OPM – The Socialist Drug of Choice
by Endre BaloghWhen it comes to the wit and wisdom of Karl Marx, it’s likely that his most quoted statement is, “Religion is the opiate of the masses.” The perverse irony in that quote is that all of Marx’s pseudo-scientific philosophical and sociological musings are so antithetical to common sense and basic human nature, that in order to believe them one must take a leap of faith far greater than any required for belief in a religious dogma. Certainly, George Orwell had Marx in mind when he famously quipped, “There are some ideas so preposterous that only an intellectual could believe them.”
Marx wasn’t stupid, though, and surely recognized that in order to get his magical notions widely embraced, people would have to give up their traditional ideas of religiosity, since it is difficult if not impossible to maintain a belief in two, utterly conflicting religious faiths at the same time. Tragically, the true believers who swallowed the toxic claptrap Marx advanced have brought far more misery and brutality into the world than all the fundamentalist religious faiths of history combined. Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot (to name a few of the most egregious examples), all held at their sociopolitical core the same pseudo-religious tenets that Marx proposed, and the staggering amount of death and torture those monsters precipitate dwarf, by several orders of magnitude, the suffering resultant from any religious beliefs. ( I know, some who are ignorant of history will object and say that Nazism and Fascism were Right-Wing movements. To them, I suggest they read Jonah Goldberg’s seminal book “Liberal Fascism” to learn the truth. The word Nazi was an acronym stemming from the German name for the National Socialist Party!)
Most people (with the exception of many Political Science professors that still inhabit our Universities) have finally come to regard Nazism, Fascism, and Communism as the evils they inherently are, but Socialism is still widely viewed by vast numbers of otherwise intelligent people as a societal good. “Just think,” they say, “how nice life could be if only more people would recognize that individuality and private property are contrary to the greater Socialist good? Let’s just spread the wealth around.” Indeed, throughout 20th Century history, one of the principal distinctions between Nazism, Fascism, Communism, and Socialism has been how thuggishly the fanatical believers in a utopian vision of radical egalitarianism have tried to impose it.
Though implementing Socialism is a lot less vicious, its adherents are equally devoted to totalitarianism – witness just one of myriad examples: the recent rumblings about imposing the Fairness Doctrine on Talk Radio. Consequently, it may actually be more insidious, since over a long period of time people gradually get used to its spirit-crushing effects until, like the proverbial frog in the pot of gradually boiling water, all their freedoms are lost.
Recently, I found a marvelous quote from Margaret Thatcher who wryly observed, “The trouble with Socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.” When I read that, it suddenly hit me that the pseudo-religion of Socialism is fast becoming the very real opiate of the masses. Big Government radicals like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are obsessed with redistributing “other people’s money” and are among the principal “pushers”, addicting enormous swaths of American society to the public dole. The very phrase, “other people’s money,” when made into the acronym OPM and said fast becomes “opium.” In modern Socialist societies it isn’t religion that narcotizes people, but rather OPM that renders people weak, helpless, and dependent on the State for their every need.
Now, our duly elected President Obama, whose ideological roots are deeply watered by Socialist faith, is working to transform American society into one closely resembling the failed Socialist societies of Western Europe. Taking on a new role as Used Car Salesman-In-Chief, he has seized upon our financial mess (largely caused by disastrous Leftist policies – thank you Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, et al.) to ram through the costliest Big-Government giveaway/restructuring bill in human history, without anyone in Congress even having had time to read it. In his few short weeks in office, President Obama has injected far more OPM into the lifeblood of America than did Roosevelt’s awful, Depression-prolonging “New Deal” policies. Just to give it a little context, until just a few weeks ago, former President Bush was roundly excoriated for having raised the deficit under his watch. Now, less than a month into his term, President Obama and Congressional Democrats have quadrupled the deficit in one fell swoop – all with OPM.
The fact that the Socialist Western European countries are in moral and economic ruin makes no difference to the fanatics who concoct our policies. Sadly, thanks to them, the long era of American exceptionalism and personal freedom will come to an abrupt end unless large segments of the populace awaken to the danger posed by the Socialist OPM. Lest anyone doubt that we are headed that way, need I point out that when the McCain campaign had the temerity to gently suggest that perhaps Mr. Obama’s proposed policies might be vaguely Socialist, he was universally castigated for unethical mudslinging. Yet now, only a few weeks later, the cover story in Newsweek proudly proclaims “We Are All Socialists Now!”
