New Stanek poll: Does Obama’s reelection signal “the end of a civilization”?
I have a new poll question up:
Do you agree with Michael Voris that Obama’s reelection “signals the end of a civilization,” or is he overreacting?
Vote on the lower right side of the home page.
Obviously, pro-lifers greatly miscalculated on the last poll question:
Monday morning quarterbacking myself, I got it wrong, too, on several counts: that the number of people voting for Obama would be down, that there would be no female gender gap (although I must say despite the other side’s “war on women” effort, Obama’s support among women fell 1% from 2008 – down from 56% to 55%),that Akin stood a better chance than he did, and that the Chick-fil-A voters would shock and awe.
But it all is what it is, and we move on – or do we – which brings me back to the new poll question… :)
As always, make comments to either the previous or current poll here, not on the Vizu website.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
I called it, I knew it would be Obama. Unfortunately.
Lol, no, civilization is not going to end. America might change, and maybe not for the better, but it’s not ending. Goodness gracious I don’t understand this doomsday thinking. I might worry about the economy collapsing but humans are pretty resourceful, we’ll figure something out unless the zombie apocalypse happens, which would be cool.
The kind of leadership you get when you ‘vote with your lady parts’.
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/petraeus-resigns-cia-affair/2012/11/09/id/463573
The election does signal the immediate end of civilization. The election is, however, a symptom of the corruption that is the cause of America’s decline that could lead to its destruction. Perhaps now that America has spoken and will get what it *wants* it will learn that this is not what America *needs*.
Was that a Dark Knight quote? Something like “Obama was the hero that America wants, not the hero we need?”. Lol.
Funny, I was just reading something by Fr. Joseph Fessio, SJ, this morning that he wrote in 1996. And he argued that the SC case Casey v. PP was not even a slippery slope, but the “bottom of the abyss.” Our civilation has been in decline for a long time. This election just proves it. Lots of parallels to Rome of course, but what came after Rome? The rise of Christendom. So, we may be at the end of one civilation, or at the dawn of another, better one.
I don’t think civilization is ending, I think I civilization has ended. As soon as society thought it was okay to kill the preborn you can no longer call that society civilized in my book. Western pro-abortion societies are now human baby-sacrificing cults.
All the signs are present, however it all depends how citizens deal with the situation. We believe that the USA has a great system of government with many checks and balances. However, the system is only as strong as the charactor of its participants. We are all called to be participants by electing statesmen and women who are loyal to the constitution and serve the electorate for the common good. It remains to be seen how President Obama will lead in his second term and how well he works with lawmakers. No government can ever create a utopia. The Obama supporters have their own issues to deal with. Moral decay is real and that is what will determine how long our civilization lasts.
Our country was founded on the principle that all our rights come from our Creator. The rejection of this principle (God) is the cause of our decline. The election of Obama is just a symptom.
Goodness gracious I don’t understand this doomsday thinking.
Goodness gracious, Jack, I don’t understand why you don’t know history. Read up, babe. The Babylonians, Mesopotamians, Greeks, Aztec, Maya, Incas, Romans, Druids, Phoenecians, Egyptians, etc. might explain some things.
Obama’s reelection doesn’t.
I’m concerned though that we live in a country with so many needs, and we just spent $6 BILLION to fund political campaigns – money that mostly went to spread negative ads.
In my Bible…God sure seems to dislike those who don’t have their financial priorities straight.
Civilizations can end. They have ended before. So we know they can end. Anasazi anyone?
If our end is coming, it is not Obama’s fault. The citizens are responsible for the actions that lead to success or failure.
we just spent $6 BILLION to fund political campaigns – money that mostly went to spread negative ads.
Hey, people who create negative ads have bills to pay. So, that money went right out into the private sector. Also, all that spending created many taxable events. All the people who got paid to make those ads, paid taxes on their earnings. How is advertising not good for the economy? It increases the velocity of money. Those ad creators bought a whole bunch of goods and services with the money they earned which means those selling those services also earned money and were taxed etc. That is how the economy works.
