JTF.ORG Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Chaim Ben Pesach on November 08, 2012, 07:43:09 PM
-
בס''ד
The main reason Barack Hussein Osama won re-election is not because of increased non-white turnout (although that also played a role).
The main reason that no one speaks about is decreased white turnout.
In 2008, almost 98.6 million whites voted. In 2012, less than 92 million whites voted. So the white vote is down by roughly 6.6 million. In other words, whites didn't care enough about the future of their country to even bother to vote. While Sean Hannity and the traitors at Fox now call for giving amnesty to illegal aliens and basically opening up America's borders in a desperate attempt to attract Hispanic and Asian voters to the Republican party, that insane action will only make things much worse. If whites had just bothered to vote in the same numbers as in 2008, Obama would have lost.
Once again, JTF will be a lonely voice out there telling the truth that you will hear nowhere else. Will anyone finally listen?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/11/08/the_case_of_the_missing_white_voters_116106-2.html
-
Chaim,
You said it yourself during the begining of the primaries, that if there wasn't a conservative candidate that could energize the base, conservatives wouldn't vote in large enough numbers.
You seem to be dizzyingly changing your mind on why Obama won. Let's face it. Romney was a very weak candidate intentionally backed by an anti-conservative Republican establishment in the hopes that he would lose. I know you don't like conspiracies, but what other reason did they have to back him!?
I don't blame those Whites who didn't vote because I understand them. It's not that they don't care to vote, it's that they despised Romney so much, that they preferred the alternative: An ersatz "civil war", if you can call it that.
-
I think as time goes on whites will also become fewer in number too and that will cause this problem to worsen. This time around I think there were a lot of white people who did care and should have voted, but they were unable to distinguish between the two candidates. We did our best at JTF to try to educate people on why Romney was better than Obama, but many people only saw a choice between a liberal and a liberal. Even I had to hold my nose to vote for Romney. I found him to be extremely repulsive. To some degree I understand people who didn't vote or who voted third party, even though that was a very destructive and wrong thing for them to do. Romney was so liberal that he would have been a bad president in my opinion. Obviously he would have been a much better choice than Obama though.
-
Yes, I was repulsed by Romney as well and felt nauseous every time I had to support him. And I agree that the White population will diminish significantly because of abortion, destruction of the family unit, promotion of freakish cultures, and adoption of government as a provider.
All one needs to do is look at Russia. It's population is estimated to fall by 30 million by 2050. This is not coincidental. They were the first to experiment with population reduction in this manner, and now this has come with full force to America.
-
I blame all the robots... Robots will never come to any good..
-
I think as time goes on whites will also become fewer in number too and that will cause this problem to worsen. This time around I think there were a lot of white people who did care and should have voted, but they were unable to distinguish between the two candidates. We did our best at JTF to try to educate people on why Romney was better than Obama, but many people only saw a choice between a liberal and a liberal. Even I had to hold my nose to vote for Romney. I found him to be extremely repulsive. To some degree I understand people who didn't vote or who voted third party, even though that was a very destructive and wrong thing for them to do. Romney was so liberal that he would have been a bad president in my opinion. Obviously he would have been a much better choice than Obama though.
I agree! The way I see it is the little baby commies can not blame a Republican for the faults of the country! So hopefully this leads to a more conservative candidate.
-
I blame all the robots... Robots will never come to any good..
Not robots Muman, shazam machines!
-
Due to negative birthrate, the American Whites, like the UK Whites, indeed like Whites everywhere, are set to become a small minority by 2050 and literally globally extinct by 2100!
This should not overly bother us as we must already start realising that we Jews derive from sallow-skinned Semites, not Japhetic Whites, despite our current skin color, and that, as the Mirrer Rosh Yeshivah told the Japanese in 1942:: "We Jews are really Asiatics like you!"
-
Yes, I was repulsed by Romney as well and felt nauseous every time I had to support him. And I agree that the White population will diminish significantly because of abortion, destruction of the family unit, promotion of freakish cultures, and adoption of government as a provider.
All one needs to do is look at Russia. It's population is estimated to fall by 30 million by 2050. This is not coincidental. They were the first to experiment with population reduction in this manner, and now this has come with full force to America.
Actually Hispanics and especially negroes abort more than whites by far. However, they keep coming in.
-
Would be interesting to understand how the white population has changed in the last 4 years
-
I think that by the next election, there will be such a high proportion of blacks and Latinos, that it will be almost impossible for a fiscally conservative person to be elected. Average iq of blacks and Latinos is 85 and they are too easily manipulated by the promise of free things. Furthermore, numbers like 16.3 trillion debt levels and 1.2 trillion dollar deficits are meaningless to people of low iq
-
Actually Hispanics and especially negroes abort more than whites by far. However, they keep coming in.
Keep in mind also that contraception and abortion will now be free for virtually every female who desires it in the US under Obamacare.
-
Keep in mind also that contraception and abortion will now be free for virtually every female who desires it in the US under Obamacare.
It was never unfree thanks to Planned Nazihood.
-
בס''ד
The main reason Barack Hussein Osama won re-election is not because of increased non-white turnout (although that also played a role).
The main reason that no one speaks about is decreased white turnout.
In 2008, almost 98.6 million whites voted. In 2012, less than 92 million whites voted. So the white vote is down by roughly 6.6 million. In other words, whites didn't care enough about the future of their country to even bother to vote. While Sean Hannity and the traitors at Fox now call for giving amnesty to illegal aliens and basically opening up America's borders in a desperate attempt to attract Hispanic and Asian voters to the Republican party, that insane action will only make things much worse. If whites had just bothered to vote in the same numbers as in 2008, Obama would have lost.
