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 »
August 1st, 2011
By Barry Secrest
The hypocrisy has been beyond maddening, the rhetoric embarrassingly dramatic, and the warped Statist stupidity teetering on a par with what one might typically find in any Gilligan's Island episode. All the while, in the background static, the Democratic mantra of Statism echoes insanely both in our minds and the economic devastation we increasingly see unfolding all around us. "More, More, More...how do you like it, how do you like it, More, More, More, How do you like it, how do you like it?"....the syrupy tune of collectivism, like a breathy Homeric siren song, magnetically luring America's increasingly befuddled economic navigators closer and closer to the treacherous shoals of default and the lengthening shadow of nationalized poverty.
So, How do we like the Statist's love? Um, not so very much, it turns out, as much of a formerly honeymooning America has now whiffed the smelling salts of Obama's rather extreme form of perverted change. Being jolted into wakefulness by the sharp sensations of unfamiliar pain emanating from our collectively violated rear ends was not exactly what America had in mind in 2008. But, while well better than half of all Americans look on in a growing cloud of disbelieving anxiety, a smaller clique sitting in extreme left-stadium can be heard cheering the leering insanity onward, as if some great and honorific good will eventually be hatched from the noxious excrement of Socialism's detritus. In that vein, the Liberal Media's leaders, seeing their final opportunities undergoing severe implosion, have charged in to rescue their near-panicked, torporific man-child's impending deal with America's ultimate defeat.
Liberal potentate Paul Krugman, after a long hiatus in wonk land, has finally gone on the attack, and in my most favorite of all provinces, the battleground of ideas. To begin, Krugman lays forth with the following in his recent article Getting To Crazy:
"There aren't many positive aspects to the looming possibility of a U.S. debt default. But there has been an element of comic relief - of the black-humor variety - in the spectacle of so many people who have been in denial suddenly waking up and smelling the crazy."
The truly odd, if not comical element, with regard to this loopy paragraph, is that Krugman is referring to GOP craziness rather than to the Obama Spendocrat's complete insanity. Now, first we must point out to Krugman that, despite his mythical illusory economic prowess, there are in fact absolutely "NO" positive aspects to a US default, except of course to the President, who has seemingly been aiming at default from the start. Perhaps this is what Krugman means when he states "aren't many" instead of using the words "are none." An odd choice of words for a supposedly learned economist, to be sure. But then Krugman goes on to point out the mental state of his disillusioned sanitarium compatriots by noting, "a number of commentators seem shocked at how unreasonable Republicans are being. 'Has the GOP gone insane?' they ask."
To this we would simply remark that these must be the same commentators who have cheered the devastation of a mired economy, the incessant ticker tape parade of foodstamps generously showering down on a disheartened populace, and the continuing spiral of US industry, as if a stealth recovery of epic proportions has somehow been underway ever since the oceans receded during Obama's inauguration ceremony.
The Fourth Estate Versus We The People
The media is now clearly, if not unabashedly, within the President's red corner. These Mainstream Media match coaches provide a quick stool, a dash of refreshing unholy water blessed by none other than Karl Marx himself, and a decidedly unlearned bit of quick fighting advice each time the Bamster finishes a bruisingly brutal round against the American people. Consistently urged on with dreadfully tacky slogans and expletive-laden rejoinders to hasten the Economic Mangler back up into the fight every time the President staggers back to his copiously padded turnstile for a breather.
"it's the culmination of a process that has been going on for decades. Anyone surprised by the extremism now on display either hasn't been paying attention, or has been deliberately turning a blind eye."
Now, the extremism to which Krugman rather sophomorically refers with regard to the GOP, can be seen as none other than deft pragmatism in the face of left-wing, debt-defying, cluelessness. When we , in fact, have ratings agencies the world over stating that the US must see a $ 4 trillion dollar draw down of its national debt over the next three years in order to avoid a disastrous downgrade from AAA status for the first time in the nation's history. This downgrade, which will occur no further than three months from July of 2011, is not subject to either Krugman's lagging sanity nor his bloviated opinions. When Krugman speaks to some brand of madness and extremism within the GOP, he is disingenuously deflecting from the true left-wing government extremism that has clamped down on the nose of the wildly struggling bull market and refuses to turn lose.
