As we  endure the shrill protests being emitted by the Media against the Tea Party and the beleaguered citizens of Arizona, we can begin to attune ourselves to certain voices which  stand out.  The President, along with the Axis Press and Liberals in general, have chosen to go against their Countrymen, the People of Arizona, in support of the illegal aliens who are Mexican citizens living within the US.

Arizona's crime?  Trying to enforce the law of the land as set forth by the United States.

Arizona's state law simply mandates that the State will now endeavor to enforce the Illegal Immigration laws due to the fact that the Federal Government has chosen not to.  The Leftward have taken issue with this stance on the ridiculous basis that people may now be asked to identify themselves via an ID card.  With Arizona's extreme problems with the Illegals, the question now becomes:  How else does one identify an illegal?

Welcome to Bizarro World

It is apparently not enough for the Leftward to simply disagree with concerned Americans who have a valid yet opposite viewpoint.  Nor is it enough to simply argue the merits of or to thoughtfully engage in a dialogue where an argument cannot be denied to exist.  No, it would seem that we now live in an age of political vilification where if a viewpoint runs counter to or appears to threaten already unworkable Liberal  ideas which are grounded in emotion and layered with hyperbole, the vocal opposition must be harshly branded--as has been the Tea Party movement by the Media and its acolytes.

One of these such voices, columnist Leonard Pitts, has now decided that anyone who is of another race and an opposing viewpoint must now automatically be a racist.  No doubt he took a painfully long span (of at least several tortuous hyper-seconds) to reach his own personal epiphany of disdain.  Pitts begins his "blindfolded" determination by pointing to a CBS/New York Times Poll of 1,551 adults who considered themselves supporters of the Tea Party Movement.

Pitts first states that the data garnered from the poll held few surprises, which would tend to mean that there were a number of preconceived notions at play for him going in.  He then asserts that--according to the poll--only 20% of Americans are Tea Party supporters.  This begs the question of what the definition of  "supporter" actually means.  If we allow ourselves to be constrained by the terminology used within the CBS/NY Times poll, we are most likely limiting ourselves to the truths as seen only by The New York Times and CBS news--two organizations known throughout the world as being editorially " in tune"  with a Liberal Agenda.

White + Republican + Male = Racist!!

For instance, in a 4/16/10  AP/GfK Poll the number of persons who generally agree with the premise of the Tea Party Movement amounts to 33% of all voters.  While in a  March Rasmussen Poll, the question, phrased a bit differentially, indicates that a significant number of Americans--52%--believe that the average Tea Party member has a better understanding of the issues facing the average American than the average member of Congress, which would imply an overall acceptance, if not support, of the Tea Party when one looks at the 17% Congressional approval numbers according to another CBS/New York Times poll.

The point here would be that we actually have no true idea of how many people "support" the Tea Party Movement in all the various degrees that the word "support" encompasses.  The percentages start at 18% and run to a possible 52%, if not more.  Pitts goes on to state that, according to the poll, Tea Party supporters tend to be White, Republican males over the age of 45 and wealthier "than the rest of us."  Here Pitts is rather impishly setting up an "Us against Them" scenario by implying that ALL Tea Party members are wealthy, middle-aged  Republicans (who are favorable towards  George W. Bush-- as if that is an oddity) and lastly are apart from Mr. Pitts himself.

The ironic part of of this statement is that, aside from Mr. Pitts being a non-White Liberal who constantly sees race, he would seem to fit right in with the Tea Party Demographic.  Pitts then goes on to say that most Tea Partiers are ANGRY--a base emotion that Leonard  has shown a singular adeptness at employing to considerable profit over the years, we might add.

I Got Rabies at the Tea Party!

Pitts then leaps off to yet another "poll" to hammer home a point that he never tires of making in support of his argument.  According to the  University of Washington Institute for the (profitable) Study of Ethnicity, Race and Sexuality, strong evidence is offered that President Obama's race plays a big role in the Tea Party's outrage and that researchers found a significant correlation between racial resentment and Tea Party "zeal."  Pitts further indicates a particular statement within the poll (which is so leading it could be ascribed to any race or gender at any time and would most likely get the same results).

The leading "loaded"  statement given to respondents goes as follows:  It's really a matter of  some people not trying hard enough; "if Blacks would only try harder, they could be just as well off as Whites."  Now, for the numbers associated with the  above statement, only 33% of those agreed who were "skeptical" of the Tea Party.  Among Whites in general, 56% agreed.  But among those who were most "rabid" of the Tea party supporters, a whopping 73% agreed. Now, if I may point out, I am still trying to find the percentage of Tea Party members who have been designated as "most rabid."

Further, being mistrustful of those pesky and yet cunning Liberals, what if only eight of the individuals were designated as "most rabid" and approximately six of those agreed out of 1,551 people--could this be their 73% ? Within this particular poll, the designation of "most rabid" does not appear anywhere.  Further, "rabid" is a term that carries an extremely negative connotation, i.e.  raging nuts; so here we are with Pitts, yet again, trying to lead the emotional charge of vilifying anyone in agreement with the Tea Party.  My point here would be just this:

If you were to ask the general population the same leading question, but phrased it a bit differently, such as the following, what type of response do you think you might get?  "If Whites could only study  harder they could be just as academically successful as Asians."  The answer, I am reasonably sure, all things being equal, would parse out nearly identically with the "most intensive studying" Asians being in the highest numbers of respondents in agreement.  But yet, here again, another fact looms up that Pitts has failed to engage in thought.  When the most intense of Tea Partiers state that Blacks can be just as well off as Whites, are they not also saying that Blacks have the same capabilities and capacity for success as Whites in general?  And does not the imprimatur of racism believe in a superiority due to race?

I'm Not a Successful Black Person--but I Play One on TV

What about the following phrase?  "If Blacks did not try harder, they could not be as successful as Whites." This statement is inversely phrased from the first question--and yet the  answer would be racially loaded in either a "yes" or a "no" response.  A "yes" response would seem to indicate that  in order for Blacks to be as successful as Whites they must try harder.  While In fact there are many, many very successful Black people who are probably extremely insulted by the entire premise of the poll.  Further a " no" response could also indicate that Blacks are in actuality on an equal ability footing with Whites and do not need to try harder, which points to an actual complement  by the most intense Tea Partiers regarding members of the Black race.

Sometimes, when clarifying a point of logic, you can take an inverse phrasing to counter-pointedly clarify whether a flaw might exist within a given principle, such as here.  Remember, also, that many Tea Party members are ferocious in their Constitutional as well as  Biblical belief that all human beings are created equal.

So, by equating the inverse of both examples on this footing, I believe we have pointed out a flaw in the entire premise of the question that has caused the Liberals their particular brand of racial smugness.  When the same question is asked inversely and the answer--being opposite--yields up a premise of insult--even while both statements mean the same thing --in essence, a flaw in the logic of the question has been exposed.  We would have to delve into each "rabid" Tea Partier's mind to see their actual intent in order draw a judgment as quickly as Pitts and the other racist mongers do.

Um...We Found Out Where the Global Warming "Professors" Ended Up....

Dare we point out, also, that while Pitts and the esteemed doctors who run these particular studies are assumed to be "neutral," the fact is that when one is looking for an effect and assumes a particular quotient to be at play which will produce the desired "effect," a flaw will naturally occur within the process simply because it is "expected" if not designed for.  Doubtful?  Please see "Global Warming Meltdown" for the full treatise on this subject.  Pitts then states that "ideology plays a part and politics do too" but "once you control for partisanship, party identification and ideology there's STILL a significant, robust effect for race."

As if these very "fluid and subjective" political ideas can be equated with a certain mathematical co-efficient and precisely adjusted for within the study.  But in that vein and while on the subject of politics as racism,  how are we to interpret the fact that 96% of all Black voters voted for Obama?  Can anyone honestly state or prove that this did not AT ALL involve the issue of race?

In fact, this would mean that while 4% of all Black voters voted for a candidate other than Obama (McCain, primarily), a whopping 43% of all White voters voted for Obama.

Bears repeating.  43% of ALL WHITE VOTERS VOTED for OBAMA.  Not a majority, in terms of race, but a number that is significant and cannot be ignored, comparatively speaking.

