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.

Could China OWN our National Parks?

Jonathan Newton / Contributor | Getty Images

The left’s idea of stewardship involves bulldozing bison and barring access. Lee’s vision puts conservation back in the hands of the people.

The media wants you to believe that Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) is trying to bulldoze Yellowstone and turn national parks into strip malls — that he’s calling for a reckless fire sale of America’s natural beauty to line developers’ pockets. That narrative is dishonest. It’s fearmongering, and, by the way, it’s wrong.

Here’s what’s really happening.

Private stewardship works. It’s local. It’s accountable. It’s incentivized.

The federal government currently owns 640 million acres of land — nearly 28% of all land in the United States. To put that into perspective, that’s more territory than France, Germany, Poland, and the United Kingdom combined.

Most of this land is west of the Mississippi River. That’s not a coincidence. In the American West, federal ownership isn’t just a bureaucratic technicality — it’s a stranglehold. States are suffocated. Locals are treated as tenants. Opportunities are choked off.

Meanwhile, people living east of the Mississippi — in places like Kentucky, Georgia, or Pennsylvania — might not even realize how little land their own states truly control. But the same policies that are plaguing the West could come for them next.

Lee isn’t proposing to auction off Yellowstone or pave over Yosemite. He’s talking about 3 million acres — that’s less than half of 1% of the federal estate. And this land isn’t your family’s favorite hiking trail. It’s remote, hard to access, and often mismanaged.

Failed management

Why was it mismanaged in the first place? Because the federal government is a terrible landlord.

Consider Yellowstone again. It’s home to the last remaining herd of genetically pure American bison — animals that haven’t been crossbred with cattle. Ranchers, myself included, would love the chance to help restore these majestic creatures on private land. But the federal government won’t allow it.

So what do they do when the herd gets too big?

They kill them. Bulldoze them into mass graves. That’s not conservation. That’s bureaucratic malpractice.

And don’t even get me started on bald eagles — majestic symbols of American freedom and a federally protected endangered species, now regularly slaughtered by wind turbines. I have pictures of piles of dead bald eagles. Where’s the outrage?

Biden’s federal land-grab

Some argue that states can’t afford to manage this land themselves. But if the states can’t afford it, how can Washington? We’re $35 trillion in debt. Entitlements are strained, infrastructure is crumbling, and the Bureau of Land Management, Forest Service, and National Park Service are billions of dollars behind in basic maintenance. Roads, firebreaks, and trails are falling apart.

The Biden administration quietly embraced something called the “30 by 30” initiative, a plan to lock up 30% of all U.S. land and water under federal “conservation” by 2030. The real goal is 50% by 2050.

That entails half of the country being taken away from you, controlled not by the people who live there but by technocrats in D.C.

You think that won’t affect your ability to hunt, fish, graze cattle, or cut timber? Think again. It won’t be conservatives who stop you from building a cabin, raising cattle, or teaching your grandkids how to shoot a rifle. It’ll be the same radical environmentalists who treat land as sacred — unless it’s your truck, your deer stand, or your back yard.

Land as collateral

Moreover, the U.S. Treasury is considering putting federally owned land on the national balance sheet, listing your parks, forests, and hunting grounds as collateral.

What happens if America defaults on its debt?

David McNew / Stringer | Getty Images

Do you think our creditors won’t come calling? Imagine explaining to your kids that the lake you used to fish in is now under foreign ownership, that the forest you hunted in belongs to China.

This is not hypothetical. This is the logical conclusion of treating land like a piggy bank.

The American way

There’s a better way — and it’s the American way.

Let the people who live near the land steward it. Let ranchers, farmers, sportsmen, and local conservationists do what they’ve done for generations.

Did you know that 75% of America’s wetlands are on private land? Or that the most successful wildlife recoveries — whitetail deer, ducks, wild turkeys — didn’t come from Washington but from partnerships between private landowners and groups like Ducks Unlimited?

Private stewardship works. It’s local. It’s accountable. It’s incentivized. When you break it, you fix it. When you profit from the land, you protect it.

This is not about selling out. It’s about buying in — to freedom, to responsibility, to the principle of constitutional self-governance.

So when you hear the pundits cry foul over 3 million acres of federal land, remember: We don’t need Washington to protect our land. We need Washington to get out of the way.

Because this isn’t just about land. It’s about liberty. And once liberty is lost, it doesn’t come back easily.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

EXPOSED: Why the left’s trans agenda just CRASHED at SCOTUS

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

You never know what you’re going to get with the U.S. Supreme Court these days.

For all of the Left’s insane panic over having six supposedly conservative justices on the court, the decisions have been much more of a mixed bag. But thank God – sincerely – there was a seismic win for common sense at the Supreme Court on Wednesday. It’s a win for American children, parents, and for truth itself.

In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court upheld Tennessee’s state ban on irreversible transgender procedures for minors.

The mostly conservative justices stood tall in this case, while Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson predictably dissented. This isn’t just Tennessee’s victory – 20 other red states that have similar bans can now breathe easier, knowing they can protect vulnerable children from these sick, experimental, life-altering procedures.

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, saying Tennessee’s law does not violate the Equal Protection Clause. It’s rooted in a very simple truth that common sense Americans get: kids cannot consent to permanent damage. The science backs this up – Norway, Finland, and the UK have all sounded alarms about the lack of evidence for so-called “gender-affirming care.” The Trump administration’s recent HHS report shredded the activist claims that these treatments help kids’ mental health. Nothing about this is “healthcare.” It is absolute harm.

The Left, the ACLU, and the Biden DOJ screamed “discrimination” and tried to twist the Constitution to force this radical ideology on our kids.