This nation has been evicting God for over 50 years now. The re-election of Obama is just one more step on the road to a thoroughly secular country. God have mercy on our nation, there are some who still believe. Help us before we get as low as Sodom & Gomorrah. Please bring a revival. Even Ninevah experienced a revival.
Ex-GOP I have agreed with two of your posts today!
I think Obama’s re-election may not signal the physical end of civilization (as in WW3) but it is not very good news at all. I think the spiritual end of civilization has already happened.
I don’t want to list all the bad things I think could happen to the United States and the world as a result of his election; however, I think the American President is a very unwise man and this fact doesn’t bode well for a very pleasant future.
Tyler – maybe that is a stronger sign of the end of civilization!
Here sent to me by a friend is a voice from someone who lived under tyranny and understands the consequences of a public that supports pathetic leadership:
Occasionally people have the vocabulary to sum up things in a way that can be quickly understood; this quote – from the Czech Republic. It was translated into English from an article in the Prague newspaper, Prager Zeitungon
“The danger to America is not Barack Obama, but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools, such as those who made him their president.”
hippie, I think Ex-GOP was probably thinking of other better ways that the money could’ve been spent. For example, directly on the needy and underserved and or in some more permanent ivestments such as Hospital repairs, endowments, new infrastructure, even paying off some of the debt, etc…. Money spent on advertising is not a long term investment. It is not a capital purchase. I am not saying that employing people who work in advertising isn’t good or beneficial, just that the returns from the dollars spent might not be long lasting for society as a whole.
I don’t think it singles the end of civilization any more than any other bad President America’s had did.
JDC. Obama is worse then any president we have ever had so it is a stronger signal.
This country rose from the ashes of the Civil War, where Americans slaughtered, brutalized, plundered other Americans and devastated the country.
We will survive Obama.
Mary, I sure hope you’re right. What’s worse now (compared to the Civil War) is how we are slaughtering our own children in the name of freedom.
“Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince.”
If all else fails, attack the democratic process itself. Claim that half of those who cast a ballot are unworthy of it by calling them “fools.”
Yeah, that’s a very “American” idea. Then, top it all off with talk about “Christian privilege” and how only Christians should be allowed to vote because they–and only they–have a “moral compass.”
Yup, you’ve marginalized yourselves. Keep up the good work.
Tyler – building off of your thoughts on the spiritual end of civilization…
No matter who won this last week, the decline of the influence of religion in public life has been going on for years. I find that people will only find disappointment if their way of spreading their faith to the masses is through legislation. I find more and more people turned off by the church every day – and more and more people who simply find religion to be unimportant.
Are we being “of the world” when we’re sinking time, energy, and our entire mood and outlook on life into elections of political figures? Would we be better off spreading religion through relationships, helping people, and loving our neighbors, regardless of who is in the White House?
The spiritual decline of individuals within our country won’t turn on who is or isn’t in the white house. It will depend on how we treat people. I think we, as a Christian community, have done more over the last few years to turn people off of religion than any individual politician ever could.
mp 2:30pm
It was one of our past presidents Abe Lincoln who said you can fool some of the people all the time and all the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.
Definitely some, but not all, of the people got fooled this time.
EGV 2:46PM
Well thankfully the decline wasn’t going on during slavery when the Quakers first organized to abolish slavery and clergy preached on the evils of slavery in their churches. Thankfully the decline wasn’t going on when Martin Luther King Jr. led a civil rights movement from his church pulpit.
Maybe society is better served when religion is not in decline in public life.
“Would we be better off spreading religion through relationships, helping people, and loving our neighbors, regardless of who is in the White House?”
Yes. At the very least some of us non-Christians would appreciate that approach much more.
“Definitely some, but not all, of the people got fooled this time.”
Keep it up, please.
mp,
As far as I know only one person on this site, Tyler, has ever said that only Christians should be allowed to vote. As a Christian and a republican I am here to tell you that is an unconstitutional notion and would never be supported by the republican party platform so your attempt to marginalize the entire republican party by the comments of one are ludicrous. Our founding fathers specifically recognized that our republic could not last if our rights came from government or religion or democratic majority. They recognized that even a citizenry of like minded, good hearted people united in a majority of support for peoples constitutional values would fall in due time. Because the next generation could be a a majority of like minded tyrants.
