Prologue: FASCISM seeks COLLECTIVE “salvation”, eventually producing a TOTALITARIAN society of ONE, single, “organic” “WHOLE” benefiting ALL, complete conformity allowing no “separateness”. Fascism promises UTOPIA through this-worldly political “REBIRTH”, redemption and realization of “meaning”, produced by never ending “CRISIS”, overcome with revolutionary “CRUSADES” of “ACTION” based on their own “will to power”, instincts and feelings, which typically produce impulsive tantrums against those who seek limitations on their power and/or critically question their lack of “reason”, “reality” and/or DYSTOPIAN RESULTS. Totalitarian, all powerful GOD-STATES use political-religion to promise “heaven on earth”. Fascists purposely confuse and mix politics and religion, Government and God, co-opting “God” in their pursuit of political power, a perverted POLITICAL RELIGION of false idols in/of government. The sheep-like masses require leadership by an elite “enlightened” political governing ruling class and/or messianic “CULT of PERSONALITY” (“gods” IN government). Contemptuous of freedom and democratic self-government, the “god OF government” seeks to SOCIALLY ENGINEER utopian “political paradise” through “science” and an evolutionary “Cult of “Progress”. A utopian future requires INDOCTRINATION of YOUTH and CENSORSHIP of anything violating politically “correct” conformity, preventing eventual totalitarian control on ALL aspects of society, propagated and proselytized by their media “priests” and educational “seminaries”. Mussolini said “fascism is a religion”. Utopian idealism requires total elimination of anything “old”, be it past history, persecuting non-utopian “heretics”, or destroying dogmas of “deplorables” and “clingers”, (tragic realists) which prevent the “cult of progress” and transformational change we can believe in.

FASCISM #1-The Collective #2-Rebirth #3-Crisis & Crusade #4-Action #5-Politics as Religion #6-Contempt for Democracy #7-The Cult of Personality #8-Social Engineering #9-Youth #10-Censorship #11- Fascist Economics



The Secret History of the American Left from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning



Trust Busting “reined in” industry “run amok” [Big Business Gets Bigger]
the “BARGAIN”: government- big business collusion [killing competition]
the costs of collusion: corporatism – “back on the road to serfdom“
nazi economics – i.g. farben
fascist economics: rhetoric vs reality
mixing class warfare and crony capitalism [untie-ing the knot of collusion]
state-big business collusion fascists & fat cats: feeding the beast fascist government: picking winners & losers the NANNY STATE plays favorites for profit and “progress”
CLASS WARFARE: “fat cats”, “fair shares”& demogogues the economics of greed, envy, “fairness” & “equality”
the idol of equality: dystopian delusion,disguising despotism
equality in slavery, inequality in freedom
collusion – the housing and student loan bubbles
fascist vs. free market economics – the battle of visions collective utopia (progress) vs private enterprise (profits)
fascist economics : DESIGNING DYSTOPIA the “big bargain” bought, our birthright (freedom) sold

“we’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good“ – hillary clinton

COLLUSION The “THIRD WAY” between CAPITALISM & COMMUNISM Utopian “Progress” through “Profits”

fascists seek non-marxist socialism – state dominated economy. fascists promise a
‘THIRD WAY” between “free market” capitalism and communist “command” economy
jonah goldberg: “corporatism was in large measure a spiritual project. both the cold
interpersonal forces of marx’s history and the unloving dogma of adam smith’s invisible
hand could be rejected in favor of a third way that let the ‘forgotten man’ feel like he had a
place in the grand scheme of things. The nazis had a word for this process: gleichschultung”
“a political word borrowed – like so many others – from the realm of engineering, meaning ‘coordination’”
“The idea was simple: all intitutions needed to work together as if they were part of the same
Machine. ’Islands of separateness’ – be they businesses, churches or people – were worn
down over time. there could be no rocks in the river of progress. the entire society agreed to
the fascist bargain, in which they bought economic, moral and political security in exchange
for absolute loyalty to the ideals of the reich. this was a false security; the fascist bargain is a
FAUSTIAN BARGAIN. (selling your soul to the devil) but that is what people thought they
were getting unlike communism, private enterprise is permitted, but under heavy state
regulation. fascist regimes subordinate private free enterprise to perceived public interests
SECURITY PROVIDED by the STATE COLLECTIVE (cradle to the grave”)
BIG government demands big business follow their “progressive” political agenda.
Private profits are harnessed towards “progress” in the public interest (as defined by fascist
leaders) A desire to transcend class differences within the national community and create a
new order. Government was to regulate selfish “corrupt” corporate big business from
exploiting “the people”.
The fascist state has the power to pick “winners” and the “losers” – control of private,
“free enterprise”, with centralized government dictating “public interest. unlike communism,
fascist government PERMITS private enterprise, but under heavy state regulation
fascists seek a FUSION of big business and big government – private property under public
control. a “corporatist” national economy. fascist government is the “leviathan” or “monster”
that “COMBINES”POLITICS and ECONOMICS. fascist government is the “leviathan” or
“monster” that dominates politics (“the people”) and economics (big business).

politicians are not going to expropriate private business, but instead USE BUSINESS TO IMPLEMENT THEIR SOCIAL AGENDA.
big corporate “fat cats” work in collusion with big government “fat cats”. (“CRONY”,NOT “FREE-MARKET”) CAPITALISM.

by “regulating” the “free” market and limiting “competition” and “risk” from small business
in return, big business is expected to implement the government’political agenda
“general motors is a health care provider that produces cars as a by-product.” robert reich, clinton labor secretary
on the campaign trail, obama was highly critical of corporate executives and promised them
nothing but tougher regulation and higher taxes. big tax increases masquerade as “restoring
fairness to the economy.
at the turn of the 20th century, “muckraker” journalists unleashed populist rage against the
excesses of the meat industry. upton sinclair’s book the jungle made president teddy roosevelt
unable to eat his breakfast sausage and prompting government reform. jonah goldberg
describes the MEAT INSPECTION “MYTH”. “The FAIRY TALE is that government
stepped in to “control” predatory monopolies. The “myth” is that government “protected”
the nation from predatory monopolies.
Jonah Goldberg: Liberals have largely succeeded in defining the conventional wisdom when it
comes to economics. For a century, the left have been using textbooks brimming with
SUPERSTITION “corporations are too powerful”; “they have a stranglehold on the
system.” the TRUTH is the OPPOSITE. the state rhetorically fights for “the people” to
“protect” the “free market”, yet colludes with big business to prevent a “free market”
simaltaneously protecting “the people” from monopolies, using regulatory monopoly to
protect “fat cats” from competition. liberals foster precisely the sickness they hope to
remedy, reinforcing not “reining in” corporatism.
the fairy tale is that government stepped in to “control” predatory monopolies a “myth” is
that government “protected” the nation from predatory monopolies. the “REALITY” is
much more COMPLICATED. the problem is that it’s totally untrue, a fact that sinclair freely
acknowledged: “the federal inspection of meat was, historically, established at the packers’
request”, sinclair wrote in 1906. the meatpacking conglomerates knew that federal inspection
would become a marketing tool for their products, and eventually, a minimum standard”
small firms and butchers who’d earned the trust of consumers would be forced to endure
onerous compliance costs, while large firms not only could absorb the costs more easily but
would be able to claim their products were superior to uncertified meats.
the big stell firms were terrified that free competition would undermine their predatory
replacing “private” concentration of power with a far larger “public” concentration of power
the fascist state with the power to pick “winners” and the “losers”
simultaneously using state rhetoric against private “crony” capitalism, while establishing a
public crony capitalism, replacing private incompetence and corruption with a collusionary
public form. “in the left’s eternal vigilance to FEND OFF fascism, they have in fact
CREATED it” simultaneously using state rhetoric against private “crony” capitalism,
(“wall street”) while establishing a public “crony” capitalism (government)
Jonah Goldberg: many liberals are correct when they bemoan the collusion of government and
corporations. they even have a point when they decry special deals for haliburton or archer
daniels midlands as proof of creeping fascism. what they misunderstand completely is that
this is the SYSTEM THEY SET UP. this is the system they set want. this is the system they
mobilize and march for. it was not only inevitable but INTENDED for BIG BUSINESS to


– LIBERAL FASCISM, by Jonah Goldberg
– The CULTURAL COSTS of CORPORATISM: How Government-Business Collusion Denigrates the Entrepreneur and Rewards the Sycophant;
from “Back on the Road to Serfdom” by Thomas E. Woods Jr.

fascists use populist appeals against corporate “fat-cat” allies, then collude to “bail out” it’s
“DIVIDE and CONQUERS” WALL STREET – both demonizing and exploiting it.
APPEALS TO RESENTMENT but taxpayer funded “bailouts” of corporate “fat cats”.
Jonah Goldberg: “the fascist bargain goes something like this … the state says to the
industrialist, ‘you may stay in business and own your factories. in the spirit of cooperation and
unity, we will even guarentee you profit and a lack of serious competition”
“in exchange, we expect you to agree with – and help implement – our political agenda.
the moral and economic content of the agenda depends on the nature of the regime.
U.S. steel, which was the product of 138 merged steel firms, was stunned to see its profits
decline in the face of stiff competition. in response, the chairman of u.s. steel, judge elbert
gary, convened a meeting of leading steel companies at the waldorf-astoria in 1907 with the aim
of forming a ‘gentleman’s agreement’ to FIX PRICES. Representatives of teddy roosevelt’s
justice department attended the meetings. nonetheless, the agreements didn’t work, as some
firms couldn’t be trusted not to undersell others. Having failed in the realm of economics’,
kolko observes, ‘the efforts of the united states steel group were to be shifted to politics.
by 1909 the steel tycoon andrew carnegie was writing in the new york times in favor of
‘government control’ of the steel industry. One need only look at herbert croly’s promise of
american life to see how fundmentally fascistic progressive economics were [involved].
Croly was contemptuous of competition. trust-busting was a “fool’s errand”. If a
corporation got so big that it became a monopoly, coly didn’t believe it should be broken up;
rather, it should be NATIONALIZED. big business ‘contributed enormously to american
economic efficiency, [croly] explained ’COOPERATION’ was croly’s watchword: ‘it
whould be an effort of all civilized societies to substitute cooperation for competitive
methods. the New Dealers invited one industry after another to write the codes under which
they would be regulated (as they had been begging to do in many cases). it was not only
for example, the owners of the big chain movie houses wrote the codes in such a way that
independents were nearly run out of business, even though 13,571 of the 18,321 movie
theaters in america were independently owned. In business after business, the little guy was
crushed or at least severely disadvantaged in the name of ‘efficiency’ and ‘progress’”
“we may believe that FDR fashioned the new deal out of concern for the ‘forgotten man’.
but as one historian put it, the principle … seemed to be: to him that hath it shall be given”
the result: state monopolyon power, “exploitation” of both “the people” and “big business”

the “fascist” reality – federal inspection of meat was established at the meat packers request.
upton sinclair: “the federal inspection of meat was established at the packer’s request … it is
maintained and paid for by the people of the u.s. for the benefit of the packers”
big meat were warm friends of government inspections. the reality is not “conflict , but
“collusion” between the state and big business the fascist state uses big business to further its
own agenda – big business profits from government “collaboration”.
historian gerald kolko: “big packers were friends of regulation, … especially when it effected
their smaller competitors. “We are now and have always been in favor of the extension of the
inspection” – big meat spokesman to congress Why? – it primarily effected “big meat’s”
innumerable, smaller competitors. big business feared “free” competition would undermine
their monopolies. so big business asked the government to intervene federal meat inspection
became a marketing tool and limiter against competition. small firms and butchers were
forced to endure onerous compliance costs …while large firms could more easily absorb the
inspection costs and claim their products were superior to “uncertified” meats. fascist
anti-“free market”, not laissez faire economics. “Do-good” legislation empowers large
firms, entwines them with government and become barriers to smaller companies

jonah goldberg: “all this was done with the acquiescence of the liberal establishment, later called
the ‘new class’ of managers, experts and technocrats. the idea was that the smartest people
should be immune to the rules of capitalism and vulgar politics the fascist bargain government –
big business collusion [killing competition] the ‘best practices’ of business and engineering
should be applied to politics.


The CULTURAL COSTS of CORPORATISM: How Government-Business Collusion Denigrates the Entrepreneur and Rewards the Sycophant;
from “Back on the Road to Serfdom” by Thomas E. Woods Jr.

Despite the widespread assumption that a free market is the ideal economy for big business,
and that regulation checks the power of big business, more often the OPPOSITE is true”
on the pro-regulation side are big business, big labor, and the “public interest” groups;
on the anti-regulation side is small business. you can guess who wins. in short, big business
has a strong motivation to support big government: profit. GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES
can be far more valuable, or at least more reliable, than income from consumers, for which
businesses must continually fight with competitors. thus we frequently see big business –
big government collusion … which goes by many names: rent-seeking, corporatism,
corporate socialism, CORPORATE WELFARE, regulatory robbery, and subsidy-suckling, to
name a few. throughout our country’s history, some of the greatest enemies of the free market
have come from the big-business lobby. the business lobby is far from uniform, and it is even
farther from advocating laissez-faire. often, regulation debates pit one big business against
another – or one industry versus another.
when theodore roosevelt proposed federal inspection of meat and meatpacking, the biggest
meatpackers applauded. during fdr’s new deal, big business almost universally supported the
national recovery act, which was a legalized system of cartels. richard nixon’s firmest
backers for his 1971 wage and price controls were from big business,led by the national
association of manufacturers. bill clinton’s new regulations on genetically modified foods,
requiring expansive testing before such foods could be sold, had an ally in monsanto, the world
leader in such food. in the twenty-first century, it seems, such corporate-government collusion
has accelerated. consider the two biggest big-government programs of george w. bush (besides
his wars): creating a prescription drug subsidy under medicare, and ramming through
congress the troubled asset relief program (tarp), which bailed out wall street and Detroit.
the medicare drug bill was the creature of drug companies, which got to pocket the subsidies,
and insurers, which were legislated in as middlemen. the tarp bailouts were the pinnacle of
corporate welfare – government transferring wealth from taxpayers to the largest
corporations in America.
while barack obama pledged to drive lobbyists out of washington and has portrayed himself as
the scourge of special interests, corporatism has flourished under the obama administration.
this is evident in obama’s signature achievement, his overhaul of the health-care system – a
package of mandates, regulations, taxes and subsidies. Supporting the white house
all along was the drug industry, which spent more on lobbying (by a huge margin) in 2009 than
any other industry. leading the drugmakers’ charge was the pharmaceutical researchers and
manufacturers of america (phrma), the largest single-industry lobby group in the country”
the climate-change debate is typically portrayed as a battle between industry and
environmentalists, with the latter leading the charge for government constraints on
greenhouse-gas emissions, and the former desperately lobbying to be left alone. in fact, the only
climate proposals to see the light of legislative day were crafted by industry – energy
companies seeking subsidies, dealers in dubious greenhouse-gas “offsets,” agri-chemical
companies jockeying for handouts, and others of the same stripe. supporters included b.p.,
general electric, duke energy and nike.
clearly, a rapidly growing government is insinuating itself in practically every corner of
the market and of the broader culture. what is less obvious is that the road to serfdom is not
being paved by government alone; in many cases the business community supports and
enables the growth of government power. the reason is that big government brings ample
benefits to big business. unfortunately, it exacts many costs from the rest of society.
economists explain that government intervention reduces society’s wealth by reallocating it
away from where the money will be most useful (where consumer demand is high or where
investors see profits) to politically favored corners of the economy. this insight points us
toward the cultural ramifications of growing corporatism, favoring big business over small
business promotes uniformity over diversity and localism. it can weaken towns, cities,
neighborhoods and even families. it can destroy downtowns and replace them with strip malls.
this is the opposite of the standard account, which blames wal-mart for crushing mom and
pop. wal-mart dominates through government as much as through capitalism. an unbridled
free market isn’t killing mom and pop; an UNTETHERED STATE is. big-government efforts
at building infrastructure and subsidizing all forms of travel and shipping undermine a local
economy and prop up a global economy. LOCALISM’S ENEMY IS NOT CAPITALISM
beyond harming communities, business-government collusion denigrates the entrepreneur
and elevates the lobbyist. whenever government gains greater control over the economy,
economic actors will depend more on government. activist government makes political
connections more valuable. this drives up the value of a lobbyist”
“and the lobbyist’s gain has costs. every new subsidy takes power away from consumers,
because business goes where the money is. with uncle sam handing out cash, producers and
investors become more interested in what the government wants than in what regular people
want. every mandate or regulation similarly disenfranchises consumers, but it also hurts
entrepreneurs. regulations, taxes, and mandates narrow the playing field, … and the
opportunities for innovation. most importantly, GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION
if you haven’t invested time and money befriending politicians and bureaucrats, you’re at a
disadvantage. if you don’t have a lobbyist, you’re behind the eight ball. it’s easy to find stories
of government regulation of an industry helping the biggest businesses by killing the smallest
ones – thus hurting consumers, promoting uniformity, killing local economies, and stifling
when president obama signed a bill in 2009 heightening federal regulation of tobacco, he held
a rose garden ceremony at which he claimed that the bill had passed “despite decades of
lobbying and advertising by the tobacco industry. but philip morris, the country’s largest
tobacco company, had supported the bill for a decade – during which period it spent more on
lobbying than every other tobacco company combined. the new tobacco legislation enacted strict
regulations on manufacturing, testing and disclosure. such regulations impose new overhead
costs. Why would philip morris support that? because its massive economies of scale make it
easier for the company to handle the added costs. the bill also restricted advertising and
marketing, which helps lock out new companies and lock in place philip morris’s market share.
philip morris, realizing that it couldn’t avoid government, decided to partner with it. when
forced to, the company abandoned market entrepreneurship for political entrepreneurship –
and it worked, beaten into submission, although many businesses have learned the importance
of lobbying government, sometimes it takes coaxing by politicians to bring big business to
Washington. for all the talk from politicians about the corrupting influence of lobbyists,
washington officials make it very clear to business: lobby or else.
apple, the successful maker of the macintosh, ipod, and iphone, got the treatment. In 2010,
“politico, something of a trade journal for the industry of politics and government, reported,
“while apple’s success has earned rock-star status in silicon valley, its low-wattage approach
in washington is becoming more glaring to policymakers. translated: politicians were getting
upset that a successful company wasn’t lobbying very much or giving very much to politicians.
the article drew out the details: “it is one of the few major technology companies not to have a
political action committee. compared with other tech giants, apple’s lobbying expenditures
are small. in 2009, apple spent only $1.5 million to lobby the federal government, less than
amazon, yahoo and ibm. d.c. insider jonathan zuck, president of the association for competitive
technology offered apple some unsolicited advice. politico quoted him saying: “they’ve been very
focused on their own innovation, and they don’t have a history of coming to town to get their
competitors regulated”
but they’re expanding into so many areas that they’re going to find themselves in other
companies’ cross hairs, so they probably should be ready to play defense. apple, of course, was
not the first company politicians threatened into lobbying more.
the most famous case might have been microsoft in the late 1990s. microsoft’s smaller
competitors, led by sun microsystems and oracle, financed the campaigns of republican and
democratic state attorneys general who pursued an antitrust case against Microsoft.
in 1998 senate judiciary committee chairman orrin hatch called a hearing, ostensibly to discuss
the competitiveness of the software industry, but really to give senators a televised
opportunity to beat up microsoft founder bill gates. many people on capitol hill were
outraged by microsoft’s refusal to grovel in Washington. businessweek captured that ire with
this quote from a march, 1998 article: “‘the industry had an attitude that government should do
what it needs to do, but leave us alone,’ complains one hill technology staffer. ‘their hands-off
approach to washington will come back to haunt them.
even gates admitted that he would start playing the washington game, writing, “it’s been a year since the last time i was in d.c. i think i’m going to be making the trip a lot more frequently from now on. a decade later, microsoft was playing the game expertly. by 2010, the company was averaging more than $8 million per year in lobbying, had seventeen lobbyists working in-house, and had hired about twenty-five outside lobbying firms. lobbying issues included health care, financial regulation, cyber security, the stimulus bill, immigration, education, taxes, trade, climate change and dozens more. bill gates’s desire that innovation not be “restricted by government”? that evaporated. by 2006, microsoft had become a leading advocate for “net neutrality” regulations to prevent telecom networks from changing their business models for carrying digital data.
“any company branded as a capitalist titan – or free-market evangelist – is likely to feel the
pinch just as apple and microsoft did. BIG BUSINESS LEARNED THAT IF YOU
the best case study in political entrepreneurship may be GENERAL ELECTRIC.
ceo jeffrey immelt pretty clearly laid out his approach in a letter to stockholders in the depths
of the 2008-9 recession, and just days after the inauguration of barack obama, who promised to
‘remake america’. immelt wrote: “the global economy and capitalism will be ‘reset’ in
several ways. the interaction between government and business will change forever.
in a reset economy, the government will be a regulator; and also an industry policy champion, a financier, and a key partner. later in the letter, immelt stated more directly that ge saw the government as its best potential customer. governments will invest to stimulate their economies, solve societal problems, and create jobs. ge’s broad portfolio and expertise position us as a natural partner.
tackling important problems together will require teamwork and respect between business,
government and society. we know how to do this and intend to play an important part in
solving these essential challenges. the message was clear: the government is getting bigger, and
so we’re hopping on the subsidy bandwagon. it’s important here to dispel two myths about
how business and government relate, and what role lobbyists play. the two myths are mirror
images of each other. first, the story told by politicians and most in the media: business,
desperate to block important regulations or win special favors, hires lobbyists. these lobbyists
corrupt the legislative process with special-interest pleading. the opposite story isn’t aired in the
mainstream media much, but … if you run in republican, free-market, or conservative circles:
government sets up perverse incentives, and politicians shake down businesses [who] have no
choice but to march to the tune the politicians are playing. both stories are untrue, but both
capture some of the actual dynamic. BIG BUSINESS AND BIG GOVERNMENT FEED OFF

