Of all the news from the election, the morsel that is the hardest to stomach is that Gov. Romney drew over three million fewer votes than did Sen. McCain four years ago. On the other side of the ledger, obama attracted over ten million fewer votes than he did four years ago. But that makes sense. He had four terrible, destructive, depressing years. His foreign policy was vapid and amateurish. His monetary policy, to the degree it made any sense at all, was marxist in nature. If you read a high school primer on radical far left policy, you would have a very good insider's look into obama and his administration. Most people, having attained obama's age, have begun to weed out the pure nonsense, but obama and his functionaries aren't there yet.
But Romeny getting three million fewer votes than McCain?
I strongly suspect that quite a few of those voters lived in blue states that had no chance of turning red, and just didn't care enough to make it to the polls just to be window dressing. The electoral college, for all of its positives, has this effect on people. If your man just cannot win, there is lesser incentive to vote. Ohio voters probably felt more important than the typical voter. In fact, they were. But how about folk who might've voted for the Governor if he had a chance, but since they were in Maryland or California or New York or Connecticut, they just stayed home.
If that possibility suggests where three million voters were on election day - and we won't know for sure until we can check turnouts on a state by state basis - what explains a majority of American voters choosing a man who was an utter failute in every conceivable respect, and might actually have wanted to be such a failure because he wanted to enfeeble his country as payback for what he perceived as past "crimes?"
One popular suggestion on the day after the vote was that obama had succeeded in galvanizing those voters who are on the take from their country. The idea is that there are millions upon millions of Americans who are receiving government checks or other lucrative benefits on a regular basis - that is, they are living off the country's payouts - and they are merely voting for the party who is promising to continue such payments. As really awful as it sounds, there is no question that the Dems are intent upon building a solid voting block of citizens who are on the proverbial dole.
It is such a depressing thought. Are there really a majority of Americans who are so, well, what word will offend the fewest number of people, maybe, "misdirected" that the only thing guiding their vote is who will pay them the most to do nothing? Sadly, the answer is apparently. They are not alone. Many European nations are on the same downbound train. A whole generation of people are being paid money by the state for doing nothing. The same government scheme also provides each citizen with an extensive vacation; not the two weeks Americans typically take, but four and five week 'sabaticals.' Really, it's no wonder that factories in China and Indonesia are thriving while industry and economies in the west founder. The far left is doing its level best to create that life here. With obama's re-election, they probably have succeeded. Americans in droves are signing up for food stamps and welfare since obama scrubbed away those pesky work requirements. The aim is to create a majority of voters who receive benefits from the government. Once that majority is in place - and if they can be convinced to vote as a block - they can keep a leftist regime in place and keep themselves on the dole. The minority that will be left perpetually frustrated at the voting booth will be the producers, the workers, the risk takers. They will be asked to pay ever higher amounts of tax by those receiving the benefits.
Swish that one around for a bit. Which one of those two groups will be the one getting bigger and which one will get smaller? Would you rather work 40-plus hours while getting less and less in your pay, or will you choose to receive the higher and higher amounts of public assistance that the leftist governments will have to pull together to maintain such an obscene system? And, of course, there is this vexatious question: how long can such a system last? If you are among the workers being asked to pay higher taxes and fees to keep your neighbor and his family housed and fed, will you be happy? Or might you be thinking of how you can slip into the receiving group? How long will it be before the workers get a bit surly? How long will it be before the happy receivers start demonstrating for higher benefits? How long will it be before the government finds it must somehow limit admission into the receiving group? Do you think such a move will be accepted by those still in the working group? What will happen when the working group wants to cut taxes and keep more of their money? In the Dems working model, that will not be possible because the producers will have become the voting minority. Everybody nods when obama and others on the far far left (uberleft) say they want to raise taxes on everyone making $250,000 or more. But then that cut off figure will drop to $200,000. Soon, it will be $100,000, and then $50,000. Soon, everybody working will be paying 50% of their income to the government to keep the 50% that aren't working in their above-average lifestyle? How long will all of this take? What happens when one of the groups starts up in the streets like, say, in Greece? Hasn't the "occupy" crowd already started down that road?
I am not a right-winger. I believe that the government has an absolute duty to care for the sick and provide for the impoverished. But it takes a disciplined government and a responsible electorate to avoid what is going on now. Access to government benefits must be limited to the really sick and the actually impoverished.
It doesn't take a genius to come up with new ways to take people's money. But it takes a special kind of leader to look the average citizen straight in the eye and say enough is enough. If we are going to survive as a nation that is the envy of all mankind, we are going to have to learn to do the right thing as a matter of course. There isn't enough real money anywhere in the world to provide middle class lives for people who are not producing. This is especially true when the non-producers are out-numbering the producers. Then, the non-producers might have a majority, but what good will it do them?
More importantly right now is how close is America to the situation described in the last sentence, the situation when the non-producers outnumber the producers? Is there any effort by anyone near the power structure to avoid such a scenario?
{One of my pet peeves with the uberleft is their absolute determination to avoid revelations of their actual intent. During the fall campaign, did obama tell you what he had in mind for the second term? Of course not, because if he did he would have lost. Do you think he would have beat Hilary four years ago if he told the country about obamamess? How about running up the national debt to such astronomical proportions? Do you think for a minute that obama would be president at all if he let on that mindset that allowed Bengazzi to take place? I mean, what bald face lying and subterfuge and for what? To keep America from finding out that Al Qaada didn't disappear when obama did in osama? Did anybody but obama actually think that had happened? How screwed up is obama's thought pattern if he thought that killing osama had eliminated Al Qaada? If the voting public knew any of this before the vote in 2008 would obama have spent his time helping hilary get reelected?}
Where, exactly, is out country at this moment in history? A regime has just been reelected that hates capitalism, feels warm and cuddly about marxism and socialism, and is intent on continuing its planned wealth redistribution even though the country's economy is so bad that many observers feel that an total economic collapse could occur at anytime and certainly within the next eighteen months. To put it another way, the country just put an administration back in power for another four years even though it was a 100% total failure in every possible category of governing. It was an administration with a record of total incompetence in economic policy and management, foreign policy, diplomacy, anti-terrorist policy and planning, and every other category. But the country voted them back in anyway. In doing so, for the second consecutive national election, they have refused to empower a candidate from the other national party who was clearly and inarguably better qualified, better prepared, better able to govern and better able to follow recognized national priorities. Both gentlemen nominated by the GOP - McCain and Romney - were also better able to keep the country safe. They were also more moralistic, and more American in their values and ethics. They were also better people. But they lost.
No comments:
Post a Comment