A case in point is the ongoing budget crisis in California. Here we have the richest State in the Union, with an economy that ranks among the largest in the world. Yet, thanks to decades of Leftist mismanagement and redistribution of OPM into failing, Big Government / Socialist programs, it sports the worst credit rating of any state. Loopy from their OPM fix, the Leftist lawmakers who have a stranglehold on California politics have spent the past several decades running California into the ground. Are they held accountable for their fiscal irresponsibility? Of course not! They just demand more OPM. What is the solution proposed by the largely Leftist lawmakers to the budget shortfall? Burden the already crushed taxpayers with an unprecedented tax hike – a twelve cent per gallon gasoline tax (on top of an existing forty cent per gallon tax), a doubling of the car registration fee (already one of the highest in the nation), a one percent increase in sales tax (on top of one of the highest sales taxes in the country) and a huge surcharge on State Income Tax. The Nobel Prize winning economist Milton Friedman demonstrated conclusively that beyond a certain point tax increases result in a decrease in revenue. So why does the Left continue to demand a tax increase? For two reasons: 1.) because they are not truly interested in the revenue but rather in the ideology of redistributing wealth and 2.) because they are addicted to OPM. As I write, a tiny handful of courageous Republican lawmakers are standing between these onerous tax increases and the utter destruction of what
is left of the California economy.
This final quote from the late Dr. Adrian Rogers sums up the problem of OPM best:
You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.
OPM is the real narcotic of those who fall for the ideas of Marx. If it becomes the drug of choice for the majority of Americans, we are all in big trouble.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Tips & Feedback
116 Comments
Other People's Money = OPM = Opium. Love it!
I think what makes this creeping socialism most insidious is how most of this money comes from our paychecks before we ever see it. We don't really feel the impact of working so hard to support other people. It's ingenius really. Congress has a great racket going. What's happening to us will never hit home for working Americans until we find ourselves on the other side, due to unemployment or hard times, and then we'll be the ones with our hands out.
Who will save us from this mess? Where are our leaders? Is there no virtuous man or woman who can speak for conservative values and actually lead us there again?
TOO FUNNY!! Marx with an Obama pin. LOVE IT!
Great article. I'm putting Margaret Thatcher's quote on a t-shirt.
That final quote from Dr. Rogers so succinctly sums up the plain and obvious truth of what's wrong with redistribution schemes. Well done. Great article.
Marxism is the opiate of the intellectual.
“Atlas Shrugged, we are almost there folks. Perhaps a revolt of the achievement class is at hand. Starve the beast, The Imperial Federal Government!
One of the best articles I've read in a long time. I love the Adrian Rogers quote… gives me hope, all is not lost…. YET
Marxism is the opiate of the underachieving intellectual.
The second coming of Gingrich.
In four years, if a conservative were to run on the platform of taking an axe to the federal budget and bureaus, I could see it being a successful campaign. 60% of Americans don't support the spending bill now. How much higher will that percentage be after time shows that it was an irresponsible waste of money?
Yes, starve the beast. I am not paying anymore new taxes. Hear that, IRS??? Hear that, NY State Department of Finance?? Anyway, I'm gonna use the Geithner defense, or the Daschle defense, or the Rangel defense, and the 500K people in the Federal Government who haven't paid their 2007 taxes yet defense. See you all in the Federal Pen. Ahhh, 3 hots and cot for while. i won't have to work 80 hours a week anymore. Sounds like a vacation.
A tad off topic.. but did anybody notice the propaganda from the Obamasiah's website – recovery.gov? The bar chart shows "tax relief" as the largest expenditure, however, in his speech, Obama said tax relief was 1/3 of the porkulus bill. How does this jibe with the bar chart? It doesn't. Tinkering with the numbers and obvious skewing of the facts… otherwise known as our Dear Leaders propaganda blitz.
That picture is AWESOME! Does it imply that he supports Obama or Pepsi?
A tad off topic.. but did anybody notice the propaganda from the Obamasiah's website – recovery.gov? The bar chart shows "tax relief" as the largest expenditure, however, in his speech, Obama said tax relief was 1/3 of the porkulus bill. How does this jibe with the bar chart? It doesn't. Tinkering with the numbers and obvious skewing of the facts… otherwise known as our Dear Leaders propaganda blitz.
And what 'n the hell is "protecting the vulnerable" category on the chart?
A tad off topic.. but did anybody notice the propaganda from the Obamasiah's website – recovery.gov? The bar chart shows "tax relief" as the largest expenditure, however, in his speech, Obama said tax relief was 1/3 of the porkulus bill. How does this jibe with the bar chart? It doesn't. Tinkering with the numbers and obvious skewing of the facts… otherwise known as our Dear Leaders propaganda blitz.
And what 'n the hell is "protecting the vulnerable" category on that chart?
Rogers quote is spot on of course. But it seems we might more be entering the phase where De Toqueville (sp?) noted that once the majority realizes it can vote itself more money from the public coffers at will, the end is near. There are lot of people with their hands out right now, and funnily, they all voted democratic. The poor – and the over educated wealthy who don't want their applecarts upended and so like a government that will protect them.
I am not sure it isn't over now, the issue is how fast we turn into the UK? The GOP spent way beyond what the WOT required,and the dems just blew that number away.
Marxism is the opiate of the pseudo-intellectual.
Pseudo-intellectualism is the opiate of the fool.
Foolish government is the opiate of the modern-day liberal.
Those ba$tards had eight years to do it. I am one ticked off conservative.
