Happy Birthday, Blog

Two years and counting. 

I'll update this blog with something legitimate soon, but hey, not bad for two years.

UPB

Who's the Real Enemy? (America, of course!)

In the midst of the escalated mid-east conflict, mostly between Hezbollah in Lebanon and Israel, it was just a matter of time before the USA had to be considered at major fault for this turmoil -- and not by either side involved.

But by our own (and international) mass-marketed media.

As usual, AOL did its part for the Anti-Bush Administration Media Coalition, as today's "Welcome Menu" blasted images from Lebanon with the headline:

Angry Americans Flee Lebanon: Families Complain of Delays: Did U.S. Bungle Evacuation?

(And believe it or not, FEMA was not blamed by the press.)

Just in case that was NOT the biggest story from Lebanon at the moment, AOL added to its list.  In case online users mistakenly blamed all of America for the "bungled" evacuation, AOL clarified that political conservatives are the ones who should be ashamed today.  The headline directly below the one listed above read:

Conservative Star Loses Race: Ties to Scandal Sink Ambitions.

This Reuters story is about "Ralph Reed, a poster boy for the U.S. Christian right who helped promote the rise of Republican political power in the 1990s. . . ."  The actual Reuters headline read: "Reed Concedes in Georgia Primary: Conservative Darling Had Led Christian Coalition." 

Poster boy?  Darling?  It is difficult to read this article without the implicit roars and high fives of the Reuters news agency and AOL executives overshadowing the story itself.

And yet still, in case AOL users forgot that the Bush administration and political conservatives are incompetent, one more headline was added to the welcome menu.  This is also the first time in almost a week that AOL has posted any headline about Iraq.

Of course, it is negative: Civilian Deaths Soar in Iraq.

OK, so let's get this straight: (1) The U.S. is the country/group who is TRULY wronging innocent people in Lebanon; (2) political conservatives are scandalous losers; and (3) the war in Iraq is still going horribly wrong and is immoral.

Wow, and all that with a "Good Afternoon."  Thanks, AOL!

It is astounding how anyone can still defend the mass media, or even consider them "right-wing" simply because many are owned by corporations.  It evidences the ridiculous lack of logic and common sense by those who make such claims.

Need more evidence of the Anti-Bush Administration (and anti-Israel) Media Coalition (ABAMC)?  Here are some of the major headlines from past two New York Times Sunday Editions:

(7/9/2006)

*Surprising Jump in Tax Revenues Is Curbing Deficit
*Ally warned Bush on Keeping Spying from Congress
*The New Gender Divide: At Colleges, Women Are Leaving Men In the Dust
*Leftist Predicts Unrest Without Complete Recount of Mexican Election

(7/16/06)

*UN Demands End to North Korean Missile Program
*As Tensions Rise, U.S. and Moscow Falter on Trade
*Lieberman Hopes His Fate Isn't Sealed With a Kiss: President Bush's embrace of Senator Lieberman has become a symbol for some of an unforgivable alliance
*6 of more than 30 Iraqi Hostages Freed Unharmed
*Israel Widens Scope of Attacks Across Lebanon
*At Crossroads, Hezbollah Goes on the Attack
*War Gives Israeli Leader Political Capital
*Public Schools Perform Near Private Ones in Study
*Are There Enough [Home-]Buyers to Go Around?
*An Uprising on the Right in a World That Leans Left

Amazingly, Yahoo! News has the most balanced and objective set of headlines today. 

And that's all it takes, which is the secret to any "Coalition" news outlet worth its salt: not everyone reads the full stories, but almost everyone will read the headlines.

So bravo, AOL.  You have now actively taken part in trying to politicize the conflict in Israel to boost anti-conservative appeal.

And you did the rest of the Coalition proud.

ObraGORE y Amigos

Sound familiar?

A heated presidential race ends with a conservative winner and a liberal loser who delays concession of the defeat.

The liberal presidential candidate hints at conspiracy by raising suspicion of election fraud, and he possibly even accuses his opponent of rigging the outcome.

No, this isn't Election 2000, or even 2004, in the United States.  It describes Mexico's presidential election that was held on July 2, in which conservative (PAN) candidate Felipe Calderon was voted to succeed Vicente Fox. 

Calderon's opponent was former Mexico City mayor and lifetime liberal (PRD) candidate Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, who has received far more press coverage in defeat than Calderon has in victory.

Mexico's election results were delayed because the election was extremely close, with Calderon winning by 243,000 votes, as announced and reviewed by the national Election Board.

Of course, that was not good enough for Obrador.

Why should it have been?  After all, he's merely following in the footsteps of the losers of the past two United States presidential elections.  And if election results can be delayed in the U.S. by one day (2004), or even one month (2000), why should Mexico conform to a standard of class and efficiency?

The following is a collection of excerpts from last Sunday's New York Times article featuring this story.  The article, titled "Leftist Predicts Unrest Without Complete Recount of Mexican Election," was authored by James C. McKinley Jr. and Ginger Thompson.

"We are aware we are confronting a powerful group, economically and politically, that are accustomed to winning at all costs, without moral scruples," he told the crowd. He maintained that this group had "conspired against democracy" and that "they are the ones who now want to put a servant in the presidency."

Mr. López Obrador called on his supporters to march Wednesday from every electoral district in the country to the capital, an echo of his 1994 march from Tabasco to the capital to protest his defeat in the governor's rac.

He said his opponent's supporters had resorted to fraud and vote-buying in northern states where the conservative party is dominant, like Jalisco and Guanajuato. He also said he had been the victim of a smear campaign on television and radio that far exceeded campaign spending limits.

He saidthat the Federal Electoral Institute should have recounted Sunday's ballots during the official tally. He pointed out that mistakes favoring Mr. Calderón were found in about 2,600 cases where officials did recount votes, when tally sheets were missing or contained errors.

He said he would present a case for recounting the votes to the Federal Electoral Tribunal on Sunday, and that he would also challenge the validity of the election before the Supreme Court, arguing that President Vicente Fox had interfered with it.

Later, he took his case to the people. Tens of thousands of angry and defiant people wearing his party's yellow colors and carrying banners and flags gathered in the Zócalo throughout the afternoon. They were young and old, unemployed and professional, dark-skinned and light-skinned, and they had traveled from places as far as the states of Michoacán and Tabasco.

Mr. López Obrador spoke for about 40 minutes, calling his adversaries traitors to democracy. The crowd chanted, "You are not alone."

Mr. Calderón's campaign cited the volatile protests Mr. López Obrador led after his 1994 loss in arguing that he could be a danger to Mexico. And several political analysts have said that Mr. López Obrador's behavior since Thursday has proven Mr. Calderón right.

Mr. López Obrador said that Mr. Calderón was wrong to begin assuming the role of president-elect before the results of last Sunday's contests had been upheld in court. And he objected to the congratulatory messages that had been sent to Mr. Calderón from the United States, Spain and Canada.

He said it was all part of a strategy by Mr. Calderón to end a process that was not yet over.

"They want to turn the page, but things are not that way," Mr. López Obrador said. "This is just started."

Though the conservative candidate won, and though this election was for Mexico's president, perhaps no political party encourages Obrador more than the Democratic Party here in the States.  Every shout, whine, accusation, finger point, and demand for unlimited recounts until the Left wins -- gives the American Left more energy to continue like tactics for America's own elections, including this coming fall.

Whether the blame falls on Diebold, Inc., or on someone or something else, the blame will fall on someone OTHER than the party's candidate -- and any losses will be rigorously refuted.

Democracy, whether or not among a republic, is the most successful politicial policy in the world.  But thanks to Al Gore in 2000, the process has gone from being a process of ultimately gracious losers and respectful winners -- to loud, skeptical, and even petulant losers demanding that the timid winners prove their victories with something beyond abiding by laws and official recounts.

