Wednesday, June 20, 2012

President Obama, Out of Touch on Illegal Immigration: Dishonest Media Try to Prop Him Up

755 of the American people SUPPORT the "harsh" arizona law on illegal immigratin:  CNN poll (that right wing organization--lol). 

But what wa the "big news" yesterday--at least on MSNBC?  I think yu can actually gueess.  They did a "poll" on how many people "support" the President's unlawfu (according to the President, last year) action to UNILATERALLY (Mubarak dictator that he would LIKE to be) adopt the "Dream Act".  In the first place, of course, how many people have any real idea what the President actually DID?  This is a 'poll" made for MANIPULATION, and tht was its only purpose.  There is no way to do a fair" question on this.  And then there is all of that PROPAGANDA about the "innocent children". Tihis is all merely fraudulent poitical gamesmanship.  But the PROPAGANDA here is to turn the entire "debate" on illegal immigratin into a "debate" on the "inocent children" (and military service, allthough almost nobody even opposes that, if anyone were actually serius about a simple, one-item bill on that).  As stated in previous blog articles over the past week, this is an atttempt by the dishonest mainstream media to have the "tail wag the dog":  to distort the illgal immigratin debate by makeing it all abut thsi politically manufactured sideshow involvning "innocent children (see previous article abut Candy, Crowley, Liar on The Liar Network).  First,  our DISHONEST media has tried to make the questoin of ILLEGAL immigration (a term they basically refuse to use) into an argument about IMMIGRATIN (as if illegal immigratin and illegal immigratin are the same thing).  Now, our dishonest media ss trying to make the subject of illegal immigratin SOLELY abut the "innocent children".  These really are some of the most DISHONEST peeople how have ever lived. The"hype" over this "poll", which suposedly "showed" that 2/3 of the American people (or is it just Hispanics--the media is not always very clear on these polls, because they are POLITICAL in the first place),, "support' the President.

But what abut those multiple plls that show 75% of the American people SUPPORT the Arizona law against illegal immiigratin, including 62% of NON-WHITES?  That poll has two obvius superiorities over the "poll" on 'innocent children" (USE of same as mere political pawns) . First, the Arizoan law is EASY to understand, and the PROPAGANDA has been the other way:  AGAINST the law.  Second, the Arizona law is abut  the ENTIRE subject of illegal immigration, and not this attempt to "carve out" "innocent children" as a special class (intended, of course, to consume the 'rule", to make it impossible t "deport" anyone).  But our dishonest media is not interested in FACTS, or even discussing the honest meaning of polls (once you get past the fact that all polls are eveil, pretty meaningless things). Our dishoenst media is ony intersted in PROPAGANDA.  Thus, all of the polls on illega immigratin are IGNORED, except when they fit into the media narrative.  Do yu ssee that this INGORING of polls that disagree with yu, and featuring of only polls that fit our ageanda, is a form of lYING?  You shoululd see that.

"But, Skip, how do you reconcile these poll results?"  I don't, in terms of logic and ratioonality . Note that these kind of poll results merely PROVE how USELESS and EVIL polls rreally are--a "tool" for propaanda and lack of thinking rather than any kind of "news".  But the dishoenst media is not interested in a real analysis of polls.  Our dishoenst media is only interested in PROPAGANDA.  Thus, the media will not talk about how to "fit" this latest poll "result" into other poll results.  No, it is not that hard to come up  with "explanatins", but those explanations don't fit the media narrative.  Therefore, they just ignore the whholel problem, as they pursue their present narrative taht illeagl immigratin is now all about the "Dream Act", and the innocent children.  What do yu EXPECT people to say, if all they get is this propaganda about "innocent children"?  It is a totally one-sided debate, because the COWARDS of the GOP refuse to engage in the debate at all.  In fact, those COWARDS do not even reallly want to engagge in a "debate" about illegal immigratin, and the Arizona law.  In other words, the GOP COWARDS are perfectly willing to throw away a WINNING ISSUE (supported by 75% of the American people), because they think it is too risky.  Nope.  The GOP does not have to make the entire electin abut llegal immigratin, even though it hsas something to do with JOBS and WAGES of American citizens.  But to simplly cede the ground is insane, which is my general view of the GOP .

Look at Romney's "reactin".  He seems to be mainly saying that President Obama can hardly be viewed as a "leader", or the Democrats as "serious" abut the Dream Act being the most important "issue" in illegal immigratin, when they failed to do AnYTHING abut illegal immigratin laws when they had COMPLETE contorol of Congress (the first two years of Obama's Presidency).  This, is, of course, true, but hardly a very strong statement of PRINCIPLE.  Everyone knows that President Obama spent those first two years on ObamaCare, and that the reason the "Dream Act" was not passed was that democrats WANTED A MORE GENERAL AMNESTY (even though the 'Dream Act is meant to lead to that). The "Dream Act' is only the POLITICAL attempt to get the "Hispanci vote", as a POLITICAL PLOY.  Democrats insist that what we need is "comprehensive reform' (always a deception), but they are perfectly willing to try to USE a very minor part of the whole as a POILITICAL PLOY.  They will not, however, take up other aspects of illegal immigratin, or legal immigratin, policy becasuse they insist that it is "comprehensive reform" or nothing (excpet when it comes to their political purposes). These are the worst hyporites to ever walk the Earth, on two legs or fur, but you already knew that.

But Mitt Romney only talked AROUND these things.  He did not talk about how 75% of teh American pele believe that we should really DO something abut illeegal immigraition,, supporting the Arizona law.  He did not really talk abut President Obama as an OPPONENT of democrac,y, a evidenced by his lawsuit against Arizona (and othes). Romney did sort of VAGUELY suggest that Obama's actin was merely political theater, but Romney hardly said AnYTHING about the overall importaince of a real policy to STOP illegal immigratin.  Note that Romney culd  have done this in a few sentences.  No let me admit that the mainstream media--unlcuding the unfair and unbalanced network--is DISHONEST.  Thus, Romney could say things like I suggest he should say, and both you and I would NOT HEAR ABOUT IT (unless the media thought they culd make points against Romney that way). That is the whole point of this article:  our media people are DISHONEST PROPAGANDISTS.  All Romney has to do is keep  saiing that Obama and the Democrats are flouting the will of the American people, and trying to DFLECT people away from the IMPORTANT subject of illegal immigrration to a sideshow that they diid not think important enough to pass when they had the votes.  Then move on to the econmy, and even talk abut illegal immigratin being a problem for American jobs (while at the same time saying the same thing about Romney's ideas on LEGAL IMMIGRATIN--doubtful as I find them--and how Romney is dedicated to a policy on both illegal and legal immigraitn that both supports the law and helps the eocnomy of this country.

I don't hear it.  Do you?  In the primaries, my 89 year old mother LIKED Romney because he ws so strong on illegal immigratin.  Romney is throwing away that vote: throwing away the 75%, in favor of the MEDIA and the 25%.  I am actually okay with that, because I am NEUTRAL anyway.  I call them as I see them,, because there is NOTHIN Romney can do (well, never say never, but nothing he is at all llikely to do) which wuld cause me to support Romney is tis electin. No, I won't support Obama either. That is why I am NEUTRAL.

P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).  No editing or revisions.  Just can't do it (in reasonable time or effort, considering what I am getting paid--noting). 

No comments: