January 9th, 2011
As the insanity of the 111th Congress finally draws to a maniacal close, we are reminded of an article posted approximately one year ago in which we wondered who would get to eat the worm as congressional members slugged down the last swig of their "insanely debauched statist binge." Now it seems painfully clear that both we, the American people, and the 112th Congress will be the ones retchingly gulping down the debt-marinated worm of redemption.
However, just when one bit of insanity is secured from further collateral damage, another one seems to pop up and from the oddest of sources no less. In fact, it was on the Eve of Christmas, of all times, that the Pope himself left those of us within the zone of comprehension gasping in exasperation.
You see, the Pope, in his presupposed wisdom, actually lay forth in front of his August body of Papal leadership, words that would make many a person's blood run cold in their apologetic outrage. The Pope actually stated that "child pornography was increasingly considered normal by society." To this we would respond "of which sodomic society do you speak, Mr. Pope?" Now, most earthly folk, after dropping this "D" for "Dementia bomb" would have let well enough alone; however, not so for Pope Benedict. He was just getting warmed up.
Flat Earthers and the Dissonate Clang of Untruth; Meet Hitler
Now, granted, it need not be pointed out the difference between the Pope's extensive theological education and those, like me, of humble Christian origins--which would appear "Grand Canyonesque" if viewed from an academian point of view--yet, one thing must be considered. Whose words, in this case, emote the tones of that ring of truth? And who also, it must be asked, has been apologizing from day one for the apparent millennium of pocketed evil rooted within his organization? What, based upon our experience, would Billy Graham or even most Protestant leaders say of this--had they heard of it?
Further, who else in America, regardless of political leanings, would accept the Pope's words, in this case, as an undeniable truth?
The Pope then went on to muse, believe it or not, that " pedophilia was not an absolute evil." In fact, the Pope, it would seem, has fallen prey to the liberal moral equivalency factions of the world who will rant that all sin, whether it be the simplest of transgressions or the worst of the worst is but the same, ultimately. On this basis, who knew that running a red light could be the same as Hitler's genocide of six million human beings? Might want to get those brakes checked out.
In fact, the Pope actually stated that sin is of a nature in that "there is only a worse than or a better than and that nothing is good or bad in and of itself." And so, we can now begin to see the rapid de-evolution of both the two millennial Church and society in general, as that which both was and still is considered an abomination, fitting of death to many, is now considered to be "just maybe worse than" by a man who is considered "holy" by "only a relative few" at this point. But the insanity also continues from those comfortable, even expected sources that we have come to rely on for many, many years.
When every other system appears to be crumbling in on itself from the ill effects of global insanity, there are always those dependable few which will continue their crumble from a strict reliance upon insanity, which brings us to the NY Times and good ole' Paul Krugman.
He's Dreaming of a Zombie Christmas....
Paul Krugman has actually let forth with an unusual bout of curiosity recently, as opposed to his usual bouts of incrementally flawed certainty. In this case titled "When Zombies Win", Krugman has been musing over exactly what might puzzle historians the most about the 2008-2010 period. Our initial answer would be a large proportion of Krugman's opinion columns for starters. But Krugman seems to alternatively believe that the thing which will puzzle historians will be the "strange triumph of free-market fundamentalists" whose ideas, according to Krugman, have failed. Not only that, we free-marketers have also been, apparently to Krugman, wrong about "everything." Everything, Paul?
Wow, so Krugman thinks that over 240 years of free-market fundamentalism, which has powered the US all the way up to, easily, the wealthiest, most modern and largest economy on the planet, as a failure? Interesting viewpoint there Paul. My initial question to the progressive Pope Paul of pop-economics would have to be, where exactly Krugman thinks everything went wrong. Was it in, maybe, 1776 when we rebelled against the Crown?
Or, maybe Krugman thinks that it was in the 1860's when slavery was expunged. Perhaps it was the Industrial Revolution, or the fact that we won both WWI and WWII against authoritarian regimes who had "more perfect solutions"--much like Krugman's? The point here being, problems did not severely begin with the US economy until the firewall rules regarding government financial meddling were incrementally relaxed over the years and our financial markets became subject to a harmful politi-forming culture variegated by the progressive whims of those who simply do not understand or don't care--or perhaps even worse.