Once again, JTF will be a lonely voice out there telling the truth that you will hear nowhere else. Will anyone finally listen?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/11/08/the_case_of_the_missing_white_voters_116106-2.html
Why do hispanic voters want open borders? Don't LEGAL usually immigrants despise the illegal ones who get everything handed to them for free, whereas the legal immigrants went through the process fair and square and had to earn their citizenship? I don't understand the hispanic interest in open borders. They should be the most opposed to open borders.
-
Why do hispanic voters want open borders? Don't LEGAL usually immigrants despise the illegal ones who get everything handed to them for free, whereas the legal immigrants went through the process fair and square and had to earn their citizenship? I don't understand the hispanic interest in open borders. They should be the most opposed to open borders.
It's hard for us to comprehend. Their racial nationalism is just enormous!
-
It was never unfree thanks to Planned Nazihood.
The effect of abortion covered by national healthcare will be of great magnitude... How many planned parenthoods locations are there? Now the demand will increase, and they will build many more fetus murdering concentration camps.
-
Why do hispanic voters want open borders? Don't LEGAL usually immigrants despise the illegal ones who get everything handed to them for free, whereas the legal immigrants went through the process fair and square and had to earn their citizenship? I don't understand the hispanic interest in open borders. They should be the most opposed to open borders.
The NWO media has done a very good job of conflating illegal aliens with all Hispanics.
-
בס''ד
The main reason Barack Hussein Osama won re-election is not because of increased non-white turnout (although that also played a role).
The main reason that no one speaks about is decreased white turnout.
In 2008, almost 98.6 million whites voted. In 2012, less than 92 million whites voted. So the white vote is down by roughly 6.6 million. In other words, whites didn't care enough about the future of their country to even bother to vote. While Sean Hannity and the traitors at Fox now call for giving amnesty to illegal aliens and basically opening up America's borders in a desperate attempt to attract Hispanic and Asian voters to the Republican party, that insane action will only make things much worse. If whites had just bothered to vote in the same numbers as in 2008, Obama would have lost.
Once again, JTF will be a lonely voice out there telling the truth that you will hear nowhere else. Will anyone finally listen?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/11/08/the_case_of_the_missing_white_voters_116106-2.html
no difference between romneycare and obamacare, that is the reason right-wingers didn't vote in this election.
-
Is this because fewer whites bothered to vote or the white population is declining?
My understanding is the white population in the US is decreasing every year and will bottom out at around 30 percent by 2050. If this is so, the Republicans need to get really busy increasing the white vote to around 65 percent rather than 59 percent, which I believe Romney got and wasn't enough.
Republicans need to decide whether they will chase the Hispanic vote (which I don't believe will be fruitful), or appeal much more directly to a white identity of sorts. It will take a really talented candidate to grow the white vote, define and appeal to white interests, and deflect charges of racism by the media. This strategy may take a while to reach a critical mass.
-
According to the following link it is too early to blame the election loss on low white turnout because not all the votes have yet been counted due to early voting and absentee ballots.
The linked article also claims that a lot of the lower turnout were from states hit by hurricane Sandy that were not swing states.
See http://www.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeedpolitics/there-are-no-missing-voters (http://www.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeedpolitics/there-are-no-missing-voters)
-
America needs Israel and all events that unfolded these last days is proof , she should behave like the real force she is in the world.
-
It is all in the hands of Hashem. Nothing happens without the approval of Hashem. Only in His divine wisdom did He decide for Obama to win. We can surely be indignant and disappointment. And many people angry.
But what I have learned, regarding Emunah, is that everything is from Hashem.
On one side, I ask myself sometimes what has America done to be rewarded with a conservative president. States voting for gay marriages. More depravity every day. We know this is an abomination before the eyes of Hashem. And we know what happens to countries who support this depravity.
One another side, Obama and the entire US is dependent on the will of Hashem.
A few months ago, Obama announced his support for LGTB rights- the pledged his support of gay marriage. In essence, Obama sealed his spiritual fate. His insistent anti-Israel stance is also detrimental to him and the entire country.
One way or another, he was going to win because it was in the plan of Hashem. Perhaps with Romney the same situation would have occurred over and over again. US president likes Israel but wants a 2 state solution and is nice to both sides. With Obama...US president dislikes Israel, is supported by terrorists, put pressure on Israel, becomes an enemy of Israel etc..etc..
The Obama scenario is obviously terrible but Hashem is sending us a message and Obama is an agent that Hashem is using to give us (His nation) a message. We have to unite. With this growing anti-Israel president and pressures there may be an even higher anti-Israel anti-Jewish rise in America. Perhaps all the comfortable assimilated Jews will feel the punch thanks to the next 4 Obama years.
And I understand if many people have a hard time reading my post. Many are angry, mad, claiming voter fraud etc. That's fine and everyone opinions count.
However, I have a lot of Emuna. (Which I recommend the book "The Garden of Emuna". It game me a lot of peace of mind. Interestingly enough, I picked it up during the time of the elections. I felt free.
The point is, in my opinion Obama won because it was in the will of Hashem. One way or another. I am sorry if anyone is insulted. It is not me saying it, it is the concept that everything is from Hashem. Now, what are we going to do for Israel, Judaism and ushering Moshiach to bring peace to all the world?
-
no difference between romneycare and obamacare, that is the reason right-wingers didn't vote in this election.
