July 14th, 2010
By Barry Secrest
Kiplinger recently released a colorful and persuasive chart comparing the top World Economies and their form of Governance in an apparent effort to educate its readers on the relative economic advantages of various Governmental Systems. The graph, however, showed the Chinese GDP erroneously nipping at the heels of US GDP. In looking at the chart, the graphic representation of US GDP correctly indicates a Gross Domestic Product of $14.3 Trillion dollars with a blue arrow graphically representing the data, in comparison with the other countries, being shown as highest of all nations.
Directly beneath the US, China is depicted; however, even the sparsest of research will reveal that the GDP of China is only $4.9 Trillion. In this Kiplinger representation, China's GDP is shown at $8.8 Trillion which is nearly double the actual number of $4.9 Trillion. Further, the daunting red arrow that streaks across the screen is, somehow, nearly equal with the US display in this graphical representation, even though $14.4 is nearly 40% higher than the erroneous $8.8 Trillion given.
So, what gives Kiplinger? Not only do you err in the actual number but you have also erred in the graphical representation. So why the intense collection of errors, but only related to China? (we assume), and what exactly were you trying to communicate with this chart?
The supporting information you cite at the base of the chart seems to imply that Government does best when it either governs the least or it Governs the most, as in the case of both the US and China respectively.
If you are going to do this sort of thing, more power to you, but at least get it right for Heaven's sake.
June 17th, 2010
By Barry Secrest
Should the new Democratic logo be a straight jacket? The President's rambling nonsensical message to the Nation left many of both Liberal and Conservative bent chuckling in exasperation after his address regarding the Gulf Spill. The hysterical nature of the Democrats has, however, never been more telling than the actions of a sitting long-time Democratic member of Congress who went into a fit of bipolar madness when engaged on the streets of his "artificial" hometown.
It would appear that one particular Democrat has now teetered over the edge of whatever sanity remained in his leering sarcophagus-like skull. Congressman Bob Etheridge (DNC), apparently "possessed" of some violent and vengeful demon, whose origins are only available to conjecture, went decidedly postal on a couple of young college students practicing their budding media skills in Washington for their terrible and unseemly transgression. What was their unholy act? They asked the Congressman if he supported Obama's agenda. Many North Carolinians, such as this one, and probably a number of outraged Citizens all over the Country, had a strange urge to journey up to Washington and perform the same video skit--but with woefully differing results for the bullying--if not thuggish--Congressman from NC.
In fact, we had been wishing to put to the test the effectiveness of the latest Congressional health care plan anyway. Regardless, the Congressman was ultimately defended by many members of the "Axis Press" who view all violence as abominable unless perpetrated by one of their own--then it becomes mystifyingly justifiable in their bizarre methodology of reasoning. Hapless Mark Washburn of the Charlotte Observer, in a blissfully ignorant diatribe that skewed the facts to the point of unrecognition, stated Etheridge "was pounced on by punks and pounced back." A later Charlotte Observer editorial also used the word "punks" to describe these young, engaged students.
The interesting fact in all of this is simply that these students were actively engaged in performing, no doubt, what they considered to be their civic duty in conjunction with a school project. We must then ask the question of the Charlotte Observer--that being--"what constitutes the difference between a reporter and a punk"? Is it, perhaps, being on the payroll of a news organization? Is it a press pass? How many times have we seen Reporters shove microphones and cameras in the faces of politicians in far more aggressively than in this instance and yet come away unscathed with questions answered? Why does the media automatically surmise that the students were being nasty in asking this particular question?
It would also appear that Etheridge was performing his own brand of profiling by demanding to know who these students were--even while they were answering his question that they were students working on a project. Etheridge never answered the students' very simple question and later apologized, but, indeed, never explained to us why a member of Congress--on the public's dole who is considered to be a member of the public domain and is expected to engage citizens at any moment--elected to assault these students rather than to simply answer their questions.