Why is it that Black pundits and Liberals never drag out this "interesting" fact?

The Final Solution

Looked at in another way, when we examine the number of voters by race who voted for a member of the opposite race, Whites voted for a Black individual by over a ten-to-one margin as compared to Blacks who voted for a White individual.  Does this, by using the Liberals' own tools against them, mean that Blacks are more racist than even those (now) sheet-claden Tea Partiers--never mind all White people?

Am I  saying that Blacks are racist for voting for Obama?  I would never make that presumptive leap--but neither should the racist Instigators be trying to microscopically study a political sector of the population, grasping for flaws, while then further painting them with the brush of racism simply because a sizable grouping of individuals disagrees with the radical ideas of a President who just happens to be Black.

One idea comes to mind which Pitts might gleefully support:  Perhaps all Tea Party supporters should be required to sew the yellow flag of Gadsden onto their apparel so that they can be identified while out among members of the populace.  I feel certain that this would make all of the Progressives more comfortable when they lay down to sleep at night.

Teasing Out The Numbers--The Fix Is In

Pitts, then speaking of the Tea party and the Poll results, startlingly admits, "some of us needed no polling data to know this...some of us needed only to observe the timing of the Tea Party's rise."  To which I would query, Mr. Pitts, that the rise of the massive deficit, and the ridiculously impotent stimulus spending spree were just coincidence to the Tea Party's rise?  You see, Sir, the financial upheaval along with the bank bailouts also happened in this time period.

The simple fact is that the concern of Americans regarding a now massive deficit, taking over of 1/6th of the Country's economy, taking over manufacturers, regulators stepping on the necks of banks wishing to lend, Unions being selectively catered to--all of this is plays into the reason for the rise of the Tea Party.  It ain't rocket science--at least not to "most" of us.

Pitts then cites the Tea Party's lack of a concern of Tyranny with regard to G.W. Bush's claim that he need not be bound by laws which he disagreed.  In our research we could find no such claim by former President Bush.  Perhaps Mr. Pitts might consider sourcing his citations--if he can.  Pitts continues through a litany of the things that the Tea Party should have been yelping about while Bush was in office--each item steeped in half-truths at best, completely meaningless at worst--within his entire specious argument.  Pitts even drags out a paltry $407 Billion Bush-era deficit while we are looking at a current deficit of  $1.4 Trillion just for 2010.  And yet, who is to say, Mr. Pitts, that we were not yelping?  It takes time to start a movement, and many of us had been yelping singly, now we can yelp in groups!

Finding Utopia in Hell..You Go First

Pitts then rounds into the homestretch of his already dubiously stretched column, citing the works of several prominent Conservative Columnists who have accused Obama of various negative deficiencies yet "have not" been accused of racism for their attacks.  When the pale of racism has, indeed, been applied to any Conservative or Libertarian in general who disagrees with the President over so many occasions with a very broad brush.  In fact, throughout Pitts' entire article--his quotes pulling down my Flesch-Kincaid level not withstanding--we have seen no actual name or singling out of anyone or any actual instance where racism has been demonstratively proven.

Pitts has, in fact, led everyone down a path that leads to no particular point--beyond calling a group of people racists based upon evidence that is not in actual attendance.  Pitts' whole argument is based upon a vague polling question, for Heaven's sake!

Pitts ends his superficial diatribe by dragging out uncited utterings along with the quote "I want my Country back" as apparently also being racist.  He goes on to state of the Tea Party the following:

"They are looking for the America that was.  We're searching for the one that ought to be"

Leonard Pitts, Jr., we just elected a Black man for President!...Good Grief.

The Country is more racially divided than it has ever been, the nation is broke, our children and grandchildren will be in debt from our actions for a long time to come with no letup in sight.  Many successful companies have gone out of business, we have the highest foreclosure rates since Noah, minorities, including Blacks, have been harder hit than any other sector (see multiple links below).  The Tea Party is very,very terribly concerned about all of the above.

The measure of Melanin content within our collective skin cells has nothing to do with it.

