To be so lacking in sense of humour must be actually painful at times.
I suggest that you consult your dictionary for the meaning of "parody".
My reproduction of Samuel Johnson's 1756 Dictionary has this to say:
PARODY. n.s. A kind of writing in which the words of an author
or his thoughts are taken, and by a slight change adapted to some
new purpose.
My more modern Oxford Concise offers this:
parody n. & v. 1a. a humorous exaggerated imitation of an author, literary work,
style, etc.
Of course, you might like this one better:
2. a feeble imitation; a travesty.
You might want to read a few other examples of this art, to familiarize yourself with its practice. I suggest that you try
http://www.landoverbaptist.org/ as a good introduction. (As I recall, if you consult the guestbook on that site, you will find numerous references to something called "*******" (standing in for a seven-letter word beginning with "p" and ending with "y", which is banned from the guestbook). This is because an occasional side benefit (unintended as it is) of the practice of parody is that one truly does fool the truly foolish, and letting them in on the joke does spoil it.
Expanding your horizons outside the USofA might also help. The Brits in particular are rather good at this sort of thing, and of course its cousin, "satire". On the latter subject, you may recall Jonathan Swift's 1728 "Modest Proposal" --
http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/~benjamin/316kfall/316ktexts/swift.html-- and perhaps you will want to join with all the people over the years who have denounced his "proposal" that the children of the poor be cooked and eaten.
Or you could just try explaining how a site that refers to its subject as associated with the "American Encherprise Institute", I believe it was, "misrepresents" anything or anyone at all.
So here's your choices: are you so dim and/or humourless that you
thought that this site was "misrepresentation", or so disingenuous as to
say that you thought it was misrepresenation when you didn't?
.