Conservative Refocus

By Barry Secrest

All in all, the times we are living in just seem to become more and more interesting as each day passes, in a sagacious nod to the venerable Chinese insult:

"May you live in interesting times."

Most notable was the fact that what had begun as a long-ranging  joke within our many articles actually came into being when Herman Cain was called "a racist and a bigot" by yet another dizzy denizen of the left, strategist Cornell Belcher, during a CNN interview. So, since our far earlier  prediction, in this regard, has been fulfilled, it seems only fitting to make yet even another ridiculous prediction that will most likely come true, as well; more on that later. Also, we were startled here in good ole' North Carolina, when our Governor, the increasingly embattled Liberal Democrat Beverly Perdue, stated that Government should consider suspending congressional elections for a couple of years just to "get things done."

You just can't make this stuff up; here is the actual text of what she said:

“I think we ought to suspend, perhaps, elections for Congress for two years and just tell them we won’t hold it against them, whatever decisions they make, to just let them help this country recover. I really hope that someone can agree with me on that,” Perdue said. “You want people who don’t worry about the next election.”

 

Now, at this point, you are probably wondering  how any sitting American Governor could actually make this statement? Well, the reasoning is layered and complex, but if one were to boil it all down, the answer is simple:

"I was just joking."

Yes indeed, the answer to every political and inter-relational gaffe in the history of mankind, to include male/female relationships, can be boiled down to four distinct ideas strung together for plausible effect, those being; "I was just joking."

One must then also wonder if Perdue was still joking when she completed her verbal missive by stating that her goal was to "turn the state of North Carolina's economy around," as well? Come to think of it, maybe the stated intent of Perdue's "turning things around" might be more in line with Obama's Liberal goals of "transforming America" into the Cloward-Piven mother of all food stamp utopias that the US is quickly becoming. Hmmm...methinks we might be onto something...

But, even better than that was the President's later and remarkably hysterical quote during an interview in which he stated that "America had lost its competitive edge." Gee, do you think he's been reading this website?

Turns out, the answer to that question, Attackwatch.com aside, is not exactly.

 

You see, Obama's intent was not slanted towards the fact that we have lost our competitive edge due to ream after ream of damaging legislation, an anti-business attitude, or even the hammer of impossibly restrictive Government regulations brought forth by his own administration. No, not at all; in fact, Obama was actually referring to his smarmy alternative reality in which we Americans have simply "gone a little soft."

Well, if that be true, then what exactly did El Magnifico  expect after promoting the expansion of unemployment compensation to 18 months? But it should be conversely noted that, after 3 years of this man in office, both Americans and American business' are quickly becoming the civilian equivalent of Navy Seals such is their overall toughness and daunting OJ "end of times" T in the face of increasingly plagued economic odds.

 

At any rate, instead of blaming President Bush, our crony coddling Bam-Bam has finally gone straight to the source of our problems, and that problem is "Us." Here, also, it must be noted, that the President has, in fact, just correctly called both himself and a large number of voters out. We did elect the man after all, present company excluded.

So, Bravo, Bravo, Mr. President! You finally got something right, even if you didn't mean to. Perhaps in answer to America's having gone soft,  the government might well consider another round of true stimulus, this time in the form of little blue pills that will make us all hard again.

One can even now see Obama's big Pharma friends salivating in blood-lusted avarice at the prospect of such a grand opportunity. But aside from needing erectile dysfunction drugs to make us all hard again, here in America, for our dear President, it would now seem that yet another Liberal Brother wants to relieve us of a hearty portion of  impending pain as well. Obama apologist and racial igniter, Leonard Pitts, has, yet again, come out directly against middle America when he stated the following in a recent column:

"This country is in a world of hurt if the likes of Michele Bachmann or Rick Perry wins the next election. It might be in greater trouble if Barack Obama does."

"I can take no credit - or blame - for that analysis. It originated with one of my colleagues, a veteran political reporter, and he shared it one day not long ago as we were chatting in the office. It troubles me for one simple reason: it makes sense."

