ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2014 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Monday, November 12, 2012

WND column

Obama and America's End

Eight years ago, I wrote a column about “the continued stink of an extinct republic as it decomposes into dictatorial empire” titled, “You can’t fix a corpse.” It was readily apparent, even then, that the constitutional nation, founded upon the revolutionary tradition of the rights of Englishmen, was already dead. So why does it feel as if something important has changed as a result of the recent presidential election? Why is there a sense of significant and lasting change for the worse in the political wind due to the re-election of Barack Obama?

Labels: ,

106 Comments:

Anonymous Idle Spectator November 12, 2012 5:09 AM  

The election changed nothing.

And the election changed everything.

Anonymous re allow anonymous comments November 12, 2012 5:29 AM  

Vote fraud is how Obama won. Those skewed polls were calibrated to cover the margin of fraud.

Anonymous 上酒 November 12, 2012 5:37 AM  

Excellent article. Thanks, as always.

Blogger JACIII November 12, 2012 5:38 AM  

Our recent immigrant are here for Freedom!

Free housing
Free medical
Free food...

Anonymous Rosalys November 12, 2012 6:06 AM  

Yup!

Anonymous Paradisum November 12, 2012 6:23 AM  

Sigh. I typically don't read the comments much but the ones for this WND article just absolutely prove that some people cannot grasp its point. Instead, the typical response seems to be a mixture of the thuggish street revolutionary and the delicate snowflake. "'You' decimated the peaceful hippie culture Indians so it's payback time (snicker)." Where you is a perpetual term of culpability for anyone not of approved darker hue.

I explained it indicatively to a colleague recently: one difference between the slaves and today's immigrant - illegal in greater proportion - is that the slaves were prevented from learning English and the immigrants refuse to learn it.

Anonymous Paradisum November 12, 2012 6:24 AM  

I should clarify: it's the comments on the WND web site.

Anonymous The Lightworker November 12, 2012 7:23 AM  

Before, the system was broken, but men could repair or replace it. The Roman Empire broke down repeatedly, but able men rebuilt it in different forms.

Now we see that there is a self-sustaining anti-White coalition in charge, that profits by continuous dysgenic mass immigration combined with forced integration and assimilation. This is genocide of a shabby, disorganized sort, and no mere social breakdown.

Anonymous Shild November 12, 2012 7:32 AM  

Where are the comments on WND? I can't find them.

Blogger Rantor November 12, 2012 7:35 AM  

@Allow Anon,

I recently attended a seminar run by professional Paulian Libertarian politicos. One thing they insisted on is that nationwide voter fraud is never more than 1% and that in designing a winning campaign, you must be working to win by more than 1%.

Beyond the voter fraud myth, think about who is committing the voter fraud. The descendants of the English or someone else?

Finally, Romney had a bad ground game, (see recent Red State articles), alienated the Tea Partiers, Paulians, and many pro-lifers. If he had worked with these people and motivated them, he might gained a few more million votes from the 100 million or so non-voters. Unfortunately, he was an arrogant Northeast Liberal Republican who hired a bunch of losers and was overly reliant on the RNC to run his ground game.

Anonymous Hood November 12, 2012 7:55 AM  

the limited government they reject is exactly what the ancestors of traditional America fought a bloody revolution to establish.

How long before it becomes revolutionary again?

Anonymous daddynichol November 12, 2012 7:55 AM  

Voter Fraud vs Voter Demographic change. Change wins.

Rantor:
Finally, Romney had a bad ground game, (see recent Red State articles), alienated the Tea Partiers, Paulians, and many pro-lifers. If he had worked with these people and motivated them, he might gained a few more million votes from the 100 million or so non-voters. Unfortunately, he was an arrogant Northeast Liberal Republican who hired a bunch of losers and was overly reliant on the RNC to run his ground game.


Agreed. Romney and the RNC tossed a motivated and significant portion of voters on the Constitution funeral pyre as the Mega bankers enjoyed smores.

Blogger Rantor November 12, 2012 7:56 AM  

One more thing, voter fraud is strongest, amusingly enough, in voter precincts that are going strongly Democrat anyway. In the big picture, I am unconvinced that a single state was lost to Romney by voter fraud. The vote for Obama in most every state. Was 2% or better, in a quick review of battleground states it looks like only Florida was within 1%. And as we will know, Florida didn't matter as Obama had enough votes elsewhere.

Anonymous ridip November 12, 2012 8:04 AM  

Glad to see a substantiative article like this, especially now. The previous reversion-to-the-WND-norm articles were a perfect setup for it. Now keep speaking it and maybe a few will stop closing their eyes to the truth.

Blogger Jamie-R November 12, 2012 8:08 AM  

Take care of your own backyard. If that becomes one party rule, secure it that way, and watch all those cunts in natural disasters go after each other. The facts remain! Real Americans hold their shit together. Cause they can, and aren't dispossessed of civil law, let's not get into constitutional law! Their way will collapse, they are leeching off the good folk, and they can't sustain it, they can post as many pictures of candles hanging a light bulb all they want, their way is not progress, it is theft of other people's standards of living to make way for what they think they can achieve. It is falsehood, a golden calf, and they will die as the ground swallows up those who coveted the standards of those who followed Christ obediently.

Anonymous orlok November 12, 2012 8:15 AM  

...Get out of my head!!

