A Battleground Of Ideas Dishonored: Rebuttal to Paul Krugman's "Climate Of Hate"
January 23rd, 2011
"Finally!" Paul Krugman must have obviously thought, "Our opportunity for political mayhem has arrived!" And with that, much as a whirling dirvish of left-spinning angst, Krugman set to work. Reportedly, not even two hours after the cruel event had occurred. Even before the blood on the ground had dried, Krugman along with millions of other pundits and reporters began a twisted Ballet of Blame targeted--not towards a miserably politicized Sheriff's office, nor even an obviously faltering Department of Social Services--but rather at their most hated foes in existence, the Conservatives, along with anyone else who disagrees (short of certain very specific subspecimen).
It can now rather ominously be stated that the Tucson shooting, perpetrated by an obviously demented Jared Loughner, set off an even more demented response from what may casually be noted as "the usual suspects."
The Blame Game, it would seem, had been shotgunned out at not only the titular heads of Conservatism, or the Republican politicians, but to virtually every Conservative in America. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Grandma and Grandpa--no one was or is safe. Sarah Palin appeared to be the "Bullseye" of the targeted attack.
An Epic Proportion of Mythic Blame
The shatterpoint of this blamefest, it would seem, is that the innocent followers of these political purveyors of pittance actually appeared to believe what their leaders were pushing. After glancing through Krugman's 701 comments from readers on his "Climate of Hate" column, it became painfully clear that those who were not criticizing Krugman actually seemed to be in heartfelt agreement with the mythology of his product.
Unfortunately, there is no true way to know if the supporters of Krugman were knowingly smirking when they punched in their gleefully conjoined comments, or like lambs to the philosophical slaughter, were mindlessly echoing his sentiments of revilement. Either way, this particular instance may come to be known as the final urgent cry of a Socialist political movement gone woefully awry.
The blame which has been metronimically leveled at Free Speechdom's apex-- talk radio, FoxNews and other organizations (not exactly of the Left)--for "purveying violence" had reached what could be called a crescendo of depravity. The main problem is just this: None of these individuals or organizations mentioned have ever even hinted at violence, despite a magnitudinal number of attempts by the media to convince individuals otherwise. In fact, the truth is quite the opposite. Being a fairly regular listener of each of these shows--whenever time permits--in addition to constantly monitoring and reading the product of the Mainstream Media, does offer up a bit of an advantage in my particular case as opposed to the often mind-numbed followers of the Left.
The simple fact that has been proven time and time again in case after misinformed case is that few, if any, of the non-professional Left, quite obviously, ever listen to or watch any of these supposedly "violent right-wing shows." It appears quite obvious that those of the Left, more often than not, seem to listen and obey without question to what their pundit leaders craft in order to build a resolve against these same shows. Never actually doing anything more than bovinesuqely grazing past them while plodding through radio channels, the Internet or even cable--it's the only plausible answer that works barring socialized depravity on a continent-wide basis.
The Karma of Krugman's Nausea
Krugman begins his gullibles' travail by stating:
"I've had a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach ever since the final stages of the 2008 campaign."
At this point, it should be noted, we feel compelled to halt our refutative response momentarily so that we might recommend Krugman seek medical care immediately--especially if he has been suffering these serious pains for over two long years now.
Non-stop nausea could be something as simple as gastritis or could indicate conditions of a more serious nature which Krugman should definitely have checked-out--and most especially "prior to" Obamacare swinging into its fully operative mode.
But In fact, while most of us reacted with dazed confusion at the tragedy, Paul Krugman writes that he "had been expecting it." (Hmm...expecting it or waiting for it?) In this case, and owing to the rapidity of his "cavalry-like response," we must assume (also) that it was the latter. In retrospect, it now seems that all officious left-leaners seem to be smitten with the same obsessive compulsive disorder--maddeningly imagining future political disasters or opportunities--dependent upon one's viewpoint. Then, in a modality of pre-emptive contrivity, lay down either words or 3,000-page bills tailored to make hay out of extraordinarily bitter occasions, dutifully then drawered "until the time is right."
Krugman further writes that "political hatred" upsurged after Clinton's election, "culminated in the Oklahoma City bombings" and could be seen in the crowds at McCain-Palin rallies.