This Statist extremism has taken over industry after industry, shackled the mortgage lending and college loan providers in government's musty dungeons, and even chained the entire marketplace to a now daunting Statist bible of regulations. All of this even while encapsulating our entire medical industry within a padded cell of government dysfunction, while also short-circuiting all forms of viable energy production pursuits. Is it not truly amazing, if not awe-inspiring, that a punch-drunk America still stands, bruised and battered, but gamefully swaying on its feet?
Quantifying And Scoring Insanity
So, is this 'double-our-income' spending madness not the true insanity of expressiveness? Or, perhaps Krugman would, once again, care to piously whine for yet another round of disastrous stimulus that would really set the world's financial rating agencies to raging. Krugman goes on to remark that Obama has used the newly dreaded words, "Now let me be clear," which, in Obamacode, actually means, "Now, get ready for some extreme bullshit" when Krugman states that the President indicated his undying willingness with regard to the following:
- Obama intends "to sign on to a deficit-reduction deal that consists overwhelmingly of spending cuts"
As of yet, totally unenumerated by his highness, the Emperor of All Ills, we must point out...along with the CBO, which recently refuted a concerned budgetary congressional commission on Obama's veracity, with the words "we cannot score a speech." Krugman also indicates the following:
- Obama intends to "Include draconian cuts in key social programs, up to and including a rise in the age of Medicare eligibility."
A horridly long list of two give-ups, to be sure, by the Messianic man-child, no doubt, these such cuts to exclude inner-city dwellers of the Democratic Party, Union members, cooperative flash rioters, SEIU club-thugs, and of course anyone employed within the national education system. Last but not least, the unincluded will by rote encompass any and all blue states granted an Obama 'Draconian Cut Waiver Card,' eh Mr. Krugman? Point being, we are not completely vapid, we Right-Wingers, and we do indeed learn pretty fast, although being not nearly as slick as our Democratic opposites, as a whole. Further, we are now fully cognizant of most of the contents held within the Manual of Democratic Demagoguery. No, and thanks, being the appropriate response to disingenuous promises (delivered in falsetto panic) of which the President blithely noted the following in this particularly glaring quote:
"I expect to be judged by the promises I kept, not the promises that I made"
To be sure, Obama will indeed be judged--albeit Carter-esquely--to be even more sure, welcome back's are in order, by the way. But then Krugman points out that The New York Times has stated that "the president has offered deals that are far to the right of what the average U.S. voter prefers - in fact, if anything, they're a bit to the right of what the average Republican voter prefers!" Smooth in principle but erroneous in fact. The NY Time's has obviously been "peering at the people's mirror" would be the reverse-image rejoinder here, as if the New York Times has even a tittle of understanding as to what most normal Americans desire. You see, the radical President's so-called deals are subject to the copiously cunning Senate Left-Wingers who sent the President back into the fray demanding nothing less than a $ 1.2 trillion dollar increase, which would equate to wildly left-of-center at this point in the game, and by the way, also sent Speaker Boehner packing in total disgust out of the talks, to his credit.
Shellacking The Gluttons
The interesting thing, within all of these debates, is the simple fact that the President is employing certifiable brinksmanship into a problem that he himself authored in the liberal Democrat's unchained melody of beyond- reckless spending in the first place. Now he is trying to add more taxes into the mix, during a recession, while promising to draw down no more than $ 4 trillion dollars over 10 years. We should also bear in mind the fact that the President has stated, not once but at least twice, that "raising taxes during a recession is not a good idea." However, this fact pales in comparison when we note that we are currently spending approximately $ 1.6 trillion more than we are bringing in on an annual basis, making the overall over-spending amount, over a 10 year span, contrived to a cool $ 16 trillion per decade in additional national debt.
If we stick to the typical Obama-White House inspired dieting plan that we have previously seen, thanks also to Michelle, we will still be increasing our debt by over $ 12 trillion dollars in ten years, in addition to the current $ 14.5 trillion dollar national debt figure that we currently hold. The question, therefore, then becomes, "how is this helping the problem?" The painfully obvious answer being, "it's actually worsening the problem," and therein lies the mother of all rubs.
Truthfully, We The People spoke very, very, loudly in 2010, and even the President noted that the Democrats were subjected to an electoral "shellacking." The point we should bear in mind is what the President actually stated after his victory in 2008, and during the rancorous stimulus debate--that being:
The inverse need not apply, one would suppose, at least not in the disingenuous world of the Demagogic party. But then Krugman sees fit to deluge us with a complete collection of unoriginal Democratic talking points, as follows:
- Republicans are threatening to force a U.S. default.
