Friday, January 30, 2015

Is religion the cause of all the world's violence?

Oh, I'm sure you've heard it, because I know I have more times than I care to count.

"Religion is the cause of all the world's violence!" 

This Pavlovian claim is parroted daily on social media and elsewhere. Though, there's usually nothing else to back it up. And interestingly enough, I find that the people screaming this assertion from the hilltops are really trying to say "Christianity is the cause of all the world's violence!" Or "those evil, mean, Christians have oppressed everyone, for, like, forever!" Or something like that.

I say this because, like clockwork, most of these people will blatantly refuse to accept the role religious ideology plays in the epidemic of Islamic terror around the world today, but will jump at the chance to use Westboro Baptist Church as a fine, example of the quintessential modern day Christian.



Which brings up a good point. Yes, religion does play a role in some of the world's violence throughout the ages. To argue that would be absurd. The Crusades, the Inquisition, and the 30 Years War, tend to be the most popular instances of exclusively religious violence scourging mankind. I would like to add the Islamic conquests of the Saudi peninsula, all of North Africa, Spain, southern France, and the entire Middle east to the list. But the fact that the religion of Islam was born and cultivated out of violence is unpopular in our politically correct, sensitive, and "tolerant" Western society.

So I'll just get to it. According to the Encyclopedia of Wars by Charles Phillips and Alan Axelrod, less than 7% of all documented wars in the history of the human race were religious in nature. That's 123 religious conflicts out of a total of 1,763 total conflicts throughout history. When Islamic wars are cut out of the equation, the total percentage of religious wars dips to a paltry 3.23%. This doesn't bode well for the "religion is the cause of all the violence in the world!" crowd.

On the flip side, let's consider the astronomical body count from the last century. The casualties from the godless, Communist regimes of the 1900s aren't even in the same ballpark as other human tragedies throughout history. An estimated 70 million lives were lost under the regimes of just Stalin and Mao Tse Tung. And this doesn't even include those lost under Lenin and Pol Pot. These atrocities stemmed from a strictly atheistic system of government. In fact, the idea of state sponsored atheism was one of the core pillars of Communist societies. Karl Marx himself had much to say about that. Joseph Stalin made it a priority. And an estimated 12-20 million Christians alone were killed in the Soviet Union because of it. Why does no one blame secularism for "being the cause of all the world's violence"? Because if we are thinking in terms of simple body count, the non religious Communists take the cake, by far. (by comparison an estimated 3000-5000 people were killed during the Inquisition, over a span of 350 years.)

The demolition of Christ the Savior Cathedral in Moscow in 1931. Between 1927 and 1940 the number of churches in Russia fell from over 29,000 to less than 500. Millions of religious citizens were killed, while the government actively promoted atheism to the masses through a variety of propaganda techniques.


If we are really going to get to the source of all the violence in the world, why does no one mention the violence perpetrated by the state? Were the 37 million people killed as a result of WW1 killed by members of some unknown religious organization? What about the 60 million killed during WW2? Or the 620,000 dead during the American Civil War? What of the 40-70 million slaughtered during the brutal conquests of the Mongol Empire? Or the 6 million dead from the Napoleonic Wars? I'm curious as to the religious banners these armies fought under.

These are all instances of states/empires warring against other states/empires for reasons not involving religion. Territorial expansion, fights over resources, intricate and delicate alliances, and a general lust for the expanding power of the state have all played parts in the vast majority of the world's wars and violence. Yet no one makes the claim that "governments are the cause of all the world's violence!" Interestingly enough, those same enlightened, intellectuals who tend to be the ones blaming religion for all the world's violence (You know, the ones who call Islam a religion of peace) also tend to be the biggest advocates for big government.

When you take a step back out of la la land, and back into reality, it isn't hard to put things into perspective. But I realize that's a difficult task for some, when their worldview is so convoluted that Rush Limbaugh is the biggest villain they can think of at any given time.

Sunday, January 25, 2015

Alex Jones: American Sniper "brainwashes the public into accepting war".

The success of American Sniper has brought out the scumbag in lots of people. It's not surprising to see it from the likes of Micheal "snipers are cowards" Moore. It's equally not surprising from the scumsucking master of manipulation Alex Jones. This is a guy who will use literally any tragedy to his advantage. He is proof that there are idiots on the far right, just as there are the far left. And of course, he has to the defend the honor of his main expert in all things Jesse Ventura. Sometimes I wonder about those two.

Alex Jones took to Facebook Sunday to "expose" American Sniper for being a big long military recruiting ad to brainwash people to support war and get people to join the military. He also called it "Bush era war propaganda" and "war porn for the sheep".

Because nothing says "lets have more wars!" and "Join the army!" like seeing how the horrors of war can tear a man up inside.



I'm guessing Alex and his military hating friends didn't see the movie. If they did, they'd see that it's actually the opposite. It shows that war is hell, and something that can break even the strongest of men. American Sniper is about as much of a war propaganda film as An Inconvenient Truth is a film showing the benefits of coal production.


Why Obama is the most Unpresidential "President" we've ever had.

So President Obama apparently has more time to sit down and be "interviewed" by a Youtube comedian named Glozell, but no time to attend the historic anti terror rally in Paris last week. And no time to meet with the leader of our supposed greatest ally in the Middle East. Yes, no time for Dear Leader to do presidential things, but plenty of time to sit down with someone who dangles condoms from her nostrils, and bathes in bathtubs full of milk and fruit loops.



Is this shocking lack of presidential dignity from the tyrant boy king any surprise? It shouldn't be.

Remember, this is the same president who thought it pertinent to offer his two cents on Officer Crowley of Cambridge, MA"acting stupidly". Can someone tell me why the President of the United States of America should be commenting on something this petty?

Same president saying "if I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon".

Same president who got knee deep in the shooting of a known criminal who attacked a police officer. Obama sent more senior White House officials to the funeral of Mike Brown, than he did for Margaret Thatcher, for Chris Kyle, or James Foley. I guess a dead criminal is more worthy of a presidential envoy.

Same president who took a "selfie" at the funeral of Nelson Mandela. Same president who outraged the Chinese by chomping on gum during a meeting with world leaders in Beijing. Same president who sent the Queen of England an ipod with a playlist full of his own speeches. Same president who butchers a military salute by indifferently raising his latte. Same president who went to party with Beyonce and Jay-Z in New York while the Middle East burned. Same president who comments on every sports story from not letting his fictional son play in the NFL, to Ernie Banks dying, to Michael Sam and Jason Collins coming out of the closet. Speaking of, Jason Collins gets a personal phone call from the president. Not a peep about Chris Kyle. Priorities, priorities.

Same president who thinks it's important to publicly reveal his March Madness bracket every year on ESPN while things such as Russians invading Ukraine happen. What a wonderful perception of presidential authority. Same president who has racked up more late night talk show appearances than any other president before him. That's his natural domain. Same president who decided to call his opponent a "bullshitter" in an interview with Rolling Stone. Classy. Same president who on September 11, 2012 decided to do a radio interview with a Miami DJ named "The Pimp with the Limp" to talk about the Dolphins and pop music. Same president who tried to insult Mitt Romney with the term "Romnesia". Same president who went to a Las Vegas fundraiser the day after an American ambassador and three others were killed in a terrorist attack.

Oh, and remember the aforementioned absence from the massive anti terror rally in Paris a few weeks ago? This president sends John Kerry to make things all better. John Kerry with James Taylor to do a heartwarming rendition of "You've Got a Friend." I'm sure the terrorists are shaking in their boots.

"Dear terrorists: Please accept this lovely windchime fashioned from our testicles. -Western Civilization" - David Burge



 Perhaps more important than anything, this is a president who draws red lines and issues ultimatums that he eventually doesn't back up. This may seem trivial to some, but this damages the credibility of the United States in the world. If the President won't back up what he says, why should anyone listen to him?

This is a president who claims he hears about virtually everything on the news. Who has out-golfed Tiger Woods. Who takes more selfies than a teenage girl. Who bows submissively to foreign leaders. Who does nonsensical interviews with celebrities like Ryan Seacrest and Zach Galifianakis. Who seems to feel more threatened by Fox News and Rush Limbaugh than Vladimir Putin. Speaking of Putin, I think it's safe to say this president doesn't feel as comfortable around him as he does Jimmy Fallon.

So really, is it that surprising to see that this president decided to sit down with "Glozell". It shouldn't be.

Friday, January 23, 2015

No Liberal Should Say "Je Suis Charlie".

Je suis Charlie? More like "Je ne suis pas Charlie".



After the religion of peace decided to prove they were a religion of peace by killing the French cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo, people everywhere have stood in solidarity with the French satire magazine by adopting the phrase "I am Charlie." Everyone here in the West is all of a sudden Charlie. Except we're not. And especially not those on the left.

The cartoons of Mohammad that Charlie Hebdo published that inspired the attack wouldn't fly here. And they certainly wouldn't fly in liberal circles. They'd instantly be branded "Islamophobic", "insensitive", and "intolerant". They'd be shouted down and shut down. The creators would be ostracized and banished from the public arena and demonized by the so called tolerant left for being a bigot, a racist, or whatever whimsical, derogatory word of the day it is the liberals feel like using. They wouldn't pull the trigger on a rifle aimed at their head. But they'd certainly pull the trigger on a public shaming meant to destroy their careers.

Liberals all of a sudden want to stand for free speech and feign outrage over these terror attacks. All without a leg to stand on. Because it is they who attack free speech the most. And they would be the first to try and destroy Charlie Hebdo for "Islamophobia" if they could. This is a byproduct of the progressive thought police that has created special, protected groups of people in society who are virtually untouchable. Uttering anything less than full praise is signing your own death warrant.

Modern day liberals trying to say "Je suis Charlie" is a laughable concept. Their intolerance towards opposing views is unmatched. In fact, it's closely aligned with the extreme brand of Islam that carried out the attack itself. Extremism routinely defended by modern liberals. "Je ne suis pas Charlie" is more like it.



I am going to start blogging again.

Hello readers.

I logged into this blogger account tonight for the first time in two years. Boy was I surprised! 632 comments pending and about 600,000 additional page views. Ok, ok, most of the comments pending were spam but I'll take what I can get! I'm going to try and polish this blog up a bit and get back into the swing of things. There's just so much utter tomfoolery these days, I can't keep quiet anymore. Until next time. (which I promise won't be in another 2 years).

Hack

Wednesday, January 16, 2013

Guns are evil! They should be banned!

You stupid Americans and your silly "right to bear arms". It's time to become good obedient citizens of the world and cast aside that old, dusty document called the Constitution. If we could only be more like France or England then we would really be much better people!



Liberals hate guns. And they hate the 2nd Amendment. They just don't have the guts to come out and say it in public. Most liberals, if given the chance, would restrict firearms ownership 100% in the United States. Seriously, why should anyone own a gun? The Army will defend our country if we are invaded, the police will protect me if my house gets broken in to, and really, why do people need to hunt those poor innocent deer anymore? We get all our food from the grocery store!

Liberals hate this country because we are different. We have always been different. And they don't like that we are different. If only we could be like more "modern", "civilized" people in Europe. They always point to Europe. Predictably Sweden and Norway, where the largest mass shooting by a single person in history took place just a few short years ago, amid crippling gun control laws mind you.

"Why should anyone own a gun?" they all ask. As if it isn't explicitly explained in the 2nd Amendment. Again, liberals are unable to grasp the entire concept of the 2nd Amendment and why it was written. The Founders sought to build a nation and a society that was different from the oppressive monarchies of centuries before. They proposed a radical idea...that the people, private citizens, retain "the right to bear arms", not to hunt, not for home defense, but as an effective buffer to possible tyranny.

For some, the possibility of a government turning tyrannical is mind boggling, but history is chock full of examples, many of which can be found by just flipping one page backward to the 20th century. And in most instances, before the government went full Hitler on its citizens, it disarmed them first!

Ottoman Turkey implemented gun control and later exterminated at least a million defenseless Armenians. The Soviets implemented gun control following the red revolution and killed upwards of 20 million citizens over the next 40 years. Hitler and his Nazi Party implemented gun control in Germany and killed at least 8 million Jews and political prisoners. Communist China implemented gun control and murdered nearly 20 million innocent civilians. Pol Pot implemented gun control in Cambodia and murdered over a million people. Another million defenseless citizens were snuffed out in Rwanda, Uganda, and Guatemala in the 1900s after gun control was passed.

"But! But! Look at Britain and Australia! They have gun control and no one is dying there!"

No one is saying that if gun control is passed it automatically turns the government into a killing machine. But the possibility will always be there, and that is exactly what the Founding Fathers DID NOT want to happen in the United States of America. We can squabble about crime statistics another time.

I am glad we are different. And I'd rather live in a society where citizens are empowered and in control than one where the government is empowered and in control. That principle of WE THE PEOPLE is uniquely American.

Tuesday, January 15, 2013

Why Mass Shootings Happen: A Culture in Decline

There is no one single reason why we see an uptick in the frequency and severity of mass shootings these days, but if I had to lay the blame somewhere, it would be on our withering, dying culture.


A Culture Problem, Not a Gun Problem


"The most effectual way to judge a culture or society is by its art."


While the left is soiling themselves over a lack of gun control following the massacre at Sandy Hook, they conveniently overlook the 500+ gun murders last year in Chicago, which has some of the strictest gun control laws in the entire nation. It's not a matter of guns or gun control, but the culture at large.

While Hollywood feigns anguish over the shootings, they churn out violent, blood dripping carnage and market it straight to teenagers, as if to fulfill some sort of bloodlust. Lately, they mix the blood with sex, and market it to young girls through the new vampire-erotica genre in wildly popular entertainment such as Twilight. Movies, video games, and books directed at youth are rife with absolute carnage and sexual deviance.

The mass media is at fault. For a deeper perspective on this, I highly recommend this Frontline documentary from 2001 called "The Merchants of Cool". Mass media's influence on the younger generation is criminal and perverted. They teach boys how to be vulgar, disrespectful, and lazy and they teach girls the art of promiscuity.

American youth are bombarded by the mass media on a daily basis. Where morals were once commonplace, deviance has replaced those outdated, pesky limitations on happiness as the new norm. Our societal mores were dismantled by liberalism in the 1960s. And the numbers don't lie...

- Today, more than 40% of children in the United States are born out of wedlock
- Massive increases in prescription drug addiction; 1 in 4 American women on mental health drugs
- Highest rate of divorce in the world; 50% of American marriages end in divorce
- Suicide recently surpasses car crash fatalities; 15% increase in suicide over last decade
- 86% of American teens see classmates taking drugs or drinking during school day
- United States 17th in international education ranking
- 43% of American children live in a fatherless home
- 90% of children ages 8-16 have viewed pornography online

The family structure has been ravaged in this country by cultural Marxists. After the school shooting in Ohio last year, I wrote this post highlighting the common denominator of broken families among school shooters. Lo and behold, Adam Lanza was no exception.

Our culture at large is becoming more deviant, and the digital age we now live in has only served to soak and dumb down our society at a much faster rate. We live in a culture that glorifies carnage and violence, encourages sexual deviance, pushes more legal and illegal drug use, and ridicules anyone who doesn't conform. Obama and the liberals can ban guns all they want. They can enact the most crippling gun control measures imaginable. But it won't stop a thing.

Monday, January 14, 2013

What the Founding Fathers said about the 2nd Amendment vs. What the liberals say about the 2nd Amendment



"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason

Liberal Version: "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? I'm not sure but that was a long time ago and one of those really old words beyond our understanding. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to keep them from hunting."

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …"
Richard Henry Lee

Liberal Version: "A militia, when properly formed...oh what the hell! We don't need a militia anymore! That's what the Army is for!"

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …"
Samuel Adams

Liberal Version: "And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, unless they are conservative, or the rights of Conscience (whatever that is); or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from hunting tasty deer…"

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
Richard Henry Lee

Liberal Version: "To preserve safety, it is essential that the whole body of the people no longer possess guns and be taught alike, especially when young, how evil they are."

"Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not."
Thomas Jefferson

Liberal Version: "I don't get it?"

"No free man will ever be debarred the use of arms."
Thomas Jefferson

Liberal Version: "No deer hunter will ever be debarred the use of arms. And really, you don't need more than 7 bullets!"

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that … it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; … "
Thomas Jefferson

Liberal Version: "The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the government; that … it is their right and duty to be at all times armed, and tell the people when not to be armed; … "

I don't like citing Wikipedia, but this page has more historical quotes from various Founding Fathers on what the 2nd Amendment meant to them. Nowhere is hunting game mentioned. Fancy that!