Thank you for your words. Unfortunately, as with all things, it is not that simple. Ambitious people will continue to be ambitious and satisfy those ambitions according to their beliefs. Some are amoral and will adapt to the communistic or socialistic system to further their aims, while others will just work harder while sticking to their principles.
However, with socialism/communism, the numbers in the latter category are greatly reduced and it becomes "every man for himself" to a much greater degree. Black markets begin to thrive, the general security of the nation declines, thuggery prevails, and, well, we've seen it all before. "Hope" (that a free ride and a nice, comfy life can be had without much effort if the government simply takes all that money from the rich people) springs eternal in an undereducated, over-informed (read: Web-saturated), youthful population.
the toxic claptrap Marx advanced have brought far more misery and brutality into the world than all the fundamentalist religious faiths of history combined
Great point! I'll know the culture war was won when you can shame a leftie by saying, "I'm against organized socialism because of all bad things people do in socialism's name."
It's hopeless (click on link) and time for a serious tax revolt. To start with, everyone should increase their number of dependents.
Margaret Thatcher who wryly observed, “The trouble with Socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.”
Would this be the same Margaret Thatcher who had no problem with socialized medicine in her own country? Yeah, thought so. Thatcher may have been a 'Friedman-ite' but she didn't attempt to touch socialized medicine in England because it works. Some of you would claim Universal healthcare in England is socialism. [News for you; It ain't].
Also her quote is not on the make because it doesn't take into effect the way England and the US government run; On our taxes. What do you guys want anarchy?
RECYCLE, that's the buzzword. And so they are recycling Feudalism, giving it different names — Socialism, Communism, Marxism — All that happens is you have one super powerful entity which rules with an iron hand over all the rest with a small class of "privileged" administrating the King's (State's) degrees. Thus the Russian people could stand in breadlines for a potato whilst the members of the Politburu dined on caviar at their dachas. How different is that than the nobles in feudal times? The guy in line for his potato has no power and besides, everybody he knows is in the same line. The bureaucrats (guilds then) are totally powerless, but tolerated so long as they do the bidding of the king and nobles.
In feudal times, the system was imposed by force; these days it's done via taxation. You tax the upper income EARNER (key word being "earner") to a median, use the confiscated money to elevate the lower and non income "earner" to that same median, and voila — a SERF CLASS over which the power elites rule.
Europe tolerates socialism because IMHO feudalism is their natural form of government. This is true of Asia and the MIddle East, as well. America was initially settled by a bunch of rabble rousers who hated the feudal system, but this country is the exception that proves the rule. Unfortunately, our political rulers have been smarter than we the people, and they've gradually allowed the immigration of people who more willingly accept feudalism or tribalism as their form of government.
Typically useless response from the Left… Wow you're so insightful! You revealed she wasn't omnipotent!!! Thank you Captain Obvious. It all makes sense now.
Viva Hussien Chavista Obama 2022!
I know. It's frustrating. Unfortunately, the macro-economically illiterate Democrats who run the government now are making our psuedo-conservative bums look like little Milton Friedmans. The republican base that fired their representatives thought they were doing the right thing, but no one expected the alternative to become the next Oktober Revolution.
The only solution is a conservative leader to realign the party correctly.
[...] Big Hollywood wrote an interesting post today on OPM – The Socialist Drug of ChoiceHere’s a quick excerptWhen it comes to the wit and wisdom of Karl Marx, it’s likely that his most quoted statement is, “Religion is the opiate of the masses.” The perverse irony in that quote is that all of Marx’s pseudo-scientific philosophical and sociological musings are so antithetical to common sense and basic human nature, that in order to believe them one must take a leap of faith far greater than any required for belief in a religious dogma. Certainly, George Orwell had Marx in mind when he famously quipped, [...]
Counter-culturalism is the opiate of the modern American liberal.
Anybody catch the protest at the Chicago Stock Exchange, and the comments from the kids in Mesa, CA. A beginning insurrection perhaps? Viva La Revolution!
It’s a fact that all of Washington politicians love government. We must find a small Government conservative. It’s getting to be time to storm the Bastille, Ha!
Just a note on socialized medicine – first you say it's socialist and it works, then you say it's not socialist. A second note, I do not know a single European – and I've lived in Europe and have family in England – that uses government run insurance. Everyone who can afford it, buys private insurance. If they can't, they ditch their car, get a smaller place, find a new job or whatever it takes to not end up in the governments care. I have a good friend who works for National Health in England as an RN – and buys private insurance because she knows just how awful it is.
And as for the gov't running on taxes – are you implying that lower taxes would lead to anarchy?
"Who will save us from this mess? Where are our leaders? Is there no virtuous man or woman who can speak for conservative values and actually lead us there again? "
Ever hear of Ron Paul?
Every incumbent needs to be voted out of office starting in 2010, because all of them fall in love with the power that a bigger government brings.
remember when president Hopey said, "decided they wanted to make a virtue out of selfishness” when McCain called him a Socialist?
It made me think of this quote: Politicians never accuse you of 'greed' for wanting other people's money — only for wanting to keep your own money."
Here, Here!