Fortunately, the Supreme Court saw through it this time. In her concurring opinion, Justice Amy Coney Barrett nailed it: gender identity is not some fixed, immutable trait like race or sex. Detransitioners are speaking out, regretting the surgeries and hormones they were rushed into as teens. WPATH – the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, the supposed experts on this, knew that kids cannot fully grasp this decision, and their own leaked documents prove that they knew it. But they pushed operations and treatments on kids anyway.

This decision is about protecting the innocent from a dangerous ideology that denies biology and reality. Tennessee’s Attorney General calls this a “landmark victory in defense of America’s children.” He’s right. This time at least, the Supreme Court refused to let judicial activism steal our kids’ futures. Now every state needs to follow Tennessee’s lead on this, and maybe the tide will continue to turn.

Insider alert: Glenn’s audience EXPOSES the riots’ dark truth

Barbara Davidson / Contributor | Getty Images

Glenn asked for YOUR take on the Los Angeles anti-ICE riots, and YOU responded with a thunderous verdict. Your answers to our recent Glennbeck.com poll cut through the establishment’s haze, revealing a profound skepticism of their narrative.

The results are undeniable: 98% of you believe taxpayer-funded NGOs are bankrolling these riots, a bold rejection of the claim that these are grassroots protests. Meanwhile, 99% dismiss the mainstream media’s coverage as woefully inadequate—can the official story survive such resounding doubt? And 99% of you view the involvement of socialist and Islamist groups as a growing threat to national security, signaling alarm at what Glenn calls a coordinated “Color Revolution” lurking beneath the surface.

You also stand firmly with decisive action: 99% support President Trump’s deployment of the National Guard to quell the chaos. These numbers defy the elite’s tired excuses and reflect a demand for truth and accountability. Are your tax dollars being weaponized to destabilize America? You’ve answered with conviction.

Your voice sends a powerful message to those who dismiss the unrest as mere “protests.” You spoke, and Glenn listened. Keep shaping the conversation at Glennbeck.com.

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

EXPOSED: Your tax dollars FUND Marxist riots in LA

Anadolu / Contributor | Getty Images

Protesters wore Che shirts, waved foreign flags, and chanted Marxist slogans — but corporate media still peddles the ‘spontaneous outrage’ narrative.

I sat in front of the television this weekend, watching the glittering spectacle of corporate media do what it does best: tell me not to believe my lying eyes.

According to the polished news anchors, what I was witnessing in Los Angeles was “mostly peaceful protests.” They said it with all the earnest gravitas of someone reading a bedtime story, while behind them the streets looked like a deleted scene from “Mad Max.” Federal agents dodged concrete slabs as if it were an Olympic sport. A man in a Che Guevara crop top tried to set a police car on fire. Dumpster fires lit the night sky like some sort of postapocalyptic luau.

If you suggest that violent criminals should be deported or imprisoned, you’re painted as the extremist.

But sure, it was peaceful. Tear gas clouds and Molotov cocktails are apparently the incense and candles of this new civic religion.

The media expects us to play along — to nod solemnly while cities burn and to call it “activism.”

Let’s call this what it is: delusion.

Another ‘peaceful’ riot

If the Titanic “mostly floated” and the Hindenburg “mostly flew,” then yes, the latest L.A. riots are “mostly peaceful.” But history tends to care about those tiny details at the end — like icebergs and explosions.

The coverage was full of phrases like “spontaneous,” “grassroots,” and “organic,” as if these protests materialized from thin air. But many of the signs and banners looked like they’d been run off at ComradesKinkos.com — crisp print jobs with slogans promoting socialism, communism, and various anti-American regimes. Palestinian flags waved beside banners from Mexico, Venezuela, Cuba, and El Salvador. It was like someone looted a United Nations souvenir shop and turned it into a revolution starter pack.

And guess who funded it? You did.

According to at least one report, much of this so-called spontaneous rage fest was paid for with your tax dollars. Tens of millions of dollars from the Biden administration ensured your paycheck funded Trotsky cosplayers chucking firebombs at local coffee shops.

The same aging radicals from the 1970s — now armed with tenure, pensions, and book deals — are cheering from the sidelines, waxing poetic about how burning a squad car is “liberation.” These are the same folks who once wore tie-dye and flew to help guerrilla fighters and now applaud chaos under the banner of “progress.”

This is not progress. It is not protest. It’s certainly not justice or peace.

It’s an attempt to dismantle the American system — and if you dare say that out loud, you’re labeled a bigot, a fascist, or, worst of all, someone who notices reality.

And what sparked this taxpayer-funded riot? Enforcement against illegal immigrants — many of whom, according to official arrest records, are repeat violent offenders. These are not the “dreamers” or the huddled masses yearning to breathe free. These are criminals with long, violent rap sheets — allowed to remain free by a broken system that prioritizes ideology over public safety.

Photo by Kyle Grillot/Bloomberg | Getty Images

This is what people are rioting over — not the mistreatment of the innocent, but the arrest of the guilty. And in California, that’s apparently a cause for outrage.

The average American, according to Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, is supposed to worry they’ll be next. But unless you’re in the habit of assaulting people, smuggling, or firing guns into people’s homes, you probably don’t have much to fear.

Still, if you suggest that violent criminals should be deported or imprisoned, you’re painted as the extremist.

The left has lost it

This is what happens when a culture loses its grip on reality. We begin to call arson “art,” lawlessness “liberation,” and criminals “community members.” We burn the good and excuse the evil — all while the media insists it’s just “vibes.”

But it’s not just vibes. It’s violence, paid for by you, endorsed by your elected officials, and whitewashed by newsrooms with more concern for hair and lighting than for truth.

This isn’t activism. This is anarchism. And Democratic politicians are fueling the flame.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.