“in other words, neither big business nor big government is bossing the other around – they’re
both playing off of each other. general electric is doing two things that it is uniquely
experienced in doing: adapting its business to whatever the government favors and shaping
government policy so that it benefits G.E.. no longer does it make sense for an inventor to ask
himself, “can i make a better mousetrap?” because the threat is greater that the government
might ban his mousetrap, however safe and efficient it is. nobody can predict what standards
or rules government will establish in the future. in the early 1990s, the washington post
celebrated the catalytic converter for turning pollution into “harmless carbon dioxide.” by
2010, reducing co2 emissions had become the prime objective of government environmental
Policy. the result is that “regulatory certainty” is a myth. “regulatory certainty” is one
excuse big business gives for supporting more government. business can adjust to new rules;
it simply wants to know what the rules are. government is just as fickle and unpredictable as the
market, with two important differences:” …government’s fits and alternations are bigger and
more sudden than the market’s. and gaming the government’s oscillations is easier than
gaming the market’s – as long as you’re plugged in to people in power. and so reading the
market is no longer as valuable as reading the polls. research and development is not as good an
investment as political connections. a good lobbyist is now worth more than a good idea.”
get bigger while the small guys are frozen out. people with money make sure to buy off the
powerful. it is a zero-sum game, and the game is rigged, with the rules constantly changing.
and the incentives are all bad. in a free market, commerce fosters virtue. a free economic
exchange involves two parties voluntarily trading for their mutual benefit.
commerce doesn’t simply enrich a society; it also fosters community and trust. diligence,
reliability, friendliness and honesty are all rewarded in the long run in a freemarket.
Under corporatism, commerce erodes virtue. sycophancy is rewarded instead of insight.
cleverness is more valuable than innovation. businessmen get the message: stay small, or be
prepared to play ball with politicians. everyone becomes a welfare recipient or sharecropper
for government or big business. there are ripple effects, too. onerous regulation and the need
for political connections both act as huge barriers to entry. this heightens incentives to work for
a big company instead of going out on your own. over the generations, the spirit of
entrepreneurship vanishes. thanks to government, the pursuit of profit becomes a corrupting
process rather than an ennobling one.


Jonah Goldberg: “It’s fine to say that incestuous relationships between corporations and
governments are fascistic. the problem comes when you claim that such arrangements are
inherently right-wing. if the collusion of big business and government is right-wing, then
fdr was a right-winger. if corporatism and propagandistic militarism are fascist, then
woodrow wilson was a fascist and so were the new dealers. if you understand the right-wing
or conservative position to be that of those who argue for free markets, competition, property
rights and the other political values inscribed in the original intent of the american founding

the nazis and i.g. farben were fascist collusion between big business and government
fascist economics – big business colluding with state with a common agenda the financial
support of wealthy businessmen gave hitler the money to run his propaganda and election
campaigns. many industrialists bankrolled the nazis, including hjalmar schacht, head of the
reichsbank, organized fund-raising parties for hitler. alfred krupp, the owner of krupp steel
schroeder bank – on jan. 3, 1933, reinhard schroeder met hitler and asked him to form a
government. what luck for the rulers that men do not think” – adolph hitler
“financial origins of national socialism” (1933) by “sydney warburg” provides another glimpse
of how the rich supported hitler..”. “financial origins of national socialism” (1933) was a
70-page booklet suppressed for many years but republished in 1983 as “hitler’s secret backers”
“warburg” describes a july, 1929 meeting with “carter,” the president of j.p. morgan’s guarantee
trust, the presidents of the federal reserve banks, “the young rockefeller” and “glean from royal
dutch.” these are all rothschild dominated. general ludendorff testified at the nuremburg trials
that james p. warburg, son of federal reserve founder paul warburg, was the conduit through
which eventually $34 million was transferred from wall street to the Nazis.
The most powerful german economic corporate emporium in the first half of this century was
the interessengemeinschaft farben or ig farben. interessengemeinschaft stands for “association
of common interests” and was nothing other than a powerful cartel of basf, bayer, hoechst,
and other german chemical and pharmaceutical companies. ig farben was the single largest
donor to the election campaign of hitler. one year before hitler seized power, ig farben donated
400,000 marks to hitler and his nazi party. after hitler’s seizure of power, ig farben was the
single largest profiteer of the german conquest of the world. 100 % of all explosives and 100
% of all synthetic gasoline came from the factories of ig farben. about 35% of a german foot
soldier’s gear was made of ig farben materials. whenever the german wehrmacht conquered
a country, ig farben followed, systematically taking over the industries of those countries
through this close collaboration with hitler’s wehrmacht,
IG FARBEN participated in the plunder of austria, czechoslovakia, poland, norway, holland,
belgium, france and all other countries conquered by the Nazis. a u.s. government
investigation came to the conclusion that without ig farben the second world war would simply
have not been possible economic greed by companies like bayer, basf and hoechst was

in 1941, a top manager of ig farben thought he had found the perfect location for a new
synthetic-rubber factory. the site was out of range of allied bombers, easily reached by rail,
and had plenty of water, coal and a ready supply of cheap labor, near a town in occupied
poland known as Auschwitz. auschwitz was the largest mass extermination factory in human
history, but the “death” camp was only the appendix. the size of the ig auschwitz plant (red
area) was larger than all auschwitz concentration camps (blue area) taken together
the main project was ig auschwitz, was the largest industrial complex in the world for manufacturing synthetic gasoline and rubberfor the conquest of Europe.
the main ig farben plant at auschwitz was so massive that it consumed more electricity per
day than berlin”work” camps were located near to the“death” camps auschwitz iii, aka
monowitz, was located four kilometers from the town of Auschwitz. the auschwitz iii camp
was the most important to the nazis because its factories were essential to the german war
effort. the ig farben board member responsible for the auschwitz project, stated to his board
colleagues, “our new friendship with the ss is a blessing. we have determined all measures,
integrating the concentration camps to benefit our company. opportunistic members of ig
farben management joined the nazi party, providing financial backing to the regime
the pharmaceutical departments of the ig farben cartel used the victims of the concentration
camps in their own way. thousands died during human experiments such as the testing of new
and unknown vaccines. even the chemical gas zyklon-b used for the annihilation of millions of
people was derived from the drawing boards and factories of ig farben. those who were too
weak or too sick to work were selected at the main gate of the ig auschwitz factory and sent to
the gas chambers.


LIBERAL FASCISM, by Jonah Goldberg
– The DEATH of POPULISM: Plenty of pleaders for rich and poor, but no politician speaks for the COMMON MAN by Victor Davis Hanson



Jonah Goldberg: good medicine, like good economics, depends on discarding unproven
Mythology. these mythsare entwined with one another in a magnificent
KNOT of CONFUSION: simultaneously mixing class warfare and crony capitalism
fascist government “MIXES” public and private. fascist government MIXES“fair” and “free” market, placing a “corporate “stranglehold” of “the system” with an even more powerful state “stranglehold” replacing “private” concentration of power with a far larger “public” concentration of power. The state rhetorically fights for “the people” to “protect” the “free market”, yet colludes with big business to prevent a “free market”, SIMULTANEOUSLY protecting the people” from monopolies, using regulatory monopoly to protect “fat cats” from competition

Jonah Goldberg: “liberals foster precisely the sickness they hope to remedy, reinforcing, not
“reining in” corporatism. the fascist state claims to be against the corporate “fat-cats”.
instead, the fascist state collaborates with compliant corporate “fat-cats”. the fascist state
uses big business to further its own “agenda”. the fascist state gains power from popular
support and resentment against “the rich” big business works to support government’s political
agenda. big business profits and gets “protection” from government collaboration.
the state (group) suffered at the hands of a few “fat cats” (individuals) democrats want to ‘rein
in’ corporations. corporations are inherently right wing, and if unchecked, these evil entities
will bring us towards fascism. saul argues corporate c.e.o.s are “the true descendants of benito
Mussolini. novelist john ralston saul argues we live in a corporatist–fascist society,but we are
unwilling to see it. the fight against ‘corporate paymasters’ is part of the struggle to keep
fascism ‘at bay’” the way to keep business from corrupting government is for government to
regulate business to within one inch of it’s life. the fascist state CLAIMS to be against the
corporate “fat-cats”. fascism’s success almost always depends on the COOPERATION of the
“losers”. during a time of economic and technical change populist resentment against “fat
Cats … the system”class resentment by state leaders on behalf of the “common” people”
CLASS WARFARE – the “haves” exploiting the forgotten “have nots”. “populist” economics
for the “public interest”:

“we don`t say to the rich `give to the poor`, we say `german people, help each other`” – Hitler
“rich or poor, each one must help thinking, there`s someone even poorer than i am, and i want to help them as a fellow countryman”- hitler
“my administration is the only thing between you [ceo’s] and the pitchforks.” – barack obama
the u.s. has systematically promoted a terrorism of it’s own” … of greedy capitalists who
need reform by the “just” power of the state” … ”corporations under stakeholder control, not
just stockholder control …and their arrogance is the major threat to our future as a free society.” – george lakoff
marxism and fascism both appeal to “haves vs. have-nots” to gain power
“no dividing line between the rich and poor, and no class distinctions to breed mean envies.” – george creel
Free market capitalism is considered the enemy
both “fascists” and “socialists” despise “free”markets both “fascists” and “socialists” seek
“fair” markets – determined by the state. saul alinsky: “the agitator’s job is first to bring folks
to the “realization” that they are indeed miserable … that their misery is the fault of
unresponsive governments or greedy corporations”
barack obama: “we had years in which the reigning economic ideology has been what good for
wall street not …main street … it is shameful …what we’re going to need is for the folks on
wall street … to show some restraint, … discipline, … responsibility … when ceos are
making more in ten minutes than the average worker earns in a year, and millions of families
lose their homes due to unscrupulous lending … checked neither by a sense of corporate
ethics or a vigilant government … we have more work to do.”
obama characterized republican john mccain’s approach to taxes as nothing more than ‘‘putting
corporations ahead of workers. obama said americans are too often “held hostage” by
insurance companies that deny or drop their coverage. protestors waved signs saying,
“insurance companies are enemies of change” and “all americans deserve affordable
Barack Obama: “it is shameful … what we’re going to need is for the folks on wall street …
to show some restraint, … discipline, … responsibility.”
saul alinsky:”america’s corporations are a spiritual slum,”
the free market is put down as a “winner-take-all” economy
hillary rodham clinton: ”over the past seven years, big corporations and special interests have
been given a free pass to profit, often at the expense of the american worker.”
as an undergraduate at wellesley college, hillary rodham wrote her senior thesis on alinsky.
saul alinsky:“the agitator’s job is first to bring folks to the “realization” that they are indeed
miserable” (with inequality) … that their misery is the fault of unresponsive governments
and/or greedy corporations” “as president, hillary will make it a priority to scale back special
benefits and subsidies to these corporations and put those resources to work for our economy”
mr. obama has had a SEEMINGLY DIFFICULT relationship with wall street during his first
term, after his regulatory overhaul and slamming “fat cat bankers”on cbs’ “60 minutes”
we’ve heard the woes of wall street over and over again – bailouts layoffs, outsourcing
the rich “fat cats” are PUBLICLY DEMONIZED towards popular resentment and class
Candidate Obama:“we saw an article today which showed that the top 50 hedge fund
managers made $29 billion last year – $29 billion for 50 individuals”
“the most important thing we can do right now is those of us in leadership letting people know
that we understand their struggles and we are on their side… and that we want to set up a
system in which hard work, responsibility, doing what you’re supposed to do, is rewarded,
… and that people who are irresponsible, who are reckless, who don’t feel a sense of obligation
to their communities and their companies and their workers that those folks aren’t rewarded”
obama alluded to his american jobs act, which would be funded in part by raising taxes on
wealthier americans and some corporations in order to make them pay “their fair share”
“my administration is the only thing between you [ceo’s] and the pitchforks” – barack obama

“throughout the country, all across main street … you’re still seeing some of the same folks
who acted irresponsibly trying to fight efforts to crack down on abusive practices that got us
into this problem in the first place. people are frustrated and the protesters are giving voice to a
more broad-based frustration about how our financial system works …wall street elites
“game the system” – who exactly is “gaming the system”?

by Curt Levey May 18, 2012

“GM’s sweetheart tax deal has largely slipped under the radar screen, allowing obama to
both rail against tax loopholes and claim the auto bailout cost taxpayers far less than it actually
has. if gm’s tax gift were counted, the official cost of the bailout would double from $22 to
$40 billion”


the fascist state has the power to pick “winners”and the “losers”. the “fight” against
private corporate monopoly led to a public corporate monopoly (by the state)
big business reinforcing big government “crony” (not “free-market”)capitalism
despite stated “conflict”, the fascist state collaborates with compliant “fat-cats”
obamanomics: “i said, i believe in american workers, i believe in this american industry, and
now the american auto industry has come roaring back. now i want to do the same thing with
manufacturing jobs, not just in the auto industry, but in every industry”
the “KNOT of CONFUSION”: the symbiotic and subordinate position of “the people” and
big business to the state government “fat cats” work with big business “fat-cats”

by Timothy P. Carney August 31, 2011

tim geithner’s deputy, alan krueger, is a fitting pick to lead president obama’s council of
economic advisers – which is to say he believes in the same noxious collusion of big business
and big government that has dominated the obama administration’s economic policy
the wall street bailout, cash for clunkers, the stimulus, subsidized municipal bonds, an
infrastructure bank: anytime you find the big business lobby rallying behind a proposed
expansion of federal spending, you’re likely to find krueger’s fingerprints. krueger’s pet
policy at treasury, a convoluted program called build america bonds, amounted to a taxpayer
subsidy for big banks and other corporate giants that increased public indebtedness. in
other words, TYPICAL OBAMANOMICS. kreuger’s policies involve PARTNERING WITH
THAT’S OBAMANOMICS. krueger’s tendency to advocate policies that benefit big banks and
other corporate giants. there’s a far simpler explanation than cronyism for this pattern of
policies – prevalent throughout obama’s tenure – that provide big profits for big business

krueger believes the keynesian tenet that government needs to drive economic recovery. but
they’re also pragmatic enough to see that business is the true engine of prosperity
so, krueger and crew take one part government, one part private sector, and mix. they try to
sell the resulting stew as moderate by crowing, “even industry likes it!”
solyndra, an obama-favored, energy department-subsidized, politically connected solar power
company, declared bankruptcy. evergreen, another state-aided solar company, declared
bankruptcy the week before. a georgia cellulosic ethanol plant shuttered recently without
making a drop of ethanol. many obamanomics beneficiaries, including general electric and
goldman sachs, are making handsome profits, but they AREN’T CREATING JOBS.
krueger wants quasi-governmental agencies that put taxpayer money at risk in order to
finance activity that profits big companies.
“Politicians like to say that government is on the side of the little guy. but with impressive
documentation and persuasive examples, tim carney shows how government power and
regulation are typically used to assist the powerful”
– Paul A. Gigot Editorial Page Editor, the Wall Street Journal Obama is making you poorer — but who’s getting rich?
goldman sachs, ge, pfizer, the united auto workers – the same “special interests” barack
obama was supposed to chase from the temple – are profiting handsomely from obama’s big
government policies that crush taxpayers, small businesses and consumers. other than hope and
claiming he’s battling corporate america. it’s CORPORATE WELFARE and
REGULATORY ROBBERY – it’s OBAMANOMICS. the great health care scam – obama’s
backroom deals with drug companies spell corporate profits and more government control
the global warming hoax – obama has bought off industries with a pork-filled bill that will
drain your wallet for al gore’s agenda. obama and wall street – “change” means more bailouts
and a heavy goldman sachs presence in the west wing (including rahm emanuel)
stimulating k street – the largest spending bill in history gave pork to the well-connected and
created a feeding frenzy for lobbyists
Ultimately, obamanomics boils down to this: every time government gets bigger, somebody’s
getting rich.


senate majority leader harry reid said republicans are “making love to wall street.” in my column
today, i lay out the facts that make it clear that harry reid is carrying wall street’s love child –
and it’s named “reform”. reid’s re-election coffers are filled with wall street lucre, and his
fundraisers and former staffers are lobbyists for the biggest banks. and reid’s legislative history
makes it clear that – befitting the senator from las vegas – the customer gets what the customer
pays for. reid has raised more money from wall street than any republican house or senate
candidate, according to the center for responsive politics. in fact, among senators seeking re-
election, reid has raised more than the top three republicans combined. as far as the parties
go, it’s not even close – wall street has given 60 percent of its cash this year to democrats,
and seven of the top 10 recipients of wall street political action committee money are democrats
but the reid-wall street relationship is more intimate than that. the real players in this affair are
those professionals who walk k street trading cash for special favors
obama’s ‘juggling act’ of big business, big government, populist posturing
the new york times’ jackie calmes mulls over what she sees as a quandary – a “juggling act” by
president obama. he has mixed, for example, condemnation of “wall street greed” with
opposition to government caps on financiers’ bonuses, and criticism of oil companies’ profits
with a recent call (now in abeyance) to expand offshore drilling. this is a “juggling act,” no more
than it’s a juggling act for a preacher to condemn gambling and drinking in public and then
spend his nights boozing it up at the casino. IT’S REALLY CALLED “SAYING ONE
lobbyist bundling: money pipeline for democrats
the center for public integrity has compiled a list of the top lobbyist-bundlers – volunteer
fundraisers, that is lobbyists bundling campaign contributions, often from clients, to pass on
to powerful politicians is exactly the sort of corruption democrats came to power promising
to fight but the lobbyists doing the most bundling, and the politicians pocketing the cash, tend
to be democrats, a recent study shows a study by the center for public integrity finds that the top
four lobbyists in terms of bundling contributions for federal candidates and committees are powerful democrats who contributed and raised cash exclusively to elect democrats
these lobbyists’ big business clients stand to benefit from democratic policies on health care,
the environment and trade vintage obama COMBINES HIS “SCOURGE-OF-THE-
first let me point out a couple of problems with the reformers-vs-lobbyists frame.
president obama serially wages pretend wars against the special interests. it’s his thing
currently he’s pretending to battle wall street. recently, he pretended to battle the health
sector. last year, he pretended to battle the banks on credit cards, but my favorite episode of
obama pretending to take on industry might be his regulation of TOBACCO
in the rose garden, obama declared, “today, despite decades of lobbying and advertising by the
tobacco industry, we’ve passed a law to help protect the next generation of americans from
growing up with a deadly habit. at the same time, the largest tobacco company in america issued
a press release declaring “philip morris supports federal regulation of tobacco”
critics called the bill the marlboro monopoly act, arguing that restrictions on production and
advertising would further boost the market share of the industry leader, marlboro. the critics
are right Marlboro ACHIEVES RECORD RETAIL SHARE of 42.7% in the first quarter of
2010. if they’re looking at these numbers, i’m sure pfizer and goldman are drooling over how
obama is sticking it to them, too

president obama has portrayed himself as the scourge of wall street, but that’s not how
goldman sachs’s employees and executives saw in 2008. in his successful white house bid,
obama had no better source of funds: he raised $996,595 from people identifying goldman as
their employer
Let’s put that number in perspective:
It’s the most any politician has raised from a single company since campaign finance reform.
It was four times what John McCain raised from Goldman.
It’s more than the combined Goldman Sachs total of every Republican in 2008 running for President, House, and Senate.

UNTIE-ing the KNOT of COLLUSION – FAT CATS TOO BIG to FAIL these are the very “fat cats” to whom obama directed his trash
talk in january: “if they want a fight, that’s a fight i’m willing to have”. well, it looks like
they don’t really want a fight. it looks like they want more regulation. the question is: what’s
in it for goldman? obama gives sugar plums to the special interests. obama signed health-
care reform, and the special interests won: “tonight“ … after the house had passed two health
care bills, “we pushed back on the undue influence of special interests … we proved that this
government – a government of the people and by the people – still works for the people”
but even before the president spoke, the pharmaceutical researchers and manufacturers of
america – whose $26.1 million lobbying effort in 2009 was the most expensive by any industry
lobby in history – hailed the health package as “important and historic”
the second-biggest industry lobby in america, the american medical association, also cheered, as
did the american hospital association, the no. 5 industry lobby. throw in the goliath senior lobby
aarp and beltway powerhouse general electric and you realize OBAMA’S UNDERDOG TALE
“When government takes away options, it is bound to make some people worse off, even
with intrinsicallly good intentions behind that government intervention“
“the welfare state is not really about the welfare of the masses. it is about the egos of the elites“
“it is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by
putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong“
– Thomas Sowell

by Terresa Monroe-Hamilton December 22, 2012

Terresa Monroe-Hamilton: “the occupy movement, as we all know, was and is a tool of
the elite. skilled in projection and deflection, they screamed that big business was the enemy of
the people and marxism was the cure. if they had been honest, would have railed against was
“a marriage made in hell and brought to you by barack obama and the bourgeois socialists”
“we now have many, many examples of these elitists who have crawled into bed with the
marxists … from warren buffet, to jeffrey immelt of g.e., the list is long and inglorious”
“these are wealthy and powerful businessmen looking for security in the arms of comrade
Obama. while keeping the proletariat riffraff (that would be you and me) in check and busily
working for them and their luxuries in a slavish society that is forcefully equal in misery, except
for the upper levels of the bourgeois socialists.
immelt is an admirer of mao and of barack obama. generally, he just loves power. but, his
vehicle of choice is marxism. GE has a long history of this. while you see all these wealthy
companies including walmart, pepsi, the big banks, wall street, media and a whole slew of
others jumping on obama’s red train, you might ask yourself why?. aren’t they going to be
taxed more? clearly these mega companies did not get the size they are by playing by the same
rules you and i do. they know how to ‘shelter’ their companies from most of the taxation and
other annoyances, and as an added bennie, if they sneak into the ever-expanding marxist bed.
they are given nifty tax breaks, regulation waivers and other money making contracts.
what’s the going price for a little monetary soul between marxists these days? by swearing their
allegiance to the government, they will be protected from the commoners – they will be
taken into the elite circles where they will be served by their american subjects. such are the
enraptured power dreams of the bourgeois socialists. know who else did this? why, adolph
hitler of course. many of the companies that aligned with nazi germany are still in business
today. as big business became increasingly organized, it developed an increasingly close
partnership with the nazi government. the government pursued economic policies that
maximized the profits of its business allies, and, in exchange, business leaders supported the
government’s political and military goals.”

In 1946 General Electric was fined by the US government owing to its nefarious wartime
activities. In partnership with Krupp, a German manufacturing firm, General Electric deliberately
and artificially raised the price of tungsten carbide, a material that was vital for machining metals
necessary for the war effort. Though only fined $36,000 in total, General Electric made around
$1.5 million out of this scam in 1936 alone, hampering the war effort and increasing the cost of
defeating the Nazis. GE also bought shares in Siemens before war broke out, making them
complicit in the use of slave labor to build the very same gas chambers where many of the
stricken laborers met their end.

BMW has admitted using up to 30,000 forced laborers during the war. These POWs, slave
laborers and inmates of concentration camps produced engines for the Luftwaffe and so were
forced to aid the regime in defending itself against those who were trying to save them. BMW
focused solely on aircraft and motorcycle manufacture during the war, with no pretense of being
anything other than a supplier of war machinery to the Nazis

In 2000, NESTLÉ paid over $14.5 million into a fund to try to deal with claims of slave labor
suffered at their hands from Holocaust survivors and Jewish organizations. The firm has admitted
that it acquired a company in 1947 that had used forced labor during the war and has also stated
that “[It] is either certain or it may be assumed that some corporations of the Nestlé Group that
were active in countries controlled by the National Socialist (Nazi) regime employed forced
laborers.” Nestlé helped with the financing of a Nazi party in Switzerland in 1939 and ended
up winning a lucrative contract, supplying the entire chocolate needs of the German army
during World War II.

HENRY FORD himself was a notorious anti-Semite, publishing a collection of articles under the charming title, The International Jew: The World’s Foremost Problem. Ford even sponsored his own newspaper which he used as a propaganda piece, blaming the Jews for World War I, and in 1938 he received the Grand Cross of the German Eagle, the highest medal Nazi Germany awarded to foreign citizens.

ford’s german operation produced one third of the militarized trucks used by the german
army during the war, with much of the labor done by prisoners. what’s even more shocking
is that ford may have used forced labor as early as 1940 — when the american arm of the
company still had complete control

The collusion of chase bank (now j.p. morgan chase), with the nazis isn’t so surprising. one of
its major shareholders, j.d. rockefeller, had directly funded nazi eugenics experiments before
the war. between 1936 and 1941, chase and other us banks helped the germans raise over $20
million in dollar exchange, netting over $1.2 million in commission — of which chase pocketed
a cool $500,000. that was a lot of money at the time.

the fact that the german marks used to fund the operation came from jews who had fled nazi
germany didn’t seem to bother chase – in fact they upped their business after kristallnacht (the
night jews throughout nazi germany and austria were systematically attacked by mobs in 1938)
chase also froze the accounts of french jews in occupied france before the nazis had even
gotten around to asking them to

DO YOU SEE A PATTERN HERE? businesses were highly organized (uber community
organizers) under hitler. hugo boss designed the militarized uniforms of the ss (as well as the
brown shirts of the sa and the hitler youth); volkswagen designed the beetle at hitler’s behest
and mass produced them using slave labor; standard oil provided the gas for the german
planes; and IBM designed the punch cards that were used to systematize the extermination of
people by race and class, all in the name of big business and it is happening again – now in
what this means for all of america in the end with wealth redistribution is trickle-up poverty”
the revenge of our anti-colonialist marxist leaders will be complete. the constitution will be
no more and in its place will be a new motherland. when big business colludes with a
marxist government, very bad things happen. just look at history and you will see our
future. remember,all roads in this realm lead to communism and death. who needs a mayan
apocalypse when you have obama?”

by Steve Baldwin Baldwin Research & Consulting

Steve Baldwin: “this week we saw obama on all the news shows blaming banks for the credit crisis saying that ‘you guys caused the problem and calling them “fat cats”
steve baldwin: this is the height of hypocrisy. let me remind everyone that banks only operate
within the regulatory environment that politicians create for them. all throughout the 80’s
and 90’s, leftist groups led by acorn harassed banks with protests, boycotts and lawsuits,
falsely claiming banks were “discriminating” against minorities in terms of their lending
practices. the allegations were bogus. banks do discriminate, however, against people with
shaky finances regardless of race. and they should. banks are not a welfare program. they’re
a business. they make lending decisions based on hard numbers such as a person’s credit
rating. that really don’t care what race a person is; if someone’s credit history gives a bank
reason to believe its loan will be paid back, they’ll make the loan. however, this was all

obama, was part of the movement to FORCE banks to make high risk loans – but now he tries
banks have been forced to make high risk loans as a result of years of protests, legislation,
boycotts, and the cra act. who was involved with all of this? why, our very own anointed one.
barack obama. yet obama has the audacity to blame banks for acting under regulations that
the movement created by acorn successfully pushed for? it time to face the truth folks: obama
was part of the “social justice” movement which created the incredibly stupid regulatory
climate that caused banks to make loans they otherwise would never have made

by Eric Kohn March 27, 2015

ERIC KOHN is ceo and founder of curious task strategies, inc.
Eric Kohn: “progressive politicians have found a ripe old target for populist demagoguing:
payday lenders. in a speech on thursday afternoon, president obama endorsed new proposed
rules from the consumer financial protection bureau to crack down on the payday lending
industry. these short-term, high-interest lenders have also recently drawn fire from comedians
like sarah silverman and hbo’s john oliver. payday lenders make for an easy punching
bag. moneylenders have always been a popular target, and laws against usury are as old as
sin. these lenders serve a primarily poor clientele, usually people with very poor credit who
represent a high risk for defaulting on the loan. the types of short-term, emergency loans
they offer carry double – to triple-digit (annualized) interest rates. loan sharks taking
advantage of people in dire straits – what’s not to hate? but, rhetorical red meat
notwithstanding, some people find themselves in situations where they need short-term,
emergency cash – and are willing to pay for it.
populist politicians argue that they’re trying to “protect” poor people from predatory’ lenders
but what they’re really doing is taking away the last recourse – from the already severely
limited options – for poor people in urgent financial need before seeking to regulate payday
lenders into submission – or oblivion – it’s important to ask: what’s the alternative?”
as high as the interest rates of these loans can be, compare them to the compounding cost of
bank overdraft fees. the average fee is about $30 per overdraft transaction. the cost of
those overdraft transactions can add up pretty quickly, all while plunging that person’s bank
account balance further into the red. it won’t take long at all for the cost of the bank fees to
eclipse even the cost of a 30-day loan at a supposedly outrageous 400% apr (which comes out
to just a little bit more than 1% interest for each day of the loan). of course it would be better if
people never needed a loan like this, and if everyone had the credit necessary to get a loan at a
more reasonable rate of interest. but, for some people, it’s a far better option to have the short-
term cash they need and pay the interest cost than it is to pay hundreds of dollars in fees to the
bank while still not having any money for life’s needs.
ERIC KOHN: “The president, like most politicians, says he wants to help the poor. i don’t
doubt that he does. but taking options away from the least well-off people, who already have the
fewest options available to them, is hardly compassionate or helpful. progressive” muckrakers
did not end monopoly – despite the “populist” rhetoric, the big business-big government
“merger” created and even larger monopolistic “leviathan” a “corporate state with an even
more powerful”; “stranglehold” on “the system.” reinforcing, not “reining in” corporatism
the fascist state uses big business to further its own agenda the fascist state dominates both
“the people” and big business, (towards totalitarian control over all of society) “main street”
and “wall street” subordinated to “state” state power, to both “protect” and“punish” fascist
fascist government “divide and conquers” wall street – both demonizing and exploiting it
fascist government “divide and conquers” main street – populist appeals to resentment but taxpayer funded “bailouts” of corpoarate “fat cats”
the result: state monopoly on power, “exploitation” of both “the people” and “big business”
fascist government is the “leviathan” or “monster” that “combines” politics and economics
fascist government is the “leviathan” or “monster” that “dominates”
politics (“the people”) and economics (big business)



Plenty of pleaders for rich and poor, but no politician speaks for the COMMON MAN
by Victor Davis Hanson August 1, 2013

Victor Davis Hanson – “populism,whether on the right or left, does not seem to have made
inroads with the traditional republican and democrat establishments”
gas has gone up about $2 a gallon since barack obama took office. given average yearly rates
of national consumption, that increase alone translates into an extra $1 trillion that american
drivers have collectively paid in higher fuel costs over the last 54 months. such a crushing
burden on the cash-strapped commuter class is rarely cited in the liberal fixation on cap-and-
trade, wind and solar subsidies, and the supposed dangers of fracking. when the president scaled
back the number of new gas and oil leases on federal lands over time, or warned that “under my
plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket,” he was
appealing to his boutique base – not to those who can scarcely meet their monthly heating
and cooling bills.”
should there not be an opening for a conservative populist response? unfortunately, pro-
drilling conservatives sound more like spokesmen for oil companies than grassroots champions
for strapped motorists. total STUDENT DEBT is approaching $1 TRILLION. that is an
UNSUSTAINABLE BURDEN for recent graduates under 25 facing an adjusted youth
unemployment rate of over 20 percent. yet the well-off are more interested in ensuring that
their children get into tony, name-brand colleges than in fretting about how to pay for it – a fact
well known to our price-gouging universities.
on the other end, need- and ethnicity-based scholarships and waivers have made college more
affordable for the poor than it is for the middle classes … [whose] parents make enough to be
disqualified from most government help, but not enough to afford soaring tuition”
top-heavy universities assume that there will always be more income from the subsidized poor
and the rich. again, middle-class students are caught up a creek without the paddles of
wealthy parents or a generous government.
there are more than 48 million americans on food stamps, an increase of about 12 million
since the beginning of the obama presidency. the left mythicizes food-stamp recipients almost
as if they all must be the cratchits of dickensian england. at a time of record-high crop prices, the
u.s. government still helps well-off farmers with some $20 billion in annual crop payouts and
indirect subsidies. the right romanticizes corporate agriculture as if the growers all were
hardscrabble family farmers in need of a little boost to get through another tough harvest”
those in between, who pay federal income taxes and are not on food stamps, lack the
empathy of the poor and the clout of the rich. can’t a politician say that?”
the influx of millions of illegal immigrants has ensured corporate america access to cheap
labor while offering a growing constituency for political and academic elites. yet the earning
power of poorer american workers – especially african americans and hispanic americans – has
this administration’s loose money policy has been GOOD FOR THE INDEBTED and even BETTER FOR THE STOCK-INVESTED RICH. but it is absolutely lousy for the middle class and for strapped retirees with a few dollars in conservative passbook accounts. the aftermath of the 2008 financial meltdown followed the same script. the crisis arose from a STRANGE CONNIVANCE between loans to the unqualified and huge profits for wall street. its remedy was to have the lowly taxpayer pick up the walk-away debt of the former while offering bailouts for the latter”
“polls show the president’s approval numbers are tanking. congress can hardly become any
more unpopular. maybe one reason is that NEITHER SEEMS TO CARE MUCH ABOUT
“america has plenty of community organizers and agitators, and even more smooth
corporate lobbyists, but populist politicians disappeared long ago”
fascist government “colludes” to help the rich “fat cats” and the “poor” – the “populist” masses in the middle get “screwed” and ignored. fascist populist appeals to “the people” and the demonization of the “fat cats” is largely a MYTH.