But like it or not the truth is that our country was founded upon the notion that our rights as a people come from God. Our nation is in peril when we stray from our founding principles.
Truth, since you think we are in peril because less people believe our rights are God-given rather than a human construct, do you believe non-Christians put the country in jeopardy simply by existing and not believing in God?
“As a Christian and a republican I am here to tell you that is an unconstitutional notion and would never be supported by the republican party platform so your attempt to marginalize the entire republican party by the comments of one are ludicrous.”
What gives you the idea that I think I’m talking to the “entire Republican party” here?
I’m fully aware that I’m talking to a subset of Republicans, a far-right subset, and it has marginalized itself.
Jack,
Lots of people who are non-Christian believe in God.
mp 2:53PM
Your point?
Assume I am talking about those who don’t, or at least don’t believe in a God who bestows human rights.
“I’m fully aware that I’m talking to a subset of Republicans, a far-right subset, and it has marginalized itself.”
Who precisely mp? The pro-life faction?
Jack, historically as a nation we have had 90 plus percentage of citizens who identified themselves as believing in God. I sense that is changing dramatically in the present day and yes I think it places our republic in peril. Denying God would also mean denying our rights come from God. And if our rights don’t come from God then they come from man and man can take them away.
Man can take away rights whether or not God endowed them. Happens all the time.
We went over this lol.
What do you think should be done with atheists/agnostics/other non-believers in a right endowing God?
I would like another Christian besides truth to answer this for me: Do the rest of you also believe that atheist/agnostics/etc put the country in jeopardy simply by existing? I’m not being a jerk, I am just curious if that’s a common belief.
Jack, that is simply false. In order to for you to see the difference between God endowed rights and man endowed rights you have to be willing to answer this question. Where do your rights come from?
No Jack.
This country has been made up of people of all faiths, and even no faith, since the beginning of this country.
You place nobody in jeopardy.
You have rights in this country because you are a person. It is not because of your faith or lack of faith.
Honestly, I believe rights are practically endowed by society truthseeker. I’m an agnostic, meaning that I don’t *know* whether or not they come from God (I probably change my mind on how likely it is that God exists 50 times a day), but practically it really doesn’t matter to me. Fact is, governments and people can remove and endow rights depending on what’s going on, it happens all the time.
Thank you Ex.
Jack, you don’t put the nation in peril simply by existing. Quit trying to be so overly dramatic and study your nations history. It was founded upon certain principles that were carefully chosen to ensure a lasting constitutional republic. So logically, straying from those principles would put our republic in jeopardy. You don’t need to be a Christian to understand that and looking for other Christians to say that means you are completely missing the point.
I’m not being dramatic, lol. That’s what you’re literally saying. If not believing that rights are God-endowed puts the country in jeopardy, then you are saying that atheists/agnostics are putting the country in jeopardy.
If this is what you believe, that it jeopardizes the country to not believe that rights are God-endowed, then what do you think should be done about it?
Honestly, I believe rights are practically endowed by society truthseeker
Thank you for having the courage to finally answer that question Jack. Now do you also understand that our nation was founded on the principle that our rights come from God and not from society?
Stay with me here Jack and all your questions will be answered.
“Now do you also understand that our nation was founded on the principle that our rights come from God and not from society?”
I understand that some of our Founding Fathers were dedicated Christians, others were other faiths, and some were none. I don’t understand the question, really. You do realize when they said “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness” they didn’t include huge swaths of the population, right?
Jack, are you saying that you do not understand/believe that our nation was founded upon the principle that our rights come from God?
“Jack, are you saying that you do not understand/believe that our nation was founded upon the principle that our rights come from God”
I believe that our country was founded on the principle that white people have rights that come from God, to be blunt. I don’t really blame the Founding Fathers, they were products of their time after all, but these inalienable rights you are talking about were not extended to everyone.
Maybe I can put this whole debate to rest. Couldn’t where our rights come from, and what are even our rights to begin with, be a matter of perspective? People are born into cultures and religions where their rights are limited, or simply not recognized because of caste, economics, social status, out of wedlock birth, race, gender, ethnicity, or religion. Their rights may be God given but apparently the earthbound have a different perspective.
Also what exactly constitutes rights is cultural. Not every culture shares the same ideas, ideals, customs etc. What our rights even are can vary in opinion from one person to the next.
We can argue forever on this issue and never resolve it. Let’s just agree that in this country we have rights, whether they are bestowed by God, the Constitution, state legislators, or just by being born human, is never going to be resolved and in my opinion, is completely irrelevant.
I think it’s irrelevant too, Mary, but truthseeker for some reason isn’t accepting we all view it in different ways.
I believe that our country was founded on the principle that white people have rights that come from God, to be blunt.
Jack, If that were true then slaves would have never been set free. In fact just the opposite is true. Because our country was founded on the principle that rights come from God slaves eventually had to be set free.
Mary, I have disagree that it is irrelevant. If we as a nation accept that our rights comes from society then majority and tyranny would rule.
” Jack, If that were true then slaves would have never been set free. In fact just the opposite is true. Because our country was founded on the principle that rights come from God slaves eventually had to be set free.”
What? Don’t get me wrong, I truly, very much respect the Christian abolitionists who dedicated their lives to ending slavery. I think that’s awesome and about the most Christ-like thing ever. You realize we fought a war over that though, right (among other things)? And you realize countries like England and Holland also got rid of slavery (again, through the dedicated work of abolitionists, including many Christians) without their foundational documents being based in the concept of inalienable rights coming from God?
Jack, I would be happy to talk about other nations and their own history but I want you to be honest about our own and admit that our nation was founded upon the principle that our rights come from God and not from culture or society. Can we start there. That is where we got side-tracked when I asked you to stay with me several posts back.
Hi Jack,
I’m afraid that you, like most of us, are of the misconception that our Founding Fathers were all white. Nothing is further from the truth and Black Americans, and for that matter all Americans, have been done a grave disservice concerning our history.
http://themilwaukeedrum.com/2010/06/01/our-black-founding-fathers-and-taking-back-our-history/
I did answer that. Our nation had a great start with our Constitution ensuring some rights for the common man, stemming from the Declaration. But it was limited. Women weren’t given these same rights, neither were minorities. Actually, I don’t think I personally would have rights under the original ideas of the Constitution since I’m not fully white lol. So no, I don’t think we were founded on the idea that everyone has inalienable rights given by God. I believe we were founded on the idea that *some* people have rights given by God. If we had been, there would have been no need for further amendments giving women and minorities their full rights as people.
If I had to guess… I think the there is a reason you have such a hard time just saying yes to that and admitting it even though it is just a well known and established fact. It is likely because it would make those who live in this country but do not believe in God feel alienated.
Mary the sound on my computer is broken so I can’t watch the video, but I don’t see how it changes my point. Even if some of our Founding Fathers were not white, it still doesn’t mean that minorities were extended the same rights as whites were when the country was founded. Remember the 3/5 compromise? The Dred Scott decision?
Hmm. I don’t know what the future holds, but I do know who holds the future . . .
Truthseeker I don’t feel alienated by the founding of our country. I do feel somewhat alienated by your opinions though, to be honest.
Jack,
In the colonial era there were many freed blacks. There were also white people who were indentured servants. Not everyone was not treated fairly and equally but that doesn’t change the fact that many of our Founding Fathers were black and that women also served in the American Revolution. Deborah Sampson disguised herself as a man to join the Continental Army and was among the small number of women documented to have served in combat.
Its unfortunate your sound doesn’t work as the videos are fascinating and informative.
The 3/5 Compromise had more to do with Congressional representation of Northern and Southern states. The south wanted to count the slaves as population, thus more representation, the north objected since slaves were “property”. A compromise was reached to satisfy both arguments.
Dred Scott concerned a slave who the US Supreme Court ruled could not sue for his freedom because he wasn’t an American citizen, only the descendent of Africans, and thus entitled to no Constitutional protection. I believe one of the Justices was a slaveholder. Hardly unbiased.
The US Supreme Court does have a history of some disgraceful rulings, this definitely being one of them.
However, history is what it is, and black Americans, perhaps in an effort to portray them as victims and not patriots and heroic men and women very capable of making their place in this world, have been done a grave injustice where their history is concerned.