Barry Secrest

Unemployment Rates 2008

Unemployment Rates 2009

Foreclosures

Foreclosures 2

_____________________________________________________________________

Rebuttal Excerpted from "All the Kings Horses, All the Kings Men"

Healthcare Prices Too High?  The Democrats' Answer:  Increase the Costs = Typical

The President had much to say in his Charlotte visit and promotion of the Stimulus.  He reminded us, yet again, that he had inherited an economy which has been at its worst overall since the Great Depression.  The fact that the President's legislative agenda has been so damaging to the economy since he entered office never seems to make it into the President's speeches.  In addition, both the President and Congress fail to ever mention the fact that it was their legislative actions, under the Community Reinvestment Act, that caused the current economic dysphoria in the first place.

The President made a point to emphasize that the economy had added 162,000 jobs this month.  Most experts have stated that this particular increase was due to the Government's hiring of Census Workers for the Summer.  So the economy--via the Government--did add jobs; however, the jobs will be temporary and are Government jobs to boot-- and--will be paid for by taxpayers.

The President went on to state that while paychecks were flatlining various expenses--including healthcare coverage-- were increasing.  Our take on this point would be--you haven't seen anything yet.  The figures that have been touted for future healthcare coverage with regard to the new healthcare law have been estimated in the 15-20% range just for starters.  So we can now begin to  see that the Democrats' main explanation for establishing Healthcare Reform Law is, indeed, bogus.  Costs are guaranteed to go up, as insurers must now include a veritable host of health maladies which are difficult to underwrite for and establish sufficient rates to pay claims while maintaining healthy claims reserves (as required by authorities).

A Liberal's Idea of Job Creating Stimulus:  It Pays Well (Apparently) to Be a Junkie Monkey

The President then stated that Government had been very busy in its efforts to help Business create jobs and touted the Stimulus Plan as being one of the chief job creators.  WE all now know what types of jobs have been created so far by the Stimulus. The following is an actual list, courtesy of the Civitas Institute, of just a few of the Stimulus Jobs created here in North Carolina:

1. Study of Monkeys using Cocaine $ 71,623.00

This particular job creating study was of rare importance for the individuals in Mexico who, perhaps, illegally traffic cocaine our way.  Not to mention the monkeys who are, indeed, integral in our economy for reasons as yet unknown.

2. North Carolina Dance Theater $ 50,000

This was to retain 4 professional dancers for North Carolina Dance Theatre's Second Company.  We wonder if perhaps the RNC was involved in this decision.

3. Reducing Hot Flashes through Yoga $ 147,694

This one, in particular, should be bifurcated into the "Green Energy Program."  The heat energy which is produced by menopausal Women could, most likely, power  small cities all over the country, which could greatly reduce our dependence upon foreign oil.

4. Collecting, researching, and reporting on the stimulus act $ 492,940

Perhaps we at Conservative Refocus should submit an invoice for our contribution...yet it is interesting to note that Bureaucracy seems to get the lion's share, so far.

5. Create Interactive Dance Performance Technology $ 762,372

Dance, again?  The one thing that's lacking in our economy--no doubt--the ability to interactively dance...with technology.  They should try this one in conjunction with the cocaine monkeys.

6. American Dance Festival Inc. $ 50,000

North Carolina-- "Let's dance!" (Since we have lost most of our factories and many jobs...)

7. Construction of New Town Hall in Bladenboro $ 300,000

This one item should actually produce jobs, as well as providing North Carolinians a place to dance, interactively, with Simian Cokeheads while performing Yoga to reduce hotflashes.

8. Preservation of an insect collection at NC State $ 253,123

Insects need jobs, too?  We are unsure as to exactly why bugs need preservation when a substantial portion of our economy is dedicated to exterminating them, but there we are.

The President then went on to talk about how taxes have been cut--which rings hollow when looking at the increases we are facing--nevermind the fact that we haven't the foggiest notion where taxes actually have been cut.  Obama also indicated that Government has promoted growth within the private sector (maybe for debt collectors would be our   response).  Nearly all of the growth has been in the public or Government sector which must be paid for by Taxpayers.  The President then stated that, on our current trajectory, companies like battery manufacturer Celgard, would be producing nearly 40% of the worlds lithium-Ion Batteries (on our current trajectory that might be all that we producing in any significance).  The President finalized with a question and answer session with audience members.

