America's Unconditional Surrender

Unthinkable

Such words my ears have never heard, my lips have never uttered, and whose very contemplation has been forever unfathomable to me, and yet hear I am, witnessing this very thing; America's unconditional surrender, with nary a shot having been fired. And while I put some blame on our own collective apathy, the bulk of culpability rests squarely on the heads of Democrats in this nation along with a handful of Republicans wearing the wrong pajamas.

For decades we have been under invasion from our Southern border and although some have fought this incursion into America, far too many more have turned a blind eye. We have accepted these individuals as workers on our lawns, as contractors doing our vinyl siding, and as the people who picked our vegetables and fruits. For most of us, particularly those of us far removed from the border, it was easy to turn a blind eye as we enjoyed our weekends while an illegal alien tended our properties.

Now, that myopia is coming to haunt us.

The figure bandied about by our politicians and mainstream media is 11 million illegals in our midst. Other sources put that figure at closer to 20 or more million. Whatever the true number may be, it is nonetheless beyond debate that we have been overrun to the point of near helplessness. And the sheer numbers of illegals -- whom our politically correct brethren insist on calling "undocumented" -- has given the masses a sense of invincibility and boldness.

Breitbart.com has the story of this summer's pending activities planned by people who should be hiding from sight, not lobbying our elected Representatives for amnesty.

"I want to be an American"

People who broke the laws of the United States are brazenly using our own political system to advance their agenda of amnesty in America. People who should be under arrest and deported are debating with our Congress people in town halls this summer recess, and we let this happen. What is wrong here? I find this akin to finding a person living on your sofa one morning, and then having the intruder call the police to allege mistreatment from you, the homeowner.

Compassion is quite a lovely thing for the personal philanthropist, but compassion on the scale to which our elected Representatives have taken it is dereliction of duty regarding the U.S. Constitution, a document which all of our politicians have sworn an oath to uphold. And while they have removed all pretense of standing by those oaths, they have taken it to a new level by persecuting other elected officials for having the audacity to attempt to enforce their own oaths, Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Arizona being a prime example.

The political aspects of so-called "Immigration Reform"  and being compassionate for our Southern neighbors notwithstanding, we must demand of our politicians to uphold the laws of America, just as they have sworn to do. However, how many true Americans are even left in this country? Our youth have been indoctrinated to the point where they feel it is a basic human right for illegal aliens to invade our land. Mark Dice from Alex Jones' Infowars.com has a video supporting the notion that most people in America will sign just about any petition without thinking first. So it is little wonder that Obama won reelection in 2012.

The question is, how far do we let this go? Where is that fabled line in the sand? We send our brave kids to foreign lands to fight wars while we dishonor them at home, willingly surrendering the very country they fight to protect. And the media that is supposed to inform us remains enamored of the president and his minions, covering up the truth to preserve an agenda that will be the ultimate ruin of what was once the greatest nation the world has ever known.

In 2009 and 2010, we proved what a fired up population could do, and we took back the House of Representatives. Today, we have no such options left for us, the true American citizens of this country, because the Republicans we elect eventually turn their backs on us too. With the media firmly implanted in the hip pockets of the Progressives, I am afraid that we have lost the war.

Adios, America.

Sphere: Related Content

It Must Be a Bad Dream

Just a Bad Dream

Since the Democrats reclaimed Congress in 2006, reality has taken a beating, and the truth has been as hard to find as an honest politician. The media - print, audio and video - split into bitterly opposed camps, and veracity slipped into a coma. Once Barack Obama completed the Democratic triad, someone pulled the plug, and probity passed into the Great bye and bye.

I'm reminded of Dallas, a prime time soap opera - conceived in the '70's, and launched in 1978 - about a Texas oil family. Patrick Duffy played the role of Bobby Ewing, the younger brother of J.R, played by Larry Hagman.

In the 85-86 season, Duffy decided to leave, and the producers killed off the Bobby Ewing character. The remainder of the season centered on his grieving wife Pamela (Victoria Principal), woven into the other plot lines. Ratings dropped off because Duffy's was a popular character plot, his marriage to a daughter of the Ewing family's arch rival mirroring Shakespeare's Montague-Capulet tragedy. The producers had to bring Duffy back.

In a move that drew disbelieving howls from fans - even those who were Duffy's biggest fans - the show opened the 86-87 season with the scene where Pamela Ewing awakened to the sound of Bobby in the shower. The entire previous season, in which Bobby died, was just a bad dream. I was not a big fan of the show, but its influence was inescapable at the time. Everyone talked about it on the job, and I found myself incredulous at the move, as well.

Now? Now, since 2009, when major news organizations such as ABC News have succumbed to the charms of Obama, I find myself praying that the past two years have been a bad dream. I hope to awake one morning to the sound of George W. Bush in the shower, figuratively speaking of course. The reason for this is the latest piece on an ABC News blog titled The Note.

Written by Michael Falcone and Amy Walter, the piece titled Obama, Palin And Arizona: A Tale Of Two Speeches briefly mentions Obama's speech in Arizona about the tragic shooting there over the past weekend. The rest is a whining complaint about Sarah Palin and her gall in hitting back at the ridiculous claims that she bears some culpability in that shooting. At the end of this pathetic tag-team rant, the duo offers a summary subtitled The Bottom Line, in which they make the most absurd assertion imaginable.

Their conclusion begins thus:

Sarah Palin, once again, has found a way to become part of the story. And she may well face further criticism for the timing and scope of her remarks.

That one nearly had my brain banging against the inside of my skull as a result of the involuntary and vigorous head shake that ensued. I believe I may also have alarmed my wife with a barely audible shout of "WHAT?!?"

Before the shooter in Arizona was even identified, commentators were dragging Palin and others into the story, blaming them while agonizing over some desperate motive for the actual perpetrator, seeking to portray him as a victim of an ideology opposed to their own. To now suggest that Sarah Palin had somehow thrust herself into the middle of this - when she was probably shooting her TV show from Alaska - is somewhat akin to blaming a bear for getting caught in the trap that you set.

Ah, Sarah would get the reference. Meanwhile, I just want to wake up in the real world, if it still exists.

Sphere: Related Content

No Longer a Need to Pretend

It began - at least for me - with Dan Rather's embarrassing fall from grace with his refusal to acknowledge that he used forged documents designed to indict George W. Bush's military record. Oh, I know, it's been argued that Walter Cronkite was the template back in the days of Vietnam and Kennedy versus Nixon, but those were times when I was more concerned with capturing bees in a jar or building snow forts.

They were certainly times long before the inception of Fox News, an outfit reviled by the competition due to jealousy, and by the political left because of damage inflicted. It was Anita Dunn, Obama's former Communications Director, who was the attack dog of the administration, claiming that Fox News was not a "legitimate news organization", a mantra that the president himself soon repeated.

No, we were led to believe, only "real" news sources like ABC or CBS were to be trusted. Never mind the chilling notion that an American government was suddenly in the business of attacking the news media, in whatever incarnation; the viciousness with which it did so was unprecedented. Fox has been the target simply because they tell the story the alleged real news media deliberately conceals, and because much of the broadcast day is decidedly right-leaning.

Fair enough. So let's agree that Fox is biased - a notion they have done little to dispute - but of that fact they are unapologetic. But what of the blatantly obvious bias of the Big Broadcast news networks? Sure, they vehemently deny any accusations of bias, and bristle at the very mention of it, but come on, do they really think we're that naive?

When ABC News in June of 2009 gave the president an hour-long platform to promote "health care", ABC defended the move from critics. Ken McKay, then Chief of Staff for the Republican National Committee, wrote in a letter to ABC News President David Westin, in which he said, "The president has stated time and time again that he wants a bipartisan debate. Therefore, the Republican Party should be included in this prime time event."  ABC News Senior Vice President Kerry Smith disagreed, countering with the claim that any viewer who watches will be sure to find the network's coverage is "informative, fair and civil."

Then there is the problem with unemployment. Remember how the media pounded Bush relentlessly over the unemployment percentage, which then hovered around 5%? They joined Democrats in portraying that figure as exaggerated because the people who were among the employed had lost higher-paying jobs with better benefits, and were now forced to "flip burgers" to get by. Suddenly, however, under the leadership of Barack Obama, flipping burgers was a splendid new "career".

In May of 2009, I saw on ABC's World News Tonight with Charles Gibson, what to that point was the most astounding example of State Run media I had ever seen. Discussing the April jobs figures about to be released, Gibson announced that 539,000 jobs were lost. He followed up with the great news that in February alone, 4.3 million jobs were created!

The next day, I wrote When Democrat Presidents Create Jobs, in which I described how suddenly the lower quality jobs the Liberal media once complained about were the saving grace of unemployment running rampant. An excerpt:

He gives an example stating that 4.3 million Americans got new jobs in February. Then the video starts and we see (are you reading this, MoveOn?) middle aged people as part of the 72 who just got hired at...a burger joint. They interviewed a young man who had "just lost his construction job" and who is the new "fry guy". 

The piece goes on to gush about Walmart expecting to hire tens of thousands of new workers, and also that the federal government has hired 62,000 new people. 

Now, ABC News has taken water-carrying to a new level. To start the New Year, on January first, ABC News Political Director Amy Walter issued a warning to Republicans about trying to repeal "ObamaCare". On ABC's Good Morning America, Walter had this to say:

"If Republicans decide they're going to spend the first six months of this year going over and debating the individual mandate or ObamaCare or whatever they want to call it, I think that's not going to sit very well with the electorate."

 It's not enough to just be incredulous that an alleged "news" outlet would issue warnings to either political party (their job is to report on events, is it not?). No, one would also expect that the people responsible for informing the electorate were themselves informed. So how does Ms. Walter not know of the overwhelming majority of the electorate opposed to ObamaCare?

There are some who will ask me to quit complaining. After all, Fox pundits issue the same kinds of warnings all the time right?

Yes, that is true. But if the uber-respected ABC News is now doing it, wouldn't that equate them with Fox, which has been reviled and ridiculed by the government and its minions? It then becomes a question of integrity and intent. Fox has the former, while the media that hides within a false cloak of respectability has the latter.

Sphere: Related Content

Memo to the State-Run Media

This guy will not give anyone a job. I fail to grasp why that is so difficult to understand, yet the New York Times on Saturday published an editorial piece that - on its face - seemed critical of Barack Hussein Obama. Well, it was, but for an entirely different reason than I initially thought when I saw the byline; the Times complains that Obama is not enough of a Socialist.

Grudgingly admitting in the second paragraph that the economy is worse than the Obama administration will acknowledge, the Times piece launches immediately into defense mode in the third paragraph. It fallaciously states that, "The fiscal stimulus of 2009, coupled with low interest rates and other Federal Reserve interventions, kept the recession from being much worse." Clearly there is no way to substantiate such a claim because it is inherently speculative. Furthermore, it has been widely reported that much of the stimulus money hasn't been spent, and that a large percentage went towards creating a larger government.

It is a universally known fact that federal employees now earn more than private workers, and the ranks of government workers have increased at an alarming pace. What this means, of course, is that more people, earning higher wages, are being compensated from an employer that produces virtually nothing. The payroll is funded from the labors of an ever-dwindling work force of producers.

The piece then goes further, complaining of Congressional gridlock and blaming the minority party - Republicans - for the Democrats'  inability to "accomplish" anything. Perhaps the Times editorial staff has already forgotten the massive Health Care legislation, force fed on a decidedly unwilling populace, and the maneuvering of the majority party in that alleged victory.

But perhaps the most egregious example of political bias - and a gross misunderstanding of economic principle - comes in paragraph seven. Speaking of Obama, the piece states:

"First, he needs to keep driving home that he is committed to addressing the deficit, and that he will call for widespread sacrifice to do so — starting with letting the Bush tax cuts for the richest Americans expire at year end. Mr. Obama must tell Americans that claims from Republican leaders that the country can both cut taxes and tackle the deficit are absurd and cynical."

What is absurd is the notion that increasing taxes on the wealthy - the actual employers of the country - will somehow fill the coffers of the federal government. Keeping in mind the growing number of people drawing a paycheck from the government, it stands to reason that the problem would only suffer the domino effect. The employers, forced to fund more of the insatiable government, will move more of their businesses offshore and shield even more of their incomes from the intrusive clutches of Uncle Sam.

The very next paragraph reveals the chilling idiocy of the Liberal mindset:

"Next, he needs to explain why too much sacrifice, too soon, especially from the middle class, would do more harm than good while the economy is weak. More government support is needed until conditions improve."

Anyone who actually belongs to the middle class understands all too well that that statement is ridiculous, for while the Liberal elites claim to target the "wealthy", it is the middle class - doing well, but not well enough to either run or hide - who will be leaned on to support the "more government" that the Times endorses.

The Times editorial concludes with this obsequious gem:

"The economic damage they inherited was too deep, and the economic stimulus they pushed through Congress, for all of the fight, was too small."

Toeing the party line, the Times dutifully perpetuates the lunacy that what Obama "inherited" was anything but incestuous, a gift from his own party, who managed to derail the Bush years in only two, after regaining control of the Congressional purse strings in 2007.

The most frightening aspect of such an editorial is the fact that readers of that publication already consider themselves intellectually head and shoulders above the rest of us. Granted, they are generally better educated and more handsomely compensated for their labors, but they are dupes nonetheless. Armed with the almighty New York Times, they may prove to be too formidable an adversary for the everyday, naturally smarter person who would otherwise disagree forcefully with such a position. That line of thought must change.

