President Obama’s Plan for A Socialist One Party State

April 16, 2013

By Peter Ferrara

The last check and balance on President Obama is the Republican majority in the House of Representatives. He has made clear that he intends to remove that check on his power in the 2014 elections.

Our Founding Fathers wisely provided for a free and independent press as an additional check on government power. But the New York Times, the Washington Post, NBC, CBS and ABC decided they had a better idea. They concluded that it is more important to behave voluntarily like the old Soviet press did under government compulsion, when the socialist party is in power.

Of course, we do still have the freedom in America for now for the alternative media — talk radio, Fox News, the Wall Street Journal editorial page, conservative websites, blogs and a few other media outlets – to air criticism of the reigning socialist regime. But 50% of the country is ensconced in urban enclaves where listening to or reading views that are not friendly to socialist rule is considered socially unacceptable behavior. So, no alternative views, or checks on the reigning regime, ever break through there. That explains why our once grand, world-leading democracy has now been rendered dysfunctional.

An independent judiciary is also supposed to be a check and balance on the abuse of government power. But as his second term drags on, President Obama will have appointed more and more, and eventually a majority of, all federal judges.

Moreover, these won’t just be any judges but liberal judges chosen with a liberal judicial philosophy that their job is not to follow the law, but to do what they think is right, regardless of the law. What is “right” is going to be Obama’s liberal/left agenda.

Holding the line even right now are only five rapidly aging old men on the Supreme Court. Replacing even one of them with a liberal appointee will mean the end of the Reagan majority on the Court. Everything in our society will then change. Gun rights and the Second Amendment, gone in a heartbeat. Property rights and the rule of law, forget about it. Religious freedom? Only for the socialist religion. These will be replaced by a constitutional right to welfare, and to your money. By gay marriage. And by a right to free contraceptives for everyone, so America can party on right through its decline, just like in Europe.

The Second Mid-Term Hex HeHexz

The second mid-term election of a two term incumbent President, as in 2014, has historically been a disaster for the party of the incumbent President. It was so even for Franklin Roosevelt in 1938. It was so for the war hero Dwight Eisenhower in 1958. Counting Kennedy/Johnson as one Administration, it was true for them as well in 1966. And it was so even for Ronald Reagan, even in the midst of an historic recovery, when the Republicans lost control of the Senate, and even more ground in the Democrat majority House, in 1986.

As University of Virginia political scientist Larry Sabato and Kyle Kondik write in the March 19 Wall Street Journal, “Since the start of the modern two-party system in the mid-19th century, the party of an incumbent president has never captured control of the House from the other party in a mid-term election. While many presidents have held the House for their party, in 35 of 38 midterms since the Civil War the incumbent’s party has lost ground.” And that is in any mid-term, not just in the more onerous second mid-terms.

But President Obama has decided to defy that history. He has decided not to try to govern with the Republican House majority, but to devote the next 18 months to political posturing and framing the issues so negatively against the Republicans that America would rally to give Obama total control of the government in November 2014, with a restored Democrat majority in the House as well, leaving no check on Obama’s power at all.

That is because President Obama’s goal is the radical transformation of America from the world’s leading capitalist state, the freest, most prosperous, and mightiest in history, into just another socialist third world country. But he knows he can’t do that with the Republican House majority elected in 2010 precisely to stop his socialist agenda. For that radical, socialist transformation, reflecting what the Democratic Party and their party controlled media lapdogs are really all about, he needs total control of Congress. For that he needs, effectively, a socialist, one-party state, which is actually what he is after in defying history, and seeking a restored Democrat House majority.

Organizing for Action

This is what Obama’s new 501(c)(4) organization, Organizing for Action, is all about. He has transformed his campaign into that organization, giving it the advanced social media technology, contact lists, and grassroots infrastructure of the campaign. Jason Stverak, President of the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity, writes in the March 15 Washington Times, “Organizing for Action is flooding the airwaves with advertisements praising the Obama Administration’s policies, and viewers at home are being inundated with just as many talking points and political attacks as they were during the 2012 campaign.”

Through that organization, Obama has begun an unprecedented fundraising crusade to raise $50 million to be spent in Republican districts to discredit Congressional Republican incumbents. But as a 501(c)(4) social activist organization, Organizing for Action is not subject to campaign financing limits. For half a million in contributions, donors get private meetings with Obama where they can lobby for their personal agendas, crony capitalist favoritism, and other special interest pleading.

This is going to be the ugliest smear campaign in American political history, similar to what we saw in 2012, where the President’s campaign made up Romney’s positions and then campaigned against their own strawmen. Such as the charges that Romney was proposing middle class tax increases, or that he wanted to ban contraceptives. When the real Romney showed up during the first debate to say that those were not his positions, Obama partisans responded that he must be lying.

It is up to conservative activists to respond to this with truth squads to counter and reveal the propaganda. This is not going to be primarily about Republicans, but about preserving the credibility of the conservative philosophy, which is actually what is going to be under attack. Witness the current liberal/left Democrat campaign for gun control and gay marriage. We need to preserve, protect and defend the Reagan economic record, for example. We need to explain the root government causes of the financial crisis, and advocate reforms so it will never happen again. In addition to tax reform, spending control, and entitlement reforms, that would involve monetary reform, so America can once again enjoy a dollar as good as gold.

We also need to promote and defend the national defense doctrine of peace through strength. And we need to more than redouble a positive vision of religious freedom and pro-family values.

The High Stakes Gamble

In defying the long term political trends, President Obama is engaged in a high stakes political gamble, putting his own political credibility on the line. If Obama breaks the historical pattern, and the Democrats take the House, then Obama will be the new Hugo Chavez, in effective authoritarian control of America.

But if the historical patterns hold, and instead of the Democrats taking back the House, the Republicans take back the Senate, then President Obama will be a politically discredited lame duck, facing an entirely Republican controlled Congress. His socialist transformation of America will be over and exposed.

Prospects are actually quite good for the Republicans to take over Senate control. Besides the historical trends, Sabato and Kondik further explain,

“Democrats are defending seats in seven states that Mitt Romney won in last year’s Presidential race: Alaska, Arkansas, Louisiana, Montana, North Carolina, South Dakota, and West Virginia. Mr. Obama won an average of just 40.5% of the vote in these states. In addition, the retirements of longtime Sens. Tom Harkin (D. Iowa) and Carl Levin (D., Mich.) make those previously safe seats much more competitive. Factor in some freshman Democratic Senators elected from swing states in Obama’s 2008 wave (the last time this batch of seats was contested), and Republicans could run competitive challenges in 10 or more Democrat-held seats. Incompetent GOP nominees could change the picture, but almost all of the seats that Republicans are defending are in solid-red states.”

The Bible says, “By their fruits ye shall know them.” Adding to GOP prospects for next year are Obama chickens coming home to roost. Obamacare will be creating chaos in health care next year, with tens of millions losing their employer provided health insurance. Health insurance premiums will be soaring, to double or more for many, particularly young adults. The negative market reaction to those increases will be causing health insurers to collapse and go out of business, resulting in still more government takeover of health care.

Millions will lose their jobs as employers seek to downsize and break up to avoid the economically fatal costs of Obamacare. Millions of others will be reduced to part time workers for the same reason. That will mean further declining real wages and incomes for working people and the middle class, with poverty soaring still higher.

If the Obama economy falls back into recession in the second term, as Obama deserves, it will be the Democratic Party that will be on the verge of extinction. Unemployment would explode into double digits, and deficits would soar to over $2 trillion.

And then there will be a new front regarding chaos in foreign policy. Iran is likely to break out as a nuclear power before the mid-terms, which may mean nuclear war in the Middle East. At best, it would mean nuclear proliferation efforts spreading to Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt and other Middle Eastern nations. North Korea’s nuclear breakout would extend that to Japan, South Korea, and maybe Australia (especially as the American nuclear umbrella fades under Obama policies). The formerly progressive citadels of San Francisco, Portland, and Seattle will have new reasons to begin to question Obama’s foolish national defense policies.

In my opinion, Obama is primarily motivated by ideology and power, and not by the trappings of office. I predict that if we aggressively advance the conservative philosophy over the next two years, do our job in the midterms (electing not just Republicans, but true Tea Party Republicans), and make the historical patterns stick, Obama won’t want to be a time server for the last two years, battling Republicans with no ability to advance his socialist agenda.

I predict in that case, Obama will resign, ending the Marxist assault on America as a failure. He will let Biden run for reelection as an incumbent, with Hillary on the ticket. Then it will be time for the rest of us to clean house, everywhere Marxists have already infiltrated American society and culture, from the Democrat Party controlled media, to Hollywood, to “academic” cloisters of taxpayer financed Marxism.

If this generation of Americans cannot rise to defend traditional American freedom and prosperity, we will lose both. And deserve to.

Peter Ferrara is Director of Entitlement and Budget Policy for the Heartland Institute, Senior Fellow for the National Center for Policy Analysis, Senior Advisor on Entitlement Reform and the Budget for the National Tax Limitation Foundation, and General Counsel for the American Civil Rights Union. He served in the White House Office of Policy Development under President Reagan, and as Associate Deputy Attorney General of the United States under President George H.W. Bush.

Published in: on April 16, 2013 at 7:47 am  Leave a Comment  

Investors Shun Anti-Yen Bet Despite Soro’s Seal of Approval

Published in the Wall Street Journal, February 14, 2013
By Ira Iosebashvili and Matthew Walter

• –Investors look to go other way as Soros bet against yen revealed
• –Some see pause in yen’s decline
• –Soros up almost $1 billion

For some bearish yen investors, a report that George Soros is also betting heavily against the yen means one thing: get out of the position.
Fund manager Alejandro Silva is one of many investors who believe that if a whale like Mr. Soros–who in 1992 made a fortune by betting against the British pound–is revealed to be betting against the yen, it’s a good time to go the other way. The thinking is that once big name hedge fund strategies become known to the public, these firms are likely to pull out of the positions, traders say.

The Japanese currency has fallen by almost 20% against the dollar since September, with the dollar recently trading at Y93.01. The decline coincides with the rise of Shinzo Abe, who was elected prime minister in December after promising to kickstart the country’s moribund economy through looser monetary policy and government stimulus.

“It’s a sign that it’s time to take the other side once you guys are printing it,” said Mr. Silva, a founding partner at Silva Capital Management in Chicago, which oversees $800 million in currencies and fixed income.   On Thursday, The Wall Street Journal reported that Mr. Soros scored gains of almost $1 billion on the anti-yen trade since November, citing people with knowledge of the firm’s positions. Others reaping big trading profits by riding the yen down include David Einhorn’s Greenlight Capital, Daniel Loeb’s Third Point LLC and Kyle Bass’s Hayman Capital Management LP, investors say.   Mr. Silva said he began betting against the yen late last year and took profits on the trade in January, when the dollar rose above Y90.

“There’s a herd mentality in currencies, like in any asset,” said J.D. Perry, portfolio manager at JP Global Capital Management in Baton Rouge, La., another investor who was positioned against the yen as it fell throughout the end of last year and sold those positions in January. “When I see a story like that, it’s probably a sign that it’s going to retrace some,” he said.  Even so, many of these investors remain longer term bearish on the yen, regardless of Mr. Soros.

“We’ve made a ton on money betting against the yen ourselves, and it would take an enormous move in the yen to get us out,” said Christopher Stanton, a portfolio manager at $650 million Sunrise Capital Partners. Mr. Stanton’s fund uses computer programs to identify momentum trends in the currency markets. He began betting against the yen when the exchange rate was at Y79 in November.
“The Bank of Japan has a definite exchange rate in mind, and I bet it’s a lot higher than people think,” Mr. Stanton says. “Short-term guys may get shaken out on the Soros news, but we’re staying in.”

Published in: on February 15, 2013 at 7:57 pm  Leave a Comment  

Inflation since 1775 and Its move since the Fed


Declaration of Independence

Yesterday at the American Economic Association’s 2013 Annual Meeting, Carmen Reinhart and Ken Rogoff offered a paper titled Shifting Mandates: The Federal Reserve’s First Centennial.

The paper included a cool chart of inflation since 1775. The authors argue that inflation didn’t take off until the U.S. went off the gold standard in 1933.

From the paper:

It is probable that in 1913, while financial panics were not uncommon, high inflation was still largely seen by the founders of the Fed as a relatively rare phenomenon associated with wars and their immediate aftermath. Figure 1 plots the US price level from 1775 (set equal to one) until 2012. In 1913 prices were only about 20 percent higher than in 1775 and around 40 percent lower than in 1813, during the War of 1812. Whatever the mandates of the Federal Reserve, it is clear that the evolution of the price level in the United States is dominated by the abandonment of the gold standard in 1933 and the adoption of fiat money subsequently. One hundred years after its creation, consumer prices are about 30 times higher than what they were in 1913. This pattern, in varying orders of magnitudes, repeats itself across nearly all countries.

inflation 1775

Inflation chart

Read more:

Published in: on January 7, 2013 at 8:59 am  Leave a Comment  

Anatomy of a Most Peculiar Institution


Blog Note: Thanks to Dr. Benjamin Price, Instructor at Southeastern Louisiana University, for originally posting this article by Victor Hanson.  Our universities are one of two extremely important battle fronts, the other being the public school system.  Both may be beyond recovery but alas solutions are emerging.  Enjoy!

An Anatomy of a Most Peculiar Institution
by Victor Davis Hanson,  PJ Media, 12/28/2012

A Campus Full of Contradictions

Almost everything about the modern university is a paradox. It has become a sort of industry gone rogue that embraces practices that a Wal-Mart or Halliburton would never get away with. It is exempt from scrutiny in the fashion that the Left ceased talking about renditions or Guantanamo Bay once Barack Obama was elected, or a Code Pink goes after a NRA official in the way it would never disrupt a hearing on Fast and Furious. In other words, the university is one of the great foundations of the Left, and so is immune from the sort of criticism that otherwise is daily leveled against other institutions.

So let’s take a 10-minute stroll through the campus and learn why costs soar even as students are ever more poorly educated.

The Curriculum

A student’s life on campus is a zero-sum game. For each elective like “The Modern Comic Book,” or “Chicana Feminisms” or “Queering the Text,” students have no time (or desire to) take more difficult and instructive classes on the British Enlightenment or a history of World War I or Classical English Grammar. (Yes, despite the relativist, anti-hierarchical university, concepts really do exist like “more instructive.”) The former are mostly therapeutic classes, entirely deductive, in which the point is not to explore an intellectual topic by presenting the relevant facts and outlining the major controversies, while sharpening students’ inductive reasoning and empirical objectivity, as well as improving their English prose style and mastering grammar and syntax in their written work.

The result is perhaps a fourth of the liberal arts courses — many would judge more like 50% — would never have been allowed in the curriculum just 40 years ago. They tend to foster the two most regrettable traits in a young mind — ignorance of the uninformed[1] combined with the arrogance of the zealot[2]. All too often students in these courses become revved up over a particular writ — solar power, gay marriage, the war on women, multiculturalism — without the skills to present their views [3] logically and persuasively in response to criticism. Heat, not light, is the objective of these classes.

Why are these courses, then, taught?

For a variety of practical reasons: 1) often the professors are rehashing their doctoral theses or narrow journal articles and are not capable of mastering a wider subject (e.g., teaching a class in “The Other in Advertising” is a lot easier than a systematic history of California); 2) the quality of today’s students is so questionable that the social sciences have stepped up to service the under-qualified, in the sense of providing courses, grades, and graduation possibilities; 3) the university does not see itself as a disinterested nexus of ideas, where for a brief four years students are trained how to think, given a corpus of fact-based knowledge about their nation and world, and expected to develop an aesthetic sense of art, music, and literature. Instead college is intended as a sort of boot camp for the progressive army, where recruits are trained and do not question their commissars.

So the new curriculum in the social sciences and humanities fills a need of sorts, and the result is that today’s graduating English major probably cannot name six Shakespearean plays; the history major cannot distinguish Verdun from Shiloh; the philosophy major has not read Aristotle’s Poetics or Plato’s Laws; and the political science major knows very little of Machiavelli or Tocqueville — but all of the above do know that the planet is heating up due to capitalist greed, the history of the United States[4] is largely a story of oppression[5], the UN and the EU offer a superior paradigm to the US Constitution, and there are some scary gun-owning, carbon-fuel burning, heterosexual-marrying nuts outside the campus.

If we ask why vocational and tech schools sprout up around the traditional university campus, it is because they are upfront about their nuts-and-bolts, get-a-job education: no need to worry about “liberal arts” or “the humanities” — especially given that the universities’ General Education core is not very general and not very educational any more. Yes, I am worried that the University of Phoenix graduate has not read Dante, but more worried that the CSU Fresno graduate has not either, and the former is far more intellectually honest about that lapse than the latter.

Note here the illiberal nature of allowing highly paid faculty to indulge their curricular fantasies at the expense of indebted students who pay a great deal for a great deal of nothing. Is there a provost or a dean in America that can say to faculty, “That is not a real course, and so won’t be taught at our real university”? Does the shop foreman let the welder choose his own project?


The original idea was to encourage free thinking by ensuring faculty that after a probationary period of six years, they were given lifetime employment (with very little post-tenure review) without worry of political repercussions. That way, outspoken, even eccentric professors would be protected from ideological conformists and administrative bully-boys. But those roles were switched, and the theory was entirely perverted in the 1960s, when faculty felt the degree of the nation’s social change was too slow and opposition to the Vietnam War too feeble, and thus the remedies for both trumped the fossilized notion of disinterested teaching. If the family, community, government, religion and traditions were all warped (i.e., the course of American history had logically led to Vietnam or homophobia), then the university itself must in lockstep offer balance — by itself becoming entirely unbalanced.

Today’s academic senate votes on social issues are about as unnecessary as they are lopsided, with margins resembling Saddam Hussein’s old plebiscites [6]. Faculty committees have created speech and behavior codes that surpass those of the federal government’s in the 1950s and target particular ideologies while leaving others exempt: say something untoward about Mormonism is being frank, something considered impolite about Islam is grounds for punishment. How odd that tenure ensured a monolithic faculty, as well as undesirable traits in matters of work habits and comportment. In my own experience, I would say that about 30% of the faculty simply stop most research and scholarship in their seventh year. In all of America, there is no one more untouchable than the tenured liberal-minded full professor, top step. He is simply sacrosanct in the fashion of a Medieval bishop, in the sense that his teaching, scholarship, work ethic, and schedule are not so much poorly monitored as rarely monitored at all. Does the 7-Eleven employee after six years tell the boss, “I am here to stay for the next 30 years”?

Part-time Exploitation

Amid the academic utopianism is a level of exploitation rarely seen at K-Mart or Target. The graduate student teaches Latin 1A at a fraction of the cost of the full-professor. And while you cannot fire the PhD after six years, you most certainly can fire the part-time PhD anytime for the next thirty — someone who gets paid $4,000 a class (few benefits and few office, phone, and faculty privileges), while his tenured “comrade” is paid $20,000 for the same course. You object: “Oh, but we pay for the expertise of the full-professor, his sober and judicious in-class wisdom, his substantial publication record he draws on by the minute, his marquee name that entices capital to the university, his weighty committee work that runs the university.”

Perhaps, but in my experience all the above is true in about 20% of the cases, and there is instead a 50/50 chance that the scrambling itinerant and exploited part-timer is a better teacher than the complacent grandee. The greatest challenge in academia is not the risk of not being tenured, or not being promoted, but rather simply jumping from part-time helot status, to tenure-track Spartan overlord. Most never make it, or make it only when they are middle-aged with decades of a lost career.

