January 17th, 2014
By Barry Secrest
It's happening tectonically, throughout the entire continental shelf of American politics.
The backlash towards the political left even now has reborn, as Obama has ultimately proved himself to be the long ago predicted Pied Piper of Establishment Progressives, leading to a long overdue inner-beltway exodus. Indeed, no amount of skullduggery nor media leveraging should be able to separate the Socialist- Democrat party from its grand comeuppance coming in November.
Both US healthcare and finances, by election time, will lie increasingly tangled and bloodied if not mortally wounded, within the nettlesome briars of culpable blame. Unlike in previous legislative agendas which ostensibly affected only those it sought to aid, there can be no gradual improvement in the body politic of US healthcare, especially when the poison of excessive Liberalism finds its full circulatory purchase.
Much like an executioner's cocktail of impending doom, America's healthcare can now only worsen in both severity of cost and decimation of care, and there will be no secondary avenue of blame available for the liable, at least not this time around.
Of a certainty, this time as opposed to most others, it's profoundly different due to the fact that the overarching agenda sought only to serve its own selfish ideological aims-- but even worse--by the use of an element that most Americans find sacrosanct and inalienable even unto natural law, that being eviscerated individual health plans by edict with impaired economic prosperity served as the missing but so-ordered affectation.
However, the upheaval doesn't stop there, but rather the cracks within the mantle of establishment US politics also stretch deeply if not inevitably into the foundation of the Republican cabal as well. The formerly useful idiots of a trusting voter-party have now come full-circle outstripping by leaps, if not bounds, if not even leagues, those of their own elected leadership. This phenomena can increasingly be seen in the prevailing imperious postures of both the Democrat party and its own GOP commiserators, each to its own and undeniably towards their formerly loyal opposition.
The game, as they say, is now up and the sight is not pretty at all--especially for an America now soaked within the ichor of dually elected leadership default, almost as a sacrifice to the demi-Gods of Statism. The lies of the political left's overall impetus will inevitably pound hard into its own Leftist membership, as the low-information supporters will also gain a wide array of experience into the laws of unintended voter consequence and meaningfully.
Which brings us to one of the heralds of obtusivity, demagogic pundit Michael Gerson. He, who unlike most GOP opinionists, seems rarely admired from within his own subset, but grudgingly adored by the nominally opposed mainstream media....he begins:
Gerson: A political backlash has commenced within the Republican Party against tea party and libertarian groups that have limited interest in securing Republican victories and majorities. Elected leaders, party officials and business groups have begun pushing back against self-destructive legislative strategies and unelectable primary candidates.
CR: Here, Gerson spouts nonsensical establishment Republicanisms like a Saudi gusher.
The backlash is occurring, alright, but it should be seen only as the omni-desperate ploy that it is from the party-control stalwarts from within, that being those whose consistency in failure is only rivaled by their obstinate establishment vacuousness.
The limited interest exhibited by true Conservatives, which Gerson speaks of, is but a powerful electorate symptom that the Republican Party leadership has mostly lost its way. What good is a Republican majority if it's led by Democrat-lites," Gerson? But then also, which "unelectables" does Gerson have in mind?
Might he be referring to Conservatively disavowed John McCain (for President) or might Gerson have in mind, Mitt Romney (for President), who, by the way, actually lost the 3 million Conservative votes which could have won the last major election for the GOP?
Both of those, by the way, were the moderated selections of a repetitively cannibalizing GOP leadership.
It becomes even more fascinating when any major Republican candidate loses, the establishment GOP will typically leap into action tossing the unusable candidate into a crumpled and tangled heap of losing candidates and then redesignate them as either Conservative non-electables or Tea Party Whacko-birds, even after having dutifully funded them....neat trick.
Gerson: But the GOP's political reaction often concedes a great deal of ideological ground to anti-government populism - what its advocates describe as "constitutionalism." Our national recovery, in this view, depends on returning to the severely constrained governing vision of the Founding Fathers, as embodied in the Constitution.