- Republicans are trying to create an economic crisis.
- This was entirely predictable.
- The modern GOP does not accept the legitimacy of a Democratic presidency.
- Republicans are automatically against anything the President wants.
- Republican Mitt Romney's health care plan became a tyrannical assault on U.S. freedom when applied to the Federal Government and lovingly administered by Obama.
Now, the main point here being, when reading the above list, is that it becomes painfully obvious that Krugman must have either received the talking points from one of his eternally prepubescent metrosexual liberal admirers, or perhaps even a panicked Atlanta schoolteacher who scored extraordinarily low on the critical thinking curve, such is the dramatically unoriginal, if not contrived, content. Krugman goes on to make the rather intellectually challenged point that if any Republican President had managed the same things that Obama is offering, it would have been a Conservative triumph, but since these are from a Democratic President, it is but a plan to tax the life out of the US economy.
To which we point out two things, the first being that Conservatism as a whole has undergone an excruciating makeover since the latter days of Bush, much to Krugman's regretful chagrin, because we have gained leaps and bounds of formidable knowledge since that time. Point number two would be that we Conservatives could say much the same thing about the Democrats, especially noting the ironic facts of the last several Bush debt ceiling increase debates. In those particular contests, we quite unremarkably will find that each Senate Democrat currently in office that is voting for the debt ceiling increase now, including Obama, voted against the raising of the debt ceiling in 2006. In 2007, it was more or less much of the same, Democrats telling us how irresponsible it all was, "a failure of leadership," to quote Obama.
It was under a Republican president, that the Democrats railed against raising the ceiling, only to now tell us how utterly responsible it is--if not a life and death situation--now--when the debate falls under a Democratic President. Now one can say that the reverse could also be true, however, remember the word proudly emblazoned across the top of this website. Not so with the Conservatives and this is a major area where Republicans and Conservatives are at odds oftentimes.
The Democrats Deep Doodoo Economic Plan
Krugman then repeats his oft-heard mantra, "voodoo economics has taken over the GOP." Indeed, it should be noted that most critically thinking individuals will take what Krugman calls voodoo economics over the Democrats' "Deep Doo-Doo economics" any day of the week, and even on the planet Venus where one day lasts almost 3/4ths of a year here on earth. Krugman then stumbles into making the fatally amusing comment that seals the fate of his consistently in error column, completely and in finality, when he states that the Reagan era, Laffer Curve, principles of the Bush tax cuts did not result in increased revenue, but rather reduced revenues into the Government. Below is a chart from the US Office of Management and Budget, read it and weep Paul:
In the above tax revenue chart from the OMB, please take careful note of the years beginning in 2003 and on through 2008. The Bush tax cuts began in 2001 and were completely in place in 2003. From 2003 and onward, one can clearly note a dramatic increase in yearly revenues right up until 2008 when the financial meltdown occurred. In fact, in the years between 2004 and 2008, income revenues actually increased by over a half a trillion dollars. You might also note how remarkably revenues declined from Krugman's Keynesian spending exercises after 2008 and beyond. So, if this is what Krugman refers to as craziness, then we obviously need much, much more of it, bearing in mind that craziness from the Right works remarkably more effectively than the now lamentable zaniness from the Left.
Which then brings Krugman "to the culpability of those who are only now facing up to the GOP's craziness." Krugman ends with the following:
Those within the GOP who had misgivings about the embrace of tax-cut fanaticism might have made a stronger stand if there had been any indication that such fanaticism came with a price, if outsiders had been willing to condemn those who took irresponsible positions.
But there has been no such price. George W. Bush squandered the surplus of the late Clinton years, yet prominent pundits pretend that the two parties share equal blame for our debt problems. So there has been no pressure on the GOP to show any kind of responsibility, or even rationality - and sure enough, it has gone off the deep end. If you're surprised, that means that you were part of the problem.
Where, oh where, has your litle brain gone, dear, dear Mr. Krugman. If we replace the words GOP in your last few paragraphs of your article, at least within its final death throes, it would finally bear some mere pittance to a resolute accuracy. In fact, we need only look at the the tremendous amounts of spending and the fact that we are now in quite a fix indeed, under Obama, and under Krugman's failed Keynesian policies with our AAA rating teetering.