Krugman rather naively thinks that the free-market fundamentalists "even now dominate the scene more thoroughly than ever before." The deeper point here would be that a more simplistic view of things, to be sure, has never been espoused by one who is considered an authority on all things economic--which simply do not properly function-- on a sustained basis. Krugman's other simpletonian pet project of global warming, of which he has also raged about incessantly, seems even more laughable now, than ever, as I perch here and write, near a roaring fire, on the First wide-ranging Carolinian white Christmas in 63 years.
Krugman's Obama: The Free Market, Constitutional- Capitalist King
But in fact, crony-capitalism, such as what we have consistently seen over the last several years, and what Krugman at least in part is referring to, and free-market capitalism are as far away from each other as the east and the west. Has it not been made painfully clear that free-market capitalism is the one thing that hasn't been practiced in full for quite some time now?
Krugman then goes on to lump every bank in the country together and point a raging finger at them all for nearly failing, while totally ignoring what Government-backed and controlled Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac actually did that brought on the financial crisis, in addition to an ill-informed pocket of congressional bozo's. It was those Government entities who actually pumped what was a manageable bubble of a problem in 2000 up into a bloated global mass of infection that predictably popped, propelling the viral shards of its financial demise over the entire planet.
And yet, why are these facts never mentioned by the liberally-inclined pundits? Even banking queen Barney Frank now admits that government failed woefully in its actions. But the inimitable facts always do tend to interrupt a resoundingly fascicle and one-dimensional argument, eh Paul?
Then Krugman actually puts forth a point, which flies in the face of both logic and sanity, by fishing simplistic cause and effect non-issues out of his Christmas stocking and thrusting them out for our blind cognitive consumption--as if there were some direct singular relationship--when broad-brush invective serves to explain the extraordinarily complex.
Krugman's World: Global Warming=World Wide Snow, Raising Taxes=Economic Stimulus
Krugman's point--if we can all get our child-like, trusting arms around it--was simply this: Krugman thinks that, somehow, because Clinton raised taxes, thereby forcibly relieving taxpayers of more of their property, this action set off a cataclysm of shocked growth in the private markets. Bush, meanwhile, cut taxes and presided over "anemic growth" as a result according to Krugman. Yet, where are the unemployment numbers during these periods? Who was in control of Congress during these periods? What, within the international economy, was ocurring, and when did NAFTA come into play, Mr. Krugman?
Immaterial issues no doubt, because that's it! Krugman's Nobel reasoning shall prevail. Who could have guessed that raising taxes stimulates--and lowering them deflates growth. Truthfully, simplistic and disingenuous thinking, such as this, is precisely why America's economy is mired not to mention that "It's The Spending, Stupid!" Surely Krugman, being an Economist, knows that there were far many more things going on during each of these economic periods than just the raising and lowering of taxes, correct? But Krugman then goes on to try to reason out that big-government Obamanomics admittedly didn't work because, and get this, they "weren't BIG government policies." To this we would state: No, indeed; they were, in fact, Statist Federal directives which equates to HUGE government policies.
For Heaven's sake, Krugman, your Messiah, even now, controls GM--he actually fired the prior CEO after giving the largess of the proceeds to the labor unions. That's not Big-Government, Sir? Taking over private industries such as student loans and financial institutions, gobbling up insanely operating organizations such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from quasi-government to full government entities is not Big-Government? Buying treasuries by printing money in the form of quantitative easing, while forcing citizens to buy health insurance is also not Big-Government? If, indeed, these items of interest do not fit into Krugman's idea of Big-Government, then what in Heaven's name does, and how many might actually survive it were implementation to take effect?
Oh, My God...(No, not you Mr.President)
Then, Saints help us, Krugman goes on to to explain how the Stimulus "wasn't large enough," in that Government, by his reckoning, grew too slowly (it actually increased by about 25%) and that Government employment, in his odd means of measuring, actually fell (it increased by 25%) and that this Stimulus hardly constituted a proper test of Keynesian economics.
Krugman, here, it should be explained, does stumble into a fact, except, that it's not quite the one he was wanting. Keynesian economics is all around us, in fact. Anyone been noticing the full and proper test of Keynesianism and its effect in the European Union? Country after country has failed to the point of China's now stepping in to bail them out, and the US has actually been doing a good bit of the bailing, also.
Euro-socialist Keynesianism is failing mightily and yet Krugman blithely skates past the thin ice of this fact. One must suppose that Krugman's proper test can only be on a huge, capitalistic powerhouse with oodles of reserve cash and a built-in ability to print its own currency...hmm...isn't that us, Paul?
Truthfully, if the largest economy on this planet is not a big enough test for Krugman's Keynesian economics, then...he might need to find a bigger planet. The simple truth is that most of the Stimulus, if not all, went to State Governments and many academian institutions and a few shovel-ready projects that weren't shovel ready. Had Obama sent it out to the folks who are paying the taxes, it "might" have stimulated growth enough to pull unemployment down a goodly measure, but, oh wait, that was George W's trick, wasn't it? And despite Bush's consisitently running 5% unemployment ranges for the greatest balance of his administration, his efforts were a failure?
Krugman then tells us that everything that we have been saying as to why Obamanomics has failed has been wrong. He further postulates that the Government's continual borrowing has not caused inflation and that core-energy and food prices are now at a half -century low. In actuality Paul, food prices, along with fuel prices, have, indeed, been ratcheting upwards. The most probable reason that inflation has, not of yet, raged out of control is because the economy has been flirting with a depression for quite some time now. Depression, such as what we are seeing with housing prices and many manufactured goods along with stubborn unemployment, is the double-barreled shotgun of economic hazard that we have been staring down since October of 2008.
Our employment numbers have been in a depression for two long years, now. This is the logical reason for the lack of inflation, which acts as a counter-force to deflation as the entire economy teeters on the pivot of calamity. Once the nation eases out of these depressionary forces, and, especially, when the QE and QE2 kick in, this will most likely be where inflation rears her ghastly visage.
The Real Zombie Economics
Krugman also fails to consider what two of the largest traders in the world are culminating. Both Russia and China have halted the use of the dollar as an exchange currency between the two countries. If this trend continues, the demand for the dollar will drop, and when basic supply of a currency outstrips demand then what do you have Mr. Krugman? In fact, a worldwide lowering of the value of that particular trading unit--being the dollar would--trends inflation upwards--magnitudinally--according to experts. Herein lies a problem in the not-to-distant future if the US fails to get its act together and quickly.
Then Krugman goes zombie on us, based upon a book by Australian writer John Quiggin, who states that free-market fundamentalism is a dead idea which he calls Zombie Economics. To this we would say he is right in one sense, that being that no one seems to be using the fundamental principles of free-market capitalism anymore. The markets have been roiled by an ever-increasing Keynesian shift to control by regulation and manipulation. Health insurance carriers, and their ongoing demise under Obama, is one of the most immediate examples. But these such examples of over-regulation and government meddling are why everything, everywhere is or was failing, as Keynesianism has taken over and free-market capitalism has gone by the wayside. One need only look at the disastrous effects, once again, of the Community Reinvestment Act, coupled with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's over-extensions to see this.
In fact, both Quiggin, Krugman and a host of others appear to be arguing for much, much more of the very same things which are continually weakening our various economies in the first place. Perhaps those within our government actually know this specific lonely truth and telegraph that very fact to us by their constantly saying that America will no longer be the economic powerhouse that she was. That high unemployment will remain and will become "business as usual, so get over it and shut-up." This is, in effect, what they have been telling us.
Regardless, Krugman then brings up Ronald Reagan, a man Krugman has despised for decades, in order to explain what Obama has been up to.
First Krugman states that Obama has tried to reach across the aisle. Well, yes, that is true, but the reaching across the aisle for Obama was only so that he could deliver a hearty "smack to the face" of his opponents, Sir. No one can deny that Obama has created an environment of extreme partisanship that was nothing at all like Reagan or even Clinton's time.
Chained-Market Capitalism: Obama's AmeriKa
Krugman then states that "Obamas trying to be partisan" stopped no one from denouncing him as a Socialist. To this we can unequivocally state to Mr. Krugman, Socialism is as Socialism does; nothing that Obama has done could even be remotely described as free-market capitalism. Nothing.
Further, Obama's compromise was done simply because he now has to do it to get what he wants, for the most part--at least until we root out the Rinos and the Republicrats who remain in Congress. Then his ability to perform anything of the left will be difficult at best.
Krugman then further displays his mindless insanity when he speaks dejectedly of the fact that America's talk of spending cuts will offset any positive effects of the tax deal. So, once again, plying the avowed ruminations of Liberalism, Krugman wishes America to continue down the road of Greece, Spain, Portugal and Ireland among others who are, even now, going bankrupt by spending far more than we are making so that things will improve? Maybe some Zombie, somewhere, is staggering around with Krugman's brain oozing its way down its digestive tract, this would, indeed, explain much.
