|
 Those Americans believe the borders should be secured and people
should not be allowed to simply walk across the border and immediately begin
to collect benefits from the American taxpayer as soon as they arrive.
Further, most of those Americans believe there is a disconnect regarding the
status of having the status of "illegal immigrant" and the politician's
desires to put them on a "fast-track" to American citizenship. Somehow,
however, the liberal politician seems to use a different logic regarding
this issue of dealing with those who are illegally present in America.
With this Administration this quandary seems to go even further as it
affects many of the scandals that have come to the fore during the length of
this Administration's tenure. Most people would think it is foolhardy to
pass on a huge cache of assault weapons to the Mexican drug lords while at
the same time trying to ban those same weapons from the American citizen
from acquiring them legally. Even when the scheme backfired when the
Administration lost track of all the weapons and an American border guard
was murdered with one of those weapons, the Administration sought sanction
from their actions by having the Attorney General lie to Congress earning
him a Contempt of Congress citation. Of course that was muted by the
President who immediately covered the illegal actions by blocking Congress
with a writ of Executive Privilege to protect the Attorney General from
prosecution. For most reasonably prudent, rational-thinking people, it
seemed unfair to protect illegal activity with political maneuvers that
allows those illegal actions to go unpunished; nevertheless, it seems like
it is common practice among the political elite.
Another example among many, is the Benghazi, Libya attack from terrorists
that left the American Ambassador and three other Americans murdered while
the Administration apparently failed to send help to extract those Americans
even when help was available. When the Administration reached out to the
American people the news of the actions at that Consulate in Benghazi, they
used a narrative of a YouTube video claiming that it's content incited the
rioters, insisting that was the cause of the attack on the Consulate. That
claim continued to have life with the President and the Secretary of State
even when they met the returning dead Americans days later to American soil.
The President, a week later, continued with that claim in an address at the
United Nations. All of those stated claims for a cause they knew the night
of the attack was false; yet they perpetrated the myth and lie all the same.
Then following that they have engaged in a cover-up of the truth for over
two years with the President referring to it a "phony scandal" and the
Secretary of State testifying to Congress by saying, "What difference now,
does it make?" To most thinking citizens using logic as their foundation, it
makes a big difference to know that the Administration is consistently using
lies, deceit and cover-up tactics to push an agenda with which most
Americans don't agree.
Now, the question remains, "How do the politicians come to the conclusions
they do when they make their decisions regarding matters of public concern
knowing they are in almost complete opposition with public opinion on that
matter?"
It likely has always been the case the politicians have acted mostly in
their own interest rather than the interest of those they represent. In
America we like to think it is the People who are having their will
considered when it comes to the formation of laws, regulations and policies.
Unfortunately, many Americans really don't pay much attention to what is
going on around them in regard to the political structure that is in
operation that essentially controls their lives, even without them being
aware of it. Many people are more concerned about the next blockbuster movie
to come out, or the hair-style of the starlet who is the girlfriend of the
week with the handsome leading man. The Hollywood elite set the pace for
life-style for many who only seek the glitter of shallowness as they escape
the humdrum of life of eking out an existence by working two part-time jobs
in an economy that affords little more than subsistence for many. Without
their ever having been aware of the "back rooms" of political fodder, the
politicians have taken over the lives of "We the People" in a way that makes
it profitable for a person to spend a hundred million dollars to win a
political job that only pays $175,000 a year to have.
[to top of second column] |
 They do it by establishing "narratives" in which they play out
with tenacity, telling the people the stories they want to be told;
wanted by the politicians because it matches their take on the
actions they have taken, wanted by the people-at-large because it
allows them to hear and believe something without having to expend
the mental energy to think about anything. It is a narrative that
matches the politician's interpretation of what he or she wants the
people to hear even when the politician knows in advance it is a
narrative that is far from the reality. The politician enlists the
help of the media to enhance the narrative and give it life and some
credibility. The politicians establish "talking points" to
distribute to all the disciples of their party to further establish
the pervasiveness of the narrative to make it appear like it is
universally accepted. To "institutionalize" the narrative, the media
injects it into the "entertainment" industry to perpetuate the story
line and impregnate into the minds of the people the political
narrative adding a twist to the narrative that matches more closely
the people's viewpoint of the incident even when that version is
completely different from the political reality.
A new television drama produced by CBS called "Madam Secretary,"
which is about a female United States Secretary of State, and is an
example of the political narrative that mixes reality with fiction.
Recall the Benghazi incident and the reality of the scandal. Of
course there have been special hearings in Congress that strongly
implicates the blame for the tragic deaths of the Ambassador and
three other Americans in that incident for being a lack of security
and the repeated requests for security being denied by the Secretary
of State. That was the subject of the showing broadcast in the drama
which aired on September 28, 2014 where the same incident occurred
with an Ambassador in Yemen. Of course the storyline had the
Secretary of State insisting the Consulate be fortified with more
security while the Ambassador was resisting that build-up of
security. The Secretary of State was so concerned about the safety
of the Ambassador and the people in the Consulate she went to the
President's Chief-of-Staff for more fortification. Due to world-wide
political implications the President was reluctant to authorize the
extra funding to supply the enhanced security. Consequently, the
Secretary of State used channels behind the official channels to
secure the funds necessary to provide the extra security needed. So
when the Consulate was bombed by terrorists to complete destruction
it was feared all were killed, including the Ambassador. Of course
in the end it was the security from private sources the Secretary of
State provided from her "contingency" fund that saved the day and
the lives of the people in the Consulate, including the Ambassador.
If Hillary Clinton could re-write the reality of what happened in
Benghazi, this is exactly the script she would choose as her
starring role in the matter.
To the uninformed voter who will never remember, nor perhaps never
watched the hearings, when the former Secretary of State, Hillary
Clinton makes her bid to run for President of the United States, the
mixture of reality and fiction of the incident that is her greatest
albatross will be muted by the memory of the fictional Secretary of
State who saved the day rather than the actual one who wanted to
know, "What difference now does it make?"
We see that in one drama after another when Hollywood and the
television producers along with the late-night comedians continue to
use the "narratives" that deflate the reality of the liberal actions
by turning them into the warm-hearted, macho fiction that is much
more easily remembered when it comes to the time for the masses of
uninformed voters to cast their votes. The hope is, when you vote
for Hillary, just remember to cast your vote for the fictional Madam
Secretary so the former one can be called, Madam President.
[By JIM KILLEBREW]
Click here to respond to the editor about this
article. |