At this point in Krugman's writing, we cannot help but begin to wonder if the mountains of the "global warming particulate matter currently blanketing the 49 contiguous States" (more commonly referred to as snow) have actually driven the man into being a rabid lunatic of disillusioned denial, such is the cognitive dissonance of his ravings. Clinton, in fact, moderated into a Centrist that Conservatives and Liberals alike could work with. There was little if any hate aimed at the man, that we can see, beyond the usual political gamesmanship that always occurs within a given Administration (think Bush). In fact, many even now think of Clinton (somewhat) fondly as one of the most ingratiatingly "entertaining" Presidents we have ever had--despite his many almost clownish ideological flaws and grievous errors. But the Oklahoma City bombings had little to do with politics and everything to do with revenge. The bombing was a retaliation by certain individuals due to the Clinton Administration's grisly "extermination by fire" of the Branch Davidian worshipers, this from the perpetrator, Timothy McVeigh, himself.
The National Climate (of Liberal Hatred)
The McCain-Palin rallies contained hatred? If so, it must have been from the now documented SEIU plants and political operatives of the Left who were trying to incite disfavor by pretending to be Tea Partiers. The Tea Party rallies have always been about love of both Country and Creator, of this there is no doubt. Perhaps the Left somehow defines love of God and Country along with patriotism as disagreeably hateful, but here both Lucifer and the Left would seem to find themselves in total wide-ranging fellowship. We are, indeed, not surprised.
In fact Krugman actually, if not witlessly, brings up a Department of Homeland Security Report that only points to one of the reason's for the Country's disillusionment with the Obama Administration in the first place. The Department of Homeland Security's document (which was quickly recanted) to which Krugman refers warned of right-wing extremist groups and the potential for violence--which was a bellwether event that forged a collective Conservative resolve against both Obama and the now-observed ideological excessiveness of his governance. However, Krugman fails to point out the nadir within the document that identifies right-wing extremists with returning soldiers and people like me and many others who speak to Liberty and individual self-determination.
The report "typically" failed to take into account the fact that virtually every terrorist attack and instance of extreme violence perpetrated had been repeatedly administered by denizens of the Left, to include the authoritarian Jihadists and a now deranged environmentalist wackoism. Krugman goes on to admit that Loughner was mentally unstable but then seems to infer that Loughner's instability could be a result of the "national climate," which might be one of the only times that Krugman speaks to the nation's climate without actually referring to the perils of global warming for a change.
Krugman then notes a report that cited an increase in threats to various members of Congress along with:
"something about the current state of America causing far more disturbed people than before to act out their illness by threatening or actually engaging in political violence."
Further, Krugman incrementally builds our case for us by bringing in Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik's words concerning: "The vitriolic rhetoric that we hear day in an day out."
Speaking of Vitriolic Rhetoric and A Culture of Political Attack...
Vitriolic rhetoric? Well, the answer to the question of continuous attacks, threats, aggressive language and "the current state of American incivility" is quite simple and goes straight to the top:
WHAT THE PRESIDENT SAID
|Chamber of Commerce||
Obama attacked and accused the Chamber of Commerce of using foreign money to push its domestic political activism, which would violate election law. Unfortunately, as the Times reports, the White House had absolutely no evidence of any wrongdoing. And Obama failed to mention that plenty of groups on the Left, especially labor unions, raise money outside the US as well.
|GOP “Pledge to America”||
Obama attacked many current Republican leaders as the architects of failed economic policies during the presidency of his predecessor George W. Bush: "It is grounded in the same worn out philosophy: cut taxes for millionaires and billionaires; cut the rules for Wall Street and the special interests; and cut the middle class loose to fend for itself. That is not a prescription for a better future. It is an echo of a disastrous decade we cannot afford to relive," he said.
Obama attacked the economic policies of George W. Bush in Bush's home state on as evidence of the way Republicans would operate if given power in Nov. 2 U.S. congressional elections.
He defended his repeated references to Bush's policies, saying they were necessary to remind Americans of the weak economy he inherited from Bush in January 2009.
