March 4th, 2012
By Barry Secrest
"Shrinkage," as a tool in the abstract, appears to now be in unfortunate vogue for We The People in 2012, as Obama and the Progressives continue their carpe annum assault on virtually any and everything appearing even remotely sacrosanct within America, these days. Well, except, of course, for those true problems devastatingly plaguing the US, that actually are not sacrosanct issues at all, at least not according to the Obamaphibians.
Indeed, across each and every single front, shrinkage seems to rule the day, as the solely-expansive Obama administration slithers its way to an ignominious ending in 2012. The White House outrageously outdid even itself, this time, having effectively shrunk our religious Liberties in its incessant and ongoing meddling in non-problems, even while setting the entirety of Christendom on its ear with its edict to the Catholic Church on reproductive issues. As Mike Huckabee stated, with melee at apex, "we all our Catholics now," and indeed we certainly are, albeit ironically.
However, and as usual, the Axis Press, of course, came surging to the Presidents stipulatory rescue, even here, after the President, absorbing withering fire from virtually every religious institution known to man, decided to "Uh"...quickly change the required offering of every reproductive control device available, from being a required offering by the Church to now being offered by the Church's insurance companies and voila, problem solved, um...NOT.
The First Dietary Lady
Now, this shell-game ploy response by the White House, having totally missed the Clouseu-ish mal-intellect of the Mainstream Media, would be about the same as arguing that a credit card company pays for all charge card purchases, rather than the consumer, which is true, but only at first, of course. We all defacto know who ends up paying in the end, and in spades, to be sure, except of course for the Axis Press, which effectively gains traction after noting their increasingly miserable financials. However, this type of shrinkage, once again, is a word that lamentably inspires fear, if not loathing, to a preponderance of "man-kind," while fomenting a palpable terror on its destabilizing effects to the vast collective of man's governments all over the globe.
Even while most women, especially the First Dietary Lady, find either unparalleled joy, on the one hand for themselves on the vagaries of the word shrinkage, or great mirth, on the other, as it can be applied to their anxious menfolk, shrinkage even here carries palpable weight. But, ironic, indeed it is, that women will spend billions on diet pills and the like, in order to induce and even magnify the effects of shrinkage on their bodies, while men will spend still more billions on inarguably useless alchemies, mitigating the damnable effects of shrinkage on their maladjusted love torpedoes, ahem.
In fact, just think of either the proliferation or mitigation by human-kind towards shrinkage, or its opposite, as being much like the Colonel's secret recipe, bearing at least eleven secret herbs and spices, but only as applied to diminufied male members, well-rounded feminine physiques, or even Cloward-Piven spending plans induced by the Messianic Marxist, himself, rather than just succulently fried poultry.
So, what about the inclusion of world Governments in this case?
Well, at least in America's case, a cunning and crafty Government will take great pains in order to essentially hide the effects of shrinkage within its increasingly jaundiced economy of errors, while joyfully proliferating a shrinking of its subjects' liberties, as in our recent case of religious freedom, to an alarming degree. Just think of Obama's efforts at manufacturing descriptive formulas which effectively mask economic shrinkage, or Liberty's depletion, as yet another, almost comical, form of magical elixir that conveniently camouflages what is actually happening in our nation.
Even while a host of economic indicators will easily counter what both the media and the Obamaphibians have termed a rousing bit of positive unemployment data, recently. The doctored data in question, being a reduction in US unemployment to 8.3%, would seem to denote an economy that's expanding, despite all evidence to the contrary. In fact, if one were to seemingly take millions of jobs away while also noting the vast number of unemployed, within that same paradigm being used, we could still conceivably end up with an 8.3 % unemployment rate, despite only one third of the nation actually being employed. The White House has become quite adept at abstracting the facts to such a degree that no one can see the absurdity in the ongoing results.
Which brings us to our dear, old friend in the Axis Press, being self-proclaimed racial protagonist and haughty Liberal, Leonard Pitts,who wishes us to learn a lesson or two regarding Conservative Ronald Reagan's legacy, of all things; I kid you not. Truthfully, Pitts, I must say, a screaming Liberal such as yourself preaching to the American people on Ronald Reagan's legacy is about the same as the murderous Wayne Gacy preaching to us on common sense child care. Somehow it just doesn't pass the smell test; however, it's still worth a look, if only for comedic effect.
