The Fed is pushing America dangerously close to socialism

Last Monday, the Federal Reserve began its latest round of "quantitative easing," through which "at least" $700 billion will be pumped into the U.S. economy in the hopes of limiting the economic damage imposed by the spreading coronavirus.

And that's just the beginning. The Fed also lowered interest rates down to 0, and it has already signaled it could expand these efforts in the months to come.

Further, the White House and much of Congress is frothing at the mouth to impose a new "stimulus" package that could end up costing $1 trillion. (Yes, you read that correctly. That's "trillion" with a "t.")

America's monetary system is ridiculously complex, to say the least. Trying to understand every action by the Fed is sort of like attempting to solve a Rubik's Cube while blindfolded. And drunk. And underwater.

But don't worry about drowning to death. The idea behind quantitative easing is simpler than it appears at first glance.

In times of an economic crisis – you know, like when a killer virus from China sweeps across the world – regular folks like you and me get really worried and start saving our money in anticipation of future economic problems. Investors, corporations, and just about everyone else also become terrified, and start preparing for tough economic times, slowing or even reversing economic growth.

In an effort to get America's economic engine roaring again, the Fed, the central bank for the United States, effectively creates money out of thin air and uses that "cash" – which is really just numbers on an electronic spreadsheet – to buy assets so that more money finds its way into the hands of bankers, investors, and maybe even eventually average Joe's like you and me.

The Fed believes that if people have more money, they'll spend it, and we'll all be better off as a result.

The Fed believes that if people have more money, they'll spend it, and we'll all be better off as a result.

If this sounds way too good to be true, that's because it often is. Inventing money purely for the purpose of incentivizing bankers, investors, and consumers to spend cash when they know it's probably not a good idea to do so creates all sorts of negative repercussions and eventually causes more economic crises. (If you're looking for a good example of a Fed-inspired economic crash, look no further than the 2008 financial crisis.)

Introducing trillions of new dollars into the economy can also create inflation, devaluing dollars and encouraging consumers to spend as quickly as possible, rather than save, introducing lots of additional economic distortions.

That doesn't mean there aren't extremely rare times when reasonable people might think such policies make sense. Heck, I'm not even trying convince you that this particular crisis doesn't justify action on the part of the government. All I'm hoping you'll get from this article is that these actions, coupled with the frivolous monetary policies utilized by the Fed over the past two decades, pose substantial risks – not only to our economy, but to our freedom.

This article isn't really about quantitative easing or the absurdities present throughout the U.S. monetary system. It's about socialism. Because as difficult as it might be for some to believe, if we continue down this road of printing a seemingly endless amount of cash to solve all our problems, socialism is exactly where we're going to end up – a reality Glenn Beck expertly explains in his newest book, Arguing with Socialists, which will be available everywhere books are sold on April 7.

As Glenn notes, whatever the intentions are of the folks running the Fed, one of the primary effects of their decision to pump trillions of dollars into the economy is that it gives significantly more power to the national government.

The U.S. federal government is broke – and when I say "broke," I mean living in the dumpster behind the Chinese food restaurant broke. At last count, the federal government is already $23 trillion in the hole. It doesn't have any money to buy toilet paper for government buildings, never mind enough to spend tens of billions of dollars to bail out airlines.

So, how does Congress do it, then? The simple answer is that the federal government steals – eh, I mean taxes – trillions of dollars from hardworking Americans and then fills in the rest by issuing bonds that the Federal Reserve happily buys with the money it prints, money that is backed by nothing more than the "full faith and credit" of the very same government issuing the bonds in the first place. (Suddenly, Charles Ponzi doesn't look so bad, huh?)

The federal government then burns through the cash by expanding and adding government programs – including stimulus packages – it can't afford. This cycle repeats year after year after year, allowing the government to get progressively bigger and more powerful.

As we all know from personal experience, the government doesn't fly over every state dropping bucketloads of the cash it gets from the Fed out of helicopters. It selectively chooses who is worthy of receiving money and who isn't. Or, as conservatives have often said, it "picks winners and losers" by favoring some groups, corporations, industries, and ideas over all others.

When the federal government is small, the problems this crony system can cause are relatively limited. But as the government expands significantly, which has only been made possible thanks to the Federal Reserve, it ends up consuming whole industries and gigantic portions of the economy and society. (Note that without the Fed inventing money, single-payer health care would be completely impossible to achieve absent other significant cuts to government spending.)

As the government expands significantly... it ends up consuming whole industries and gigantic portions of the economy and society.

A country with a conservative central bank could theoretically ensure its nation's government is acting responsibly, but America's central bank has proven that it's anything but conservative. In fact, it seems hellbent on ensuring that the power of the Federal Reserve and the federal government is expanded significantly.