On the other hand, Mark Washburn's efforts at logical thought could only mirror those of Freddy Krueger in his vindictiveness towards these students. The question from the students was, once again, " excuse me Congressman, do you support Obama's agenda"? Washburn actually twisted these words around in his article to the following: "when two polite young men pop up and shove video cameras in your puss and ask you sweetly to admit that you are a pawn of every evil plot hatched by the White House, and you have the nerve – the nerve! – to respond, “Who are you?”
Well... at least now we know, it would appear, how the Liberals in the media really feel about their President. When "do you support the Obama agenda" becomes "you are a pawn in every evil plot hatched in the White House" we should all now understand that something's up with the media. So once again we must ask of the varied and clueless majority in the Liberal Media--but especially in this case: "Can we have fries with that article, Mr. Washburn?"
The Liberals will often play "spin the bottle" in their selection of whom to protect by clumsy, gradiented reporting. The Raleigh News and Observer released the story also and the spin became quite evident at close reading. All through the article, the News and Observer seemed to be carefully laying the groundwork that it was an innocent altercation fomented by the students. In one instance, the story read that the students held a camera inches from the Congressman's face--which was not readily apparent on the video. Quotes from WH Press Secretary Bob Gibbs stating "how honorable" Etheridge was, along with quotes from other media "experts," were laid out as if to say that Etheridge's burst of violence against a fledgling member of the media was no big deal.
The final coffin nail, in this case, was the referencing of videos being used as political weapons since August of 2006 when Republican George Allen called a media member "macaca" (which is, apparently, an ethnic slur of dubious origins that most have no idea about). However, one must remember that THIS video became a weapon only when the Congressman chose to become a weapon himself. He could have simply said, "Yes. I do support Obama's agenda--look at my voting record." Or he could have walked on by, ignoring the students' queries as is a commonly accepted practice among politicians at all levels.
Underneath it all, however, the daunting truth is emerging for the Media's "Golden Child." When it becomes an insult to ask a Congressman if he supports Obama's agenda, we can all now read the tea leaves and see what most of the Democrats running for re-election will face come November.
We asked if Mr. Washburn could supply fries with his "fast food article." To Congressman Etheridge we can only state that the egg on his face goes really well with the fact that he is now "toast"--now where is that lithium-butter spread?
June 4th, 2010
While the roller coaster ride which is our economy continues its dizzying pace, Mexico and our President have declared war on Arizona...well, sort of. President Obama and the President of Mexico joined forces in a televised verbal pummeling session--before Congress--of Arizona for their "racist immigration law." Never mind the fact that the Arizona law is a weakened but otherwise identical version to Federal law, which is just a technicality as far as the "Open Borders" or "Globalization" crowd is concerned.
In fact, Calderon stood side-by-side with Obama as both vilified the Arizona law and, therefore, anyone who supports both the law and/or the checking of documentation--which now officially includes a majority of the American people (84% Fox Poll) who agree with the law. In response, the "politically dematerializing" Congressional Democrats thunderously applauded in a "standing ovation of contempt" for their own Country. This while a rampart of additional States, which have had enough of problem Illegals, initiated what is fast becoming a whole new battle for State's Rights against the Federal Government, aside from the previous State's Rights battles fostered by the ill-conceived Healthcare law.
However, because of the Federal Government's failure to act--even while the time for inaction has passed--we now have inhabitants of two separate States in a War of Words with each other as Arizona and California mix it up: Los Angeles' threatened economic boycott versus Arizona's threatened Power withdrawal. This is how national destabilization historically begins. To which we can only say once again--Bravo, Bravo, Mr. President! Not only do you have the States going against the Federal Government, now you have States battling against each other. This Administration's talent for stumbling into destructive mayhem would make even Godzilla envious.
On Comments, On Clueless, On Papers and Blitzer
Mexico's Calderon would apparently have us believe that his nation's problems with murderous drug cartels, military grade weapons and an economy which apparently incites its inhabitants to flee, is "America's Fault," which--come to think of it--is a perfect way to have virtually every Democrat including the President eating out of his hands. We later learned of the comical, if not clueless, hypocrisy of Calderon in a televised CNN Wolf Blizter interview. Blitzer, to his credit, asked Calderon how the Mexicans handled their Illegal Immigration law. Calderon replied that if the police "suspect" anyone of being illegal--especially around the Southern border--they demand to see their "papers," and if papers cannot be produced they are "sent back."
So, to clarify, according to Calderon, if Illegals are questioned in Mexico, it is nothing more than border security. However, if Illegals are questioned in the US, it's racism. Maybe he either doesn't totally comprehend the English language or he just simply does not comprehend...anything. Meanwhile the Whitehouse might be having some trouble prying Calderon away from the security of the Whitehouse only to send him back to his "beloved" homeland of disastrous policies and extremely dangerous liasons.
Weighing in to this idiocy, however, we now have news of Homeland Security's John Morton's comments: "We will not necessarily process illegal immigrants referred to us by the state of Arizona." This apparent disregard of Federal Law by Federal law enforcers stunned most until we "thankfully" received the validating explanation--that being Morton's statement of the following: "The best way to reduce illegal immigration is through a comprehensive Federal approach." Oh, for Heaven's sake! Thanks for clarifying that John. I see a possible Press Secretary position in your future.
Best Use for Liberal Ideals: Spread on Garden, Ignore Pungency
Meanwhile the Media seems astounded by the ongoing drama that a determined American populace has fomented as a result of a concerted anti-Obama backlash. As the number of incumbent Democrats and even a few establishment, go-along Republicans drop like aged flies in this primary season. The Media continues to argue, in its own spin-miester way, that the electorate is in an extreme "anti-incumbent" mood, and that the Tea Party has little if anything to do with these outcomes. They then will, rather predictably, point to a member of the Republican Party who loses and, in essence, snicker "see--we told you!" and continuously dream up any number of semi-plausible dictums and spout them out in print and in opinion forums--as if such can serve as a "pre-emergent fertilizer" for desiredly Leftist "predictive results" which promises only to whither on the vine of political reality.
We can see this paradigm being played out in story after story as the Media slowly comes to the realization that something different, if not unthinkable is occurring: The Party will soon be over in more ways than one. We can also see this in the Chief Executive's manner, who "reportedly" barely even glanced at the various political Primary outcomes. While there is no doubt that a certain amount of anti-incumbent angst is being parlayed by voters, one could also say--it's just not quite that simple.
There is also an "anti-establishment" mood being brought to bear along with a yearning for fiscal Conservatism even among hardcore Democrats. But the main impetus for the results would have to be the new "anti-Obama" movement, or shall we now call this the "Neo-Racists Movement"? Meaning not an actual "racist" but--close enough--for those who commit the heresy of not agreeing with the media's "Golden Child."
Marx: A Liberal Icon of Moderation?
Titular National Colum-u-nist..Paul Krugman has some ideas of his own as he begins his most recent foray into Progressive madness in his article "Going To Extreme" by going straight to his most delectable target--that being any truly Conservative Republican. Krugman first states that three term Utah Republican, Robert Bennett, whom he calls "very Conservative," lost in his re-election ballot bid because he's "not Conservative enough"--which is a typical argument coming from the Lefties these days who would probably view Marx himself as a moderate.
Krugman then bounds all the way from Utah to Maine to make his point by illuminating various "Republican Party Activists" who have pushed through a platform of abolishing both the Federal Reserve and the Department of Education--which are two Government Agencies known for their "extreme efficiencies," eh Mr. Krugman?
In fact, the Maine GOP platform reads much like an excerpt from The Freedom Charters of The United States in its overall agenda, but in actuality and in response to Krugman, states a particular goal being the mandatory audit of The Federal Reserve as a means to eventually end the Federal Reserve. The Maine Platform letter further states an imperative to once again allow "local control" of schools rather than remanding them to the Central Behemoth US Department of Education. All of these, in fact, seem to be sound Conservative de-centralization policies as compared and contrasted to the stark failures of current Government policies as our schools and funding efforts flounder in a sea of Liberal effluvium.
