A Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy Otherwise Known As The Truth: Rebuttal to Kathleen Parker's "Principled Foolishness"
August 25th, 2011
By Barry Secrest
It is a phenomena that we have both seen and spoken to many times within the past decade, as the media ferociously attacked the previous administration, only to then pull out all of the stops in ferally defending the next. The leftist media have now corralled their "journ-o-list wagons" around the royally radical dunce that is our President, only to erect a vast and effective deflector screen which euphemistically ricochets the incoming truth out in a conflagration of impossible angles and bruising rejoinders.
No ordinary truth deflectors, these Obamatronic media screens allow for certain less-mortal shots to get through so that the illusion remains complete to the populace, but in a visualistic special effects sense, only. Nothing illustrates this illusory phenomena more effectively than Faux-Conservative Kathleen Parker, an opinionated journ-o-list who never met a liberal fact that didn't contain some form of merit that she could then twist around into what she might comically then call "Mainstream Conservatism." Unfortunately, Parker seems to only wear a slightly paler shade of Red October, than her extreme leftist compatriots.
Point in case would be a recent column titled "Principled Foolishness" from Parker, in which she admonishes the Tea Party for acting as "Kidnappers," rather than the Vice-President's likening of the Tea Party as being "Terrorists" in the debt ceiling debacle. So, at this point the Tea Party has sojourned from being racists to becoming kidnappers and now even terrorists according to the once-removed and mostly brainless, cosmetically hair-plugged leader of the free world. What is truly amazing, if not laughable, is that one of Parker's long-stated goals is to "inject some sanity" into a world gone "barking mad." Indeed...I...will... be.... nice here (ahem).
You Can Fool Some Of The People, Some Of The Time....
Now, we both know and understand that Parker, somewhat amusingly, considers herself ever so slightly to the "right of center," but in fact, it would appear that she might be referring to more of, say, a right of center in China, or perhaps even Communist Greece rather than in a truly right of center America. So let's establish one particular truth, just now, that not many have seemed to recognize, but has stood the test of both time and extreme observation. The Tea Party is the Litmus test for ascertaining true Conservatism, even party affiliations aside. So whenever you see anyone espousing dislike or disfavor upon the Tea Party, who might conversely account themselves as Conservative, one of three things is probably happening: (A) They are either fooling themselves, or (B) they are trying to fool you, or perhaps even (C) they are trying to fool both themselves and you.
But there is one particular absolute that cannot be either gainsaid or denied. To say that the Tea Party is kind of Conservative is like saying "that a woman is kind of pregnant. albeit, "absolutes" do exist in this world--like it or not. Parker may hold some few views that dangle loosely to the right of the inner-beltway crowd, but probably not very many, based upon my experience in reading her various columns which account more as diversion entertainment than anything else.
In this particular, rather erratic column, Parker initially states that the Tea Partiers "acted like kidnappers who seize and detain a person (or nation) in exchange for ransom." She then immediately goes on to renege on her entire statement, rather enigmatically, deposing that she was merely "exaggerating for effect" and that it was all "just...annoying." Much like her serenely obnoxious column is already becoming, in fact. To make a statement and then immediately retract it in writing is nothing more than literalistic stuttering, although it probably plays as cute to the mindless elites inside the beltway and within the Washington Post writers group.
Parker then goes on to comically infer that, like V.P. "Plugs" Biden intended, the Tea Party "only acted" like kidnappers," and then further reneges herself, by stating "not that they are." At this point we must stop the entire commentary and calmly inquire as to "What in the hell are you taking Kathleen?" Just drop the crack-pipe and back away from the keyboard, help can be had quite easily in DC, we hear, Camden too, if she dares. So, now that Kathleen has certainly, at this point, convinced us of the fact that either her cycle will begin within the next seven days or that maybe her lithium supply is now flagging , she goes on to then even more euphemistically state that the entire genesis of her column was but an exercise in patronizing the Tea Party so that they might reconsider their child-like efforts. Indeed, that should work....