Many Republicans now seem to be saying: Yes, this is the conservative ideal, but it is just not practical to implement at the moment. This cedes too much. In a new essay in National Affairs, "A Conservative Vision of Government," Pete Wehner and I argue that the identification of constitutionalism with an anti-government ideology is not only politically toxic; it is historically and philosophically mistaken.
CR: Not true, once again, but this time in even bolder spades.
Gerson, it should be pointed out has never, ever, liked the Tea Party nor has he been a indefatigable fan of the US Constitution. Indeed, there are some few Liberals who would actually agree with certain aspects of the Tea Party's goals, at least more than so-called Republican-Gerson. First up, of the establishment Republican lies which are also, by the way, borrowed from the Obama regime , is the one about the Tea Party's being anti-government.
The Tea Party, and by default true Conservatism, is not at all anti-government; au contraire, the Tea Party's heroes, it can easily be pointed out, all hail from our founding governmental Fathers. Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, John Adams--all figure dominantly as the Tea Party's greatest heroes. Does Gerson not wonder why so many of our number show up in those oft establishment despised tri-foil hats?
So, Gerson's founding hero, in Alexander Hamilton, is an authoritarian banker incipiently opposed to libertarian Thomas Jefferson at each and every juncture...makes perfect sense in a very telling way.
Nor should it be lost on Gerson, with regard to the political Left's greatest heroes-- including "patriots" such as Chi-Comm mass-murderer Mao Tse Tung, or Marxist revolutionary Che Guevera, or even collectivist extraordinaire Saul Alinsky, for Heaven's sake.
In fact, we, of the Tea Party, love our government as founded and as America's primary foundation for success, but we also understand what happens when government becomes far too big and excessively authoritative, if not tyrannically unwieldy.
The worst of big oligarchic government, throughout human history, will use its various officialdoms as henchmen to attack the very things and the very people which tend to lend a nation its mantle of greatness. Meanwhile and as an example, let's look at the excessiveness of the NSA's domestic spying, or the President's actual bugging of the entire Associated Press building, or the attacks by those who control the IRS on those who loyally oppose such authoritarian excesses, as formerly described.
Further, let's not forget the government's takeover-by-proxy of the US healthcare system, additionally, a massive debt that threatens our economy at $17 trillion dollars, and the withering train wreck which has unfolded from there. All of the things we initially warned America about have now but largely come true, and in a scant five years while the GOP sits around navel-gazing with what is essentially a thumbs-up-its-rump approach to each of these exacerbative problems.
So, which one of us is right, Gerson, or has everything played out uncommonly well for the GOP at this point?
Gerson: It is not enough to praise America's Founders; it is necessary to listen to them. The Federalist Founders did not view government as a necessary evil. They referred to the "imbecility" of a weak federal government (in the form of the Articles of Confederation) compared to a relatively strong central government, which is what the Constitution actually created. Though they feared the concentration of too much power in one branch of government, they believed that good government was essential to promote what they called the "public good."
And they assumed that the content of the public good would shift over time. "Constitutions of civil government," argued Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 34, "are not to be framed upon a calculation of existing exigencies, but upon a combination of these with the probable exigencies of ages. . . . Nothing, therefore, can be more fallacious than to infer the extent of any power, proper to be lodged in the national government, from an estimate of its immediate necessities. There ought to be a CAPACITY to provide for future contingencies as they may happen."
CR: As if someone in our government actually is listening to our founding fathers?
"And the words fell from his pen as the manure from a horse, only the manure being of greater value since it can at least be used as nourishment for one's garden"
There can, at this point, be no active doubt, that our government has strayed obscenely, from the charters of freedom. The problem with folks like erstwhile Gerson is that sooner or later they often begin to believe that their shriveled-up-phallus of ideas will be regaled as mighty and potent, and perhaps they actually will to some, but only to those of the more diminutive subsets who can pleasurably receive and appreciate, such miniscule insertions.
Banker and Federal reserve precursor Hamilton, it should be noted, had nothing but problems with Declaration of Independence writer Thomas Jefferson, nor is Hamilton considered anywhere near the likes of the more familiar Tea Party's heroes. Ergo, since we are dragging out Founder quotations, let's try another:
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." - George Washington
Sounds far too much like the father of our nation was of the Tea Party, does it not? Further, most people don't actually think of Hamilton when they consider Founding Father heroics. So, which hero do you prefer America?
