I can't be gold AND a fool. If a fool, not gold. If gold, it's
because I can't be fooled.
That's the position I'm taking. Almost nobody understands what's
going on right now. I do.
The dissenters, the patriots if you will, are mistaken in thinking
the libs are executing an issue-oriented political agenda. They're
not. They're carrying out a successful coup against the
constitution. Sure they've chosen some constitutional hot buttons to
drive the conflict, but they don't really care about any of those
buttons. They'd pick other ones if they thought they'd accomplish
the same objective. The only thing they care about is destroying the
credibility and power of their opposition.
The original American Revolution was a 30-30-30 proposition, equally
divided among rebels, Tories, and no strong opinion either way. (The
other 10 percent were moonshiner hill people.) The same math holds
true now. The ascendant Libs are 30 and so are the Rebs. You don't
have to be in the majority to win. You just have to be smarter.
Unfortunately, they are
smarter. Or at least cannier about politics. They have understood
the age of mass media better than their opposition. They have
understood that mass media credibility is not about anything as
quaint as the First Amendment but celebrity instead. Not logic but
rhetoric. Not facts but dramatic gestures. Not morality but sob
stories. Not careful argumentation but repetition. And repetition.
What's happening right now is not the complex chess game of a
divided congress grappling with huge problems of national moment.
It's a blitzkrieg designed to eliminate forever the credibility of
those who cling to traditional American values.
Let me repeat. Power. Play. They are demonstrating that they can demonize anyone who stands in
their way for any reason and make it stick. They don't give
a rat's ass about gun control. Think about it. Assault rifles in
your family room and backwoods militia groups with delusions of
sedition? Really? The federal government has the U.S. Air Force, the
Marine Corps, umpteen cavalry divisions of the U.S Army, and a fleet
of intelligent, heavily armed, unmanned drones. They're worried
about Doomsday Preppers with stale MREs and hollow point bullets?
Give me a break. The current legislative push for more gun control
is nothing but an extended raspberry to those who still think they
By the same token, they don't care about women, blacks, other
minorities, unions, immigration, or health care. All they want is to
be in charge. They don't have any vision of the future beyond that.
What they want from the current flurry of controversies is to prove
once and for all that what "the people" think can be controlled by
the smart ones. Their world consists of Washington, DC, New York
City, Boston, Chicago, and the more affluent precincts of Los
Angeles and San Francisco. Everyone who lives anywhere else is
ignorant, backward, hysterically religious, dangerously prejudiced,
probably homicidal, and just plain nuts. Sure, all the statistics on
gun control are on our side. But statistics don't matter when you're
just flat fucking right about the topic in question. It's still the
law in multiple states that killing a pregnant mother can result in
a double homicide conviction. Excuse me. If it's a life when a
stranger kills it, how is it not a life when a mother kills it?
Because all of us who even notice the contradiction are blind bone
fucking stupid, that's why. And anti-woman for daring to speak of
The new media that arose on the Internet are merely lambs led to the
slaughter. Grist for the old media's mill of contempt. Fox News is a
joke to them, as it is to me too. The great Breitbart experiment is
similarly flawed; misspellings in headlines and flashy headlines
leading to hundred word blurbs are indicative of amateurs who don't
fully comprehend the game they are playing. When even the managing
editor can't complete a 500 word essay without an elementary writing
error, I know we're losing the credibility battle.
Yes, WAPO and the NYT are slowly hemorrhaging to death financially,
but they will eventually be saved by the federal government and the
impending shutdown of the First Amendment.
Just bear this in mind: all the policy issues that have you so het
up at the moment are designed precisely to get you het up. The
immediate purpose is to create an irreconcilable fracture between
the Republican Party government class and the Tea Partiers. It's
working. Some dramatic slogan you can think of to heal that
fracture? Thought not.
Then comes the derision. And the silence as the middle 30 accept
that you're the crazy ones.
You may, probably will, still have your guns. But the fools in the
middle will know you're nothing but selfish, racist, sexist,
anti-egalitarian, militaristic assholes. All the movies and TV shows
they watch will confirm it.
That's the defeat you have to avoid. I'm open to patriot
explanations as to how a catastrophic outcome can be prevented.
If you think I'm overstating the case, ponder this: Obama told
Boehner the U.S. doesn't have a spending problem (!!!). The
president of the United States is an idiot figurehead. And the full
force of the federal government, the news media, the universities,
and the entertainment industry is behind him.
But remember the 30-30-30 model. That's where resistance lives. But
you do have to start thinking out of the box. Unless what you really
prefer is vain proclamations about the certainty of eventual
Will the press ever give
Obama tough coverage?
