Conservative Refocus

By Barry Secrest

Are Columnists Michael Gerson and Paul Krugman twin sons of different mothers?  An even better question:  Is bizarre the new reality in today's political world of half-baked punditry?  At best, is it a requirement to either be a quantifiable nut-case who most recently stated that our $ 14 trillion dollar deficit is not a true concern, despite the fact that we may never be able to balance the blasted thing again, as Mr. Krugman actually stated?  Or, in a hyper-spate of extreme hypocrisy, is it Mr. Gerson's recently lamenting how we Conservatives feel about revolutionary "Democratic" protests in the Mideast--while Gerson essentially stomped  upon and trashed the truly Democratic "Tea Party protests" here within his own country for the past two years?  "What" on God's brown, sun-scorched earth are these guys smoking becomes the penultimate question?

Granted, Michael Gerson does tend to often write half-in and half-out of the shadows as it regards right-wing politics, frequently having the correct ideas but never quite drawing the full and proper conclusions from them.  Meanwhile, Krugman, also an anti-Tea Party zealot, virtually always starts out with fallacious conclusions and then tries to interject factually correct ideas to foment his habitually flawed answers.

It's a fascinating study in cause and effect. Examining how these writers, at the top of their mainstream media professions, make their respective cases, along with how they also endeavor to shape opinion with often perversely flawed perspectives.  Kind of like  Charlie Sheen writing political/cultural opinion--in a jiggly bed--is the rather daunting image that fills the mind's-eye.

Granted, Gerson did write numerous speeches for George W. Bush, and yet, it must also be noted that he, Michael Gerson, wrote  numerous speeches for George W. Bush...

Banging The Liberty Bell Of Freedom--Just For Fun?

But, in Gerson's latest column, "Conservatives shouldn't be so surprised by freedom," he delivers what would amount to a furious metrosexual diatribe, for him, leveled at Conservatives who are cautiously pessimistic about the protests going on in the Mideast.  Now, when I say "for him", I mean to infer that anyone who has read only a few of my "sometimes" caustic columns will generally have not even a tittle of doubt as to exactly where our particular attempt to shape and inform via opinion stands.  Fully in the sunlight, no shadows nor anything even hinting at hesitance.

Just say what you've been thinking, explain your reasoning, and be done with the thing while keeping it snappy to some degree.  Krugman is much the same way sans snappiness, I will admit.  Gerson, however, often appears to be hedging just a bit, but in this specific case, he thoughtfully allows us the understanding that he is not at all happy with those of us Constitutional Conservatives who have yet to loudly bang the liberty bell of freedom for the Mideast, as he is apparently prone to do with far too many events, having made an incrementally irritating career at it, for oh so long.

Gerson, in his column starts out by telling us that our often conservative criticism of the "democratic transformation" that is occurring in the Mideast is, indeed, unfounded.  He further notes that we are rather arrogantly, a word that I have interpreted from Gerson's ill-stimulating ginger tense,  concluding that Democratic success is not possible in a society lacking a Democratic culture.  Interesting conclusion, yet not exactly accurate--at all--with regard to how Conservatives actually feel about the process going on within the Mideast.

To wit, these events, Sir, are not a simple exercise in Democracy breaking out, there will always be far more to this sort of conflagration than the happenstance of every searingly irritated Arab finally settling down to a 'Leave it to Burka-Beaver' existence.  Surely you must know that only a few of these regimes will probably go the way that those of us intimately familiar with liberty, and all of its trappings, know to be best.  Especially for both the world in general and for the down-trodden citizens who began all of this in the first place.

Cross-Dressing, Mini-Revolutions and The Tweet-sie Railroad

In that same vein, further fleshing out my point, perhaps Gerson should find a phonebooth and quick-change into a burka-halter, replete with pom-poms and tennis-pumps and spinningly cheer even more wildly as the increasing  Arab instability spirals US fuel costs expectantly upwards and into the stratosphere of American disappointment.  Perhaps Gerson tools around on a ten-speed much of the time is the rather unremarkable possibility.  While Gerson continually takes stabs at Conservatives, pointing out the myriad problems with all of this wonderful "Democracy" breaking out, he fails to include what it's doing to both the US and its allies.