In fact, look at the context and usage of "arms" and "armed" in the documented words of our Founding Fathers and you find it crystal clear. To be "armed" as the Founders said, had nothing to do with hunting. It didn't even have anything to do with personal home defense. It meant arming WE THE PEOPLE on a national scale against the possibility of tyranny.

Best quote for last from Mr. Thomas Paine:

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside … Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."


Sunday, January 13, 2013

Why should anyone own an assault rifle?

This gun debate is nauseating. And it's brought me out of my post-election blogging hiatus, because I can't take it anymore.

The gun debate has become so convoluted by the left it is hard to even keep your head on straight sifting through all the lib baby slobber. 

What did Thomas Jefferson say about the 2nd Amendment? He said, "No FREE MAN shall ever be debarred the use of arms." He didn't say "No hunter shall ever be debarred the use of arms." So before we can even begin to have a debate on assault rifles or the 2nd Amendment, first we need to realize what exactly the 2nd Amendment is for. NOWHERE in the Constitution or the writings of the Founding Fathers is hunting mentioned. The governor of New York, that liberal dunghole on the fast track to fascism, would do well to actually read the Bill of Rights. The 2nd Amendment was written to empower the people against the possibility of tyrannical government, such as that of the British Empire in the American colonies during the Revolution. And you can bet the Founders also knew that the possibility of tyranny would be there for years to come, even far off in the future. And the government of the United States isn't exempt. When politicians and lib loonies say things like, "No one needs 20 bullets to hunt a deer!" or "I still believe in the right to bear arms for sportsmen everywhere!" what they are really saying is, "I am a complete dumbass who doesn't understand why the 2nd Amendment was written and I hope one day we can ban all guns from America forever like our socialist brothers and sisters in Europe". That turned out well in the 20th century. It is also funny hearing liberals who have no knowledge of firearms use the word "bullets". 

No, the Founders could have never imagined the powerful weaponry we have today. Tell me how does this invalidate the 2nd Amendment? I'm sure the Founders couldn't have ever envisioned the internet, yet we still have free speech online. (or supposed to anyway) By liberal la la land logic, Freedom of Speech is only relative to the 18th century. That means you only have free speech by writing with a feather pen and ink on parchment, or maybe dressing up in a period attire (yes you have to wear leggings too) and shouting your opinions at a convention hall. No free speech allowed on Facebook or on a telephone. The Founders could have never imagined those things. Sounds stupid doesn't it? Well so does saying the 2nd Amendment only applied to muskets. 

So the next time a liberal asks you, "Why should anyone have an assault rifle?" go ahead and ask them, "Why should you have free speech when talking on a cell phone?" They probably will be too stupid to understand it, but at least you can have a good laugh. 



I'll try to post regularly like I used to. Feel free to stick around.

Friday, November 2, 2012

Union thugs in Ohio arrested for stealing Romney yard signs


TOLEDO UNION LEADERS Busted Stealing Romney-Ryan Signs



This morning 4 men driving a pickup truck registered to the Sheet Metal Union, Local 33 were arrested and charged with receiving stolen property – in the form of a bed full of Romney/Ryan yard signs, some measuring as large as 4′x8′. Also in the truck were tools such as drills, which were possibly used to take the large signs down. The signs were allegedly removed from several private property and business locations across Lucas and Wood County.

Those charged with receiving stolen property included John Russell, 39, of Toledo, and Chris Monaghan 41, of Rossford, who are both listed on the Sheet Metal Workers Local 33 Web site as business agents for the union’s Toledo district.
The men were in a pickup truck registered to Local 33 in Parma, Ohio, police said.
Also cited were Corey J. Beaubien, 37, and Sean Bresler, 33, both of Toledo.
John Russell, Toledo, OH


Why is it always the Dems stealing the yard signs every election? 

Yikes: Obama campaign spending money on ads...in MINNESOTA

RCP: Obama Buys TV Ads in Minnesota

In a move that will spark speculation about Mitt Romney mounting a late challenge in states that had appeared out of reach, President Obama's campaign has purchased television advertisements in Minnesota, according to an Obama source.
The source described the ad buy in the Minneapolis market as “very small” and added that it is targeted primarily at voters in the neighboring swing state of Wisconsin. Minneapolis television reaches Wisconsinites who live in the northwestern part of the state, according to the source.

Gotta love it. Those Greek columns are crumbling. For the Obama campaign to be concerned enough about Minnesota, or Wisconsin, this late in the game shows how desperate they are. All this talk of Ohio deciding the election is false. There are multiple paths to victory for each candidate due to an expanded map this year and a few extra toss up states. 

Charles Krauthammer: The Choice (must read for both sides)

WaPo- The Choice

“Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not.” That was Barack Obama in 2008. And he was right. Reagan was an ideological inflection point, ending a 50-year liberal ascendancy and beginning a 30-year conservative ascendancy. 
It is common for one party to take control and enact its ideological agenda. Ascendancy, however, occurs only when the opposition inevitably regains power and then proceeds to accept the basic premises of the preceding revolution. 
Thus, Republicans railed for 20 years against the New Deal. Yet when they regained the White House in 1953, they kept the New Deal intact. 
And when Nixon followed LBJ’s Great Society — liberalism’s second wave — he didn’t repeal it. He actually expanded it. Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), gave teeth to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and institutionalized affirmative action — major adornments of contemporary liberalism. 
Until Reagan. Ten minutes into his presidency, Reagan declares that “government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem.” Having thus rhetorically rejected the very premise of the New Deal/Great Society, he sets about attacking its foundations — with radical tax reduction, major deregulation, a frontal challenge to unionism (breaking the air traffic controllers for striking illegally) and an (only partially successful) attempt at restraining government growth. 
Reaganism’s ascendancy was confirmed when the other guys came to power and their leader, Bill Clinton, declared (in his 1996 State of the Union address) that “the era of big government is over” — and then abolishedwelfare, the centerpiece “relief” program of modern liberalism.
In Britain, the same phenomenon: Tony Blair did to Thatcherism what Clinton did to Reaganism. He made it the norm. 
Obama’s intention has always been to re-normalize, to reverse ideological course, to be the anti-Reagan — the author of a new liberal ascendancy. Nor did he hide his ambition. In his February 2009 address to Congresshe declared his intention to transform America. This was no abstraction. He would do it in three areas: health care, education and energy.
Think about that. Health care is one-sixth of the economy. Education is the future. And energy is the lifeblood of any advanced country — control pricing and production, and you’ve controlled the industrial economy. 
And it wasn’t just rhetoric. He enacted liberalism’s holy grail: the nationalization of health care. His $830 billion stimulus, by far the largest spending bill in U.S. history, massively injected government into the free market — lavishing immense amounts of tax dollars on favored companies and industries in a naked display of industrial policy. 
And what Obama failed to pass through Congress, he enacted unilaterally by executive action. He could not pass cap-and-trade, but his EPA is killing coal. (No new coal-fired power plant would ever be built.) In 2006, liberals failed legislatively to gut welfare’s work requirement. Obama’s new Health and Human Services rule does that by fiat. Continued in a second term, it would abolish welfare reform as we know it — just as in a second term, natural gas will follow coal, as Obama’s EPA regulates fracking into noncompetitiveness. 
Government grows in size and power as the individual shrinks into dependency. Until the tipping point where dependency becomes the new norm — as it is in Europe, where even minor retrenchment of the entitlement state has led to despair and, for the more energetic, rioting. 
An Obama second term means that the movement toward European-style social democracy continues, in part by legislation, in part by executive decree. The American experiment — the more individualistic, energetic, innovative, risk-taking model of democratic governance — continues to recede, yielding to the supervised life of the entitlement state. 
If Obama loses, however, his presidency becomes a historical parenthesis, a passing interlude of overreaching hyper-liberalism, rejected by a center-right country that is 80 percent nonliberal. 
Should they summon the skill and dexterity, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan could guide the country to the restoration of a more austere and modest government with more restrained entitlements and a more equitable and efficient tax code. Those achievements alone would mark a new trajectory — a return to what Reagan started three decades ago. 
Every four years we are told that the coming election is the most important of one’s life. This time it might actually be true. At stake is the relation between citizen and state, the very nature of the American social contract.