His belief in almost unlimited personal liberties accompanied by absolut personal responsibility either scares the crap out of the left of they just can't grasp the concept. And his abortion, anti-war and drug legalization stances make him the black sheep of the Republican Party.
But it is nice that when he speaks about the economy, he uses something that very few politicians do: ECONOMICS.
The only way to ensure success is to throw every last one of them out. There is no difference between the two parties. They are two head of the same beast. Using issues like abortion and gun control to distract and divide the electorate they take turns at power while nothing ever changes.
Replacing everyone of them is the first step to real change.
Ron Paul perhaps, but this country had better get a handle on it’s sanity or the greatest country the world has ever known will be destroyed.
If it could be done it would begin to correct the coarse of our contry.
Two words: Term limits.
Perhaps a little anarchy would be a good thing! I'm one of the chumps that pays for all this crap!
His belief in almost unlimited personal liberties accompanied by absolute personal responsibility either scares the crap out of the left of they just can't grasp the concept. And his abortion, anti-war and drug legalization stances make him the black sheep of the Republican Party.
But it is nice that when he speaks about the economy, he uses something that very few politicians do: ECONOMICS.
Government has no problem limiting peopl ein the private sector, but good luck getting them to limit themselves. If we really want term limits then it's up to us to enforce them with our votes.
Government has no problem limiting people in the private sector, but good luck getting them to limit themselves. If we really want term limits then it's up to us to enforce them with our votes.
Look guys, I understand your appreciation for Ron Paul, because he does convey some things that make a lot of sense, but he also entertains 9/11 Truther conspiracies. He's been a regular guest on Alex Jones' radio show here in Austin. Sorry, but that absolutely ruins his appeal as a potential leader for our side.
Ron Paul is pro-life. As for drug legalization, that is somewhat of a conservative stance, if not a Republican one. For instance, most of the writers of National Review are in favor of drug legalization of some form or another.
Ron Paul is pro-life. As for drug legalization, that is somewhat of a conservative stance, if not a Republican one. For instance, most of the writers of National Review are in favor of drug legalization of some form or another. But I do agree that his foreign policy positions are ludicrous and untenable.
I don't think Marx made no sense at all– that is a gross oversimplification. He is in fact the founder of the word "capitalism," and many of his economic concepts are part of our everyday economic language. His problems were 1) that ultimately, 'capitalist' was just a substitute for the word 'Jew'; that is, his labor theory was just a disguised form of moralistic Antisemitism, and 2) His understanding of capitalism and industrial society was in fact pre-capitalist and pre-industrial. He thought of capitalist society more in terms of serfdom (which is how his socialism turns out). In reality, the workers in a capitalist society don't become 'immiserated' and so poor that they need to overthrow the rulers and institute a 'dictatorship of the proletariat'; they are actually better off– and since they are NOT serfs, for the most part, the worker is free to sell his labor to the highest bidder (or not, if he likes) and convert it into capital.
The part of Marx's thinking that is so stupid and yet ingrained in modern thinking, not just in the left, is his bastardization of Hegel and his subsequent pseudo-psychology (things like 'false consciousness.') "Marxism," for me, means that our consciousnesses are entirely shaped by the time/place of our lives– in economic terms, whoever owns the 'means of production' determines, according to what is good for him, all value and meaning in my life. In order to overcome this constraint, according to Marx, there must be a 'class struggle,' not only in terms of ownership of means-of-production, but also in terms of all art, science, and meaning itself. This adolescent concept disguised as wisdom is the fount of all our modern gender-studies, race-studies, anti-Western civilization deconstructionist nonsense that so poisons education today. That's the real blight of Marx.
You only used the first half of the quote. The rest goes something like "Religion is the opiat of the masses. But religion is nessesary in a cold world". Not defending Marx but at least use the whole quote.
While I'm not too oppose to the idea of purging Congress, let's come back to reality a little. The two parties are not the same beast. They have merely drifted closer together. But there's still a gap, and it's not just abortion and gun control.
Remember, the Republicans at least showed some solidarity against the spending bill. It's one of the first moves they've made in favor of their constituents' interests in a long time.
While I'm not too oppose to the idea of purging Congress, let's come back to reality a little. The two parties are not the same beast. They have merely drifted closer together. But there's still a gap, and it's not just abortion and gun control.
Remember, the Republicans at least showed some solidarity against the stimulous bill. It's one of the first moves they've made in favor of their constituents' interests in a long time.
While I'm not too oppose to the idea of purging Congress, let's come back to reality a little. The two parties are not the same beast. They have merely drifted closer together. But there's still a gap, and it's not just abortion and gun control.
Remember, the Republicans at least showed some solidarity against the stimulus bill. It's one of the first moves they've made in favor of their constituents' interests in a long time.
He personally is pro-life, but he also thinks that should be up to states to decide if t hey allow abortions or not.
And if drug legalization is a Republican stance, then someone forgot to forward that memo to John Ashcroft.