Washington or Hamilton?
Gerson: In the tradition of the Federalist Founders, Abraham Lincoln believed the federal government should be capable of adjusting to changing circumstances and active in pursuit of national purposes. In his "Fragment on Government," Lincoln described a number of matters requiring the "combined action" of government, including "public roads and highways, public schools, charities, pauperism" and "providing for the helpless young and afflicted."
Conservatives naturally want to be seen as defenders of the Constitution. But "constitutional conservatives" need to recognize what both the Federalist Founders and Lincoln actually envisioned for the republic they respectively created and preserved. Far from being constrained by the political and economic arrangements of an 18th-century coastal, agrarian republic, the Founders fully expected the United States to spread across a continent, undergo economic and social change and emerge as a global actor. And they purposely designed a constitutional system that could accommodate such ambitions.
CR: So, this time Gerson dredges up Lincoln, one of the first actual Republicans who as President also navigated and presided over this great nation through its lone Civil War--overseeing 1.5 million casualties and 620,000 deaths.
Granted, it may not be politically correct but I personally have often wondered how a President with such a horrid American death record, could somehow be seen as greatest.
Indeed, taken as a comparative measure of today's US population, that number would be over 6 million souls lost.
But Lincoln's legacy doesn't end there, for instance here are but a few grand feats of Liberty which Lincoln stunningly achieved:
- Lincoln suspended Habeus Corpus.
- Lincoln “detained” Maryland's entire legislature, thereby blocking a vote on state secession.
- Lincoln sent troops to occupy Kentucky, also in an attempt to block a vote on secession.
- Lincoln later expanded martial law to all states
- Under martial law, the President became the law, and in effect, a dictator.
- Lincoln actually sought to deport the freed black slaves out of the US and into various colonies because he did not feel they belonged to life within America.
No wonder Lincoln often surfaces as one of Obama's greatest American Heroes.....
All of the liberty eviscerating atrocities aside, could peace and an end to slavery not have been achieved, without that terrible war, or is that a question which should never perhaps be considered? Aside from that particularly heretical point, most individuals should not logically doubt that Lincoln, also, had in mind a vast array of government involvements into pretty much every activity under the sun partaken by its sovereign citizens.
Further, Gerson's assertions seem to point to a mindset that fails to consider or perhaps forgets the fact that the Constitution has been nominally relegated to executive toilet paper status and throughout the vaunted halls of government, at least at this particular point and back in the modern day.
The question it would seem, in this, the nadir of supposed enlightenment, belongs not to the Constitution's flexibility, but rather to its ultimate loss as the principle compass of the Republic's Rule of Law, or lack therein as the case may be.
Gerson: This is not to argue that the Founders would be happy with the current size and role of government. But, after protecting a variety of essential civil liberties, they placed such matters mainly in the realm of democratic self-government. They made it procedurally difficult for majorities to prevail. But they placed few limits on the public policies that durable majorities might adopt in the future - leaving "a capacity to provide for future contingencies."
CR: Did you note the strategic placement of the two "Buts" within the above paragraph?
"The Founders would not be happy with the current size and role of government "But," and "they made it procedurally difficult for majorities to prevail, But"--it would seem that the "Buts" have the floor with regard to Gerson's incipient gratuities regarding anti-Constitutional behavior.
Gerson: In our time, durable majorities have endorsed the existence of Social Security and Medicare. These roles of government were not envisioned by the Founders. But they do not violate a principle of our system nor run counter to the prescient mind-set of the Founders. People are free to argue for and against such programs. But this debate can't be trumped or short-circuited by simplistic and legalistic appeals to the Constitution as a purely limiting document.
CR: Nevermind the fact that both Social Security and Medicare now find themselves at the very heart of an increasingly extreme US unfunded liability problem. Duly noted, as well, that the rise of Medicare (and let's not forget Medicaid) has proliferated the annual increases in private premiums due to the cost-shifting of healthcare expenditures into the private sector --which is primarily due to what has become inarguably morose reimbursement ratios from the government to the actual providers.