The entire world is now close to seeing America as a veritable has-been in only three very long ,short years, and you, Paul Krugman, somehow blowing within the vast empty chasms of your mind, can actually come to the conclusion that George W. Bush and the Republicans are the authors of this Pandora's box of mayhem. The Democrats have been in full charge for over two years. A Democratic Congress, having been in control even longer, extends those two years to over four years. You know better, Sir, and yet you persist in your illusions.
Krugman's article, as with most members of the Axis Press, seeks to deflect the stunningly obvious facts with the artifice of smoke, mirrors, and extraordinarily contrived demagoguery. Unfortunately for the entire Left-wing, the game is up and the collective gentle giant that is the American people has been startled into a terrible brand of wide-eyed wakefulness and indomitable willfulness, a state of being not entirely seen since World War Two.
And we all know how that ended.
June 21st, 2011
You know that things for the Progressive-Liberals are not going so terribly well when the cream of the Liberal crop begin to retract their fatally flawed ideological ideas back into their respective shells much like a turtle under grave duress. Yet this retreat appears to be the latest phenomena with regard to the art of the Conservative refutation. One of the reasons that we began running regular rebuttal pieces was actually based on a lifetime of personal experience. You certainly know the feeling: Minding your own business, meandering through your favorite newspaper when you finally make it to the Opinion section.
Can you make it out alive, often becomes the penultimate question once you began reading.
By the time you've struggled your way through the various Leftist opinions, your eyes are bulging, spittle flying from your lips as oaths seep out, nostrils a-flare in exaggerated irritation. Anyone unlucky enough to be around at the time begins to worry about your obvious blood pressure spike and your mysterious but sudden lack of emotional control. This was the thing that we sought to remedy, in part, by highlighting and refuting Leftist cupidity for what it is, and by golly it seemed to work, well...at least until recently.
You see, the collective targets of our past rebuttals, which have seen a fairly rapid rise in readership over time, have been mystifyingly dry as of late, and this is not due to any of our own editorial designs. The problem, be it good or bad, is one of not exactly being in a "target rich environment" of late. We had previously sought to directly challenge and address gaudily prominent Liberal misinformation on a fairly consistent basis in the form of a salty refutation. Lately, however, we have had precious little to work with. So, at some point, we simply must begin to wonder what exactly is up?
Desperately Seeking Superfluous
From 2008 through 2010, one could throw a stick in virtually any direction and hit any number of beyond ridiculous opinions perpetrated by the Mainstream Media's Leftist Columnists, an undeniable fact it was.
Truthfully, I can remember, over the past several weeks, actually feeling the need for drawing a bead and to serve it up both coldly and in belligerent earnest. I found myself actually traveling from one prominent columnist's site to another to see what sort of drivel they were spewing, but what I found of late is more of a trickle than a gush, which sets my eyebrows to stitching in consternation. Normally, these left-leaning columns were so flagrant and disingenuous that one had to figuratively hold one's nose in a death pinch just to get through the blasted things without literally gagging on the bile of Obama beatification, if not far, far worse.
But the Liberal manifestos of only a short while ago are not nearly so prolific by the major players, it now seems. So, as a former Alaska Governor, and a personal favorite of mine, is often fond of saying, "how's that hopey-changey thing working out for you now" Lefties? Hearty Condolences must be in order, one should think.
Oh, don't get me wrong, these Leftward Leaning Opinionists are still up to their traditional nonsense, albeit just not quite so...confidently...now, and with far less proliferation, it would seem, and yet who can blame them, all things being equal? Their agenda has fallen and it just can't seem to get up under the prescription of their champion, the One and Only, the Mortal Messiah, and the never-wrong but often misunderstood, Supreme Leader Obama.
I can recall recently reading a Leonard Pitts column on the Washington DC police who were brutally arresting people for "heinously" dancing at the Thomas Jefferson Memorial. "Oh this should be good," I initially thought. As it turns out, I could have actually written Pitts' column myself, such was the stunning lack of Liberal angst. Good ole' Paul Krugman was next; surely he would having something juicy to strike at. Alas, not so much. Krugman still wants more government stimulus and stubbornly sticks to the wonkish side of things lately, the stimulus being an argument that has been rejected as fictional way back towards the end of 2009, which we have proven ourselves to be unarguably correct time and time again. So what's the point in beating that dead horse?