So, does this mean that Brother Leonard has changed his mind on his hero Obama? But then, also, the question must be asked, does not Pitts think that America is in a world of hurt right now?  I mean, when you stop to think about it, we are all in a world of hurt right now because the world is, in fact, hurting in myriad ways everywhere. But, initial Tea Party aspersions aside, Pitts goes on to elucidate his ideas, that he obtusely ascribes to some dude in his office, while we all await with baited breath on which way his summary argument is headed, if anywhere at all. Here we go:

 

So here is how his thinking goes. The genteel, pragmatic Republicanism of the past has been supplanted by a pitchforks-and-torches mentality, a fun-house mirror distortion of traditional conservatism. Meaning, of course, the tea party.

Ah yes, so now, all of a sudden, the Republican party, which was formerly supplanted with white racists and rich money-grubbers, according to Pitts, has suddenly transformed and become un-demonized into a genteel, even pragmatic party of responsibility and generous effete. Gee...I wonder where this leaves the Democrats? But remember ladies and gentlemen, according to left-wing anarchist Saul Alinsky's manual, one must pick the target, not targets, so here we can see that Pitts has realigned his aiming reticule towards the Tea Party and away from the Republicans altogether, a noteworthy thing in and of itself.

In fact, some cause for alarm, this should be, to the Republican Party, I must point out.

But then Pitts bewilderingly re-instigates traditional Conservatism, being formerly Pitts' avowed enemy for life, into something else altogether, by then calling the Tea Party "a fun-house mirror of Conservative distortion?"

Oh, for Heaven's sake, Pitts! You simply cannot fail to ever quite get it right, can you now, Sir? The Tea Party is the very essence of Conservatism, you blooming idiot! Which is but a few degrees apart from standard Republicanism, what part of that could you possibly not understand? But, Pitts dithers onward:

These are folks who don't just support the death penalty; they cheer for executions.

Here, Pitts tries to deftly maneuver something that was elicited in a GOP debate, into something that wasn't exactly what it appeared to be, at all. Playing the ever-smug, Liberal debate moderator, Brian Williams had been hammering Perry all night long. He didn't just ask questions, he, in fact, pre-textualized each one of his questions with his own smug brand of liberal tastes.

Rather than simply asking Perry to explain about Texas education performance, here is how Williams actually phrased  a question to Perry about Texas education:

By now the GOP debate crowd, after listening to Williams tincture each question with a decidedly Liberal spin, even those not enumerated here, had had enough. So, when the question of executions and Texas came up, the crowd expectantly erupted into an applause designed to basically tell Williams to go back to the cushy liberal hell from which he might have sprung. Rather than simply asking the question about Texas and executions, Williams first phrased the question with the words:

"How can you sleep at night?"

"Just fine," was the crowd's erstwhile response in the form of applause to Williams, and we should all applaud the crowd, in retrospect. Williams later smugly denigrated this same crowd for essentially holding a valid opinion which was at odds with his own.

So, after unlaboriously debugging Pitts' mythical prose for just a bit, Pitts goes on to state of the Tea Party:

 

They don't just oppose health care reform, they shout "Let him die" to the uninsured individual who faces life-threatening illness.

Here, Pitts does an admirable job of making things up as he goes along. In fact, the Tea Party is dead against government supplied healthcare in direct opposition to the reasons that Pitts blames the Tea Party. It was Pitts Hero, Barack Hussein Obama, who stated "just give them a pill," not the Tea Party, see?

 

Pitts goes on to finish his now ruined thought:

 

They are the true believers: virulently anti-government, anti-Muslim, anti-gay, anti-science, anti-tax, anti-facts and, most of all, anti-the coming demographic changes represented by a dark-skinned president with an African name. They are the people who want "their" country back.

Indeed, Pitts skews and twists virtually everything about the Tea Party into something unrecognizable, but only vaguely reminiscent for caustic effect.

We are, in fact, the true believers, but believers in Liberty and God, not the chains of Socialism and the cult of Statist humanity as God.

• We are not at all anti-Government; we revere and believe in both our founding Fathers and our leaders. What we don't believe in are the chains of collectivism and Big Brother-Big-Government programs; we believe in the Constitution as written and amended.
• The Tea Party is not anti-Muslim, we are  anti-radical Islamic, a thing Pitts will belatedly come to see his own errors in judgment on, and probably sooner rather than later, unfortunately.
• The Tea Party is not anti-Gay, but rather they are anti-sexual identificationists. We believe that people should be allowed to do what they wish, but don't ask us to both sanction it and bless it.

The Tea Party is not anti-tax, we are for reigning in an absurdly spending government that is wreaking havoc on our nation and against our collective free will. Raising taxes any further will only worsen the problem spending, not help it.

The Tea Party is not against demographic changes, but what we are against is allowing people into this country when few if any jobs are available for those of us already here, Pinhead.

The Tea Party has nothing against our President being dark-skinned, in fact we actually prefer a slightly darker shade of black as evidenced by our love of  Tea Party leader Herman Cain among the other runners. He is, indeed, more authentically black than your own guy, and perhaps even you, Mr.Pitts. Albeit, Cain does evidentially lay claim to a greater amount of intelligence, but he is Conservative, after all, so what else could one have expected ?

And yes, we do want our Country back, back from the Collectivists and Statists, Communist and Socialists before our Great nation is wounded beyond repair. If that is a black thang to you Liberals, then so be it, we really don't give a hoot, at this point, about what YOU think, if that's what you now call it. I mean, look around you Pitts, it's only going to get worse until we do get it back, but then you probably already knew that, didn't you, Sir. And get it back, we will.  In fact, it's happening all around you. People have awakened, and they do not like what they see, at all.

Pitts goes on to point out:

 

"The old guard of the GOP doesn't much like them, but it likes winning so it keeps its mouth shut."

"You might think Obama's re-election would solve this, offering as it would stark repudiation of the politics of panic, paranoia and reactionary extremism this ideology represents. The problem is, these folks thrive on repudiation, on a free-floating conviction that they have been done wrong, cheated and mistreated by the tides of history and progress, change and demography."

Here, Pitts seems to absurdly flow into a severe reflection of both himself and his own hero's afflictions, while ascribing these antipathies to the opposing group that he holds responsible for his own socially derived existential angst. It's called deflection, and Pitts has won awards for it. In fact, Pitts is actually describing his entire career, along with the divider known as class warfare that Obama has made his signature cross-over move. To say that both Obama and Pitts do not belong under the column headings of: Done wrong, cheated, mistreated by progress, history, change and demography, is to pretty much ignore their entire collective careers of shouting, I have been wronged, while garnering absurd amounts of both cash and clout in the process of doing it.

Pitts could not have gotten his ideas any wronger, point in fact.

Let me be clear. We, as the Tea Party, are not victims, we in fact refuse to be victims. We are the responsible, hard-working ones. We do not live in some fairyland along the way to Utopiaville, we in fact, know that Utopia is a state of the spirit, not of crude physical being. The Tea Party, in large part,  knows the value of true success better than any others in existence, and we will not allow a bunch of pandering leftists to ruin it all for everyone-- including those of the left-- who simply have yet to learn what it is that we know in every fiber of our being, all politics aside.

We know the way.

We, in fact, both know and understand that the stakes in this epic battle of the Left versus the Right are not just about the United States, nor is this about just North America, nor is it about the Northern Hemisphere. This battle is for the world's well-being as we know it. And this battle both begins and ends right here in the United States of America. We, being our generation, broke it or at least allowed it to become broke --while we were off at work, simply not paying enough attention-- and we now have to fix it, and we both can and we will.

(Sheez, you would think Pitts should be saying thank you to us at some point....)

But Pitts, seeing the handwriting on the wall, then moves to explain away what he thinks is inevitably coming, by stating the following:

 

So there is every reason to believe, particularly given the weakness of the economy, that being repudiated in next year's election would only make them redouble their intensity, confirming them as it would in their own victimhood.

And ask yourself: What form could that redoubling take? How do you up the ante from this? What is the logical next step after two years of screaming, rocks through windows, threats against legislators and rhetoric that could start a fire?