Undigested Facts Can Cause A "Dummy Ache"
Parker then gets at the heart of her jaded column by criticizing the Tea Party for "standing fast" within their principles during the now confirmed budgetary debacle: "they wouldn't give an inch even if it meant the country catapulted down the abyss and markets were destabilized. It was the principle of the thing, we heard over and over." And here is where Parker both defeats herself and her ideas in earnest, and I have been dying to explain this, so thanks Kathleen. You see, before one can lay absolute blame, one should holographically take in all of the measured facts in a nutshell, rather than relying on the Kool-aid drip-line as administered by the inner beltway talking point spin-doctors. Are not most journalists taught to chew their facts thoroughly before gulping them down, Kathleen?
You see, the first problem with Parker's line of disjointed thinking always leaves out the extraordinarily damning details. Ergo, who and what caused this problem in the first place, Parker? Was it the Tea Party? No, not in existence prior to Obama's quickening. Was it the Republicans? Nope, Obama and the Democrats saw to it that they were locked out of all budgetary debates. Was it Bush? Negative, the mean public debt was at its slightly high, but traditional, level of about $5-6 trillion dollars during Bush's tenure.
Now it's at $ 10 trillion. So, what could have caused these nightmarish budgetary problems? Aha! Only one answer fits, and that is Obama and the Democrats who have been spending nearly twice what they are bringing in. So, now that Obama and the Democrats have spent America into a corner, how do the Republicans extract America out of this quagmire of debt? Well, during a recession, the worst thing that you can do is raise taxes, even the President admits to this; besides, why should the American people be even further punished by something that Obama and the Democrats are redistributively culpable for in the first place?
So here is the line of thinking that actually works--listen closely Kathleen. Despite America's having spiraled deeply enough to where all Americans have extraordinarily pulled back on the spending reins, at the President's initial behest, I might add, Obama and the Democrats have been wildly lashing the beast that is government spending harder and harder, euphemistically riding the revenue beast into the ground,and hard. America's economy is winded, soaked in lather, and about ready to crumple in on itself because of the enormous amount of spending that has been unsupported by revenues, not to mention Obama's mean, anti-capitalistic agenda. Look here, the evidence lies all around us both here and in nation after nation; Keynesian spending in an atmosphere of world economic decline, simply does not work.
In fact,Standard and Poor's made it very clear that we must cut our spending by $ 4 trillion dollars over the next ten years, and we only cut two trillion. We lost our AAA status, and it was because of the compromise of the Democrats and the Republicans outside of the Tea Party. Therefore, the fact is unalterable, that the Tea Party was correct in its stance. Cut more or no deal was the ultimatum which was ignored, and voila', yet another economic tragedy brought on by Obama and the Democrats with just a little help from their friends, some few moderately skeered Republicans. Aside from all of this, no amount of increases in taxation, could come even close to closing the current grand canyon gap between revenues and taxation engineered by the Cloward-Piven Presidency of Obama, and it's simply that simple. Now what part of this, one must ask, is so hard for a bunch of dim-witted Democrats in DC to understand? Or, perhaps I am being redundant in asking that question in the first place.
Of Pandering to Clueless Elites
And yet nowhere within the "supposedly Conservative" Kathleen Parker's column, does she take to task our pin-headed, radical President's lack of leadership, nor the Democrats on this subject. Instead she elects to lambaste the Tea Party for actually being the only sane ones, who knew what was coming, within the inner-beltway crowd. Their plan would have worked, but it was tabled in the Senate. Where might Parker's criticism of this lie? Or is she, yet again, pandering to the inner-beltway types in a displaced missive of elite entertainment rather than truthfully and realistically discerning a political path out of this abyss?
Parker moves on, in her written skit, to then tell us first that "Families don't spend more than they have, the government shouldn't either," while then immediately, once again, reproving herself in the next line that, in fact, "families routinely spend more than they have," and then she states "so does our Government." So, in essence, Parker has made herself a double-speak, journalistic apologist for a wildly out of control US Government in all things while saying essentially nothing, in addition to her duties as a supposed opinion writer of some now questionable degree, apparently. Indeed, I know she won a Pulitzer,and some sort of "H.L. Menses" award for journalism, but for Heaven's sake people, is this bit of tripe that the woman is writing actually leading anywhere at this point?
