How False Narratives Work in the Liberal Media---It's All Boehner's Fault!

Late last night, in an attempt to pass a three week extension on a DHS funding bill, John Boehner and the Republican-controlled House came up short on the voting.  Some of the liberal media pundits began their false narratives soon after, yet, in a moment of "Democratic Disarray", Nancy Pelosi had to come to rescue the Democrats from purgatory.   

Headline from Politico: Congress passes one-week DHS fix

"The last-minute move comes after House Republicans dealt a humiliating defeat to John Boehner."

The "set-up" from Politico:

And Boehner’s allies believe that the earlier DHS debacle on Friday, when 52 Republicans voted against the three-week plan, was in part aimed at toppling the speaker.

And, my response:

Wouldn't it have been nice if the non-biased authors here included---in the context of this story---the fact that 176 Democrats voted against the three week plan? That right folks, the whole narrative of the story changes when it’s factually reported that only 12 Democrats voted for the 3-week extension. When the final failing tally came out, (224-203), even liberal reporters like Dana Bash at CNN and Erin Burnett on Out Front were asking [at the time] if the Democrats realized that in the event of no other votes taken that night, they, DEMOCRATS, would be seen as responsible for a DHS shutdown. 

And let’s not forget the reason for this whole mess---Barack Obama taking immigration law into his own hands and changing it by lawless executive orders to allow/afford five million illegal immigrants almost all of the rights of American citizens, including social security cards, up to $24,000 in tax refunds for each family, and all the public amenities afforded to legal immigrants---changes in immigration laws that Obama said himself just a year ago that he didn’t have executive rights to do. 

But, by all means, let’s play the political “gotcha” games, (including bogus narratives blaming John Boehner for what Republican house representatives were elected to do, (along with now a Federal Judge)---to stop Obama’s illegal interference with immigration laws that are constitutionally left up to the legislature, not the executive branch. 

Democrats, (Harry and Nancy), keep asking for a “clean bill”, (as if they’ve ever provided one in the past when they were in power), yet the full funding of the Department of Homeland Security is stained with Obama’s fingerprints all over it---directing DHS to head up an illegally obtained program a majority of Americans disapprove of. Let’s forget the attention and manpower needed to implement this illegal program, (while the primary job of DHS is to protect this nation from terrorist entities), and hand Obama and the Democrats what they want---a clean Boehner bill---that provides this President with powers he clearly does not possess. 

Apparently Democrats are o.k. with subverting Constitutional law even if most American citizens are not. As if cramming ObamaCare down the throats of Americans didn’t cost the Democrats dearly, (see 2014 Shellacking), let’s give the Harry Reid/Nancy Pelosi Democrats what they want, again, and see how this plays out in 2016 when the liberal Democrats take another shellacking. Give them their unclean bill, and let them choke on it.

(It should be also noted that in the ditch Mitch McConnell passed this fiasco down to the House, when he, and his cowardly beltway Republican cohorts gave in to the Democrats demands to remove the immigration rider.  As a Conservative Republican, I can safely say I'm embarrassed at the actions of this "Republican-controlled" Senate.  Apparently, they are not in control of anything)


~ Rov

John and Jeb turn to liberal "illogic"

Apparently opposing a path to citizenship for so-called "dreamers" is not only immoral, but so inane as to deserve mockery.  No reasonable or moral person could oppose citizenship for children brought here by there illegal alien parents.

"It's about basic fairness," said John Boehner back in July of 2013.  "These children were brought here on no accord of their own."

And now we find out that about the same time, Jeb Bush claimed that it's "ridiculous" not to put such children on an "accelerated path" to citizenship.

But is there any sound argument here?  Or just more liberal illogic?  Amnesty advocates -- and now act of love advocates -- have never been terribly clear about their reasoning.  It's not hard to see why.

Boehner, as does Bush, appeals to fairness.  It's the only fair thing to do grant them a fast track to citizenship.  Unfortunately none of them bother to explain where they found this "principle of fairness":

Not Boehner, not Bush, not Rubio, not Dick Durbin and Orrin Hatch (the co-sponsors of the original proposed 2001 "Dream Act"), not anyone has explained why it is fair to let the children of illegal aliens go to the front of the immigration/citizenship line!

Why should an 18 year old, born in a foreign country, brought here illegally, be "fast-tracked" ahead of a 25 year old who's been trying to come here legally for a year, five years, seven years? 

We are being asked to accept the idea that it's fair to let someone go to the head of the line because of someone else's criminal act.  There is nothing fair about John Boehner's (and Eric Cantor's) and Jeb Bush's proposed solution. In fact, it is demonstrably unfair.

But Bush whines (or scolds?) that not to give them the fast track is to make them pay a price for their parents' "decisions," that is, their parents' crimes.  

Bush gets this completely wrong.  To claim that they don't deserve a fast-track to citizenship is only to claim that they do not deserve to be rewarded for their parents' crimes.  

They are not -- pace Jeb -- being asked to pay any price!  Their are no fines or court summons being issued.  They go to schools paid for by American citizens; hardly a "price." 

Imagine at the age of 5, a child's parents figure out how to "move" illegally from a dilapidated tenement into a modest, but clearly superior tract home, which they do not own and have no legal or moral right to live there.  And they live their for several years.  The crime is well-known.  But no one bothers to do anything about it.

Is there any moral principle that says that the children are entitled now to ownership of the house?  Yet this is what we are asked to believe by the "act of love" advocates.  We do not accept this principle for any other crime.  Why accept it here?  

You will not hear an answer to this question.

Jeb is not through: if we don't give them citizenship, we would in effect render them "country-less." This, however, is just obtuse. Clearly they have a country: the country in which they were born.  There is a place where they can exercise their citizenship rights.  According to Jeb, however, they should be allowed to exercise their citizenship rights.... where they spent the most time....?  huh ?

Again -- the principle underlying this claim is simply unfathomable.  Children of diplomats or military or businessmen do not acquire this strange entitlement because they spent a lot of time in a country different from their native home.  What is the rationale here?  (There isn't one.)  

The irony is this -- their parents are applauded for their act of love, for wanting to make a better life by committing a criminal act.  However, it's wrong to suggest to -- never mind encouraging -- the children, upon reaching the age of 18, to respect the law, go back to their native country -- and apply to come to the United States of America legally.  

The irony is perhaps magnified by a condition of the original law, requiring them to be of good moral character.  Apparently, in the eyes of people like John and Jeb, "good moral character" has nothing to do with refusing to benefit from the crimes of your parents.

Missing In Action

1.5 Million, including World Leaders, march in solidarity against Radical Islamist Terrorist and neither Obama or Holder, (who was in the vicinity), were not in attendance.  

More to come........... 

Update:  French Interior Ministry says 3.7 M people rallied across France in march against terrorism & to remember #CharlieHebdo, supermarket victims

Update #2: 

U.S. Officials Say Non to 'Je Suis Charlie' Rallies

By Josh Rogin

The lack of senior U.S. government officials at free speech, anti-terrorism rallies in Paris and Washington Sunday left many wondering why President Barack Obama's administration would miss an opportunity to outwardly display solidarity with France, a country it supports in so many other ways, during its time of crisis. 

CNN’s Jake Tapper noted that there were no senior U.S. officials at the Paris rally, which stood out due to appearances by dozens of world leaders including Germany’s Angela Merkel, Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu, the Palestinian Authority’s Mahmoud Abbas and Jordan’s King Abdullah. U.S. Ambassador Jane Hartley led the U.S. delegation. 

"I don't mean this as a criticism of the Obama administration, but as an American, I do wish that we were better represented in this beautiful procession of world leaders," Tapper said.

More Photos:

What is more than obvious is that most of the world was watching something other than football on this Sunday.  World leaders, (some who had put their differences aside), met in one of the most memorable gatherings of our time to Unite in one voice, in defiance of Islamic Terrorism and the fanatics who murder innocents in the name of their "God", Allah.  The New York Daily News had this scathing report on Monday.

The citizens of the United States of America should have been a huge part of this defiance, yet their leadership was unprepared, AWOL, or just didn't care.  What a shame.

Final Update:  My take on this issue:

The simple truth of the matter is, our current resident in the White House screwed the pooch big time on this one.  And yes, the optics do matter.  The entire world was watching three million people---and dozens of world leaders---come together in one voice to admonish a group of people, (specifically, the radical Islamist Terrorist) for their actions.  Make no mistake, “freedom of speech” and the human right to speak out, (and even make fun of others without the threat of death), were on display yesterday.

That our dear liberal friends are here in massive defense of our President’s mistake should be no surprise.  They too realize an opportunity to participate in this show of unity was an error on the part of the White House, Ms. Jarrett, and the leadership of this country.  Few envisioned the massive gathering of millions who have left a lasting impression of how a world unites against those who will murder in the name of their “God”, Allah, and their Prophet, Mohammed.

That the United States of America was not represented in this affair, to be included as one voice, with a single message, is an embarrassment to most of the citizens of this great nation.  Sadly, our President missed the boat---an opportunity to include the U.S. as a supporter in this righteous endeavor.  We can all hope that in the future, this nation would be far better represented, despite the excuses from our friends on the left.

(cross-posted at Hot Air and Politico)

And, from a commenter at Newsbusters:

VoteOutIncumbents 
“Obama's first act as POTUS in 2009 was to walk into the Oval Office and tell an aide to take that bust of Winston Churchill and get it out of here. It was sent back to the British embassy from whom it was on loan. Obama's "screw you" to the British and now the French is about his perception of colonialism. He thinks the French cartoonists got exactly what they deserved. The decision to send no official from Washington was not an accident. It was thought through carefully...it is Obama's way of saying to Europe you're on your own with the post-colonial problem you created.”

(the key phrase here is my bold)

Feds Want to Raise the Gas Tax

Feds Want to Raise the Gas Tax

With the price of gas finally a relief to middle income families, (for now), some people, (politicians), are calling for a higher federal tax----per gallon of gas.

The argument is that the Feds haven’t raise their tax for close to twenty years, and they need more money to build the highway trust fund* to repair our crumbling roads.

But here’s the real culprits that are gouging the customers---THE INDIVIDUAL STATES.  My question is, where’s this money going?  Shouldn’t all of these gas taxes be going toward re-building our roads.  If you examine the charts at the link, you can see THE STATES are already getting more than their fair share of a gallon of gas.  Now the FED wants another .12 cents a gallon.

*  Here’s the problem with Federal Trust Funds:  Care to guess how well our Federal Government has managed our Social Security Trust Fund?  There’s ZERO real money in the account.  Our politicians have managed to borrow/rob every dollar in the account and replace it with I.O.U’s, which will most likely NEVER be paid back.

Bottom line, again, if you look at the tax charts of what the individual states are already charging/stealing, wouldn’t it be prudent to demand that YOUR STATE provide documentation about where all this money is getting spent, before approving another rise in Federal Tax.  When the price of fuel heads back towards four dollars a gallon---and it will---does anyone think they will get tax relief from your state or the Feds?

Historically---it never happens.

Tell your Senators and Congress-people we've been hosed enough!

Update:


Senators Bob Corker and John Thune, once respected Republican Senators have taken up the establishment Republicans tactic in justifying almost doubling the Federal Gas Tax.

The incoming Republican leader of the Senate Transportation Committee said Sunday an increase is up for consideration, as “we have to look at all the options.”

“I don’t think we take anything off the table at this point,” John Thune said on “Fox News Sunday.”

This citizen is planning an all out revolt against raising the Federal Gas Tax---a tax increase of almost 67% and unlike sales tax, gas tax is a flat fee and is not based on the sale price of gasoline. No matter how low gas prices dip, the federal and state gas taxes remain the same. Therefore, the tax percentage fluctuates significantly with changing gas prices.

More to come..................

Happy New Year! 2015

The De Blasio Fiasco----A Dramatic Undertaking

From the Politico article: De Blasio’s nightmare

New York’s mayor has lost the police — and maybe much more than that.

By Maggie Haberman and Glenn Thrush

"Bill de Blasio, like his progressive political idol Barack Obama, is finding out that you can’t do the New Politics if you don’t pay attention to the old politics. 

In Obama’s case, it was a failure to recognize the threat posed to him by Republicans who didn’t buy into his calls for a post-partisan partnership with Congress. For New York’s ambitious liberal mayor, it was an inability to keep long-simmering tensions with the city’s traditionally powerful police department from boiling over in the last few days. 

Just over a year after sailing into office with 72 percent of the vote on a message of transformational change, de Blasio found his mayoralty subsumed by a torrent of anger, unleashed by the murder of two police officers in Brooklyn Saturday by a troubled gunman who said he was killing “pigs” to avenge the deaths of two men by cops in Staten Island and Ferguson, Missouri. By Monday, de Blasio was lashing out at the press corps that covers him, trying to paper over public divisions with his own police commissioner and coping with what friends described as the emotional blow of facing public rejection by many in the nation’s biggest police force. “He’s pretty badly shaken” by the murders, one told us......." (Read complete article here)

The Gotham City Blues:  The Only Place in America where the flare for political melodramatics transitions into a “Nightmare”---An Exposition of Old School Democrats vs. the 21st Century Liberalism Run Amuck. 

Nightmare indeed.  The only other place this story would be fitting would be if it took place in, you guessed it, Hollywood.  But New York has always shoved tinsel-town to the sidelines when it comes to the real dramatics of a scandalous affair of this magnitude.  All the “players” are here, as only Haberman and Thrush can thrust onto the stage, or into the ring as it may---Obama, de Blasio, Bratton, Sharpton, (and the company of their “spokespersons”), blossoming unlike any Gotham City saga seen in decades, with the twisting plots of a transitional city where the old school Democrats with their indignant pride is overtaken by the new-age faction that inserted Mr. Obama into power.  And then, of course, there’s the “voracious media”, who find themselves conflicted on how not to consume their heroes of political liberalism, yet yearning to get into the boxing ring and throw a few punches of their own.

But let’s digress for a short moment.  As implied in this story, it was more likely that it was Mr. de Blasio who has turned his back on his once loyal forces of the NYPD long before these current dramas came to a head.  The display at the Brooklyn hospital was merely a well-deserved reciprocation.  The NYPD, along with their union reps won’t stand by and get steam-rolled/smeared by the hostilities of the Mayor’s boys who don’t have their backs.  Mr. Obama can count his blessings that our Military isn’t similarly unionized with the ability to speak out against their feckless leader who has also turned his back on them time and again over his tenure, leaving them twisting in the wind.  But, that’s another story altogether.

What seems to be indignantly washed over in this “political drama“, (and the actors participating), is the stone cold fact that two innocent New York Police Officers were assassinated in broad daylight by a madman for the whole world to see.  Just as “oddly”, the liberal media glaringly omits in their stories that both of these men who swore to protect and serve, were a representation of the very minorities who have taken control of the electorate, yet to their brothers in arms, they were all the same---men in Blue, the only color that matters---something Mr. de Blasio and his cohorts better get behind before they’re eaten alive by their own fawning media.  Finally, speaking of the MEDIA, they have also played a huge part in this.  From the first day in Ferguson, to New York City and beyond, the Jeff Zucker’s of CNN, and the blowhards at MSNBC have done everything in their sick “journalistic” power to foment racism, while driving their own personal agenda of dividing a nation, pitting one class of people against another, along with destroying what little faith our minorities had in those same community residents that put on their uniforms to protect and serve.  They too, should be held accountable, (in part), for the deaths of our fallen heroes, for it was the media who played the video OVER AND OVER AGAIN, of the crowd of protesters demanding dead cops.  Once again, the media had a choice to portray the majority of protesters who were legally asking for justice, yet the “sensational news”---”What do we want, dead cops“---sold far more viewership, ie, ad dollars than “plain old responsible reporting”.  Throw in the far left online social media, (along with the text-savvy sycophants), and the recipe for more deaths is waiting.  Oh, you bet this is a NIGHTMARE, and a sleeping giant is about to awake.  

But, The Big Apple had better watch out, some one in Hollywood is writing the screenplay for this impending nightmare, where unemployed actors are plenty hungry to get in on this political drama.  It’s been far too long since they’ve had “a glove to fit” or a Rodney King beating to feed their artistic passions.  Of course, no one saw any of this coming, except Mr. Obama, who’s always been behind the scenes as the King of Division---par for "his" course. 

The GOP Power-Play---How Boehner and Company Plan on Dealing with the Tea Party

In a Breitbart post dated December 12th, 2014, Rush Limbaugh surmises that the legislation in the Cromnibus that eases campaign finance rules was inserted to basically help John Boehner neuter the Tea Party Conservatives: 

"Limbaugh continued "This is how corporate America is going to defeat the Tea Party. By allowing limitless donations from that crowd under the rubric that its campaign finance and money is speech and freedom of speech and 1st Amendment, the theory is that Main Street, Tea Party people can't come close to competing with corporate money and so it is a Republican Establishment ploy that kind of dovetails nicely with Obama siccing the IRS on the Tea Party to basically eliminate them as a viable threat by relaxing a regulation in Dodd-Frank that pretty much permits corporations to spend any kind of money they want on politics."  LINK

It would certainly make sense that Boehner would do anything to neuter the Tea Party, since they've been a political thorn in is side for/since what, when ever they started making waves?  2009?  If this is truly the case, (that the establishment beltway Republicans, (EBR's) will exist in their own separate world---and fund themselves exclusively apart from Tea Party Conservatives, (TPC's), then so be it.  

When I wrote my post at COTR about the funding bill finally passing, it was under the mindset that given the current position of Republicans, (only controlling the House), my first thought was (with more power coming in Jan), give "the people"---and the fuckin' media---the impression that Republicans "can govern" under regular order and pass legislation.  

Most of us should know that for months before this bill came to a head, that both the Senate and House committees got together and agreed to put a funding bill together that 1) would eventually pass, and 2) had enough “goodies” added in for both parties to again insure enough of both sides would eventually commit to its passage.  It’s a bit ironic that in the end, it was Nancy Pelosi that almost threw the huge monkey wrench into their plans, not a simi-powerless Tea Party.

This is where it would be understood why so many of the TPC’s saw those in the EBR’s as nothing but status quo Democrats when it came to restricting federal spending---justifiably so.  Just the sight/realization of Boehner and Obama working together in the end to gather the last votes to pass this thing had to leave a bitter taste in many of the mouths of conservatives.  As a side note, it was also a bit ironic to see Steny Hoyer going against his minority leader’s wishes.  (It’s my guess that there might be a power-play in the works and Hoyer might have been playing his small part in this whole thing).

Again, my first concern, (while perhaps misguided), was that both the Democrats and the media didn’t have another repeated narrative to run with that Republicans shut down the government and spoiled Christmas.  As it did turn out, the previous “shutdown” had no real impact on Republicans last November.  But my first thought was for this incoming power to leave the impression that the days of gridlock in Congress was over in the eyes of the voting public.  That said, I do understand the frustrations of the TPC’s who are asking “what the fuck did we win!” [in the last election] ???  

As for Rush’s “money thing”, more corporate money and resources to the EBR’s to neuter the TPC’s, this ploy “could” also backfire IF the TPC’s find a way to solicit this new money without sacrificing their principles.  Again, if “this is the game”, what’s to stop the TPC’s from sitting down at the table and get a hand dealt to them? Their attitude, going forward should be two can play this game. 

It has to be understood by the EBR’s that they will need the TPC’s block of voting to hopefully win the WH in 2016, and maintain the Senate.  If Boehner and company, the EBR’s choose to completely annihilate and eliminate their competition within their own party, you can almost bet the farm that those 4-6 million Republican voters will stay home AGAIN, and we’ll have a repeat of 2012.

I guess my point is, MONEY isn’t going to solve everything for the EBR’s.  

They still have to “fight” the ideology---a battle they might not win without paying a price they can not afford.