EJ Dionne. Some material there, but not enough to sew together a decent rebuttal. Thomas J. Friedman, still smarting over the Arab Spring that has turned into an Islamic fascist movement--that he and many others were calling a "flowering democracy movement" only months earlier. Um...we held the shockingly correct and differing opinion there as well, as opposed to you, Sir Thomas, it should have been Arab Scream not Spring. Michael Gerson, seemingly staying out of the Conservative line of fire as of late, also wrong on the Arab Spring, by the way, Bravo Michael, Bravo! Ellen Goodman: Well, she retired back in 2009, only two weeks after we made her stand in front of the class with her cute little Leftist nose snuggled up against the chalkboard. Did we do that? Nah, she wrote a ridiculous piece and we called her out on it among a number of others, but ours seemed to get top billing in the search strings.
Ruth Marcus, being one of the more intellectually honest ones, which really isn't saying much, and a large number of others, are all writing uncharacteristically cautiously, it would seem. So have they moderated, one might inquire? No, would be the answer, they have simply been repeatedly proven wrong in virtually every Liberal agenda that they have endorsed over the past several years. So what's any semi-thinking Leftist with a career to think about actually do? Proceed Conservatively? Indeed!
They appear to be finally learning, but only for now.
As with all things truly Liberal, sometimes a catalyst is needed in order to smoke the Leftistly wayward out in full, and who better to do that than the lovely and talented Sarah Palin. When Palin embarked on her "One Nation" tour, not even we Conservatives could ever have dreamed of the angst it would cause the Axis Press and their Liberal Acolytes, the Mainstream Columnists. And at the forefront of this plague of left-wing blow-hards was none other than the ever-so-cunning Dana Milbank. Milbank, to me, often seems to operate much like an ideological chameleon, similar to Gerson, in fact. While it is painfully obvious to the true Conservatives both who and what Milbank ascribes to be, he has a way of writing that often leaves many in doubt.
So bad had it become, at one point, that upon seeing search string after search string pop up in our site analytics, asking the question is "Dana Milbank a Liberal?" I decided to write a quick report answering this question and did so with facts which emanated from none other than Milbank himself. Sometimes, one need only look at that which a subjective writer is constantly attacking in order to understand what, precisely, their ideology is made up of. Milbank, historically, has made a lucrative career of always going after the Conservatives and attacking the most vibrant personalities rather than their ideas, in case you hadn't noticed.
Understanding The Smallish Minded
In that vein, it was Eleanor Roosevelt who stated that "great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events and small minds discuss people." This is often why so many confuse the nature of Milbank who seems constantly preoccupied with the who rather than the what. He often refers to both the Liberals and the Conservatives as if they are each apart from him, but the Liberals certainly are not, and no one should be fooled by this ploy be it purposeful or otherwise. This is why so many have asked the question: "Will the real Dana Milbank please stand up?"
Ah! There he is now, he appears to be saying something and gesticulating madly...what's that? Oh, a Tour De Farce? Who? Oh, Sarah Palin got you down again, Dana? Well, you think you're angry now, Milbank, just wait until she's President. Talk about payback.
Milbank, it would seem, has something mean and nasty to say about Sarah Palin in volumes, and we are not surprised in the least. Milbank has taken issue with Govenor Palin and her "One Nation" tour, and he appears to be first at issue with Palin's two stopping points of choice: Fox News and Donald Trump. Indeed, Dana, you silly man, would you have expected her to visit with the New York Times and George Soros first? Not so terribly sure that she would have been well-received by either of those, as Milbank must have somehow gathered by now. Milbank also takes issue with the three foot letters of Sarah's name emblazoned on her bus and the fact that she appears to be seeking publicity.
Understanding The Largish Minded
Milbank, in a cloud of confusion, still doesn't seem to understand what Palin is doing. In fact, Milbank's entire column focuses on Palin's mad publicity tour because she doesn't appear to be running. So here it becomes necessary to clue Milbank and perhaps a few others in on what is actually happening with Palin, and I am glad to be the one to do it. Palin is not doing this for her looks; she is well-endowed in that respect. Sarah is not doing this for publicity; all she has to do is tweet her whereabouts to get tons of that. So listen carefully and learn: Palin is conducting an exploratory campaign to see how much money her SarahPAC can garner, along with how much presidential publicity she can access, along with understanding how popular her showing is to the people of the United States. It's simply that simple, and it is a brilliant way to preliminarily run without actually running. She is reserving the right to make that decision in what we could call a grand experiment.