In fact, if Krugman can get get a Nobel for his extensive body of fiction, does that not mean that I should get, at least, a Pulitzer for these writings of the simplest of truths? This ain't rocket science folks, you know, and yet most cannot deny that the facts obtained in the real world--here-- always cast those facts obtained in Krugman's diaphanous world of questionable theory and hyperbole as only the poorest of tabloid fiction--at best. What we have been seeing are what can effectively be called Chained-Market Capitalism: Obama Style which would explain the constantly sputtering and accelerating economy that no one can quite get a grip on.
Krugman ends by noting that "politics is the art of the possible." He then states that when one such as Obama "opens his doors to the zombie ideas of free-market capitalism, the zombie ends up eating your brain and quite possibly your economy, too."
To this, Mr. Krugman, we must only note that your ideas work in much the same ways as your zombies.
Only in the movies....
November 7th, 2010
By Barry Secrest
While we amply enjoy seeing Liberalism slinking back into its dank hiding place for a time, one must be aware that not even overwhelming elections will ever keep the infection that is Progressivism at bay for long. Despite Obama's mass repudiation by the People, and a victory borne primarily of those who either consider themselves of the Tea Party or as identifying with the Tea Party, there yet remains those of both Parties who deny this fact. While Obama and the Democrats weep and gnash their teeth at the outcome, it is our true and deeply held belief that you would think that they'd be saying Thank You!
The Union may yet persevere as a direct result of the asylum that is Congress having been retaken from the inmates. And yet the insanity of the Liberalist Sects continues to sow its seeds of sane contemptuousness in the largest active asylum of them all--that being the Mainstream Media. On this occasion of the election, and with regard to a victory under the quantum shift, we cannot help but point out a prediction that was made by some smart-alecky Conservative nearly one year ago:
We are also seeing "A Continental Shift" back towards the Constitution and its champions of the past-- the Conservative Republicans. The next election cycles will most likely bring about a large shift in the initial upcoming election and then another major shift in the one after that which will make repeal of any current Liberty incursions, that may be passed, a very strong if not inexorable conclusion to all of these unholy legislative acts. In fact , we should, even now, be repealing the stimulus due to its impotence that has stimulated nothing but our future deficits.
The old saying that we have all heard..." There's not a dimes worth of difference between a Republican and a Democrat" can now easily be found to be totally worthless and laughable as the most inane quote of the century. When a party's brisk leftward breeze becomes a gale (if not a hurricane) of extremism, we can then all see the stark differences between the two.~Barry Secrest "The Political Richter Scale" 11/24/09
So, after rubbing it into the Liberals just a bit, it seems time to now revisit one of our favorite Socialists, Frank Rich, the Communistically-inclined anti-Tea Party zealot who just begs to be rebutted on a vaguely consistent basis. Rich has let lose with yet another Leftist diatribe in his recent column concerning the Tea Party-- where he goes after...pretty much all but the truly culpable.
This Column titled "The Grand Old Plot Against The Tea Party" drips with what most likely soaks through Rich's disposable absorptive buttress from time to time when suffering though his worst nightmare. Throughout his column, Rich cravenly points to the entire Right Wing for what they may do or perhaps could do, in a universe of possible options, while totally ignoring what the Liberals in the Democrat party have actually done. First he slams Grandma Sharron Angle for what he calls racist ads and then warns all of us that Joe Miller plans to shut down the Federal Government. Our initial response? Typical Left-Wing tripe--but of a slightly lower quality than what we are used to--kind of like the Chinese food that someone left in the fridge four or five days ago--looks ok, seems OK, but once digested you're never quite sure which end it will come out first, nor the rate of flow when it decides to make its often explosive exit.
In fact, Angle's ads were far less racist than anything that the President has been trying to sell all over the Country for the past nearly two years, and Joe Miller has yet to be sworn in, so ya' might be just a little bit premature with those accusations, Frank, but we do understand.
Ye Olde Muddy Liberal Ruts
Rich has, apparently, fallen into the age-old muddy Liberal rut of trying to scare our Seniors--and pretty much anyone else that depends upon the Federal Government--by threatening that those big, mean Conservative bullies are going to halt their entitlement payments. But doesn't one find it amusing that Rich didn't come right out and accuse Miller of planning to cut Medicare? Oh! wait, the Democrats have already done that haven't they...hmm. So, since that particular argument has been abused by Democratic reality, and by Frank's ideological heroes, Rich decides to attack in shotgun style--hoping one of the beads might find its mark. To this we should point out that the weapon of choice for poor marksmen is the shotgun. Just saying. So Rich starts with racism then jumps to fiscal bullying--both of which are supposedly being perpetrated by Conservatives.