The White House called on other news organizations to isolate and attack Fox News sending out top advisers to rail against the cable channel as a Republican Party mouthpiece.
|House GOP Leader John Boehner||
In a starkly political speech President Obama attacked House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-OH, by name eight times, he alsoattacked the Republican's economic philosophy as flawed and weak, attempting to define the choice that people have in November’s election.
Obama attacked teachers through his Race to the Top education policies. Already in NY State and many others, Obama got everything he wanted.
The program contains these key elements: Teachers will be evaluated in relation to their students' test scores. Schools that continue to get low test scores will be closed or turned into charter schools or handed over to private management. In low-performing schools, principals will be fired, and all or half of the staff will be fired. States are encouraged to create many more privately managed charter schools.
|Americans for Prosperity||
Obama repeatedly attacked Americans for Prosperity and over 1,500,000 AFP grassroots activists across the nation.
President Obama attacked virtually anyone associated with healthcare, except the Government, in the biggest attack on a US industry ever perpetrated http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/24/business/24leonhardt.html
|Health Insurance Companies||
Obama and his health secretary staged a two-pronged attack in a stern letter to health insurance chief executives and a speech in which the president castigated insurance companies 22 times. "How much higher do premiums have to rise," he demanded, "before we do something about it?"
Obama attacked how doctors make decisions under the current system instead of doing what’s in their patients’ best interests: “Right now, doctors a lot of times are forced to make decisions based on the fee payment schedule that's out there. So if they're looking and you come in and you've got a bad sore throat or your child has a bad sore throat or has repeated sore throats, the doctor may look at the reimbursement system and say to himself, ‘You know what? I make a lot more money if I take this kid's tonsils out.’”
Obama answered a question about his friend Henry Louis Gates’s run-in with the Cambridge cops, after acknowledging “not having been there and not seeing all the facts,” by nonetheless asserting that “the Cambridge police acted stupidly.”
Obama attacked capitalism as “blind faith.” He said this philosophy of letting people “fend for themselves” has “failed.” He added that “people are frustrated, they’re anxious, they’re scared about the future. [But] now is not the time to quit....We’ve been through worse.... It took time to free the slaves. It took time for women to get the vote.”
During a State of the Union address , Obama added a few words that had not been in the prepared text. The new preface — “with all due deference to separation of powers” — seemed to acknowledge that he was aiming unusual rhetorical fire at several Supreme Court justices sitting right in front of him.
At a grounbreaking of an advanced car battery factory in Holland, Michigan, Obama attacked Republican Rep. Pete Hoekstra (who opposed the stimulus bill and is also a Michigan gubanatorial candidate): “There are some folks who want to go back – who think we should return to the policies that helped to lead to this recession.” Obama said later, “Some made the political calculation that it’s better to obstruct than lend a hand. They said no to the tax cuts, they said no to small business loans, they said no to clean energy projects. It doesn’t stop them from coming to ribbon cuttings — but that’s OK.”
At a Las Vegas, Nevada fundraiser for Majority Leader Sen. Harry Reid’s campaign for re-election, the president compared Las Vegas residents to those in the Gulf affected by the BP oil spill – whose livelihoods depend on tourism, and attacked Sharon Angle’s stance on the spill, saying her answer was to deregulate the oil industry: “Harry’s opponent. . .called the compensation we provided a slush fund,” the president said. “A few hours later, her campaign puts out a memo saying ‘she didn’t say that’… . They said there was some ‘confusion’. I’m sure she meant ‘slush fund’ in the nicest possible way,” he quipped.
Since the Obama administration has issued stern condemnations of Israel (a long-time US allie) for approving the construction of new settlements in Jerusalem, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has attacked settlement activity "an insult to the United States," and White House political chief David Axelrod referred to it as "an affront." Israel's Ambassador to the U.S., Michael Oren, reports that current U.S.-Israeli relations are at a 35-year low.