Got it? Sheez, what a bunch of amateurs working at the Washington Post.
She is actually probing around, quite brilliantly, in order to ascertain if she has a meaningful chance at success at the Presidency. We do understand that Milbank doesn't understand this type of tactic, and yet we thought it should be painfully clear to those who keep their noses mired in politics. It's not about popularity at all Milbank, it's about being President, and if the Socialist Obama could do it, then...well, you know.
But to this we should also remind Milbank that, unlike the two of us, Palin is what is commonly referred to as a Celebrity, and she makes gazillions just by appearing; the only difference being that this fact doesn't bother me, or Conservatives in general, in the least, as opposed to Milbank and his brethren. In fact, MSNBC's Charlie Cook actually stated that "Palin won't run, she's making more money now than God ever intended her to make." Indeed that's true, but Cook's and Milbank's version of God in the form of the Obama Administration may have something to say about that, perhaps sooner rather than later, if they have their way.
An Illogical Premise
Milbank goes on to make what must be one of the strangest and gaudiest of comparisons yet when he wheels out none other than Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who has fittingly had enough of the Obama Administration. Milbank goes on to slather the praise on Gates while somehow drawing comparisons to Palin's tour and denigrating Palin at the same time. The comparison it must be noted,while creative, simply doesn't pass the smell test, a thing that has probably plagued Milbank for much of his life. Comparing Sarah Palin to Robert Gates is like comparing an Air Force One to the Capital building and oohing and awing over the marked differences between the two. An exercise in protracted buffoonery at best.
Milbank, in one stretch, remarks on how Palin is playing cat and mouse on Interstate 95 with the Axis Press while Gates is touring Asia and Europe. Should we mention the fact that Palin's tour is costing the American people nothing but a large number of the patriotic outbursts that Milbank despises? Should we also point out that a more accurate comparison might involve how much the Axis Press earns from either of the two when we compare reader draws between Gates and Palin? In fact, a media search string with the name Robert Gates yields a healthy 15.8 million Google responses, while Sarah Palin's Google response yields an astounding 81.8 million hits, and she's not even employed by the Government.
At least now we can begin to understand why the media is stalking Sarah. It's not because they hate her so much, but rather it's how they ingratiatingly use Palin to sell print for themselves while at the same time incessantly vilifying her--anteing up the pot in the process. So please don't talk to us anymore about how noble yours and the media's aims are when we can all clearly see what your efforts are actually about, Milbank.
But Milbank persists in the illusory comparison by noting how Gates agreed to stay on and work towards Obama's Authoritarian schemes and anti-constitutional war aspirations, while Palin chose to quit as Governor. It has become common knowledge that the reason that Palin quit, after her run for the Vice-Presidency, was due to the constant flow of harassment lawsuits which were being brought against her as Alaska's Governor by the Progressives. Palin is not even close to being a dummy, and she chose to quit rather than to spend the rest of her term defending herself as Governor in a court of law. No one liked her decision, but most of us could at least understand it, as evidenced by the recent release of her Alaskan emails. Milbanks own paper, the Washington Post, along with the New York Times, among others, actually invited readers to log in and help peruse the Palin emails for damaging facts which could then be forwarded to the attention of the editors.
These facts would then be used to excoriate Palin and vilify her in public. But where is the same journalistic professionalism in efforts against a Government that increasingly seeks to control and alter those same Citizen's lives? Or is it that the Washington Post has become the journalistic equivalent of TMZ? You see, Milbanks says himself that Palin is nothing more than a celebrity. If that be the case, then why the constant efforts to destroy her, Sir, and I use that term euphemistically. It would appear that Milbank might wish to move closer to Hollywood and further away from the Inner-Beltway, his muckraking talents clearly belonging more in the vein of Celebrity Deathwatch than pretending to pursue Watergate-types of Government excess.