As Ron Paul noted recently, "Boston Federal Reserve President Eric Rosengren has suggested that Congress allow the Federal Reserve to add assets of private companies to the Fed's already large balance sheet," a move that would give the Fed direct control over the economy.

Another way the Fed moves America closer to collectivism is by socializing the cost of money and savings. When the Fed introduces trillions of new dollars into an economy to spur demand, rather than as a reaction to market forces, it devalues everyone's currency, discouraging people from saving.

And the mere ability of the Fed to manipulate the currency whenever it pleases is in and of itself a form of socialism, because it ultimately gives the Fed's Board of Governors (a government agency) huge amounts of power over the entire economy, including setting the price of just about everything indirectly.

If we continue down this dangerous path, it's only a matter of time before we have full-blown socialism in the United States, especially since it seems unavoidable that crises like the one we're facing today will continue to be used as a justification for further power-grabs. (Just imagine how many trillions of dollars a Democratic president in the White House would say are "desperately needed" to stop climate change from wiping out humanity!)

This all might sound like a tin-foil-hat conspiracy, but it's not. As Glenn explains in detail in Arguing with Socialists, many of the nation's leading progressives and democratic socialists are big supporters of a fringe economic idea called Modern Monetary Theory, which directly calls for the Fed to print whatever amount of money the national government needs to control the economy. Debt and deficits don't really matter, they claim.

This theory has been fully adopted by politicians like Bernie Sanders, who made Stephanie Kelton, one of the world's leading MMT theorists, the chief economist for the Democratic members of the U.S. Senate Budget Committee. Sanders also named Kelton a senior economic adviser to both his 2016 and 2020 presidential campaigns.

This is what twenty-first century socialism looks like. The national government isn't going to go door to door confiscating homes and businesses and throwing people into gulags – well, at least not at first. It's much easier to have a central bank like the Fed control the currency and bankroll a national government's takeover of the economy through a never-ending stream of new government initiatives, bailouts, and massive services.

Justin Haskins is editorial director of The Heartland Institute and the editor-in-chief of StoppingSocialism.com.

To learn more about this topic, and just about any other related to socialism, be a good capitalist and pre-order Glenn Beck's Arguing with Socialists today.

Glenn Beck is once again calling on his loyal listeners and viewers to come together and channel the same unity and purpose that defined the historic 9-12 Project. That movement, born in the wake of national challenges, brought millions together to revive core values of faith, hope, and charity.

Glenn created the original 9-12 Project in early 2009 to bring Americans back to where they were in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. In those moments, we weren't Democrats and Republicans, conservative or liberal, Red States or Blue States, we were united as one, as America. The original 9-12 Project aimed to root America back in the founding principles of this country that united us during those darkest of days.

This new initiative draws directly from that legacy, focusing on supporting the family of Charlie Kirk in these dark days following his tragic murder.

The revival of the 9-12 Project aims to secure the long-term well-being of Charlie Kirk's wife and children. All donations will go straight to meeting their immediate and future needs. If the family deems the funds surplus to their requirements, Charlie's wife has the option to redirect them toward the vital work of Turning Point USA.

This campaign is more than just financial support—it's a profound gesture of appreciation for Kirk's tireless dedication to the cause of liberty. It embodies the unbreakable bond of our community, proving that when we stand united, we can make a real difference.
Glenn Beck invites you to join this effort. Show your solidarity by donating today and honoring Charlie Kirk and his family in this meaningful way.

You can learn more about the 9-12 Project and donate HERE

The critical difference: Rights from the Creator, not the state

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

When politicians claim that rights flow from the state, they pave the way for tyranny.

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) recently delivered a lecture that should alarm every American. During a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, he argued that believing rights come from a Creator rather than government is the same belief held by Iran’s theocratic regime.

Kaine claimed that the principles underpinning Iran’s dictatorship — the same regime that persecutes Sunnis, Jews, Christians, and other minorities — are also the principles enshrined in our Declaration of Independence.

In America, rights belong to the individual. In Iran, rights serve the state.

That claim exposes either a profound misunderstanding or a reckless indifference to America’s founding. Rights do not come from government. They never did. They come from the Creator, as the Declaration of Independence proclaims without qualification. Jefferson didn’t hedge. Rights are unalienable — built into every human being.

This foundation stands worlds apart from Iran. Its leaders invoke God but grant rights only through clerical interpretation. Freedom of speech, property, religion, and even life itself depend on obedience to the ruling clerics. Step outside their dictates, and those so-called rights vanish.

This is not a trivial difference. It is the essence of liberty versus tyranny. In America, rights belong to the individual. The government’s role is to secure them, not define them. In Iran, rights serve the state. They empower rulers, not the people.