No, there's a HUGE difference between Romneycare and Obamacare. One was instituted at a state level and the other at a federal level. If you believe in the Constitution of the United States, a state has every right to implement "free" health care for it's citizens if that is what they want. The federal government has no right to implement this benefit nationally.
-
Baloney. We don't have to fool ourselves anymore with election rhetoric. The election is over and Obamacare is being implemented in the fullest... If you claim that what Romney did is OK because he did so for his State, then people can just as equally cry foul that it's State favoratism... Why should Massachusetts' residents get socialized healthcare, funded by the Federals, but not the rest of the USA!? And don't tell me that MA would have had to pay for it, there's not nearly enough industry and tax to cover such a program. I'm completely against socialist healthcare, actually having seen it and lived in it for many years, but once again, this was a very weak argument against Obamacare by the Romney campaign and was even warned about openly in the Primary debates by the other candidates.
-
The following is Rabbi Pruzansky's view on the election.
Although you might argue with his conclusions for one reason or another, I think he raises some interesting points.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/12436 (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/12436)
Op-Ed: Why Romney Didn't Get Enough Votes to Win
Published: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 9:45 PM
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.
by
Rabbi Steven Pruzansky
Rabbi 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 notion of the “Reagan Democrat” is one cliché that should be permanently retired.
Ronald Reagan himself could not win an election in today’s America.
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; so too those who anticipate “free” health care, who expect the government to pay their mortgages, who look for the government to give them jobs. The lure of free stuff is irresistible.
Imagine two restaurants side by side. One sells its customers fine cuisine at a reasonable price, and the other offers a free buffet, all-you-can-eat as long as supplies last. Few – including me – could resist the attraction of the free food. Now imagine that the second restaurant stays in business because the first restaurant is forced to provide it with the food for the free buffet, and we have the current economy, until, at least, the first restaurant decides to go out of business. (Then, the government takes over the provision of free food to its patrons.)
The defining moment of the whole campaign was the revelation (by the amoral Obama team) of the secretly-recorded video in which Romney acknowledged the difficulty of winning an election in which “47% of the people” start off against him because they pay no taxes and just receive money – “free stuff” – from the government. Almost half of the population has no skin in the game – they don’t care about high taxes, promoting business, or creating jobs, nor do they care that the money for their free stuff is being borrowed from their children and from the Chinese. They just want the free stuff that comes their way at someone else’s expense. In the end, that 47% leaves very little margin for error for any Republican, and does not bode well for the future.
It is impossible to imagine a conservative candidate winning against such overwhelming odds. People do vote their pocketbooks. In essence, the people vote for a Congress who will not raise their taxes, and for a President who will give them free stuff, never mind who has to pay for it.
That engenders the second reason why Romney lost: the inescapable conclusion that the electorate is dumb – 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. Obama could get away with it because he knew he was talking to dunces waving signs and squealing at any sight of him.
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.
One might reasonably object that not every Obama supporter could be unintelligent. But they must then rationally explain how the Obama agenda can be paid for, aside from racking up multi-trillion dollar deficits. “Taxing the rich” does not yield even 10% of what is required – so what is the answer, i.e., an intelligent answer?
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, and by talking as the adult and not the adolescent. Obama has spent the last six years campaigning; even his governance has been focused on payoffs to his favored interest groups. The permanent campaign also won again, to the detriment of American life.
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. Conservative ideas failed to take root and states that seemed winnable, and amenable to traditional American values, have simply disappeared from the map. 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.
A second cliché that should be retired is that America is a center-right country. It clearly is not. It is a divided country with peculiar voting patterns, and an appetite for free stuff. Studies will invariably show that Republicans in Congress received more total votes than Democrats in Congress, but that means little. The House of Representatives is not truly representative of the country. That people would vote for a Republican Congressmen or Senator and then Obama for President would tend to reinforce point two above: the empty-headedness of the electorate. Americans revile Congress but love their individual Congressmen. Go figure.
The mass media’s complicity in Obama’s re-election cannot be denied. One example suffices. In 2004, CBS News forged a letter in order to imply that President Bush did not fulfill his Air National Guard service during the Vietnam War, all to impugn Bush and impair his re-election prospects. In 2012, President Obama insisted – famously – during the second debate that he had stated all along that the Arab attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi was “terror” (a lie that Romney fumbled and failed to exploit). Yet, CBS News sat on a tape of an interview with Obama in which Obama specifically avoided and rejected the claim of terrorism – on the day after the attack – clinging to the canard about the video. (This snippet of a “60 Minutes” interview was not revealed - until two days ago!) In effect, CBS News fabricated evidence in order to harm a Republican president, and suppressed evidence in order to help a Democratic president. Simply shameful, as was the media’s disregard of any scandal or story that could have jeopardized the Obama re-election.
One of the more irritating aspects of this campaign was its limited focus, odd in light of the billions of dollars spent. Only a few states were contested, a strategy that Romney adopted, and that clearly failed. The Democrat begins any race with a substantial advantage. The liberal states – like the bankrupt California and Illinois – and other states with large concentrations of minority voters as well as an extensive welfare apparatus, like New York, New Jersey and others – give any Democratic candidate an almost insurmountable edge in electoral votes. In New Jersey, for example, it literally does not pay for a conservative to vote. It is not worth the fuel expended driving to the polls. As some economists have pointed out generally, and it resonates here even more, the odds are greater that a voter will be killed in a traffic accident on his way to the polls than that his vote will make a difference in the election. It is an irrational act. That most states are uncompetitive means that people are not amenable to new ideas, or new thinking, or even having an open mind. If that does not change, and it is hard to see how it can change, then the die is cast. America is not what it was, and will never be again.