Condensing The President's Evaporative Ideas

In one question, a lady asked the President if he thought it was wise to be raising taxes in conjunction with healthcare  since The People were already over-taxed as it is?   The President then went on a long verbal sojourn in an effort to try to explain why the new healthcare law would be better, but ended with the following quote:

"But let me give you an example.  If you’ve got a house and you’ve got a big hole in your roof, and it’s raining and snowing through that roof and there are some people who are inside the rooms where the roof is okay and they’re nice and warm, and then you got a few -- your family members in that room where there’s a big hole in the roof and they’re shivering, and they’re cold -- if you repair the roof, that’s going to cost some money.  But if all the water damage from your floors and all the heat that’s going out of the roof, you count all those savings, over time it may turn out that it actually is saving you money and, by the way, all those family members now are warm, too.  You’re not the only one who’s warm, right?  That’s essentially what we’re trying to set up."

The above is not at all an accurate analogy for what the President and Legislators have done with Healthcare.  In fact, we can take this same house  in comparing it to our Healthcare, which--except for the hole in the roof--functions quite aptly:

The President and Legislators have actually torn down the entire house which is our healthcare system and now intend to rebuild it simply due to a hole in the roof.

It will be "interesting" to see what the final structure looks like.

Barry Secrest

As our Executive and Legislative branches plot nefarious schemes in order to pass a healthcare bill which the American people have clearly denounced, we begin to see why The Tea Party Movement has proliferated into a huge phenomena.  But as with all shifts in the political tides, there are always those who resist and even denigrate such movements despite their being the essence of American Government.

Whether they be ideologically opposed or otherwise, the Media in our Nation has come out largely in disfavor of Tea Parties, which only proves our ongoing argument that the Media is, indeed, Liberally-biased and largely against common values--which ultimately runs counter to the Nation's overall interests.

Frank Rich's recent New York Times article--which vilifies a majority of Americans who count themselves as members of the Tea Party Movement--seems to illustrate how misguided the Leftward truly are in their understanding of this Nation.  In fact, Rich's column could be counted as nothing more than a left-leaning monumental tower of Pisa to Liberal misinformation.

Rich states, in his opening, that "no one knows what history will make of the present" in regards to the events that are shaping the Nation's future.  This misguided column even launches from the gate in error, which provides only a poor foundation upon which to build a shabbily constructed outhouse of ideas.  To wit, I would be more than happy to give Rich at least a glimpse into the future as it regards history.

Hatching Suicide Planes from the "Tea Party Incubator"

The simple answer is that History will most likely view this period as a time when normal Americans re-engaged with  their Governance which lost its way over the past 5 years.  History will further note that as our economy sank further into the gallows of financial despair, the Democratically-controlled Legislative and Executive branches of our Government were busily trying to take advantage of the unfortunate  situation by passing ream after ream of legislation that could only further damage the economy--if not ignoring it entirely.

How am I doing so far Frank?

I should also point out that history will note that the Democrats' ongoing efforts to jam healthcare through at any cost also acts as a figurative punctuation mark on what has been the most invasive, damaging and economically devastating legislative cycle that this Nation has yet seen.

Rich goes on to state, furthering his Tea Party-obsessed and deranged connection by way of explanation, that a tragic murder-suicide by a disturbed individual who had crashed his plane into an IRS building was the most significant political event of February 2010.

Excuse me Frank, not to embarrass you, Sir, but there was that teeny-tiny matter of the seating of a Massachusetts Republican Senator to a position that had been occupied by the extremely liberal Senator Ted Kennedy in an extremely Liberal state for three decades which also happened in February.   Another small (apparently to Liberals) matter was the construct of fraudulent Global Warming data that was one of the pillars of the President's impetus.

These were just a couple of the many significant February events that are apparently un-noteworthy--let's not forget the prolonged aftermath of the  State of the Union speech which called everyone concerned out for not playing by the rules of Presidential Fiat  and played heavily into February political posturing--despite having occurred at January's end.  And yet, to address Rich's statement concerning the "suicide plane"--the question that boils up to the top of my curiosity level would be "since when did an angry individual with a plane become a political event"?  News-worthy yes, but political event?

Can I Have a Medium Fry with Your Column?

In fact, Rich's reference to Stack as a "Tax Protester" falls far short of Stack's list of grievances with life in general; Stack seemed more to have problems with the Government's methodology of collection used against him rather than the actual tax system.

• Stack had extreme issues, also, with Capitalism and actually derided Capitalists as "gullible" and "greedy"-- Now who does this sound like?

Tea Partiers, in fact, are all for our Capitalist system.

• Stack indicated in his suicide letter that he also had problems with the current American Medical System.  Now, who else do we know of, Mr. Rich, who also has problems with the American Medical System?

Tea Partiers, in fact, are for our American Medical System.

• Stack also intimated a hatred of  George Bush and his cronies.  Now, who, that we know of, despises George Bush and his "cronies"?

When we painfully read through Stack's manifesto, the one thing that we took away from it was that this disturbed individual actually belonged in the Radical Left-Wing Fringe.   Doubtful?  This was the last line in his suicide note:

"The Communist's Creed: From each according to his ability to each according to his need."

"The Capitalist's Creed: From each according to his gullibility to each according to his Greed."

So far, Mr. Rich your argument is not holding very much, if any, water.  With the above quote from Stack himself,  I believe I can victoriously rest our case in this regard.

OH!  This Is just too "Rich"....

Then Rich actually on the one hand admits that it would be "inaccurate" to call Stack a Tea Partier--while on the other hand disingenuously characterizing Stack as a member of the Anti-Government Right by emphasizing Stack's "frothing Anti-Government, anti-tax rage" overlap with the Tea Party banner.  Our conclusion?  As it is in Big Government--so it is with Left-Leaning Opinion Propagandists.  The Liberals taketh and the Liberals giveth away--it is, indeed, a specialty with them to be sure in their Redistribution Methodology of both facts and funds.

If we are to begin grouping various political and antisocial tendencies in the form of over-laps, Mr. Rich, as bell-weather events for politically-ill harbingers, then I would submit, Sir, that your Democrats and their other "Extremely Leftist Political Groups of Interest" Brethren are going to have even bigger problems come November due to these self-same "over-laps" that you find so compellingly connected.

Rich goes on to state that because a few individuals who identify both with the Tea Party Movement and Stack's hatred of Government in general built a shrine on Facebook to Stack, the entire Tea Party Movement is, in essence, just like Stack--along with the politicians who felt pity for Stack.

Once again Mr. Rich, we could construe your faulty logic, in a balancing equation, as vilification of an Administration which--having been sympathized with by "The People's Communist Party"-- commiserates with much of The Administration's positions.

Are you certain that you want to go there Frank?  This ground you are trying to stand on is shakier than the Pacific Ring of Fire at present.

Cry Havoc, Loose the Racist Card of Yore

Next, Rich's Column descends into the same paranoid if not schizophrenic diatribe as it formerly disavowed when Rich parlays an Extreme Left Reporter's efforts at linking the big tent Tea Party Group to far-right members of extremist fringe movements which are of an anti-government bent.  Rich goes on to state that it only takes a few "self-styled Patriots" to sow havoc--to which we can easily counter that it only takes a few "self-styled anti-patriots" to sow the same such havoc with our country.  This can already be seen by looking at where the Nation is today, Mr. Rich.  In a tandem sense,  never has this Nation been more politically divided nor more economically wounded than it is currently.  Mr. Rich seems to be one of many suffering from the "Liberal Ostrichitus" Pandemic.

Rich then skates even further out on thin ice by stating of  Tea Partiers:  "They really do hate all of Washington and if they hate Obama more than the Republican establishment, it's only by a hair or two."  Then Rich throws out the "Racist Card" yet again by stating that Obama "get's extra demerits for his race in some circles, otherwise he and Bush would be in a dead heat" (of dislike).  Rich, why not yank out the "Liberal hallucinogenic drip line"  of Mainstream Media that is feeding your insanity of falsehoods?!  You cannot possibly believe that Tea Party members place Republicans on the same Constitutionally-damning level as the Liberals in charge.  (At least Krugman and Dionne believe in their faulty notions).