Well, perhaps, because after all of this getting herself wee-wee'd up over espousing and approving the blighted Obama condition, Parker goes on to surprisingly tell us that "The Tea Party does deserve some credit," after she has pretty much damned the entire Tea Party for taking us one step away from bringing down the world economy, according to her. Now Parker states that the American people, whom she previously criticized for spending more than they make, "deserve credit for insisting that their elected officials act more responsibly. At this point, within her missive, a headache begins to dawn, in trying to navigate this nonsensical beltway blather, because she unremittingly twists logic back around, on itself yet again, by repeating the standard, unoriginal, Democratic talking points about the Tea Party:
- Holding the Nation hostage
- Placing our economy at even greater risk
- Extracting promises while threatening to allow Government default
- Blaming the Tea Party for causing the debate, which caused the problems, that will be far-reaching
- For, once again, acting like hostage-takers
All obvious paragraphical redundancies aside, Parker then, pushing the needle into the red on hormonal rage at this point, quotes some foreign-sounding nincompoop at the Wall Street Journal, who probably also won a "Pullet Prize," in managing to type "You just don't push the world's largest economy and the most liquid financial markets to the brink of damage without causing some damage somewhere." Indeed, and while this obvious pinhead is targeting the Tea Party, he or she is at once and for all, along with Parker, leaving out the real culprit by which those words should be ascribed, that being Manchurian Candidate Barack Hussein Obama, who authored our AAA demise in the first place. You see, here's the problem: Obama was no less culpable in his demands than were the Tea Party or even the Republican Party,and certainly the Democrats, were in theirs.
Faulty Solutions Begin With An Illogical Premise
Why, for Heaven's sake, is this "Takes Two To Tango" premise so difficult for these supposedly brilliant people to see? The Republicans were actually compromising with themselves the entire time, as no Democrat in Washington was actually willing to put a workable plan on the table.
Within the stated disagreement, the question was initially about increasing the debt ceiling when it has been proven nearly impossible for us to pay the balance that we Americans already owe, in the first place. So, they desire to push it even higher, and not consider alternatives? I would submit that it was Obama who failed to compromise, and it was his failure at leadership which led us to lose our bond rating status. Obama is the President, after all, and the one who is supposed to lead. But this fact always tends to get lost when in the clutches of a fawningly discombobulated propaganda inspired media.
Parker goes on to neurotically then wonder what the Tea Party will require at the next spending juncture, when she should be inquiring how the President will now rein in his outrageous spending. But she doesn't, of course go there, and she somehow fails to critically divine that she has succumbed to ideas already proven both terribly wrong and misguided, if not misleading in virtually every way that we desire to see them. The Tea Party's impetus is nothing more than a vast right-wing conspiracy that uncovers a now buried set of truths, that the Liberals keep trying to bury deeper.
So, once again and like a poor, poor marksman, Parker continually misses the target, with a consistently shaky aim and an even more erratic grasp of truly critical thinking skills. Parker goes on to laughably state that the conservative view, with which she agrees, is that "confidence is crucial to growth and stability," and she, at this one point within her column, is finally, if not tragically, correct and incorrect at the same time, because the one man in charge who has inspired the least amount of confidence in the last 30 years, is indeed, Barack Obama, not the Tea Party, for Heaven's sake. So once again, Parker makes a quasi-conservative statement, but actually attacks the Conservatives who are trying to achieve this end rather than the ones who have caused the instability and the upheaval in the first place, being the President and the Democrats
Parker hits us with one more point that almost defies ridicule--and sparked this rebuttal in the first place--when she states the following:
"Holding fast to a principle that undermines your own objectives, doesn't make you a terrorist or a kidnapper, but it might mean you're doing a darned good imitation of a foolish person."
To this we can only say, "don't be so hard on yourself Kathleen; you will probably come around at some point, but we won't hold our breathe."
You see, as we have seen time and time again from a large number of journalists and opinionists and even Independents who might say that they are largely of the Center, there is one point that now stands out as irrefutable:
A consummate truth; there are no true centrists within the political equation, one may either break to the right or fall to the left, but no one can rightfully claim the Center as their own, the arguments consistently proffered will always define a systemic leaning.
The Center, being the mathematical equivalent of nothing or zero, is impossible for any person to attain, and so it is with Parker, whose entire body of work paints her solidly within the camp of the non-radical Liberals.
So, say "Hi" to your new friends of old for me Kathleen, and happy to be of service.
Read More On This Subject from Barry Secrest
Debtor Nation: When A Ponderous Anger Turns To Indomitable Fury »
The Politics of Expediancy: Lost In Translation »