Scorpions For Breakfast, Marxists for Lunch
In Pitts' article titled, "Looking for Morning in America," Pitts takes issue with the fact that the tiny little Governor from Arizona, Jan Brewer, actually used her finger in making a gesture or point to the President while on a tarmac in Arizona. Now, first of all, when I say,"uses her finger in making a gesture or point," many might be wondering if the Governor was using the same finger that most Conservative Americans, and now even Catholic Bishops use when the Messiah magically appears on their television screens every 7.65 minutes, on average, to piously preach veiled Leftist B.S. to us, once again, even while ignoring the ruination that is occurring all around us.
However, the answer is no, indeed, Brewer did not actually fly her pointy little bird at the President, which is amazing in and of itself considering the amount of meddling that the President has done within her state. I mean, come on, Obama has consistently bedeviled most law enforcement offices in Arizona, with a very special hat-tip to Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who finds someone from the US government in his office on most days, in addition to a lengthy list of insults, in other areas. But not only that, Obama and his Department of Obstruction , is yet in the process of suing both the state of Arizona and Gov. Jan Brewer, herself, for overseeing Arizona's dastardly deed of audaciously trying to enforce US immigration law, against the government's wishes.
So, what did Obama expect anyway, a medal, for Heaven's sake?
In fact, it would have taken an existential amount of pontifical holy grace, for most of us to have even shown up in order to greet the Tawny Titanic, in Obama, had we suffered through the abysmal slings and arrows of an administration steeped within the radicalized fires of Saul Alinksy, and then bloviatingly shotgunned towards Arizona, for caustic effect. But Pitts' main problem, according to the gist of his article, was the photo in which Brewer holds her finger, both up and perilously near the revered visage of our "narcissistos plenteous," being the ever pious Obama, himself , and Pitts wasn't alone. In fact, most of the left-leaning Axis Press went into paroxysms of apoplexy over the tarmac meeting, almost as if the Governor had flung her shoe at the President. And you certainly must remember the Media's outraged reaction when that shoe-flinging thingy happened to Bush. Well, Ok, maybe outraged is a bit of a stretch, how about, um, I don't know, malevolent glee, perhaps?
At any rate, according to Gov. Brewer, her response was based upon the fact that she "felt threatened" by the President, as he charged off the plane, upon seeing her, and and got straight up into her face. Here, Leonard Pitts indicates that "she thought the scary black man might hurt her" followed by Pitts' angst personified quote of *Eye-roll here*:
"it's a good thing he didn't follow her onto an elevator, she might have maced him".
The "C" Word
Predictably, infantile racial allusions aside from Pitts, this criminal fear he speaks to is culturally well-deserved, I must add, but still, a thing which we morosely expect from Pitts at this point fails to surprise. Our countering point on the other side of the argument, however, would be, "who can blame Brewer for feeling threatened, at this juncture?" I mean, the entire state of Arizona has been legally threatened by the President, as earlier stated, in fact. But then, why did the Pusillanimous Potus get up into the Governor's lovely little face in the first place?
Well, now that's where it gets even more interesting. You see, Obama took extreme issue with the Governor for her having written a number of disparaging remarks in her book titled, "Scorpions for Breakfast," apparently the worst of the remarks was the slanderous rejoinder that everyone dreads even worse than the "N" word. In fact, Brewer actually loosened the slanderous "C" word on the President, which, as everyone knows, is a very, very extreme insult. Confused yet? I know, you're trying to figure out which four letter words starts with "C," and no, it wasn't that one.
Give up yet?
"Condescending" was the word in Brewer's book that set the President's temper off like a rocket, and who can blame him? I mean, Gov. Brewer should come and read our vast collection of articles, from top to bottom, if she would like an extreme personal trainer on how to artfully administer a meaningfully sarcastic label or accurately acidic rejoinder to Obama, for his ongoing authoritarian Leftist abuses. No doubt, the president was quite angry that Brewer, a sitting US Governor of the political class, administered such a lamely watered-down adjective to him. The overall lessening in America's increasingly weakened satirical qualities in addition to economic, from the media and beyond, must truly try Obama's audacity detector, I mean he wrote a book on the subject, right?