Mary,
That’s pretty much sidestepping my point. There were plenty of blacks and women and others of all sorts instrumental in the early days of our country. That’s not the point. I am just arguing against truthseeker’s assertion that our original founding documents guaranteed inalienable rights to all persons. I don’t think they did. I fail to see why we would need a 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendment if those rights were already guaranteed under our original Constitution. I think the argument that truth seems to be putting forward is that everyone was originally granted the same, inalienable, God-given rights. I don’t think that’s correct. I might just be slow and misunderstanding him but it doesn’t seem correct.
Jack, our founding and our constitution were not a magic wand that immediately removed all injustice but it did acknowledge the principle that all men are created equal. But that doesn’t mean you can deny that principle as laid forth in the Declaration of Independence existed as an integral part of our founding. Abraham Lincoln and others referenced the existense of these principles in the Declaration as they fought to right injustices and amend our constitution.
Fine, truthseeker. I still don’t see how if our founding documents had granted those rights from the beginning we would need further amendment to the Constitution to grant the rights that you claim are already granted? Lol. But whatever, say I accept your premise. Go on then.
Hi Jack,
My point was that the Founders of our country were neither exclusively white or male. Also the 3/5 compromise occured in 1787 and the slavery debate was going on at this time. Dred Scott was a century later and had nothing to do with the Founding Fathers. Another problem concerning the Constitution was judges who could “interpret” it as they saw fit.
Our FFs were flawed, like any humans, though Washington did free his slaves. Perhaps it can better be argued that the Founding Fathers laid the foundation for the eventual freedom and equality of all, which has always been an ongoing struggle.
Yes, they did lay the foundation. I think I actually said that or implied that at least, whatever I do agree with it.
Top Republican lawmaker John Boehner said on Thursday he would not make it his mission to repeal the Obama administration’s healthcare reform law following the re-election of President Barack Obama.
And the hits just keep on coming as I predicted…..
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/10/us-usa-healthcare-boehner-idUSBRE8A800420121110
AANNnnnd…..so much for the rule of law…….
http://www.inquisitr.com/393382/sean-hannitys-stunning-reversal-on-immigration-could-it-be-to-woo-latino-voters-video/
Hannity in May….”ILLEGAL…ILLEGAL !!!!
Hannity last week…”My position has EVOLVED.”
LOL !
So…so much for Obamacare….Rule of Law and Immigration….and Abortion…according to Ann Coulter and many Conservative pundents I heard this weekend.
“In the clip, he claims there are “millions” of people who “drain” our hospitals, education systems and other services simply by being here, and advocates arresting people simply for being Latino in the US.”
Well I can’t watch the clip but if he really advocated arresting people simply for being Latino in the US, I first say screw him, and then I say I really hope his turn around is genuine (though I doubt it).
Jack, just to be clear going forward. Are you agreeing that our nation was founded upon the principle that our rights come from God and not from culture or society?
Well I can’t watch the clip but if he really advocated arresting people simply for being Latino in the US, I first say screw him, and then I say I really hope his turn around is genuine (though I doubt it).
This is why you don’t want idiots being Conservative spokespeople. We do not advocate people being arrested and deported based on their race….simply the legality of their citizenship. May seem harsh….but oh well…American Citizenship has its costs. And yes their are millions of illegal citizens draining our healthcare system….25 million strong.
But…that is neither here nor there now. America has become a place where if the laws are not liked…they are ignored or the argument is framed as us being anti-immigrant…instead of anti-illegal immigrant. Because in their mind…there are NO illegal immigrants simply because they disagree with the way the law labels their friends and family or because their race makes up a sizable population of the illegal community.
So ignore the law….re-label the supporters of the law falsely…and win the day through elections.
Sure truth, I told you I will accept the premise. Go on.
No government or culture or society that acknowledges that we are endowed with these rights by God can then claim the authority to take those rights away.
All right truthseeker. How does that answer my question that I asked a million posts ago?
And the converse is also true. If one acknowledges that rights are endowed on us by society then we have no authority to oppose a tyrannical majority.