Ergo, if your desire is to rant about racism, Frank, why not scream about Obama's running a DOJ that only prosecutes voter intimidation cases if it's White-on-minority intimidation? But that isn't racist is it? Huh?
Oh, OK. Frank, I think, is trying to tell me that, in that particular case, it's redistribution of justice. Got it--if the Government does it--it's apparently ok.
Even if Angle were running racist ads, which she was not, an ad is just an ad, but Government-sponsored racial activism is, I would say, another thing altogether, wouldn't you say, Frank? Especially when those citizens who are actually paying for the DOJ are not exactly getting their money's worth. Talk about waste, the DOJ seems to be going after everything BUT justice. Suing states for trying to uphold the law, dumping cases of clear-cut infractions, trying to ensure that Islamic terrorist with lengthy murder records get their day in court--it never seems to end.
By the way Frank, we are growing a bit more amused than tired of the "extremist" label that you so ineffectively love to use, especially since the last election installed a Marxist in the White House who then surrounded himself with a bevy of Maoists, so don't talk to us about extremism, Frank.
Huh? You're asking me what's wrong with Maoists? Oh, for Heavens sake!-- which newspaper is it that you're writing for? Oh.
At any rate you, guys have got that radicalism maneuver pretty well-covered from everything that we have seen. As to the thinking that the Republicans want the Tea Party candidates to lose, well, some few RINOs actually might, but most are just happy to now have a voice and a functioning vote.
Do you actually think that the Republicans have enjoyed being either stepped on or ignored for two whole years while America slides down the tubes, Frank? Do you think that they are actually disappointed that their numbers have been exponentially increased? That simply is not clear thinking by you, Frank. But, both you and some "few of they" have that maneuver down pretty well, also.
Democratically Conspired, Laser-Like Constipation
Next, Rich seems to think that the Republicans will now shut out their more Conservative members? Once again Frank, that's a maneuver that the Democrats have cornered the market on. Remember how Pelosi held the Blue Dogs' feet to the fire for their railing againt at least a portion of the excess that has gone on for the last two years, Pelosi threatening to cut campaign funds and the like? And then re-writing the rules on the first day's session of Congress in order to lock the Republicans out of any input into legislation, with Obama's approval if not at his behest? You don't remember that do you, Frank?
Ok, try this. Remember when the Republicans executed The Contract with America back in 1994 and what Republican Speaker Gingrich actually did in order to allow more access to the minority Democratic party? No? Well, Newt actually rewrote the rules to give Democrats more input into the legislative process, quite the opposite of what Pelosi did in 2009. The point being, don't talk to us about blocking access; you Democrats have that maneuver down to a tee, as well.
My fear is that the Republicans, with everything being so terribly dour right now, will insist on reversing the rules that were recently written to oust them and allow the Liberals access to that which was denied the Republicans--yet again. Now, that "could" happen too--which would, most likely, incur extreme wrath from the American People in the following election. Keep it up Republicrats--we'll have the Conservatives dominating the process in no time. The Republicans, in fact, will need every advantage at their disposal to correct all of the recent damage done by DORP (Democrats, Obama, Reid, Pelosi). If the Democrats wish access to appropriate legislative powers, the Republicans should simply remind them (in turn-about) that there will be another election in two years--assuming we still have a Country at that point--break a leg!
Then Rich brings up a fallen Republican who is nothing more than one of thousands of lobbyists who, rather idiotically, considers himself among the Elites. Rich repeats Trent Lott's outrageous admonition to certain Elitist Republicans, that they would try to co-opt the Tea Party Candidates into the Washington establishment upon arrival. Here for the first time in history, and thanks to a greasy, Harry Reid-like [Harry Reid stated Obama was light-skinned and lacked a Negro dialect unless he wanted to have one] individual who calls himself a Republican, Rich does make a semi-valid point. Trent Lott did say that they will try to co-opt the Tea Party Candidates when they get to Washington. However, can you imagine the conversation that might ensue between Trent Lott and Rand--"deliberate upon this"-- Paul of the Tea Party in that event ? Not pretty, indeed! But Lott, did state that the Nation should have elected openly racist-secretly tabooed Strom Thurmond as President, which got Lott booted out of the party.