So, here Pitts actually thinks, in his angst-coated land of make believe lolli-pops, that the Democrats will win in the 2012 election? What color is the sky in this guy's world? Probably an offending shade of eggshell, no doubt.

Pitts, you have not been doing your homework. Pitts has apparently mistaken his ample supply of "Me" Leaves for the actual "Tea Leaves" and these Tea Leaves tell a different tale altogether. The people are already speaking as we have seen in the most recent and stunning election of a Conservative in  New York district nine.

Further, Obama has alienated his base in so many ways that his funding is now impaired, and even the Jews of the Liberal Left are waking up. The Blacks, which make up Obama's base, are being shown the disillusion of their majority selection in the form of no jobs. American business has had enough, the Democratic Party has had enough, in fact the world at large has had enough of Obama. It's a joyful thing for someone on the Right to behold, after the morose 2008 elections. But, we actually saw our Conservative uprising, in the latter part of 201o, come into fruition during the Republican sweep of state legislature after state legislature, a phenomena that is obviously continuing.

The Left-Wing Party is, in fact, over, but not for Pitts who then absurdly states:

An awful, obvious answer suggests itself. You reject it instinctively. This is, after all, America, not some unstable fledgling democracy.

Then you realize it was not so long ago that a man blew up a federal building in Oklahoma City out of anti-government sentiment not so different from that espoused by the tea party. And you remember how that tragedy exposed an entire network of armed anti-government zealots gathering in the woods. And you read where the Southern Poverty Law Center says the number of radical anti-government groups spiked to 824 in 2010, a 61 percent increase over just the previous year.

And you wonder.

Oh, we wonder alright...we wonder how some wing-nut that represented an extremism belonging more to the camp of radical extremist  ideologues, of which Pitts is a member, keeps popping up in the Liberals' thoughts while the Left-Wing of destruction is constantly swept under the rug by folks just like Pitts.

We have also seen a measure of distrust in Government, totally unprecedented since the Civil War, make its way into fruition under the current Obama Whitehouse. You cram edicts down peoples' throats and make onerous demands on them as a free people and this is what you get, Pitts. It's simply that simple. No one trusts the current leadership to do what's right after repeatedly seeing them do what's wrong time and time again.  I often wonder what part of Free, and our intent to stay that way, does Pitts and the Liberal Left not understand about the Tea Party?

Pitts concludes with the following thoughts:

 

"This is not a prediction, only a speculation - and a suggestion that those of us who have regarded the craziness of recent years as an aberration, a temporary temper tantrum from people who feel threatened and dislocated, may have been entirely too sanguine. In less than 20 years, the locus of radical anti-government extremism has moved from remote woods to Capitol Hill.

How should the rest of us respond? That's a question we urgently need to answer. They say they've come to take "their" country back.

Maybe it's time we took them at their word."

It is difficult to understand what Pitts is trying to communicate in this last bit of nonsense, unless it is of the "we have to strike back category," which I would not, "ahem" heartily recommend. You see Pitts, you have already struck back and you don't even know it, my old liberal friend. You have struck back against the war on terror, the war on poverty,  the war on Socialism, essentially the war on everything  that has threatened either America or Her well-being with your own personal weapon of choice, that Being Barack Hussein Obama and the Liberal Democratic Party of the last decade. You gave it your best shots and it almost worked.

Both you, Barack Obama, and a crew of irresponsible, irrepressible  Liberals have, quite ironically, created the fabled monster that you always feared lay in wait beneath your beds.

You actually made the fiercely patriotic Tea Party, by your own extreme Leftist tactics; now you will have to just live with them.

Funny how that works, eh, Mr. Pitts?

Conservative Refocus

By Barry Secrest

It is a phenomena that we have both seen and spoken to many times within the past decade, as the media ferociously attacked the previous administration, only to then pull out all of the stops in ferally defending the next. The leftist media have now corralled their "journ-o-list wagons" around the royally radical dunce that is our President, only to erect a vast and effective deflector screen which euphemistically ricochets the incoming truth out in a conflagration of impossible angles and bruising rejoinders.