Currently oil has sizzled upwards to $ 104.00 per barrel and inflation is rocketing food prices upwards from the effects of both world instability and QE2, among a host of other domestic and foreign issues.  Maybe if we can just talk these regimes into toppling themselves at a rate of one per year, things would be so much more stable for us all.  I feel certain that Gerson's eyebrows might have shot up, musefully considering the possibility of that idea, though unremittingly implausible it may be--and so it is with what I am gleaning from Gerson's words up to this point.

Next Gerson points out how a "leaderless revolution is impressive in its own right" with regard to Egypt, to which we would note:  Oh really, Michael?  Most would also refer to the Tea Party protests as a leaderless revolution in which members indicted all of the government overreaching and beyond ridiculous largess.  But in our "American Democratic Tea Party Revolution," Gerson's petulant voice of unenamoured vilification could be heard humming a slightly different, if not off-key tune of dissonance.

Yes indeed, in fact Gerson spent a large part of his time criticizing the Tea Party and talking of how "toxic" it was and how it was bad for the Republicans (see Gerson's "Tea Party Toxic For GOP," 8/25/10).  In fact, Gerson pointed to one of the figureheads of the Tea Party as "a collection of tweets."  Well, Michael, perhaps we should just call our mini-revolution the "Tweet-sie Railroad," because post-election saw the dust clearing on a Republican takeover of most of government, as a result of the Tea Party, AND as having been repeatedly predicted by this column as opposed to your own, kind Sir, for nearly a year prior.

The question as to Gerson's "leaderless revolution" is just that--a question--at this point.  However, eventually revolutions must adopt defacto leaders, and that position generally will go to the most organized of the revolutionaries.  So, hmm... sifting through all of the possibilities, which leaders have emerged thus far?  Mohamad El Baredei is one who stands out.  He is, by the way, a Muslim Brotherhood aficionado.  So whom else?  Well, how about the spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood?

Formerly exiled Egyptian Shaykh Yusef Al-Qaradawi, who could be considered the anti-Limbaugh of liberty, urged the Egyptian revolutionaries to continue their protests and demands until their goals had been fully met, which included all sorts of interesting positions and demands.  Al-Qaradawi is, not surprisingly, also the President of the International Union of Muslim Scholars and is best known for his lectures urging the extermination of the Zionists-- more commonly known as the Jewish people.

Things Could Go Wrong, But Who Cares?

To those individuals, such as Gerson, who consider the arrival on the scene of Al-Qaradawi as "innocent," we then need to look to one of the originators of the Egyptian revolution, that being Wael Ghonim, the Google executive who helped to provide both the voice and the blueprint for the popular uprising.  Ghonim appeared at the victory stage on February 18th, along with Al-Qaradawi, but was prohibited by security from mounting the stage and addressing the Egyptian people, in strict deference to Islamist Al-Qaradawi.  Thus, the young man left the event with an Egyptian flag hiding his face.  Is this the democracy of which Gerson speaks so emphatically?

Gerson does hint, throughout his column, that things could go wrong.  In one instance he states that "it may take time to get the content right."  He also states that "democratic transitions can be difficult," and then further notes, "no good outcome is guaranteed" and that America's founders presided over a system where some humans were owned by others--which was resolved only by a civil war.  But, thoughtful hedging aside, Gerson does think that "the Arab transitions will be better than America's."  Indeed, Mr. Gerson, we can only hope.

But when we look at the struggles housed even within the very same Islamic traditions, whether it be Sunni, Shiite or Wahabisim, among others, never mind the various other religions where we are already seeing religious murders taking place, our cautious optimism is replaced by a certain amount of dogged pessimism based upon an Arab world that often belies American understanding.

We must further note that, even in a Democratic Iraq that was handed a representative democracy nestled upon a silver platter, these same indignant protests are going on there, as well.  Gerson further, and in an unsuspected naivete, indicates that these revolutions were unaided by America, which, according to the UK Telegraph is totally incorrect.  In fact the US conscripted, trained and activated at least one Egyptian agent who helped to eventually bring down the government of Egypt.  This individual was supposedly trained by the State Department.  We are still trying to understand both the  "whys" and the "hows" in which an American Government would seek to topple a regime that represented a linchpin of peace.  Perhaps a question for another time?

But then Gerson gets down to the nitty gritty of his message by seeking to cast aspersions on other Conservatives who choose to look at an Arab world on fire with more of a jaundiced eye than Gerson himself.  In fact, Gerson actually lays into Glenn Beck for "expanding his critique of Islam" utilizing an "exquisite timing" in also bringing up the possibility of a con-joined Caliphate.  Now, maybe Gerson is simply blissfully ignorant of Beck's voice as it has always regarded radical Islam.  However, we should point out to Gerson that Beck has long critiqued Islam to one degree or another, as have any who have even the most remote crumb of discernment skills of  "the predicament we find ourselves in," which Gerson apparently lacks.

To Die For...

Gerson goes on to point out Andrew McCarthy's stance of an Islam that is not now, nor ever will it ever be compatible with Democracy.  Gerson even states that the intensity of McCarthy's view seems to increase as evidence of it contradicted.  McCarthy is a noted expert who has written lengthy studies and books on Islam and actually acted as a US prosecutor against Islamists in US Federal Court.  However, speaking to Gerson's contradiction of McCarthy's evidence, Gerson offers up only rhetoric to support his  leaky argument.

We might suggest that Gerson actually read a few books, or study a bit of history addressing the issue before he expounds upon "facts," which do not exist.  Perhaps Gerson might even check into very recent US Military history in Fort Hood, Texas. Or Gerson could quibblingly limit himself to violent interaction within just America alone to figure out what radical Islam is all about.  I can assure him that US/Islam historical interaction will be ample grounds of evidence in support of McCarthy's views.

In fact, there is a long list of essentially uninterested Mideastern experts who will look you in the eye and swear by all that's holy that Islam cannot reasonably function within a vacuum of Sharia-compliant law.  The religion and its strict fundamentalist traditions and laws bely virtually any attempt at circumnavigating their essence.  Why does not Gerson see that, even here in the secular Democracy that is a liberty-loving America, the problems with Sharia compatibility as it regards Constitutional freedoms has frequently spilled out into the both the public conscience and the court system--even with a meager population of Muslims being 3% at best?

A "Conservative Attack List" From Gerson That Would Make Any Liberal Blush With Pride

Why The Tea Party Is Toxic For The GOP

The Childish Political Thought Of The Tea Party

Christine O'Donnell's Misconceptions Of The Constitution

Tea Party Ideology

Will The Tea Party Shift American Foreign Policy?

Tea Party Complications

The GOP's Sarah Palin Problem

Suffice it to say that, as with the Tea Party in my case, and as with Islam in McCarthy's case, Gerson might do well to listen and heed the experts whenever he might seek to misinform his readers based upon habitually incomplete and often disingenuously contrived knowledge.  Gerson further even points out that, since 9/11, America has found "Muslim allies willing to die at our side in the fight against radical Islam."  Perhaps that is true, and yet we would err if we did not point out that we have found that same shrouded number to the 5th magnitude of "allies" who have also been willing to die at our side after having just killed us.

You see, one of the problems with radical Islam is its willingness to lay down any and all human life in order to honor their beliefs in such a way that any means ultimately justifies the final ends, which is an avowed commitment to the death of all willing infidels.

But Gerson, in another apparent mind-shifting attack upon the misconstructed barricades of metro-sexual madness, then suggests that "Conservatives," just to "demonstrate some connection to reality, should delay their criticisms of Islam's irredeemable violence" until the "peaceful protests in the mideast draw to a close."

