The decline and fall of the american empire


#1

Got this from a friend of mine who lives in TURKEY. I have not idea of whether or not the guy that wrote it is the guy at the bottom of the page, but well worth your read:

"THE DECLINE AND FALL OF THE AMERICAN EMPIRE**November 7, 2012

The most charitable way of explaining the election results of 2012 is that Americans voted for the status quo – for the incumbent President and for a divided Congress. They must enjoy gridlock, partisanship, incompetence, economic stagnation and avoidance of responsibility. And fewer people voted. As I write, with almost all the votes counted, President Obama has won fewer votes than John McCain won in 2008, and more than ten million off his own 2008 total.

But as we awake from the nightmare, it is important to eschew the facile explanations for the Romney defeat that will prevail among the chattering classes. Romney did not lose because of the effects of Hurricane Sandy that devastated this area, nor did he lose because he ran a poor campaign, nor did he lose because the Republicans could have chosen better candidates, nor did he lose because Obama benefited from a slight uptick in the economy due to the business cycle.

Romney lost because he didn’t get enough votes to win.

That might seem obvious, but not for the obvious reasons. Romney lost because the conservative virtues – the traditional American virtues – of liberty, hard work, free enterprise, private initiative and aspirations to moral greatness – no longer inspire or animate a majority of the electorate. The notion of the “Reagan Democrat” is one cliché that should be permanently retired.

Ronald Reagan himself could not win an election in today’s America .

The simplest reason why Romney lost was because it is impossible to compete against free stuff. Every businessman knows this; that is why the “loss leader” or the giveaway is such a powerful marketing tool. Obama’s America is one in which free stuff is given away: the adults among the 47,000,000 on food stamps clearly recognized for whom they should vote, and so they did, by the tens of millions; those who – courtesy of Obama – receive two full years of unemployment benefits (which, of course, both disincentivizes looking for work and also motivates people to work off the books while collecting their windfall) surely know for whom to vote; so too those who anticipate “free” health care, who expect the government to pay their mortgages, who look for the government to give them jobs. The lure of free stuff is irresistible.

Imagine two restaurants side by side. One sells its customers fine cuisine at a reasonable price, and the other offers a free buffet, all-you-can-eat as long as supplies last. Few – including me – could resist the attraction of the free food. Now imagine that the second restaurant stays in business because the first restaurant is forced to provide it with the food for the free buffet, and we have the current economy, until, at least, the first restaurant decides to go out of business. (Then, the government takes over the provision of free food to its patrons.)

The defining moment of the whole campaign was the revelation (by the amoral Obama team) of the secretly-recorded video in which Romney acknowledged the difficulty of winning an election in which “47% of the people” start off against him because they pay no taxes and just receive money – “free stuff” – from the government. Almost half of the population has no skin in the game – they don’t care about high taxes, promoting business, or creating jobs, nor do they care that the money for their free stuff is being borrowed from their children and from the Chinese. They just want the free stuff that comes their way at someone else’s expense. In the end, that 47% leaves very little margin for error for any Republican, and does not bode well for the future.

*It is impossible to imagine a conservative candidate winning against such overwhelming odds. People do vote their pocketbooks. In essence, the people vote for a Congress who will not raise their taxes, and for a President who will give them free stuff, never mind who has to pay for it.
*

*That engenders the second reason why Romney lost: the inescapable conclusion that the electorate is dumb – ignorant, and uninformed. Indeed, it does not pay to be an informed voter, because most other voters – the clear majority – are unintelligent and easily swayed by emotion and raw populism. That is the indelicate way of saying that too many people vote with their hearts and not their heads. That is why Obama did not have to produce a second term agenda, or even defend his first-term record. He needed only to portray Mitt Romney as a rapacious capitalist who throws elderly women over a cliff, when he is not just snatching away their cancer medication, while starving the poor and cutting taxes for the rich. Obama could get away with saying that “Romney wants the rich to play by a different set of rules” – without ever defining what those different rules were; with saying that the “rich should pay their fair share” – without ever defining what a “fair share” is; with saying that Romney wants the poor, elderly and sick to “fend for themselves” – without even acknowledging that all these government programs are going bankrupt, their current insolvency only papered over by deficit spending. Obama could get away with it because he knew he was talking to dunces waving signs and squealing at any sight of him.
*

*During his 1956 presidential campaign, a woman called out to Adlai Stevenson: “Senator, you have the vote of every thinking person!” Stevenson called back: “That’s not enough, madam, we need a majority!” Truer words were never spoken.
*