Jan 14, 2013, Vol. 18, No. 17 • By FRED BARNES
President Obama never disappoints. When the monthly unemployment
rate fails to drop, forget it. What’s important is the number of
jobs created. But when the rate actually does drop, forget the
growth (or lack of it) in jobs. It’s the rate that matters. And
don’t blame Obama for the persistence of slow economic growth and
high joblessness. That’s the “new normal.” As for the millions of
dropouts from the job market, that’s no big deal, hardly worth
more than a passing mention.
Full credit is due Obama for his role in the overthrow of Libyan
dictator Muammar Qaddafi. He was cleverly “leading from behind.”
But the killing of the American ambassador to Libya and three
others in Benghazi—the president bears no responsibility for that.
Perish the thought.
Meanwhile, in the months before his reelection in November, Obama
doled out government favors to Democratic interest groups like
unions, Hispanics, teachers, and single women. This may have
looked like shameless exploitation of his high office, but it
really was unusually skillful politicking by a master of the game.
My drift here ought to be obvious. I’m referring
to the way the media treat Obama. It’s not always adoring.
It’s intermittently fair and even-handed. But
overall, what’s distinctive about the press coverage of Obama is
the absence of fault-finding, criticism, and dogged questioning.
And when Obama makes excuses, as he often does, the media tend to
No president in my lifetime has been covered so favorably and so
gingerly. Never has the press corps been so unwilling to pursue
stories that might cast the president in an unflattering light. As
a group, the media pride themselves on taking an adversarial
approach to politicians and government officials. But in Obama’s
case, the press acts like a helpmate.
Along with that, the media seem fearful of offending Obama. This
is a new phenomenon in presidential coverage. To my recollection,
Obama is the first president to instill coverage anxiety,
conscious or unconscious.
Compare Obama’s coverage with that of President George W. Bush.
The difference is startling. There was no fear of affronting Bush.
He faced relentless scrutiny of his tactics in the war on terror:
wiretaps, renditions, Guantánamo, the Patriot Act. The
media raised questions about his motives, the constitutionality of
his policies, and his brainpower. White House press conferences
became tense and hostile events when national security issues were
Obama’s adoption of these same policies has drawn minimal
attention, much less the kind of media wrath that Bush endured.
Last week, for example, Obama signed a bill extending the use of
warrentless [sic] wiretapping to gather intelligence on America’s
enemies. Bush was harshly criticized by the media on this very
issue. Obama got a pass.
Bush was also hassled for so-called signing statements citing
provisions of a bill he might not enforce. Charlie Savage, then of
the Boston Globe, won a Pulitzer Prize for “his revelations” about
Bush’s practice. And, not surprisingly, Obama promised not to do
signing statements. Yet he has continued the practice, eliciting
some coverage, but none of the outrage that was directed at Bush.
In his efforts to combat terrorism, Bush was accused of exceeding
presidential authority. But Obama has made recess appointments
when the Senate wasn’t in recess and rewritten parts of
immigration and welfare law by executive order, clearly stretching
his authority beyond constitutional limits. The press praised the
immigration change and winked at the others.
It doesn’t take much imagination to come up with actions that
would have aroused the press if committed by Bush, but didn’t with
Obama. The list is long. Both the Fast and Furious gunrunning
scandal and the Benghazi killings would have led to months of
stories, investigative reports, and outraged commentary. But the
media proved to be largely incurious in Obama’s case.
Hurricane Sandy created damage in the billions in New Jersey, New
York, and Connecticut. The role of Obama and his administration in
handling the emergency was scarcely addressed. It’s doubtful Bush
would have been let off so easily. He certainly wasn’t in 2005
after Katrina ravaged the Gulf Coast.
What if Bush had claimed in speech after speech that Democrats who
opposed his policies were putting “party before country”? The
media response to an insinuation that Democrats were unpatriotic
would have been along the lines of, “How dare the president make
such a dastardly claim!” But repeated mentions of “party before
country” by Obama have been treated as perfectly acceptable...
And what if Bush had insisted on selective enforcement of federal
immigration law and refused to defend in court the Defense of
Marriage Act, signed into law by President Clinton? Or if the Bush
White House had leaked highly classified national security
intelligence to make the president look good? The press would have
been in high dudgeon and rightly so. But Obama, guilty on both
counts, received media immunity.
Broken promises are the least of Obama’s shortcomings. But the
press corps loves to zing presidents for reneging on campaign
vows. Obama, as I recall, promised a press conference a month, an
immigration bill his first year in office, regular meetings with
leaders of both parties in Congress, and unprecedented
transparency throughout his administration. He kept none of them,
prompting media near-silence.