At any rate, when most of America heard about this, outside of the media, the response was a deafening outrage against Brewer. In fact, here is one of the most extreme examples yet, but be forewarned:
Pitts then moves into the nexus of his article concerning President Reagan's 1984 campaign ad titled, "Morning in America," which Pitts correctly states " symbolized an era. " Now, at this point, we must indeed freeze in shock ,at what the Liberal Pitts is telling us concerning his views on Reagan and the Conservative movement of the early 80's. Here Pitts states that Reagan restored "a sense of vibrant optimism" after "Carter's malaise and Nixon's crookedness." But Pitts goes on to then state that, thirty years later,
" as Reagan's putative political offspring attempt to claim his mantle, it is obvious that none of them is Reagan. But the most glaring deficit is embodied in that picture."
Ahem, say what, Mr. Pitts?
So, in an anti-intellectual leap of all leaps, Pitts somehow tries to make his point that the powerful Leader of the Free World, in Obama's towering over a petite little Governor from Arizona, on the basis of being criticized by that same Governor, somehow represents the lost legacy of Reagan to Conservatives? All cupidity aside, for my part in this case, it would be my contention that the photo of Brewer standing up to her oppressor, in Obama, fully represents the indomitable spirit of Reagan and his ability to overcome, against all odds, anything seemingly thrown against him. Truthfully, what if Jan Brewer had been a black woman, Mr. Pitts? Would we have then seen a column from you about how an "almost White man" was trying to intimidate a Black woman because of her constituency being powerfully oppressed by the penultimate authority in the US, while simultaneously moving against written Federal law, and against the people's intent, no less?
Probably, is the answer, that is, if Pitts had even decided to pay such a thing his racefully ardent, but limited span of attention, Messianic hero, that Obama is, to Leonard Pitts, aside.
Pitts goes on to tell us how "cranky and dyspeptic" Republicans are these days, and then lays out yet another list of ridiculous reasons as to why this must be so. But Pitts then goes on, as a Liberal, to explain to us Conservatives, why the period of Reagan, and his optimism, was such a wonderful thing. Pitts then pontificates, that "the Republican brand has curdled in the ensuing 30 years," since Reagan and
"the party that once sold hope has instead become a party of grouchy codgers yelling at the future to get off their lawn."
For those few that actually have a lawn left to defend, no doubt. Here, Pitts proves, beyond all plausible explanation, how woefully inadequate his understanding of the times that we live in now actually are.
The Glamourer in Chief
America, in fact, has moved so far away from the Conservatism of Reagan that we may scarcely be able to find our way back to those days of hope until something both bold and revolutionary is done and rather quickly. Pitts would like us, being the Conservatives of America, as in olden days, to simply shut-up and live our lives, while the Republican Moderates and the ilk of Obama's ruinous Liberal rule take over completely and drive this nation finally over the edge, never to find its way back.
Under the leadership of Pitts' hero, Obama, the Statists will invariably continue to gamble away America's future, but only for the immediate advantage of today's fleeting comfort, which is rapidly ebbing. You see, as it is, Mr. Pitts, there is no true hope to be found under the current status quo, and there will be no true hope in our future, if that paradigm remains in place, and it's simply that simple.
You ask us, the true Conservatives, to somehow find our joy of old in an artificial dream that has been glamored onto much of society by none other than the avowed master of America's twilight, that being Barack Hussein Obama, himself. To be sure, this ridiculous business about managing the decline is completely unacceptable to us as Conservatives, and must be fought back to its conclusion, one way or another. We will not go gladly into that dark, dark night, Mr. Pitts, it's just simply that simple.
Pitts goes on to facetiously now accuse heartland Americans of being the party
"unable to process the sense of dislocation, the loss of primacy and privilege our present demographic path portends. Thus it has become the party of resentment and resistance, the last stand against racial, religious, cultural and sexual upheaval, the Alamao in the fight to forestall change."
And once again, if not predictably, Pitts maddeningly finds the sewing needle of race in what has become the Liberal's haystack of egregious errors. Pitt's, it would seem, has become nothing if not a scratched and damaged phonographic record , the stylus stuck in a deep and inescapable rut of a never-endingly repetitive phrase of racially demotivated angst. This even while a black President issues media-approved, authoritarian decrees, one after another, from a throne constructed by a bunch of high-minded, egalitarian white guys over 230 years ago. It is actually Pitts who cannot conceive to ponderously move himself into modern times, despite having been force-fed enough change that he can believe in, to last a pathetically penurious lifetime.
It's Mourning in America; Twinkie With That?