*Similarly, Obama (or his surrogates) could hint to blacks that a Romney victory would lead them back into chains and proclaim to women that their abortions and birth control would be taken away. He could appeal to Hispanics that Romney would have them all arrested and shipped to Mexico (even if they came from Cuba or Honduras ), and unabashedly state that he will not enforce the current immigration laws. He could espouse the furtherance of the incestuous relationship between governments and unions – in which politicians ply the unions with public money, in exchange for which the unions provide the politicians with votes, in exchange for which the politicians provide more money and the unions provide more votes, etc., even though the money is gone. He could do and say all these things because he knew his voters were dolts.
*

One might reasonably object that not every Obama supporter could be unintelligent. But they must then rationally explain how the Obama agenda can be paid for, aside from racking up multi-trillion dollar deficits. “Taxing the rich” does not yield even 10% of what is required – so what is the answer, i.e., an intelligent answer?
*
Obama also knows that the electorate has changed – that whites will soon be a minority in America (they’re already a minority in California) and that the new immigrants to the US are primarily from the Third World and do not share the traditional American values that attracted immigrants in the 19th and 20th centuries. It is a different world, and a different America . Obama is part of that different America , knows it, and knows how to tap into it. That is why he won.*
*
Obama also proved again that negative advertising works, invective sells, and harsh personal attacks succeed. That Romney never engaged in such diatribes points to his essential goodness as a person; his “negative ads” were simple facts, never personal abuse – facts about high unemployment, lower take-home pay, a loss of American power and prestige abroad, a lack of leadership, etc. As a politician, though, Romney failed because he did not embrace the devil’s bargain of making unsustainable promises, and by talking as the adult and not the adolescent. Obama has spent the last six years campaigning; even his governance has been focused on payoffs to his favored interest groups. The permanent campaign also won again, to the detriment of American life.*
*
It turned out that it was not possible for Romney and Ryan – people of substance, depth and ideas – to compete with the shallow populism and platitudes of their opponents. Obama mastered the politics of envy – of class warfare – never reaching out to Americans as such but to individual groups, and cobbling together a winning majority from these minority groups. Conservative ideas failed to take root and states that seemed winnable, and amenable to traditional American values, have simply disappeared from the map. If an Obama could not be defeated – with his record and his vision of America , in which free stuff seduces voters – it is hard to envision any change in the future. The road to Hillary Clinton in 2016 and to a European-socialist economy – those very economies that are collapsing today in Europe – is paved.
*

*A second cliché that should be retired is that America is a center-right country. It clearly is not. It is a divided country with peculiar voting patterns, and an appetite for free stuff. Studies will invariably show that Republicans in Congress received more total votes than Democrats in Congress, but that means little. The House of Representatives is not truly representative of the country. That people would vote for a Republican Congressmen or Senator and then Obama for President would tend to reinforce point two above: the empty-headedness of the electorate. Americans revile Congress but love their individual Congressmen. Go figure.
*

The mass media’s complicity in Obama’s re-election cannot be denied. One example suffices. In 2004, CBS News forged a letter in order to imply that President Bush did not fulfill his Air National Guard service during the Vietnam War, all to impugn Bush and impair his re-election prospects. In 2012, President Obama insisted – famously – during the second debate that he had stated all along that the Arab attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi was “terror” (a lie that Romney fumbled and failed to exploit). Yet, CBS News sat on a tape of an interview with Obama in which Obama specifically avoided and rejected the claim of terrorism – on the day after the attack – clinging to the canard about the video. (This snippet of a “60 Minutes” interview was not revealed - until two days ago!) In effect, CBS News fabricated evidence in order to harm a Republican president, and suppressed evidence in order to help a Democratic president. Simply shameful, as was the media’s disregard of any scandal or story that could have jeopardized the Obama re-election.

*One of the more irritating aspects of this campaign was its limited focus, odd in light of the billions of dollars spent. Only a few states were contested, a strategy that Romney adopted, and that clearly failed. The Democrat begins any race with a substantial advantage. The liberal states – like the bankrupt California and Illinois – and other states with large concentrations of minority voters as well as an extensive welfare apparatus, like New York , New Jersey and others – give any Democratic candidate an almost insurmountable edge in electoral votes. In New Jersey , for example, it literally does not pay for a conservative to vote. It is not worth the fuel expended driving to the polls. As some economists have pointed generally, and it resonates here even more, the odds are greater that a voter will be killed in a traffic accident on his way to the polls than that his vote will make a difference in the election. It is an irrational act. That most states are uncompetitive means that people are not amenable to new ideas, or new thinking, or even having an open mind. If that does not change, and it is hard to see how it can change, then the die is cast. America is not what it was, and will never be again.