So, do you mean like the "reality" in Libya Michael? That particular protest has become a civil war death match, just in case you hadn't noticed. In fact, were we Conservatives to wait until the protests are over to proffer an honest opinion, like say Obama for instance --unless of course it's a sworn ally--we might indeed, be waiting for years, a decade even Mr. Gerson. Or perhaps you, much like your twin from earlier, would simply prefer all of we Conservatives to simply lie down and shut the hell up.

The Flutter-By Effect of Fractionalism

Revolutions are rarely decided in months or even singular years would be our exact point here. Surely you must be aware of that as well Mr. Gerson? If one were to Please note:

The American Revolution did not effectively end until 1783, a span of at least 7 years

The Russian Revolution essentially began in 1905 and through a series of upstarts ended not until 1917

The Chinese Revolution began in 1946 and did not end until 1950

The French Revolution began 1789 and ended in 1799--the total of these instances resulting in the deaths upwards of 50 million people, the blurry line between protests and conflict rarely if ever having been recognized or even accounted for.

Now, forgive me in advance for making the point that Gerson essentially loses his argument on, but the vast amounts of stored energy that both America and the world requires reside right smack in the in the middle of this revolutionary powderkeg that Gerson is all atwitter over.  So now--who--exactly--is living within un-reality along with the "piss on oil" President and a majority of the Senate, with the all-important--neatly creased trousers--becomes the exact question?

Perhaps, as with all Neo-conservatives, or what I would dis-affectionately, but far more accurately, describe as Con-Swervatives, Gerson has resided within the comfy, cushioned cocoon of Con-swervatism for so long that he has now metamorphosed into the flutter-by of fractionalism that we all knew he could and would become. Indeed, the chrysalises of this sad but effective species lie both forlornly vacated and or, meaningfully occupied, throughout the entire inner beltway and beyond. The consummate Con-swervative sounds, often looks and frequently acts like, his ideological brethren, until such time as it is to late to recognize that the damage has been done, and meaningfully so, such as right now, for instance.

We find ourselves lazily reclining in the hole of a $ 15 trillion dollar deficit arguing over pittance, while the world appears to be slowly dissolving all around us.  The fact that those of Gerson's ilk, being the Republicans in name only, having cleaved into the mass of liberal apologists or compassionate conservatives for the sake of good natured media camaraderie, has actually been lost on few if any of us.

The Moderate Quicksand Of Common Ground

While we would certainly expect the liberals and the Democrats in large part to belong to the club of pay now and ask questions later, it is a club of the clueless with members such as Gerson who have swerved into the camp of these spend-feckless types in order to find "common ground," which is better defined as moderate quick sand these days.

When Gerson ends his self-revealing piece, he seemingly allows us to alarmingly glimpse his missing conservative reflection within a mirror of ideological sophistry.  The fabled beings of mythic fiction, always rooted within a semblance of virtual truth to some degree.  That an individual who could coin the term "heroic conservatism" within a book that he penned, then call out American conservatism as racially sipping from an aged-anglo-saxon cellar of private stock, speaks more of a "hemorrhoidic conservatism" that must needs eventually be surgically repaired, no less.

But, yes indeed it is true, only a feckless conswervative Rino could take the true Conservative's colorblind aspect ratio and purloin it into an Anglo-Saxon cellar of private liberty's vintage.  When Gerson speaks to those who would prefer stability over idealism, he admittedly inclines to the wrongful yet again, so why not try that in another way by application of strategic inversion in order to completely understand Gerson's stance:

The words Hope and Change were in need of a stealthily applied makeover, which Gerson has thoughtfully, if not cluelessly, provided when we clarify Gerson's meaning being--Idealism over stability as optimum--which was the essential hue and cry of Obama's campaign--hope and change we can believe in--alas.

"Perhaps it is natural for a revolutionary power to grow old and cautious, producing thinkers who prefer stability to idealism, but it is sad"~ Michael Gerson

Conservative Refocus

Barry Secrest

"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:

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.