Might the treatment of Obama harden in his second term? I’m
moderately hopeful. I suspect a few in the media are privately
embarrassed by the oh-so-soft coverage and would like to apply
some accountability to the Obama presidency. If they do, they’ll
discover Obama disappoints like other presidents and perhaps more
WTF? Here endeth the fisk.
Welcome to the new fisking. Just tribute to a column that could have been
written, with slightly different citations, four years ago. Today,
just now, it's laughable, a joke. I fisked the highlighted
portion because that's all that's necessary to reveal the author as
a fool unworthy of serious rebuttal.
So why did I bother? To point out that the term conservative no
longer has any meaning in the current situation. Conservatives are
about saving things that work despite the whims and fevers that take
popular opinion in some wild new direction. There's nothing left to
save. The reelection of Obama ended the role of conservatism. It
ended the country. That's the issue that needs to be dealt with.
Why I haven't commented on the various topics du jour that have
filled other righty blogs: the need (or not) for reformation of the
Republican Party, the Republican response(s) to the fiscal
cliff, the potential damage to Obama and the Democrats of
raising everyone's taxes, assaulting the Second Amendment, ramming
through some immigration amnesty law, etc... It just doesn't matter
what happens in the next six months. The idiots who voted Obama in
for a second term obviously have nothing like long-term memory and
certainly not four years worth. By the time the next election rolls
around, the Obama majority will have forgotten that America was ever
prosperous or free. Hillary should do fine. Hell, even Joe Biden
should do fine, maybe even better than fine. What could suit the
next electorate better than a dirty old man with a potty mouth,
roving hands, and a shameless eagerness to be wrong about absolutely
everything? In a land of nitwits what looks more like genius than leering dementia?
The thing people who regard themselves as conservatives should be
thinking about is who to be now. Everything they wanted to save is
now definitely in the past. There are multiple choices:
Back in October 2012, the operative
term would have been good citizen. Pay your taxes, obey the laws,
comply with the regulations, and hope for the best, believing deep
down that the country will always find a way to right itself.
Today? Good luck with that.
Again, back in October, the operative term would have been
dissenter. Members of the New Media who fought against the Obama
Apocalypse. But to the extent they are still discussing political
tactics within the context of an utterly broken and utterly
corrupt federal government, they are now collaborators. Hot Air is
just as arch but ostentatiously trying-to-be-fair as before. National Review is just as
thoughtful and above-it-all as before. Fox News is just as illiterate
and half-assed as before. InstaPundit is still just as self-congratulatory and
self-aggrandizing as before. The Weekly Standard is still as oh-so-cautiously
reasonable as before. As if there were a physical location where
"Normal" lives and we could get back there if all the smart people
we eat lunch and have cocktails with would just wake up and resume
being being intelligent. But there is no place where "Normal" is.
That expired when Obama took the oath of office and promised to
defend a constitution he would rather use as toilet paper. The
pursuit of "Normal" by the New Media is nothing but the pursuit of
fame, the quest of the clever parasite who values prosperous
survival over principle.
a.k.a. conscious, willing, deliberate victim. The ones who draw a
line in the sand and say, "This is all total bullshit. This is not
our president. This is not our country. And the drone and roll of
the 24/7 news cycle cannot disguise the fact that this is not
'Normal.'" I'm sure there were reasonable folks in Nazi Germany who
tried to make reasonable arguments that Jews and Gypsies were not
rats or rodents of any kind because, see, they don't have tails
and you almost never find them snacking on crackers in your
pantry. Thank you, Fred, for your contribution. But that's not how
the Nazis were defeated. It's not how any hijacking of a country
by totalitarian thugs is defeated. Unfortunately, the first step
to raised awareness is the sacrifice of martyrs. Who wants to be
that? I don't want to be that. Do you? But make no mistake: if you
stand up and yell loud enough about how not "Normal" this all is, they
will find a way to
destroy you. If you kind of think you maybe might be on a list,
you are on a list. Since I already am, fuck it. You make your own
decision. But don't get excessively romantic about the option
because there are very sound reasons for being, instead, a.....
Go back to the last post, Brizoni's. There's a very doable
five-nations strategy spelled out there in the Comments. In all good
conscience, I can't advise you not to study it intently.
Unless it's already too late.
This one can't be spoken of here. Why it's doomed. You can't do it
on the Internet. Not on Facebook. Not on a blog. Not on your
Me? I'm no longer political. My next post will be about a nifty word
game. It will be called "Bad-Day Preppers." Which has absolutely
nothing to do with the imposition of martial law or other FEMA-run
Thursday, January 03, 2013
Plan Z: How to Save America in Three Easy Steps
THUMB TWIDDLING. An open letter to any elected conservatives who can still do basic math:
We all know this fiscal cliff hangwringing was brass-polishing on the Titanic. We spend more than we take in. In fact, it is not possible to take in as much as we spend. There is not that much money in existence to take in. By now you've all seen the charts going around online that compare America's financial predicament to a household's budgetary woes, where the income is in the ten thousand dollar range and the spending is in the million dollar range. You know-- when you let yourselves remember-- that a full-on collapse is inevitable and is coming.