Oh, and why do we have an unfunded liability problem? Easy: Because the government has been spending the funds which were allocated to a highly secure lockbox with a very large hole in the bottom. Indeed, "we have met the enemy and it is us," in other words.
Gerson: The broad purposes of the modern state - promoting equal opportunity, providing for the poor and elderly - are valid within our constitutional order. But these roles are often carried out in antiquated, failing systems. The conservative challenge is to accept a commitment to the public good while providing a distinctly conservative vision of effective, modest, modern government.
CR: According to whom with regard to the broad purpose of the modern state?
The Broad purpose of the modern state should be no different than when it was initially founded, however, it is certainly not as a forced charitable organization attending to the poor and the elderly, nor should it be the guarantor of an equality which can never humanely exist on this earth-- those auspices would be more in line with the broader purpose of a modern collectivist state within the throes of its ultimate demise.
Most Americans would submit that a broader purpose to the modern state should go something like the following:
"In order to form a more perfect Union the modern state should establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our descendants' Posterity"
Gerson, it would seem, has taken both his and many others' of the slightly political right into the heretical ideology of statist government as propitiated towards secular revisionism. Expounding on the ideas of Republicanism by applying the stunted lip service of complete constitutional denial will not guarantee any of Gerson's egalitarian goals.
Indeed, Gerson speaks the language of one who waits patiently by the vat as the Kool-Aid is being stirred into potency.
Gerson concludes by stating:
"A shift in mind-set is first required among conservatives: thinking of government as a precious national institution in need of care and reform. This would honor the Founders. The real Founders."
A precious national institution, like an innocent little fuzzy kitten, Gerson, seriously man?
No Republican in his right mind would view government in such a profoundly ignorant way, quite frankly. Gerson is nothing if not a heretic to his own cause, whatever on earth that might be, it should be noted at this point.
What if, just for a bit of black humor, we adjusted Gerson's assertions a tittle or so, and watch what happens:
"A shift in mind-set is first required among the establishment: thinking of the US Constitution and the citizens it serves, as a precious national institution in need of care and affirmation. This would honor the Founders. The real Founders."
Now, ladies and gentlemen, which of these paragraphs would seem more in concert with the true intent of the Founders?
You see, the Founders entire reason for establishing a just and balanced government was to take every precaution possible so as to keep the US government from becoming the very thing it has now become, and therein lies the fatal flaw with Gerson's ridiculously pitiful assertions, and certainly the greater establishment's mindset as a whole.
The greater good of government was never before, nor is it now, the ultimate goal.
January 8th, 2014
It was predicted and it is happening, now.
As the sign-ups in various red and blue states wane, to a panoply of ideological disdain, loyal free market adherence and, of course, a witches brew formula of ill-portents, the Huffington Post is now blaming an "obstructive GOP" on the healthcare mandate's universally admitted lack of success.
With catastrophically-styled high deductibles, abysmal network access, and sky-high premiums, many might say that it's well beyond amazing than even 1.1 million Americans have actually signed up.
However, below is the oft-predicted story, which you will see more and more of as the self-parroting media begins to virally spread Obama's latest excuse, aka White House talking points, gone mainstream media wild, i.e.--it's not the Mandate's fault; it's somehow now the Republican Party's fault:
While Republicans at the national level have thus far been completely unsuccessful in attempts to repeal or defund the Affordable Care Act, Republicans at the state level have succeeded in preventing people from obtaining health coverage under the new law.
Data compiled by Theda Skocpol of Harvard University for the Scholars Strategy Network, a progressive group of academics, illustrates how states' decisions to not create their own health care exchanges or expand Medicaid under the ACA have suppressed enrollment. According to Skocpol's research, the 14 states that are expanding Medicaid and running their own exchanges have seen enrollment in Medicaid and exchanges at around 40 percent of projections. In contrast, in the 23 states that refused to expand Medicaid or cooperate when it comes to an exchange, enrollment percentages are in the single-digits.
Well, what did these progressive eggheads actually expect?
Of course the states that widened eligibility for Medicaid will see an increase over their red state counterparts; however, they will also see a spiraling increase of free medical care costs and an increased lack of service providers.