In 2008, wall street’s largesse accounted for 20% of obama’s total take, according to reuters
the top-three corporate employers of donors to barack obama, joe biden and rahm emanuel
were goldman sachs, citigroup, and jp morgan. six other financial giants were in the top
thirty donors to the white house dream team: ubs ag, lehman brothers, morgan stanley, bank of
america, merrill lynch, and credit suisse group. in 2008 alone, goldman sachs employees gave
more to obama – nearly $1 million – than any other employer, with the sole exception of the
entire university of california, which has 230,000 employees – ten times more than goldman.
despite anti-wall street “fat cat” rhetoric,
the biggest private donor to barack obama’s inauguration was wall street. the inauguration
cost $50 million, congress approved $10 million and the obama inaugural committee raised
$27.3 million, according to the wall street journal. Obama banned corporations from funding
the inauguration. yet, wall street was “the biggest single source of private
donations“, giving a total of $5.7 million to the inauguration. about 90% of the
inaugural donations were from well-off donors, including wall street execs, according to the
wall street journal. a few weeks before announcing his re-election campaign, president obama
convened two dozen wall street executives, many of them longtime donors in the white house.

October, 2011 by John Rossomando

despite his rhetorical attack on wall street, a study by the sunlight foundation’s influence
project shows that president obama has received more money from wall street than any other
politician over the past 20 years. more money from wall street than any other politician
over the past 20 years, including former president george w. bush. obama and the dnc have
raised more than $14 million through april, 2012. making wall street the third most generous
industry donating to the president’s re-election effort = $14 million from the industry through
the end of april, 2011, the wall street journal reports, using data from the nonpartisan center for responsive politics

Washington, October, 2011 (UPI) – democratic president barack obama is blowing away his
republican challengers when it comes to soliciting donations on wall steet, fundraising
figures show. The president even out-raised mitt romney at bain capital, a private equity firm
romney co-founded, who pulled in $34,000 from 18 bain employees while obama took in
$76,600 from three bain employees. wall street “conflict” is more “collusion”.
“the whole idea of government is this: if enough people get together and act in concert, they
can take something and not pay for it”
– P.J. O’Rourke, Parliament of Whores: A Lone Humorist Attempts to Explain the Entire U.S. Government


Tesla is only profitable thanks to politics and tax subsidies by Christopher Koopman


March 25, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

Ed Morrissey: ge’s ability to generate $14.2 billion in profits, $5.1 billion in the u.s., and end
up getting back $3.2 billion from taxpayers has nothing at all to do with its political
connections nothing at all to do with its political connections and favorable breaks and
loopholes it has pushed through congress a review of company filings and congressional records
shows that one of the most striking advantages of general electric is its ability to lobby for,
win and take advantage of tax breaks over the last decade, g.e. has spent ten$ of million$ to
push for changes in tax law, from more generous depreciation schedules on jet engines to
green energy” credits for its wind turbines these measures allow g.e. to operate a vast leasing and
lending business abroad with profits that face little foreign taxes and no american taxes as long
as the money remains overseas company officials say that these measures are necessary for
g.e. to compete against global rivals and that they are acting as responsible citizens
“the assortment of tax breaks g.e. has won in washington has provided a significant short-
term gain for the company’s executives and share holders”
“regulatory filings show that in the last five years, g.e. has accumulated $26 billion in
american profits, and received a net tax benefit from the i.r.s. of $4.1 billion. critics say the
use of so many shelters amounts to corporate welfare, allowing G.E. not just to avoid taxes on
profitable overseas lending but also to amass tax credits and write-offs that can be used to
reduce taxes on billions of profit from domestic manufacturing. critics say that the assertive tax
avoidance of multinationals like g.e. not only shortchanges the treasury, but also harms the
economy by discouraging investment and hiring in the u.s.

jeffrey r. immelt, as his liaison to the business community and as the chairman of the president’s
council on jobs and competitiveness. Is designating g.e. head, immelt a case of “competition”
or “collusion”? this problem started long before barack obama came to washington
“when we see ONE company avoid paying any taxes thanks to tax breaks it helped engineer,
that means OTHER companies end up losing in the process. the government doesn’t just
structure the code to protect its allies and favored players. it also prioritizes enforcement,
thanks to the impossible task of applying the volumes of tax code to every entity. the massive,
incomprehensible tax code that allows politicians to curry favor and pick winner and losers in
the market. does anyone think that jeffrey immelt, with his obviously heavy interest in
maintaining the status quo, will lead obama to the kind of reform necessary to make that
happen? unfortunately in real life, thieves are rarely interested in catching other thieves, let
alone themselves. (“note: because i’m sure i’ll get complaints about it, the use of the term
“thief” is rhetorical/ symbolic only) i have absolutely no doubt that immelt and g.e. acted
completely within the law to avoid paying any taxes. that’s actually my point –
if the state “plays favorites” to big businesses that share the state’s agenda …
“the state can “punish” big businesses that do not share the state’s agenda


by kendra marr 9/23/11

“in many ways, boeing should be a boon to president barack obama in a faltering economy”
the aerospace titan opened a $750 million factory in south carolina and hired thousands of
workers to build the world’s most fuel-efficient commercial jet. the national labor relations
board has accused boeing of opening its south carolina shop in a “right-to-work” state to
retaliate against union worker strikes at its main manufacturing base in the seattle area
an obama appointee is now asking a judge to order boeing to relocate all 787 dreamliner production to washington state
Mitt Romney: “It’s an EGREGIOUS EXAMPLE of POLITICAL PAYBACK WHERE the president is able to pay back the unions for the hundreds of millions of dollars they have put into his campaigns at the expense of american workers,”
the nlrb agency is not seeking to shut down the new plant, but wants a judge to order boeing to
return all 787 assembly work to Washington. boeing says it opened the south carolina plant
specifically to build 787 airplane. boeing contends the lawsuit would effectively require the
company to close the $750 million plant and lay off thousands of new workers there
consultant scott reed: “boeing spent a billion dollars building a plant to create thousands of
jobs and it looks like the nlrb stuck their nose in and tried to pull the rug out”


by Chris Rufer March 23, 2015

“woodland, calif. – as someone who started a company that employs approximately 2,500
people in food processing and agribusiness, i used to wonder why so many americans
distrusted big business. i now have a good answer. i have observed too many of my fellow
business leaders blatantly work with the government to increase their profits at taxpayer
expense. a prime example is the federally-run export-import bank. its charter expires at the
end of june and businesses and lobbyists are lining up to persuade congress to reauthorize it”
“the export-import bank is a case study in corporate welfare”
“founded during the new deal, its mission is to “support jobs in the united states by
facilitating the export of u.s. goods and services. in practice, it offers taxpayer-backed loans,
guarantees and insurance to private companies. when a company profits from the bank’s
support, it pockets the money. if it defaults, taxpayers’ pockets get picked. the bank’s
supporters claim that it will put $14 billion back into the treasury over the next decade, a
number derived from federally mandated accounting methods. yet this analysis fails to
account for the market risk of the bank’s loans. the congressional budget office, using the
fair-value accounting method that is common in the private sector because it is considered more
accurate, estimates that the export-import bank will actually lose $2 billion over the next
decade – a $200 million annual tab for taxpayers. it’s private gain at the expense of public
pain, large companies in particular have taken a liking to it.
in 2013, roughly 93% of the bank’s loan guarantees by value benefited only five companies –
including caterpillar, general electric and other multinational corporations with hundreds of
millions or even billions of dollars in annual profits — according to the mercatus center,
a research center at george mason university. in 2012, 83% benefited a single company:
export-import also has a long history of assisting state-owned companies across the globe. it
argues that a loan to, say, the airline emirates will benefit the american economy because the
airline buys boeing’s planes, but the loan also gives the airline a competitive advantage over
its american rivals and transfers wealth to foreign states’ coffers. with the bank’s charter now
set to expire – it has been periodically renewed by congress, most recently in 2014 – these special
interests are desperate to keep export-import alive. last month, the exporters for ex-im
coalition organized a lobbying day on capitol hill, sharing a handout that claims the bank
supports jobs and small businesses, and provides a service that no private lender would end
this corporate welfare”“but their claims must be dissected”
“most important: the bank does not weigh the jobs it supports against those it destroys. By
export-import is actively eliminating american jobs. nor are the bank’s claims about being
critical to small businesses justified overall, fewer than 1% of america’s small businesses
receive support from the bank, according to the mercatus center. the other 99% are at a
competitive disadvantage with the ex-im elite.
chris rufer: end this corporate welfare. as for those select few, the bank’s data show that small
businesses received only 19% of its total financing in 2013. Even this is misleading: ex-im
defines small businesses as those having up to around $21 million in revenue or up to 1,500
employees – 1,450 more than the affordable care act’s definition. bank proponents will of course
point to the few companies that can’t obtain private financing as evidence of a supposed market
failure. But the private market’s refusal to finance some companies is a measure of its
competency in evaluating risk.
Federal bureaucrats often lack the same expertise or make decisions based on other
criteria — see the four ex-im employees who last year were suspended or removed “amid
investigations into allegations of gifts and kickbacks,” according to the wall street journal”
“given this record, the private market’s caution is wise, not wicked. oppose both the export-
import bank and the innumerable other examples of corporate welfare in washington. more
business leaders should follow suit. if they don’t, americans’ perception that big business
only serves its own interest will grow stronger, and free enterprise itself will become
increasingly endangered”


Tesla is only profitable thanks to politics and tax subsidies.
by Christopher Koopman June 3, 2013

the subject of a great deal of hype tesla motors, the california-based electric car start-up, has been
the subject of a great deal of hype with the recent news that it repaid its $465 million low-
interest loan from the department of energy, it’s now being heralded as a success story worthy
of redeeming the failures of a green-energy subsidy program that has included the likes of
solyndra, abound, ener1 and fisker automotive since then, tesla’s stock value has more than
doubled and the company is currently valued at around $12 billion. tesla’s success is ultimately
a case study in the perils of government-granted privilege, its financial success demonstrating
a reliance on political favoritism more than an ability to create value for custom tesla
motors would not have been created were it not for the generosity of politicians – if generosity is
the right term FOR spending taxpayers’ money.

The company began with a loan funded through the advanced technology vehicle
manufacturing program, which was signed into law by president bush. the loan was later
awarded after president obama took office along with the federal loan, tesla also relies on
support from politicians through a complex series of federal and state subsidies. For each
purchase of a new tesla acquired for personal use, the federal government offers a $7,500
federal tax credit. these subsidies have become so central to tesla’s business model that it
advertises them to customers as a way to cover the cost of a down payment mercatus center
economist matt mitchell has explained why privileges such as these are such a problem
mitchell notes that “when governments dispense privileges, smart, hardworking, and creative people are encouraged to spend their time devising new ways to obtain favors instead of new ways to create value for customers. the green subsidy program’s most successful investment to date is an electric car manufacturer that has yet to profit solely from the sales of its product
instead, it is a company built on loan guarantees, sustained on subsidies and profitable only through a system of credits designed to benefit electric car manufacturers at the expense of their competitors. Take away all of the recent hype surrounding tesla’s recent loan repayment, and you are left with a company built to cash in on the privilege and favors from politicians


Tesla CEO Elon Musk has guarded his business strategies and responded to the claims regarding his companies benefiting from $4.9 billion government subsidies
by George Zack Jun 3, 2015

tesla motors inc ceo, elon musk, defended his business strategies during an interview with
cnbc, and responding to the claims about his subsidiaries (solar city, space x, and tesla)
benefiting from $4.9 BILLION government subsidies, according to los angeles times
while being questioned about his business strategies and arguments arising over his companies
taking advantage of $4.9 billion in government subsidies, the ceo said that none of the
government subsidiaries are mandatory, however, “they are helpful”
the $4.9 billion government subsidiary included various elements such as government
incentives and grants, tax breaks, discounted loans, factory construction fund, and also
environmental credits that the upscale electronic vehicle (ev) manufacturer can sell
george zack: the government support fund also included tax credits and rebates to customers
buying evs along with solar panels. according to mr. musk, the grants and subsidies are usually
characterized in a wrong way to be either needed or unnecessary. he said: “both of these
positions are false. what incentives do is they are catalysts. they improve the rate at which a
certain thing happens. additionally, a report issued by international energy agency in the past
year revealed that the fossil fuels industry receives $550 billion annually as global government
subsidies. on the contrary, tesla’s ceo claimed that the incentives of $1.3 billion received by his
company to build a battery factory near reno, nevada is an insufficient amount
so how much is the government paying for musk’s business? here’s a breakdown of some of
the largest subsidies each company receives.tesla nevada doled out $1.3 billion in incentives to
woo tesla’s gigafactory, which will build lithium-ion batteries outside of Reno, at first, nevada
was only willing to offer its usual package, up to $700 million in incentives, but it eventually
upped the amount because of the 6,000 jobs the factory will create in the state. the federal
government gives tesla buyers a $7,500 federal income tax credit, while california grants a
$2,500 rebate. however, don’t expect the subsidies to last for long. the federal government
capped the $7,500 credit at a total of 200,000 vehicles per manufacturer.
the average tesla buyer makes over $300,000 annually, per the report. so far tesla buyers
have received an estimated $284 million in federal tax incentives and collected more than $38
million in california rebates. the electric car company has also collected more than $517
million from competing automakers by selling environmental credits. control of “private”,
“free” enterprise, with centralized government dictating “public interest” …
unlike communism, fascist government permits private enterprise, but under heavy state
regulation fascists seek a fusion of big business and big government.

“general motors is a health care provider that produces cars as a by-product.” Robert Reich, Clinton Labor Secretary



– OBAMA PLAYS the ‘FAIR SHARE’ CARD by Bobby Eberle
RICH PAY 40% of NATION’s TAX BURDEN, Hillary CLINTON Says It’s NOT ENOUGH by Scott A. Hodge
– BIDEN GAVE AVERAGE of $369 to CHARITY a YEAR by Matt Kelley

mark levin: “utopianism finds a receptive audience among the society’s malcontents “who
are unwilling or unable to assume responsibility for their own real or perceived conditions but
instead blame their surroundings, “the system” and others “they are lured by the false hopes
and promises of utopian improving the malcontent’s lot becomes linked to the
disparaging and diminishing the successful and accomplished becomes an essential tactic.
no one should be better than anyone else, regardless of the merits or value of his contributions”
“by exploiting human frailties, frustrations, jealousies and inequities, a sense of meaning and
self-worth is created in the malcontent’s otherwise unhappy and directionless life”
“simply put, equality in misery – that is, equality of result or conformity – is advanced as a just, fair and virtuous undertaking.”
Saul Alinsky:“the agitator’s job is first to bring folks to the ‘realization’ that they are indeed
miserable, that their misery is the fault of unresponsive governments or greedy corporations
mark levin: “liberty is inherently immoral, except where it avails equality on the campaign
trail, obama was highly critical of corporate executives and promised them nothing but tougher
regulation and higher taxes big tax increases masquerade as “restoring fairness to the
the democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.” – thomas jefferson

June 30, 2011

by Bobby Eberle April 14, 2011

bobby eberle: on the deficit, obama says ‘corporate jet owners’ should pay their fair share
barack obama:“as a country that values fairness, wealthier individuals have traditionally born
a greater share of this burden than the middle class or those less fortunate”
populist appeals to a “fair” market, antagonism towards a “free”market

Associated Press 9/18/2008

washington — democratic vice presidential candidate joe biden said that paying more in taxes
is the patriotic thing to do for wealthier Americans. we want to take money and put it back
in the pocket of middle-class people” biden said. hillary clinton states that she does not think
america’s rich are paying their fair share of taxes how much exactly is “a bit more” ???
“Despite a voluminous and often fervent literature on “income distribution,” the cold fact is that most income is not distributed: it is earned”- Thomas Sowell
“American prosperity and American free enterprise are both highly unusual in the world, and we should not overlook the possibility that the two are connected.“ – Thomas Sowell

by Scott A. Hodge The TAX FOUNDATION July 29, 2009

by Scott A. Hodge July 29, 2009

Table 1. Summary of Federal Individual Income Tax Data, 2008 (Updated October 2010)
Top 1% Number of Returns 1,399,606
Share of Income Taxes 38.02%
AGI Threshold $380,354 Average Rate 23.27%
Top 5% Number of Returns 6,998,029
Share of Income Taxes 58.72%
AGI Threshold $159,619 Average Rate 0.70%
Top 10% Number of Returns
Share of Income Taxes 69.94%
AGI Threshold $159,619 Average Rate 9.29%
Top 25% Number of Returns 34,990,145
Share of Income Taxes 86.34%
AGI Threshold $67,280
Top 50% Number of Returns 69,980,290
Share of Income Taxes 97.30% >$33,048
AGI Threshold $33,048 Average Rate 13.65%
Bottom 50% Number of Returns 69,980,290
Share of Income Taxes 2.70%
AGI Threshold $<$33,048


the tax code is “progressive” – the “rich” “haves” pay a far bigger, unequal “share” in income
taxes than the (poor-er) “have nots” the rich statistically pay more than their “fair” share,
but also make more (the rich get richer) the “rhetoric” of “conflict” liberal economists
criticize “trickle down” economics – does “trickle up poverty” work?
“EQUALITY” of OPPORTUNITY (everyone starts the same)
OUTCOME (everyone ends up with the same)
“PROPERTY is surely a RIGHT of MANKIND as REAL as LIBERTY” – John Adams
“The policy of the american government is to leave their citizens free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits” – Thomas Jefferson
“I think myself that we have more MACHINERY of GOVERNMENT than is necessary, too many PARASITES living on the LABOR of the INDUSTRIOUS.”
– Thomas Jefferson
“A wise and frugal government … shall NOT TAKE from the mouth of labor and bread it has EARNED. This is the sum of good government.” – Thomas Jefferson


CANDIDATE OBAMA: “Well, Charlie, what I’ve said is that I would look at RAISING the
CAPITAL GAINS TAX for purposes of FAIRNESS. Candidate Obama:“WE SAW an article
today which showed that the TOP 50 hedge fund managers made $29 billion for 50 individuals.
saul alinsky: “the agitator’s job is first to bring folks to the ‘realization’ that they are indeed
miserable, that their misery is the fault of unresponsive governments or greedy corporations
president obama cited las vegas trips as an example of corporate greed run amok
victor davis hanson: obama accuses jet-setting corporate grandees of draining the federal
treasury at the expense of “kids’ scholarships”? 340 planned conventions and business
meetings have been canceled there, costing the gambling mecca 36,700 hotel-room nights and
an estimated $130 million in non-gambling revenue. it was only a five-second soundbyte,
meant for wall street fat cats asking for government bailouts. you can’t get corporate jets.
you can’t go take a trip to las vegas or go down to the super bowl on the taxpayer’s dime,”
president barack obama said to a town hall meeting in elkhart, ind..

