for crimes committed against the illegal immigrant… if they open their mouths to complain, they get deported. So the travesties of the Illegal Immigrant does not only apply to American Citizens and our Legal Immigrants, it also applies to the illegal immigrant themselves.

So what do we do about it?

Even though one of the answers for Illegal Immigration is to deport the immigrant, we must realize that we could never deport 8 to 22 million people… that are just not rational. We can, however, deport as many illegals as we possibly can deport, which is a rational idea, despite the views of some groups… but this brings rise to the question of “How do we insure these illegals do not come back?”

One of the biggest obstacles to overcome, in this country, is political in nature. Most of our “illustrious elected official” have the backbone of a jellyfish, or put it into nicer words “politicians do not have the fortitude or integrity to enforce the laws of the land“. The politician’s main job is to get elected, or reelected, to office and that means he or she will mostly say and do things that appease public opinion. This is our cross to bear.

Every day things get worse and worse. We need to do something about illegal immigrants and when looking at the polls, listening to the news and talk shows, reading the newspapers and items on the net; we can see that most people seem to be against illegal immigration while they recognize legal immigration as a need or want. Here are a few suggestions to contemplate:

Build the border fence the full length of the U.S. Mexican Border.

It is absolutely necessary to have proper border security we need to try to stop the smuggling of people and drugs into this country. A border fence will be costly, but that cost could be drastically reduced by the use of the U.S. Military and our National Guard units.

The U.S. Military has engineering teams who travel around the U.S. and the World doing Engineering Projects for the U.S and Foreign Governments. These missions are often written off as “Training Missions” used to enhance the skills of these service members. Groups such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, RED HORSE and the SEALS are capable enough to build the fences, facilities and roads required for a proper security fence along our southern border. We are already paying these people, put them to work.

However bad the problem is now, it is only worse with more illegal aliens. As this paper has detailed, we are being overrun by foreign nationals and when we catch and actually deport the really bad ones about 60% of them simply come right back in. Additionally, the fence is mandatory to significantly decrease the amount of drugs that are pouring across the southern border.

When it comes to property ownership, many areas through out the United States have laws which state that no property owner can put up a fence on the property line unless the owners of the adjoining properties agree that the fence can be put on the property line. When the owners do not agree, the property owner who insists on putting up the fence must do so on his/her own property. We can use this idea to our benefit.

Instead of putting the border fence on the border, move it into US Territory by about 1/8 to ¼ mile inside the US Border. Next we have our troop’s rough landscape the land between the true border and the fence, removing much of the things which can be used to shield those trying to illegally enter our country. The first fence can be a normal 8’ high chain link fence, with gates at the appropriate places for pedestrian and vehicular traffic. Then you place a block or concrete fence about 520’ back from the chain link fence. This wall would be wide enough for walkway on top and it would have guard towers every so often. The distance would be judged by the lay of the land, so one set of towers might be 520’, or about the size of a normal city block, and the next tower might be as much as a half mile away. The objective would be to insure the entire border is covered by the towers and the guards who patrol the top of the wall can be used for more detailed observations. The wall will be expensive, no doubt, but the value of it would be compared to the cost which the illegal immigrants cost the taxpayer every year. In addition, with a set up such as this we can have more controlled border crossing points for which Mexicans and Americans can use to access our countries. This may alleviate the congestion one finds at the few border crossings we have now, which would affect the profits for the businesses that transport goods across the borders.

Implement the REAL ID act now.

ID Theft and Fraud are hot topics in America today. It is at the point that people are concerned more about protecting their ID than ever before in history. If anything needs immediate action it is the acceleration of the time table for proper ID cards. Additionally we do need to know who is in the country illegally and what their intentions are.

The national ID card sounds a lot like 1984 and Big Brother, but stop and think of it… our social security numbers went from an item not to be used for ID purposes in the 70s to something almost everyone requires today. I swear, it’s almost at the point of if I want to go use the Men’s Room in the local bar, some fool of a machine wants my SSAN so I can access the stall. The point being, we already have a form of National ID.

In addition to our Social Security Number, we also have our State Driver’s License. That to is used for more than just the privilege of driving, it’s used as an I.D. card. The State Driver’s License is not just good for the state issued, I can go into any state, produce my Driver’s License as proof of age or identification and it is accepted, often with out question. No one can tell me that some guy running a State Store in Pennsylvania knows enough about an Arizona or California Driver’s License to know if it is a fake or not.

These are two compelling reasons for a National I.D. Card which would be almost impossible to duplicate. Part of the card may involve the information on the magnetic strip on back or a computer chip.

Dramatically increase the fines, penalties, enforcement, and prosecution for hiring illegal aliens.
This is a huge problem and probably equal to the political problems, especially since its businesses which give politicians much of their money for campaigns. However, the fact remains that if there are no jobs available then it will seriously reduce the incentive for people to come here.

Dramatically increase the fines and penalties for making and having forged documents.

Making, selling, providing, or possession of forged documents is grounds for immediate deportation.

Enforce existing law.

In case you don't know what the laws regarding illegal aliens are, see US Code, Title 8 (Aliens and Nationality), Chapter 12 (Immigration and Nationality), Subchapter II (Immigration), Part VIII (General Penalty Provisions) which contains the following provisions:

§ 1321 Prevention of unauthorized landing of aliens
§ 1322 Bringing in aliens subject to denial of admission on a health-related ground; persons liable; clearance papers; exceptions; "person" defined
§ 1323 Unlawful bringing of aliens into United States
§ 1324 Bringing in and harboring certain aliens
§ 1324a Unlawful employment of aliens
§ 1324b Unfair immigration-related employment practices
§ 1324c Penalties for document fraud
§ 1324d. Civil penalties for failure to depart
§ 1325 Improper entry by alien
§ 1326 Reentry of removed aliens
§ 1327 Aiding or assisting certain aliens to enter
§ 1328 Importation of alien for immoral purpose
§ 1329 Jurisdiction of district courts
§ 1330 Collection of penalties and expenses

Make violation of our immigration laws a conditional felony.

If nothing else, this shows we are serious and we are a sovereign nation.
Adopt and enforce English only provisions of being part of the United States.
This includes the current naturalization process where there would be no language waivers, regardless of age. If you really wanted to be part of another country, wouldn't you learn the native language of that country?

Immediately reduce the number of legal immigrants to 250,000 per year for the next ten years.

If the INS has a whole lot less people to process, maybe they can start finding and deporting the many hundreds of thousand of criminals with existing deportation orders against them.
Create a Conditional Citizenship Program (CCP) in the Immigration and Naturalization Service to provide a way for existing and otherwise law abiding, illegal aliens to stay and work in the United States and earn citizenship.

The CCP would be designed to specifically address and solve the problem of existing illegal aliens. It would not be a guest worker program. That is a whole separate and independent issue. The CCP would have an electronic registry allowing employers to have immediate verification of the working eligibility of illegal aliens. The CCP would have its own judiciary to swiftly handle any disputes, appeals, and deportations, not the cumbersome and illegal alien friendly bureaucracy of the Executive Office of Immigration Review (EOIR). NOTE: see Deport Aliens for information on the failure of the EOIR to enforce immigration policies

Make Welfare for only U.S. Citizens and certain Legal Immigrants only!

Welfare should not be given to anyone who is not authorized to be in the United States.

Hold the various groups and individuals who are helping the illegal aliens to violate the laws of the United States responsible.

Just as we should penalize businesses who utilize the illegal immigrant for their own profit, the various groups and individuals who help the illegal ought to be held liable by fine and possibly imprisonment for they are aiding and abetting criminals.

While the ACLU and various other unlimited and illegal immigration individuals and support groups will have a fit and squeal like a stuck pig, the collateral costs are simply too high to allow things to stay the way they are.

Sources

There is a wealth of information concerning “Illegal Immigration” out there on the net, some of the sources used were:

U.S. Census Bureau
http://www.census.gov/

Lighthouse Patriot Journal
http://lighthousepatriotjournal.wordpress.com/2007/07/23/hard-facts-concerning-illegal-immigration/

Jurist: Illegal immigration into US up sharply since 2000: DHS report http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2006/08/illegal-immigration-into-us-up-sharply.php

Real Clear Politics: The Revolt on Illegal Immigration
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/07/the_revolt_on_illegal_immigrat.html

Immigration Poll Results: Americans Talk About Illegal Immigration
http://www.npg.org/immpoll.html

Save Our City: Illegal Immigration
http://www.arizonacce.com/Illegal_Immigration.html

City-data.com: Fun Invader Facts
2006 (1st Qtr) INS/FBI Statistical Report on Illegal Immigration.
http://www.city-data.com/forum/immigration/68953-fun-invader-facts.html

Undocumented Persons and the Economy: Myths and Facts
http://www.ucc.org/assets/pdfs/immigrationundoc.pdf

ZDNET: Illegal Immigration Costs Federal Government $10 billion a year
http://blogs.zdnet.com/ITFacts/?p=10978

City Journal: The Illegal Alien Crime Wave
http://www.city-journal.org/html/14_1_the_illegal_alien.html

ProjectUSA
http://projectusa.org/arguments/lots_of_room_in_country.php

Right-Wing News: Answering 13 Frequently Asked Questions About Illegal Immigration
http://www.rightwingnews.com/category.php?ent=5455

IllegalAliens.US: Facts and Myths
http://www.illegalaliens.us/factsandmyths.htm

Center for Immigration Studies
http://www.cis.org/articles/2006/2006poll.html

SPLC: Getting Immigration Facts Straight
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?sid=415

Basic Facts on Immigration
http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/07/17/111523.php

Undocumented Immigrants Facts and Figures
http://www.urban.org/publications/1000587.html

The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration
http://www.usillegalaliens.com/

Facts on Illegal Immigration
http://www.campaignsitebuilder.com/templates/displayfiles/tmpl24.asp?SiteID=507&PageID=6389&Trial=false

Illegal Immigration Pros and Cons
http://www.articler.com/10519/Illegal-Immigration-Pros-And-Cons.html

Illegal Immigration Explained
http://usliberals.about.com/od/immigration/a/IllegalImmi.htm

PEW Hispanic Center
http://pewhispanic.org/reports/report.php?ReportID=61

PEW Research Center
http://pewresearch.org/

PollingReport.com - Immigration
http://www.pollingreport.com/immigration.htm

NPR: Forum Debating Immigration
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5309849

Numbers USA
http://www.numbersusa.com/interests/publicop.html

Logical Fallacies and the Art of Debate
http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Argumentum%20ad%20misericordiam

Answers.com
http://www.answers.com/topic/illegal?cat=biz-fin

Mark Zwick, et al., “Immigration and Economics,” Houston Catholic Worker (July – August 2006);
http://www.cjd.org/paper/immig-econ.html

Keno’s Rolling Stones Website
http://www.keno.org/stones_lyrics/you_cant_always_get_what_you_want.htm

C.A.I.R.: Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform
http://www.cairco.org/data/quick_facts.html

Infoplease: United States
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0108121.html

Malaria
http://gsbs.utmb.edu/microbook/ch083.htm

Denque
http://www.dhpe.org/infect/dengue.html

Leprosy (Hanson’s Disease) Fact Sheet
http://edcp.org/factsheets/leprosy.html

Viral Hepatitus
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/diseases/hepatitis/index.htm

Tuberculosis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuberculosis

Is CD covering up skyrocketing TB rate?
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43384

Immigration helps diseases spread in Vally
http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/?id=68170_0_10_0_C

Mayor favors tougher stance with Illegals
http://www.nwanews.com/adg/News/170908

Chagas Disease and Blood Screening
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dpd/parasites/chagasdisease/factsht_chagas_disease_blood_screening.htm

HIV Article (perform search on LA Times site)
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/

Illegal Alien Crime Wave
http://www.city-journal.org/html/14_1_the_illegal_alien.html