For Jews, mostly assimilated anyway and staunch Democrats, the results demonstrate again that liberalism is their Torah. Almost 70% voted for a president widely perceived by Israelis and most committed Jews as hostile to Israel. They voted to secure Obama’s future at America’s expense and at Israel’s expense – in effect, preferring Obama to Netanyahu by a wide margin. A dangerous time is ahead. Under present circumstances, it is inconceivable that the US will take any aggressive action against Iran and will more likely thwart any Israeli initiative. That Obama’s top aide Valerie Jarrett (i.e., Iranian-born Valerie Jarrett) spent last week in Teheran is not a good sign. The US will preach the importance of negotiations up until the production of the first Iranian nuclear weapon – and then state that the world must learn to live with this new reality. As Obama has committed himself to abolishing America’s nuclear arsenal, it is more likely that that unfortunate circumstance will occur than that he will succeed in obstructing Iran’s plans.
But this election should be a wake-up call to Jews. There is no permanent empire, nor is there is an enduring haven for Jews anywhere in the exile. The American empire began to decline in 2007, and the deterioration has been exacerbated in the last five years. This election only hastens that decline. Society is permeated with sloth, greed, envy and materialistic excess. It has lost its moorings and its moral foundations. The takers outnumber the givers, and that will only increase in years to come. Across the world, America under Bush was feared but not respected. Under Obama, America is neither feared nor respected. Radical Islam has had a banner four years under Obama, and its prospects for future growth look excellent. The “Occupy” riots across this country in the last two years were mere dress rehearsals for what lies ahead – years of unrest sparked by the increasing discontent of the unsuccessful who want to seize the fruits and the bounty of the successful, and do not appreciate the slow pace of redistribution.
Two bright sides: Notwithstanding the election results, I arose this morning, went to shul, davened and learned Torah afterwards. That is our reality, and that trumps all other events. Our relationship with G-d matters more than our relationship with any politician, R or D. And, notwithstanding the problems in Israel, it is time for Jews to go home, to Israel. We have about a decade, perhaps 15 years, to leave with dignity and without stress. Thinking that it will always be because it always was has been a repetitive and deadly Jewish mistake. America was always the land from which “positive” aliya came – Jews leaving on their own, and not fleeing a dire situation. But that can also change. The increased aliya in the last few years is partly attributable to young people fleeing the high cost of Jewish living in America. Those costs will only increase in the coming years. We should draw the appropriate conclusions.
If this election proves one thing, it is that the Old America is gone. And, sad for the world, it is not coming back.
-
One of the things that sickened me the most was that I would have voted for one of Romney's opponents that I liked better in the primary, but by the time I finally got to vote the only two candidates that hadn't dropped out of the race were Romney and Ron Paul. So I had to vote for one of them and so I ended up voting for Romney not once but twice. That was so difficult since I really don't like him at all.
-
Baloney. We don't have to fool ourselves anymore with election rhetoric. The election is over and Obamacare is being implemented in the fullest... If you claim that what Romney did is OK because he did so for his State, then people can just as equally cry foul that it's State favoratism... Why should Massachusetts' residents get socialized healthcare, funded by the Federals, but not the rest of the USA!? And don't tell me that MA would have had to pay for it, there's not nearly enough industry and tax to cover such a program. I'm completely against socialist healthcare, actually having seen it and lived in it for many years, but once again, this was a very weak argument against Obamacare by the Romney campaign and was even warned about openly in the Primary debates by the other candidates.
Really, baloney? Is it baloney that this country was founded, and actually operated for a while, as a constitutional republic? Is it baloney that the federal government is limited to the enumerated powers listed in the Constitution? Where did I say the any state should solely get socialized healthcare funded by the federal government? I didn't and your assertion that there's not enough industry and taxation to fund it at the state level is nonsense. Take a look at US GDP by states and compare it to countries in the rest of the world. You will find that many states have a higher GDP than countries that provide socialized medicine to their citizens. What you really mean is states can't fund socialized healthcare and all the other things that they want without the federal government kicking in a few bucks to help them. That is not the way this country was founded and meant to function. Admittedly, this is exactly the way things have evolved today and THAT is the problem. To address the subject of this post, the reason Obama won was not because so many fewer whites voted. It is because so many people who voted embrace socialism. Pity that those same people don't understand what socialism is beyond the hope that they will get free stuff that someone else pays for.
-
The GOP Establishment needs to take note of this...quit forcing candidates on us, let us pick our own!
-
Really, baloney? Is it baloney that this country was founded, and actually operated for a while, as a constitutional republic? Is it baloney that the federal government is limited to the enumerated powers listed in the Constitution? Where did I say the any state should solely get socialized healthcare funded by the federal government? I didn't and your assertion that there's not enough industry and taxation to fund it at the state level is nonsense. Take a look at US GDP by states and compare it to countries in the rest of the world. You will find that many states have a higher GDP than countries that provide socialized medicine to their citizens. What you really mean is states can't fund socialized healthcare and all the other things that they want without the federal government kicking in a few bucks to help them. That is not the way this country was founded and meant to function. Admittedly, this is exactly the way things have evolved today and THAT is the problem. To address the subject of this post, the reason Obama won was not because so many fewer whites voted. It is because so many people who voted embrace socialism. Pity that those same people don't understand what socialism is beyond the hope that they will get free stuff that someone else pays for.