Military Pegs HOURLY Air Force One COST at $181,000 as Obama Sets Travel Record

Obama and Air Force One: It’s GOOD to have a 747 January 3, 2011
the average american could buy a house for the amount of money it takes to run air force one
every hour. President Obama, has spent more days abroad in his first two years than any other
president. they used air force one for their private vacation at a cost of $180,000 per hour and
it’s an 18 hour round trip. barack obama made the trip twice, so just the cost of two round trips
on air force one rang up to a grand total of $6.48 MILLION. on at least one airline trip in the
presidential fleet, the only passengers aboard were the first canine and his handler.
robert keith gray just wrote presidential perks gone royal: your taxes are being used for obama’s
re-election reveals how the cost of maintaining the first family has gone completely out of

a dog walker is also always on hand. one was reported to be paid $102,000 a year to walk and
pick up after the first-family’s canine. The British spent $57.8 Million on its royal family last
year. We Americans spent nearly $2 BILLION on HOUSING, TRANSPORTING,
ENTERTAINING, STAFFING, our First Family and paying a hefty portion of the president’s
campaign expenses”
OBAMA: CAMPAIGNER-in CHIEF ? In a political culture that long ago surrendered to the
permanent campaign, Obama has managed to take things to a whole new level. According to
statistics compiled, the president has already set a record for total first-term fundraisers —
191 — and that’s only through March 6. Measured in terms of events that benefit his reelection
bid, Obama’s total (inflated in part by relaxed fundraising rules) exceeds the combined total of
George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush, Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter
OBAMA: CAMPAIGNER-in CHIEF ? Middle East Burns, Economy Sputters, Obama Drops by Letterman obama tapes a letterman gig later today in new york city, and then attends a
fundraiser hosted by music stars jay-z and beyonce. Afterward, the President spoke to a
$12,500-per-family crowd of about 200 at a campaign event at the Waldorf Astoria. The visit to
the Big Apple was crowned by a $40,000-a-ticket dinner tonight hosted by Beyoncé and her
husband Jay-Z.

OBAMA: CAMPAIGNER-in CHIEF ? the president does not have TIME for a face-to-face
meeting with Netanyahu when the Israeli prime minister is in New York next week for the
opening of the United Nations General Assembly. President Obama raised millions tonight in
New York at two fundraisers, and he also got in his second visit with David Letterman since
taking office.It’s inexcusable that traffic on the Westside of Los Angeles will be
FUNDRAISERS. If it was for official state business, sure, but seriously inconveniencing
hundreds of thousands of drivers for several hours during peak rush hours SO A POLITICIAN

obama: campaigner-in chief ? all so a few fat cats can funnel money to politicians, presumably with the expectation they will get something in return.

last year [2010] obama flew in air force one 172 times, almost every other day.
By Mark Knoller CBS News June 17, 2012

Mark Knoller: “opponents see rounds of golf as an opportunity to charge a president is a
slacker, not focused on the responsibilities of his office. supporters cheer his ability to take a
few hours to refresh and revitalize. they accuse me of giving his critics ammunition to use
against him.”

(Breitbart) – according to a new report by the nonpartisan government accountability institute
(gai), president barack obama has spent over twice as many hours on vacation and golf (976
hours) as he has in economic meetings of any kind (474.4 hours).
president barack obama’s trip to africa (2013) is estimated to cost american taxpayers $100
million – a hefty travel expense that has sparked criticism as the federal government is dealing
with its sequester-related budget cuts. the obama africa trip cost upwards of $100 million, the
highest cost for any presidential vacation since bill clinton spent $50 million for a single
vacation and it wasn’t to arkansas. multiple trips to luxury vacation sites – martha’s vineyard
“it is hypocritical for president obama to fire gsa officials for wasteful conference spending,
while his family went on a luxury vacation in the costa del sol spain that cost taxpayers more
than $467,000 in transportation and security expenses. the new york times reported that those
on the trip included the first lady, one of her daughters and “two friends and four of their
daughters, as well as a couple of aides and a couple of advance staff members. judicial watch
president tom fitton said it took his group “two years and a lawsuit to get these documents out of
the obama administration.”

December 22, 2011 by Tiffany Gabbay
“was presidential pooch bo obama flown in from his hawaiian vacation early to pose for a
photo op with the president at a local petsmart store? white house dossier reports that bo showed
up at obama’s side wednesday shopping for dog treats at petsmart. But, according to the Chicago
Sun-Times, Bo had in fact flown to Hawaii with Michelle Obama and her daughters. The
Honolulu Star-Advertiser even quoted an eyewitness who said he had seen the Portuguese Water
Dog being walked in the tropical paradise. so why was bo posing for photo ops in d.c. with the
president? wh dossier attempts to make sense of it all:
“either these reports are mistaken, or bo was told his vacation was over and that he had to return
to the white house to keep a lonely president company – and participate in a silly photo op presenting obama as an average guy who likes to head out to the petsmart.”
if bo returned from hawaii, who paid for his flight? it’s possible he hitched a ride on a return flight of the air force plane that brought michelle from hawaii, which wouldn’t have really added much to michelle’s more than $100,000 price tag for her solo trip. or maybe he commandeered his own air force jet.
Michelle’s separate excursion from the president means that, even as the government prepares
to slash spending as the March 1 sequester approaches, taxpayers will be footing the bill for two
separate Obama vacations, paying for items like travel and the expensive security and staff
entourages that accompany them everywhere.

February 21, 2012 – ronald reagan spent most of his free time at his california
ranch. taxpayers covered the cost of approximately $8 million for presidential travel during
reagan’s first six years in office, according to the los angeles times. that amounts to
$1.3 million a year. for george bush the cost of flying air force one to his texas ranch was
approximately $56,800 per trip, for each of the 180 trips according to media matters

By Matt Kelley, USA TODAY 9/12/2008

“the bidens reported earning $319,853 last year, including $71,000 in royalties for his memoir,
promises to keep: on life and politics. over the decade, the bidens reported a total of $3,690 in
charitable donations, or 0.2% of their income. another study of wealthy households in 2005
found average yearly donations of $40,746 from people with incomes from $200,000 to
$500,000 per year according to a study released by the center on philanthropy at indiana
university, households who gave to charity averaged donations of about 3% of their income,
says patrick rooney, the center’s interim executive director”

“then-vice president al gore came under fire when his 1997 tax return showed only $353 in donations to charity”

“A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall LEAVE [let] THEM otherwise free to regulate their OWN pursuits of industry and improvement, …

“and part of what has happened is that those who are able to work the stock market and amass huge fortunes on capital gains are paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries. that’s not fair”
charles gibson:
“but history shows that when you drop the capital gains tax rate, the revenues go up”
candidate obama: “well, that might happen or it might not. it depends on what’s happening on wall street and how business is going”
tax rate cuts leading to increased tax revenues and overall prosperity:
1920s – COOLIDGE
1960s – KENNEDY
1980s – REAGAN
2000s – BUSH
outside toledo, ohio, candidate obama was approached by plumber joe wurzelbacher, who
asked obama if he believes in the american dream
wurzelbacher: “i’m getting ready to buy a company that makes $250-280,000 a year. your new
tax plan is going to tax me more, isn’t it? … the reason i ask you about the american dream, i
mean i’ve worked hard. I’m a PLUMBER. i work 10-12 hours a day and i’m buying this
company and i’m going to continue working that way. i’m getting taxed more and more
while fulfilling the American Dream”
candidate obama: “but what’s happened is … we’ve cut taxes a lot for folks like me who make
a lot more than 250. we haven’t given a break to folks who make less, and as a consequence,
the average wage and income for ordinary folks. we haven’t given a break … for ordinary
folks, the vast majority of americans, has actually gone down over the last eight years”
it’s not that i want to punish your success – i just want to make sure that everybody who is
behind you – that they’ve got a chance at success too”
Candidate Obama:”My attitude is that if the economy’s good for FOLKS from the BOTTOM
UP, it’s gonna be GOOD for EVERYBODY” liberal economists have always criticized
“trickle down” economics conservative economics are critical of obama’s liberal “trickle up”

“We are so much more rational about sports than we are about politics. No one considers it
“UNFAIR” that TIGER WOODS does so much BETTER than the AVERAGE golfer, or
RESENTS him for it, or ACCUSES him of “GOUGING” when he collects big bucks.” – Thomas Sowell

The COSTS of

Thomas E. Woods Jr.: “The MEDICARE DRUG”


by Jeremy Egerer October 21, 2015

Jeremy Egerer: “whatever the Bible says about the poor being blessed, their blessing may rest
entirely on the fact that christians today aren’t placing them under any obligations. they’re
blessed because they do inherit the earth, but only in the sense that they don’t have any rules to
follow, and only because they don’t have a god to give them any rules. the earth is theirs
because it’s theirs to squander. the western middle classes are only here to build it.

Consider the Golden Rule. the overwhelming majority of us have heard sermons about how
capitalists who succeed ought to be more giving to failing socialists and muslims and Africans.
but i’ve never heard a sermon about how socialists who fail should not be coveting and stealing
what belongs to capitalists. i’d love to hear pope francis get on a pedestal and tell the poor to
stop raising taxes on the productive because we should imagine ourselves in the richer man’s
shoes. it would be almost as if when jesus said do unto others as you would have them do unto
you, he might have actually been speaking to all of us instead of the wealthy minority (who
are always easy targets for an unusually demanding sermon). the truth of the matter is that
nearly every swindling demagogue takes the golden rule and applies it against the well-to-do
in functional neighborhoods with limited resources. such people rarely (if ever) admit that the
wealth of any single christian can be exhausted, and his neighborhood can be ruined, and
nobody will be better for it.
They never talk about how it feels to have something beautiful stolen from you by someone
who did not deserve it. they never talk about how it feels to have your neighborhood go to pot
because someone was being too generous to illegal aliens or layabouts on section 8. they never
ask how it feels to have to hire people who are useless and obnoxious, or to be slandered every
day for things you did not do, or to be constantly reminded about the horrible things your
ancestors did. nobody cares about the feelings or the safety or the rights of the “rich” (whom
we define as all white people), because we’ve bought into the lie that being “rich” means
being the target of jesus’s sermons”
But BEING POOR is NOT a VIRTUE. we might even go so far as to say that you never really
know how virtuous you are until you’re dealing with money and power. poverty is also NOT a
VICE. poverty is the result of injustice, ignorance, imprudence, imbecility, and indigence of
the poor or the people who actively oppress them, and if there are rich men who are rich for
their avarice, there are poor people who are impoverished for their uselessness”
“hell, according to the teachings of the apostles and contrary to the opinions of the covetous
majority, is not a place where men go because their wallets are full. it’s a place they go
because their hearts are corrupt. it’s for the poor people of the world who think the rules apply
only to men who’ve built things, and then aim to take what’s been built by forceful acts of
injustice. it’s for the pharisaical racial minorities who cherry-pick the commandments and
then apply them irrationally – to everyone but themselves”
“narrow is the way and straight is the path, and there are few who find it is a sermon you’ll hear
from any decent preacher. we have yet to hear any preachers remind the world that the


by Deana Chadwell December 6, 2014

The idea of fairness is one of the earliest moral ideas that children grasp.
If Little Steven sees his sister with a cookie, he’s going to throw a fit if he doesn’t get one,
too. You expect that in a little kid.
Grown-ups understand the more sophisticated concept of justice. Maybe steven’s sister ate
her broccoli and is being rewarded, maybe she helped wash the dishes and that is her wage.
Steven’s too little to GET THAT. Basically there are two faces to the concept of FAIRNESS:
fairness as in equality, and fairness as in justice.

FAIRNESS, as in EQUALITY, deals with OUTCOMES … that have to be FORCED.
Let’s say steven’s favorite aunt, nancy, takes pity on him and forces his sister suzy to share her
cookie. That’s NOT JUST – SHE EARNED IT and HE DID NOT.
But it is equal fairness, as in justice, deals with process with merit, with intrinsic value.
Suzy completed a task; she screwed up her face, squinted her eyes, held her nose then chewed
and swallowed the nasty vegetable. Her plate was clean and she had obeyed her parents.

Steven had just flat-out refused to be bribed into eating anything green.
Justice demands that he suffer the loss of the treat. that’s sad for him, but it is just because
equality is a lesser idea than integrity – it is NOT EQUAL to JUSTICE.
Equality suggests a NUMERICAL accounting. Justice suggests a MORAL or legal accounting.
Justice emphasizes action and accurate, truthful evaluation of that action.
Crowds comprehend the little boy level, the Steven level,
When we INSTITUTIONALIZE equality, some human beings have to IMPOSE that equality,
and therefore those people are, by necessity, above all others. We could decide to read into it
our own desires to return to childhood dependency and throw fits whenever life didn’t give
Aunt Nancy has eaten them ALL, and Suzy’s mom has gotten TIRED of BAKING cookies;
everything is even-steven, yes, but NO ONE WANTS an EQUAL AMOUNT of NOTHING.

by Selwyn Duke October 2, 2013

“take a look at the following list and tell me if anything strikes you: prudence, justice,
temperance, courage,faith, hope, charity. viewing these, the seven cardinal virtues,
anything make an impression? now try the seven heavenly virtues of: chastity, temperance,
charity, diligence, patience,kindness, humility” “anything? what strikes me is that equality is
not among them. scour great works, such as the bible, and you won’t find talk of equality.
not one bit – that is, unless you consider the communist manifesto a great work”
“one thing about virtues – which are defined as “good moral habits” – is that their exercise
does not require the cooperation, or compulsion, of another person”

“I can cultivate prudence, temperance, courage and the other virtues in myself, and i can do it all
by myself. so while a virtuous society is desirable, virtue can also be a purely personal goal
and this is one time when focusing on the self needn’t be selfish, for we should take the log out
of our own eyes before worrying about the speck in our brother’s.
BUT EQUALITY IS FAR DIFFERENT. just as there can be no numerical equality without
at least two numbers, there can be no human equality on an island with a population of one,
and while you could increase patience through PERSONAL CHANGE. INCREASING
EQUALITY NECESSITATES SOCIETAL CHANGE. it involves raising people up as much
as they’re able – which requires their cooperation – and insofar as they’re unable, it involves
bringing others down. this is where compulsion enters the equation.the point is that, unlike
with virtues, increasing equality is always an endeavor of the collective. another quality of
virtues is that, as aristotle noted, their cultivation is necessary for a happy life and lack of
virtue in the collective can make life harder, such as when the government stifles just
economic freedom (excessive regulation), suppresses truth (hate-speech laws) or imposes
some other aspect of tyranny”
we also want our survival needs fulfilled: enough food and water and a roof over our heads.
and we’d like the opportunity to pursue proper pleasures and dreams and exercise our creative
capacity but is actual “equality” necessary for happiness? consider income inequality. if bill
gates had never made his billions, it not only wouldn’t have put one more cent in your pocket,
society would be poorer because we wouldn’t have the jobs and productivity-enhancing
products he created
moreover, when the rich invest their money in stocks, companies are provided working capital.
the rich may put it in banks, too, and banks aren’t just money warehouses; they provide loans to
businesses. so both these activities facilitate economic growth and more job creation. given
this, what does it say about a person when he nonetheless wants the rich cut down to size?
well, it reminds me of friedrich nietzsche’s line in THUS SPAKE ZARATHUSTRA: “IF
The class-warfare warrior may claim fellowship with the poor, but often something else lies
deep in his heart: if there are rich people, HOW CAN I BEAR TO NOT BE A RICH
“like nietzsche, he is what he is; that his ire’s targets are greater or have more doesn’t make him
less. regardless, he’s only satisfied to be what he is if those who would have or be more don’t
exist. this is because of one or both of two deadly sins: pride and envy. the cures for these,
by the way, are the corresponding virtues of humility and kindness – not “equality”

be thankful equality isn’t necessary for happiness, too, because it is completely contrary to
nature. some species are more dominant than others; some unsuited to survival become
extinct; and within species some members are bigger, stronger or faster than others and
animals have their dominance hierarchies. a silverback leads a gorilla troop, a wolf pack has
an alpha male and female and chickens actually do have a pecking order. people are no
different. there are natural-born leaders and followers, alpha and beta personalities, and
individuals have different gifts and capacities.
as g.k. chesterton put it, if people ‘were not created equal, they were certainly evolved
unequal.’ whatever your belief about creation, group variation in physical being and
capacities is apparent. because this is an inherently unequal world, the actions of equality
dogmatists such as today’s liberals can be understood as rebellion against nature. this also
helps explain why they – from the french revolutionaries to the communists to today’s
liberals – practice tyranny.
when your agenda is so contrary to nature and, more to the point, man’s nature, people will
quite naturally act contrary to it. in fact, they will quite naturally be contrary to it. and since
people can only be what they are, the agents of unnatural agendas will often say they are not to
be. for no one likes having his plans spoiled, and these social engineers, enraged, will lash out
at those not “good enough” to conform to the program. this of course is everyone, and killing
fields are the ultimate result”
one might now wonder why liberals don’t apply their diversity tenet ‘embrace differences’ to
what really matters. after all, if you watch golf on tv, do you want to see ‘equality’, where
everyone would have to be a duffer, or the best? do you want ‘equality’ in an art museum or
ethereal beauty? gifts displayed by others are to be relished, reveled in and revered. and the
only thing preventing this is, again, those twin demons of envy and pride” and what of
equality DOGMA? it gave us the drab, cookie-cutter projects of communist eastern europe. it
breeds ugliness and mediocrity. equality is not a virtue. it is not a laudable goal. it can
and if anything deserving of the name civilization is to live, equality, as an aspiration, must

To put equality ahead of liberty is to war against human nature
by Victor Davis Hanson January 14, 2014

there is, in fact, a manly and lawful passion for equality which excites men to wish all to be powerful and honored. this passion tends to elevate the humble to the rank of the great;”
“but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak
to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level, and reduces men to prefer equality in
slavery to inequality with freedom” – alexis de tocqueville

Victor Davis Hanson: “in his famous admonition about the tyranny of the majority, tocqueville
went on to warn that “liberty is not the chief and constant object of their desires; equality is
their idol. they make rapid and sudden efforts to obtain liberty, and if they miss their aim resign
themselves to their disappointment; but nothing can satisfy them except equality, and rather
than lose it they resolve to perish”
if we keep tocqueville’s advice in mind, we can appreciate why and how the present war
against personal liberty in service to mandated equality may become the greatest danger of
the 21st century. the theaters of battle already extend to every segment of american life; and
every weapon is employed, from government coercion to the progressive media to the
orwellian effort to change the meaning of language itself. millions of americans have lost the
liberty to select their own type of health insurance, purchased on their own volition to best
match their own assessments of their particular needs.
“obamacare – the federal government’s redistributive effort to equalize health care for all –
sought to destroy the liberty of many millions in order to ensure a state-directed sameness in
care for all. note also how a redistributive plan that spiked costs, reduced care, and so far
has taken away more health coverage than it has provided is named the “affordable care act”
most initiatives that obama has embraced are characterized by going after a suspect group or
tradition ” … targeting particular businesses deemed not sufficiently socially sensitive to
workers, focusing on legal gun owners, eroding the military tradition in infantry service of
restricting women to non-combat roles. coercing schools that would discipline trouble-makers
in class, promoting the suppression of interest rates by the federal reserve to reward the many
who owe money and punish the fewer who saved some – all on the notion of helping the
proverbial “people”. such a thoroughgoing effort at enforcing ideas of fairness covers both
the important and the trivial: ”

the universities are probably society’s worst offenders. under the guise of seeking race, class
and gender equity, they have denied free expression through “speech codes. they have
undermined traditional liberal-arts curricula on the grounds that they were not sufficiently
sensitive to these same gender, race and class issues and they have placed their institutions —
from the selection of graduation speakers, to the hiring and promotion of administrators and
faculty, to the criteria for admitting students and the scale on which they are graded” …
in service not to academic excellence or even civil liberties, but to a perceived equality of
result. the effort to take away freedom, both violent and insidious, in order to ensure equality
of result has a sad history. from the degeneration of athenian democracy in the late fourth
century b.c. to the french revolution to, in the postwar era, the soviet-ization of eastern Europe
the destruction of civil societies in africa and latin america, the implosion of the european
union, the current mess in françois hollande’s france, and chaos in american cities like detroit”
the ancient poet hesiod noted, there are two sorts of human jealousies: the positive one of a
free society in which citizens are impressed by the singular works of some and thus redouble
their efforts to match or exceed them … and a destructive envy in which the many resent that
the few have something they do not, and thus redouble their efforts to either destroy them or
take away what they have acquired”
the problem with destroying liberty in service to mandated sameness is obvious, driven by
hesiod’s second, destructive envy. it has never worked, because it is contrary to human
nature – both man’s acquisitive habits and the fact that we are not all born into the world
equal in every respect. instead, forced equality erodes personal initiative, undermines the
rule of law, ruins the honesty of language, and requires a degree of coercion antithetical to a
free society. gun-control laws and the use of the bully pulpit and government protocols to
prevent law-abiding citizens from obtaining traditional firearms did not curb the murder rate in
chicago or Detroit. it only drove up the price of bullets, created panic buying, and ultimately will
result in more, not fewer, guns in the hands of citizens who are now angry that their
government slanders them as quasi-criminals. inflating the money supply, ending passbook
interest as we knew it, and taking on enormous government debt did not lead to a robust
recovery after the 2008–2009 recession. it led to a permanent recessionary cycle in which
over 90 million americans are simply not looking for work. most of them are now
dependent on their legislators’ populist efforts to force government to take on more debt for
their support
universities, after the radical changes in grading, admissions, hiring, administration, and
curricula of the 1970s and 1980s did not graduate superior students, offer more affordable
tuition, increase diversity of thought, and guarantee a more competitive curriculum of
excellence. just the opposite occurred: more student debt, less trust in the sanctity of grades,
more orthodoxy and restrictive speech codes, a far less instructive curriculum,”
more oppression of part-time and adjunct instructors in order to subsidize more race, class, and
gender overseers, and a general diminution in the value of a college degree”
to ensure that the masses could be protected from perceived climate change, the president
went after energy companies to the degree that he could by restricting new leases of gas and oil
on federal lands, and subsidizing companies deemed friends of the people because of their
bumper-sticker allegiance to green wind and solar power”
chaos resulted, both through the bankruptcies of subsidized crony capitalist green firms and
through less energy produced on federal lands. worse still, the elites who lead the war
against liberty in favor of progressive notions of mandated equality are themselves usually
exempt from the implications of their own ideology – a long american tradition, from fdr to the
kennedys to al gore. barack obama brags about the increase in oil and gas production on his
watch, as if he thought it a good thing and as if the public won’t notice that such increases came
on private lands, and only because they were beyond his reach.
sidwell friends, for all its liberal patina, would never allow disruptive students in its advanced
placement classes, or predicate discipline decisions on notions of race – as the obama
administration is currently attempting to force the public schools to do. when california’s
transgender law goes into full effect in the public schools, i doubt that the wealthy will wish to
follow suit in their private academies and thus put their eight-year-old daughters in facilities
shared with 14-year-old boys who deem themselves gender-ambiguous.
when barack obama swears that inequality is the greatest threat to american life, we do not
expect him to yank his girls out sidwell friends to share the d.c. public-educational
experience. we do not expect him in gestures of solidarity to cease playing at exclusive golf
courses with crony capitalists, we do not assume he will decry the wildly disparate salaries
in the nba and nfl, much less sermonize to his malibu supporters that their gardeners and
nannies need union protection. obamacare is as likely to exempt favorite companies and
unions as it is determined to cancel plans of those without influence. the pattern of the french
revolution’s grandees, the soviet nomenklatura, and the eu elite has always been to force
equality down the throats of free people while enjoying quite unequal lifestyles”
al gore, after all, did not refuse to sell his near-bankrupt company to a fossil-fuel-producing
gulf sheikhdom on the grounds that its old energy was bad for the people. instead he
desperately sought to unload the money-losing concern guided by principles that were elite to
the core: rush the sale through before higher capital-gains tax rates kicked in; ignore the illiberal
traditions of sunni authoritarian monarchies. worry not about the anti-american propaganda of al
jazeera in reporting on american soldiers at war; and postpone talk of a post-petroleum world
until the sale had cleared escrow and the petrodollars were safely in the gore account”

finally, the war to subordinate liberty is contrary to the idea of human freedom and thus
always demands ever more coercion. the longer obama remains well below a 50% approval
rating, the more we will witness mandates by executive fiat, the selective enforcement of
settled law, and controversial appointees selected on the basis of progressive ideology rather
than proven competence and administrative expertise. historically the reaction to state-
mandated equality is usually either flight — from the soviet union and the captive nations of
eastern europe, from present-day france, from detroit, from California, or a sort of
psychological cocooning, in which citizens fearful that they are in the crosshairs of progressive
government drop out, keep quiet, and hope their success can survive the taxman, the regulator,
the popular press, and the fury of the mob”the irony is that free people usually create far more
wealth than the coerced, which makes the lower echelons better off, a fact that reminds ‘equality’
moreover, in a free society, there are all sorts of forces — religion, constantly improving and
ever cheaper technology, family pressures, honor, shame, philanthropy that redistribute wealth
either naturally or through the consent of the giver, and far more effectively than creating a huge
government equalocracy that seeks power to bully others and exempt itself”

“the policy of the american government is to leave their citizens free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits” – thomas jefferson
“i think myself that we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious” – thomas jefferson
“the democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not” – thomas jefferson
“a wise and frugal government … shall not take from the mouth of labor and bread it has earned. this is the sum of good government” – thomas jefferson


“To say that ‘WEALTH in America is so UNFAIRLY DISTRIBUTED in America,’ as
Ronald Dworkin does, is GROSSLY MISLEADING when most wealth in the United States is
not distributed at all. People create it, earn it, save it, and spend it.“ – Thomas Sowell


“PREVENT” MISERY (collective salvation)
PROTECT “HAPPINESS” (individual enterprise)


The TYRANNY of “PUBLIC” ENVY (“eliminating” INequality)



Congress’s Community Reinvestment Act, aimed at helping the poor afford housing, did lead banks to make much riskier mortgage loans, a new study finds. By Peter G. Klein


slowly, relentlessly, from the 1980s on, mostly democrat-controlled congresses pushed quasi-
governmental entities to prod banks into ever more liberal loan policies, more liberal loan
policies that would allow “less qualified” loan applicants to obtain mortgages and – often for
the first time – purchase housing, regardless of whether they were financially able to carry
their mortgages. the problem became acute in the early 2000s as lower and lower down
payments and “liar loans” – loans that required little if any substantiating documentation –
became the norm. The bush administration – along with eventual gop presidential candidate john
McCain – tried to put an end to these practices, but to no avail. the bush administration proposed
a new agency charged with the financial oversight of both fannie mae and freddie mac:
rep. barney frank is blamed in certain quarters for spurring the financial crisis of 2008 by encouraging the government to make more loans to the poor. frank, the democrats and a substantial numers of republicans opposed legislation geared toward heading off the already-gathering fiscal storm. ”fannie mae and freddie mac are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said representative barney frank, the ranking democrat on the financial services committee. ”the more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”’

an excerpt from a congressional letter to president george w. bush, dated june 28, 2004, on
which congressmembers frank and nancy pelosi were the principal signatories: “we write as
members of the house of representatives who continually press the gses to do more in affordable
housing. until recently, we have been disappointed that the administration has not been more
supportive of our efforts to press the gses to do more.” we have been concerned that the
administration’s legislative proposal regarding the gses would weaken affordable housing
performance by the gses, by emphasizing only safety and soundness”

while the gses’ affordable housing mission is not in any way incompatible with their safety and
soundness, an exclusive focus on safety and soundness is likely to come, in practice, at the
expense of affordable housing. it now appears that, because congress has not been willing to
jeopardize the gse’s mission, the administration has turned to attacking the gses publicly.
our position is not based on institutional loyalty, but on concern for the gse’s affordable housing
function. we also ask you to support our efforts to push the gses to do more affordable
housing. in 2003, frank called fannie and freddie ‘fundamentally sound financially’ and
accused the bush administration of trying to “exaggerate a threat of safety… [to] conjure up
the possibility of serious financial losses to the treasury, which i do no see. the mortgage
implosion started playing out a scant four years after frank’s cynical pronouncement
a year later, frank said talk of financial problems at fannie and freddie were “an
artificial issue created by the administration i don’t think we are in any remote danger her
as fannie and freddie – overleveraged with risky mortgages they’d encouraged and facilitated –
we’re about to go over the cliff, frank attacked president george w. bush’s call for rreform as
‘inane. yet, when fannie and freddie went belly up in 2008, frank voted for the same bush
administration reforms that could have averted the bankruptcies of fannie and freddie
in announcing his plans to retire from congress at the end of 2012, frank offered a
characteristically detailed and spirited defense of his actions, and cast blame at republicans for
a failure to acknowlege. frank acknowledged that he did not see the financial crisis coming
and believed that government-sponsored fannie mae and freddie mac were “doing well” until
2003. however, frank said that in 2004, he became concerned about the growth in the market
for subprime loans, those made to borrowers with weak credit. frank noted that democrats had
little ability to do much about questionable mortgage lending practices or the structure of
fannie and Freddie. that’s because republicans controlled the house of representatives from 1995
until 2006. democrats took over the house in 2007. i was late in recognizing the problem,”
frank said at a news conference. “but it was when i was in the minority.”
“the kinds of subprime loans that (caused) a problem for people are now illegal,” frank said
barney frank: don’t blame me for fannie, freddie problems.

half the harm that is done in this world is due to people who want to feel important. They don’t
mean to do harm – but the HARM does not INTEREST them. Or they do not SEE it, or they
JUSTIFY it because they are absorbed in the endless struggle to THINK WELL of


Congress’s Community Reinvestment Act, aimed at helping the poor afford housing, did lead banks to make much riskier mortgage loans, a new study finds.
By Peter G. Klein December 28, 2012

The austrian business cycle theory explains the general pattern of the boom-bust cycle – credit
expansion, lowered interest rates, malinvestment, crash, liquidation — but the particulars
differ in each historical case to explain particular episodes, we appeal to specific technological,
regulatory, political, legal, or other conditions. there has been a persistent dispute among
mainstream economists about the role of government housing policy particularly
the community reinvestment act which was used, in the 1990s, to make banks increase their
lending to particular low-income neighborhoods

paul krugman asserts that the “community reinvestment act of 1977 was irrelevant to the
subprime boom. actually, no. a new nber paper (gated) on the cra is causing quite a stir.”
authored by four economists from nyu, mit, northwestern, and chicago, the paper is the first to
use instrumental-variables regression to distinguish changes in bank lending caused by the
cra from changes that would likely have happened anyway. the results suggest that cra
enforcement did, contra krugman, lead banks to make substantially riskier loans than
raghu rajan: “the key then to understanding the recent crisis is to see why markets offered
inordinate rewards for poor and risky decisions. rajan is an indian economist who serves as
the chief economic adviser to the government of india. he also serves as eric j. gleacher
distinguished service professor of finance at the booth school of business at the university of
chicago. rajan is also a visiting professor for the world bank, federal reserve board, and
swedish parliamentary commission
“irrational exuberance played a part, but perhaps more important were the political forces
distorting the markets. the tsunami of money directed by congress, worried about growing
income inequality, towards expanding low income housing, joined with the flood of foreign
capital inflows to remove any discipline on home loans and the willingness of the fed to stay
on hold until jobs came back, and indeed to infuse plentiful liquidity if ever the system got into
trouble … “eliminated any perceived cost to having an illiquid balance sheet.”
i’d reverse the order of emphasis — credit expansion first, housing policy second — but rajan is
right that government intervention gets the blame all around.”

“bailing out people who made ill-advised mortgages makes no more sense that bailing out people who lost their life savings in las vegas casinos” – Thomas Sowell



Arthur C. brooks is an american social scientist and musician. he is the president of the american enterprise institute. he is best known for his work on the junctions between culture, economics and politics

In 2010, Brooks published The BATTLE: How the Fight between Free Enterprise and Big Government Will Shape America’s Future in which he lays out a MORAL VISION for the resurgence of the IDEALS of individual liberty, equal opportunity, entrepreneurship and self-reliance that have formed the American identity
“I also show that it’s an EXPRESSION of AMERICAN VALUES, and, thus, that a FIGHT FOR FREE ENTERPRISE is very much a FIGHT for OUR CULTURE

Arthur Brooks: “all throughout the [housing] crisis, president obama and members of
congress have emphasized the role of private sector greed in bringing about the financial c
ollapse. but in point of fact, the economic crisis was caused in large part by the government
itself. the government’s failure is most blatant in the implosion of fannie mae and freddie m
ac. through these two government-sponsored enterprises (gses), politicians pulled off some of
their most dramatic, and costly, efforts at social engineering. at the same time, they enriched
their political campaigns, and in the process, they perverted the most basic rules of the free
enterprise system.

over the years, the government has used fannie and freddie as tools of social engineering. both
institutions had ‘affordable housing’ quotas. government regulators gave the two institutions a
clear mandate: expand home ownership by increasing the level of lending to low-income
homebuyers. congress and the white house pushed fannie and freddie in the 1990 to buy up
more and more loans made to riskier and riskier motgage borrowers. if you couldn’t get a
loan, the clinton administration believed, it might be evidence not simply of bad credit, but of
something more sinister: discrimination. this is statist thinking, of course: private markets are
never just”. barack obama: “if you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that.” july, 201
they are always a ruse for hurting the vulnerable and helping the powerful – and government
always needs to fix the problem. fannie and freddie were used by the government to stimulate
more loans to people who had bad credit. they did this by announcing their intention to buy
these loans if banks and mortgage companies would originate them. basically, it was like the
government telling banks to make lousy loans and then taking these loans off the bank’s hands
for more than they were really worth.
later, they were shocked – shocked! – to learn that banks were making overly risky loans”

Among the biggest lies of the welfare states on both sides of the Atlantic is the notion that the government can SUPPLY the people with things they WANT but cannot AFFORD. Since the government gets its resources from the people, if the people as a whole cannot afford something, neither can the government.” – Thomas Sowell

at the same time, the federal reserve was pursuing a super-low interest rate policy that pushed
down mortgage rates and seemed to make home-ownership more affordable. americans would
otherwise have rented … now bought more house than they could afford, and with little or
nothing down. home prices began to rise precipitously from the increased demand, and the
now-famous housing bubble quickly inflated. without fannie and freddie – and without a
little push from our government – this would not have happened. banks and investors aren’t in
the business of losing money by lending to people who are unlikely to pay them back
predictably, when housing prices stopped rising and mortgage payments had to be made,
people began to default. those holding subprime mortgages defaulted at ten times the rate of
those who held prime mortgages. anybody surprised by this was wither willfully ignorant
(your Congressman) OR was unable to follow what was really going on (most of the general
before bursting, the bubble promoted by the government infected the whole housing market
the federal reserve kept interest rates low. private firms rushed to compete in the secondhand
mortgage market with fannie and freddie. and banks made more and more high-risk loans.
as a result, house prices increased by double digits in cities all over the country. for years house
prices rose and never fell and as tends to happen in such circumstances, people began to believe
that a bubble was not a bubble but real value. housing professionals even argued the absurd –
that housing prices could not fall nationwide. it’s bad enough that politicians focus on wall
street’s role in the crisis instead of their own.

but it’s even more galling that many congressmen – perhaps your congressman – actually
profited from fannie and freddie’s sins. congress was well warned of the risks that fannie and
freddie were creating. in 2005 federal reserve chairman alan greenspan warned congress
that action was needed on the gses. unchecked, fannie and freddie would ‘create ever-growing
potential systemic risk down the road. we are placing the total financial system of the future
at a substantial risk. in response to greenspan’s warning, the senate banking committee passed
a serious fannie and freddie reform bill in 2005 … but it was never made into law.”