Milbank goes on to establish and typify a non-existent dueling Gates-Palin tour and states that it shows the best and the worst in American public life, noting that Gates exemplifies the best tradition of service while Palin is a study in selfishness. Here we must stop and pointedly inquire if Milbank or Gates, either one, performs their selfless tasks for free? Do either of these men skulk away from the limelight when proffered the opportunity? If the answer is no, then Milbank has once again played the ever-present Liberal Hypocrisy Card that Progressives love to throw out and--once again--we are not at all surprised.
We are all then treated to a litany of rantish adverbs from Milbank which include "self-aggrandizing For Palin, self-effacing for Gates, self-harmonized for Obama foreign policy, bulls-eyes for Palin and even blood libel for Palin as well." At this point, however, it becomes necessary to pause and say "wait just a minute Milbank."
Did you just say "Gates produced a self-harmonized American foreign policy?" The Mideast lies on fire and is in tatters, we are on the outs with virtually every nation we have contact with to include Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Turkey, Israel, Egypt, Syria, Libya, Iran et al; can Milbank actually produce a fact that is not contra-indicated by the actual evidence? The simple truth is that Gates had nothing to do with either the failure or the success of foreign policy, per se. That role lies with both the State Department and the Obama Administration; to wit, things are not looking so very well in that regard, not even with Israel our strongest ally, for Heaven's sake. Next Milbank calls out virtually every individual within public service stating essentially that, if they do not wish to go home, then something is wrong with them, oddly allowing that "Gates heroically wants to go home while Palin may selfishly want to run for President."
Um...huh? The last we heard, Obama was seeking a second term, Dana; shall you vilify him as well for not wishing to depart for home, or perhaps Milbank has stumbled into a Tea Party-like anti-incumbent angst. If that be the case, then we are really surprised. It would be the first time Milbank actually identified with the Tea Party in at least one respect but he actually doesn't. Unfortunately, at this point Milbank begins to lose his grip on mental lucidity as his column moves out into the fringe of Leftist politics. Milbank perfunctorily begins to elucidate Palin's highly-successful resume' of very recent accomplishments, as if they were somehow a horrid crime against political nature:
- Palin's TLC Show--Stunning ratings
- Bristol's Dancing With The Stars Appearance--Stunning Ratings
- Palin's stoking the Birther Conspiracy, causing Obama to produce a possible forgery
- Palin's utilizing Lear 60 or larger private jets (Pelosi still has her beat there)
- Sarah's wildy popular Rolling Thunder appearance--Massive draw
- The crowd-drawing "Pizza With Trump" episode--Media makes wads of cash on story
- The flattering new movie about Palin--results to be seen
- The onslaught of TV news choppers at every event--a veritable Superstar
- The successful SarahPAC funding effort
Then Milbank moves into a list of Gates' seeming accomplishments, which would seem to simply go along with the job that Gates was hired to do. Signing death letters and admitting that we were in trouble in Iraq, along with banning a standing gag order of our returning dead, are things that Milbank finds to be beyond-stunning accomplishments. Doesn't take much to impress Milbank, would be our response. Gates did do a number of things that were great, but Gates, we would have to point out, faltered mightily in other areas, as well. But what could one expect under a President who loves to loathe the US military while using them profligately to meet his own aims.
Meet Milbank's Personal Hero: "Moi"
At this point, however, we must point out a quote from Gates in which he also euphemistically stated the following:
Pshh! Don't anyone tell Dana about this, he will be furious if he finds out after writing his poorly executed piece.
Milbank goes on to speak to Gates' frankness on many subjects, while even crowing about Gates disagreeing with Obama on his attack of Libya. Wow, he actually disagreed with Obama, and this makes Milbank admiring of Gates? Then I must be a super hero in Milbank's eyes in that respect, because I disagree with Obama on virtually everything. But that's OK, Dana, you need not write an entire column about me with a comparison to Mahatma Gandhi, although that might make infinitely more sense than the one that you just wrote.
Milbank then ends his column with a bit of wishful thinking, in hoping that Sarah Palin might consider emulating Robert Gates' recent quote in which he stated, "The best thing that I could do when I get out of here, for at least some period of time, is keep my mouth shut."
So Milbank wishes Palin to keep her mouth shut, to include every other Conservative in America, no doubt. However, we must point out that we hope Dana Milbank continues his ridiculous comparisons and Liberal politics of individual persecution for at least a little while longer.
I mean, where else will we find any useful material for our rebuttals?