We Are Not Coming Back

The following is a pessimistic view of the sorry state our economy and deficit spending ruining our nation sent to me by a friend.  My friend and I agree it is not too late to save our republic by demanding that our representatives in congress save our republic by adhering to our constitution.  Jan Kollitz

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

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

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

4 responses to “We Are Not Coming Back

  1. I believe that Romney lost because he wasn’t clear on where he stood on most of the issues. He tried too hard to say exactly what the GOP wound have wanted him to say, which pretty much made him look like their puppet. I also do not believe that most people would vote for someone just because it means they are gonna get free stuff. People in general know that nothing is really free. Also, I believe that most people would way rather earn what they have than be dependent on teh government to give them “free stuff.” People want to be independent. I think the reality is that Romney flip flopped too much and that a majority of people voted for Obama because he seemed like the better choice between the two not so good choices.

  2. This is so true. So many people don’t realize what Obama is doing to this country. All they see is the free stuff that he’s giving out. They don’t realize that their children and grandchildren will be ones paying for their “free” things and will be the ones suffering because of it.

  3. This Rabbi summed up everything in a nutshell. As a youtuber had put it, “People want to remain on the plantation to receive their free stuff.” Obama, however, is undoing any fondness that he had held because of his latest actions on capitol hill. Taxes, taxes, and more taxes to support the people that had voted for him. He is the generous man who gave away too much, so he needs to dip into the pockets of his subjects, which will bring him nothing but even more contempt.

    side note –

    Machiavelli holds true even today.

  4. I’m sad to say, I never even gave Romney a chance. I was afraid of him, I was afraid he would be overly religious, I was afraid he had only the rich in mind, I was afraid of his intentions, because I never sat down and took anytime to find them out. I allowed very liberal things like “collegehumor” and “the onion” (comedy websites) to form my opinion of Romney, In all honesty I was hoping Ron Paul would be elected, I actually took the time to find out his motives and reasons. Although sadly I didn’t even want to vote, I had no information of Romney, and knew Obama wouldn’t do anything worth while. But with 20/20 vision, compared to what Obama is doing right now, we really should have given Romney a damn chance.

Leave a Reply