Re: Biased Article

So which points presented in the article are incorrect or inaccurate?

Management lackey? What next, workers of the world unite? You guys need some new phrases--and ought to try focusing on whether something is factual, rather than whether the author is mumbling union-approved verbiage.

Re: Biased Article

Analyst, pull your head out of the sand. Facts are facts regardless of whether or not you are capable of understanding them.

Re: Biased Article

Facts are Facts? What fact was written here? This clown knows less about the Border Patrol than most of you do. The fact of the matter is that TJ Bonner didn't bring up this vote of No Confidence and he really didn't want to travel down this road, but the front line agents demanded it and brought it to a vote. That is a fact. It was introduced by actual working agents who could not believe that their leader was supporting amnesty. I haven't heard anyone else on here supporting it? Why not????? Because it is quite possibly the worst thing that could happen to this country, but our Boss, the guy who was charged with keeping these illegals out, or removing them when they were here, supports letting them all come in and stay.

That equals NO CONFIDENCE!

Re: Questions Lou Should Have Asked

Sad, but true. Your characterization of most of what passes for journalism these days is all too accurate--and I would include much--if not most--of what appears on O'Reilly in the same category.

I have long liked Lou Dobbs, agree with him on most things--including his attacks on the dismantling of our industrial base, destruction of the middle class, and even, believe it or not, immigration policy.

But in researching this article and the one that preceded it, I was struck by what an unfair hatchet job is being carried out on Border Patrol Chief David Aguilar. For starters, he's not the author of immigration policies, current or proposed. And, I suspect, if asked I suspect he would agree in large part with what Dobbs has to say.

Consequently, I believe it was wrong in the first place to attempt to demonize him, and even more wrong to do so via the one-sided hatchet job relying on the (to me) suspect word of only the union president.

Re: Questions Lou Should Have Asked

The repeal of the Fairness Doctrine in the 1980s relieved news organizations of the obligation of having to present all views. It is no coincidence that the advent of opinion pieces passing for news followed shortly thereafter.

Re: Border Patrol

It may have something to do with deeming it prudent to withhold one's name from the gaze of a large number of people who seem to find it perfectly permissible to shoot unarmed folks in the back and then, in their world view, remain immune to any legal consequences. You think?

Re: Border Patrol

This IS the other side---at least on this one issue. Dobbs and Bonner did a tag-team match that presented NOTHING BUT the union's view. Which, I believe, is the entire point of this article. Duh!

Re: Border Patrol

Kudos to fedsmith for having the audacity or courage to publish a well-written, satirical article from an author who seems to know what he is talking about. Most of the articles we see in the DC area parrot union press releases and the agencies never speak up. My guess: The author has information from working somewhere in DOJ or DHS and was sick of seeing only one side popping up on Lou Dobbs and various other outlets. My agency would not allow us to speak to the press on controversial issues--only one side would ever be disclosed and the "facts" of a case were written by union PR offices. Unfortunately, lies become a "fact" when that is all people see.

Some reading the article will undoubtedly be shocked at the satire and strong views as they are not used to seeing a defense of federal agencies. I have seen the union perspective on articles on this site--but only complaints about one-sided articles such as this one. Keep up the good work and congrats to a good writer--whoever he/she may be and I hope the person is able to avoid the knives that will be out to cut the throat of the person who dared to speak up on behalf of an agency and a political appointee.

Re: 'Biased' article

At least Mr. Bonner is willing to identify himself, and since he works for the Agency, knows what is going on.

Re: 'Biased' article

Retired Fed and others, what difference does it make who wrote the article? Is it a personal attack you're chomping at the bit to engage in? Just speak to the article, nothing else.

Re: 'Biased' article

Federal Employee-Retired: Apparently it has been a long, long time since Bonner "worked for" the agency. I gather he has been collecting a paycheck from the agency, but has done nothing but represent the union in bashing it for a couple decades. A case, I would suggest, of pulling one's snout out of the trough just long enough to bite the hand that's been feeding him.

Re: Union Leaders views

I believe you will have a hard time finding any agency head who will "back up" an employee who commits a felony in the course of performing his/her duties.

Apparently neither the Justice Dept., which prosecuted the agents, nor the jury that heard the evidence presented by both sides and rendered a verdict, agreed that they were "just carrying out their duties." What's the boss supposed to do, refuse to surrender them, break them out of jail, what?

Re: Union Leaders views

Clearly, union leaders can say lots of things about their views when it comes to the employees they represent. Of course they can say that morale sucks, management sucks, or maybe the head of the agency is a jerk. But did anyone notice Bonner's comments about Border Patrol Agents not doing their job because of their disagreement with their Chief - and that as a result, illegals were piling across the border because the workforce doesn't agree with their Chief? In addition to being an offensive shot in the a** to front-line agents, it is a blantant display of disloyalty to the employer and the employee oath. It would be like a beverage maker employee announcing to the public that its drinks contained deadly poison (when it was not). No-one should tolerate this behavior. Why hasn't this guy been fired? Why haven't the union members voted him out of office? Why hasn't John Gage stepped in to cut this guy off at the knees?

Re: Union Leaders views

Mr. Allsworth you are terribly mistaken with your recollection of Mr. Bonner's comments. Our disagreement is because our leaders won't let us do our job and catch the aliens. The union has never advocated not doing our job, we fight to do it every day. That was the reason we took this no confidence vote. Could one of you take a freaking minute and talk to an actual Border Patrol Agent before popping off at the mouth. The union believes our hard working agents are being misused and our policies are wasting tax payers money and do nothing but support the Amnesty they have been trying to pass for the last six plus years.

Re: Dissing the Chief

So now the Chief of the Border Patrol is a "traitor?!" And you're advocating sharpening up your knives because there's too little ammunition to deal with those who have the temerity to disagree with you?

Good Lord, I've never seen a better argument for psychological testing before being hired as a federal employee--particularly if it might involve access to a gun!

Re: What a surpise

Mr. Bonner presented his side on national media and was reported in the Fedsmith's previous article on this subject. Presenting all the available information over two articles is NOT slanted. Fed Employee, if anything the fact that your comment ignored the previously reported information shows YOUR union slanted attitude.

Re: What a surpise

Open your eyes Retired Federal Employee, the questions were slanted to begin with and this article exposed that. Exposing bias is not management slant, it's called uncovering the whole truth.

Re: What a surpise

Unions seem to enjoy dishing it out (e.g., calling a man a "bobble head doll" on national TV), but aren't so good at taking it, huh? Sort of like classic schoolyard bullies, the kind who like to band together to launch attacks, rather than having the courage to deal with issues one-on-one.

Re: What a surpise

If you remember correctly, Mr. Aguilar has been invited several times on to Lou Dobbs show and almost every news outlet has submitted questions about our No Confidence Vote to him. He has not answered, making it kind of hard to get another point of view. You will also find very few agents willing to speak up for him on this one. Most take pride in their job and amnesty is a slap in their face. And Yes HR hack, he is a traitor.