one who helped kill the bill was connecticut’s senator christopher dodd. this shouldn’t surprise
anyone, though – the powerful chariman of the senate banking committee had received more in
campaign contributions from employees and pacs at fannie and freddie than any other
senator. the second-biggest recipient of fannie and freddie funds was at the time the junior
senator from illinois, barack obama. contributions from fannie and freddie were not limited to
these senate democrats … fannie and freddie had friends all over capitol hill.”

arthur brooks: “but the politicians never learn – or at least they hope the voters never catch
on. the government is the principal cause of the cause. yet we have allowed our elected leaders
to cover their tracks, blame others and profit personally. indeed, so confident are they that we
won’t figure out the truth that they offer us an enlarged government as the solution to the
problems they have created.”
according to the obama narrative, government was at fault in one way – it wasn’t big enough
under bush. over and over again in the campaign, obama claimed that the meltdown was due to
the lack of government oversight and insufficient financial regulation. if only there had been
more regulators watching the banks more closely, the economy wouldn’t have collapsed.”
there is no evidence to support this argument. the data point in exactly the opposite direction.”
“in fact, regulatory spending and staffing actually rose faster during the bush
administration than during the clinton administration. and here’s the most inconvenient fact of
all: the financial sector where the financial crisis began and where it has had the most serious
impact was not deregulated during the bush years. In fact, the most heavily regulated
institutions in the financial system – commerical banks – were at the very center of the crisis.
the crisis happened despite an extensive, intrusive regulatory framework, not because the
framework did not exist. so there was no lack of financial regulation under bush.

but what if there had been more regulation-1940s-style limits on banking and financial firms?
the answer is that nothing would have changed. regulation is useless if regulators cannot
understand the risks at hand or catch bad behavior. they can’t catch bad behavior – not even
overt fraud about which they were repeatedly warned. case in point: bernard madoff. for
years a federal whistleblower had tried to alert the s.e.c. to madoff’s scheme”
the whistleblower detailed his findings for investigators, but they failed to uncover any
wrongdoing. they had every red flag in the world,” says a lawyer for madoff’s victims – ‘even
with a map an a flashlight, they couldn’t find it.’ in short, we’re going to get more regulation
and bureaucracy. but more government does not mean we will be safe. on the contrary, it will
most likely give us a false sense of security, especially when a culprit in the crisis is the
government that creates the new rules and carries them out.”
“obama … wanted the public to believe the second component of his story about the economic
meltdown: the government understands the financial crisis and can solve it with aggressive
action. the trust in economic officials is misplaced. there is little evidence that the people
guiding our economy understand the dynamics of the current crisis well enough to fix it. as vice
president joe biden put it, we and everyone else misread the economy. the truth is that the
government has not learned from its mistakes. even at the bottom of the hole, it continues to
thomas sowell: “politicians get to call the shots but, when their bright ideas lead to disaster,”
they can always BLAME those who OWN BUSINESSES in the PRIVATE SECTOR.
politically, it is heads-i-win when things go right, and tails-you-lose when things go wrong”

the obama narrative’s fiction about the innocence of homeowners is almost as pernicious as its
fiction about the innocence of government. ordinary citizens were merely victims of
avaricious bankers and predatory mortgage lenders. according to barney frank, people were
misled, were deceived or were in other ways the victims of unfair lending preactices.”
it’s a comforting, populist message, but also an alarmingly pernicious one that dispenses
entirely with any respect for personal responsibility. everyone seemed to be getting easy
credit. mortgage brokers may have been too eager to lend, and their standards had been
corrupted by fannie and Freddie, but many borrowers, far from being victims, were often too
ready to take loans they shouldn’t have, chasing the lure of easy profits on rising house
the data show an amazing pattern of malfeasance and irresponsibility by millions of
american homebuyers. one study found that in the run-up to the crash, up to 70% of early
mortgage defaulters had made fraudulent representations on their original loan applications.
they lied, went bankrupt and walked away from their debt and many people who walked
away from their mortgages didn’t have to. economists call this ‘strategic foreclosure’ and
have estimated that at least a quarter of foreclosures were perfectly able to stay in their homes
but elected not to simply because their homes turned out to be a bad deal. the result: banking
elites and “poor” with bad credit benefit, everyone else screwed. there are many who find a
good alibi far more attractive than an ACHIEVEMENT. For an achievement does not settle
anything permanently. We still have to prove our worth anew each day: we have to prove that
we are as good today as we were yesterday. But when we have a VALID ALIBI FOR NOT
ACHIEVING ANYTHING we are fixed, so to speak, for life.” – Eric Hoffer


By Antony Davies, James R. Harrigan June, 2012

ANTONY DAVIES is an affiliated senior scholar at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University and an associate professor of economics at Duquesne University.
JAMES R. HARRIGAN holds a Ph.D. in political science and is a fellow of the Institute of Political Economy at Utah State University.

Absent congressional action, the interest rates on federally subsidized student loans will double
to 6.8% on july 1, 2013. both president barack obama and former gov. mitt romney have urged
congress to act before that deadline,“but no one seems willing to state the obvious: the problem
is not the interest rate but that the federal government subsidizes student loans at all.”
the anatomy of the mortgage crisis is simple. the government, in a fit of social engineering
spanning decades, established fannie mae and freddie mac to make real the dream of home
ownership for working class Americans.

beginning in 1996, the department of housing and urban development told fannie and
freddie that more than 40% of their loans had to go to low-income borrowers.
tax breaks followed. finally, starting in the early 1990s, the federal reserve pushed interest rates to historically low levels, making mortgages lower. the net result of this was very predictable. people took out more mortgages, increasing numbers of mortgages went to low-
income people, and the government became a major lender in mortgage markets. In 1990,
fannie and freddie held one of every four outstanding mortgages. By 2003, THEY HELD
Between 2001 and 2006, the FRACTION OF NEW MORTGAGES THAT were
SUBPRIME TRIPLED and housing prices soared -just as one would expect from a market
flooded with cheap money. with the government using fannie and freddie to transfer
mortgage risk from private banks to u.s. taxpayers, and with the u.s. congress minding the
store, mortgage lenders didn’t have to care about the riskiness of the loans they made. all
private banks had to do was to make loans, pocket the profits, and push the loans down the
line where the government waited to pass the default risk on to taxpayers.
the student loan crisis is no more complicated were bankers greedy? SURE, but THAT
the difference is that, before the bubble, bankers were also cautious. profit appealed to their
greed. risk appealed to their caution the balancing forces of greed and caution -profit and risk –
are what cause a free market to produce the right amount of loans.

what changed was that government meddling removed caution by separating loan profits from
loan risks. the government forced taxpayers to shoulder mortgage risks while allowing banks
to keep mortgage profits. government created the conditions for wholesale failure. and failure
ensued. [the “law” of unintended consequences.] just as the government sought to socially
engineer people into houses, it now seeks to engineer them into higher education congress
established sallie mae. in 1972 to encourage banks to loan more money for college
the affordable care act of 2010 allowed the government to loan money directly to students
the following year the taxpayer relief act extended tax breaks to student loan borrowers
predictably, the federal reserve kept interest rates at historically low levels, making college loans
cheaper and the price of a college education soared. just as one would expect from a market
flooded with cheap money by law, lenders cannot even deny stafford and perkins loans (types
of federal student loans) based on the borrower’s credit or employment status. what other reason
is there to deny a loan? and just as home buyers took out loans to speculate on houses they
could never hope to afford. students are taking out loans to cover educations they often
cannot complete and which often do not hold value in the market even when completed.
government meddling has again separated profit from risk
universities get to keep the tuition profits while taxpayers shoulder the risk of students not
paying back their loans. once again government has created the conditions for wholesale
failure, and failure is upon us. From 1976 to 2010, the prices of all commodities rose 280%.
the price of homes rose 400%. private education? a whopping 1,000%. home buyers had
two options: declare bankruptcy or sell their houses to pay down most of their loans.
students don’t have either of these options. it’s illegal to absolve student loan debt through
bankruptcy, and you can’t sell back an education. the simple fact of the matter should be
obvious by now: government created this mess, in both instances, by forcing the market to
provide loans it would not have granted otherwise. as is its custom, government did by force
what no private lender would have ever done by choice. as with the last bubble, politicians will
blame the “greed” of the marketplace.

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience“ – C. S. Lewis

the student loan government-university complex ???
how many more bubbles must we endure before we realize that the problem isn’t greed and it isn’t markets?
the problem is government interference.
“if it moves, tax it. if it keeps moving, regulate it. and if it stops moving, subisidize it” – Ronald Reagan
“Among the biggest lies of the welfare states on both sides of the Atlantic is the notion that the government can SUPPLY the people with things they WANT but cannot AFFORD. Since the government gets its resources from the people, if the people as a whole cannot afford something, neither can the government.” – Thomas Sowell


fascist regimes subordinate free enterprise to perceived national interests

“Above this race of men stands an IMMENSE and tutelary POWER, which takes upon itself
alone to SECURE their gratifications and to WATCH OVER their fate. That power is
absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild. It would be like the authority of a PARENT
if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; BUT IT SEEKS, on the

… “it is well content that the people should rejoice, provided they think of nothing but
rejoicing. for their happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole
agent and the only arbiter of that happiness; it provides for their security, foresees and supplies
their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their
industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances: what remains,
but to spare them all the care of THINKING and all the TROUBLE of LIVING? – Alexis De Tocqueville

“To say that ‘WEALTH in America is so UNFAIRLY DISTRIBUTED in America,’ as
Ronald Dworkin does, is GROSSLY MISLEADING when most wealth in the United States is
not distributed at all. People create it, earn it, save it, and spend it.“ – Thomas Sowell


“PREVENT” MISERY (collective salvation)
PROTECT “HAPPINESS” (individual enterprise)



The TYRANNY of “PRIVATE” GREED(allowing INequality)
The TYRANNY of “PUBLIC” ENVY(“eliminating” INequality)



“The BATTLE is ON, and NOTHING LESS THAN the SOUL of AMERICA is AT STAKE.” – Arthur C. Brooks

FASCIST vs. FREE MARKET ECONOMICS The Battle of Visions Collective Utopia (Progress) vs Private Enterprise (Profits)

ARTHUR C. BROOKS is an American social scientist and musician. He is the president of the AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE, a nonpartisan think tank. He is best known for his work on the junctions between culture, economics, and politics
In 2010, Brooks published The BATTLE: How the Fight between Free Enterprise and Big Government Will Shape America’s Future in which he lays out a MORAL VISION for the RESURGENCE of the IDEALS of individual liberty, equal opportunity, entrepreneurship and self-reliance that have formed the AMERICAN IDENTITY
arthur brooks: “in my book i don’t just demonstrate that free enterprise is the most efficient
way of organizing an economy – which it is. i also show that it’s an expression of american
values, and, thus, that a fight for free enterprise is very much a fight for our culture.”
the main issue in the war between free enterprise and [big government] statism is not
material riches – it is human flourishing. this is a battle about nothing less than our ability to
pursue happiness” ”the day of individual happiness has passed” – hitler

brooks argues that virtually all americans share two principles. “they demand a fair society.
and they believe we should be lifting up those in poverty.” what exactly does a “fair society”
look like? what is the best way to “lift up” those in poverty? what exactly is the role of
government towards a fair society and lifting up those in poverty ?
In 2009, 63% of americans agreed that, “government policies should promote opportunity
by fostering job growth, encourging entrepreneurs and allowing people to keep more of what
they earn. but 31% disagreed, favoring instead, “government policies should promote
fairness by narrowing the gap between rich and poor, spreading the wealth and making sure
that economic outcomes are more equal. arthur brooks divides america into this 60+
percentage “majority” and the “30% minority. this fundamental difference in worldview
leads to a major disagreement about the role of government

63% of americans agreed that, “government policies should promote opportunity allowing
people to keep more of what they earn.” 31% favoring “government policies of “fairness” by
narrowing the gap between rich and poor,
63% for “free enterprise” and economic growth vs. the 31% favoring government policies
of “fairness” through government regulation and re-distribution of wealth“this is america’s culture war in a nutshell”
“the battle is on, and nothing less than the soul of america is at stake” – arthur c. brooks
“free market” vs. fascisteconomics

obama’s definition of “fairness” is income distribution, but abundant evidence shows that
nearly 90% of americans believe fairness is treating people according to merit.
mr. obama has articulated a powerful moral argument for his policies, which he elevates far
above those of his opponents. that is in essence the key to president obama’s success – “obama
has been working assiduously to change the conventional wisdom about the fairness of the
american system. they are working for a better life for ordinary people by standing up to
rich people, taking money away from them and spreading it around.

in exit polls nearly 60% of americans said that the economic system is only fair to the very rich. The attack on wall street, on greedy bankers and on capitalism generally is crucial
to his claim” what do they believe to be the greatest problem of poor people in america?
insufficient income what would be evidence of a “fairer” society? greater income equality
for obama and his 30% coalition,money buys happiness, as long as it is distributed fairly.
that is why re-distribution of income is a fundamental goal. the “free market” is inherently corrupt, lacking in “merit” or “morality” – those who benefit have not “earned” their success “fairly” and why free enterprise, which always seems to reward some people and penalize others, cannot be trusted to get things right.”
“free market” enterprise does not produce “fair” outcomes or results. income inequality is
the issue that most animates president obama and the international left wing. according to karl
marx, inequality would lead the working classes to revolt, and the final state of human
historical development would come when there were no more social classes and no economic
Did you know this loser let his kids starve to death because he wouldn’t work?
Did you also know that millions of our idiot college kids think that this moron was a hero?
they do not believe that socio-economic inequality stems primarily from inequalities of
[individual] merit or effort. and because they believe inequality makes people unhappy
(miserable, actually) through no fault of their own, it is a force of injustice in the world”
in fact, many assume that inequality causes unhappiness
saul alinsky: “the agitator’s job is first to bring folks to the “realization” that they are indeed miserable” (with inequality) that their misery is the fault of unresponsive governments and/or greedy corporations”
Arthur Brooks:”it sounds logical and appears to be borne out by the data: poorer people in almost every community tend to be unhappier than richer people”
inequality brings misery and is unjust. they do not believe that merit, hard work and
excellence explain inequality in large part. rather, they talk first and foremost about prejudice,
luck and advantage-taking as the explanations for why some have so much more than others”
a world defined by economic equality, their argument then goes, will be both a fairer and a
happier one. this proposition was demonstrated in a famous experiment at harvard’s school of
public health. In 1995, a group of students and faculty were asked to choose between earning
$50,000 per year while everybody else earned $25,000 or earning $100,000 per year while
others made $200,000 the results showed that those materialistic perquisites matter little to most
people: 50% chose the first option, forgoing $50,000 per year simply to maintain a
position of relative affluenceand for obama and his colleagues, bringing the top down is as
good as bringing the bottom up, because greater equality if the goal, and it doesn’t matter all
that much how you get there. one influential left-wing economist explained it like this: “if we
make taxes commensurate to the damage that an individual does to others when he earns
more … it is efficient to discourage work effort that makes society worse off”
in plain english, tax successful people punitively so they’ll work and earn less”
wurzelbacher: “the reason i ask you about the american dream, i mean i’ve worked hard. i’m a
plumber. i work 10-12 hours a day and i’m buying this company and i’m going to continue
working that way. i’m getting taxed more and more while fulfilling the american dream”
candidate obama: “it’s not that i want to punish your success – i just want to
make sure that everybody who is behind you – that they’ve got a chance at success too”
candidate obama: “my attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up,
it’s gonna be good for everybody”
The KINDERGARDEN of EDEN by Even Sayet
essential to the true believer’s blueprint for utopia, and a central point of every leftist ideology
from before lenin to after lennon, is having no possessions. this is because possessions serve as
tangible evidence of having engaged in the better (more productive) behaviors. since the
modern liberal’s paradise requires denying the existence of the better, all behaviors –
hard work and sloth, ingenuity and chicanery, sobriety and drug addiction – must be equally and
indiscriminately rewarded/ like the small child, one of the “benefits” of this “paradise” is that “all the people (are) living for today”
to usher in utopia, the true believer knows that he must squelch all inquiry into the past, for
history provides ample evidence of the existence of the better. he must severe all ties to the
future, for the modern liberal knows that caring for the well-being of one’s children leads to
seeking out and championing the better, if not for oneself than for one’s progeny. this is why
the modern liberal knows, and lennon declares that heaven on earth requires ‘all the people
living for today’. in the modern liberal paradise that lennon describes to perfection, there is no
reason to try to better oneself because there is no such thing as the better”
“you can, in fact, spend your life just ‘being yourself’ and doing ‘whatever ‘feels good’ at
any given moment, for no matter what you do, you will be equally rewarded. lennon sums up
the true believer’s blueprint for utopia perfectly when he promises a return to paradise, but only
once anything and everything that mankind values has been devalued that there’s ‘nothing to
die for. the reality of the paradise that is childhood is where neither toil nor intelligence is much required and the adults absorb all of the consequences of stupidity.
utopians imagine economic “eden” the idol of equality & “logic” of leveling
evan sayet uses the example of bruce springsteen’s songs to illustrate his thesis
what is the worst moment in the small child’s life? it’s that moment when one of his parents
leans out the window and shouts “playtime’s over; come in and do your chores”.
Because the right thinker believes in the existence of the better, he sees having a job as a way
to fulfill his life’s purpose. he can make a better world by producing things and doing it
well in “the reality of childhood in the modern liberal era … even less is asked, more provided
… childhood isn’t over”
a job is the one and only thing that prevents him from his life’s purpose. the purpose of the
small child’s daily life having fun and doing whatever feels good. if you listen to springteen’s
lyrics they are not mature thoughts about the role work plays in the grown-up’s life. they are
the small child’s rantings – albeit in adult-sounding verbiage about how horrible it is that the
grown-up doesn’t get to spend all of his time playing when adam and eve suddenly fount
themselve evicted from paradise (just as when the child finally becomes an adult), there were
only two things they needed to do that they’d never needed to do before. suddenly deprived of
god’s generous welfare, they had to provide for themselves by using their intellect to seek out
the better things and then they had to toil to bring those better things about. since these are the
two things that leaving paradise required … that the modern liberal is convinced are keeping
him – and the world – from returning to it”