Anonymous Paradisum November 12, 2012 8:31 AM  

Hood: "How long before it becomes revolutionary again"

Not very. Be on the look out for news stories portraying Waco style showdowns and vigilantes dispensing justice on Knockout Club "youths". Ironically, liberals lionize and encourage "freedom fighters" like Che Guevara. But I'm sure they'll feel differently about revolutionaries soon enough.

Anonymous Anonymous November 12, 2012 8:43 AM  

three two term presidents in a row.

two in a row was a precedent, and a first.

now three in a row? i think we've hit the point where the incumbent will always win.


frenchy

Anonymous Miserman November 12, 2012 8:44 AM  

It all comes down to the practical reality that democracy is a uniquely English phenomenon.

Anonymous OK November 12, 2012 8:54 AM  

I agree with Farah that vote fraud accounts for up to 5 percentage points these days. In North Carolina the absentee ballots had more than 100 people over the age of 112 voting early. Some precincts in FL had more than 100 percent of eligible voters voting. etc. etc. etc.

Anonymous DaveD November 12, 2012 8:58 AM  

I think a lot of people in the red states are going to be surprised when federal funds stop flowing to them. Their standard of living is much more dependant on federal taxes than most realize. That being said, places like Ohio, Iowa, Wyoming etc actually PRODUCE things & therefore can survive without the federal tit. New York, most of the Northeast, & probably California will be crushed when the funds dry up...they have nothing to offer but arrogance.

DD

Blogger Jamie-R November 12, 2012 8:58 AM  

Articles of Confederation looking good now folks. This Union is messed up. Favours population-centric stuff that would have Hamilton salivating for his way. Shoot that cunt again. Less federalism. Need less federalism.

Anonymous DonReynolds November 12, 2012 9:14 AM  

DaveD..."I think a lot of people in the red states are going to be surprised when federal funds stop flowing to them.... New York, most of the Northeast, & probably California will be crushed when the funds dry up...they have nothing to offer but arrogance."

My dear fine fellow, you do not seem to understand Chicago politics, which is the game very much played at the White House these days. The BLUE states will never see the funds dry up....even if they hafta print up funny money to keep the gravy train rolling. Yes, California, New York and most of the Northeast are all BLUE states and they gave Obamba the victory. They are not going to lose a cent of Federal largess, it will only wildly increase. Hopefully, it will make those states a magnet for Obama people.

Anonymous asdf November 12, 2012 9:24 AM  

I read somewhere that Romney got as many white votes as Reagen, there are just fewer white people these days. I'm not sure a Republican can win unless the democrat is a very bad candidate. Obama, for as his faults, is charismatic enough to not be an electoral disaster.

Anonymous DonReynolds November 12, 2012 9:25 AM  

Rantor..."In the big picture, I am unconvinced that a single state was lost to Romney by voter fraud. The vote for Obama in most every state. Was 2% or better, in a quick review of battleground states it looks like only Florida was within 1%. And as we will know, Florida didn't matter as Obama had enough votes elsewhere."

I agree with you. While voter fraud is very real and there was plenty of it, the outcome of the election was not changed by it. Obama carried every state he carried in 2008, with the exception of Indiana and North Carolina. None of the states that voted Republican in 2008 voted for Obama in 2012. Even in Ohio, where the voter fraud seems to be the most obvious by the labor unions on the ground, the loss of Ohio would have not changed the outcome of the election.

Anonymous Stilicho November 12, 2012 9:27 AM  

It all comes down to the practical reality that democracy is a uniquely English phenomenon.

Close. Limited government by design is a uniquely English phenomenon.

Anonymous Rantor November 12, 2012 9:29 AM  

OK: Agree with Farah all you want, your sample is amusing, Romney won North Carolina by over 2% despite any cheating.

And regarding Florida, it didn't matter, Obama won without them.

If farah thinks there is a 5% national cheating goign on, he needs to produce some facts.

Anonymous DonReynolds November 12, 2012 9:37 AM  

the limited government they reject is exactly what the ancestors of traditional America fought a bloody revolution to establish.

Hood..."How long before it becomes revolutionary again?"

You seem confused.

The Obama people see themselves as the revolutionaries, even lionizing Che Gevera. What we are watching in slow motion is a garden-variety communist revolution in the style of Lenin (from the "commanding heights"). To stop them, we need a successful counter-revolution.

In the same way, Lincoln and the new Republican party were the revolutionaries and when they captured the Federal government, a counter-revolution was mounted in the South precisely upon the election of Lincoln. Secession is counter-revolution to the new imbalance in power. Yes, the revolutionaries fear it the most.




Anonymous Rantor November 12, 2012 9:45 AM  

I am sick of the death of Conservatism moroseness out there. Frikking morons. Conservatism was not running in this race. A North East Liberal Republican ran against a Chicago machine politician. Do you think the Republican didn't know Obama would cheat? Do you think the RNC is that stupid? No they knew it and they knew they would have to win big. It was obvious to me in the spring that this was Obama's election to lose. The S&P is up 75%, despite massive unemployment the mass of people are happy.

Beyond that Romney did not run as a big tent Republican. He through the libertarian, conservative, tea party and pro-life wings out of the tent. He and the RNC fought to win this fight in the middle, despite anything the mainstream media is trying to tell you.

We had a poor candidate, we had a well organized opposition, that knew how to win and where to fight, regardless of whether they cheated.

The good news is that the economy should collapse in the next four years. If it does, and if we can run a big-tent Republican, we can win that election with a mandate to fix the problem (Doesn't mean the Republicans will know how, but that is a different problem). But to do that, we'll have to have a good candidate, broad support, and an effective ground game. (Insiders seem to be saying that Romney thought he was going to win and remained non-aggressive in the last 6 weeks of the campaign because of it... ORCA failed.)

The Republicans didn't lose because of cheating, they lost because of a bad candidate, a poor ground game, and an economic situation that doesn't appear to be as bad as the underlying rot indicates. While immigration is a difficult problem, I still believe a solid libertarian/Conservative candidate can win.




Anonymous Question November 12, 2012 9:47 AM  

I think a lot of people in the red states are going to be surprised when federal funds stop flowing to them. Their standard of living is much more dependant on federal taxes than most realize. That being said, places like Ohio, Iowa, Wyoming etc actually PRODUCE things & therefore can survive without the federal tit. New York, most of the Northeast, & probably California will be crushed when the funds dry up...they have nothing to offer but arrogance.

What you don't seem to understand is that New York, most of the Northeast, and California give more than they receive in federal taxes. Like you so adroitly pointed out most of the red states are parasites on the federal government sucking down much more federal money than they pay in. Its a travesty that Wyoming receives as much money as it does and gets 3 electoral votes with only half a million people.

Anonymous DonReynolds November 12, 2012 9:49 AM  

Far too much exaggeration of the role of racial minorities in the last election. Some of the Liberal Republicans (RINOs) are tripping over each other, trying to surrender to them. Simply put, even if the Democrats carried every single hispanic and black voter, they could not win any election without a substantial portion of the white vote...which was provided by white women in 2008 and 2012.

Yes, if the whites are roughly divided, the deciding vote will be racial minorities. But it is a stupid game to divide the white vote in half and have each party compete for the minority voter. A better game would be to forget pandering and concentrate on winning more of the white vote....which was 72 percent of all votes in 2012. Why? Because for all of their differences, white voters have much more in common with each other than they do with hispanics and blacks. Reagan Democrats are not hispanic or black, they are white. Win them and the Republicans will win the elections.

Anonymous DPD November 12, 2012 9:50 AM  

Wherever there's a union you'll have voter fraud.

Remember they said they would put their marching boots on.

In 2010 look how they hassled the tea party at town hall meetings.

Anonymous Rantor November 12, 2012 9:52 AM  

DPD,

And despite union thuggery, the Republicans took back the House. What is your point?

Blogger swiftfoxmark2 November 12, 2012 9:57 AM  

One of the comments on WND stated that the Constitution died this election day. No, it died when President Lincoln invaded the Confederate States of America. If anyone had any understanding of contract law, you would agree with that assessment.

Anonymous DonReynolds November 12, 2012 9:58 AM  

The margin of victory for Obama in 2012 was provided by none other than RONALD REAGAN, when he made voters of 4 million illegal aliens in 1986. That was 26 years ago and any children they had up until 1994 were eligible to vote in the 2012 election. Apparently they did.

THANK YOU RONALD REAGAN! YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU DID TO THIS COUNTRY BY USING YOUR SIGNATURE INSTEAD OF A VETO OF SIMPSON-MAZZOLI.

Anonymous VD November 12, 2012 9:58 AM  

What you don't seem to understand is that New York, most of the Northeast, and California give more than they receive in federal taxes.

And where is that money, especially in New York and California, coming from, Question? Would you happen to know what one specific industry is paying those federal taxes?

While immigration is a difficult problem, I still believe a solid libertarian/Conservative candidate can win.

Possibly, but even if it is possible, it won't be in another two election cycles. Right now, only 24 million of the 50 million Hispanics are eligible to vote and it only takes about five years from green card to voting eligibility. You also have to remember that the big government Republican moderates might actually prefer the Democrats or stay home themselves.

Anonymous Josh November 12, 2012 10:00 AM  

Blaming this election on voter fraud assures that no one will learn anything from the election.

It's not that complicated. Romney lost because less of the typical republican voter turned out, his convention shenanigans cost him the Ron Paul folks, the nation continues its democratic march towards a majority non white population, and the Obama campaign had a significantly better ground game.

Blogger The Bechtloff November 12, 2012 10:00 AM  

I was thinking about things like the free state project. Perhapes the only way to perserve liberty is for civilized people to cluster in small states so that when the US does collapse something positive can come from the ashes.

Anonymous DPD November 12, 2012 10:09 AM  

Rantor
The point is the union doesn't like to loose. In 2010 the union was not prepared for the voter turn out against obamacare. Also they were not prepared for what happened in Wisconsin last year. It should raise a flag when the voter turn out on the recall was better for Walker then his first election. What that election told the union how much they would have to cheat to win in 2012 in every state

Anonymous rycamor November 12, 2012 10:13 AM  

1965... that haunting year. It happens to be the year I was born, and it was the year of the immigration reform and the year birth control pills were unleashed on the world.

Born under a baaaaad sign...

Anonymous Rantor November 12, 2012 10:18 AM  

VD, clearly a surge in hispanic could take place, we just have to figure out how to get a larger piece of the hispanic vote. Interesting statistic, there are more Republican Hispanics in Congress then Democrat. If we can get them into office, we need to figure out how to lead their voters over.

Cruz for Presidente!

I don't think this has to be a total loss... but in no way believe it will be easy.

Anonymous Rantor November 12, 2012 10:25 AM  

DPD I have a hard time believing the unions weren't prepared for the recall vote in Wisconsin, they caused it, they fought for it, they occupied the state capital, they bloodied noses.

They lost because it was a state campaign, and the majority in the state liked the governor despite everything else. (Just a guess, moderates and moderate dems probably were appalled by the ugliness of the campaign and stayed home.) They also lost because the state election didn't draw the participation of a national election, despite all the uproar.

Anonymous DPD November 12, 2012 10:28 AM  

The immigrants that come into this country also come from country's that have voter fraud. Those that come here illegally don't care about having a fair and honest election.
Its not a higher turnout by them. It is more likely the ballot boxes were stuffed in there name.

Anonymous Stilicho November 12, 2012 10:36 AM  

we just have to figure out how to get a larger piece of the hispanic vote.

Anything less than 50% is an outright loss.

Anonymous Geoff-UK November 12, 2012 10:41 AM  

It's pointless to talk about getting one party to focus on the white vote without recognizing that the media will scream bloody murder at any politician even talking indirectly about such a thing. The tea party bent over backwards to focus on their message but all anyone ever heard in the media was "those racist tea-baggers are on it again."

It's like saying it's possible to win the lottery tomorrow...not bloody likely.

Caucasians won't recognize the danger until it's too late. Hey! What do you know, it's too late already!

(yes, yes, sound money and no central bank are the bigger issues, but don't bet against those guys either).

Anonymous Other Josh November 12, 2012 10:48 AM  

America is coming apart at the seams. You are right, Vox. The embers of hope are being extinguished, which means people who value limited gov't are going to look for other options.

Already, petitions to secede have been filed by the citizens of 20 states. Now, I believe these petitions won't amount to anything - they are only the first symptoms of a rising groundswell. As the actions of the gov't become for grievous, the backlash will become much stronger.

States will eventually secede. Civil war will eventually follow. It may take 10 years, but it will happen. Especially once the fiscal cliff is driven over and the economy collapses. Desperate people do desperate things.

For this very reason, I am looking to exit. I have no desire for my family to live in a war zone.

Anonymous DPD November 12, 2012 10:48 AM  

The Hispanic that migrate here their children have the same dropout rate from schools as the blacks do. This is the uneducated Idiot voting block. Those that graduate from high school are the brainwashed idiot voting block. Who runs the education system? Unions

Anonymous Other Josh November 12, 2012 10:50 AM  

"more grievous"... not "for grievous"

Anonymous Parts is parts November 12, 2012 10:52 AM  

The good news is that the economy should collapse in the next four years. If it does, and if we can run a big-tent Republican, we can win that election with a mandate to fix the problem (Doesn't mean the Republicans will know how, but that is a different problem).

HELP! SAVE US! FOR THE CHILDREN!

Yep.

Anonymous LES November 12, 2012 10:58 AM  

Don Reynolds: "A better game would be to forget pandering and concentrate on winning more of the white vote....which was 72 percent of all votes in 2012. Why? Because for all of their differences, white voters have much more in common with each other than they do with hispanics and blacks."

All racial and ethnic groups are encouraged to be ethnocentric, except whites. That be raciss.

Anonymous OK November 12, 2012 11:27 AM  

Obama didn't win in any state that had voter I.D.

Anonymous DonReynolds November 12, 2012 11:27 AM  

LES..."All racial and ethnic groups are encouraged to be ethnocentric, except whites. That be raciss."

I still chuckle when I hear the whine-asses talk about the "racial divide". Overwhelming percentages of ethnic minorities vote Democrat, but somehow it is the Republicans who are raciss. Very funny. The only thing the Republicans have divided is the white vote. Muslims are not the only people who can do jihad....watch and see.


Anonymous Daniel November 12, 2012 11:30 AM  

I could conceive of a Texian empire in a cross that stretches North as far as the Dakotas, West as far as Utah, East as far as part of the old Confederacy, but I'm not sure about its stability - wouldn't be surprised to see it fall apart within sixty or seventy years.

It would also involve the merger of the SEC and the Big 12, which would be even more challenging.

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler November 12, 2012 11:37 AM  

Great Article. Nothing that Pat Buchanan hasn't already said about the impact of immigration.

"Culture defines Politics". That is the core. Republicans and many christians don't understand that, but Marxists do. "Culture defines politics".

Anonymous Daniel November 12, 2012 11:43 AM  

California, for certain, does not pay more toward Federal taxes than they receive.

The states with the largest populations always "earn" the largest portion of federal spending.

Anonymous Roundtine November 12, 2012 11:56 AM  

The future GOP is Ron Paul + progressives. I'm not sure what issue will make progressives leave the Dems, but localism could be the path. Eventually there will be a big conflict in the Dem coalition and if they rely on racial blocs, the progressive will find that they can't negotiate because they are a minority of the Dems! Once they come over, there's your white party.

Anonymous Roundtine November 12, 2012 12:00 PM  

The most endangered species in American politics is the white Democrat. Think about it.

Anonymous HH November 12, 2012 12:04 PM  

VD say "What you don't seem to understand is that New York, most of the Northeast, and California give more than they receive in federal taxes.

And where is that money, especially in New York and California, coming from, Question? Would you happen to know what one specific industry is paying those federal taxes?"

Expand on this please .. seems likes there's some point you want to make but are uncharacteristically beating around the bush...

Anonymous Roundtine November 12, 2012 12:09 PM  

HH,

The banks.

Anonymous Miserman November 12, 2012 12:12 PM  

Stilicho wrote:

Close. Limited government by design is a uniquely English phenomenon.

Agreed. Thank you.

Anonymous Question November 12, 2012 12:18 PM  

California, for certain, does not pay more toward Federal taxes than they receive.

The states with the largest populations always "earn" the largest portion of federal spending.


Of course they "earn" the largest portions would it make sense for the largest states to recieve less money than smaller ones? But as far as California not paying as much as they receive you're wrong and VD even agrees with me. Its a common misconception amoung right wingers to think the red states are what drives the economy when really its the other way around the red states are generally the parasites and the blue states are what keeps the economy going and the federal government funded.

What you don't seem to understand is that New York, most of the Northeast, and California give more than they receive in federal taxes.

And where is that money, especially in New York and California, coming from, Question? Would you happen to know what one specific industry is paying those federal taxes?


I had assumed that the majority of federal taxes were in the form of personal income tax so I'm going to have to wait for your answer to the question because I don't know what industry you're talking about.

Anonymous DonReynolds November 12, 2012 12:19 PM  

Daniel...."I could conceive of a Texian empire in a cross that stretches North as far as the Dakotas, West as far as Utah, East as far as part of the old Confederacy, but I'm not sure about its stability - wouldn't be surprised to see it fall apart within sixty or seventy years."

Sixty or seventy years sound much better than what we are looking at right now. As far north as the Canadian border, and east from Oklahoma to the Atlantic. Forget Utah, let them make peace with California or Colorado. We need states that can be defended.

Daniel....."It would also involve the merger of the SEC and the Big 12, which would be even more challenging."

Not a problem, buddy. Texas A&M was one of the charter members of the Big 12. This year they joined the SEC and last Saturday upset #1 ranked Alabama. Not bad for newcomers. Huh?


Blogger Longstreet November 12, 2012 12:20 PM  

"It would also involve the merger of the SEC and the Big 12, which would be even more challenging."
For texas university, sure. They'd have to learn how to play in a league that doesn't exist for their benefit mainly. Not sure they could make the adjustment. The rest of the schools might find the change refreshing as well as challenging.

Tide Rolled!

Anonymous 11B November 12, 2012 12:29 PM  

It is not a matter of religion or race, but rather of centuries-old cultural traditions in which a dominant central government is considered a basic fact of life and a potential resource to be exploited, not a dangerous servant best viewed with suspicion and kept under constant restraint.
...
The overwhelming majority of people from those cultures and traditions neither understand nor desire limited government.

I think the problem with our Constitution in the modern age is that it is a "big boys" Constitution in that it requires a level of maturity and self-reliance one would expect of an adult. Think about the population of the nation at the time of its ratification. Probably everyone could hunt, fish, and grow vegetables. In other words they could feed themselves. They could also construct cabins for shelter and make their own clothing. Today people can't do this. I understand times have changed, but even in the mid 20th century I would assume there was still a high level of self reliance that is not to be found today.

Therefore, our Constitution with its so-called negative rights on what the government can do is probably not desirable to an adolescent population that needs the government to care for them from cradle to grave.

Even European immigrants of a century ago must have had some self reliance given that there was no welfare state and they were taking a risk coming to America because they had to sink or swim on their own in a foreign land.

The overwhelming majority of today's vibrant LEGAL immigrants and refugees can only make the trip to the USA with the understanding that there is a huge safety net to provide them with free education, healthcare, food subsidies, housing stipends and the like. In other words there is no risk. How many of these folks would come here if they had to sink or swim on their own?

So it is not surprising that they have no use for a "big boys" constitution and desire as much big government as possible.

Anonymous WaterBoy November 12, 2012 12:38 PM  

Shild: "Where are the comments on WND? I can't find them."

Right below the original article, if you keep scrolling down past the ads and social media clutter. If they aren't showing up for you, it could be a browser issue.

Anonymous JI November 12, 2012 12:48 PM  

A very poignant article, Vox. Thank you, very well put.

Although it's been clear for some years that the US is financially past the point of no return, I think most of us had harbored the hope that the character of the people was still there, underlying all the refuse. But when you pointed out that this election marked a turning point, it really hit me down deep. You are so right that it marks a dividing line in how many of us view America.

Anonymous JI November 12, 2012 12:51 PM  

Just also wanted to mention that Pat Buchanan talks about these exact same points in his books and other writings for years now.

Anonymous Pepe Lepoo November 12, 2012 12:59 PM  

I've been having a lot of gas lately. My kingdom for one big fart!

Maybe that is what this nation needs. Then, ignite it. Problem solved.

For the future of America, watch Jericho. It is going to be pretty close to that. Especially Texas.

Blogger James Dixon November 12, 2012 1:11 PM  

> It would also involve the merger of the SEC and the Big 12, which would be even more challenging.

And the demotion of the ACC to AA status, where they belong.

> Its a common misconception amoung right wingers to think the red states are what drives the economy when really its the other way around the red states are generally the parasites and the blue states are what keeps the economy going and the federal government funded.

Funding the federal government and keeping the economy going are not the same thing.

Anonymous VD November 12, 2012 1:14 PM  

Its a common misconception amoung right wingers to think the red states are what drives the economy when really its the other way around the red states are generally the parasites and the blue states are what keeps the economy going and the federal government funded.

That's not true. You're making the mistake that income taxes are based on non-parasitical activity.

I had assumed that the majority of federal taxes were in the form of personal income tax so I'm going to have to wait for your answer to the question because I don't know what industry you're talking about.

I'll go into more detail on this in a future post. But keep in mind that the financial industry's share of ALL corporate profits has ranged as high as 33 percent. You can't look at it as a simple public vs private issue, as a substantial aspect of the nominally private side is based on its government-established monopolies.

Anonymous cheddarman November 12, 2012 1:26 PM  

Forget Utah, let them make peace with California or Colorado. We need states that can be defended. - Don Reynolds

I'm not a Later Day Saint, nor do I live in Utah. However, having spent time there, and working along side a number of them, I would expect the Mormon population cluster centered in Utah, and including Wyoming, Idaho and perhaps parts of Northern Arizona and Western Colorado, to more than hold its own during a period of civil unrest, or outright civil war. It would probably undergo an expansion in terms of territory.

From what I saw, they seem to be very family oriented, disciplined, hard working, and embody a lot of what used to be common place in "old" America. They also have a high percentage of gun ownership. If any vestige of white America were to survive relatively intact, it would be them.

sincerely

Cheddarman

Anonymous Gen. Kong November 12, 2012 1:33 PM  

A very frequent falsehood which never seems to go away is the notion that bankster parasitism and casino robot-trading somehow equates to "the economy". Derivative exposure is now at least 1.4 quadrillion. Someone will call BS soon or later, and the black swan will appear.

Anonymous Stilicho November 12, 2012 1:39 PM  

HH,

The banks.


+ the gov't

Anonymous Question November 12, 2012 1:47 PM  

Funding the federal government and keeping the economy going are not the same thing.

That's not true. You're making the mistake that income taxes are based on non-parasitical activity.

A very frequent falsehood which never seems to go away is the notion that bankster parasitism and casino robot-trading somehow equates to "the economy". Derivative exposure is now at least 1.4 quadrillion. Someone will call BS soon or later, and the black swan will appear.

Hey you guys keep talking like that I'll be able to convert you to socialism. Once you realize the really wealthy in this country don't actually produce much real wealth heavily progressive tax codes become more and more appealing. But I was originaly repsonding to this:

I think a lot of people in the red states are going to be surprised when federal funds stop flowing to them. Their standard of living is much more dependant on federal taxes than most realize. That being said, places like Ohio, Iowa, Wyoming etc actually PRODUCE things & therefore can survive without the federal tit. New York, most of the Northeast, & probably California will be crushed when the funds dry up...they have nothing to offer but arrogance.

Which is nonsensical since if the federal government dried up New York, most of the Northeast, and California would actually have more money since they are drained by the federal government to supplement a number of poor states the majority of which are red.

Anonymous CunningDove November 12, 2012 2:02 PM  

"Which is nonsensical since if the federal government dried up New York, most of the Northeast, and California would actually have more money since they are drained by the federal government to supplement a number of poor states the majority of which are red." - Question
Having lived in upstate NY, NYC & the south, all I can say is: "BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!"
The problem is cultural Q, not monetary. The US gov won't lose the ability to play 3 Card Monty until the money either hyper-inflates or deflates... When it comes down to honest barter & skills... Yankees are going to be literally, "out in the cold".

Anonymous Frank Brady November 12, 2012 2:05 PM  

It is absurd to imagine that "democracy" will result in freedom. It will not.

This is not difficult. Are there more takers than givers? Are there more unproductive parasites than there are producers? Are there more stupid people than bright people?

Anonymous Stilicho November 12, 2012 2:13 PM  

Which is nonsensical since if the federal government dried up New York, most of the Northeast, and California would actually have more money since they are drained by the federal government to supplement a number of poor states the majority of which are red.

If that were true, then those productive statists in NY, CA, et al. should be happy to let the red states secede and end the drain on their Yankee wallets. I wonder why that never happens?

Anonymous Rex Little November 12, 2012 2:14 PM  

Slightly off topic, but you know what racial/ethnic group has been here longest, next to Englishmen? Blacks. Most of them have ancestors who were brought here 200 years ago or so. And those ancestors had no tradition of a strong central government, just tribal chiefs for the most part.

Of course, there are good and sufficient reasons why most blacks don't resonate with the concept of limited government.

Anonymous Question November 12, 2012 2:24 PM  

If that were true, then those productive statists in NY, CA, et al. should be happy to let the red states secede and end the drain on their Yankee wallets. I wonder why that never happens?

Rofl this is the type of right winger delusion I'm talking about. It is true that NY, CA, and the most of the Northeast pay more in taxes to the federal government than they receive back and that places like the South, Wyoming, Idaho, North and South Dakota, Arkansas, Kansas, Oklahoma and many of the red states receive much more federal money than they pay in. That is just a fact easily confirmed with a couple seconds of googling. Texas is about the only major red state that pays more than it receives. You can argue that the money from blue states doesn't represent real wealth but the fact remains that they do give more money to the federal goverment.

Blogger James Dixon November 12, 2012 2:28 PM  

> Rofl this is the type of right winger delusion I'm talking about.

You mean they would be happy to see the red states secede?

Somehow I doubt that.

Anonymous Question November 12, 2012 2:35 PM  

> Rofl this is the type of right winger delusion I'm talking about.

You mean they would be happy to see the red states secede?

Somehow I doubt that.


I mean that NY, CA, and the Northeast pay more in federak taxes than they receive and most red states don't. I've said that several times now and I know that it pains you all to admit it but thats reality.

Anonymous Stilicho November 12, 2012 2:37 PM  

Ah James, Q-bie is funding the red states out of the goodness of his heart. For the chilluns, no doubt. He just wants what's best for you hillbillies. Just accept his nekkid assertions and get back to making meth.

Wherever do that sweet, sweet blue state money come from?

Anonymous Josh November 12, 2012 2:38 PM  

The future GOP is Ron Paul + progressives. I'm not sure what issue will make progressives leave the Dems, but localism could be the path.

Are you on crack? The progressives want a gigantic federal government that can wage war against the evil white conservatives that do things like mine coal, drill oil, smelt steel, etc. Unless you're using a different definition of progressive.

Anonymous Stilicho November 12, 2012 2:43 PM  

And to whom does that sweet, sweet, federal lucre go?

Anonymous Question November 12, 2012 2:50 PM  

And to whom does that sweet, sweet, federal lucre go?

I posted a link to the wikipedia article above Federal taxation and spending by state for those too lazy to google. Maybe you can dig through the footnotes and find the evil liberal conspiracy to make the South look like a lazy parasitic drain on the federal government. Make sure to look at the map at the bottom of the article it might help some of you realize why the South won't rise again.

Anonymous Question November 12, 2012 2:54 PM  

Sorry Federal taxation and spending by state

Blogger Rev. Right November 12, 2012 3:02 PM  

That was a very well put piece. I wish the Pure of Heart Right would have considered this a little more clearly before they sat back and watched Romney lose. Obama's reelection means 20 million new statist voters on the rolls in 2016. It means the nationalzation of the healthcare industry cannot be stopped. It means a Marxist supreme court in power for at least a generation. It may have been grasping at straws to look at this election with any hope, but now even the straws are gone. Oops.

Anonymous Randy M November 12, 2012 3:16 PM  

Talking about states and taxes paid vs benefits received reminds me of TIA. Does it change when you focus on counties rather than states? Recall much of CA is red,etc.

Anonymous Stilicho November 12, 2012 3:20 PM  

Take a look at state by state federal spending.

My back-of-the-envelope calculation shows that 65% of federal spending (as of 2011)goes to states that voted for Obama in 2012. This does not include the deficit spending, but I do not see any reason to anticipate that it would be spent in a different ratio.

Here's the state voting breakdown from Politico.

Anonymous Gen. Kong November 12, 2012 3:20 PM  

Rev. Right:
I wish the Pure of Heart Right would have considered this a little more clearly before they sat back and watched Romney lose. Obama's reelection means 20 million new statist voters on the rolls in 2016. It means the nationalzation of the healthcare industry cannot be stopped. It means a Marxist supreme court in power for at least a generation. It may have been grasping at straws to look at this election with any hope, but now even the straws are gone.

Romney's "election" would have meant exactly the same. He clearly supported: 1. Amnesty; 2. Obamacare (called Romneycare in MA); 3. Gun control. As someone remarked the other day, the only man standing tall against the massive march towards the totalitarian utopia is ...... John Boehner! Doesn't that make ya feel all warm and tingly inside?

The truly remarkable thing is that after decades on end of flim-flam, lies and betrayal on the part of the party of Gay Old Pedophiles there are still folks like yourself who apparently continue to think they are an actual opposition party.

Anonymous Stilicho November 12, 2012 3:32 PM  

Talking about states and taxes paid vs benefits received reminds me of TIA. Does it change when you focus on counties rather than states? Recall much of CA is red,etc.

It would change the analysis if you could match the spending to the voter, but, as it is, all we have available is the state level voting to compare to the state level funding. The per capita tax and spend ratios don't tell us much because the underlying assumption is that all individuals are proportionately taxed and proportionately benefit from federal spending within a given state.

Anonymous DaveD November 12, 2012 3:59 PM  

Question,

You seem obsessed with the old Blue States pay more argument. My point was that if hyperinflation kicks in or something else happens to break down the normal order of society, which segment of the country do you think will have a higher standard of living? States like New York or New Jersey that produce nothing of value to the world at large (By "produce" I mean take a natural resource and convert it into something people will buy.) or states that grow things, build things, have large oil fields, etc? I would guess that huge chunks of the New York personal incomes that are being so dutifully donated to the red states are made in the stock market/finance industry SELLING what the red states CREATED.

If the paper's worthless, it doesn't really matter how much of it you have. If you can grow your own food or sell it for something of real value...you eat.

DD

Anonymous Stilicho November 12, 2012 4:00 PM  

My back-of-the-envelope calculation shows that 65% of federal spending (as of 2011)goes to states that voted for Obama in 2012. This does not include the deficit spending, but I do not see any reason to anticipate that it would be spent in a different ratio.

Also note that those Obama states have about 69% of the population. There's a small differential in the population/federal funds analysis. This appears to be an artifact of the nature of federal appropriations as much as anything else.

Blogger James Dixon November 12, 2012 4:03 PM  

> I mean that NY, CA, and the Northeast pay more in federak taxes than they receive and most red states don't.

You've made that point several times, yes. And I see no point in disputing it with you. Nor was I doing so.

But you also said this:

"Rofl this is the type of right winger delusion I'm talking about."

in response to this:

"If that were true, then those productive statists in NY, CA, et al. should be happy to let the red states secede and end the drain on their Yankee wallets."

My point was (more of a question actually): Why, if they pay more than their fair share in taxes, would it be delusional to expect them to be happy to let the red states to secede?

So, please consider it a question. Why wouldn't they be happy to let the red states secede?

Blogger Rev. Right November 12, 2012 4:14 PM  

@ Gen Kong:

If you think Romney's liberalism was the same thing as Obama's liberalism, then you know nothing of the left. You are correct in that Romney would not have been the Great Savior of America you are apparently waiting for, the restorer and securer of our Constitutional Republic for all time. But he most certainly would have gotten rid of Obamacare. He would have slowed the deluge of wealth of redistribution. He would have stopped intentionally accelerating the decline of the country. And amnesty for illegals would not have been a done deal.

Your rejection of the good (or at least the mediocre) for the perfect has allowed the triumph of evil. The idea of supporting Romney was worse than making Obamacare permanent and thus de facto nationalizing healthcare, worse than mandating religious organizations provide contraceptives, worse than choking to death the American energy industry, worse than annual trillion dollar deficits forever, worse than enshrining into law the Democratic-run government project to elect a new people to elect a Democratic-run government.

Would Romney have failed the test on amnesty? Perhaps. But you didn't have to wonder what would happen if Obama was reelected, did you?

So sit back and watch things unfold General. Events are proceeding apace. I await the execution of your no doubt brilliant strategem.

Blogger Jamie-R November 12, 2012 4:56 PM  

It's not that complicated. Romney lost because less of the typical republican voter turned out, his convention shenanigans cost him the Ron Paul folks, the nation continues its democratic march towards a majority non white population, and the Obama campaign had a significantly better ground game.

Yeah but in real America, Romney would be the Left's candidate, even that might be in doubt. Shit.

Anonymous Susan November 12, 2012 5:19 PM  

2 things. People voted for Santa Barakoclaus because they are lazy and like the freebies. Easier than working.

And the other thing to remember is Nixon did not finish his second term. Who is to say Obama won't finally be kicked out?

Anonymous Stilicho November 12, 2012 5:29 PM  

As for the "whom" part of federal largesse:

From that bastion of raciss white truthiness known as Huffpo (circa 2010): Whites: 35% participation | 63.7% of US population
African Americans: 22% participation | 12.2% of US population
Hispanic: 10% participation | 16.3% of US population


Not trusting HuffPo, I checked the raciss USDA website and, sure enough, they had the same stats (N.B. in addition to the above percentages, 19% were classified as "race unknown).

Anonymous Mephistopholes November 12, 2012 5:34 PM  

If you think Romney's liberalism was the same thing as Obama's liberalism, then you know nothing of the left.

Vote for Beezlebub, 'cause Lucifer's even more evil!

Blogger James Dixon November 12, 2012 7:03 PM  

> 19% were classified as "race unknown

American Indian, most likely.

Anonymous Anonymous November 12, 2012 8:33 PM  

It's game over for the declining white majority. Present birth rates will have white voters accounting for about 30-35 percent of the electorate in the next 20 to 30 years. The only way to reverse the trend would be forced expulsion of illegal immigrants of all types.
That would not be a peaceful process at this stage. Much more likely to eventuate the ethnic cleansing of whites to redoubt separatist regions within the country.

Anonymous A Visitor November 12, 2012 10:16 PM  

People finally realized that the jig's up.

Anonymous 11B November 12, 2012 10:25 PM  

In regards to the debate about whether blue states are net tax givers or takers, I think that is a bad methodology to use. States are not uniformly red or blue. For example, many of the red states that receive government funds are heavily black, a major blue constituency.

In California Romney received almost 39% of the vote. I would not be surprised to learn that this 39% pays more in taxes than the 59% that voted for Obama.

A better way to study this is to use the chart Sailer made of who supports whom. Compare whether single black mothers are tax givers or takers against married protestants.

Anonymous The Lightworker November 12, 2012 11:31 PM  

"Much more likely to eventuate the ethnic cleansing of whites to redoubt separatist regions within the country."

There are no redoubts. They would be illegal.

That's why the current policy set amounts to White genocide, and no White person has any posterity unless they get effective political representation and change it.

Anonymous Roundtine November 13, 2012 7:42 AM  

Are you on crack? The progressives want a gigantic federal government that can wage war against the evil white conservatives that do things like mine coal, drill oil, smelt steel, etc. Unless you're using a different definition of progressive.

I'm thinking of the raw milk drinking, homeschooling progressives. Ron Paul cut into that part of the base in the northeast. NYC, DC and LA progressives are another matter, they are unreachable.

Anonymous Susan November 13, 2012 7:45 AM  

To propose a possible answer to your questions, maybe what you are sensing is some of God's will being employed to move this country in the direction He wants it to go for His purpose. Not trying to start a horse beating here, but I have lived through enough election cycles in this country to recognize that something is different this time.

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts