Posted on 06/21/2011 6:41:54 PM PDT by COBOL2Java
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Now, you know, you and I on this program, we discuss time and time again: "Is Obama doing this on purpose or does he not really know?" It's the age-old argument: "Is he a neophyte, ignorant theoretician from the faculty lounge or is he really this committed Marx who's doing all this on purpose?" Now, a man that we admire greatly here at the EIB Network is Victor Davis Hanson. He's a noted farmer in the Central Valley of California. He is, in his own way, a Renaissance man. He's a Greek historian par excellence. I love listening to Victor Davis Hanson describe ancient Greece. You know, in ancient Greece they had their own Clinton. Alcibiades was an ancient Greek Clinton down to a T. Victor Davis Hanson writes prolifically at National Review, National Review Online and a couple of other websites, and there is a piece he posted yesterday at Glenn Reynolds' website Insta-Pundit. It's "The Metaphysics of Contemporary Theft," and in his piece Victor Davis Hanson, affectionately known as VDH to his friends, says:
"Watching the tastes, the behavior, the rhetoric, the appointments, and the policy of this administration suggests to me that it is not really serious in radically altering the existing order, which it counts on despite itself. Its real goal is a sort of parasitism that assumes the survivability of the enfeebled host." Let me translate: Victory Davis Hanson believes that Obama and the liberals are simple parasites, that they really don't want to radically alter the existing order. They will say so but they don't actually take the great leaps necessary to do it. They get close, but they don't actually take steps to destroy this because they feed off of it. They need an economy producing things for them to take, so that they can redistribute them -- and they just, in their ignorance, assume that no matter how often they kill the golden goose, that the golden goose is gonna continue to live and be prosperous and produce enough eggs for Obama and his guys to continue to take from.
That's the prevailing opinion from Victor Davis Hanson.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Now, back to Victor Davis Hanson. He doesn't really believe that Obama is engaged in a willful and purposeful destruction of the economic engine that creates prosperity and the opportunity for it in this country. He thinks that that they're basically just a bunch of parasites, that they don't really want to radically alter what's going on. In fact, they count on the golden goose thriving. They count on, no matter what they do to it -- whatever tax policy happens, whatever regulations -- they think it's gonna survive. They think it's gonna continue to do well enough that there will be enough that they can take from it to redistribute or to do whatever else they want to do with it, and that they're not going to destroy it; that they're parasites, and that they assume (this is their naivete or ignorance) that the host, the US economy, will survive their parasitic behavior; that they won't kill it.
Now, my problem with that (and I, again, say this with do you respect) is to believe that -- to believe that Obama is not a radical and he doesn't want to radically alter things and just says so; he's just a parasite feeding off of all this -- is you must assume, it would seem to me, that Obama and the left are not driven by an ideology, then. When Obama wants to change our society, when he takes major steps towards doing it, why go to the pains to deny it? Which they do. You accuse them of doing this on purpose -- you go out and accuse them of making radical changes to our society, major steps toward destroying the occasion the nation as founded -- oh, they'll disagree with you. Why? Why deny it? They don't want that to be known.
I think to view them as a bunch of well-intentioned, ignorant parasites is to deny that they're driven by an ideology, and we know what the ideology is. The ideology is socialism. The socialist sucks the blood out of capitalism. We're not talking here about parasites. We're talking vampires, if you want to get down to brass tacks -- and some might say there's not much difference in the two. I think there is. We're talking vampires. Obama, Democrats, socialists, leftists, suck the blood out of capitalism. They will eventually destroy it. This is not news. And they run out of capitalist-created wealth. Margaret Thatcher herself said it: One of the bad things about socialism is you eventually run out of other people's money.
Why do you do that? Why does that happen? Why do you run out of other people's money? Because you've sucked all of it out of the system! Socialism does not create wealth; it destroys wealth. Socialism doesn't create jobs; it destroys jobs. The public sector job -- you know, somebody hired to work in government -- is not a job created, because they don't produce anything. It's a job lost, in a zero-sum game sense. If that person could have found a job in the private sector and been involved in an enterprise that's out producing something or providing a service, then you've got growth; you've got expansion. That doesn't happen to government. They suck the system dry. They suck the blood out. So this is not new to anybody.
Why do they do this, though? This is the thing. When you're trying to persuade people, "This is what the leftist does, this is what socialists do: They suck the blood out of the system," people eventually ask you, "Why do they do that, Rush?" 'cause they just can't believe it. They can't get their arms around the fact there are actually people who would do it. That's why you evolve the theory, "They don't really know what they're doing. They're just a bunch of parasites. They think that the system's always gonna be there creating wealth, providing jobs. It's always gonna be there. No matter what they do, it's always gonna be there." See, I disagree with that. I think they know they're sucking the blood out of it, and so the inevitable question: Why do they do it?
And I, ladies and gentlemen, El Rushbo, have provided the answer over and over beginning each time I'm asked. The answer is -- if you listen to them, and if you observe them -- they seek "change." They are not passive. Their ideology is not passive. Liberalism, socialism, is a very active, animating thing. They're not just boobs, although they are. They are boobs, but they're not "just" boobs. They know they're sucking the system dry. They have a reason for sucking the system dry. This is even tougher for people to accept. It's even tougher for people to agree to or understand because they don't want to believe this. Suck the system dry, what happens then? Well, if you suck the system dry and there's no job you can get to support yourself, where do you turn?
It's already happening.
You turn to the government and the people there become even more powerful, as more and more people turn to them for their very existence, for their very ability to eat. We laugh about it, but it's no accident -- and it's no coincidence -- that all of a sudden people are calling 911 when something goes wrong with a restaurant order. In one instance, a guy in the middle of a drug deal who thought he got short-changed on his change called 911. There's a reason this happens. It's because this is being taught. So it's hard for me to believe the passivity here that these are just a bunch of well-intentioned people that end up being parasites sucking the system dry, always thinking it's going to be there. I think a lot of these people have a chip on their shoulder about that very system.
Now, if Obama doesn't want to destroy capitalism, then Marx didn't, either. If Obama doesn't want to destroy capitalism, then Marx didn't either, did he? There's not a dime's worth of difference between the two of them. When you get down to brass tacks, there's not much difference in Marx and Obama. Our current recession, it's not just an accident of the business cycle -- and don't forget, in the latter part of the nineties, the Clinton administration running around saying, "The business cycle is no more! We have defeated the business cycle. There aren't going to be any more recessions. There aren't going to be any more of these wildly gyrating cycles. We've defeated that!" Okay. We've got a recession that has outlasted all other recessions
Not depressions, but all other recessions -- and it's not just an accident of the business cycle. This is a "manmade disaster," as the Obama people like to describe global warming. It's an economic, man-caused disaster -- and we know who the man is who caused it, and we have to be willing like Reagan was in naming Carter to name Obama. Reagan unabashedly named Carter in 1980 when he announced his candidacy for the presidency. Huntsman yesterday refuses to even go there, but he said he's going to campaign like Reagan. Well, he's not campaigning like Reagan. Reagan named Carter with passion. He laid everything that was going wrong in 1980 in this economy at the feet of Jimmy Carter. He said he failed! He made no excuses, he didn't try to sugarcoat it, and he didn't tiptoe around it.
END TRANSCRIPT
Uncertainty is the great economic killer. Entrepreneurs can’t plan, lenders won’t loan, builders can’t build, employers won’t hire.
Whole swaths of the economy are being affected. The nuclear industry is frozen because because Obama suspended the Yucca Mountain waste site. The food industry is fretting because of the sweeping new powers given to the FDA that basically federalizes food safety inspection down to every co-op garden and food stand. The banks are reluctant to lend because of new capital requirements.
The oil industry is threatened with loss of the DPA tax credit and depletion allowances, blocking new oil exploration. Gulf drilling permits are still being withheld (despite what Obama says). Many oil rigs have left for Brazil and will not return.
The EPA has declared that it intends to regulate carbon dioxide. It is busy preparing draconian new limits on allowed CO2 emissions from power plants and factories that will more than double electricity prices in many regions.
The NLRB has decided that it can prohibit Boeing from building its new factory in a right-to-work state (SC), even though the factory is nearly complete and 1000 employees have already been hired.
Businesses are shell shocked. They don’t know what is going to happen next, so they aren’t investing or expanding. Instead they are laying low until the storm passes.
Vampires only are active at night. Obama sucks 7/24/365 and on leap year Feb 29.
White America has been bad to the rest of the world. They must pay.
As I said here in on FR in Nov/08 (and everyone poo-pooed my comments) - Obama is not stupid or incompetent - he is intentional. His agenda is to plunder the nation, turn us over to our enemies, and spread chaos throughout the earth.
I didn’t poo poo you...he was taught from birth that we are bad and given his lack of real identity he bought into the Communist manifesto big time. It seems to be his true parent ...that along with Islam, I suspect.
He was unafraid when he said his election would begin the “fundamental transformation of America”. The audience stupidly figured it would be more goodies for them - only a few dared call it what it is: treason.
I have said before that it would not surprise me to learn that he has plans to live somewhere other than America if he ever has to release the reins. I say if because it also would not surprise me to see him make a move to stay in power without the worry of winning elections.
I heard this on the live show and hoped I’d find the live transcript - THANK YOU!
Well, the thing is, even socialists aren’t really socialists anymore. I think you have to go way out on the leftist fringe to find anyone who seriously believes that the government should own the means of production. What I do think modern “socialists” want is for business and the markets to be held in utter contempt by the public, and for them to be completely under the government’s thumb so that their activities can be directed by enlightened policymakers towards “socially constructive” ends. Their goal is primarily to subjugate business, not eliminate it.
My analogy is that liberals see business and free enterprise as a weed that will grow and bear fruit (for them to redistribute) regardless of how they hack away at it and demonize it. To them the profit motive is as inevitable and unquenchable as the sex drive, and they have no fear of snuffing it out.
In a way they’re right, except that they don’t appreciate the complexity and fragility of the markets in a highly evolved economy like ours. They don’t appreciate the affects of uncertainty on risk taking. They’re clueless about how the unintended consequences and second order effects of their simpleminded interventions on behalf of social justice can screw things up.
Conservatives on the either hand tend to get this stuff, either by intuition or by understanding the arguments of guys like Hayek and Friedman (or by simply being committed to the principle of liberty). As such they’re more inclined to treat the free enterprise system as a prize fruit tree or vine that has to be carefully tended to and encouraged in order to be most productive.
I think liberals start out as hard core Marxists in life, then become parasites and vampires, because they like all the materialistic benefits that come from having power. Besides, without capitalism, liberals won’t have a boogeyman to blame for all their problems and failures.
The big lie out there is that liberals are less materialistic, less selfish and more compassionate than conservatives.
Liberals are no different than the most evil “greed is good” robber baron on Wall Street.
They just want the high life on somebody else’s dime and use the power of the government and the gullibility of the masses to get there.
Why is it that every so-called liberal revolutionary out there who wants to supposedly overthrow the government and replace it with Communism stinking rich?
It’s an old Chicago gangster trick (a ‘bust-out’). You find a going concern with a decent credit rating and take it over. The you buy tons of ‘stuff’ on credit until they won’t give you any more credit. You give the ‘stuff’ to your co-conspirator friends, and leave the concern with huge debts and no credit.
The current looting of the US is the biggest ‘bust-out’ in history.......
“It’s an old Chicago gangster trick (a ‘bust-out’). You find a going concern with a decent credit rating and take it over. The you buy tons of ‘stuff’ on credit until they won’t give you any more credit. You give the ‘stuff’ to your co-conspirator friends, and leave the concern with huge debts and no credit.
The current looting of the US is the biggest ‘bust-out’ in history.......”
“Obama’s bust-out”
Your post about what Obama has done and is doing should be plastered everywhere...message boards, post-it notes, billboards, etc.
It’s a simple, clear cut explanation of the massive CON explained in way that every “Average Joe/Jane” can understand it.
Some of the “white productive America” is pretty damn upset with the deliberate destruction of our Republic. The pervasive (me me, more money and free everything) attitude of the NOLA and Pigford bunch has definitely drawn lines and attitude changes - fundamental as hell I might add.
A scene in the movie “Goodfellows” has an explicit example of a “bust out”.
Good find, I’ll have to see it.
The victim was a restaurant that this group of gangsters were hanging out at. They bought into it, then sold everything off. The poor slob that accepted their money had nothing to say about it, of course.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.