April 15 Musings


Tax Day

ALOHA, ALL!!

Today’s the day when we pay homage to the big bloated pig in Washington.  A time to reflect on how he gets more greedy each year.  A rhetorical question:  when will he be sated?  And yet, this tax day might have a completely different feel if Romney had won.  See the essay below from a Rabbi in New Jersey.  He’s spot-on.  And explains why the pig will keep getting fatter.  (Shaka to Steve)

We Are Not Coming Back

Please take a moment to digest this provocative article by a Jewish Rabbi from Teaneck , N.J.  It is far and away the most succinct and thoughtful explanation of how our nation is changing. The article appeared in The Israel National News, and is directed to Jewish readership. 70% of American Jews vote as Democrats. The Rabbi has some interesting comments in that regard.  Rabbi Steven Pruzansky is the spiritual leader of Congregation Bnai Yeshurun in Teaneck, New Jersey

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“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.

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 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. The lure of free stuff is irresistible.

The defining moment of the whole campaign was the revelation 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 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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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. 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.

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. 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.

But this election should be a wake-up call to Jews. There is no permanent empire, nor is there an enduring haven for Jews anywhere in the exile. 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.

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.”

Speaking of Pigs…(Shaka to Scott)Bacon

And, well

Botox

Do you know when YOUR Freedom Day is?  Check this out – tells you how long you have to work each year just to pay your taxes.  New York wins/loses.  FreedomDay  

GOD BLESS AMERICA – PASS THIS ON!!!

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , , , ,

About giliar

An American patriot who has gone rogue - I will remember in November!

11 responses to “April 15 Musings”

  1. Tom says :

    So many people in this country, especially conservatives, are oh-so-worried about the economy. Meanwhile, a sheethead is blowing up people in Boston.

  2. NEO says :

    Sadly, I fear he’s right Gilia, but, I also note that Britain in the 70s was worse, so the right leader can fix most things.

    But I fear there is no Maggie on the backbench waiting for the right time.

    • giliar says :

      Or Reagan. And yes, things can be fixed but it’s getting more difficult with each passing day. With the horrible tragedy that just happened at the Boston Marathon, our enemies will be emboldened to commit more terrorist acts….thanks to our feckless leader. We are being assaulted on all fronts.

      • NEO says :

        Or Reagan, to be sure, or Coolidge. It can be yes, I always say that anything that man can do, man can undo. But the attack in Boston happened with all it’s losses, and as always lately, one of them will be freedom, and if we don’t handle it well, there will be more.

        So we have to take up our arms again, in defense of a free society, this is an eternal war, which we new at our enlistment, because there are always people willing to be masters.

      • giliar says :

        Chris Matthews has already blamed the Boston bombings on the right. Frankly, such tactics are more representative of his beloved Occupy folks than they are of the right!

      • NEO says :

        I figured they would. It’s a dream they get by projecting.

        The problem is that on the right we believe in personal responsibility, and does anybody really think a bunch of spectators and marathon participants are responsible for anything beyond traffic problems? If things get worse, political leadership and perhaps their families could get themselves in the crosshairs but traditionally Americans go out of their way to reduce collateral damage, not increase it.

        The rifle is the quintessential American weapon, not the bomb, and the slogan is “One shot-one kill” not “the purpose of terrorism is to terrorize” that one is always and only the property of the left.

      • giliar says :

        I think Obama should question his good buddy Bill Ayers on this one. He might be able to give some insight.

      • NEO says :

        Quite, he’d know all about it, be really good insight, although this was overly ambitious for that pack of cowardly bank robbers.

      • Tom says :

        There was no apparent financial or commercial target, which leads me away from thinking its the socialist Left. The bomb style might fit Jihadis, but only by virtue of commonality in a basic design. The timing, coinciding with bombings in Iraq for the upcoming election there, raises an issue, but there is no direct connection between Boston and Iraqi elections. Plus, there has been no Jihadi claim of responsibility. Finally, it is just too chinsy of an effort–they like LOTS of dead when going after civilians. This is too small.

        Serious domestic Rightwingers have generally been more grandiose in such things–e.g., McVeigh in Oklahoma City. The tax day timing and cheapness of the bomb might point to a Tea Party-esque type, but the timing could easily be coincidental, as the marathon was the big story of the day.

        On the other hand, the location is very noteworthy. The marathon draws attention to Massachusetts, one of the most socially Left states in the country. The bomb style and employment (placement, timing, limited scope, though this time with TWO bombs!) honestly most resembles the anti-abortion Atlanta Olympics bomber of 1996. It COULD be an anti-same-sex marriage motive, but there has not been a history of such things by that movement, which would be necessary to establish a base for analysis.

        The recent Ricin mailings might be connected. If the GOP member of Congress targeted is either pro-choice or pro-same-sex marriage (I haven’t had time to research yet), it would point strongly to such a motive.

        My bet is an anti-abortionist, or a Jihadi effort gone blessedly badly for them.

      • giliar says :

        You may be right Tom. There have also been similarities with the failed Times Square bombing attempt. Whoever it was
        He/she/they are wackos.

%d bloggers like this: