Why Obama really “won”

In response to the cartoon reprinted above, Steve Hayes wrote:

One blogger that I read had this to say Still Happy That He Lost | Clarissa’s Blog: All Obama did was manage the taxpayers’ money (which is actually a huge part of his job description) in a way that the majority of taxpayers approved. This approval was demonstrated at the voting polls on November 6.

Now, if you look closely, you’ll see that Steve writes: “the majority of taxpayers approved” whereas Clarissa wrote:

I’m even happier that Romney lost the election than I was before because now it turns out that his understanding of the president’s role is completely wrong

Which brings us to the WC Fields factor, that politicians are voted against rather than for.   This was about a reaction to Romney rather than any approval of Obama per se.   To give you an idea of this, Twilight, a blogger, reader here and occasional commenter, is a left-liberal, an unashamed one too and she has this on Obama:

Why is it that Barack Obama has the ability to inspire the adulation of around half of all Democrats in the USA, while meeting a virtual brick wall when attempting to appeal to the other half – even with media firmly on his side, and his campaign spending vast amounts of money? This week’s primary contest in Pennsylvania provided a good example of this phenomenon playing out.

It could equally be asked, of course, “Why can’t Hillary Clinton appeal to a larger proportion of the Obama base?” Both candidates’ supporters tend to come from specific groups who appear to be very determined about exactly who, and what, they want.

Barack Obama has wide appeal for some of the youngest voters, many of whom are college students. His base also includes a group described as “the highly educated” -those with college degrees of one sort or another. Not unexpectedly a large proportion of the African American population support Obama, they may or may not slot into the previously mentioned categories. There’s another, smaller group I notice among Obama supporters, the wanna-be radicals who seem to have been over-impressed by stories of events in 1968.

Now there are two things to come from this:

1.  The socialist academia, blacks and hispanics, feminazis and the naive, feckless young – they’re Obama’s supporter base, people who are not exactly worldly and au fait with politics or old enough to know.   I ran a post on Eric Foner and might as well have done Marcuse and Alinsky – this is a particularly virulent specimen we’re talking about.  It’s not left-liberal but socialist/communist.

2.  Twilight’s not into him, as are not the rest of America and their demographic is independent intellectual, tea-party, blogosphere, thinkers – in other words, people who can see right through Obama, people who demand to know where Obama comes from as he has not resolved the Kenyan birth issue in the least, nor his academic record.

Glance at that cartoon above again and it did not come from the conservative media, it came from MSNBC, which is as left-liberal as they come.   So, as Twilight indicated, even within left-liberalism, there are those who don’t buy Obama at all.

But let’s bring in another factor, from over here – the comfortable desire for people for the handout – the new paradigm.  A left-liberal article I read yesterday [which I ditched, once read] referred to the organic salmon and fine coffee welfare dependents in NYC – in other words, those who are living perfectly happily on welfare, without a sense of shame which people pre-70s felt about being on it and sponging off the taxpayer whilst indulging in their prime real estate, good food, drugs and recreational sex – very much a hallmark of the modern left-liberal.

And the governments are making it possible with heavy taxpayer subsidies of single-mothers to save them having to keep the fathers of their children at home, making it more attractive to be out of work than to work and making the workplace itself a hostile place of no security whatever, often on part-time wages these days which don’t cover the skyrocketing bills – gas alone has just gone up 6% over here, immediately before the cold season when people can’t fight back.

Now let’s put Steve’s comment in context.   His comment was:  “ manage the taxpayers’ money”. The answer to that is in the cartoon – the pails in Obama’s hands. And that’s “managing”?

And Steve also says: “in a way that the majority of taxpayers approved”.

A huge number of those are not taxpayers – they’re students, foreigners and the unemployed or underemployed.   More accurate would have been to say: “a large minimum of people living within the borders“.

Together with the powerful anti-Romney factor – and that’s been looked at ad nauseam – there is the factor of this “welfare-happiness” which is a left-liberal phenomenon and a very great evil.   It’s a very great evil because it creates a type of person who is soft in his honesty [sponging of taxpayers whilst using self-entitlement as his justification], has become relativist in his politics – well, there are all sorts of truths and mine is equally as good as yours – and either un or anti-Christian.

A huge factor in the anti-Romney backlash was the Christian Right, which Obama supporters interpreted as Christian and extreme fundamentalist.   Now Steve, who is Christian himself, would be nonplussed that the candidate he supports is anti-Christian backed and the one he is against has a large Christian backing.   Of course he would maintain – and rightly so – that the Christian Right over there is not Christian at all, as are not the Mormons – check out what they believe in.

Steve’s support for leftist politics is on the grounds of compassion and don’t get me wrong – he’s’ a really nice guy and I’m glad I met him in blog terms but that still brings us back full circle.   He supports programmes which look after the poor, the needy and that’s fine but it is politically naive because it involves government money, which is taxpayer money and that taxpayer money finances rampant corruption – quangos, false charities, fat cats in the public and semi-public sector on big salaries, as well as encouraging people to remain on that welfare, instead of improving themselves.

He doesn’t support this consciously but that is the net effect of supporting “compassionate government intervention”.   It always has been, it is part and parcel of governments.   The notion that a government will ever do the right thing and act compassionately or for the right reasons is, I’m sorry, seriously naive.  Governments are there to grab powers and enslave.   By definition, they are incompetent and anti-citizen.

Why?  Because entirely the wrong sort of people are parachuted in.

People who are genuinely trying to improve themselves can get nowhere because the jobs simply aren’t there and why is that?

Because left-liberal governments tax high and blow out debt, they kill off manufacturing and real jobs, expanding the bureaucratic penpushers with secure tenure [welfare factor again] which brings in Tory governments who maintain that high tax, pleading that the other lot got us into this, whilst at the same time plunging the nation into deep austerity, a hallmark of unfeeling Toryism, and fearmongering, which began in the socialist time, which also brought in “nanny knows best”, databanks, CCTV and Common Purpose [multiple posts passim].

Nowhere in this mish-mash appears common sense, non-intervention in our personal lives, a free market with the rapacious reeled in by government and government taking care of the defence of the nation.   The left-liberals have the schools in a stranglehold, handing out condoms to children and turning a blind eye to drugs for adolescents, teachers are physically attacked in lessons and so on and so on – not a hallmark of conservative times and the courts are soft on real offenders and vicious on minor infractions which go against the narrative, e.g. having a gun.

And the cumulative impact is to go right away from Christian values – “go to the ant, thous sluggard” and “do unto others”.  Rampant self-interest of a different type to Maggie’s time but just as virulent prevails, along with rape, violence, road rage, selfishness extraordinaire, people ripping off the system – all the things which Christianity teaches are evil.

And who is the Beast, the False Prophet, the High Priest perpetuating all of this, lying though his teeth [see birth issue again] – Obama.   Look one more time at the stage at his acceptance speech made in the image of the Temple of Pergamon.   That is a direct reference to Ephesians 6:12:

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

There is the social division and rancour referred to by Lincoln, the divide and rule.   Steve is Christian, I am Christian and yet our politics are opposed.   Brother is against brother, child against parent.   These are the signs of the end or at a minimum, the new Sodom and Gomorrah.

I say to myself that Steve could not possibly support these social ills and he probably doesn’t.   I think he sees things more simplistically than cause and effect in politics – he sees a person who is a good person in his eyes, e.g. Julius Nyerere, e.g. the President of Uganda.   He doesn’t, I’d surmise and correct me if I’m wrong, look beyond that at the system in operation through the world, manifesting itself in the CFR, TLC, UN, IMF, WB, CBs, the courts, the hospitals, education, the IB, the World Core Curriculum, the Royal Society, the prostitution of Science, prostitution and net porn, the new female slavery from Eastern Europe, the royals behind all this.   I’d wager he doesn’t go deeply into these evils – maybe the banks, JPM etc.

Steve is a good man, Twilight is a good woman, Cherie is a good woman – and they resent my attitude when I say that they don’t go deeply enough into the cause and effect of socialist regimes, nor do they accept the initial premises, e.g. that free enterprise is not only good, it is essential to freedom.   I don’t believe they’re opposed to free enterprise – they possibly just focus differently, e.g. there is a social ill – legislate to stop it and allocate funds from the bottomless pit.

Where I differ is that I don’t see that nations even have “wealth” per se – there’s no central “pot”.   Individuals do create what they have and their incentive is to work for it, they must work for it as no one else is going to help.   Left-liberals see this work ethic or rather those who fail to have work missing out as anti-Christian, anti-compassion but I reply that it is reality.  It is the Calvinist way. If we don’t have a hard-working society with a working mindset, we’re on the socialist road down and we only need look at the godless USSR for that.

We can speak of ideals and governments can hoodwink people into thinking they’re carrying out those ideals, e.g. Obama’s lip service tolerance and fairness, ipso facto his re-election, but he is not compassionate – he and they are going after control of people and not for good purposes.

Go back to Ephesians 6:12 for this, plus the Heinlein quote in the sidebar.   Steve might argue that libertarianism means “do as thou wilt”, the satanist maxim, which is alive and well in the libertarian community.

I would argue that the satanist factor is alive and well in all communities, including the left-liberal, whose traditions are anti-religion and therefore anti-Christ.  He would say Toryism is too and let’s mention James Wilson here, who doesn’t put a Christian line but says there are the 47% left-liberal/foreign/socialist, there are the godless Tory reactionaries [GOP] and then there are the 5% who are beyond ideology and wish only good for Mankind via a return to sane values.

It means diddly-squat [have always liked that expression] that 47% voted Obama – people have the wool firmly over their eyes.   Obama is either evil himself or he’s a stooge and his minders are evil.   Whoever is actually pursuing these policies, e.g. the multi-trillion dollar debt, whoever is responsible for the dishonesty all over the place, is anti-Man and therefore evil.   The media tells lies – Steve himself admits that in this post – they are playing games over the paedo thing over here, they have an agenda, let alone the UN’s Agenda 21.

The news coverage made a huge thing of the machine at one booth which, when one voted Obama it went Romney but did you notice that the media did not even mention the rampant Democrat vote-fixing which I posted on the other day?  And was Tammany Hall Democrat or GOP?

Why?   Because the media is essentially left-liberal – CNN, NBC, all the big channels, MSNBC, Guardian, Independent, Washington Post, NYT, BBC – and the other lot are Them – Tavistock, big money etc.   So you’ll never hear of the corruption of the Obama machine and thus the people, happy in their ignorance and noting the Romney incompetence and carefully selected fanaticism, e.g. on rape or on the GM bailout, happily go to the polls and vote back the very man who caused much of their misery, the other one being Bush/Cheney.

Which brings us to the real enemy – Them – and let’s go back to Ephesians 6:12 again.   Someone who goes to mock ceremonies to Moloch [Bohemian Grove] and is a member of Skull and Bones is no friend of humanity.   None of Them up top are.   But Obama is particularly virulent and fulfils the criteria for the enemy of man – godless but well aware of God, feckless, dishonest, devious, hidden in his dealings, dealing in platitudes and his words meaning nothing, saying “yes we can” without ever specifying what he can do, with delusions of grandeur, e.g. the Pergamon acceptance stage with flames and tribute to Zeus and so on.

And he is leading America into war right now.   You’ve just seen Hamas start the process immediately following the election victory, you’ve seen the Israeli response to the rocket attacks and it was all predicted, pundits wrote of it happening the moment the election was out of the way.

Obama voters see none of this, they’ve never read the libertarian/centre-right pundits who have been warning of this.   They are only reading the left-liberal press which glosses over it all.   And even when it starts, I’d wager they’ll blame anything and anyone but who it actually is.

And they look at us ranting and raving and frothing at the mouth and are nonplussed, they think we’re off the planet, deluded, trapped in our own ideology.   Like Sarah Connor in Terminator 2, shaking the wire fence and screaming to the world “look out, look out” before the blast, the world turns to us and looks at us pityingly, thinking we should take our pills and calm down.

They never once stop and think we might just be onto something here, they don’t read us with understanding but only through their own filters and then they turn away, shy away and leave us be, mumbling in the corner, ranting at the storm like King Lears.

Occasionally they’ll fight back without knowing what they’re fighting back about.

And we quote source after source after source they’ve never even looked at and have zero intention of ever exploring but keep on arguing without the benefit of this knowledge.  They say “never mind all that” – “that” being the painstaking research – “what I think without the benefit of any of the facts is …” and they wonder why we get frustrated and write posts in this tone.

They think us unpleasant, they don’t like our posts.

They stick to the Obama narrative no matter what because it’s feelgood, it does a Roosevelt and blinds people to the true situation and under cover of that, the most dastardly deeds are done on the American – and by extension the world’s – people.

Ron Paul asked in his farewell speech [tomorrow morning on this site] what he had achieved.   Very little in concrete terms, he concluded.   All that ranting and raving, the tea party, people everywhere [a minority] saying this is all wrong, this is a trick, we are being silenced and marginalized and people are oblivious – they just look at us dumbly.   We have failed to get the message through.

Freedom is almost dead and those who voted Obama and GOP are unaware of it.

Ron Paul is aware, we are aware at these outpost sites, various people in the community are aware, many Christians are aware which is why we’re public enemy N1, James Wilson is aware, as is Amfortas and others.

Karl Denninger is aware, Max Keiser, Zero Hedge, Jesse is aware.

And when we say that we are currently in a war for the very existence of free civilization, very much the war at the end of the Lord of the Rings, they smile pityingly and say: “I do so wish you’d not get political like this, it spoils your blog,”  or: “If you put things more nicely and weren’t so insulting, people would listen to you more.”

Aaaaaagggggghhhhh!     The bulls of Bashan are charging us down as we stand here and such well-intentioned and good-hearted people say: “Don’t shout things at us like, ‘Get out of here! Get out of here!’ … say things more nicely, be kinder, after all, it doesn’t hurt to be nice to people, it costs nothing.”

And I shout: ‘It might well be better to be nice and polite as a general rule in life but we are currently being charged down by a herd of bulls and you’re speaking of being nice?”

I’m exhausted.

7 Responses to “Why Obama really “won””

  1. James Higham November 16, 2012 at 12:15 Permalink

    Ron Paul [tomorrow] on this theme:

    The major stumbling block to real change in Washington is the total resistance to admitting that the country is broke. This has made compromising, just to agree to increase spending, inevitable since neither side has any intention of cutting spending.

    The country and the Congress will remain divisive since there’s no “loot left to divvy up.”

    Without this recognition the spenders in Washington will continue the march toward a fiscal cliff much bigger than the one anticipated this coming January.

    I have thought a lot about why those of us who believe in liberty, as a solution, have done so poorly in convincing others of its benefits. If liberty is what we claim it is- the principle that protects all personal, social and economic decisions necessary for maximum prosperity and the best chance for peace- it should be an easy sell.

    Yet, history has shown that the masses have been quite receptive to the promises of authoritarians which are rarely if ever fulfilled.

    Freedom, private property, and enforceable voluntary contracts, generate wealth. In our early history we were very much aware of this. But in the early part of the 20th century our politicians promoted the notion that the tax and monetary systems had to change if we were to involve ourselves in excessive domestic and military spending.

    That is why Congress gave us the Federal Reserve and the income tax. The majority of Americans and many government officials agreed that sacrificing some liberty was necessary to carry out what some claimed to be “progressive” ideas.

  2. Restoring Britain November 16, 2012 at 12:42 Permalink

    James,

    I feel your pain. I too try a similar kind of plea but no one is listening. Yuri Bezmenov’s explanation of Demoralisation has come to fruition and we see it here.

    I have tried to ask people to examine the mantra of fairness for all versus opportunity for all. I try to ask those who would go down the big state collective “fairness” programmes to play them out to their ultimate extension. To ask them what happens when the money is gone and you find out that that even if you took every penny in earnings above 250k (pick your currency) from wealthy individividuals it wouldn’t cover it. The question then has to follow, what will those in power who promise you utopia do?

    The answer is they will run for the hills as they abandon you. Who will be first to be abandoned? Those who needed them the most – the poor, the miserable and in reality the Rubes. They will learn when it is too late, that they’ve been had, they been duped, they’ve been hoodwinked. They will learn that having been conditioned to be like human veal calves that they will be the first to fall. They will learn that the interest in them was not one of fairness but one of self interest and that no one in the world will be able to save them at that point.

    I hold almost as much scorn however for the failure of mainstream politicians of a more conservative bent to point this out. To show the Emperor that he has no clothes.

  3. James Higham November 16, 2012 at 13:01 Permalink

    Why, RB, and forgive me for lumping you in with this as you’ve probably had an august life – why are we, the ordinary people, able to see this – you see it, so many on the blogrolls see it – and yet these other people, often intelligent – have this ginormous blockage to basic, simple truths?

    I see everything you say – it makes sense, it is obviously based on a knowledge of the world.

    Ron Paul [from his speech]:

    I have thought a lot about why those of us who believe in liberty, as a solution, have done so poorly in convincing others of its benefits. If liberty is what we claim it is- the principle that protects all personal, social and economic decisions necessary for maximum prosperity and the best chance for peace- it should be an easy sell. Yet, history has shown that the masses have been quite receptive to the promises of authoritarians which are rarely if ever fulfilled.

    I can only conclude that these other people are so hardwired because they genuinely believe that spend spend handouts and printing money is helping the poor and incapacitated. I’m becoming sure they feel this and that they feel they are actually the good guys in this.

    ………..

    Here are some of those fraudulent votes:

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/11/obamas_jonestowns.html

    Please explain to me how that is right or good or honest?

  4. BobG November 16, 2012 at 16:59 Permalink

    “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been 200 years.”
    – Alexis de Tocqueville.

    I think we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious.”
    – Thomas Jefferson, Letter to William Ludlow, September 6, 1824

  5. Restoring Britain November 16, 2012 at 21:13 Permalink

    James,

    Those questions are ones that turn in my mind. I am very much one of the ordinary people and have lived in places our self satisfied left love to romanticise to gild their own legends.

    I think there are lots of forces at work here. We have the Frankfurters and the Useful Idiots intertwined along with those who have failed to undertake any real analysis of the ideology they promote. They’ve become almost indistinguishable, a fact that I wonder if the Frankfurters were hoping for. They can hide in plain sight because of this.

    I can’t recall where I saw it but someone summed it up wonderfully when they opined that votes for this big state big spend is wonderfully hypnotic because the public gets to fix the world without having to do anything themselves. How appealing for today’s society.

    I have begun to increasingly think that what is need for the forces of small c conservatism and libertarianism is a long counter march through the institutions. The concept of Owning the Culture although dominated by the Frankfurters is in reality politically neutral. It would have worked for the right as much as it works for the left.

    In the last 24 hours I’ve seen one or two articles in a similar vein:

    http://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2012/11/14/the_conservative_insurgency

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TuL41ohlfZY&feature=related

  6. james wilson November 17, 2012 at 05:25 Permalink

    I have spoken at length to five young people where I work, 18, 19, 22, 23, and 28. None could tell me how many members of Congress there are. The guesses ran fifty to two hundred and fifty. One knew the correct number of Senators. One named the three branches of government. None could name the Senate leader, a Democrat who is from our own state. On and on. They are all Obama voters. And they literally couldn’t tell me why.

    None of them have ever heard any of the ideas and experiences of which civilization is formed and maintained, except from me. Three are genuinely interested. Amazed, even. Their lack of knowledge is not an omission, but a feature of the education racket. What they do know is invariably wrong. Same source.

    One will definitely become a citizen, one likely may, three won’t. I’m not bitter anymore, just amazed that there was ever a time when we were better than this. All credit to the dead. Some of them.

  7. Sackerson November 17, 2012 at 09:02 Permalink

    The cartoon is highly misleading. Obama should be shown taking his buckets to Niagara Falls, since there is an infinite supply of fiat money.

    It is PRIVATE debt that is crippling Americans, together with the banking and “investment” system that battens on them.

Leave a Reply

Please copy the string LibnVO to the field below: