Four more years: The victory of Barack Hussein Obama was no real surprise to me. I expected the outcome, and the only state that went to Obama that really surprised me was Virginia. Most social conservatives held the same view as I did about the election, but did not publicly speak about the probable re-election of Obama for fear of discouraging voters at a time when many good social conservatives were running for the House and Senate.
And like other social conservative leaders, I worked diligently to educate the public about the real agenda of Barack Hussein Obama despite knowing he would probably win. For several months, the Religious Freedom Coalition ran newspaper ads exposing the threat Barack Hussein Obama poses to religious freedom. Personally, I wrote numerous opinion-editorials for newspapers and online publications such as WND. I warned that Obama was a utopianist, a proponent of central planning and collectivism and that these concepts inevitably lead to disaster for nations.
However, in my heart, I knew that Obama had won the election the day Gov. Mitt Romney won the GOP primary.
Advertisement - story continues below
I am sure that Mitt Romney loves his nation and that he is an honorable man, but no one can win a national election on just one issue. Romney talked only about economic issues. For months he campaigned on the fact that he would lower taxes and create jobs.
However, dependency won the day! Only one out of every two households in the United States pays income tax. A promise to lower the taxes of those who pay no taxes at all just does not resonate. A few weeks before the election, Mitt Romney made his 47-percent remark at a fundraising event, and the media pounced on his "gaffe." It was not a gaffe, but not quite accurate, either. Romney said the 47 percent who paid nothing in and took lots out were not going to vote for him.
His mistake was in not realizing that many in this group vote Republican for issues other than taxes. The 47 percent includes millions of very socially conservative seniors who are on Social Security after a life time of hard work, and who are concerned about the country their children and grandchildren are inheriting. It includes veterans angry about the weakening of the military and the attempt to force the homosexual agenda on our soldiers. It includes hard-working couples who don't make enough to pay taxes, but who care about the country's moral collapse and the drift toward welfare dependency.
Romney had virtually nothing to say about religious freedom, abortion, same-sex "marriage," fighting the war on drugs, stopping illegal immigration, or any social issue.
Advertisement - story continues below
The GOP candidate's single-issue strategy – "lower taxes and more jobs" – was no match for the millions of people who voted for Obama because of "what's in it for me." Some feared welfare payments would be cut or unemployment payment periods reduced by a Republican. Still others voted for Obama because they were promised more union jobs with higher pay. Most Obama voters had no interest in the "fiscal cliff" or the huge deficit, or the declining economic and military power of our nation. They voted for Obama's race, his image and for their hope of personal gain.
Barack Hussein Obama received millions of votes from people who have little command of the English language beyond that needed to shop at Wal-Mart and who have no concept of our form of government. Millions more cast their ballots for Obama for purely racial reasons.
Blacks, Hispanics and single mothers were the biggest voting blocs for Obama. What issues concerned these voting blocs?
- Continued affirmative action in jobs and education for blacks and Hispanics
- Continued welfare payments without work
- Continued years of unemployment payments
- Continued free medical services for children under the SCHIP program
- Continued free lunch programs at schools
- Continued free day-care services
- Continued expansion of the food stamp program
- Continued massive student loans and much more!
There are also power players who backed Obama and who donated generously to his campaign, but who are not among the takers. Those included a variety of wealthy socialists such as George Soros, trade unionists who want card check, various minorities who want special status, plus those who want legalization of same-sex marriage, or legalization of marijuana and other mind-altering drugs.
Advertisement - story continues below
Despite their differences, there was a common theme among those who voted for Obama: "What is in this for me?" or, "What is in it for my agenda?" With this single objective in mind, there is no need to understand the Constitution, basic economic principles or the dangers of foreign entanglements. Aircraft carriers are not needed to deliver food stamps or welfare checks, so military strength is not an important issue.
Those voting for Romney, Gary Johnson or Virgil Goode wanted less personal involvement with government, not more. As for the tea party, most tea party members would prefer to have their lives virtually invisible to government. People supporting themselves don't want government involved in their lives. This is a huge contrast, and it is a contrast that divides the nation.
Final analysis: The 2012 presidential election was not lost in 2012, but years earlier. As the welfare state grew, a tipping point was reached, sometime during the 1990s when the Republicans were firmly in charge of the Congress. The footprint of those who pay income tax was reduced. So many people did not pay income tax that it was no longer an important issue for the majority. In 2000, George W. Bush actually lost the popular vote by 543,816 votes. In 2004 he only won re-election because of the number of states, including Ohio, that had marriage protection acts or anti-gay marriage amendments up for a vote at the same time. Karl Rove, who knew Bush would be defeated without a strong social conservative vote, orchestrated the traditional-marriage votes in swing states to help Bush win.
The only GOP candidate with a hope of winning the 2012 election was populist Rick Santorum, whom I supported. Santorum's strong pro-life position along with his knowledge of the Islamist threat and known record of support for Israel could have helped him win. Running for office in Pennsylvania, Rick Santorum received a huge share of the Jewish vote.
Advertisement - story continues below
The GOP establishment and the big-money men in the anti-tax movement handed Mitt Romney all the money he needed to beat Santorum and win the primary.
A lot of that money going to the GOP this election cycle came from those opposed to the views conservatives hold dear. Billionaire brothers David and Charles Koch, who directed millions to anti-tax GOP candidates, including Romney, support same-sex marriage. Both men also want to cut the military as a way to lower taxes.
Is the nation as we know it lost?
Social Security is the "third rail" of politics. It is a tremendously popular program not only with seniors but with their children as well. Social Security provides a safety net for the elderly but also reduces the burden on younger Americans to care for elderly parents. Unfortunately, Social Security has become an excuse for many children to financially abandon their parents. This has harmed both the family and social fabric.
The war on the traditional family began with President Franklin Roosevelt's Social Security and other programs. One of the main reasons for marriages staying together was maintaining homes and wealth for old age. With the promise of government retirement money, many marriages could be walked away from for some very frivolous reasons. The divorce rates climbed as Social Security and other government benefits increased.
With many elders taken care of by the government, younger Americans could spend their money on themselves. Social Security and other benefits provided by government encouraged people to borrow and spend rather than to save. With a promise of government payouts to come in the future, the savings rate in the nation dropped to zero.
In the 1960s, Lyndon Johnson's "War on Poverty" started providing "poor children" and "single mothers" with government benefits. A second front was opened up against the traditional family. Now the government paid women with children not to marry. With the advent of Medicare for the aging and SCHIP to provide medical care for children in homes with incomes of up to four times the level of poverty, younger adults had even more money to spend on everything from booze to cars to Chinese-made clothes. The more adults were freed from the financial responsibilities of family life by government, the more families began to deteriorate.
The benefits government provided grew in the cities faster than anywhere else. Cities offered more housing, food and health benefits than suburban and rural areas. People who wanted the government to take care of more of their needs gravitated toward the cities, while those who wanted less government and more freedom moved away from the cities. Take a good look at the election map by county for 2012. It reveals a divided nation, with most takers in the cities and most of the payers in the suburban and rural areas.
Dependence on government gets extreme in some of these environments. In Manhattan, if a light bulb burns out in an apartment, the resident calls maintenance to replace it. By contrast, in rural Georgia, if someone has a sewer problem he rents a backhoe and fixes it himself. These are two totally different views of the world. Those who provide for themselves understand the city dwellers and the takers. But the takers view independent people as bigots who should be taxed because they are "more fortunate." No one in Manhattan can understand why anyone, anywhere in the nation, would need a pickup truck or a high-calorie breakfast.
In New York City, the mayor outlawed sodas of more than 16 ounces and discourages people from eating cheeseburgers. With all the free services provided by the city including day care, education, housing and medical care, who would work hard enough to eat a high-calorie meal? Besides that, those receiving the benefits in the cities also provide millions of high-paying government jobs to those handing out the benefits.
Can those who simply want freedom from government interference in their lives, return to power in a nation in which one out of every two households receives government aid?
For at least a decade I have heard the "tipping point" warnings coming from conservatives on Capitol Hill. I still hear those warnings, but they are now useless.
As I mentioned above, the nation has passed the tipping point. There are simply now more receiving than paying in. Families are so broken that constant government support must be provided. Government has taken on family expenses including school lunch for millions of kids.
The worship of sex and violence by the media and by the public enfeebles the power of the church and synagogue. More people watch human bodies being nonchalantly dissected on TV crime shows each week than attend church. Yes, the tipping point has been passed, but it was not just the fiscal tipping point; it was the moral tipping point as well.
When government rather than the family becomes the main provider, people see fewer practical reasons for morality. More adults live together without benefit of marriage. More children are born out of wedlock. More young men destroy their lives in homosexuality. Drug use destroys the will to work and the will to live. And government finances it all, but at a cost to the future. Benefit payments are so high that basic government services are not affordable.
Highways that were once free to use are being rebuilt by private companies as toll roads, because the entitlement spending has reached a level that does not allow for other needs, such as proper repair of the infrastructure. The nation is $16 trillion in debt, and that is about the same amount of money needed to repair aging roads, bridges and other critical systems. Our military is the smallest since World War I, and our currency is devalued daily by government printing presses churning out dollars. Real inflation eats away 6 percent of our savings each year, while the government pretends it is just 2 percent to keep down Social Security payments, which are adjusted each year for inflation. This keeps interest the government pays on loans low as well.
The Koch brothers, Donald Trump and anti-tax king Grover Norquist will push the GOP to drop its "moral wing" to attract single mothers and homosexuals. It doesn't matter; no political party can save America, but the Lord can save Americans.
Hope does remain: That hope is in the promise of Jesus Christ and the Word of God. The Gospel changes lives and hearts, and we must all work to win hearts at all levels. That alone can change the direction of our nation.
We cannot surrender. The truth of the Gospel and the biblical view of the family must still be presented to the lost. On a political level those who love the Lord and hold the Bible as truth must continue to knock on the doors of congressmen and senators. It is our responsibility as believers to warn the leaders of this nation away from the dangerous path they have chosen for the people. We must return both power and responsibility back to the God-ordained family.