Third arrested in connection with schoolyard Slayings
http://www.cnn.com:80/2007/US/08/10/schoolyard.killings/index.html

Illegal aliens murder 12 Americans daily
http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53103

An Examination of U.S. Immigration Policy and Serious Crime
http://www.cis.org/articles/2001/crime/toc.html

Illegal Alien Crime Statistics
http://www.infowars.com/articles/immigration/illegal_alien_crime_stats.htm

Immigrationcouners.com
http://immigrationcounters.com/

Department of Homeland Security Unveils Comprehensive Immigration Enforcement Strategy for the Nation’s Interior
http://www.dhs.gov/xnews/releases/press_release_0890.shtm

Presidential Lies, Misconceptions and Untruths

2007-08-06T09:56:00.000-07:00

It is said that “Once the president lies, those around him begin to lie as well, and dishonesty spreads like a cancer”, but the reverse of that comment can equally be true “Once a lie is told by those around the president, the president lies to cover for his people as well, and dishonesty spreads like a cancer.” It’s a vicious, never ending cycle.

Let’s take a look at some “Presidential Lies”:

President Franklin D. Roosevelt, 1940 Democrat

"No American boy is going to fight a war on foreign soil."

F.D. Roosevelt reportedly made this promise during the 1940 campaign, specifically referring to the wars breaking out in Europe. Two years later American boys were in Europe fighting a country that never attacked the US. What has been found for sure is that during the 1940 election campaign, FDR repeatedly promised to keep the country out of war and then did everything in his power to involve the country in war.

President Harry Truman, August 6, 1945 Democrat

"The first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, in so far as possible, the killing of civilians."

Though Hiroshima was the headquarters of a number of military units, it was mostly a civilian city. In fact, Hiroshima was rated a low military priority by the U.S. Army; that's why it hadn't been bombed yet. 140,000 people, almost all civilians, died as a result of the bombing.

President John F. Kennedy, April 18, 1961 Democrat

"I have previously stated and I repeat now that the United States intends no military intervention in Cuba."

Not only was the Bay of Pigs invasion organized and funded by the CIA, but Americans flew combat missions as well. One day after Kennedy made the above statement, an American pilot was shot down on a bombing mission over Cuba. Castro recovered the pilot's bodies and kept it -- frozen -- for the next 18 years as proof. (He returned the body when he heard that the pilot's daughter was looking for her father who, she had been told, disappeared on a training flight.) Over 100 Cuban exiles, 14 Americans, and an unreported number of Cubans died in the invasion.

President Lyndon Johnson, August 5, 1964 Democrat

"As President and Commander in Chief it is my duty to the American people to report that renewed hostile actions against United States ships on the high seas in the Gulf of Tonkin have today required me to order the military forces of the United States to take action in reply."

There was no unprovoked Vietnamese attack on a U.S. warship. President Johnson ran with the untrue story to gain support for American involvement in Vietnam. The lie resulted in the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which authorized the president to use "all necessary measures" to defend U.S. forces. Johnson later compared the resolution to "grandma's night skirt -- it covered everything." 58,214 Americans died in the Vietnam War.

President Richard M. Nixon, November 17, 1973 Republican

"I have never profited, never profited from public service. I have earned every cent. And in all of my years of public life, I have never obstructed justice. And I think, too, that I can say that in my years of public life, that I welcome this kind of examination because people have got to know whether or not their President's a crook. Well, I'm not a crook. I've earned everything I've got."

President Gerald R. Ford, Unknown Republican

"A bullet had entered the base of the back of his neck slightly to the right of the spine."

In 1964 a Warren Commission staffer wrote that a bullet entered John F. Kennedy's back. In 1998 the National Archives showed that a change had been made in Gerald Ford's handwriting that placed the bullet in Kennedy's neck. This change was released in the official 1964 version of the Warren Report. Ford later admitted to the change. Photographs of Kennedy's shirt show a bullet hole through the middle-upper back.

President Ronald Reagan, November 13, 1986 Republican

"We did not -- repeat -- did not trade weapons or anything else for hostages -- nor will we."

Reagan approved the sale of over 2,000 anti-tank weapons to Iran in return for promises to release the American hostages there. Money from the sale of those weapons went to support the Contras' war in Nicaragua. (The White House needed this backdoor method to fund the Contras because Congress had banned military aid to them.)

President George H.W. Bush, September 5, 1989 Republican

"….seized a few days ago in a park across the street from the White House."

G.H.W. Bush held a bag of cocaine in front of a TV camera and delivered a canned speech. The cocaine had been bought by the DEA as a prop for the speech. Hilariously, the dealer the DEA lured had no idea didn't know what the White House was.

President William J. Clinton, 1991 Democrat

"It was just a pure fluke that I was never called."

Clinton told The Washington Post in 1991 that "The rule was there was no graduate deferment, but you got to finish the term you were in . . . I wound up just going through the lottery, and it was just a pure fluke that I was never called." In real life, Clinton got an induction notice and pretended to join the ROTC to evade it.

President George W. Bush, Jan. 28, 2003 Republican

"The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

G.W. Bush, Jan. 28, 2003 This statement is a 'lie of omission,' since it is technically true, since British intelligence did make such reports. However, US intelligence had debunked the claims and the CIA only allowed those infamous '16 words' in Bush's State of the Union address when he attributed the intelligence to Britain.

What is a lie?

Sounds silly to ask such a question, right? Well that isn’t necessarily so for different people have different concepts of what constitutes a lie. First I would like to put forth the definition of the word “Lie”, as it pertains to this discussion. According to Answers.com:

Lie (noun):

1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.

To recap, In order for a statement to be “a lie“, whether it be in oral or written form, then it must contain the element of “being presented as the truth while the speaker (or writer) knows the comment is untrue or intentionally deceptive. It does not include statements which the facts were believed to be true at the time the comment was made, but later were found wrong. .