The story continues:
Under the Affordable Care Act, states can either run their own exchange or have the Department of Health and Human Services run it for them. Alternatively, seven stateshave opted for a federal-state partnership exchange. Many Republican governors wanted no ownership over the Obamacare exchanges and deferred to the federal government. The website of the federal marketplace, HealthCare.gov, has been plagued by a botched rollout with many glitches.
Thanks to the Supreme Court decision that declared the law constitutional, governors are free to decline the federal money to expand Medicaid without losing the federal money they already received to insure low-income people. For reasons similar to why they didn't set up exchanges, many Republican governors decided not to expand Medicaid under the law, despite the fact that the federal government plans to pick up all of the cost for newly eligible enrollees in the first three years and no less than 90 percent permanently.
While community organizers in red states with high populations of uninsured have tried to organize their own campaigns, the data suggests that it takes the power of a state to implement the health care law.
The power of a state? What power might that be?
The Obamacare mandate stripped the states of much of their power--so much so that about half of all states took their case to the Supreme Court and actually won.
However, a poorly planned and executed law, that is both inhumanely forced and supported by only half of those in power, at best, is prophetically doomed to final and ultimate failure, and that' s what we appear to be seeing, even now.
December 31st, 2013
The problem with Christmas without Christ in today's America....
"The New York Times investigates Benghazi"-- Isn't that kind of like Satan
By Barry Secrest
One thing we've learned, as mainstream media watchers, is that any story presented by the media containing less than 200 words is generally a story leaving out a great many details--i.e. an article on a topic in which the media simply doesn't really want to talk-- too much--about.
In one stunningly particular example was a recent folderol-ish frolic concerning Obamacare, which the White House has been crowing about for reasons which largely escape most of those hailing from the critical thinking sects.
In the story from CNN, which raises far more questions than it answers, we read that Obamacare has finally signed up some 1.1 million people.
The first warning sign, at least for us, was the fact that this particular article was only 150 words long, almost a photo caption for heaven's sake. The second rather alarming note was the fact that the article left us with far more questions than actual answers, as indicated in this obscenely short blurb of a piece below:
"More than 1.1 million people enrolled in health care coverage through the federal marketplace between October 1 and December 24, the government announced Sunday.
The vast majority of them -- 975,000 -- enrolled in December, Marilyn Tavenner, administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, said in a blog post.
She called it "a welcome surge in enrollment" due in part to improvements in the notoriously glitch-plagued website healthcare.gov.
It's unclear how many people who visited the site were unable to use it -- a problem shared by millions across the country. On Monday, December 23 alone, the site saw nearly 2 million page views and the call center received more than 250,000 calls, officials said.
The Obama administration's goal is to have 7 million people enroll by the end of March."
So...is that it-- that's all you have to say about it, CNN?
The first question, any normal journalist might ask, would have to center on the fact that the White House admitted several weeks ago that enrollees who hadn't actually purchased anything, were also being included within the overall count.
So, how many people have supposedly signed up but haven't purchased a plan?
Next question: The White House has also admitted that Medicaid enrollees were being included within the total enrollee counts.
So, how many of these 1.1 million individuals have actually signed up for medicaid instead of Obamacare?
The next most obvious question would be: "Why is the spokesperson for Medicaid/Medicare services answering a question that should belong to the larger DHHS?" The last time we checked, Obamacare was technically supposed to be separate and apart from medicaid/medicare, and DHHS has over 64,000 employees.
So, why is it that a program, which is supposedly being privately operated by insurance companies, actually being administered through the government's existing single-payer system? Should we be alarmed that there is no true separate agency for healthcare.gov, despite the fact that a behemoth portion of the US healthcare system is now being run by the government through an already overwhelmed CMS?
The final question would have to center on the fact that the story appears to be trumpeting the fact that 1.1 million have "signed up," when in fact, the government has now cancelled the insurance policies of over 6 million individuals. Did the brave and expert journalistic staff over at CNN miss the fact that if over 6 million have been cancelled and only 1.1 million have signed up, there could now be as many as 5 million Americans who have lost their coverage?