Your idea that the desire of the Founding Fathers of America was to give as much powers as possible to the States is in error. Alexander Hamilton, a usurer and British Agent, is the one who wrote the Federalist Papers, advocating exactly that. George Washington was the ideological opponent of Hamilton and published the "anti-Federalist" Papers. Washington had to call them "anti-Federalist" not because he was anti-federalism, but because he was against Hamilton's "Federalist" papers. Washington's "anti" Federalist Papers advocated strong CENTRAL government as opposed to Hamilton.
And Washington was correct. I support a strong Federal government. Opposing the Federal government by advocating State independency is not as good as changing the Federal government in itself. If this is not possible, then and only then should the States protest the Federal tyranny by secession.
-
I believe that the country was intended to have a weak central government which was granted the powers enumerated in the Constitution while granting the bulk of the responsibility on the State government. This is the model which Conservatives like myself support. The Federal government has the responsibility to protect the country and its interests, but it doesn't have the power to micro-manage the lives of the citizens. The Federal government should have no business telling me I need to have insurance. The Federal government should make sure that inter-state commerce moves smoothly...
See the original 'constitution' which is known as the 'Articles of Confederation'..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_confederation
The Articles of Confederation, formally the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, was an agreement among the 13 founding states that established the United States of America as a confederation of sovereign states and served as its first constitution.[1] Its drafting by the Continental Congress began in mid 1776, and an approved version was sent to the states for ratification in late 1777. The formal ratification by all 13 states was completed in early 1781. Even when not yet ratified, the Articles provided domestic and international legitimacy for the Continental Congress to direct the American Revolutionary War, conduct diplomacy with Europe and deal with territorial issues and Indian relations. Nevertheless, the weak government created by the Articles became a matter of concern for key nationalists. On March 4, 1789, the Articles were replaced with the U.S. Constitution.[2][3] The new Constitution provided for a much stronger national government with a chief executive (the president), courts, and taxing powers.
-
I am very much aware what the Articles Of Confederation are, and you are mistaken to assume that Washington intended for a weak central government.
Read Washington's Anti-Federalist (read: PRO-Federalist) papers. It is a series of articles he wrote for his own newspaper in which he laid out the foundation for the USA. He most certainly advocated for strong central government, and it is easy to see why. It follows the adage that divided we fall united we stand. When America followed the path of Statism, it became a backwater. When it centralized its government and currency, it became a great power. Of course there is a great deal of risk, that a central government is susceptible to becoming a tyranny, but there's a phrase in Judaism: "Everything is in the hands of Heaven, except for the fear of Heaven". Even a Goy, who we are taught has some Bechira Chafshit (Free choice), has a choice (albeit limited) whether to fear G-D or not.
I don't want to offend the Noahides here - you are excepted from this statement. Righteous Noahides are able to rise to the level of a Jew, whos soul is empowered by Kelipat Noga, as opposed to Shalosh Kilipot Ha'Tmeiot. When the Rebbe came to America, he said he saw great potential in what was then a moral and principled people. And most of Americans until recently also practiced circumcision (Yes, I'm aware that the Rambam classifies non-Jewish circumcision as nonparticipating in terms of the actual Mitzvah - but there is an inyan of kabalat ol in my opinion), but now they have gone and thrown everything down the toilet by electing Barrack Osamba.
-
Your idea that the desire of the Founding Fathers of America was to give as much powers as possible to the States is in error. Alexander Hamilton, a usurer and British Agent, is the one who wrote the Federalist Papers, advocating exactly that. George Washington was the ideological opponent of Hamilton and published the "anti-Federalist" Papers. Washington had to call them "anti-Federalist" not because he was anti-federalism, but because he was against Hamilton's "Federalist" papers. Washington's "anti" Federalist Papers advocated strong CENTRAL government as opposed to Hamilton.
And Washington was correct. I support a strong Federal government. Opposing the Federal government by advocating State independency is not as good as changing the Federal government in itself. If this is not possible, then and only then should the States protest the Federal tyranny by secession.
I am not arguing whether the federal government should be strong or weak, I am arguing that it has limited enumerated powers as defined in the Constitution. Do you interpret the meaning of a strong federal government as a federal government that can grant itself powers not granted to it in the Constitution?
You site the Federalist papers but the Federalist papers are not the law of the land but merely essays. Look instead to the Bill of Rights which were included in the Constitution specifically to limit the power of the federal government and protect the states from tyranny. Again, looking at what has happened today, it's a pity that it hasn't quite worked in the way it was meant. A great deal of the fault for this lies in the judicial branch's usurpation of power that was never granted to it but equal fault must be attributed to the citizens and state politicians as well for allowing this to happen.
-
The Bill Of Rights has nothing to do with protecting so-called States rights, it's meant to protect individual rights.
Also, my point in bringing up the Federalist Papers is to show the intention of the founding fathers for America. The Constitution was a highly flawed document that had to be written in a relatively short amount of time and agreed on by many people with different views. Alexander Hamilton is one example of someone they had to appease to ratify the Constitution.
The Constitution must be amended to reflect the spirit of the Washington's anti-Federalist Papers (Which once again were pro-Federalist) , and indeed, we do have a system for this, but unfortunately, it is more often than not used to go against the spirit of the Founding Fathers.
-
The Bill Of Rights has nothing to do with protecting so-called States rights, it's meant to protect individual rights.