The Types of Lie

All lies are for the act of Deception, however there are different types of lies to consider. A few of these are lies of: Clarity, Distortion, Falsification, Omission, Quality, Quantity, and Relevance.

A lie of Clarity is when the person does not make the information clear enough.

A lie of Distortion is when a person says something that can mean two or more things.

A lie of Falsification is when a person gives false information.

A lie of Omission is when a person intentionally conceals information.

A lie of Quality is when a person the veracity of the information.

A lie of Quantity is when a person alters the amount of information which should be given.

A lie of Relevance is when the person changes the importance of the information.

Additionally there are Black and White Lies, lies to children, Jocose Lies, etc. Black lies are lies which are harmful . White lies are unimportant lies which are usually told for politeness or tactfulness. Jocose lies are lies told in humor. Lies to children are basically lies made in order to make adult subjects (such as sex) more acceptable to children.

The Perception of the Lie

The perception of the lie is when a person thinks someone had lied, but in actuality no lie was actually told at all. Misinterpretation, misunderstanding and other honest factors could factor into the equation.

Sometimes when what we are told changes too frequently, we perceive what we are being told is a lie. Even if we are being told about a situation where the facts can change daily or hourly, even the truth sounds suspicious.

Another reason for the truth to be perceived as a lie is when the listener doesn’t quite understand what he or she is being told as well as they think they understand, or the speaker doesn’t put across what he or she wants to tell us clearly enough. Sometimes it’s both parties who contribute to the perception of the lie.

All of these are “honest mistakes”, but we can’t neglect the “dishonest mistakes”. There are groups of people out there who are ready, willing and able to distort what any president says to make it appear that the president is lying to the people with the intent of willfully deceiving the public for ulterior motives. They often take what is said out of context or alter what was said to intentionally make it appear the president is saying something that his original words clearly are not saying. There are many other ways to take what is said and make it appear to be some devious lie as well. As honest, fair minded people we have to watch out for this stuff because some of it sounds so reasonable that it’s hard to discern the fact of “Who is lying” by simply listening for “what sounds like a lie”.

Why Would Our Presidents Lie To Us?

The first reason I will give to answer this question involves something called National Security. National Security is an important thing to a nation and it‘s people, even though some think it violates our “constitutional rights”. Information the government has that is listed under the label of “National Security” is, in theory, data which helps to protect our nation and it’s citizenry. Not everyone loves us and some out in the real world wish nothing better than to cause harm our country and it’s people. It’s our government’s job to protect us the best they can. To do this effectively they need to have some things kept secret.

I, like many others out there, do believe that our government has, in the past, abused the National Security label in order to cover over dealings which has been done and would make those involved in these dealings look bad. I will be the first to admit that just because others would agree that the term “National Security” was misused over the past decades doesn’t mean I automatically agree with all their ideas, nor do they agree with all of mine. However, even if our suspicions are valid and true that doesn’t mean National Security is a joke… the fact is that National Security is very important to us all.

Everyone should be able to comprehend with, and agree to, the idea of keeping of vital information secret. In this interest of this discussion we should not allow ourselves to get bogged down on this issue and just accept the general view that real matters of National Security are a valid enough reason for a president, or politician, to utilize one of the types of lying..
Most probably, the second reason is due to agendas, both political and personal. I would include the president’s personal life into this set of reasons. Let’s face it, our presidents not only have things they would like to do, but also they have people that contributed to their campaign which would like certain things done. In addition the people voting for the president would like to see certain things done. The president has to try to give the appearance that he is trying to give something back to those who supported him, but he very well can’t come out and say this, can he? No he can’t, not without causing problems down the road he can’t.

There are many reasons why a president would “lie” to us, some are valid reasons and others are not. Not all lies are harmful and some really are moot points. What did it really matter to most Americans whether Bill Clinton had sex with Monica Lewinski, for example. Our right to know isn’t all encompassing, in fact we don’t even have the right to know about more important things (such as military movements).

Other Considerations

Sometimes we find that the claims of lying comes from someone in the media, some politician or someone who is a part of some special interest group asking a question where the questioner knows that the person being asked cannot reply to the question truthfully with out revealing some answer that could cause adverse outcomes and reactions to something which is going on. At other times these people will press for an answer which they know there is no answer to the question at that moment in time. In cases like this it’s a no win situation for the person who was being asked the question. If he answers the question truthfully then someone will claim later that the answer was a lie and the person knew it, if he doesn’t answer then claims of hiding something (usually detrimental to our country or citizenry) arise.
Whether it’s a member of the media, special interest group or just the average Joe on the street we can find that the perception of whether a president has lied depends heavily upon whether that president is liked or not. A liked president will be excused in some way for lying or his comments will be overlooked and downplayed. In almost every case the comment will be defended in some way if the President making the lie is liked. However if the president is not liked by the media (including bloggers and so-called documentary film makers) then the shouts of “Lie” get louder and louder until presidential lying becomes a major issue. A “liked” president, like JFK, could get away with more lies than a disliked president, like Clinton or Bush.

In Conclusion

If we are to truly consider ourselves a fair and righteous person then we must guard ourselves against the pitfalls which would make us appear differently. We can’t allow our own beliefs, or the beliefs of others, to change the true facts. Friends, Hollywood Celebrities, Radio and TV Talk show hosts, the people calling into programs, people writing blogs, et al. may not know any more about a situation than we do. Just because someone has an editorial column in a newspaper doesn’t make him any smarter than the guy working as a janitor when it comes to knowing what is really going on.

The most important thing of all, at lest to my way of thinking, is that just because a president says something we don’t agree with doesn’t make him a liar. What makes him a liar is if he is telling us things which he knows is wrong at the moment he tells us.

Another item of importance is that not all lies made are harmful to us, in fact some lies are intended to protect us or ease the burden of our misery. People say things like “How are you?“ with out really wanting to hear how you actually are doing. They say things in order to be polite or because it’s just something to say.