Point being, Lott is not exactly known for his laser-like intellect, but Holy Shnitzel! Can he talk a Blue-Dog streak or what? It should also be pointed out that Trent Lott is no more the Republican Party than Liberal nut-job Alan Grayson is the Democrat Party. Lott is a lobbyist with an Elitist agenda. The Dems don't have any of those, do they Frank? But they are in large part the same as all Politicians. The Democrats also have lobbyist relationships with both Goldman Sachs and companies like Northrop, so trying to gain points for vilifying anyone in this regard can easily be countered as drivel in most cases. Rich, however, now in full vilification mode, then sloshes his unwithering gaze upon who else but the architect himself, good ole Karl Rove, for his recent tirade against O'Donnell on Hannity, which delighted the Liberals and angered The Tea Party...hmm...now that's a bit different for a former "Rush" Host isn't it?Yes, indeed, Frank, it is, but what it means will most likely only intensify the speed with which we can see you frenetically chasing your tail.
The Unenlightened Alignment Looks at Tea Party Atrocities
A number of us, including El Rushbo and Sean Hannity, did take issue with Rove's piling on of Christine O'Donnell--along with Charles Krauthammer. But this simply illustrates how even these ostensibly brilliant Gentlemen, in Rove and Krauthammer, don't fully understand the dynamics of the Tea Party or the dynamics of the Third Party as it regards We the People. But then, Frank, you never have completely gotten it yourself, have you now? You have denigrated the Tea Party from day one--who could forget your ridiculous "Obsessed and Deranged" Article about the Tea Party--and for that matter, who could forget our rebuttal to you then? We do understood completely where Rove and Krauthammer were coming from, but the line, at some point, must be drawn, even at risk of loss--and Mike Castle was a Rino, of this there is no doubt. We have enough of those, period, Sir.
O'Donnell did go on to lose her Senate race, but consider this. What if Rove and Krauthammer, two very influential Republicans, had come out in praise and defense of O'Donnell rather than vilifying her? A question for the ages, no doubt, and it should be noted that after the outcry, both Gentlemen, in essence, apologized for their remarks --albeit-- not very effectively. But when one looks at the number of Republicans who opted not to cast their vote in O'Donnell's favor, it would seem that this point might have some meaningful traction. Besides, it has been later stipulated that Castle could not have beaten Coons, anyway. Had the Delaware Republican Party actually gotten behind O'Donnell, in addition to the subtraction of the Rove/Krauthammer comments, the results would, most likely, have been different.
But when next Rich states that Rove's remarks "outed the Republican Elites' contempt for the Tea Party." This in and of itself puts Rich in a difficult position at best. The actual truth on this point, as I defend Rove, is that Rove was taking issue with some of O'Donnell's past statements and a few other issues of hers. Rove's complaint was not with the Tea Party, per se, but rather with certain individuals in the Tea Party and a lack of vetting. I mean, come on, remember that Tea Partier who was keeping $ 50,000 in bribery-cash in his freezer? What Frank? Oh! He was a Democrat? Oh, ok ,well, what about that Gay Tea party Candidate who was running a prostitution ring from his garage and grew marijuana in his basement? Now that's some pretty bad stuff! What Frank? Oh, he was a sitting Elitist Liberal Democrat and head of the Banking Commission? Well dang....OK, well, what about all of those Tea Party Politicians who are totally against gay-everything and then get caught wearing Victoria's Secret while shagging male prostitutes in the course of practically wallowing in illegal substances? Oh, they were "elite" Republicans? Hmm...so it looks like both you and Rove have it totally wrong.
You see, Ladies and Gentlemen, Rich has had nothing but contempt for the Tea Party, and, therefore, the American People in general since day one--so Rich is, in essence, saying that since the various Elites view the Tea Party with contempt--then Rich must also consider himself among all of the other Elites, right? Hey! He said it.
Elitism: The Trans-gender Equivalent of Anti-Intellectualism
The simple fact is, there are dynamics at play that none but a true Conservative who plays outside of the Beltway--and in the Real World dealing with real people every day-- could actually understand what is happening. That's where I come in. The Republican elites are no different than Obama, Frank Rich, Liberal elites in the Media and Government and even academian elites. Those who label themselves as Elite or who consider themselves as a cut above other individuals can easily be described as simply those who, for some reason, need to think of themselves as special and/or better than others in order to cover up their individual short-comings. There are no actual Elites on this earth, and if they did or do exist, it would have to be in the same realm as say... the trans-gender types. You know, those individuals who like dressing up and pretending to be a woman or vice-versa, walking, talking, acting like the opposite sex--doing all of the often mystical things that, say, women do only to--at some point--shower-off, undress and go to bed--the same person they were before they began their escapist role-playing. Never quite understanding that simply being who you are is the most important thing, and no one in America or anywhere else, for that matter, is superior.