Also, my point in bringing up the Federalist Papers is to show the intention of the founding fathers for America. The Constitution was a highly flawed document that had to be written in a relatively short amount of time and agreed on by many people with different views. Alexander Hamilton is one example of someone they had to appease to ratify the Constitution.
The Constitution must be amended to reflect the spirit of the Federalist Papers, and indeed, we do have a system for this, but unfortunately, it is more often than not used to go against the spirit of the Founding Fathers.
So, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." does not protect "so-called States rights"?
The Constitutional convention lasted 116 days and it took 2 1/2 years for the Constitution to be fully ratified so I wouldn't quite call it a highly flawed document written in a short period of time.
-
No. It does not.
The spirit of the Founding Fathers is more important than the Constitution. Yes, 118 days is a very short period, considering America was battling many foreign influences at the time, and not to mention the well known "Founding Father" British Agent Alexander Hamilton, who had to be appeased during the ratification. There are a lot of clauses in the Constitution that don't have foundation in logical law. To take a relatively short document and to try and derive a complete set of laws for what was then considered a gargantuan country is absurd. The Jews have 63 Tractates in the Talmud, with thousands of other books expounding on the laws in those 63 tractates alone.
-
No, there's a HUGE difference between Romneycare and Obamacare. One was instituted at a state level and the other at a federal level. If you believe in the Constitution of the United States, a state has every right to implement "free" health care for it's citizens if that is what they want. The federal government has no right to implement this benefit nationally.
retard, there is zero difference between romneycare and obamacare. what gives romney the right to screw over the people of massachusetts just because it is a state and not a country? he has no right to do that. romney is a piece of garbage communist and romneycare is the same as obamacare, both requiring an unconstitutional individual mandate forcing people to buy health insurance that they don't want. glad romney lost, that lowlife hypocritical communist piece of [censored] [censored]
-
I am very much aware what the Articles Of Confederation are, and you are mistaken to assume that Washington intended for a weak central government.
Read Washington's Anti-Federalist (read: PRO-Federalist) papers. It is a series of articles he wrote for his own newspaper in which he laid out the foundation for the USA. He most certainly advocated for strong central government, and it is easy to see why. It follows the adage that divided we fall united we stand. When America followed the path of Statism, it became a backwater. When it centralized its government and currency, it became a great power. Of course there is a great deal of risk, that a central government is susceptible to becoming a tyranny, but there's a phrase in Judaism: "Everything is in the hands of Heaven, except for the fear of Heaven". Even a Goy, who we are taught has some Bechira Chafshit (Free choice), has a choice (albeit limited) whether to fear G-D or not.
I don't want to offend the Noahides here - you are excepted from this statement. Righteous Noahides are able to rise to the level of a Jew, whos soul is empowered by Kelipat Noga, as opposed to Shalosh Kilipot Ha'Tmeiot. When the Rebbe came to America, he said he saw great potential in what was then a moral and principled people. And most of Americans until recently also practiced circumcision (Yes, I'm aware that the Rambam classifies non-Jewish circumcision as nonparticipating in terms of the actual Mitzvah - but there is an inyan of kabalat ol in my opinion), but now they have gone and thrown everything down the toilet by electing Barrack Osamba.
the Rebbe was a despicable human being and a false messiah
-
Hi Homo, Jr.
-
the Rebbe was a despicable human being and a false messiah
The Rebbe was a great man, a man who brought a lot of people back to Judaism, kept them Jewish, performed many mitzvot, and was an accomplished Torah scholar. This punk is just jealous.
We have rebuked those who claim he was Moshiach. And I hereby rebuke you for speaking Lashon Hara against a Torah Scholar.
If you do not believe he was a Talmid Chocham it can be pointed out that many Gedol HaTorah have corresponded with the Rebbe and so many of them considered him a Talmid Chocham. You are entitled to your opinion, but do not defame the Chabad organization or those who work tirelessly for the Jewish people through his organization Chabad.
-
I wonder if there is any connection between the 44 in 'moshes' name and 88...
88 is the # of the Neo-Nazis because H is the eighth letter of the alphabet and 88 stands for HH which they read as "Heil sHitler"...
44 is half of 88, and a 4 looks like a lowercase 'h' thus it also stands for Heil sHitler...
-
The Rebbe was a great man, a man who brought a lot of people back to Judaism, kept them Jewish, performed many mitzvot, and was an accomplished Torah scholar. This punk is just jealous.
We have rebuked those who claim he was Moshiach. And I hereby rebuke you for speaking Lashon Hara against a Torah Scholar.
If you do not believe he was a Talmid Chocham it can be pointed out that many Gedol HaTorah have corresponded with the Rebbe and so many of them considered him a Talmid Chocham. You are entitled to your opinion, but do not defame the Chabad organization or those who work tirelessly for the Jewish people through his organization Chabad.
the gedolei yisroel did not consider the rebbe to be a torah scholar, and most of them rebuked him in the harshest language. he was, as Rav Shach said, "the madman who sits in new york and drives the whole world crazy."
-
the gedolei yisroel did not consider the rebbe to be a torah scholar, and most of them rebuked him in the harshest language. he was, as Rav Shach said, "the madman who sits in new york and drives the whole world crazy."
You are certainly the same troll who mentioned this earlier this year.
I have rebutted this argument, named the names of the Gedolei Yisroel which corresponded with the Rebbe ( I have seen books of these and the names of the Rebbes, it is enough to fill an encylopedia ). And Rav Shach is permitted his opinion, but there are more great Torah scholars who supported the Rebbes work.
Nobody (except fringe elements) suggests he was Moshiach. And his work is a testament to his greatness. Anyone who wants to argue about this must look at the mitzvot the Chabad organization is responsible for.
You are just jealous of the Chabad, admit it...
PS: I'm having Shabbat with my Chabad Rabbi... I just may repost the list of the Rabbis who supported the Chabad Rebbe after Shabbat..
Here is the great Rabbi Solevetchik and his meeting with the Rebbe..
http://www.chabad.org/therebbe/article_cdo/aid/529444/jewish/The-Rebbe-and-the-Rav.htm
(http://w3.chabad.org/media/images/135/gqrI1350058.jpg)
See also : The Gedol Rabbi Moshe Feinstein met the Chabad Rebbe and took on Chabad tefillin customs..
http://portraitofaleader.blogspot.com/2010/11/incredible-encounter-with-rabbi-moshe.html
Regarding tefillin, the black leather casing donned by Jewish men during prayer, the Torah commands (Deut. 6:8): “Bind them as a sign upon your arm and they shall be for tefillin between your eyes.” Tefillin, which contain the four Scriptural passages mentioning this mitzvah, are worn differently, according to custom and community, and the “Rashi” tefillin was the pair for a Lubavitcher boy becoming bar mitzvah. However, during a public talk in 1976, the Rebbe mentioned the importance of donning two pairs of tefillin instead of one – a practice commonly known as “tefillin d’Rabbeinu Tam.”
This practice was slowly integrated into the Lubavitcher community. But there were those outside of Lubavitcher circles who adopted the practice as well—among them Rabbi Moshe Feinstein (1895-1986), the most prominent scholar and authority of his day, whose Igrot Moshe, a compilation of responsa, addressed numerous legal and ethical issues. Who encouraged Rabbi Feinstein to follow the Rebbe’s directive? The following story contains fascinating details of this came about thanks to one of the Rebbe’s ardent supporters.
The Rebbe Archive presents two newly released photos of the Rebbe from 6 Tishrei 5732/ 1971, with special thanks to the Minkowitz family.
Good Shabbos
Menachem
-
Here to is the great Rabbi Auerbach talking about his meeting with the Rebbe..
http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2008/08/chabad-rav-s-z-auerbachs-regard-for.html
There is a sefer Shemen Sasson Meichaveirecha with many quotes from gedolei Yisroel about the Rebbe, that shows the ultimate mutual respect that they had for each other, in contrast to the vicious lies that are being bandied about here. I'll post some things, and hopefully Rabbi Eidensohn will see fit to turn this imp't info. into blog posts just as he turns every small comment on a topic into one.
THE MIGHTY GAON RABBI SHLOMO ZALMAN AURBACH
From Shemen Sasson Meichaveirecha
by Rabbi Shalom Dover Ha’Levi Wolpo
Translated by Alexander Zushe Kohn
The mighty gaon Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Aurbach was born in the holy city of Yerushalayim on the holy day of Shabbos, 23 Tammuz 5670 (July 30, 1910), to his father, the gaon and kabbalist Rabbi Chaim Yehuda Yehuda Leib zatzal, and his mother the tzedeikes Tzivya, peace unto her. (Rabbi Chaim Yehuda Leib, a descendant of the holy Toldos Yaakov Yosef zatzal, was the founder and rosh yeshiva of the Kabbala yeshiva Shaar HaShamayim, and the author of Chacham Lev.)[...]
-
I think a weak federal government and strong state governments are better because the more local the control is the better suited it is to the local population's wants and needs.
-
retard, there is zero difference between romneycare and obamacare. what gives romney the right to screw over the people of massachusetts just because it is a state and not a country? he has no right to do that. romney is a piece of garbage communist and romneycare is the same as obamacare, both requiring an unconstitutional individual mandate forcing people to buy health insurance that they don't want. glad romney lost, that lowlife hypocritical communist piece of [censored] [censored]
Romney did not screw over the people of Massachusetts with Romneycare, idiot, just like Obama did not screw over the people of the United States with Obamacare. These bills were enacted by the Senate and House, at the state level in the case of Romneycare and at the federal level in the case of Obamacare. So, moron, the bills were created, voted on, and passed by legislators who the people voted for. Romney and Obama signed them into law. The difference is that there's no Constitutional basis for passing a law and mandating that everyone purchase health insurance at the federal level. Unless the state constitution of Massachusetts specifically grants the state government limited powers or specifically prohibits a mandatory health insurance law, the state of Massachusetts, or any other state, can do whatever the hell they want if the people of that state elect representatives that truly adhere to the wishes of the citizens. If they don't, it's up to the citizens to remove them from office. That's the way it's supposed to work so you should really strive towards an understanding of the process before you open up your a'hole and blow hot air out of it.
-
No. It does not.
The spirit of the Founding Fathers is more important than the Constitution. Yes, 118 days is a very short period, considering America was battling many foreign influences at the time, and not to mention the well known "Founding Father" British Agent Alexander Hamilton, who had to be appeased during the ratification. There are a lot of clauses in the Constitution that don't have foundation in logical law. To take a relatively short document and to try and derive a complete set of laws for what was then considered a gargantuan country is absurd. The Jews have 63 Tractates in the Talmud, with thousands of other books expounding on the laws in those 63 tractates alone.
