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.