I don't remember him entertaining the 9/11 truthers, so I must have missed that one; He has stated that they hate us because we are on their soil, which is understandable but only tells half of the story so I can see how you might be turned off by him. But I somewhat like his non-interventionist approach to foreign policy. Wars fought on behalf of citizens of other countries are a waste of out tax dollars; only US citizens should directly benefit from US tax dollars.
He personally is pro-life, but he also thinks that should be up to states to decide if they allow abortions or not.
And if drug legalization is a Republican stance, then someone forgot to forward that memo to John Ashcroft.
The problem is that the Republicans will fake conservatism until they regain power. For nearly a decade they had their chance to show us how different they are from the Democrats but behaved exactly like the Democrats. There hasn't been a turnover on the Republican side of the aisle. These are the same Republicans who spent like drunken sailors during the Bush years. If their actions count for anything, they need to go away along with the Democrats (who have taken the spending baton from them and are running with it).
I saw the Chi Stock exchange video. It was perfect. I think he reflects rational thinking people who pay their bills on time. And the kids in Mesa understood the bill much better than most adults. I was impressed.
Can you explain how universal healthcare is not "socialized"? That would be interesting.
Thatcher probably didn't touch socialized healthcare because the program is an immovable object. This is the same country that wouldn't re-elect Churchill after the war because he wasn't socialist enough.
Yea, I didn't say drug legalization was a Republican position. It is, I think, conservative. So is federalism, which is what it means for abortion to be left up to the states. And that is what would happen if the unconstitutional Roe v. Wade were to be overturned.
Even the Libertarian candidate for president was once a Drug Warrior. So no one is doing very well on that front.
Ron Paul's problem is that he still has this idea that the world isn't global and if we sneeze in DC they catch a cold in Hong Kong. We are for better or worse in reality CONNECTED to the rest of the world. Thats the reality of the time and place we live. Look I'd love it if we had the Agrarian ideal but WE DO NOT! So live with it. Deal with the people you have to deal with it. Sucks for some like Paul however its what we live. You don't have to lose your Americaness by helping Iraqi's escape both Saddam and idiot Islamofascists. Or Afghans trying to figure out how to escape the 8th century period. What is wrong with that?
Now our problem is the elitist, entitled masses of ACORN abusing, stupid jerks wandering around slack jawed looking for the rest of us to hand them a living. Not how it works. And it never worked taht way to begin with. I know that the naval gazing leftist zombies all think Obama will just drop dollars as he passes by and everything will be rosy. WRONG! Reality. Reality for the Paulites and Reality for the Obamatons. Its easy.
[...] The complete column can be read here. [...]
You're right there. Bob Barr didn't do very well with his party because of his past. If only the same could be said for the man that was elected POTUS.
Absolutely true. You can picture those Washington politician bastards laughing in the cloak room rubbing their greedy little hands together excited about all that tax payer money they get to spend. That includes Republicans & Democrats. The power, the power…
An easy fix for this mess is the FairTax, read up on it. It would take power away from the Government and give it back to the citizens. http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer
I was watching a program on the History channel about the rise of Nazism in Germay. They kept on saying the RIGHT wingers were the Nazi’s. As not to throw something a my TV finally had to turn the thing off. Is this the sort of crap they are theaching in schools now??
The only problem I have with wars in other countries is that US tax dollars should be spent on US citizens, or better yet, those tax dollars shouldn't be taken from private citizens in the first place.
"We Americans have no commission from God to police the world." ~ Benjamin Harrison
Ergo, underachieving Marxists are American Liberals!
It's funny how his conclusions were based on an outdated understanding of developing societies mixed with prejudice, but is used as a fundamental basis for so much higher education cirricula. There are so many world-changing technologies and developments that he could not have predicted. It's like trying to predict the weather 100 years from now by tracking the current movement of large air masses.
Very good post, though.
I would submit this most excellent post to Digg but it would just get buried.
Vic
We already have term limits – President 4 yrs (x2), Senate 6 yrs, House 2 yrs. It is up to us to get people to VOTE, not limit who we can vote for. What do you do if you have good representation? It can work both ways.
Here's a youtube video of Milton Friedman bodyslamming Phil Donahue on this topic:
"Of course, none of us are greedy. It's only the other fella who's greedy."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A
Not too many problems that the Feds have not made worse. Subsidized housing, Medicaid, Education, foreign policy, energy. Should I go on.
Yes, by all means, let them have more power. They will use it wisely, right?
This is a great piece! I like the OPM label too.
I was just posting something similar on Dennis Miller's DMZ messageboards. It really is offensive the way people in Washington seem to forget that they're gambling with our money.
Obama's website recovery.gov has an element on Accountability and Transparency with this intro:
"This is your money. You have a right to know where it's going and how it's being spent. Learn what steps we're taking to ensure you can track our progress every step of the way." Imagine the surrealistic feeling when I read that the day after Congress passed the "stimulus" bill without reading it or making available to us. They had to pass it so urgently, that they couldn't give us 48 hours to read it. Then Obama took 72 hours before signing it, so he could use the signing as a photo op.