No ordinary truth deflectors, these Obamatronic media screens allow for certain less-mortal shots to get through so that the illusion remains complete to the populace, but in a visualistic special effects sense, only. Nothing illustrates this illusory phenomena more effectively than Faux-Conservative Kathleen Parker, an opinionated journ-o-list who never met a liberal fact that didn't contain some form of merit that she could then twist around into what she might comically then call "Mainstream Conservatism." Unfortunately, Parker seems to only wear a slightly paler shade of Red October, than her extreme leftist compatriots.

Point in case would be a recent column titled "Principled Foolishness" from Parker, in which she admonishes the Tea Party for acting as "Kidnappers," rather than the Vice-President's likening of the Tea Party as being "Terrorists" in the debt ceiling debacle. So, at this point the Tea Party has sojourned from being racists to becoming kidnappers and now even terrorists according to the once-removed and mostly brainless, cosmetically hair-plugged leader of the free world. What is truly amazing, if not laughable, is that one of Parker's long-stated goals is to "inject some sanity" into a world gone "barking mad." Indeed...I...will... be.... nice here (ahem).

You Can Fool Some Of The People, Some Of The Time....

Now, we both know and understand that Parker, somewhat amusingly, considers herself ever so slightly to the "right of center," but in fact, it would appear that she might be referring to more of, say, a right of center in China, or perhaps even Communist Greece rather than in a truly right of center America. So let's establish one particular truth, just now, that not many have seemed to recognize, but has stood the test of both time and extreme observation. The Tea Party is the Litmus test for ascertaining true Conservatism, even party affiliations aside. So whenever you see anyone espousing dislike or disfavor upon the Tea Party, who might conversely account themselves as Conservative, one of three things is probably happening: (A) They are either fooling themselves, or (B) they are trying to fool you, or perhaps even (C) they are trying to fool both themselves and you.

But there is one particular absolute that cannot be either gainsaid or denied. To say that the Tea Party is kind of Conservative is like saying "that a woman is kind of pregnant. albeit, "absolutes" do exist in this world--like it or not. Parker may hold some few views that dangle loosely to the right of the inner-beltway crowd, but probably not very many, based upon my experience in reading her various columns which account more as diversion entertainment than anything else.

In this particular, rather erratic column, Parker initially states that the Tea Partiers "acted like kidnappers who seize and detain a person (or nation) in exchange for ransom." She then immediately goes on to renege on her entire statement, rather enigmatically, deposing that she was merely "exaggerating for effect" and that it was all "just...annoying." Much like her serenely obnoxious column is already becoming, in fact. To make a statement and then immediately retract it in writing is nothing more than literalistic stuttering, although it probably plays as cute to the mindless elites inside the beltway and within the Washington Post writers group.

Parker then goes on to comically infer that, like V.P. "Plugs" Biden intended, the Tea Party "only acted" like kidnappers," and then further reneges herself, by stating "not that they are." At this point we must stop the entire commentary and calmly inquire as to "What in the hell are you taking Kathleen?" Just drop the crack-pipe and back away from the keyboard, help can be had quite easily in DC, we hear, Camden too, if she dares. So, now that Kathleen has certainly, at this point, convinced us of the fact that either her cycle will begin within the next seven days or that maybe her lithium supply is now flagging , she goes on to then even more euphemistically state that the entire genesis of her column was but an exercise in patronizing the Tea Party so that they might reconsider their child-like efforts. Indeed, that should work....

Undigested Facts Can Cause A "Dummy Ache"

Parker then gets at the heart of her jaded column by criticizing the Tea Party for "standing fast" within their principles during the now confirmed budgetary debacle: "they wouldn't give an inch even if it meant the country catapulted down the abyss and markets were destabilized. It was the principle of the thing, we heard over and over." And here is where Parker both defeats herself and her ideas in earnest, and I have been dying to explain this, so thanks Kathleen. You see, before one can lay absolute blame, one should holographically take in all of the measured facts in a nutshell, rather than relying on the Kool-aid drip-line as administered by the inner beltway talking point spin-doctors. Are not most journalists taught to chew their facts thoroughly before gulping them down, Kathleen?

You see, the first problem with Parker's line of disjointed thinking always leaves out the extraordinarily damning details. Ergo, who and what caused this problem in the first place, Parker? Was it the Tea Party? No, not in existence prior to Obama's quickening. Was it the Republicans? Nope, Obama and the Democrats saw to it that they were locked out of all budgetary debates. Was it Bush? Negative, the mean public debt was at its slightly high, but traditional, level of about $5-6 trillion dollars during Bush's tenure.

Now it's at $ 10 trillion. So, what could have caused these nightmarish budgetary problems? Aha! Only one answer fits, and that is Obama and the Democrats who have been spending nearly twice what they are bringing in. So, now that Obama and the Democrats have spent America into a corner, how do the Republicans extract America out of this quagmire of debt? Well, during a recession, the worst thing that you can do is raise taxes, even the President admits to this; besides, why should the American people be even further punished by something that Obama and the Democrats are redistributively culpable for in the first place?

So here is the line of thinking that actually works--listen closely Kathleen. Despite America's having spiraled deeply enough to where all Americans have extraordinarily pulled back on the spending reins, at the President's initial behest, I might add, Obama and the Democrats have been wildly lashing the beast that is government spending harder and harder, euphemistically riding the revenue beast into the ground,and hard. America's economy is winded, soaked in lather, and about ready to crumple in on itself because of the enormous amount of spending that has been unsupported by revenues, not to mention Obama's mean, anti-capitalistic agenda. Look here, the evidence lies all around us both here and in nation after nation; Keynesian spending in an atmosphere of world economic decline, simply does not work.

In fact,Standard and Poor's made it very clear that we must cut our spending by $ 4 trillion dollars over the next ten years, and we only cut two trillion. We lost our AAA status, and it was because of the compromise of the Democrats and the Republicans outside of the Tea Party. Therefore, the fact is unalterable, that the Tea Party was correct in its stance. Cut more or no deal was the ultimatum which was ignored, and voila', yet another economic tragedy brought on by Obama and the Democrats with just a little help from their friends, some few moderately skeered Republicans. Aside from all of this, no amount of increases in taxation, could come even close to closing the current grand canyon gap between revenues and taxation engineered by the Cloward-Piven Presidency of Obama, and it's simply that simple. Now what part of this, one must ask, is so hard for a bunch of dim-witted Democrats in DC to understand? Or, perhaps I am being redundant in asking that question in the first place.

Of Pandering to Clueless Elites

And yet nowhere within the "supposedly Conservative" Kathleen Parker's column, does she take to task our pin-headed, radical President's lack of leadership, nor the Democrats on this subject. Instead she elects to lambaste the Tea Party for actually being the only sane ones, who knew what was coming, within the inner-beltway crowd. Their plan would have worked, but it was tabled in the Senate. Where might Parker's criticism of this lie? Or is she, yet again, pandering to the inner-beltway types in a displaced missive of elite entertainment rather than truthfully and realistically discerning a political path out of this abyss?

Parker moves on, in her written skit, to then tell us first that "Families don't spend more than they have, the government shouldn't either," while then immediately, once again, reproving herself in the next line that, in fact, "families routinely spend more than they have," and then she states "so does our Government." So, in essence, Parker has made herself a double-speak, journalistic apologist for a wildly out of control US Government in all things while saying essentially nothing, in addition to her duties as a supposed opinion writer of some now questionable degree, apparently. Indeed, I know she won a Pulitzer,and some sort of "H.L. Menses" award for journalism, but for Heaven's sake people, is this bit of tripe that the woman is writing actually leading anywhere at this point?

Well, perhaps, because after all of this getting herself wee-wee'd up over espousing and approving the blighted Obama condition, Parker goes on to surprisingly tell us that "The Tea Party does deserve some credit," after she has pretty much damned the entire Tea Party for taking us one step away from bringing down the world economy, according to her. Now Parker states that the American people, whom she previously criticized for spending more than they make, "deserve credit for insisting that their elected officials act more responsibly. At this point, within her missive, a headache begins to dawn, in trying to navigate this nonsensical beltway blather, because she unremittingly twists logic back around, on itself yet again, by repeating the standard, unoriginal, Democratic talking points about the Tea Party:

• Holding the Nation hostage
• Placing our economy at even greater risk
• Extracting promises while threatening to allow Government default
• Blaming the Tea Party for causing the debate, which caused the problems, that will be far-reaching
• For, once again, acting like hostage-takers

All obvious paragraphical redundancies aside, Parker then, pushing the needle into the red on hormonal rage at this point, quotes some foreign-sounding nincompoop at the Wall Street Journal, who probably also won a "Pullet Prize," in managing to type "You just don't push the world's largest economy and the most liquid financial markets to the brink of damage without causing some damage somewhere." Indeed, and while this obvious pinhead is targeting the Tea Party, he or she is at once and for all, along with Parker, leaving out the real culprit by which those words should be ascribed, that being Manchurian Candidate Barack Hussein Obama, who authored our AAA demise in the first place. You see, here's the problem: Obama was no less culpable in his demands than were the Tea Party or even the Republican Party,and certainly the Democrats, were in theirs.

Faulty Solutions Begin With An Illogical Premise

Why, for Heaven's sake, is this "Takes Two To Tango" premise so difficult for these supposedly brilliant people to see? The Republicans were actually compromising with themselves the entire time, as no Democrat in Washington was actually willing to put a workable plan on the table.

Within the stated disagreement, the question was initially about increasing the debt ceiling when it has been proven nearly impossible for us to pay the balance that we Americans already owe, in the first place. So, they desire to push it even higher, and not consider alternatives? I would submit that it was Obama who failed to compromise, and it was his failure at leadership which led us to lose our bond rating status. Obama is the President, after all, and the one who is supposed to lead. But this fact always tends to get lost when in the clutches of a fawningly discombobulated propaganda inspired media.

Parker goes on to neurotically then wonder what the Tea Party will require at the next spending juncture, when she should be inquiring how the President will now rein in his outrageous spending. But she doesn't, of course go there, and she somehow fails to critically divine that she has succumbed to ideas already proven both terribly wrong and misguided, if not misleading in virtually every way that we desire to see them. The Tea Party's impetus is nothing more than a vast right-wing conspiracy that uncovers a now buried set of truths, that the Liberals keep trying to bury deeper.

So, once again and like a poor, poor marksman, Parker continually misses the target, with a consistently shaky aim and an even more erratic grasp of truly critical thinking skills. Parker goes on to laughably state that the conservative view, with which she agrees, is that "confidence is crucial to growth and stability," and she, at this one point within her column, is finally, if not tragically, correct and incorrect at the same time, because the one man in charge who has inspired the least amount of confidence in the last 30 years, is indeed, Barack Obama, not the Tea Party, for Heaven's sake. So once again, Parker makes a quasi-conservative statement, but actually attacks the Conservatives who are trying to achieve this end rather than the ones who have caused the instability and the upheaval in the first place, being the President and the Democrats

Parker hits us with one more point that almost defies ridicule--and sparked this rebuttal in the first place--when she states the following:

 

 

"Holding fast to a principle that undermines your own objectives, doesn't make you a terrorist or a kidnapper, but it might mean you're doing a darned good imitation of a foolish person."

To this we can only say, "don't be so hard on yourself Kathleen; you will probably come around at some point, but we won't hold our breathe."

You see, as we have seen time and time again from a large number of journalists and opinionists and even Independents who might say that they are largely of the Center, there is one point that now stands out as irrefutable:

A consummate truth; there are no true centrists within the political equation, one may either break to the right or fall to the left, but no one can rightfully claim the Center as their own, the arguments consistently proffered will always define a systemic leaning.

The Center, being the mathematical equivalent of nothing or zero, is impossible for any person to attain, and so it is with Parker, whose entire body of work paints her solidly within the camp of the non-radical Liberals.

So, say "Hi" to your new friends of old for me Kathleen, and happy to be of service.

Read More On This Subject from Barry Secrest

Debtor Nation: When A Ponderous Anger Turns To Indomitable Fury »

The Politics of Expediancy: Lost In Translation »

Epic Fail: Cloward-Piven and Obama's Engineered Destruction of America's Economy » ( Top Rated)