Truthseeker, have you ever done any reading on the philosophy of human rights? It’s simply not true that those who don’t believe that human rights are endowed by God would not see an obligation to defend them from a tyrannical majority. But anyway, I’ll accept your premise again without arguing because I am honestly curious. Are you going to answer my question of what you think should be done about those who don’t agree with this concept of inalienable rights?
Jack,
Are you referring to this one?:
And you realize countries like England and Holland also got rid of slavery (again, through the dedicated work of abolitionists, including many Christians) without their foundational documents being based in the concept of inalienable rights coming from God?
No, I wasn’t referring to that. Honestly, just tell me the rest of your opinion and answer my question. I won’t argue with you, I am just really curious where this is going now.
“those who don’t believe that human rights are endowed by God would not see an obligation to defend them from a tyrannical majority.”
Jack, that is not what I said or what I am saying. I acknowledge that an atheist or an agnostic feel an obligation to defend human rights. But a nation of people who acknowledge that human rights are endowed upon them by society have no ‘authority‘ to prevent the state changing those rights based upon the the arbitrary morals of a culture at any given time.
Okay. You don’t seem to have much understanding of anything other than religious philosophy if you think that, but I said I wasn’t going to argue. Go on.
Are you going to answer my question of what you think should be done about those who don’t agree with this concept of inalienable rights?
Jack, do you mean people who believe they can strip other people of their right to life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
Okay. You don’t seem to have much understanding of anything other than religious philosophy if you think that, but I said I wasn’t going to argue
You will need to explain that because in my book of logic if you get rights from society then society can take them back.
Lord this is frustrating.
No. I want you to answer the question I asked you way at the top of this thread. If you think that not believing in this concept of inalienable rights being endowed by God is putting this nation in jeopardy, what do you want done about it? Are you just lamenting or something, because that’s understandable. But if not, what do you think the solution to this growing segment of the population that doesn’t believe this is?
I think teaching our citizens about our founding in our schools (maybe even a course on it each year) would be a great first step.
I actually wish I had more classes on it. I think I only touched on it as part of a general US history class and that ain’t enough.
Okay. I was taught that as a kid, actually, and I still can’t make myself believe it as an adult. Happens quite a bit. What do you think should be done if that doesn’t work, if the population of secular people continues to grow?
Mary, I am impressed by your comments and by your knowledge of our founding. Thank you for sharing. I learned new things from you.
Yup. American civilization is finished. No reason to hang around here anymore, really. I’ll help you pack your bags.
Hi ts,
Thank you, you are very kind.
I must admit this history of black Americans is new to me, most of my info is from google and bits and pieces I pick up.
My brother is a huge Civil War buff and he told me that black officers and soldiers in the Confederate Army were treated with more respect than they ever were in the Union army!
Also the only Native American to serve as a general in the Civil War was a Cherokee who served in the Confederate Army. Apparently history is not as black and white, or Native American, as we think it is.
History fascinates me.
Sadly, I can’t say this knowlege is from my public education and tragically most people, especially black people, can’t either.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/333134/consolations-denial-mark-steyn
With respect, the analysis below is wishful thinking. Tuesday was a profoundly consequential night (more on this in my weekend column) and to pretend that it was a “status quo” election that the incumbent merely “survived” is not helpful. J T Young writes:
Politically, Obama won without a mandate and becomes a lame duck shortly.
Are you sure he knows that? He didn’t have a “mandate” for half the stuff he did in his first term, but he did it anyway – shoving Obamacare through on one last bought vote rather than focusing on jobs, etc. That’s the main reason his re-election was so narrow – because he spent his first term concentrating only on things that, whatever their immediate downside, offer his team serious long-term advantage. Our guys might usefully learn from that: Too often Republicans, even when they win, are content to be in office rather than in power.
If that’s what he did when he had a re-election to fight, what do you think he’ll do now that he doesn’t? Regardless of the “inevitable Republican gains in 2014?, this is a man happy to advance his agenda through executive power supported by the bureaucracy and the courts, in neither of which is there any danger of “Republican gains”. In other words, if you liked the first-term executive orders, wait till the second.
While we’re at it, on the brink of another four years, the key point about Barack Obama is not that he’s a secret Muslim Kenyan Commie or whatever. Whether he was born in Honolulu or Mombasa or Stockholm or up on Planet Zongo, what matters (as I write in my book) is that in his general worldview he is entirely typical and perfectly representative of tens upon tens of millions of Americans. Tuesday’s majority confirmed that. They don’t need a “conspiracy”: They agree with him. That’s the problem.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/333132/why-i-despair-charles-c-w-cooke
Alas, there is nothing written in the stars that says that America will always be America. “Rome,” as Joseph Heller brutally reminded us, “was destroyed, Greece was destroyed, Persia was destroyed, Spain was destroyed. All great countries are destroyed. Why not yours? How much longer do you really think your own country will last? Forever? Keep in mind that the earth itself is destined to be destroyed by the sun in 25 million years or so.” There will be little virtue in America if it becomes a larger version of Britain, but with free speech and the right to bear arms.
On Tuesday, America took another giant leap away both from its revolutionary mission and from the classical liberalism that it has successfully incubated for so long. This is a rotten thing for America, and also — though it might not realize it — for the world; for, like Anthony Blanche, Evelyn Waugh’s “aesthete par excellence,” should the United States descend into the mire, it will “take something away with it.” If America ceases to be America, it will “[lock] a door and hang the key on a chain.” And then? “All [its] friends, among whom [it] had always been a stranger,” will realize they need it. I know I do.
http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/debt-377298-government-trillion.html
… here’s the gist: There’s nothing holding the joint up.
So, Washington cannot be saved from itself. For the moment, tend to your state, and county, town and school district, and demonstrate the virtues of responsible self-government at the local level. Americans as a whole have joined the rest of the Western world in voting themselves a lifestyle they are not willing to earn. The longer any course correction is postponed the more convulsive it will be. Alas, on Tuesday, the electorate opted to defer it for another four years. I doubt they’ll get that long.
“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
“When the taste for physical gratifications among them has grown more rapidly than their education . . . the time will come when men are carried away and lose all self-restraint . . . . It is not necessary to do violence to such a people in order to strip them of the rights they enjoy; they themselves willingly loosen their hold. . . . they neglect their chief business which is to remain their own masters.”
“Americans are so enamored of equality, they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.”
? Alexis de Tocqueville
Tyler:
Prophetic words, indeed. These are exactly the people the Democrat party are pandering to for votes.
I think it was Tocqueville who also said that in Europe a man is not a man unless he knows how to fight. In America, however, a man is not a man unless he works hard. How the world has changed!
I think it can be reversed, but if not, there will be fire falling from the skies in my life time.
And to follow Christina’s quote, we must be cautious that we don’t grow lax about voting democratically based on a candidate’s prior policies, voting record, and actions rather than based on the promises the candidate makes if we are not to surrender democracy such as the citizens of the fictional Panem Capital did when they gave up voting rights and allowed President Snow to stay long beyond his term and turned a blind eye to human atrocities in favor of peace, economic security, and wealth.
Jack,
I think the argument that truth seems to be putting forward is that everyone was originally granted the same, inalienable, God-given rights. I don’t think that’s correct. I might just be slow and misunderstanding him but it doesn’t seem correct.
There’s a subtle but real difference in the use of the word “inalienable” and “unalienable”. The first means “can’t be”, the second is usually understood to mean “must not ” or “shouldn’t be”. Clearly, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness have not been guraranteed by God throughout History.
The Declaration and Constitution are blueprints. It’s up to us to follow them right.
Infant democracies, much less brand-spanking new constitutional republics, granted votes to its citizens as property holders. This meant men as representatives of the households.
Blacks werr considered foreigners, not citizens, unfortunately. The 3/5 compromise was a cynical ploy by the Southern colonies turned states to add to the property of voters, and thus their representative power.
I daresay their descendants, the Democratic Party, have pretty much followed their lead in using minorities to bolster their power and keep the status quo.
Oh, now I know I sound cynical. But I calls ’em as I sees ’em. Where have I seen the most lies, voter fraud, and desperate corraling and bussing of prospective votes with promises of pizza and cigarettes?
I prefer to be determined, not desperate.