Thankfully, the Kerry/Edwards camp took just one extra day to admit defeat in 2004, which was still one more day than it should have taken.  Nevetheless, Mexico's presidential election may be just a preview of this November.  Let's hope not.

Obrador was quoted as having said that "[i]f there is not democracy, there will be instability."

Apparently, anymore, there is instibility regardless.

A spade is a spade

If a person steals a car, then donates it to charity, that person is still a car thief.

If a person illegally enters a country for permanent residency, then works for low pay to stay in that country, that person is still an illegal immigrant.

Not an "undocumented migrant employee."

Not a "foreign-born asylum applicant."

No other euphemisms (which the major national and international media have embraced) will suffice.  The fact that illegal immigrants have broken laws and now protest for citizen rights cannot be skewed merely by sugar-coating their status or titles.

In a CNN.com article posted on April 10, 2006, the headline itself reads: "Rallies across U.S. call for illegal immigrant rights."

What rights?  Human rights?  Absolutely.

But what other rights exist to which these "undocumented foreign-born workers" are entitled by law?  U.S. citizen rights?

According to the article, protesters held signs that read "We Are America."  While the signs should have read "We Are IN America" -- what was noticeably absent were two important letters: We Are AmericaNS.

The article attempts to garner sympathy for the "undocumented resident" cause.  It quotes the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Los Angeles, California, as calling for widespread laws that legalize all illegals already residing in the United States.  According to Cardinal Mahony, from a rally, "We are all God's children, united for a just immigration reform."

I am a Roman Catholic and a natural-born U.S. citizen.  That said, God's children include rapists, murderers, thieves and tax cheats -- but I don't hear Cardinal Mahony calling for them to have the same rights as every other law-abiding citizen.

The obvious, convenient double-standard here is how protesters also wore shirts that proclaimed, "We are NOT criminals!"

While these protesters may not associate their behavior with the likes of capital offenders, it still does not diminish the fact that their entire basis for argument is predicated on the fact that they committed a real crime (at least, according to the laws of the United States, for what they're worth).

THE POLITICS OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION

When the Senate (GOP) proposed, then revisedand resubmitted, two actual plans to control and organize the illegal immigration issue last month, they thrice fell short of enough votes for cloture in the Senate.

According to a FoxNews.com article posted on April 8, 2006, the more popular Hagel-Martinez compromise sought to divvy the estimated 11 million or so illegal immigrants into three groups:

(1) those who have been inside the country for more than five years who would have the best chances to gain citizenship;

(2) those who have been in the country for between two and five years and would face more obstacles in gaining citizenship, but could remain in the country;

(3) and those who have been in the country for fewer than two years who would have to leave and apply for visas before they could return.

Republican Senate majority leader Bill Frist proposed legislation that would not guarantee illegal residents asylum, and would also punish financially corporations and other employers who hired them in large doses.  It also fell short of votes, even for amendments to alter its less popular components.

Democrats and Republicans blamed each other for the delay in passing reform.  But who benefits more from stall tactics?

Democrats.

Hispanics largely vote Republican throughout the United States, and to portray the GOP as the villains who propose tough legislation against illegal immigrants, it gives Democrats hope for a voting loyalty shift (right in time for last week's elections).

It also bought -- and buys -- time for more rallies to be organized and demonstrated before last Tuesday's elections, and certainly before this November's midterm elections.

(And not surprisingly, the largest national work-boycott rally was held last Monday, on a Communist national holiday.)

Just be weary in these months leading up to November.  Be careful not to believe every bit of hype and shouting.  Be warned that these rallies will eventually turn violent unless the political climate changes soon.

And be ready for Democrats to claim that Republicans are doing nothing to push real reform through Congress -- all the while voting against and filibustering the real proposals made.

And lastly... as for euphemisms, AmericaNS will not fall for the media deception, whatever labels are given for illegal immigrants.  To quote the web site illegalaliens.us, "Calling an illegal alien an undocumented immigrant is like calling a burglar an uninvited house guest."

And if those who are soft on this issue are not careful, that strategy WILL backfire severely in November.