Pitts, it would seem, simplistically believes in the flawed impression of a nation dedicated to white supremacy, and further being wounded at its decline, as the reason for Brewer's finger-wagging episode. Apparently, Pitts has either forgotten or never even knew of the true issues at play in the 80's ,nor what Reagan's true legacy was grounded within.
Pitts also tells us also that he actually believes that the candidates who are at play, now, within the GOP Primary would have been laughed out of previous elections. What is beyond amusing, here, is the fact that the very man Pitts seeks to elevate here, in Reagan, is the same man that each of the candidates have been emulating, almost verbatim. Pitts drones on in filling his Twinkie article with sweet-sounding but essentially empty content until he seeks to finally make his point at the end by stating this:
"Reagan would not recognize his party today. Morning in America is almost 30 years gone. It's high noon now."
Oh, irony of sweet ironies.
The Staging Areas of Liberty
All of this even while the mainstream media, and one of its slightly right of center powerhouses, has effectively communicated a non-existent taint of radicalism and racism against the Conservative movement that simply doesn't exist. Pitts is guilty, as is much of Liberaldom, the Establishment and its acolytes are , of blindly acknowledging mass convention without truly giving wing to the critical brand of logic and dissemination that once made this nation great, and will again.
Quite frankly, Leonard Pitts, Ronald Reagan would definitely recognize as his own, the very Tea Party faction of the Conservative movement which you, yourself, have been calling racist, and extreme, from day one. The Tea Party platform which Pitts has been throwing his zealotry-bombs at since the Tea Party's historic fruition, along with the Media, is in effect the Reagan Conservative movement of the 21st century in America.
Pitts' admiration of Reagan's Morning in America, and the ensuing twilight, is precisely the reason for the Tea Party's being born as a movement. Suitably, our recognition began with denial, that this decline and loss of Liberty could even be happening in our beloved country. But, that denial soon turned into anger, which prompted the protests and the like. But then the anger soon turned into bargaining, as in maybe we can keep some of our liberties intact, which was eventually thrown out in favor of a disquieted depression, marking the passage of socialized medicine in Obamacare. But after that stage, we accepted what was happening and began taking pains to correct it, as in Resolution, which prompted the sweep of Conservative victories in the election of 2010.
Finally, after resolution comes determination. Funny, it is, how we of the spiritual Tea Party movement are now being called dead, ineffective, scattered and all of those other wishful adjectives, which, quite frankly, is what we want you to think, for now.
Just remember one very important thing: Washington didn't cross the Delaware in broad daylight, band playing, and flags waving, nor will we.
It's Morning in America.
October 22nd, 2011
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:
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?
October 2nd, 2011
By Barry Secrest
Our respectful commemoration of 9/11 was unfortunately interrupted by the nadir of suffusive, brain retardant, "left-wing think" from none other than Paul Krugman of the NY Times, being OUR ALIEN ATTACK ECONOMIST, who on 9/11 lamented:
Indeed, Paul Krugman...
Fascinating, but not unexpected, from a man such as Krugman, so obnoxiously liberal that Obama, to him, is the second coming of Thomas Jefferson. Krugman finds something both odd and not odd at the same time... an emotion that we Conservatives systemically feel for our Liberally infected zombie-like opposites on a painfully consistent basis.
But, does Krugman actually think that American's should be exultant over an attack that took so many American lives? One must suppose that Krugman somehow feels a certain joyousness, if he actually thinks America was "oddly subdued." So Paul, should we have been dancing in the streets at our decade-long decimation of the terrorist attackers as did much of the Mideast after the attacks on us?
We don't think so because, unfortunately, this ideological battle is far from being won.
In Krugman's column of 9/11, he enigmatically found America's sense of subdual as an oddity, which then brings those of who of us who have either been blessed or cursed with true common sense into a heartfelt seasoning of outrage, yet again. But then Krugman corrects himself by stating that "it's not really that odd."
Uh-oh, get ready whenever Liberal pundits correct themselves in a literary stuttering format. Ergo, here it comes:
What happened after 9/11 — and I think even people on the right know this, whether they admit it or not — was deeply shameful. The atrocity should have been a unifying event, but instead it became a wedge issue. Fake heroes like Bernie Kerik, Rudy Giuliani, and, yes, George W. Bush raced to cash in on the horror. And then the attack was used to justify an unrelated war the neocons wanted to fight, for all the wrong reasons
Here, and once again, as through the lengthy annals of Socialism's failures , Krugman seeks to deploy the communistic format of historical revisionism. After 9/11, Bush and virtually every Democrat in Congress, every Republican and American in general was in total and complete agreement. The feeling was that, whoever knocked these towers down would be found and punished; whomever threatened us would also be decisively corrected, preemptively, if necessary. It was a stance of rabid defiance and complete defense.