In some cases if the truth is told then someone could be harmed. People need to get away from the mindset that we, the people, have to know everything because we want to know. We do not have the right to know everything at the precise moment we want to know. For example, the general public does not need to know specific military plans of an operation that is about to start or is underway. To make such plans known could endanger the lives thousands of our men and women in uniform.

Another situation where the people don’t have the right to know everything is in the case where someone is arrested for a crime. Juries are supposed to be open-minded and by the police and news people giving out too much information we will find that the jury pool is tainted and sometimes this causes a person accused to not be able to get a fair trial. In my opinion that is fine if the person is guilty, but what if he or she is innocent? To know too much could convict an honest, law-abiding citizen.

To place one’s faith in the Political Party in which they belong is all fine and good, but it also can be anti productive. The mindset that a member of our political affiliation is always more honest than someone of the opposing party sets the stage for prejudicial thought and takes away from the real work to be done.

What if JFK lived?

2007-07-30T21:29:00.000-07:00

Before you read this!

The following article is what is referred to some as an “Alternative History”, but this type of item has also been called a “counterfactual history” or a “virtual history“. An “Alternative History”, by any name, is nothing more than a form of history which attempts to answer the "What If" question. The purpose is to seek to explore history by means of extrapolating a timeline in which a certain key historical event did not happen or had an outcome which was different from that which did in fact occur. The purpose of this type of exercise is purely as a “mind exercise” and nothing more in order to try to show how one person, or event, might have made a difference.

About this “Alternative History.

What I chose to do with this counterfactual history was to explore the two part question of “What if JFK did not die on November 22nd, 1963 and How would things have changed?”

In order to do this I find that we must stick to the premise of “What would have happened if JFK did not die on November 22, 1963?”. Many who delve into the “What if” question have a tendency to change unrelated historical facts and toss them in with the original premise because they want a desired outcome or they feel they can change unconnected facts “simply because they can“. Quite often they don’t see, or they don’t expect the reader to see, that they changed history for the sake of changing things. I will try refrain from doing such.

To begin this “Alternative History”, we must make a few reminders of how things were before November 22nd, 1963.

Pre-November 22nd, 1963

Let’s begin with a common fact. Our U.S. Presidents were never elected by the Popular Vote in our country, our founding fathers put in place a system called “The Electoral College”. In our system of electing the president, each state is given 1 vote for each Senator (2 votes per state) plus 1 vote for each representative district for that state. This gives each state a minimum of 3 Electoral Votes. Additionally 3 votes are given for Washington D.C. Most of the time, electors in the Electoral College give the E.C. Votes for their State to the candidate who has received the most popular votes in that particular state, however there have been times when electors have voted contrary to the people's decision, which is entirely legal.

In the Election of 1960, the voters cast their votes and JFK won by a thin margin of 112,827 Votes. (The final count being 34,220,984 (49.7%) for JFK and 34,108,157 (49.5%) for Nixon). The country was divided pretty evenly on which candidate they liked despite the often heard comments about “Kennedy Charm” and how Americans loved him. Many out there felt that Jack Kennedy won the 1960 election because of voter fraud but Nixon opted to not delay the process of choosing a new president. This does not mean that there were not recounts, all it means is that the recounts were not excessive.

Another thing to remember about Kennedy is that he only held office about 3 years. With-in that short time his administration had faced the Bay of Pigs Invasion, Cuban Missile Crisis, the Vietnam situation, the Cold War, and the bungled Castro Assassination attempt. At home he had the civil rights marches, segregation, education, healthcare and other issues which he had to deal with while he was in office. Also the American “Cultural Revolution” was underway and on the rise. American Values were changing and although that did not bother Kennedy’s 1st term in office a great deal, it most likely would have plagued his 2nd term.

Another fallacy floating around is that Jack Kennedy was Anti-War, or Anti-Vietnam… he wasn’t. JFK knew the reasons for getting involved in Vietnam were valid and more importantly he knew that the U.S. could not just pick up stakes and leave before the job was done in a manner satisfactory to the U.S and our interests. The most important thing which Kennedy knew was that whatever the outcome, the U.S. had to leave South-east Asia in such a manner which would not undermine the credibility of the U.S. Government on the world stage. This view is pretty evident in his commentary to the Canadian Prime Minister. The Canadian Prime Minister and Kennedy were discussing “What to do about Vietnam” and Kennedy was told “The answer is simple, get out.”. JFK reportedly told the prime minister that answer given was the dumbest answer he ever heard . Of course the answer was to get out… but the real question is “How?”. No one had a very good answer to that one.

These are just a few things to consider when trying to re-plot history by taking away the Kennedy Assassination.

November 22, 1963:

As we know, on November 22nd, 1963 JFK was shot and killed while his motorcade was passing through a part of Dallas. The findings, to date, show that Lee Harvey Oswald shot and killed the president as a lone gunman, however there is some halfway decent evidence to show that there may have been 2nd gunman involved. For the purposes of this Alternative History, let’s say Oswald did have a co-conspirator who acted as “the 2nd Gunman”, just to partially appease the conspiracy theorists, but in order to appease the believers of Oswald acting alone we will leave it at that. The 2nd Gunman will remain nameless and no organizations or individuals will be tied in with the assassination

November 22, 1963 and the aftermath:

1963, November 22 12:30 PM CST: An attempted assassination was made against President John F. Kennedy while he was en route from Dallas to Ft. Worth. Governor John Connally was hit by the 1st shot. . The 2nd Bullet struck a secret service agent who moved in to protect the president.

1963 November 22 12:39 PM CST: The following News Bulletin made over Dallas Radio Station KLIF:

“This KLIF Bulletin from Dallas: Three shots reportedly were fired at the motorcade of President Kennedy today near the downtown section. KLIF News is checking out the report, we will have further reports, stay tuned.”

1963, November 22 approx. 12:35 PM CST: Local viewers of Dallas' ABC-TV affiliate WFAA-TV 8 were watching a pre-recorded program on ladies' fashions when the station suddenly cut over to newsman Jay Watson who was out of breath from running back to the station from Dealey Plaza:

“Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. You'll excuse the fact that I am out of breath, but about 10 or 15 minutes ago a tragic thing from all indications at this point has happened in the city of Dallas. Let me quote to you this [briefly looks at the bulletin sheet in his left hand], and I'll...you'll excuse me if I am out of breath. A bulletin, this is from the United Press from Dallas: President Kennedy and Governor John Connally have been cut down by assassins' bullets in downtown Dallas.”

1963, November 22 1:36 EST: Those listening to the ABC Radio Network were the first of the national audience to receive word of the shooting from newscaster Don Gardner:

“We interrupt this program to bring you this special report from ABC Radio. Here is a special report from Dallas, Texas. Three shots were fired at President Kennedy's motorcade today in downtown Dallas, Texas. This is ABC Radio.”

1963, November 22 approximately 1:40 PM EST: A CBS News Bulletin slide suddenly cut off the soap opera "As The World Turns" with Walter Cronkite’s first report:

“Here is a bulletin from CBS News. In Dallas, Texas, three shots were fired at President Kennedy's motorcade in downtown Dallas. The first reports say that President Kennedy has been seriously wounded by this shooting.”

1963, November 22nd 2:33 EST: Acting White House Press Secretary Malcolm Kilduff made the official announcement. He said::

"Today, at approximately 1:30 PM EST, Shots were fired at President John F. Kennedy’s motorcade as it approached Dealey Plaza in Dallas, Texas. The president was rushed to the Parkland Hospital. President Kennedy was looked at by the doctors and they found that President Kennedy suffered no injuries. I have no other details regarding the attempted assassination of the president except that he will be returning to Washington D.C."

1963, November 22 1:55 PM CST: Lee Harvey Oswald arrested at “The Texas Theater” as a suspect in the shooting of Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippet.

1963, November 22 4:47 PM EST: Images shown on TV of President Kennedy and his wife departing Air Force One and heading towards the White House. The commentators announce that President Kennedy will give a press conference the following day.

1963, November 22 7:05PM CST: Oswald charged with the murder of Officer J.D. Tippet

1963, November 22 11:26PM CST: Oswald charged with the attempted murder of President John F. Kennedy.

Post November 22nd, 1963:

1963, November 23 6:54 AM CST: Dallas Police went to the apartment of the alleged 2nd Gunman and during a gun battle he was shot and killed.

1963, November 23 8:00 PM EST: President Kennedy holds press conference. He reassures America of his well-being . When asked about Oswald and the 2nd Gunman, he states:

“I cannot comment upon that for we must allow our legal system to work, unhindered by allegations and innuendoes. Mr. Oswald is innocent until proven guilty and I will not participate in his not being able to have a fair trial.”.

1963, November 29: The Oswald Trials begin . After a hearing the court trial is set for February 4, 1964.

1963, December: In accordance with Kennedy’s National Security Action Memorandum (NSAM) of October 11, 1963, 1,000 U.S. “Advisors” are withdrawn from Vietnam. Although JFK withdrawals these Advisors (mostly Military), he leaves no doubt that he is willing to see the Vietnam situation through until 1964 when he wins the election... This leaves about 15,300 US Troops (Advisors) in South-east Asia.

1963, December 23: The returning U.S. Troops arrive “home for Christmas”.

1964 , January: JFK pressures South Vietnam into “Peace Talks” with North Vietnam.

1964, January 11 Saturday: Kennedy holds a meeting in the morning with his campaign advisors about the up-coming elections. He is told, “…with-out Johnson as his running mate, it is doubtful he (JFK) would win the November election, especially if Nixon ran for the Presidency again.” Also JFK was warned, “If LBJ is not chosen for VP in the second term, then the Democratic Party could be split.”

1964, January 17: President Kennedy and Vice- President Johnson meet in the Oval Office to discuss the upcoming Presidential Elections. Johnson tells Kennedy that he will not run for Vice-President, nor will he support Kennedy, unless two promises are made and carried out. Bobby Kennedy sees this as an insult while John while JFK sees it as simply political. JFK accepts the conditions to fully support the Civil Rights Act and to demand no withdrawal from Vietnam unless it is done so honorably in return for Johnson‘s full support in the up-coming election..

1964, February 24th : JFK sends helicopters (along with pilots, flight crews, and support units) to Vietnam. Mostly the Helicopters are used as “spotters“ but there is also some combat involved in their mission. JFK gives a speech concerning Vietnam and states:

“…we must end this Vietnam conflict quickly, but with victory“.

The “Old Left”, and many conservatives, applaud Kennedy’s speech, however “the New Left” voice the opinion that JFK sold out America to the old political machine and begin their protests. Kennedy’s approval rating drops to 59% and does not rise over 60% again while he remains in office.

1964, March: The Anti-war crowd begins draft card burnings and public protests, mostly on college campuses around America as a show of their discontent.

1964, April 6: RFK tells his brother of his decision to run for U.S. Senate. JFK, RFK and LBJ agree to tell the media that RFK is leaving his post to be a Senator and do not comment on the LBJ/RFK Feud.

1964, May: The Oswald Trials end. It is found that the two gunmen were a part of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, but they acted on their own accord. Oswald is sentenced to the death penalty. Appeals for Oswald’s case filed immediately. Some feel that Oswald was “railroaded” because of the speed of the trial.

1964, June to September: Summer Race Riots break out in Harlem (NY, NY), Rochester (NY), Jersey City (NJ), Patterson (NJ), Elizabeth (NJ), Philadelphia (PA) and Chicago (IL).

1964, July: The Civil Rights act of 1964 (PL 88-352) passes, mainly due to the efforts of LBJ.

1964, July 17th: Oswald’s appeal is denied. Death Sentence to be carried out by December 12, 1964.

1964, August 4: Kennedy/Johnson accepted as the Democratic Candidates for President and Vice President in the November Election. Kennedy’s approval rating decreases to an all time low of 53%.

1964, August 7: Gulf of Tonkin Resolution passed congress. This resolution is historical significant because it gave U.S. President John F. Kennedy authorization, without a formal declaration of war by Congress, for the use of military force in South-east Asia.

1964, September: “The Vietnam Peace Talks” breaks down and hostilities intensify along the border. Kennedy orders helicopter attacks upon North Vietnam.

1964, October: U.S.S.R. Chairman Nikita Khrushchev, forced into retirement.

1964, November: Kennedy win the 1964 Presidential Election on November 3rd. The popular vote is:

Kennedy 44,926,585 (63.6%)
Goldwater 25,359,502 (35.9%).

1964, November: RFK wins the election for US Senator (State of New York).

1964, December 4: JFK has Lee Harvey Oswald’s Death Sentence commuted to life imprisonment.

1965, January 20: President Kennedy’s 2nd Inaugural Address.

1965, January 27: Kennedy aides, National Security Advisor McGeorge Bundy and Defense Secretary Robert McNamara, send a memo to the President stating that America's limited military involvement in Vietnam is not succeeding, and that the U.S. has reached a 'fork in the road' in Vietnam and must either soon escalate or withdraw.

1965, February: Malcolm X assassinated.

1965, February 22: Kennedy increases troop levels in Vietnam to 23,000 “Advisors”.

1965, March 2: Kennedy meets with Brezhnev in Moscow. Amongst the issues discussed are the situation in Vietnam and relations between the U.S.S.R. and U.S.A. A form of Détente begins with this meeting.

1965, March 5: US Bombings of North Vietnam authorized by JFK.

1965, March 8: 3,500 Marines sent to South-east Asia to protect US/South Vietnamese Air Force Bases.. Troop Levels now stand at 26,500.

1965, April 1: JFK authorizes another 3,500 Marines and 20,000 logistical personnel to Vietnam. Troop Totals now at 50,000 U.S. Troops in South-east Asia.

1965, April 7: President Kennedy gives his version of the “Peace without conquest” speech.

1965, April 17: In Washington D.C., 15,000 students protest U.S. Bombing campaign.

1965, April 20: JFK authorizes another 40,000 US Troops to South-Vietnam. JFK also authorizes all US “Advisors” in Vietnam “Combat Pay”. Troop Levels stand at 90,000.

1965, May 3: The 1st US Army combat troops, 3500 men of the 173rd Airborne Brigade, sent to Vietnam. Troop Levels at 93,500.

1965, June: Lee Harvey Oswald found dead in prison. Death caused by multiple stab wounds.

1965, June to September: Summer Race Riots break out in Watts (LA, CA). Draft card burnings increase.

1965, July 28: During a noontime press conference, President Kennedy announces he will send 44 combat battalions to Vietnam increasing the U.S. military presence to 125,000 men. Monthly draft calls are doubled to 35,000.

1965, August 4: President Kennedy asks Congress for an additional $1.7 billion for the war.

1965, August 6: Voting Rights Act of 1965 signed by President Kennedy.

1965, August 31: President Kennedy signs a law criminalizing draft card burning. Although it may result in a five year prison sentence and $1000 fine, the burnings become common during anti-war rallies and often attract the attention of news media.

1965, October: PL 89-97 Medicare Bill passes.

1965, October 16: Anti-war rallies occur in 40 American cities and in international cities including London and Rome.

1965, November: President Kennedy raises troop levels in Vietnam to 200,000 US Troops.

1966, January: In his State of the Union Address, JFK states his plan for Vietnam, He pledges another 150,000 troops to be sent to South-east Asia and a withdrawal which would result in America’s withdrawal from the region ending in late 1968. Troop Level in South Vietnam rise to 350,000 U.S. Troops. Kennedy also announces the end of American bombing of North Vietnam stating that it served it’s purpose but is no longer required to get the attention of the North Vietnamese leaders.

1966, May 1: In what was to become known as President Kennedy’s “Mayday” speech, JFK states his concerns over Vietnam. First he states that “In opposition to what one may hear, the purpose in Vietnam is not to overthrow the communist government of North Vietnam, but to preserve the South Vietnamese government for Democracy.” He reminds Americans the war in Vietnam is not just an American War, but rather an international conflict and he intends on pressing the United Nations to treat it as such. Kennedy sends another 150,000 troops to Vietnam. The total number of US Troops is now approximately 500,000 and announces this will be the last escalation of the War in Vietnam for America, unless the U.N. and America can reach an agreement on how to handle the situation. He also states his plans for withdraw from Vietnam will begin as planned and on schedule. The media view this as Kennedy putting the U.N. on notice.

1966, June to September: Summer Race Riots break out in Chicago (IL), Cleveland (OH) and San Francisco (CA)

1966, July: The United Nations take active part in the Vietnam War due to Kennedy’s threats about withdrawal. Vietnam is now seen as a world conflict, instead of just an American one.

1966, August 30: Hanoi announces China will provide economic and technical assistance.

1967, January: In his State of the Union Address, JFK addresses some of the successes in Vietnam and the failures. He states that the involvement of China raised the ante on the war and we were handling that through diplomatic means, however U.S. Troop levels will remain high to meet the threat.

1967, February: The 25th Amendment is ratified.

1967, May 1: JFK orders 75,000 US Troops home from Vietnam, leaving 425,000 US service men and women in-country.

1967, June to September: Summer Race Riots break out in Newark (NJ), Planfield (NJ), Cambridge (MD), and Detroit (MI).

1967, August: Rumblings over Kennedy’s failed Vietnam Policy begins making headway in the media. Kennedy’s ratings drop to 45%.

1967, November: Richard M. Nixon approached by members of the Republican Party to ask him to be the Republican Candidate for the Presidency in 1968. Nixon says that he will think about it, but he is concerned about a possible LBJ/RFK ticket.

1967, December 8: 75,000 U.S. Troops ordered home from Southeast Asia. Troop Levels stand at 350,000. JFK approval ratings rise to 47%, but Vietnam is considered a “quagmire” and calls for withdrawal are made by several elements.

1967, December 15: Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) passed by congress.