Even worse? Remember, these were formerly insured Americans.
Got Mathematics much, CNN, or did our intrepid journalists also sign up for Commmon Core to reboot their anti-critical thinking skills?
But, another glaring question might be; how many of the 30 million uninsured Americans which Obamacare was supposedly created to cover, have actually signed up? We already know the answer as to whether or not Americans are saving $2,500 per year....being, Er...not so much.
Once these questions are all answered, then maybe we'll be slighly impressed with 1.1 million sign ups, however as it stands, the headline should more accurately read "As Many as 5 Million Americans now May be Uninsured."
If Obamacare needs 7 million to sign up by March and only 1.1 million, may have signed up in half of that timeframe, being the last three months of 2013, then might the headline alternatively read something more like the following?
"Obamacare Misses Signup Mark by Over 2.5 Million Missing Enrollees"
I'm Just saying....
Media Parroting Hits Epic Scale
The next Refocused dubiosity which caught our scantily clad eye recently, centered on the mainstream media's flagging immunity from being infected with the highly contagious parroting virus, which is confined mostly to the Left-wing of an increasingly pestilent American politics.
"A Christmas Present.... or two, or Ten
The video montage goes well past the funny demarcation point, at least for me, and into Stepford hive-mind territory, as in spooky-bizarre....in fact it's almost as bad as the terror of having a government which can cancel your insurance policy and then fine you for not having an insurance policy, now that's just harrowing.
Indeed, while many may laugh at this outrageous example of media parroting, one cannot help but wonder --where--exactly, these talking points might have found their origin.
Over the past several years, we have seen journalism slide decadently into a mode of defensive-huddle propagandizing, largely on behalf of the Progressive mindset, and at best. But, even worse and in this case, the subject matter seems to be secularly preaching, if not repetitively reinforcing, how Christmas, which is traditionally known as a time of giving, might be a better time to lavish a gift, or two, or ten, upon one's self.
Indeed, when these extreme instances are taken altogether, the general implication appears to be one of moving away from the altruism of giving selflessly and towards a paradigm of glorifying selfishness.
Could this be yet an even more insidious facet of the War on Christmas, or is it merely a case of outrageous media parroting? A question for the ages, but, as it turns out, things would only get worse in the misinformation arena..... as a supposed Disavowal of Catholicism would seem to have emerged from none other than the Pope.
The headline appeared as one of the top-rated stories of the night and ironically --but not accidentally, on the eve of Christmas Eve....
In fact, the further one read through the particular write-up, the more ridiculous the article became, at least assuming one had been grounded in any sort of Conservative Christian teachings.
"Excerpts: "In a speech that shocked many, the Pope claimed “All religions are true, because they are true in the hearts of all those who believe in them. What other kind of truth is there? The Third Vatican Council concluded today with Pope Francis announcing that Catholicism is now a “modern and reasonable religion, which has undergone evolutionary changes. We must recognize that religious truth evolves and changes. Truth is not absolute or set in stone.
Even atheists acknowledge the divine. We must recognize that religious truth evolves and changes. Truth is not absolute or set in stone. We must recognize that religious truth evolves and changes. Truth is not absolute or set in stone.
As one can see, there are numerous problems with this particular bit of fiction....since when did atheists acknowledge the divine? Atheism is in fact, a rejection of all things divine.
However, knowing what had to be done, we immediately swung into action as a debunking agent where none other existed, at least at that particular time, which would explain to those people who desperately needed to hear the truth.
The debunking Conservative Refocus News article published around midnight and then went on to easily become the most searched for article in the site's history. Even six days later, our analytics indicated that the article was being searched and read-- still--to the tune of thousands, while commanding virtually every search engine's front page in a Snopes.com type of effect.
The website in which the article appeared, Diversity Chronicle, was obviously a Progressive Atheist website dedicated to both apostacy and misdirection, but in a dubiously satirical mode, making the effort okay,at least to those of the satanic sects, not to mention MSNBC.