Sphere: Related Content

The Day Journalism Died

"So bye, bye Miss American Pie
drove my Chevy to the levee but the levee was dry
And them good old boys
were drinking whiskey and rye
singing this'll be the day that I die..."-Don Mclean, American Pie

Today is the day that ABC becomes the "Obama network", as they will be broadcasting the "news" directly from the White House. What's worse is that the network is not only unapologetic about it but defiant and proud.

They are proud to unabashedly shill for Obama's plan to socialize medicine in America, making this country into the Canadian system where cancer patients must wait months for treatment and where the top two drugs used here in chemotherapy are prohibited because of the cost.

The Republican National Committee wanted to buy air time on ABC for tonight's love-fest with the president in an effort to rebut the blatant sale of the presidents proposals, offering the American people the information to make a choice. The RNC was turned down flat, ABC refusing to sell them ad space. Considering that the economy is in such bad shape and the networks are experiencing declining audiences and revenues, refusing a paying customer seems a bit odd.

The new Media Fairness Caucus - a group of a dozen House Republican members, headed by Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas - sent a scathing letter to ABC News in which the group said, in part:

“The manner in which the news programming is being presented -- at the White House with the President and First Lady and without opposition -- is unprofessional and contrary to the journalistic code of ethics to present the news fairly and independently. This is not a Presidential news conference open to all news outlets. This is an exclusive arrangement from which the President and his viewpoint stand to gain. It’s as if ABC News is providing in-kind free advertising for President Obama.”

(As an aside, this should be more than enough evidence that the straw man argument from leftists who have compared this to the conservative resistance to the Fairness Doctrine is akin to comparing apples and oranges.)

ABC News president David Westin shot back:

“Sadly, some inside government and within the private sector see every issue as material for a sort of political high theatre, to be used to gain votes or energize political bases or simply to raise funds. I would have thought that a subject as important as the health care received by the American people would rise above this sorry spectacle. Our citizens need and deserve more. We are proud to be making a serious effort to go beyond mere punditry or stylized, bipolar debate; we are proud to work for a network and a company willing to devote valuable airtime to serious consideration of a subject so worthy.”

So, suddenly a major news organization is "proud to be making a serious effort to go beyond mere punditry" when they refused to show any form of patriotism shortly after 9/11 because they were shielding themselves with "journalistic integrity" and impartiality.

ABC has revealed itself to be anything but impartial and tonight will succumb to the courtship of the liberal Obamas. [Fade to black...journalism is dead.]

Sphere: Related Content

Obama's Political Bubble Is Bound To Burst

Similar to the ominous signs that the housing bubble was destined to explode, Barack Obama's unsustainable popularity simply will not last.

Just as we're seeing troubling signs of media control by the mullahs in Tehran being used to artificially inflate crowd sizes in the ongoing demonstrations in that country in order to portray greater support for Ahmadinejad, the media in America has shown a reticence to accept that the president of their dreams may not be all he was billed to be.

To be certain, he is smart and charismatic, the latter having clearly kept his poll numbers in the black, but it is becoming increasingly evident to a great many Americans that his acumen for the position may be somewhat lacking. This would explain why his general popularity numbers remain high even as his performance numbers continue their decline.

Polling is one way that a liberal media props up those whom they deem worthy by way of phrasing questions in a certain way and to a certain demographic, or at least a demographic heavily weighted to reflect the desired outcome.

To an increasing degree, the media steers the decision-making of those they allege to simply inform, offering information to them designed to guide opinion. Negative press abounded during the Bush administration on a variety of issues that are now considered positives for Obama. Spending and surveillance are but two examples. It has also been common practice among media outlets to cover demonstrations in the same vein, reporting extensively on crowds with whom they agree ideologically while either ignoring the crowds who counter-protest or misrepresenting their attendance numbers.

These organizations know this to be true and that may be why ABC News has jettisoned "journalistic integrity" - in what I can only assume to be a last gasp at achieving the Utopia they envisioned - for a week of government boot-licking. The depth to which this wicked tryst has sunk is confounding since - with the uber-competitive nature of media marketing - there has been no condemnation of ABC's betrayal from the other networks. Perhaps they have all been promised their day of leather-tasting.

The fact remains that while we are led to believe that this country has swung far to the left, the truth is that the adoring masses we witness on our television screens - crying for Obama like a teen girl at Shea Stadium during the first Beatles tour - represent a minority in America still. A recent Gallup poll indicated that 40% of Americans consider themselves conservative to only 21% who declared themselves liberal. What this says is that if you ask a direct question with no rudder attached, American people are still Americans.

With those numbers, the Oba-bubble has the same chance as a snowball in...a very hot place.

Sphere: Related Content