Does Safeway have one check-out clerk that makes $40,000 and another who earns $20,000 in side-by-side aisles, each about the same age, with the same education, experience, and amount of time on the job — the part-time clerk with a solid record while the “tenured” Safeway clerk is a no better employee?

Student Loans

Imagine the concept of student loans transferred to the car industry (or, perhaps, just think Freddie and Fannie). The government would guarantee billions of dollars for our youth to buy their first union-built Malibu and Escape — and the auto industry could then hike prices at double the rate of inflation as loans grew to match the inflating prices. (Would we soon have a sales “diversity” czar on the lot? Or a special assistant to the head salesman?). Is this a blueprint[7] for smart and economical buying of efficient automobiles?

The tenured faculty is well-paid and established and often leftist; the student consumers who take out $50,000 plus in loans are often middle-class, without money, and without much political ideology. The result is that the well-off lecture about -isms and -ologies to the less well-off, who pay in borrowed money for the former, as the US government underwrites the entire exercise on the premise of investing in a well-educated, informed, and productive electorate. And because students are poor risks and because loans are paid back slowly (and sometimes not at all), rates are often well over 6-7% at a time when most mortgages are about 3.5%. I have had some students who are still paying only the interest after 7-8 years since graduation.

Stranger still is the tsk-tsking of senior faculty about “grade-grubbing” undergraduates who are caricatured as poorly educated (you think?) and not interested in real knowledge, but only in the BA brand — and thus they cynically avoid Professor X’s path-breaking class on transgendered renaissance females. But does the computer programming major at DeVry take an elective like “The Poetics of Masculinity” to enrich his approach to programing? Does the two-year JC course on nursing include an enhanced class like “Constructing the Doctor: the Hierarchies of Male Privilege”?

The Value of a BA Degree

As a young professor, I used to believe in the value of a universal BA that would teach truth and beauty to the masses. I still do, but mostly as instruction apart from the university that now has very little to do with either beauty or truth. Right now the university has two more pressing problems. Does the BA, MA, or PhD — the signature degrees in the humanities — increase the graduate’s earning potential over the next thirty years enough to justify the $200,000-plus investment? Most studies still suggest yes, but the lifelong income gap between the BA certified in the humanities and the non-certified is narrowing. I am reluctant to make the argument for the humanities on the basis of financial planning, but then the humanities are not quite the humanities of 50 years ago.

More importantly, why not have a national BA test in the way we have bar exams? Simply put, every graduating college senior would take a basic 4-hour exam in math, verbal skills, and simple facts (e.g., “What is the 1st Amendment? What is a non sequitur? Who was James Madison? What is the Parthenon? etc.).

The Harvard and CSU Stanislaus graduates would alike have to pass the same rigorous test to ensure that American colleges were turning out students with a minimum level of competence — in the manner that the consumer assumes that widely different but UL approved appliances all have the same safe and standard cords and plugs.

We might also allow credit-by-examination: if one chose not to attend college, then he might take a beefed-up, longer version of the BA exam, say an 8-hour test. At this point, I would suggest that the percentage of those passing the 8-hour version without four years of college might exceed those with four years of college passing an earlier 4-hour version. And the former might well be more open-minded and empirical than the latter on the politics of the day.


There is no diversity of thought on the vast majority of university campuses. The classes, the administration, the campus culture, the professors — all accept the man-made destructive heating of the planet, the rape of the environment, the toxicity of free market-capitalism, the racist-sexist-homophobic narrative of the US past, the need for unquestioned abortion on demand, gay marriage, legalization of drugs, etc.

As for racial diversity, affirmative action, etc., there is no need to rehash the old tired fault lines. Suffice it to say that at a Princeton, Cornel West is thought to be an intellectual, that at Harvard Elizabeth Warren was the first Native-American law professor, that at Colorado Ward Churchill was a tenured, full-professor and Native-American luminary, and that once-fugitive Angela Davis was a distinguished professor at UC Santa Cruz.

Will all this continue? Probably, though with intermarriage and integration, the racial identity industry is becoming ossified, and cases like Warren and Churchill will become more common. The truth is that the careerist liberal white male has always had a Madame Pompadour sort of après moi le déluge[8] attitude: once he reached a point of influence and power, he always insisted on affirmative action for all his surrounding positions as a sort of castle-and-moat protection for his own paradoxical privilege. One thing I never understood about affirmative action: its biggest supporters in the 1980s and 1990s were always tenured, full-professor white males, and its victims were always part-time or entry-level struggling white males. Why did not the grandee class simply confess, “We came of age at a time of white male privilege; therefore, we now resign our positions after reaping unfair advantage to ensure a level playing field for all who follow”? Instead, they pontificated from tenured perches and applied racial litmus tests only to others more vulnerable.

When we read of the world’s great centers of learning, American — and Californian — universities are always at the top: Caltech, Stanford, Berkeley, Harvard, Yale, etc. But almost always, on closer examination, this is because of our superior medical schools, business schools, engineering schools, and science and math departments. The liberal arts have piggybacked on the reputation of American professionalism and science, and therefore have not come under the scrutiny that they so richly deserve.

It is time to rethink the entire idea of a university[9], even as the free market and internet are devouring it.


URLs in this post:

[1] ignorance of the uninformed:
[2] the arrogance of the zealot:
[3] without the skills to present their views:
[4] the history of the United States:
[5] a story of oppression:
[6] Saddam Hussein’s old plebiscites:
[7] Is this a blueprint:
[8] après moi le déluge:
[9] the entire idea of a university:

©2012 Victor Davis Hanson

Published in: on January 1, 2013 at 3:04 pm  Leave a Comment  

America Has Sown the Seeds of Its Own Demise

By Dean Kalahar, published on Real Clear Markets

In the aftermath of the election of 2012, a new reality must be digested by all Americans. Working within the precepts of a democratic republic, The American public freely exercised their choice and voted for a New America.
The electorates’ decision once and for all confirms a definition of America that values hopes, feelings and equality of results over the realities of human nature, history, and the foundational principles that hold western civilization together. There is now no doubt that the tipping point of geometrically increasing cultural decline has been crossed. America has now firmly changed from a nation where the founding principles of the great enlightenment have been substituted for a utopia of widespread human suffering. There is no going back.

This change is not due to one person or event. For fifty years we have seen systemic institutional decay to the vital institutions across our cultural landscape that sustains America. And like a canary in a mine providing an early warning signal to dangers, we have been warned time and time again that we were losing our footing and chose to ignore the obvious.

Today the foundational pillars of civilization that have sustained America have been voted insignificant and will be allowed to collapse. The result is a New America for sure, but it is not a greater America. It is an America that has sown the seeds of its own demise, blinded by self inflicted wounds, disguised by false compassion, and based on trust in a human condition that is not in our nature.

A callous society focused on self has been defining deviancy downward, as the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan warned us, for a long time. Sometimes covertly and other times overtly, a cultural war was being raged in America by a progressive “tolerance” movement that is intolerant of institutional traditions, principles, and laws that were created and tested over thousands of years of trial and error. Those who have lectured us have shown a condescending hypocrisy of moral relativism towards any concept that might interfere with their self-anointed sensibilities of creating a utopia so as to avoid self awareness. The walls of the republic have been crumbling for some time. Now the collapse is all but inevitable because, and let’s be clear, they have won.

America’s religious institution has been eroded by the secularization of society, the welfare state, the misguided belief in the separation of church and state, and attacks toward any outward expression of religious passion. The church has lost the culture war.
Our public education institution has been decimated by bureaucracies and unions that have failed to teach children how to read, write, or add, while choice, accountability, rigor, and our nation’s history have been forsaken for self esteem and multiculturalism. The schools have lost the culture war.

Our family institution has been redefined into a bizarre amalgam of gender, sexual, and parental proclivities. 40% of children are born out of wedlock and 25% of teenagers have a sexually transmitted disease. The overt-sexualization of our society has created confusion and despair among our children, while infanticide has become an all too easy choice. Biological and psychological realities for sanctioning marriage between a man and woman for the sake of our posterity have been ruthlessly attacked by those seeking to re-define the universal order. Our families have lost the culture war.

Free market entrepreneurial principles no longer guide our economic system. Efficiencies, life saving economic growth and opportunity based on the laws of human nature and scarcity have been forsaken by an ever encroaching government institution that believes a command and control approach of central planning can better answer the questions of what, how, and for whom. Our economic system has lost the culture war.

The winners of this battle have handed over America’s keys to the government. A government that no longer sees its role as providing for the steady rule of constitutional law and unwavering protection of the basis of morality found in the steadfast protection of personal property. The New America government will direct the collapses of what they deem are antiquated institutions of society like life, liberty, and property. They will smugly orchestrate the demise of the bedrock principles that sustained our family, education, religious, and economic institutions that have held us together and allowed us to thrive as a country; naively believing a nation can sustain itself after its foundations are removed.

Progressive ideology has destroyed the social fabric of the nation from within. Ignorance has sown the seeds of our own destruction. As the Romans did long ago, our fate will be written in the epilogue of history. Gone, a nation whose torch was smothered when a complacent arrogance forgot who they were, what made them great, and the humility to stand vigilant in defending liberty was lost.

There is no upside for America or its people; and it is going to get ugly out there. But for those who have been fighting the good fight for so long, honoring those who have died fighting for the same providential cause, my suggestion is to pull in, relax, live, and love your families.

Patriots, the New America is the reality; just have peace of mind knowing the winners of the war, and the choices they made, will be held personally responsible for the severe costs that are to follow. To those who asked for a New America, I leave you with the words of Col. Jessup in A Few Good men: “You have no idea how to defend a nation. All you did was weaken a country today … That’s all you did. You put people in danger. Sweet dreams, son.”


Dean Kalahar teaches economics and psychology, and has authored three books, including Practical Economics.

Published in: on November 8, 2012 at 4:27 pm  Leave a Comment  

The Slippery Slope

Published in: on October 12, 2012 at 5:07 pm  Leave a Comment  

Our Last Eleven Presidents

How much more do you need to know.

Published in: on October 3, 2012 at 7:37 pm  Leave a Comment  

Do Americans truly understand ‘redistribution of wealth’?

By Virginia Prodan

The recently uncovered tape of Obama addressing students at Loyola University in 1998 has produced an uproar. In the tape, Obama expressed his admiration for redistributive government programs:

I think the trick is figuring out how do we structure government systems that pool resources and hence facilitate some redistribution, because I actually believe in redistribution, at least at a certain level to make sure that everybody’s got a shot. How do we pool resources at the same time as we decentralize delivery systems in ways that foster competition, can work in the marketplace, and can foster innovation at the local level and can be tailored to particular communities?

If he is elected, Obama’s 1998 proposition will be reality in the next four years.

When he proposed to redistribute wealth, Ibama meant that the system has to find a “trick” way to transform your wealth into government’s hands. Government will then distribute that wealth to others of its choosing.

Your work and your wealth will belong to the government “in the name of society”; in other words, it will belong to the collective. Actually, though, your work and your wealth will belong to the elite of the government, who will decide who and what is given your money. This is what “redistribution of wealth” means in Obama’s philosophy; it is also the basic principle of communism.

The meaning of the “redistribution” of wealth is official government stealing and the end of your freedom. It is the beginning of your forced sacrifices for your leader, your government, and your society. This leads to a permanent realignment of power in society, as has been seen in Europe, or the rise of a dictator, as has been seen frequently in communist society.

For almost half of my life, I lived in communist Romania. I lived the other half in the free land, America. Believe me — I know what Obama is talking about and advocating for America.

Obama’s America is a communist society. As history shows, he will bring about this way of life by the following means:

1. Transforming private property into collective property.

The right to individual private ownership of property is sacred in America. American society is based on a person’s right to the fruit of his labors, not to mention his ancestors’ labors. The government has no right to take these away.

Under redistribution of wealth philosophy imposed by government — and of the communist system – you have no personal right to your work, property, or inheritance.

2. Destroying the initiative and creativity of people.

America’s wealth and prosperity were created by individuals with the great desire and creativity encouraged by a free society. Many Americans started at a lower income and with no prior wealth. Andrew Carnegie, Henry Ford, Bill Gates, and Steve Jobs, among others, started with essentially nothing and built huge enterprises.

Creativity and working hard were emphasized by many successful Americans during their lives and after their deaths. Andrew Carnegie, for example, felt so strongly that each generation should make its own way that he left the bulk of his estate to charity.

The successes and consequent contributions of these “wealthy” people create growth and opportunities for other Americans, resulting in more success and wealth for America as a whole. But eliminating from society individual power and desire curtails and squashes the drive for success.

A government does not create wealth. It is the private sector, where new businesses are started and flourish, that allows opportunity and wealth to expand. The private sector is responsible for economic growth.

As America’s successful become wealthy, they are able to give more and support others, be it through research projects, schools, or the arts. Throughout history, it has been the wealthy who have commissioned fine art, musical compositions, museums, and other monuments of civilization.

3. Increasing the poverty of all who depend on government for basic needs.

Government redistribution will not help the poor. History has shown that redistribution of wealth makes all poor.

In communist societies like China, Russia, Romania, etc., there was and there is no equality of classes. Rather, there exist millions of poor people under a small, elite group of communist rich who never care about helping poor people.

History shows example after example of communist systems that have collapsed, each of which made promises like equality and justice and failed to deliver. But each of these collapses took millions of lives and many generations, as people discovered the lies and finally fought the system only at length.

American society is well-known for its compassion for and charity to the poor. Many programs, both private and public, are in place to help those seeking to overcome poverty. Yes, many in society believe we should be doing even more. But one must remember that poor people are part of our society who need to be helped, but not enabled.

We must not be stopped by the pressure of political correctness to acknowledge that many people have greater abilities than others — artistic or musical skills, abilities in mathematics or science, in leadership, in business, and so forth. Therefore, as people are different in abilities and effort, fairness of reward requires such differences. This is in fact the true “fair shake” we hear so much about today in politics.

Make no mistake: this November election starkly concerns what we want our future as a country to be. We have to decide if we want to elect a president who will bring us back to the American values of free market and free opportunities to pursue the American dream, or if we want to elect a president who will take us into socialism and communism — in other words, the end of our freedom, where government controls, dictates to, and owns us.

Redistribution of wealth means not equality, fairness, or justice, but rather poverty, slavery, and a complete lack of freedom.

Freedom is precious to those who don’t have it. Will free American people choose to be enslaved? I hope not. Do those Americans who think “redistribution of wealth” is wonderful and will make their lives easier really understand its world history and true consequences? That remains to be seen.

Read more on Virginia Prodan’s background at or See also her video on YouTube titled “Virginia Prodan’s Fight for Freedom and Escape from Romanian Communism.”

Read more:

Published in: on September 29, 2012 at 1:41 pm  Leave a Comment  

Illuminating the World of Hedge Funds…

Illuminating the World of Hedge Funds Infographic

Published in: on September 25, 2012 at 7:28 am  Leave a Comment  

The Simple Reason Socialism Always Fails

By Shaun Connell,

Modern sociology is essentially based on the teachings of Karl Marx. Few people mention the man with such reverence as a professor teaching how societies interact, evolve, and function. In a typical sociology classroom, the students and professor will learn about class warfare, economics, the survival of the fittest, as well as plenty of examples where the rich are “exploiting” the poor.

Karl Marx is considered the intellectual godfather of hundreds of thousands of professors, intellectuals, elitists, and anti-capitalists. He invented what’s known as the “Conflict Theory”, the notion that change occurs because of conflict between two groups of people. He was right about that, but he was hideously, deadly wrong about how he applied it.

Marx saw political conflict — people using resources and force to enslave other people — and he concluded that it wasn’t the use of force that was wrong, but the existence of capital. It’s a completely incoherent logical leap, and it had grave consequences for the rest of humanity.

Missing the Point With The Communist Manifesto

Karl Marx’s infamous “The Communist Manifesto” is the most important document he wrote, because it was the intellectual rallying cry of anti-capitalists everywhere.

It was the justification for confiscating trillions of dollars worth of property and then mismanaging it in the most incompetent economic planning the world has ever seen.

It was the justification for public executions of capitalists — people like myself, who own and use capital to produce even more.

Hundreds of millions of capitalists were murdered because of Marx’s philosophy. Families were wiped out, husbands were hanged, children made orphans, economies destroyed, and during the Cold War, the world itself almost met its fiery end due to the insane delusions of equality by the power-greedy communists.

In this document, Marx wrote the following:

“Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communist revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Working men of all countries, unite!”

What laughable insanity. This man of a giant beard and a small mind referenced power as the reason the poor were “victims”, and yet his response wasn’t the downfall of the ruling classes — it was taking political inequality and unleashing it in a manner the world had never seen before.

Consolidating power to the state doesn’t end inequality — consolidating power fosters inequality. Not all men are free to rule their neighbors, because that is outlawed under socialist dogma. Under socialism, a handful of men determine the rules, the economic planning, and the rations that the rest of the “workers” will receive.

The end-goal, socialists argue, is a society where power isn’t necessary. But to get there, they explain, we need to consolidate power in a socialist economy. A handful of men need to be given the power to decide what to do with everyone’s property, what ideas can be discussed, what lives can be ended, and what freedoms must be deleted for the sake of the eventual “common good”.

Learn the Lessons of History

Anyone who understands human nature sees the flaw here. Men abuse; absolute power tends to the abuse of power. But instead of people trying to manipulate others with money and resources through marketing, they created a society where negotiation began and ended with force — violence, prisons, executions, starvation.

The greatest source of inequality in the 20th century was socialism itself.

The greatest cause of poverty in the 20th century was socialism itself.

The greatest catalyst for exploitation in the 20th century was socialism itself.

They realized that the “ruling class” was wrecking havoc on society, and then concluded that it wasn’t the power — it was the money itself. The irony of such a misplaced philosophy and a self-defeating movement would be humorous if it hadn’t wrecked havoc with an evil the world had never seen before.

Let the ruling classes tremble? They tremble in excitement because they will be the ones who control your socialist empire.

Nothing to lose but your chains? Communism enslaves billions. Nothing to lose? Except your families to starvation, your friends to execution, your material well-being through rationing, and your freedom itself.

Working men of all countries? We have no time for angry and violent riots — we are carrying your world on our shoulders.

The Real Conflict is: Liberty Vs. Slavery

Marx was right about one thing: social movement occurs from perceived class conflict. The poor are progressively becoming more and more socialistic in America, not because the rich are harming them, but because they perceive the world as being owned, controlled, and regulated by a handful of the super rich — even though this is economically, historically, and politically inaccurate.

No one will ever argue that some of the rich do not abuse their wealth with regulations, bailouts, and subsidies — but the problem isn’t the existence of capital; the problem is political force itself.

For example, I am a capitalist. I take my wealth and multiply it through leverage, business projects, and other endeavors. I will not, however, use my money to manipulate the system in order to destroy other businesses. I will not take my money to manipulate the economy so I get an advantage over others.

Other companies, like Wal-Mart and Microsoft, almost always utilize their wealth to buy politicians in order to take down their competitors. This is not a flaw of capitalism — this is a flaw of corruption. It is not a flaw of freedom when someone abandons it — that is a definitional impossibility and a self-defeating concept.

The root of all social evil is unwarranted force — the violation of the rights of others. Murder, theft, rape, war — these are the things of evil. The free market doesn’t include any of these concepts. Once we understand this, all else follows, and we’ll soon come to realize that capitalism is the only moral economic system that protects and respects the rights of all men — regardless of their class.

Published in: on September 22, 2012 at 8:33 am  Leave a Comment