1968, January 5 to August 21st: Prague Spring occurs. Czechoslovakia invaded by Warsaw pact troops. 5,000 to 7,000 Soviet tanks occupied the streets and 200,000 to 600,000 Soviet Troops sent in to occupy the country. Kennedy refuses to get involved in a new war in Eastern Europe. Approval ratings drop to 44%.

1968, January: In the President‘s State of the Union Address, President Kennedy addresses the Vietnam Issue. He reaffirms that US Troops will be home by Christmas of 1968, except for a small peace keeping force. The Republicans right away accuse the president of back-peddling on the Vietnam issue and push the agenda that the Democrats have mishandled Vietnam from the start.

1968, February 4: LBJ announces his run for the Presidency.. He tells America that the U.S. cannot pull out of Vietnam until, at least, the middle of 1969, or later, due to new problems and UN involvement.

1968, February, 15: RFK officially announces himself as a candidate for the Presidency. He states that all US Troops will be with-drawn from Vietnam by February of 1969 - if he is elected president.

1968, March 17: RFK quietly speaks to Martin Luther King, Jr. and asks if he would run for the office of Vice-President. MLK states that he would consider the possibility. This information is secretly leaked to some in the media by members of Kennedy’s campaign group.

1968, April 4: Martin Luther King, Jr. assassinated. Rumors begin concerning an LBJRFK ticket.

1968, January 5 to August 21st: Race Riots break out in Orangeburg (SC), Washington DC, Baltimore (MD), Chicago (IL), Kansas City (MO), Louisville (KY), and Glenville Shootout occurs in Cleveland (OH).

1968, June 6: Robert F. Kennedy Assassinated.

1968, June: 25,000 U.S. Troops ordered to withdrawal from Vietnam. Troop Levels are now 350,000. Kennedy’s ratings rise to 49%.

1968, June to September: Race Riots break out in Pittsburgh (PA), Chicago (IL), New York (NY), York (PA), Los Angeles (CA) and other US Cities.

1968, July 1: Nuclear Non-proliferation treaty opened for signature in New York City.

1968, August: LBJ picked as the Democratic Party candidate. LBJ chooses Hubert H. Humphrey as running mate. They are to face Nixon/Agnew in the upcoming November Elections.

1968, August: Major Offensive made by the North Vietnamese with help from China. 200,000 Communist soldiers flood into South Vietnam. President Kennedy is asked by the U.N. to send more troops and he refuses by saying “The United States of America has sent enough of our boys into combat for that region. Let the South Vietnamese show us how well their training has been learned.”. The Republicans pick up on this right away by saying that the President (and democrats) are leaving our “boys” high and dry for political reasons. Nixon’s ratings in t he polls rises.

1968, October: Kennedy withdrawals another 50,000 troops from Vietnam, LBJ disagree in private but openly support his president’s choices. Troop Levels now stand at 300,000 US Troops in Vietnam Kennedy states that he is fulfilling his commitments to America where Vietnam is concerned.

1968, November: LBJ loses the presidential Election to Richard M. Nixon. The popular vote difference is only a 0.9% margin.

1969, January 20: Nixon gives inaugural address. He tells America that we cannot pull out of Vietnam in 1969 and still declare victory. The Nixon Plan calls for troop escalations and bombing North Vietnam heavily until the North Vietnamese take the “Paris Peace Talks“ seriously..

1969, February 1: Nixon authorizes 120,000 U.S. Troops to go to Vietnam. Troop levels rise to 420,000.

1969, March 1: Nixon authorizes bombings on North Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia.

1969, April 1: South Vietnamese Troops undergo “accelerated training” by South Vietnamese trainers, supervised by US Troops.

1969, May 1: Nixon asks congress for 4.2 Billion dollars for the Vietnam War.

1969, June 1: Nixon sends 35,000 US Troops to Vietnam. Troop Levels rise to 455,000 US Troops.

1969, September: The U.S. and U.N disagree over how to handle the Vietnam War. Nixon states that the U.N. wants to control the war but use mostly U.S. Troops., he withdrawals 75,000 troops. US Troop Levels in South-east Asia now stand at 380,000.

1970, January: In Nixon’s State of the Union Address, he states that “great strides are being made in South-east Asia”. He orders 80,000 troops home. The number of US Troops in Vietnam stand at 300,000.

1970, July: Nixon withdrawals 35,000 troops home from Vietnam. The number of US Troops in Vietnam stand at 265,000.

1970, October: Nixon withdrawals 20,000 troops home from Vietnam. The number of US Troops in Vietnam stand at 245,000.

1970, December 12: Nixon decreases the number of US Troops in South-east Asia to 231,700

1971, February 13: South Vietnamese invade Laos with US Air Support.

1971, February 22: 45,000 US Troops withdrawn from Vietnam. US Troop Levels fall to 196,700 Troops.

1971, March 1: A bomb explodes in the men's room at the White House, the Weather Underground claims responsibility.

1971, April 24: 500,000 people in Washington D.C. and 125,000 in San Francisco march against the Vietnam War.

1972, January 30: LBJ announces that he will not run, nor accept the nomination to run, for US President.

1972, June 17: Scandals begin to plague the Nixon Administration. Rumors circulate that Nixon saw these problems coming and tried to sway the public by bringing home U.S. Troops from Vietnam, thus endangering the U.S. Troops remaining in country.

1972, October 8: Major breakthrough in the Paris Peace Talks.

1972, November: Nixon elected to 2nd term in office.

1973, January 15: Nixon announced a suspension of offensive actions against North Vietnam.

1973, January 22: LBJ dies

1973, October 10: Spiro Agnew became the second Vice President to resign the office.

1973, December 6: Gerald Ford becomes Vice-president

1974, August 9: As a direct result of the Watergate Scandal, Richard Nixon becomes the first President of the United States to resign from office. His Vice President, Gerald Ford, becomes president.

1976, November: Gov. Jimmy Carter elected as President.

1978, January 20: Hubert H. Humphrey dies.

1980, November: Ronald Reagan elected President.