If the Elites are, indeed, so superior in all things, then give 'em a wrench and tell them to install a toilet, or give them a pair of pliers and a screwdriver and have them install a garage door, repair a computer, fly an aircraft, repair a complex engine...even give them a natty physics equation and see if they can solve it. No one can be the best at everything, and that's what an Elite supposedly is. I rest my case in unbridled, calm certainty in that regard--but wait...our liberal pygmalion has of yet, even more.
Rich continues to make points about Rove's seeming condescension concerning the books that the Tea Party has or hasn't read--as if that makes one smart--and even drags in Mike Huckabee as a lesser sophisticate along with Huckabee's comments concerning Rove's tangential fantasy romp into Elitistville. In fact, it would appear that Rich seems to place the entire Tea Party's raison d' etre' on the ramblings of one Conservative Republican who was experiencing a bout of pre-elective, post-publishing puff-upiness. Let me spell this out for you Frank, Rove does not represent all Conservatives nor all Republicans. In fact, no one does. But we do all appreciate your revealing [revolting] glimpse into the altered state of the Liberal mindset. By the way, Charles Mansion was a Democrat Frank. Own it--I refuse to explain that beyond hinting around the entire purview of this column--think about it, Frank.
Understanding the Tea Party for Elitist Dummies
Rich then further assumes that the GOP will reject most of the things that the Tea Party stands for, and yet, the real GOP seems to be adopting the Tea Party's platform measure by measure, comment by comment, and soon to be action by action. Whether you Liberals like it or not --the new storm--it's coming. The main goal of both the Tea Party and the GOP at this juncture is to defeat the Liberals by any means necessary in order to keep the Republic alive. It's simply that simple. The fact that the GOP's goal is to make Obama a one-term President is neither so- terribly shocking nor so terribly terrible. Obama, your man, has proven to be a cultural, fiscal, Democratic, divisive, anti-constitutional train wreck. You can own that, too.
When Rich states that the Tea Party was a group financed by this bevy of billionaires or that news organization, or this Right Wing group he, as most Americans know, has obviously been smoking some killer-atomic weed up there in the Times building along with his other dopey friends. He even states that, get this, the Tea Party only makes up 2% of all Americans! Well then Frank, you might want to get a re-count on a majority of the votes country-wide because we just took over state legislature after state legislature, Congress, almost even the Senate by wide margins. Apparently, Frank you need to come out and play from time to time, dude. Case in point, do you have any idea how many Facebook groups there are that are vehemently dedicated to the the Tea Party's ideology? Websites, organizations all across the web? In fact, Mr. Rich, there are actually large groups of people belonging to various Tea Party allied organizations, the actual number of organizations alone easily comprising more than 2% of the individual population of this country, Frank. Here is the interesting thing. The Tea Party is just the visible group. What about the not-so-visibles? I have heard or in some cases know of a large proportion of those, as well. The point here is simply this:
The Tea Party is not necessarily an organization so much as it is a mindset.
We were just a little disillusioned back during the first half of last year, just before we decided to hold a Tea Party, starting websites, beginning to gather others to our cause, writing books you know, that sort of thing. But I can recall another band of the disillusioned Frank, back in 1773, up in Boston. That was called the Boston Tea Party, and do you remember what grew out of that Sir?
Oh, it was just a teeny little thing affectionately known as the Glorious Cause--a group of about 25 men whose actions bore one of the greatest Nations ever in the history of man into an existence that would prove to be the most powerful force ever known for the rights of self-determination of individuals all over the world.
I think they called it the American Revolution, but what do I know? No Elitist am I.
October 14th, 2010
By Barry Secrest
I have thoughtfully included the text with a spirited debate that I had concerning a liberal-in-denial I encountered on The Examiner. She took issue with both the article and the pic and if you will read carefully, you will observe how I turned the tables on this "spirituality" columnist:
Read Examiner Article For Full Impact:
This is an insulting photo combined with a nasty article, regardless of your conservative beliefs. Have some respect, please, for our President, or at least dig down and try to dredge up some for the Office of the President. Shame on you. You can do better.