From Muhammad to Marx

The same confusion applies to Marxist regimes. The Soviet Union’s constitutions promised citizens rights — work, health care, education, freedom of speech — but always with fine print. If you spoke out against the party, those rights evaporated. If you practiced religion openly, you were charged with treason. Property and voting were allowed as long as they were filtered and controlled by the state — and could be revoked at any moment. Rights were conditional, granted through obedience.

Kaine seems to be advocating a similar approach — whether consciously or not. By claiming that natural rights are somehow comparable to sharia law, he ignores the critical distinction between inherent rights and conditional privileges. He dismisses the very principle that made America a beacon of freedom.

Jefferson and the founders understood this clearly. “We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights,” they wrote. No government, no cleric, no king can revoke them. They exist by virtue of humanity itself. The government exists to protect them, not ration them.

This is not a theological quibble. It is the entire basis of our government. Confuse the source of rights, and tyranny hides behind piety or ideology. The people are disempowered. Clerics, bureaucrats, or politicians become arbiters of what rights citizens may enjoy.

John Greim / Contributor | Getty Images

Gifts from God, not the state

Kaine’s statement reflects either a profound ignorance of this principle or an ideological bias that favors state power over individual liberty. Either way, Americans must recognize the danger. Understanding the origin of rights is not academic — it is the difference between freedom and submission, between the American experiment and theocratic or totalitarian rule.

Rights are not gifts from the state. They are gifts from God, secured by reason, protected by law, and defended by the people. Every American must understand this. Because when rights come from government instead of the Creator, freedom disappears.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

POLL: Is Gen Z’s anger over housing driving them toward socialism?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

A recent poll conducted by Justin Haskins, a long-time friend of the show, has uncovered alarming trends among young Americans aged 18-39, revealing a generation grappling with deep frustrations over economic hardships, housing affordability, and a perceived rigged system that favors the wealthy, corporations, and older generations. While nearly half of these likely voters approve of President Trump, seeing him as an anti-establishment figure, over 70% support nationalizing major industries, such as healthcare, energy, and big tech, to promote "equity." Shockingly, 53% want a democratic socialist to win the 2028 presidential election, including a third of Trump voters and conservatives in this age group. Many cite skyrocketing housing costs, unfair taxation on the middle class, and a sense of being "stuck" or in crisis as driving forces, with 62% believing the economy is tilted against them and 55% backing laws to confiscate "excess wealth" like second homes or luxury items to help first-time buyers.

This blend of Trump support and socialist leanings suggests a volatile mix: admiration for disruptors who challenge the status quo, coupled with a desire for radical redistribution to address personal struggles. Yet, it raises profound questions about the roots of this discontent—Is it a failure of education on history's lessons about socialism's failures? Media indoctrination? Or genuine systemic barriers? And what does it portend for the nation’s trajectory—greater division, a shift toward authoritarian policies, or an opportunity for renewal through timeless values like hard work and individual responsibility?

Glenn wants to know what YOU think: Where do Gen Z's socialist sympathies come from? What does it mean for the future of America? Make your voice heard in the poll below:

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism comes from perceived economic frustrations like unaffordable housing and a rigged system favoring the wealthy and corporations?

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism, including many Trump supporters, is due to a lack of education about the historical failures of socialist systems?

Do you think that these poll results indicate a growing generational divide that could lead to more political instability and authoritarian tendencies in America's future?

Do you think that this poll implies that America's long-term stability relies on older generations teaching Gen Z and younger to prioritize self-reliance, free-market ideals, and personal accountability?

Do you think the Gen Z support for Trump is an opportunity for conservatives to win them over with anti-establishment reforms that preserve liberty?

Americans expose Supreme Court’s flag ruling as a failed relic

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

In a nation where the Stars and Stripes symbolize the blood-soaked sacrifices of our heroes, President Trump's executive order to crack down on flag desecration amid violent protests has ignited fierce debate. But in a recent poll, Glenn asked the tough question: Can Trump protect the Flag without TRAMPLING free speech? Glenn asked, and you answered—thousands weighed in on this pressing clash between free speech and sacred symbols.

The results paint a picture of resounding distrust toward institutional leniency. A staggering 85% of respondents support banning the burning of American flags when it incites violence or disturbs the peace, a bold rejection of the chaos we've seen from George Floyd riots to pro-Palestinian torchings. Meanwhile, 90% insist that protections for burning other flags—like Pride or foreign banners—should not be treated the same as Old Glory under the First Amendment, exposing the hypocrisy in equating our nation's emblem with fleeting symbols. And 82% believe the Supreme Court's Texas v. Johnson ruling, shielding flag burning as "symbolic speech," should not stand without revision—can the official story survive such resounding doubt from everyday Americans weary of government inaction?

Your verdict sends a thunderous message: In this divided era, the flag demands defense against those who exploit freedoms to sow disorder, without trampling the liberties it represents. It's a catastrophic failure of the establishment to ignore this groundswell.

Want to make your voice heard? Check out more polls HERE.