As to the racist ploy, I can only say that we have all grown truly weary of Liberals stating that the Nation is racist when better than half of its citizens voted for Obama.  Regardless, then Rich goes nuclear and states that the Tea Party is actually the Party of No Government at all or; more dramatically, they are actually "Anarchists."

Now we begin to see where the true fear lies in these Liberal-Misanthropic Party Apologists.

We May Need a Combine  for the Democrat Harvest This Year...

In fact, Tea Partiers do not hate their Government.  On the contrary, Tea Party members LOVE their Government so much--they want it back!   The Tea Party Movement does not wish to eliminate taxes, they simply want a say in how their tax money is spent.  Indeed, we all know that America's Government is what makes this Nation exceptional.  We revere our Founding Fathers who were Politicians.  The Tea Party Movement simply sees that its Government has temporarily moved away from being a Government of, by, and for The People and has become a Government of, by, and for the Government--along with being a Bully of Redistribution.

We have seen extremes of unchecked power and and an arrogance of power that is not in keeping with this Country's historical traditions.  We are our Government, in essence, and we are a Free Market Economy, for better or for worse, and will forcefully make our "Collective Will" known when it appears that we have been totally disregarded by those in positions of Legislative Authority.  What the Liberals forget is that "We The People" have the ultimate Legislative Authority and will exercise our ultimate authority in the upcoming season of harvest.

Rich goes on trying to drive a wedge between the Republicans and the Tea Party Members when, in fact, no such discontent exists between the two.  There are fiscally Conservative Democrats, Libertarians, Republicans, Blacks, Hispanics, Chinese, Japanese--you name it --they are here within this movement.  Most have come together in order to make their wisdom of the following fact known in earnest:

The Government can no longer leverage the future of this country without massively lowering the exceptional standard of living and the quality of life that this nation has come to know.  Consequently, we may yet be the first generation to leave the State of Our Union in a far worse condition than when it came into our responsibility to preserve and further--absent of our immediately altering course now.

A Willingness to Die for One's Country Is Not Terrorism

Rich then makes what has fast become a collection of comical if not disingenuous blunders by stating that the passion on the Right has migrated to the Tea Party's Counter-conservatism.  The Tea Party, Mr. Rich, is like a Fourth of July Fireworks display of Conservatism.  Allow me to educate your apparent lacking erudition, Mr. Rich, by stating that the word  "counter" means "in opposition to" or "directly opposite" that which it is conjoined with.  Therefore, your usage of "counter-conservatism" to describe the Tea Party would mean that the Tea Parties belong to the Liberals as being opposites of Conservatives.  Do you, Mr. Rich, actually believe that Tea Parties are a Liberal uprising?

Rich goes on to state (after he has appointed Ron Paul as  the Conservative's Fearless Leader) that Paul was called out by none other than a Wall Street Journal editorialist that "Paul's followers include conspiracy theorists, anti-government zealots, 9/11 truthers and assorted cadres of the obsessed and deranged."  This, to me, sounds like the current slate of Administration Czars.

After another exercise in down-talking blogs, talk radio and a number of other individuals who run counter to Rich's politics, Rich states that one Idaho retiree--Pam Stout--who cast her lot with Glenn Beck's 9/12 project--stated that, "I would give up my life for my country" when she fretted about another Civil War being in the offing.  Stout had said, "I don't see us being the ones to start it."  Rich then claims that Stout was echoing Palin's memorable declaration at the National Tea Party Convention earlier this past month.  Palin declared at the end of her speech:  "I will live, I will die for the people of America. . .whatever I can do to help."

Rich idiotically closes by stating, "it's enough to make you wonder who is palling around with terrorists now."

To that I would simply say that Rich's apparent unwillingness to die for his country is a sympton of what this Country can ill afford.  In fact, virtually every one of our heroes on the battlefield, in uniform of public service and those who have come home from battle were, indeed, willing to die for their country--and many have.

Suggesting that an individual's proclamation of being "willing to live and die for their Country" is somehow wrong only shows how misguided many in this Country have become in their diseased values of political correctness and Liberty bashing apathy.

"Patriotism is supporting your country all the time and your government when it deserves it."

~Mark Twain

Barry Secrest