*For Jews, mostly assimilated anyway and staunch Democrats, the results demonstrate again that liberalism is their Torah. Almost 70% voted for a president widely perceived by Israelis and most committed Jews as hostile to Israel . They voted to secure Obama’s future at America ’s expense and at Israel ’s expense – in effect, preferring Obama to Netanyahu by a wide margin. A dangerous time is ahead. Under present circumstances, it is inconceivable that the US will take any aggressive action against Iran and will more likely thwart any Israeli initiative. That Obama’s top aide Valerie Jarrett (i.e., Iranian-born Valerie Jarrett) spent last week in Teheran is not a good sign. The US will preach the importance of negotiations up until the production of the first Iranian nuclear weapon – and then state that the world must learn to live with this new reality. As Obama has committed himself to abolishing America’s nuclear arsenal, it is more likely that that unfortunate circumstance will occur than that he will succeed in obstructing Iran’s plans.

Obama’s victory could weaken Netanyahu’s re-election prospects, because Israelis live with an unreasonable – and somewhat pathetic – fear of American opinion and realize that Obama despises Netanyahu. A Likud defeat – or a diminution of its margin of victory – is more probable now than yesterday. That would not be the worst thing. Netanyahu, in fact, has never distinguished himself by having a strong political or moral backbone, and would be the first to cave to the American pressure to surrender more territory to the enemy and acquiesce to a second (or third, if you count Jordan ) Palestinian state. A new US Secretary of State named John Kerry, for example (he of the Jewish father) would not augur well. Netanyahu remains the best of markedly poor alternatives. Thus, the likeliest outcome of the upcoming Israeli elections is a center-left government that will force itself to make more concessions and weaken Israel – an Oslo III.

*But this election should be a wake-up call to Jews. There is no permanent empire, nor is there is an enduring haven for Jews anywhere in the exile. The most powerful empires in history all crumbled – from the Greeks and the Romans to the British and the Soviets. None of the collapses were easily foreseen, and yet they were predictable in retrospect.
*

*The American empire began to decline in 2007, and the deterioration has been exacerbated in the last five years. This election only hastens that decline. Society is permeated with sloth, greed, envy and materialistic excess. It has lost its moorings and its moral foundations. The takers outnumber the givers, and that will only increase in years to come. Across the world, America under Bush was feared but not respected. Under Obama , America is neither feared nor respected. Radical Islam has had a banner four years under Obama, and its prospects for future growth look excellent. The “Occupy” riots across this country in the last two years were mere dress rehearsals for what lies ahead – years of unrest sparked by the increasing discontent of the unsuccessful who want to seize the fruits and the bounty of the successful, and do not appreciate the slow pace of redistribution.

*If this election proves one thing, it is that the Old America is gone. And, sad for the world, it is not coming back.

Zvi Ginsberg
Ulysses Management, LLC"*
[LEFT][/LEFT]


#2

This completely false.

Romney lost because he didn’t get enough votes to win.

That might seem obvious, but not for the obvious reasons. Romney lost because the conservative virtues – the traditional American virtues – of liberty, hard work, free enterprise, private initiative and aspirations to moral greatness – no longer inspire or animate a majority of the electorate. The notion of the “Reagan Democrat” is one cliché that should be permanently retired.

Ronald Reagan himself could not win an election in today’s America .

Romney was NEVER what his supporters claimed he was, Romney has never been a rugged individualist, small government Conservative like Reagan.

Romney lost because he tried to be a better, more responsible and more competent democrat that Obama.

Election 2012, What Does It Mean? - Member Blogs - Conservative Republican Discussion Forums


#3

There are elements of that piece that ring true . . . particularly the sections on the idiot voters. I’ve used this example before in this forum, but I think the Ohio auto workers are an excellent example:

*The exit polls suggested that the reason Ohio swung for Obama was the favorable view of Obama’s auto bail-out, and the equally ignorant view that Romney favored closing the industry down for good. Apparently, the Ohio idiots didn’t realize that Romney favored rescuing the auto industry too, but by different means. Bankruptcy reorganization, which Romney favored, would have achieved the SAME RESULTS, BUT AT A COST TO TAXPAYERS OF . . . drum roll . . . ZERO. Obama’s bail-out, OTOH, was very expensive to the taxpayers. But I guess if your Union benefits stay intact, then the view of the autoworkers is . . . to hell with the taxpayers.
*

I think the single element that was the most responsible for BHO’s win was the uninformed voter (though there’s likely multiple reasons for BHO’s win . . . not just one magic bullet.) Joe-Sixpack is a moron.