Recovery.gov has another section for us to "Share Your Recovery Story" I wanted to tell them that we have paid our home off and have no debts, and I didn't appreciate them using our taxes to bail out people who didn't have the same prudence.
I've never been able to see Obama's rumored great intelligence. Yes, he has a good education and is well spoken, but it's pretty obvious that he sees economics as a zero sum game and has a very naive idea of how foreign policy works or how to deal with dangerous dictators. I formed the impression during the campaign that he has a good ear for what his professors and others wanted to hear and was good at regurgitating it, but had never really thought it through. As he goes around giving speeches, that impression still comes through over and over.
Here's a youtube video of Milton Friedman bodyslamming Phil Donahue on the issue of greed:
"Of course, none of us are greedy. It's only the other fella who's greedy."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A
Here's a youtube video of Milton Friedman bodyslamming Phil Donahue on the topic of greed:
"Of course, none of us are greedy. It's only the other fella who's greedy."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A
Here's a youtube video of Milton Friedman bodyslamming Phil Donahue on the topic of greed:
"Of course, none of us are greedy. It's only the other fella who's greedy."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A
VA, did you see CNBC's Rick Santelli today? He's a great guy to begin with — he often references Atlas Shrugged — but today, he absolutely called out Obama on the mortgage bill for making average people pay for other people's mortgages. He had this great comment about a Chicago Tea Party (CNBC was calling it "Rick's Revolution" all day).
I think there is a growing sense of "disquiet" starting to rear it's head. Even the AP suddenly seems critical of Obama. Maybe the cool-aid goggles are wearing off and the American public is starting to wonder who's lying in the bed next to them…
Hang in there buddy!
I agree. That's one of the funniest things I've seen in a while! Take a bow, whoever thought that one up!
Ergo, underachieving Marxists are foolish modern-day American Liberals!
Ergo, Marxists are foolish, underachieving, pseudo-intellectual, modern-day American Liberals!
Ergo, Marxist are foolish, underachieving, pseudo-intellectual, modern-day American Liberals on crack!
Ergo, Marxists are foolish, underachieving, pseudo-intellectual, modern-day American Liberals on crack!
Yeah, just mentioned it above (should have read lower first, my bad). Rick Santelli is awesome and today was like a total shot across the bow of the SS Stimulus.
Bev, pay your taxes…. it's the patriotic thing to do (says Joe Biden). Besides…
“Make no mistake, tax cheaters cheat us all, and the IRS should enforce our laws to the letter. ” Sen. Tom Daschle, Congressional Record, May 7, 1998, p. S4507.
Yes Jayne it is. If you watch Fox & Friends (I think it is every Wednesday) they will highlight a specific textbook and school where there is blatant misinformation being taught.
Generally, I agree that I we should not be policing the world… BUT, I also think that we need to deal with problems over there before they become problems over here.
Generally, I agree that I we should not be policing the world… BUT, I also think that we need to deal with problems over there before they become problems over here. Not to mention, we've always been a merchant people. We have (and always had) business all over the world, and we benefit greatly from foreign companies/countries trying to do business over hear.
Okay, I'll pay my taxes, but only 'cause Obama may have to resort to me for Secretary of Commerce. Hey, ya' never know!
Karl Marx would never support our president.
Four words: Breach of fiduciary trust.
Gary, thank you for a well thought out article. I work for a large corporation in the South. At work I am a minority. There are a few black people that I can ask questions about race/cultural differences and express my views and/or opinions that do not get offended. We have intelligent discussions and one of the things they tell me over and over is that they did not vote to have race hustlers like Sharpton and Jackson and now Holden as the person that represents them, the white folks (MSM and corporations) did. 30 years ago, I was in a race relations class in the Navy, when I was ask "What do you call your black friends", my reply was "a friend".
Actually, Hayek pointed out that the Nazis and Russian Communists were both children of Marx long before Goldberg (whose book is wonderful as history, but fails at the end). Marx's biggest problem, basically, was atheism. He was a child of Rousseau, like most of the West, and looked to find a new god to replace God. He needed "absolutes," "inevitabilities" that he could pin a totalitarian theory on. He found them in other writers (like Hegel) and French materialism (that posited all belief and behavior was a product of class and material well-being). His system was historically flawed for it endeavored to engage in that great liberal past-time, historical revisionism. Not only that, but it attempted to be a complete "religion" – a way of understanding, explaining, and believing all of human existence and experience. It was an absolute attempt at creating a man-centered religion. Thus, it was a natural product of the West's long, and ongoing, slide into cancerous egocentrism.
Unfortunately, much of Marx's theory has become commonplace in the West, thanks to the unstoppable drum-beat of liberal academicians and pols. The role of our government has fundamentally changed, as it was predicted by both Father Seraphim Rose in the early 60's and by Tage Lindbom in '91. What we see now is simply the full flowering of Western humanism and the worship of Rousseau's "voice of the people" as the source of discernment. I think both of the last two authors I have mentioned argue very convincingly that where we are now, and where we are going, are both the inevitable result of where we came from.
deadpan227 – RE: Obama's "intelligence"
For all of Bush's alleged "stupidity," I don't think he ever used an ear-piece (or a teleprompter, for the matter) for a press conference Q & A, did he? If Obama is so brilliant, so on top of every issue, so deep, so insightful, why would he need this? Or to pre-screen questions? I am not saying Obama is stupid, but the slavish repetition of his "brilliance" seems misplaced.
I would also posit that Obama is the PERFECT president for our times – historically ignorant, arrogant and egocentric, politically/militarily/culturally (in reference to other nations) illiterate, and unwilling to debate others' ideas (instead, like even most conservative pundits, he simply waits for the opportunity to get HIS side in). I don't mean to appear so negative about "these days," but it seems to me that he is far too accurate a reflection of the average American (thanks to the cultural degradation engendered by so much humanism).
By the by, I know all of this seems damned haughty, please forgive me. I truly don't think I'm some braniac. I freely admit that my views are derived directly from men much, much, much wiser than myself.
the sinner,
Patrick
Sadly, he's not smart enough to nominate you!
Does it matter? They're both as filling and neither one's good for your wallet.
We have anarchy, it's called Democratic leadership. Oh, it may sound totalitarian, but it's just pure chaos….
[...] Endre Balogh Recently, I found a marvelous quote from Margaret Thatcher who wryly observed, “The trouble with Socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.” When I read that, it suddenly hit me that the pseudo-religion of Socialism is fast becoming the very real opiate of the masses. Big Government radicals like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are obsessed with redistributing “other people’s money” and are among the principal “pushers”, addicting enormous swaths of American society to the public dole. The very phrase, “other people’s money,” when made into the acronym OPM and said fast becomes “opium.” In modern Socialist societies it isn’t religion that narcotizes people, but rather OPM that renders people weak, helpless, and dependent on the State for their every need. Now, our duly elected President Obama, whose ideological roots are deeply watered by Socialist faith, is working to transform American society into one closely resembling the failed Socialist societies of Western Europe. Taking on a new role as Used Car Salesman-In-Chief, he has seized upon our financial mess (largely caused by disastrous Leftist policies – thank you Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, et al.) to ram through the costliest Big-Government giveaway/restructuring bill in human history, without anyone in Congress even having had time to read it. In his few short weeks in office, President Obama has injected far more OPM into the lifeblood of America than did Roosevelt’s awful, Depression-prolonging “New Deal” policies. Just to give it a little context, until just a few weeks ago, former President Bush was roundly excoriated for having raised the deficit under his watch. Now, less than a month into his term, President Obama and Congressional Democrats have quadrupled the deficit in one fell swoop – all with OPM. Read entire article. [...]
Can I just say ~wipes tear from eye~ that it's nice to know I'm not the only musician who gets this. In order to spread the wealth around, somebody has to create that wealth, and somebody has to take it. That's stealing, so socialism is inherently immoral. It really is exactly that simple, no ifs, ands, or buts about it.
What a great article. I just discovered this web site through LaShawn Barber. You are a great writer, Mr. Balogh!
Isn't it interesting how the hatred of religion plays such a role in this.
If one were to compile a list of the most evil men in modern history, almost all of them would be atheists.
The remaining few would be Muslims who hate people of other faiths.
Great article!
If you like this article…you should really take the time to read the book he referenced by Jonah Goldberg. I just happened to finish reading it this week so this article was very topical for me…Jonah just destroys the liberal myth of the right wing fascist.
"Unfortunately, our political rulers have been smarter than we the people, and they've gradually allowed the immigration of people who more willingly accept feudalism or tribalism as their form of government."
Excellent point. I know this kinda obvious…but the biggest threat to this country is the stupidity and ignorance of the vast majority of voters. When whole blocks of potential votes can be swayed by saying something completely false…like say "They want to take away your social security"…we're in trouble.
Indeed, In economic terms, it is known as "legal plunder." As a government, I have to do this very slowly over years and pretty soon, my taking your property (stealing) is my right. After all, I am giving it to the "poor" and who doesn't like Robin Hood.
To do this, you must demonize the "rich" which is anyone who actually has any money.
Let the good times roll!
Please keep posting columns like this! If you do you'll be out of power forever.
So, you tried this tactic:"B Hussein Obama is a closet muslim terrorist sympathizer". "He's an arab!"
And it didn't work. Now you're trying out A. Mitchell Palmer red-baiting from 80 years ago. Good luck with that.
And no, Hiter was not a leftist, Nazis were "socialists" in name only.
Wrong. If you actually read any of the early Nazi literature, they were very much Marxist. Or, you could simply read Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom" or Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism." The former comes at the origin of fascism and the Nazis from an economic standpoint, the latter from a much more historical standpoint (the origin and development of the ideologies). As Goldberg points out, "progressives" originally loved the fascists and Nazis. The only reason they were *ever* called right-wing was because they wouldn't bow to Moscow, so Moscow told everyone to start calling them "right wing." The ideology of men like Mussolini (a former socialist) and Hitler did NOT come from the right, but from the left.
I'd also like to point out that mindlessly brushing an entire group of people with the moronic statements about Obama being a terrorist sympathizer or an Arab (which no one made, by the by, it was that he was Muslim – which he, technically, was at one point. To go a Mosque, at any time, means you had to say a particular prayer regarding Allah and Mohammed, which is all that Islam requires for one to be considered a Muslim) is pathetic. It would be like me saying that you're obviously a baby-murdering, terrorist loving, commie pinko, child-molesting eco-terrorist. All because you seem to agree with a viewpoint that I disagree with. Please, at least attempt to offer something of substance.
the sinner,
Patrick
I also forgot – the Nazis made much political hay from the fact that the Socialists in the Wiemar Republic were rich fat-cats who were at the beck and call of Moscow. The Nazis, economically speaking, really were the poor and downtrodden. That is, they consisted, mainly, of the unemployed, former military, factory workers, those hit hardest by the Treaty of Versailles, and the economic downturns in Germany. Of course, none of this justifies the Nazi position, but it certainly undercuts the notion that the poor and downtrodden flock to socialism, as predicted by Marx. At the same time, none of it justifies the monumental horrors unleashed on the world by Marx's pseudo-religion.
the sinner,
Patrick
What did Seraphim Rose say?
[...] that to say, I saw this and thought I should [...]
I think the best way to get to that would be to google Seraphim Rose and Nihilism. The entire piece is online for free. Tage Lindbom's work is "The Myth of Democracy," which isn't too long but you'll probably have to order it online. As a warning – both of these works make fundamental assumptions that don't sit well with the average Western mindset. But if you simply want to read them for their historical perspective, then you'll be amazed how accurately, in my estimation, both track the course of history. Personally, I'm more in line with Father Seraphim Rose, but both works are great.
the sinner,
Patrick
Testing
Uh Floyd. You do realize the Palmer raids were led by a Democrat, during a Democrat's administration, don't you?
And the Nazis? Hmmm, tree huggers (psychologically the Nazis had a fetish for the agrarian life as bad as the communists had a fetish for BIG, BIG, BIG industry), free government run health care, generous old age pensions, limitations on private citizens rights to bear arms……..Yeah, that all sounds pretty "right wing to me."
I'm familiar with Seraphim Rose, and that book (though I haven't read it). Once I saw a monk give it to a Catholic kid. I was hoping you would save me the work and tell me what Father Seraphim predicted about the future role of government.
"To them, I suggest they read Jonah Goldberg’s seminal book “Liberal Fascism” to learn the truth. The word Nazi was an acronym stemming from the German name for the National Socialist Party!"
Might I add that Sadaam's elite force was called the Iraqi Republican Guard, so clearly they were Republicans.
But the Republican Guard never espoused anything remotely closed to what are commonly called Republican, or even republican, ideas. The Nazis were founded on Marxist thought.
the sinner,
Patrick
The point of my comment is that you cannot claim that a party is "Republican" merely because that is in their name.
Furthermore, parties change what they stand for over time. The question is not the origination of the Nazi Party, but the Nazi Party when it became headed by Adolf Hitler. I challenge you to find that connection.
Try actually reading their writings – even as Hitler rose to power. Or look at the policies, many have which are pointed out in this thread, which are directly derived from Marx. As indicated in the quote you took to respond to, read "Liberal Fascism." Mr. Goldberg does an excellent job (far beyond the capacity of anyone on this board) of historically tracing the origins of the Nazi party and what Hitler stood for. I would challenge you to show that there was a radical shift with Hitler. There wasn't.
In fact, some years ago, a friend linked to a Time article from the 30's, on another board, that claimed that there was just as much state control of business and the economy in Germany as there was in the Soviet Union, and that businesses that thought they were getting some "deal" or "partnership" were sadly mistaken.
Basically, the Nazis, before and under Hitler, believed in the centralization of the control of the means of production and distribution of goods and services, the elimination of the family as the cornerstone of society and replacing that foundation with the state. Though the Nazis didn't pursue the out-and-out elimination of religion as fiercely as the Soviets did, they did attempt to supplant it with a state-oriented pseudo-religion. This latter act was the same as the Soviets, and was a key component of Marx's theories (at least, in effect, if not in written "scripture").
Your (apparent) attempts to separate the Nazis from Marx have no basis other than your say so. And, I am sure, the decades of academic misconduct in attempting to place them on the "right wing" of totalitarianism. Goldberg addresses the origin of that myth, as well.
the sinner,
Patrick
[...] that the principles and values that lie at the heart of conservatism are shared by the majority. OPM – The Socialist Drug of Choice – bighollywood.breitbart.com 02/19/2009 When it comes to the wit and wisdom of Karl Marx, it’s [...]
[...] First Tweet Feb 19, 2009 crgardner crgardner http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ebalogh/2009/02/19/opm-the-socialist-drug-of-choice/ view retweet [...]
You must be logged in to post a comment.