Instapun***K.com Archive Listing
InstaPunk.Com

Archive Listing
January 9, 2013 - January 2, 2013

Wednesday, January 09, 2013


Power Play
Maybe this will seem more relevant in the lyrics-only version.

SORRY, JOE. THIS TOOK PRECEDENCE.. Helk said this in the Comments:

You are gold; quit acting like a fool.

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. 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 are free.

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 it.

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 impossible victory.




Monday, January 07, 2013


Fisking Fred

Let's keep disagreeing reasonably.

A FOOTNOTE AS USUAL. From the current issue of The Weekly Standard. Conservative elder Fred Barnes:

The Four-Year Honeymoon
 
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 echo them.
 
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 broached.
 
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 often.

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:

1. Victim

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.

2. Collaborator

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.

3. Provocateur

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.....

4. Refugee

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.



5. Revolutionary

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 iPhone. Sorry.


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 disasters.




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.




Back to Archive Index

Amazon Honor System Contribute to InstaPunk.com Learn More