But the piece makes a doom and gloom conclusion. While that may indeed be our ultimate fate, I don’t think right now that’s the attitude we want. As the saying goes: I’d rather be an optimist that’s right some of the time, then a pessimist that’s right ALL the time.


#4

I formerly believed that, but have since changed my mind.

Rice Bowl-ism

The 100 Million Americans who support bammy fail to “own a piece of the rock”. Piece of the rock was a TV commercial going way back tot he 60’s by Prudential Insurance. At the close of the commercial they showed their logo which was a large rock most likely the one in Morro Bay Ca and said own a piece of the rock.

That was also the title for a paper I wrote that centered on those on long term welfare (multi-generational) and never paid any taxes. My premise was that what is given free has little value and what you have to earn and work for is cherished.

What has occurred is we have a large population that that has no ownership in America, in fact America to them is alien. That said they see the FEDERAL govt as the end all be all and of course their leader bamma a minority who they can identify with. These people are not patriots nor do they support or care about their country, only the govt which provides food, shelter and meets their basic needs. They turn inward to what is in their Rice Bowl, as long as their rice bowl if full they do care about anything else.

These people would never write the blank check like did in '67 to my country. Its not that they are un-patrotic but rather than have no identification, they do not OWN a piece of the rock which is America.

You see the same outlook in illegal aliens. They do not identify with America like those that came here to escape communism or have a chance at the American Dream. We have 100M people that have been robbed of the American Dream and who robbed them??? The people who were sworn to protect them…the Federal Govt…

But this is and has been the goal of the govt and Obama


#5

Sounds like a political hack to me. I would say his words would be more convincinghad he balanced out his criticisms on both side of the isle.
If in fact he is from Turkey, he should tend to his owngarden. Have you seen what so calledfreedoms Turkey has? I am EasternOrthodox Christian. Check out what thereso called “secular” system of government does with such pettyfreedoms like freedom of religion. Iwould be interested to see his opinion on the so called Turkishness laws. To speak out against Islam or to actively convert a Muslim to another faith will land you in prison. If you are not a self proclaimed Muslim your business is taxed a special non-Turkishness tax. The Patriarch of Constantinople(Eastern orthodox Bishop for 1700 years) is prevented from having cleric seminariesin Turkey or religious private schools (like the Catholic school systems here) toprevent anti Turkish ideals from being taught to kids in regularcurriculum. Sounds a little too much like party lineRovianism to me.

Mark Lex Eros - Bartholomew (Dec.2009) about the Turkish Administration - Part 2 of 2 - YouTube

http://www.shariahfinancewatch.org/blog/2011/11/24/turkey-non-muslim-minorities-protest-discriminatory-wealth-tax-expect-apology/

Jizya - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


#6

It’s the Rock of Gibraltar. FWIW… :wink:


#7

(Blog spamming link deleted by Fantasy Chaser)


#8

Nightlife138, you have been reported to the mods as a spammer. 2 posts and both are links to your blog. Very bad manners, IMO.


#9

You ever seen the rock in Morro bay?


#10

I am looking at it right now, Thanksgiving in Morro Bay with my wife’s family


#11

Yea, I like it there, spent a lot of time in that area think Morro Bay is one of the best kept secrets…we got our own Rock of Gibraltar.


#12

I replied to this once, but IDK what happened to it…? Not the first time a post of mine has disappeared into limbo :alien:

Anyway, no, I’ve never seen Morro Rock (well, I’ve seen a picture of it now since you asked and I did a google search to see if I had been there). I have been past Morro bay several times, both inland and at sea, but I never stopped there.

I can see why you thought it might be the Prudential rock; the shape is quite similar to Gib from a certain perspective.


#13

LOL, gonna fess up, I knew that the rock of Morro bay was not the rock of the Pru, but it seemed that no matter how I spelled it spell check did not pick up on it, so I just called it Morro rock which is know as the Western Rock of Gibraltar.