According to the New York Times, President Obama’s political advisers are considering a national ad campaign attack that will attempt to convince Americans that Tea Party “radicals” are “taking over” the Republican Party.
|Big Oil, etc.||
In a series of fundraising speeches for Democratic candidates, Obama attacked both Business adn the Supreme Court repeatedly. He stated that because of Citizens United, "there are groups with harmless-sounding names like Americans for Prosperity who are running millions of dollars of ads against Democratic candidates, and they don't have to say who exactly the Americans for Prosperity are. You don't know if it's a foreign-controlled corporation. You don't know if it's a big oil company or a big bank." Unfortunately for him, the president's attack gets both the facts and the law wrong
President Obama launched a ferocious attack on BP and the oil industry as what is now officially the worst spill in US history threatened to derail his presidency. Obama cancelled or suspended dozens of offshore drilling projects and condemned a “scandalously close relationship” between oil companies and government regulators. He said: “As far as I’m concerned, BP is responsible for this horrific disaster, and we will hold them fully accountable on behalf of the United States as well as the people and communities victimised by this tragedy. We will demand that they pay every dime they owe for the damage they’ve done and the painful losses that they’ve caused.”
|State of Arizona||
Obama attacked America by suing Arizona for passing a law that merely reflected federal immigration law. Then the Obama administration included the Arizona state immigration law in a report of human rights abuses to the UN, that collective negation of humanity and home to the worst human rights abusers in the world.
In an attack on American energy producers, Obama said that he would put a new “cap and trade system in place that is as aggressive, if not more aggressive, than anybody else’s out there” if he would become president. Every single person who would want to “build a coal-powered plant” would be able to do so, Obama said, but his new system would “bankrupt them.”
President Obama attacked Karl Rove and conservative outside organizations claiming that his group and the Chamber of Commerce were bending campaign finance laws.
Obama actually attacked Scott Brown’s choice of a GMC truck: “So look, forget the ads, everybody can’t can slick ads. Forget the truck. Everyone can buy a truck.”
Scott Brown later retaliated by saying that, no, in this economy, not everyone can buy a truck, but that he intended to have a hand in changing that.
Obama attacked a public citizen and warned Republicans on Capitol Hill that they needed to quit listening to Rush Limbaugh if they wanted to get along with Democrats and the new administration. "You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done," he told top GOP leaders, whom he had invited to the White House to discuss his nearly $1 trillion stimulus package. (link to New York Post story)
Obama and his administration considered attacking Veterans use private health care to get treatment for their service-related injuries. Obama discussed the issue with Veteran's groups, declining to remove the proposal from the table as the veterans groups were pleading for.
Obama attacked two former Presidents and then attacked a large protion of America and said "the jobs have been gone now for 25 years" in a lot of small towns. They fell through the Clinton administration and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate. And they have not." "And," he concluded, "it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
In an attack on Banks,Obama revealed a plan to tax the largest banks in America to recoup up to $120 billion of the bailout money doled out over the past year. Catching banking lobbyists flatfooted, the proposal from out of left field is set to hit Congress next month. Most likely, it will be a tax on profits much like the windfall profits tax bandied about during the oil run-up a couple years ago. Alternately, it could be a tax on the loan activity of the largest banks. At a time when banks are being encouraged to loan money to small business, banks are also being scolded by the President for doing so.
During his campaign, Obama attacked Bill Clinton by noting that America's unfolding credit crisis on the financial deregulation of the 1990s in his hardest hitting attack so far on the economic legacy of Bill Clinton's administration.
* List of Obama attacks painstakingly Compiled by Kim Stallings, Conservative Refocus. This list was a mere pittance from the huge number that Kim actually found.
While many Conservatives and otherwise wondered why the President failed to tackle the question of incivility, partisan attacks, and a general rudeness within the Country's Battleground of Ideas being dishonored, the answer, to us, seemed quite obvious. Obama knowingly risked a severe backlash from both sides by attacking any group simply because, as we have stated many times before, President Obama is the Attacker-In-Chief and has set the tone for the conversation.
The Conscience of A Conservative
So while Krugman witlessly muddled about in his efforts to cast aspersions on the greatest majority of the nation's people, that being Conservative Americans, Krugman leaves out the affirmed leader of the Liberal movement's aggressive angst over the past two years. However, unlike Krugman and a large proportion of his ideological associates, it would be difficult to for me and most Conservatives to lay blame for a madman's attack at Obama's, Krugman's or anyone else's feet, at least with a straight face (or a clear conscience).
This despite the fact that Loughner was described by one friend as a "lonely left-winger." And certainly we should "never mind" that Loughner's favorite books such as "The Communist Manifesto"--a book promoting the extreme Left, "The Republic"--a tome which speaks of "wisened ruler elites" and even "Mein Kampf" which was written by a murderous member of Germany's "National Socialist Party," certainly has nothing to do with the Left now, does it?