Fear not. I have a foolproof plan to put the United States back on track to fiscal solvency, as well as... what's the word for when you're not about to die forever? That too. Plan B was a did. Plan E or F or whatever we ended up on is no better. It's time for Plan Z.
Step One: Make a one-time, tax-free, interest-free gift of 4 trillion dollars to the Canadian government. I know, I promised a plan to cut spending. But you gotta spend money to make money, right? Here's how that happens. Specify that this 2 trillion must be spent funding and expanding Canada's entitlement programs. No road repair, no park rangers, no new bridges, no public works crap. Just free money for freeloaders sorry--the "less fortunate." Really stoke their imaginations. Whisper things in their ear like free college for everyone. Free housing for the bottom 85% earners. Maybe even public transit monorails on every suburban street, running 24/7 (we'll make a public works exception for that). But don't forget to stipulate that only Canadian residents be eligible for all these great programs.
Step Two: Announce that any Americans establishing residency in Canada AND enrolling in Canada's entitlement programs must irrevocably renounce their US citizenship. Furthermore, all Renouncers will never again be allowed on American soil, under penalty of death by firing squad in the face. To this end, all NeoCanadians will submit themselves to photographing, fingerprinting, and DNA profiling in a national database of all Renouncer scum. (We'll need to think of what a SCUM acronym could stand for. Seceding... Craven... I dunno. Form an exploratory committee to work that out.)
Step Three: After the mass exodus of our national burden, erect a mile-high wall made of iron along the Canadian border. Install only one door. In the middle, somewhere around North Dakota. Anyone who wants to leave the US can do so. Post guards outside the entrance to America. Shoot anyone who tries to come in. Even if it's the Prime Minister of Saskatooney or some silly shit. And post some gunboats along the east and west coasts. Crafty Canucks might try to sneak around the wall. Make chum outta them.
Yes, the donation, as well as the iron wall, are substantial outlay. But they're worth every goddamn cent. How much have we blown on the Iraq War? How much bigger a threat are the freeloaders to national stability? And unlike Iraq, this is a one-time expense. In one fell swoop, the parasite class fucks off to the Great White North, leaving America for the real Americans-- I.E., those of us who want to take responsibility for our own lives. In other words, those of us who'd rather not be slaves to others, nor enslave anyone to ourselves.
Yes, there will probably be some unforeseen kinks to work out. We may have to annex parts of Canada to make room for that big-ass wall. Parts of America-- looking at you, New England-- might vote overwhelmingly to secede to Canada. If they're on the border, let them go. They're not worth the headache, if that's the kind of people they are. If Iowa's subsidy-subsisting punk-asses vote to secede, give them 24 hour notice, then nuke it. Every inch. Incidental scorching along the edges of neighboring states is acceptable. We don't need all that corn. Coke can go back to using real sugar. Gasoline can go back to not being shitty. Somehow we'll manage.
Yes, the liberals WILL go for Plan Z. All you have to do is point out the selfishness of keeping all that American taxpayer money in America, when a few clicks north Canada already has so much more of the ideal cradle-to-grave welfare system in place. Canada could always use some extra cash to fund their Great Society. (Isn't that what they call it? Am I thinking of something else?) Send the money their way. Canada doesn't have anywhere near all the terrible sins that America has. They deserve it. No liberal can argue that without betraying his core principles.
Yes, this is drastic. Of course it is. Do you think a non-drastic plan has a chance in hell of working, at this point in history? Spit out your pacifier and roll up your sleeves. It's time to be big boys and girls.
Yes, Canada will piss through the money in five or ten years. So?
This is like getting rid of a mosquito infestation by luring them into a room with a big bag of blood, then locking the door behind you. When the blood runs out, they're trapped and get to buzz angrily among themselves until they starve and die. We just have to make sure to use our military to caulk up any cracks in the walls and Flex Seal all the windows.
There is another option open to them. They could figure out a way to make food for themselves. But parasites aren't known for their industriousness. Are they. But humans are. I honestly think a little Sink Or Swim tough love is the kindest thing we can do for these poor, lazy souls.
Yes, I can see how this might seem a little too abstract. I'll put it in more immediate terms. Think how balanced the budget would be if the United States enjoyed a culture of accountability. Now salivate.
Yes, I'm kidding. But I'm also kind of not kidding at all.