Whoa, wait a minute. The relatively short document that you speak of was supposed to LIMIT the power of the federal government but allow states to derive their laws. That's the point, that the federal government was supposed to be, once again, LIMITED so that it would not grow to the intrusive and gargantuan nightmare that it has become today. By the way, there were individuals at the time of the convention who predicted this happening. You speak of the spirit of the founding fathers. Do you believe that the current federal government is what the founding fathers had intended for this country?
-
Whoa, wait a minute. The relatively short document that you speak of was supposed to LIMIT the power of the federal government but allow states to derive their laws. That's the point, that the federal government was supposed to be, once again, LIMITED so that it would not grow to the intrusive and gargantuan nightmare that it has become today. By the way, there were individuals at the time of the convention who predicted this happening. You speak of the spirit of the founding fathers. Do you believe that the current federal government is what the founding fathers had intended for this country?
Do we agree on the fact that state governments and the federal government have no rights, only privileges granted to them by the citizens?
If so, the question now is who is better suited to protect those individual rights, the State or the Federal Government?
When States had more power than the Federals, you had white enslavement in the South. I am not in any way a proponent of Lincoln, but part of the civil war was about also freeing White Slaves, not just Negroes, and in fact, many White Slaves in the South supported the Union, not the Confederacy. So history does not stand on the side of the idea that States are a better protection against tyranny.
Washington believed that individual rights were better protected under a strong central Federal government, and I completely agree with him. No, obviously I don't think that what we have today in Washington is any good, but like I said, that doesn't mean that State control is a better system. It may seem like a better prospect right now, and it may even actually be a temporary solution, but to adopt it as a de facto model for government is against the principles of the Founding Fathers, and it would transform America into a post-Colonial backwater again.
-
Do we agree on the fact that state governments and the federal government have no rights, only privileges granted to them by the citizens?
If so, the question now is who is better suited to protect those individual rights, the State or the Federal Government?
When States had more power than the Federals, you had white enslavement in the South. I am not in any way a proponent of Lincoln, but part of the civil war was about also freeing White Slaves, not just Negroes, and in fact, many White Slaves in the South supported the Union, not the Confederacy. So history does not stand on the side of the idea that States are a better protection against tyranny.
Washington believed that individual rights were better protected under a strong central Federal government, and I completely agree with him. No, obviously I don't think that what we have today in Washington is any good, but like I said, that doesn't mean that State control is a better system. It may seem like a better prospect right now, and it may even actually be a temporary solution, but to adopt it as a de facto model for government is against the principles of the Founding Fathers, and it would transform America into a post-Colonial backwater again.
But you miss an important point. The Constitution can be changed by the amendment process, thereby giving the federals additional powers. This is how slavery was abolished and former slaves were given rights, by the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments.
-
"Rights" are not granted by government. They are granted by G-D. Government protects people's rights. Parents rightfully violate their children's rights when necessary. The Bill Of Rights is a receipt (Bill also means receipt) issued by government to the citizens that have paid them to protect their rights. The Bill states the list of rights the citizens have paid them to protect.
-
"Rights" are not granted by government. They are granted by G-D. Government protects people's rights. Parents rightfully violate their children's rights when necessary. The Bill Of Rights is a receipt (Bill also means receipt) issued by government to the citizens that have paid them to protect their rights. The Bill states the list of rights the citizens have paid them to protect.
You are correct. Perhaps I should have said the amendments afforded the same G-d given rights to former slaves that were afforded to free citizens.
-
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324352004578133120431803606.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324352004578133120431803606.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop)
The turnout myth comes from a statistic that has been endlessly repeated: Mitt Romney got fewer votes than John McCain in 2008. This isn't quite true (Mr. Romney this week eked past the McCain totals), and in any event it is somewhat irrelevant. The Romney vote count reflects a nationwide voter turnout that was down nearly five percentage points from 2008. What matters is how the GOP did in the battleground states.
And there? Mr. Romney beat Mr. McCain's numbers in every single battleground, save Ohio. In some cases, his improvement was significant. In Virginia, 65,000 more votes than in 2008. In Florida, 117,000 more votes. In Colorado, 52,000. In Wisconsin, 146,000. Moreover, in key states like Florida, North Carolina, Colorado and Virginia, Mr. Romney turned out even more voters than George W. Bush did in his successful re-election in 2004.
By contrast, Mr. Obama's turnout was down from 2008 in nearly every battleground. He lost 54,000 votes in Virginia, 46,000 votes in Florida, 50,000 votes in Colorado, 63,000 votes in Wisconsin. Ditto Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio. The only state where Mr. Obama increased his votes (by 36,000) was North Carolina, and he was still beaten by a Romney campaign that raised its own turnout by a whopping 147,000.
.The temptation here is to conclude that Mr. Romney did better than Mr. McCain, just not well enough, while Mr. Obama did worse, just not badly enough. Yes, there is no question the GOP turnout effort could have been improved. Project ORCA, developed and run by the Romney campaign to refine its turnout efforts, was a dismal failure. And the GOP lagged behind the Obama campaign's sophisticated use of technology, in particular social media.
Could better use of these tools have added enough to the Romney totals to eke out victories in key states? Maybe. In the end, it was 334,000 votes—in Florida, Virginia, Ohio and New Hampshire—that separated Mr. Romney from the presidency. Then again, had Mr. Romney succeeded in grinding out a narrow victory, it might also have masked the party's bigger problems.
Because what ought to scare the GOP is this: Even with higher GOP turnout in key states, even with Mr. Obama shedding voters, Democrats still won. Mr. Obama accomplished this by tapping new minority voters in numbers that beat even Mr. Romney's better turnout.