Nor does Krugman's urgent response column, which quickly jumped to a murderous Conservative conclusion before any of the facts were available: i.e. the guy was white and he tried to kill a Democrat, Ka-Ching! He simply had to have been a Conservative, Krugman must have thought. However, Krugman's response, along with virtually the entire Mainstream Media's was altogether different between Fort Hood and Tucson. Gee, wonder why? Perhaps it was because the Fort Hood shooter's "exotic" name and identity quickly surfaced and obviously outed the man as a militant Muslim. The refrain then was one of "not rushing to judgement" in order to, no doubt, not upset the standing of the liberal's religious darlings du jour. In fact Krugman, Frank Rich and a number of other liberal opinion-making "elites" reportedly abstained from writing anything for eight entire days with regard to the Fort Hood shooting..."Well, isn't that special?"
Krugman goes on to point out: "the nature of our sickness," which speaks to (non-existent) right-wing calls for violence, unless he is actually referring to both he and his associates' state of mind, which seems infinitely more plausible in this case especially. In fact, Mr. Krugman, the Leftists have been well-documented in a general call to violence as recorded quite ably in Michelle Malkin's recent column, among many, many others. Truthfully, I have often mused that the fun thing about refuting Paul Krugman's ideas is that the act rarely requires copious amounts of "grey matter torque," but rather-- it's more about style and horsepower.
Armed and Dangerous... With Lies and Untruths
At any rate, from here Krugman goes on to detail his nemesis in primacy, Rush Limbaugh, by pointing out "eliminationists rhetoric found within the airwaves" as being what leads to a rising tide of violence. To this we can say that Rush Limbaugh may say and be many things, however the only eliminationist rhetoric he expounds is one of defeating the Left at the ballot box, and it is simply that simple. Krugman then makes what amounted to a severe "journalistically contrived error" by stating: "Rep. Michelle Bachmann urged her constituents to be "armed and dangerous."
In fact, Bachmann has never urged her constituents to be "armed and dangerous," but rather Bachmann was referring to her constituents being "armed and dangerous with the facts," which has even been affirmed by the New York Times editors to the website Newsbusters. Newsbusters officially notified the Times that Krugman had "mis-stated" what Bachmann had said in efforts to "manufacture" violent language from an elected leader of the Right, which prompted the NY Times to respond in an affirmation to the complaint.
Quite frankly, herein lies the rub with both Krugman and the Mainstream Media in general. The only substantive statement of violence, which they can directly refer to among leaders of the Right, has been confirmed by Krugman's NY Times publisher as being a LIE. Further, Krugman can certainly allude to O'Riley, Beck and Rush as being proponents of violence, and yet can offer little if any substantiated facts in that regard unless artfully created via edit.
So, "Where's the link and where's your source material," Mr. Krugman? You speak volumes of mere opinion and yet, unlike within this column, you never seem to back up your assertions. Faith we can believe in, no doubt. And yet, throughout this column and hosts of others, you will find links to verifiable sources peppered throughout. In fact, Krugman provides us with one source link within his article which simply yields up a previous opinion column as if that should be proof enough. No more, Mr. Krugman; your particular game, in that regard, is now up, Sir.
It should also be pointed out that the main title of Krugman's cozy corner at the NY Times, wistfully titled "The Conscience of A Liberal," has literally taken on a whole new meaning to us all after Krugman's "Climate of Hate" column. The word conscience speaking to a specific and existential lack-thereof, and the second title, "Climate of Hate" speaking to a Freudianesque reverse-echo that continually devolves from his own personal environment of rhetorical flatulence--perhaps that's where the sick feeling in the pit of your stomach emanates.
Krugman concludes, by rather piously stating:
"Arizona should promote some real soul-searching, it could prove to be a turning point. If it doesn't, Saturday's atrocity could be just the beginning."
Our response, in turn-about, becomes quite simple: "Indeed Mr. Krugman." Soul-searching is always a good thing; however, we should note that your statement makes the rather bold assumption that the Media has not yet sold its soul, if it ever had one.