Indeed, below were the tags assigned to the article, which should have easily been a dead giveway, to most:
The article's claim that the Pope had declared "all religions are true"--which would pretty much make the Pope's position, unwieldy at best, was beyond ridiculous, not to mention the part about there being "No Hell." However, the damage had already been done with this satirical piece, since it appeared as one of the most widely read stories in the news that night.
After explaining that the article was a complete fake and to take heart, we further affirmed that there had been no third Vatican council. We went on to acknowledge and understand --regarding the article--what the true face of apostacy will appear as, when it finally shoves its way completely into the increasingly beleagured light of day.
Even a multitude of religious websites and forums were fooled by the article that night and even to this day, however, the hits would keep coming...
From Global Warming...
to economic collapse...
From the sublime...
to the absurd...
to the ridiculous....
and finally to the ironic....
While the news tends to continually reach for the most bizarre, the regime currently in power would win the "News Oddities" award hands down, at least for 2013.
Conservative Refocus for 2014
In the till for this upcoming year for Conservative Refocus, are articles unfinished sitting in the chute which will deal with the following subjects:
"Our Most read Articles for 2013"- This annual article will detail what folks liked most from the website in 2013.
"US economic history of Parties in power"- Here we'll take a look at something predictable and yet startling
"America's strange axial shift."- What has Obama been up to, with America? The answers will intrigue you
"Architects of decline for 2014"- This popular annual article will revisit the current architects of decline for 2014
"The Genesis Project: Giants in the Earth"- Our article, "Signs: The Daniel Project," remains one of the most searched research/review articles ever, for Conservative Refocus.
So, we'll take it to the next level with a fascinating look at the mysteries of Genesis, even those which they don't apparently wish you to know. And of course there will be many, many, others including, the elections of 2014, which will be sure to receive our full and undivided attention.
Also coming up next will be our annual article of what news stories readers found most interesting for 2013.
So, many, many, thanks to our readers and friends through what proved to be a difficult year for most Conservatives concerned about America, in 2013, and Happy New Year from our staff here at Conservative Refocus, for 2014.....
I expect 2014 should prove "interesting" to say the very least....
December 24th, 2013
By Barry Secrest
The snarky tone within the recently written Washington Post article by Valerie Strauss, was hard to miss, and from the very first poorly structured sentence, which included the following words:
"Phil Robertson, now famously suspended from his family’s popular cable reality television show for making shockingly offensive remarks about blacks and gays in a GQ interview, once taught in Louisiana schools, has a bachelor’s degree in physical education and a masters degree in education, with an English concentration. He even “kinda liked” Shakespeare. That, at least, is what he has said in interviews and on the Duck Commander Web site."
Shockingly offensive, but to whom? Not to mention the questioning tone at the end, which seems to raise doubt as to Robertson's integrity:
"That, at least is what he said"
Point in fact, a majority of male Americans would tend to agree with Robertson's assertions that a woman's equippage is far superior to a man's, with regard to coital penetration.
Hint: Form-fitting, custom designed, with even a built-in wet sump!
But the writer went on to questioning Robertson's sagacity, as if it were virtually impossible for a backwoods, Christian, red-neck, Hick, like many of us, at least for her purposes, to somehow obtain a Masters degree in education:
He didn’t say exactly when he taught or what he taught, but he has made repeated references in interviews to teaching and his degrees in interviews.
So, what we are in essence seeing, is an elitist Washington Post Liberal making gross, if not broad-brushed assumptions, based on her apparent dysfunction of debasing anyone living in rural America, who also just-so-happens to espouse Christian virtue.
Strauss, by the way, who is an education writer, continually lambasted Mitt Romney on his education stance during the 2012 campaign, obviously in favor of Obama and his common core agenda.
Strauss finishes her column stating this:
"And now he also has a suspension from the A&E network for his outrageous and uninformed remarks, which, incidentally, would have caused him huge problems if he were still a teacher."
Uninformed according to whom? Or, should we infer that Strauss now fancies herself a theological expert?
However, to get straight to the point, we wonder which statement might be more believable, to most Americans, at this point?
This one from Robertson?
"If you like your duck call you can keep it"
Or, this one, from the President of the US?
"If you like your health plan, you can keep it"
Related from Conservative Refocus