To say that Bush and Giulani "cashed in on the horror of 9/11" would be akin to stating that Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill cashed in on the Pearl Harbor attack horrors of Dec. 7,1941--"a date that will live in infamy." But, in fact, Krugman probably has mixed emotions about our WWII fight, as well. You see, it's simply the nature of Liberals to second-guess anything that must be done with both ferocity and a certain finality.
As I recall, and to refute Krugman's memory lapse, it was not just the neocons who wanted retribution after 9/11. Pretty much everyone in America was ready for a fight, except a large number of knee-knocking Liberals who preferred a stance of lily-livered appeasement, as is typical.
But we do find it poignant that Krugman would seek to cast the blame on the "horrible heroes" of 9/11, being those who's first thought was to both protect and defend. Alas, moderate left-winger Bill Clinton only missed his mark by a couple of years, but what would Clinton have done? A question for the ages, but, I have a pretty good idea his actions probably would have fallen a bit short of decisive. It was Clinton, after all, who had Bin laden dead to rights and then failed to act.
However, all of Krugman's pent-up angst over his fake heroes of 9/11, no doubt, would probably have to include the many heroic firefighters, policemen and first responders who also lost their lives on that day. Krugman pretty much denigrates the memory of each and every one of those brave and dedicated men and women in his column of politicized vilification.
In fact, the feeling, I am certain, is not lost on either me or the reader, that Krugman most likely counts the death-dealing terrorists on that terrible but beautiful day as the true hero's of his 9/11.
Krugman goes on:
The memory of 9/11 has been irrevocably poisoned; it has become an occasion for shame. And in its heart, the nation knows it.
Once again, Krugman completely leaves out the poisonous ideology of radical Islam, which became the actual act of an atrocity-- in the hijacking of a religion for the purpose of exploitation and barbarianism and violence. In fact, at no point in his column does Krugman mention the actual evil-doers. Instead, Krugman seeks to politicize one of the nation's most horrible sneak attacks into a diatribe opposing the defense of America against all threats to its defining civilization.
The memory of 9/11, Paul Krugman, will always be poisoned, but certainly not because of America's swing into action. The poison refers to a cowardly sneak attack on civilians and a terrible death to its airborne victims and tower-born inhabitants. Non-military men, women and children were all targeted for extermination. This is an evil poison whose only true inoculation is the decimation of its core. The radical Islamic forces being a beast with many evil heads, has had the US military methodically cleaving one after another off, effectively blood-letting the might of the beast like a meticulously precise barber in the middle-ages.
Will Krugman weep for them?
A lot of other people behaved badly. How many of our professional pundits — people who should have understood very well what was happening — took the easy way out, turning a blind eye to the corruption and lending their support to the hijacking of the atrocity?
Indeed Mr. Krugman, your shame knows no bounds, and your misleading ideology showcases only the need for those of your mindset to be defeated, and soundly, if not completely, in 2012.
The true shame within this nation is not the defense against a cowardly attack by barbarians, but rather, the true shame lies in the millions of people like Krugman. A man so cowardly that he chose to close his column to comments rather than allowing people to refute him within his own column. The even greater shame lies in the actions of those who agree with Krugman. There have been a number of opinion pieces both on the moderate Right and the Left that have agreed with Krugman's idiocy. To those people, we should remind them that the terror of 9/11 is but a simple collection of security mistakes away from being 9/11/11 or even 9/12.
Those individuals who mean to cast aspersions simply do not understand this enemy, nor the larger point in all of this. How can anyone say that Bush and the entire Government erred in their bold Mideast plans when no other mass attacks have come to fruition for at least a decade?
The true poison here lies also with Krugman's alternative reality of Liberalism, which, as we have seen, is no less harmful than the poison of Islamic radicalism, just a good deal slower while being more all-encompassing.
But Krugman will not make one mention of the evil aggressors who started this war in the name of Islam, and who, even now, plot ways to kill us while Krugman pensively cries foul against the heroes of our defense.
Typical and, yes, expected, but then, we all know deep down that if Krugman's aliens actually did attack we Americans, Krugman would find some solicitous means to take their side as well.