Your point illustrates a fundamental flaw in our political process. The person who is best at getting elected is not necessarily able to do the job he's elected to. Barack Obama has gotten his dessert before he eats his vegetables, winning the presidency despite a light and questionable resume, winning the Nobel Peace Prize based on the committee's anticipation of what he might do, etc. And like the child at the dinner table, Obama has shown a much greater aptitude for enjoying his reward than earning it.

"The public also deserves to know whether the president and his agents audaciously and brazenly lied about a national security matter for political gain." We already know the answer to that though, don't we? In other administrations the media and the citizenry would be howling for justice. What the public deserves is to see the perpetrators ultimately, by the preponderance of evidence, have to confess their lies and to face the consequences.

Regarding the constant Liberal screams about "the bottom half only earned x amount, while the top 10% earned (geometrically more.)" Thomas Sowell has demonstrated time and again that while the bottom *percentiles* earned less, that doesn't mean *individuals* did. Individuals in the bottom earnings percentile normally don't stay there, and often move to the top earning percentile. Upward economic mobility is one of America's strengths, and it's only independence-destroying and initiative-crushing government policies that restrict Americans improving their lives and increasing their incomes.

My apologies for the double post. I'm not sure what happened.

Border Patrol agents in South Texas report that illegals are crossing over to Texas, surrendering, and asking the agents "Where do I go for my amnesty?" The coyotes smuggling them across have a new sales pitch: "If you can get into the United States, they will give you amnesty." Politicians discuss these topics and pass their policies as though in a vacuum, they don't consider the real-world consequences. The *intention* seems to be all that flickers across the short distance of their minds.

Border Patrol agents in South Texas report that illegals are crossing over to Texas, surrendering, and asking the agents "Where do I go for my amnesty?" The coyotes smuggling them across have a new sales pitch: "If you can get into the United States, they will give you amnesty." Politicians discuss these topics and pass their policies as though in a vacuum, they don't consider the real-world consequences. The *intention* seems to be all that flickers across the short distance of their minds.

I disagree that a "solution" is on the way. Regardless of its ultimate form, a "pathway to citizenship" will attract only those who wish to walk that path. A great many illegal immigrants won't participate -- what's to become of them? Even if illegal immigration stopped completely (it won't,) we would still have hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people here illegally, and the situation hasn't changed one iota. The argument would still continue, but meanwhile we have new government legislation that jumped politically-favored illegals to the front of the line ahead of those going through the legal immigration process. That's not a solution.

There are not enough apologies in the world to absolve the Democrats of their part in this crime. They can't plead ignorance, because everything coming to pass was predicted by the legislation's opponents. At best they were willfully ignorant; at worst, they sacrificed the well-being of Americans for generations to come, simply to exercise political power. There needs to be some kind of reckoning. "I told you so" just doesn't seem adequate.

The professional wrestling comparison is apt. In that entertaining "sport" there exists a concept known as "kayfabe." Kayfabe is the storyline presented as "true" to the public -- "Wrestler A hates Wrestler B's guts" -- although it was created to deceive the public. (Wrestlers A & B may actually be best friends.) It's safe to say that any "no holds barred" presentations of the relationship between the media and Democrats (especially Obama) presented to the public are kayfabe, fake storylines constructed to fool the public.

The Sisyphus analogy is apt. I'm constantly shocked at what politicians can get away with saying. With a straight face they call a billion (or trillion) dollar increase in spending a "cut," and expect people to believe them. The shame of it is that many, even most, Americans do believe them, and form opinions based on the deception. Pointing out the absurdity of the whole farce to those who miss (or willfully ignore) the point can make a person feel like Sisyphus. Stupidity is a huge rock to push up a hill.