Charleston Spirituality Examiner
Respect?! I'm sorry, but I feel that respect is not a GIVEN. It is something that must be earned. And this administration has not done ANTHING to earn my respect. The "supposed honor" of any office MUST BE EARNED. IT IS NOT A GIVEN. Barry's article simply speaks the TRUTH. And it's not just opinion. It's backed up with FACTS that ANYONE can verify. And if you can look these truths in the EYE (as it were) and stand by them....well, I feel nothing but sadness for you.
Kim Stallings,Publicist, Conservative Refocus
Sorry you were offended Lori. The truth is, indeed, a painful thing. Interestingly, what is happening to America is also a very nasty thing regardless of Your Beliefs. My respect is layered within the American people and this Country. I would suggest that you stop drinking the Kool-aid and open up your eyes and mind while there is yet time.
I wonder if you,during the prior eight years, were as indignant at the reports that were leveled at another President-- that makes my article seem as cotton candy on a lovely fall day. But that was different wasn't it? Everything that you (may) have read was the truth. Thanks For reading and God Bless!
Barry Secrest, Writer
Respect for the previous administration? Well, let's see: The Bush administration left this country with mounds of debt after taking over from a surplus Clinton left; started two wars on lies - remember the nonexistant WMDs? - against the overwhelming disagreement of the UN; paid for those wars with money borrowed from China; broke the rules of the Geneva Convention (for which Cheney and Rumsfield should be tried as war criminals); alienated America from the rest of the world; and so much more. Not much to respect there. Perhaps you should do your Halloween story on that.
President Obama took on this mess in January 2009. For that alone he deserves the respect of the nation. I don't need to drink Kool-aid to have a point of view. I have voted Republican in the past. However, there is really no longer a Republican party is there? Just crazy, conservative far-right wing nuts who want to set the accomplishments this country has made back 100 years.
So, looks like the intepid "anonymous" has unwittingly backed up Mr. Secrest's response regarding respect. Remember, Bush's deficits were nowhere near Obama's GDP crippling $ 14 trillion total--less than half, but the other thing to remember is that Congress holds the purse strings and who has been in charge of Congress for the last 4 years? Bingo! The Democrats. Several possible WMD's were actually found as reported in the UK but as I recall, Congress signed off on sending the troops in--not just Bush. As a matter fo fact Kerry, Clinton and a host of other Democrats(Obama voted present) paved the way. The UN is a joke and no one violated the Geneva Convention, No terrorist organization adheres to the rules of the convention--why should then America? Alienated America? right now America's might is just above that of a can of dog food, so no help from Obama there--as a matter of fact it's worse than ever. If you did actually vote Republican, based on what you just wrote above, it must have been one of those chinese food versus japanese takeout voter choices--because you are, respectfully, a walking, talking caricature of all things liberal...nothing to be ashamed of, there is help available.
Far Right-Wing Nut
I only signed in anonymous because the web page wouldn't for some reason take my name again. It was I who wrote that. Congress only voted to go along with Bush's design because they were told by the president and his administration that there were WMDs. They believed their leader - bad move, considering the leader. Obama, as a senator, voted NO.
And you are very rude. I am not a liberal, you shouldn't make assumptions about my politics. I vote my convictions and whatever leader stands for them. I voted for Reagan and Bush Sr. I've yet, however, to find a Republican I could support since then. I don't care for right wingers or liberal loonies.
Your "Omen" photo I suppose is meant to be funny and seasonal, but however you try to explain it away, it's nasty and disrespectful.
At any rate, I think it's time to end the conversation. All the best.
Charleston Spirituality Examiner
Rude is as rude does Lori--it was you who attacked the article as being "rude" and "nasty". Then you indicated that I should feel some form of shame and remorse and went on a left-wing rant against the entire right-wing and ostensibly accused anyone who doesn't agree with you as being a "right-wing nut." --now that is rude-- but it's also typical. You are, indeed a liberal, anyone can see that just by reading what you have written. Own it. The photo depicts Obama in a robe with "The Omen" lettered underneath pointing to the "bad omen" of the Presidential seal falling off of his podium. How you choose to interpret that is of your own choosing--isn't it considered art by certain individuals when an impression invokes an emotional response to the viewer? By the way I do not consider myself to be "a nut"--just someone who is concerned with the abyss that we as a country are headed into. You are dwelling in the past--I am dwelling on the future. Fondest Regards, Barry
Anonymous Far-Right Wing Nut