Conservative Ideas: Real Power or Reel Power?
Krugman then goes on to state that "it's becoming ever more apparent that real power rests with ranting talk-show hosts." This is a typical diatribe coming from the Leftward, but these "ranting" talk show hosts cannot raise your taxes, they cannot force one to pay fees, they cannot force your children into damaging ideological school rooms, they cannot place an individual in jail nor can they enforce Draconian environmental and dietary laws. In fact, the only true power of these hosts lies within the power of their ideas--so it would seem that Krugman finds such ideas more threatening than the ever-more power hungry force of Authoritarian Governance?
Krugman then states--carefully laying the foundation for his false premise of "Right-wing extremism"--that "News organizations have taken notice: Suddenly, the takeover of the Republican Party by right-wing extremists has become a story-- but why is this happening, and why now?" he asks. He then answers himself, at least in part, that it's outrage over Obama's Socialist policies such as his healthcare plan. Ok, score one for Krugman! But wait. Krugman then points up Mitt Romney's "more or less identical healthcare plan" in Maine as being a Republican construct. Nevermind, Mr. Krugman, that this plan is now failing miserably as we all can plainly see with premiums rocketing upward while the State denies needed increases to refresh claims reserves.
But in reality, a State providing its own solutions to healthcare--be they erroneous or not--is a far cry from the Federal Government usurping States rights and forcing a States' citizens to buy coverage. All too often we here in America tend to forget that the reasoning for having separate State Governments are, in part, as a counter-weight or dilution to an omnipotent Central Government. Further, the legislative acts of the Democrats to date could easily be seen to be hyper-powering the Federal Government to a point that was never, ever intended by the Founders of this Nation, which can, once gain, be seen in the number of States now trying to squirm out from under the thumb of Federally embrasive constriction.
Strange Bedfellows: Maine and Texas Take on Utopian Dysphoria
But Krugman also covertly pulls the “wascally racist wabbit” out of his “sporty Liberal motoring hat” in stating that the Right’s reasons for not liking healthcare is due to race? Oh, darn! You caught us yet again Mr. Krugman—very well, we are all racist. Feel better, now? As stated so many times before--the racist label has now “officially" been castrated. The word no longer means anything much beyond political “disagreement.” Great Yob Guys! Krugman then explains to us all that “the hard right” has “dominated the GOP for many years” which would finally explain how "Moderate" John McCain was the Republican's choice for President? He then spouts on, yet again, about a number of individuals in Maine and also Texas who desire to eliminate the Federal Reserve—an ode to "change that we can believe in" perhaps?
If, in fact, Mr. Krugman truly believes that the Hard Right-wing Extremists have been in charge of the Republicans for years, then how does he explain the advent of the Tea Party? The truth, Mr. Krugman, is simply this: "You haven't seen anything yet." The Republican Party has been in a zone of "go-along moderation" for far too long. The Republicans have now nearly-- if not finally--refound their Conservative core over the last 15 months of Progressive hell, as the excesses of the Obama Administration have reminded them, along with the Tea Party and a vast uprising of a Nations collective voice concerning the principles of Conservatism on the extreme edge of starkness when contrastingly outlined against the worn out ideology of Progressive Statism.
The Constitutional Conservatives who are, without a doubt the greatest Champions of Liberty, have gathered forces and have attracted the attention of those whom matter most--the Citizens. The largely Conservative populace of the US now seems to understand that the forces of Globalism, Statism and Liberalism have officially outed themselves. We can see this in the ongoing drama of the Texas School Board along with the Conservatives reassuming their control of what our children are taught. We can only thank our lucky stars that this particular leverage by power of numbers and size lies more in Common-sensical and Conservative Texas than in the ruinous social environs of California or any number of Liberal bastions given to Utopian dysphoria.
Warning: This Program Has Been Rated Due to Extreme Logic
Krugman then proceeds into his own personal minefield of obsessive specialty, that being Rush Limbaugh. Krugman pokes fun at Limbaugh for questioning the timing of the Gulf Spill as suspicious in its occurring immediately after Obama's signaling an intent to ramp up offshore drilling. The question is who would not question it? Any "critically thinking person"-- including the President. In fact, it was the President who stated that SWAT teams were being dispensed throughout the Gulf--no doubt because they are extensively trained in the art of mitigating Oil Spills (who knew?). What else is a person to think Mr. Krugman?
The conspiratorial speculation on this point is rampant simply because it has yet to be entirely explained--what with all of the double redundancy fail-safes having failed. But Krugman then complains on that the Media is no longer as eager to play down Limbaugh's "extremism" as they were in 2002. Maybe, Mr. Krugman, they are beginning to listen to Rush Limbaugh--ever considered that anathemic possibility?
Krugman then truly plunges off the cliff of plausibility by stating that "the reporting has shifted due to a 'deference to power': as long as America was widely perceived as being on the way to a permanent Republican majority, few were willing to call right-wing extremism by its proper name." At this point anyone reading Krugman's article might note that his argument is tragically if not logically flawed in that he has two points which run counter to one another.
On the one hand he states that Limbaugh has become more acceptable to reporters now as compared to eight years ago and that this is the shift in power in deference to the Right Wing; on the other hand, Krugman then states that the reporting has shifted to more respect for Limbaugh now due to a deference of power to the Republican party in the past--and in a cumulative effect of Republicans coming to power in a permanant Republican majority.
Narcoleptics Anonymous: Falling Asleep at the Spiel
So, like, where have you been for the past three years, Paul Krugman? The Senate, the House and the Executive Branch are all crawling with a majority of Democrats. There has been no shift--at least not yet. Further, the deference to the Right-Wing that Krugman speaks of could easily be seen in the hourly repetitive attacks on G.W. Bush by virtually every member of the Mainstream Media during Bush's Administration (and then some). Maybe Krugman fell asleep midway through the writing of his column--who knows?
In a second spate of nonsense, Krugman then states that during any time of economic upheaval or crisis, voters will tend to move Right. OK, let's see...the meltdown occurred in late 2008, Obama, who is certainly not of the Right, was elected in later 2008. Hmm..ok, what Krugman means is voters will tend to move to "Krugman's right" during anytime of upheaval--duly noted that Obama must then be to Krugman's right--we are not surprised.
Then Krugman unwittingly lets the cat out of the bag in his argument in referencing a study which indicates that voters, in both America and Europe, will tend to vote for right-wing and nationalistic parties during times of economic upheaval and worsening financial performance which coincides precisely with the rise of the Tea Party. So, here, Mr. Krugman has made our argument for us.
A Circular Argument for the Circular File
You see, one cannot move to the Right unless one was formerly on the Left. Mr. Krugman has just pointed out that the dominance of Leftist's powers will normally result in economic downturns over time which then precipitates a corresponding move back to the right--once again proving that Socialist policies simply do not work as just implied by an avowed Liberal.
Finally, Krugman circles back to his point that Extremists have been in power and have dominated the Right for a long time and that the only thing different is that now the rest of the Country has noticed. In retrospect, it would seem that Mr. Krugman is trying to deflect and detract from the true point at play as we move towards the November election.
The simple fact is, Mr. Krugman, the only ones that have been in a dominant position of power--over this country--rather than just a party for the last four years--have been the Left Extremists of the Socialist Democrats in Congress and, later, the Executive Branch.
The meltdown of our economy is one thing. The meltdown of our Constitution, however, is another thing altogether.
Authors Note: A new book titled, "A Perfect Liberal Storm" has just been released that I have written which details the major events that have occurred during the first year of the Obama Administration. The book provides an ongoing Commentary regarding the US Constitution, in conjunction with Conservatism, and delves into an understanding of the issues and arguments surrounding how we have gotten to this point within our history. The book pulls from both new content and original articles from Conservative Refocus. We hope you will take a look and consider supporting this website by buying the book and, as always, Thanks "so much" for your visit.