we’ve already discussed … antipathy toward intelligence; but still to be discussed is his
disdain for toil, which is equal in every way. the right-thinker’s goal in life is to better
himself and in turn the world, having a job offers him the chance to fulfill his purpose. having
a job – and bettering himself at that job – then, is filled with great and profound rewards for
the men and women of god and science. the modern liberal, … not believing in the existence of
the better, can see no upside to toil … having a job is nothing other than unmitigated hardship.
bruce springsteen – dubbed ‘the working man’s troubadour … describes the last springsteen
man to have ever worked for a living. his father douglas: daddy worked his whole life for
nothing but the pain.
since the modern liberal’s purpose in life is to just ‘be himself’ and to do only that which ‘feels
good’ to him at any given moment, having a job is the one and only thing that constrains him
from fulfilling his life’s work. this makes having a job not just ‘hard work’, but nothing less
than soul stealing”
“this supposed champion of the working man in which someone with a job isn’t going
through a living hell because had to stop playing long enough to do a day’s work. in one song,
‘factory’, springsteen takes us through a day in the life of a factory worker – this despite the fact
suggest what a clever and articulate man/child thinks it might feel like if he were ever able to
stop playing (the guitar) long enough to earn his keep. SPRINGSTEEN IMAGINES IT [A
JOB] the way a SMALL CHILD might imagine it: horrific, joyless, colorless and dead, like
that moment when the five-year-old’s parent leans out the window and yells: ‘playtime’s over.
come in and do your chores. springsteen believes [jobs] stripped these ‘men’ of their
identities and left them with less humanity than a piece of cold, hard steel. the modern liberal is
convinced that anyone who works for a living must fall into one of only three categories: too
stupid to know, too desparate to care or too greedy to mind”.
actors, like small children, spend their days pretending to be doing things, with no more cost
to them in being wrong than there is to a five-year-old child being wrong about how tea for here
tea party is made to the modern liberal, anyone who is so soulless and in so much pain as those
who work for a living must be … on the verge of committing horrific acts of violence. the
modern liberal knows this because he knows that he would surely go insane and become violent
if he were ever so constrained from his life’s purpose by having to go to work now and then.
what convinces the influence that the tea party is constantly on the verge of violence? it is
simply this: the tea party is a movement comprised of people who have jobs.
conversely, have you ever wondered why, despite the body count, the multiple rapes and the
assorted other violence at the occupy wall street ‘protests’ … believe the participants to be so
peaceful. it’s because it’s a movement comprised of folks who don’t have jobs. the
‘protestors’ are just ‘being themselves’ and doing whatever ‘feels good’ to them, and therefore
… must have the innocent souls of small children who have never been corrupted by society
the modern liberal tries to undermine the mission of people with jobs so they can stop working,
get their jobs back and live in paradise … enjoy bounty without toil
moden liberal believe that they are the victims of people who are intentionally denying them
the utopia to which their infantile belief system and grandiose sense of self-esteem convinces
them would be theirs if only everyone else would, like them, just not do or make anything.
the modern liberal is convinced that there’s something the matter with the people of god and
science who do and make things and therefore, for the sake of peace, ‘social justice’ and their
utopian dreams (as well for the sake of the working people themselves who are too stupid or
desparate to know what’s best for them), they must be stopped. a utopian must discredit the
past, for history provides ample evidence of the existence of the better.
john lennon’s song ‘imagine’ promises a return to paradise, but only once anything and
everything that mankind values has been so devalued that there’s ‘nothing to kill or die for.
unable to quickly or easily achieve their preferred goal – the elimination of all beliefs – the
true believers turned to ‘plan ‘b’; the elimination of the evidence that emboldens people in
their convictions. if nothing – no person, no culture, no religion, no form of governance, no
work of art, no familial construct, etc. – is better or worse than any other; then the modern
liberal has no explanation for real-world success and failure.
To those who deny the existence of the better, the SIMPLE FACT that SOMETHING HAS
SOME INJUSTICE MUST HAVE TAKEN PLACE. after all, why should a person, business,
culture, religion or nation succeed if it’s no better than any other. it only follows, then, that if
success and failure are the result of injustice, then great success and great failure can be nothing
other than the result of great injustice. great and sustained success and failure proves … not
only that great and sustained injustices have taken place, but that these injustices have taken
place, but that these injustice were intentional and part of some evil conspiracy”

FRUITS of THEIR SUCCESS. With the greater success the target of greater attacks and the
most successful the target of not only the most withering and sustained assaults and mindless
enmity, but demands for retribution as well and the same is true in the inverse. the modern
liberal has no choice but to blindly support any policy meant to reward and compensate the
failures for the injustices that simply have befallen them. with the greater failures receiving
more sympathy and compensation and the greatest of all failures deserving not only the greatest
reward but the right to avenge their victimizers.
Remedying the ‘injustice’ that is success and failure is an imperative. it is out of a sense of
justice … to denigrate everything society recognizes as good for no other reason than that
society recognizes it to be good. In it’s simplest form, the culture war is a war being waged by
the people who do and make everything. and while this is not a wholly novel observation (rand
said it was a war waged by the ‘looters’ against the ‘makers’), what is essential in understanding
how the modern liberal ‘thinks. this thinking … leaves him no choice but to side at every turn
with all that is evil, failed and wrong and against all that is good, right and successful – is just
a quarter-turn of the screw deeper. the essential element is found in the relationship to the truth
that one has whether they do … and makes things or whether they spend their lives just talking
about the people who do things and make things. to those who don’t do … or make anything,
the truth not only serves no purpose, it is, in fact the enemy. this is why zinn knew it to be
‘undesirable’ and why the true believers sought to brainwash the children into not seeking it.
“what binds the working people … together … is their shared belief in the existence of the
better and the moral and practical imperative that follows to use one’s intellect to seek it out
and then to toil to achieve it. what binds those at the very top, very top and the very bottom …
is their shared rejection of the existence of the better and … disdain for … rational thought
and physical toil. this disdain for intellect and effort was on display in obama’s famous speech
in which he declared, ‘if you have a business, you didn’t build that. at the same time he must
work to elevate in esteem and stature, power and reward, everything that society recognizes
as evil for no other reason than that society recognizes it to be evil. like adam and eve in
paradise or a child on the kindergarten playground, just being himself and doing whatever
feels good.

the true believers … elevate the naïve and inexperienced child (the lesser) in esteem, stature, power and reward … with an equal and opposite effort to denigrate and weaken the better – the knowledgeable and experienced adult”
“as karl marx famously put it, ‘from each according to his ability, to each according to his
need.’ or as barack obama put it, ‘when you spread the wealth around it’s good for
half the harm that is done in this world is due to people who want to feel important. they don’t
mean to do harm – but the harm does not interest them. or they do not see it, or they justify it
because they are absorbed in the endless struggle to think well of themselves – t. s. eliot
the battle: “greed” – private (earned) enterprise (equality of opportunity)
“envy” – unearned “exploitation” (equality of outcome)
the battle: “neutral” government that “protects/rewards” productivity (“accepts” inequality)
“active” government that “punishes”/redistributes” productivity (“enforcing” equality)
the battle: “neutral” government that “protects/rewards” productivity (“accepts” inequality)
“active” government that punishes”/redistributes” productivity (“enforcing” equality)
the battle: big state government does not trust free enterprise to get it right (killing equality
free enterprise does not “trust” big state government to “get it right” (killing prosperity)
“success” is unearned (individually unmerited); it is “theft” through luck, inheritance or “working the system” (“you didn’t earn that”)
“success” is earned (individually merited) taxation is not earned – it is “confisction of property”
the battle: “security” (collectively provided by state-government)
“liberty” (individually produced -the “risk” and “reward” of free enterprise)

forced re-distribution through taxation has other benefits – it gets people out of the rat race for
things they don’t need. they use fewer of the earth’s resources and don’t lord silly possessions
over their neighbors. and with the taxes people pay, the government has more money to do all
the things government do. is taxation “collection” of community wealth or “confiscation” of
happiness? re-distribution of unearned exploitation or reward to earned entrpreneurship
income equality is what the 30% coalition wants for america. this is how statists understand
the path to greater enlightenment and happinessfor the rest of us and that is why they are
willing to sacrifice entrepreneurship for higher taxes, self-government for growing,
individual achievement for powerful unions and private businesses for federally managed
arthur brooks: “the problem with this approach is that it’s based on a misreading of statistics
and a misunderstanding of the human heart. a careful analysis of the data demonstrates a
crucially important truth: inequality is not what makes people unhappy.
question: what is the relationship between economic inequality and unhappiness ?
we hear from a lot of politicians these days that income inequality makes us unhappy. this is
not correct. what makes people unhappy is the belief that they do not have opportunities to
get ahead in life. what they often complain about, however, is income inequality. studies
show that when people feel economically mobile, they actually like income inequality even if
they have less than others because it shows them what they can achieve. the irony is that when
politicians fight income inequality they often lower economic mobility by wrecking the
rewards to hard work. and this makes the real problem worse, not better.

the end is we have to change conventional wisdom. if you’re battling against conventional
wisdom, the conventional wisdom is going to win. the president and his 30% coalition …
charges the majority with money-grubbing selfishness. the truth is precisely the opposite.
the 30% coalition possesses a cold, mechanistic view of the world – one that most americans do
not share. for obama and the leaders of the 30% coalition, MONEY BUYS HAPPINESS,AS
LONG as IT is DISTRIBUTED FAIRLY. “Happiness” is collectively “provided” (“secured”)
by the state, not individually “pursued”(with “risk”) by individuals economic equality is
“enforced” (end “outcome”), or unequal success that is “earned” (initial “opportunity”)

if you think spreading money[re-distribution] around by
force seems like an odd definition of fairness, you’re not alone” arthur c. brooks

ben franklin grasped the truth about money’s inability to deliver life satisfaction – “money
never made a man happy yet, nor will it. the more a man has, the more he wants. instead of
filling a vaccuum, it makes one.
“some people consider it a valid criticism of corporations that they are “just in the business to
make profits.” by this kind of reasoning, workers are just working to earn their pay“
– thomas sowell
Is taking from some, giving to others based on “envy”, collective “money-grubbing”
arthur brooks: “they have concealed the central pillar of their ideology – income equality –
under a misleading definition of fairness. they say one thing but mean another.
they are clever when it comes to redistribution. they would have you believe that income
equality is equivalent to equality in other areas, such as law or politics or religion. Their
rhetoric can seem highly compelling if you don’t think too deeply about it
americans believe in equality before a court of law and consider it a moral issue. we also
believe in political equality: ‘one man, one vote’. in america the beggar enters the polling booth
on the same terms as the billionaire. but equality of income? that’s a fundamentally different
kind of equality. we can all agree that everyone has a equal right to a fair trial, but we certainly
don’t all agree that everyone has a right to receive a verdict of ‘innocent’. likewise with our
political system, we believe that everyone has the right to vote, but we don’t believe that
everyone has the right to see their chosen candidate elected to office
this is what makes the rhetoric of ‘fairness’ so duplicitous. it implies that equality of outcome
is a core american principle, when in fact what americans believe in is equality of opportunity
and the potential to earn success. they twist equality of opportunity into equality of
outcome. they elevate money to the level of justice by saying that this must be equal too”
“americans are so enamored of equality, they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom” – alexis de Tocqueville

“democracy extends the sphere of individual freedom, socialism restricts it. democracy attaches all possible value to each man; socialism makes each man a mere agent, a mere number. decocracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality. but notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.” ― alexis de tocqueville
What comes first – chicken or egg?
the ideals of “equality” & “fairness” producing concrete value (money) vs
concrete value (money) a product of ideals – liberty and opportunity
what comes first – chicken or egg?
ideals or values?
do ideals produce value (money)
is value (money) a product of ideals – liberty and opportunity
“as karl marx famously put it, ‘from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.’ or as barack obama put it, ‘when you spread the wealth around it’s good for everybody”
define “fairness”:
“fairness” = income
equality of outcome (everyone “ends up” the same)
“FAIRNESS” = EQUALITY of OPPORTUNITY (everyone starts, not ends the same)
which “worldview” or “vision” is accurate ?
“utopian” idealism how the world ought or should be
is economic “equality” possible or realistic?
“tragic realism”: an economically “tragic” choice between greed,
individual selfishness (“bad”)
or “envy”, group “selfishness”(worse)
which side of the argument holds the moral high ground”?
“who exactly are the selfish, materialist “money-grubbers”?
“no dividing line between the rich and poor, and no class distinctions to breed mean envies.” – george creel

charles murray’s book “coming apart” – the top 20% of americans continue to exhibit the
virtues of hard work, religious belief and traditional marriage, but the bottom 30% have
over the last few decades ceased to do so. the word ‘class’ doesn’t even capture the divide
[charles] murray describes. you might say the country has bifurcated into DIFFERENT SOCIAL TRIBES” – David Brooks
“the wealthier you are, the more you can afford to learn from your mistakes”
“from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” – karl marx
“most people who read “the communist manifesto” probably have no idea that it was written by a couple of young men who had never worked a day in their lives, and who nevertheless spoke boldly in the name of “the workers”. – thomas sowell
“it is when people form together as groups, under the “mask” of “righteousness”, that people lose a sense of individual responsibility and act like “beasts”

from December, 2006

“your supporters will assist you to resolve this conflict – by expecting and tolerating
political doublespeak. they will expect you to lie about the morality of your political platform,
while remaining sensitive to whether or not your political platform benefits them. they will
expect you to use language which is deceptive and confusing in order to express positons which
have the appearance of morality yet have the reality of political exploitation and transfer of
wealth and power. today, a “left”/”right” polarization is the basis of politics in modern western
democracies. Criteria of WEALTH and POWER are used to CHOOSECONSTITUENCIES
it’s a political and moral battle based mostly on uncertainty over how much the “haves” and
the “have-nots” deserve their current economic status. WHO “DESERVES” WHAT?
The old adage about giving a man a fish versus teaching him to fish has been updated by a
reader: Give a man a fish and he will ask for tartar sauce and French fries! “ – Thomas Sowell
the “left” take the “moral” position of defending the “exploited” have nots, creating diverse
political coalitions of “victim” groups that expect the. “the “right” takes the moral position of
defending the earned “productivity” of the “haves”, taking a political position of “limited”
government against the corrupt, ever expansive power of the “nanny-state”, …
the ‘nanny-state’, “plays favorites” with its self-serving constituents, at the expense of the
‘politically incorrect’. each side claims the other has immorally ‘gamed the system’ for their
own political and economic benefits. most people have opinions that are conveniently
consistent with their own personal economic interests [greed] which therefore determine their
voting decisions). this explains both the “moral” and “political” divides of “left” and “right”
a worldview of“tragic realism”: an economically “tragic” choice between individual “greed”
(“bad”) or “envy”, group “selfishness”(worse)
it is when people form together as groups, under the “mask” of “righteousness”, that people
lose a sense of individual responsibility and act like “beasts”
envy hidden by a “mask” of “fairness“ through income equality
envy under a “mask” hiding “un-fairness“
(lack of individual responsibility by “the mob”)
thou shall not covet thy neighbors possessions – collective “selfishness”, not “salvation”
“admitedely, it is easy to be intimidated by the rhetoric of ‘fairness’. nobody wants to sound
anti-poor. it is no surprise that many have chosen to cede the fairness issue and content
ourselves with making the case for economic efficiency. sure, socialism may be fairer to the
poor’, you may have found yourself saying, ‘but it’s terrible for the economy’”


The Battle of Visions Collective Utopia (Progress) vs Private Enterprise (Profits)

Charles Gibson to Candidate Obama: “but history shows that when you drop the capital gains
tax, the revenues go up”
arthur brooks: “you can point out that obama’s plan to tax the rich more and more will lower overall opportunity for everybody – especially the poor”
candidate obama: “well, charlie, what i’ve said is that i would look at raising the capital gains
tax for purposes of fairness”
you can argue logical points until you’re blue in the face … arguing against income
redistribution is like arguing against equality before the law. for them, it’s a moral issue, pure
and simple. you can argue logical points until you’re blue in the face” – people have
“fundamental” views based on their “worldview”
the “reality” of more tax revenue with lower tax rates is irrelevant to the “fairness” and “morality” of “taxing the rich”
is “fair”- minded “idealism” “moral” or “moronic”?

admitedely, it is easy to be intimidated by the rhetoric of ‘fairness’. nobody wants to sound anti-poor”
“proponents of free enterprise must not make this mistake. fairness should not be a trump card but rather its achilles heel.”
“equality of income is not fair. it is distinctly unfair. if you work harder than a coworker but are paid the same, that is unfair”
“if you save your money but still retire with the same pension as your spendthrift neighbor, that is unfair”
“fairness is a system that rewards hard work, merit and excellence”

“it is a system that rewards the honest makers in society. we do not have to punish the takers, but we certainly should not punish the makers”
“real fairness does not mean bringing the top down. it means giving the bottom a fighting chance to rise”
“yes, this system will produce unequal outcomes. we should not be ashamed of that. as long as everyone has the same opportunities”

“once we roared like lions for liberty; now we bleat like sheep for security” – Norman Vincent Peale

the main issue in the war between free enterprise and [big government] statism is
not material riches – it is human flourishing
“this is a battle about nothing less than our ability to pursue happiness”
pursuit of happiness” (individually “earned”)
guarentee of happiness (collectively [state] “provided”)
“matching economic freedom data with happiness indexes, we clearly find that freer people are happier people.”
“a one-point increase in economic freedom is associated with a two-point rise in the percentage of the population saying they are completely happy or very happy”
“yet these facts elude the statists – those who would take control and hand it over to the government for the public good.”
“we thrive when we have control across all areas of our lives, even those that might seem insignificant”
“the more control you have over your life, the more responsible you feel for your own success (or failure)”
the majority of americans have a simple faith that ingenuity and hard work can and should be rewarded
they know that no amount of unearned money can ever heal the human heart
money is fine, but it is something else entirely – something less tangible and more transcendental – that really brings satisfaction
the 70% majority understands that the secret to human flourishing is not money but earned success in life
people flourish when they earn their own success
“to understand this, we need to understand the concept of earned success”
“earned success is the creation of value in our lives or in the lives of OTHERS”

free enterprise is not just an economic alternative, but a moral imperative
“it’s not just the most efficient system; it’s the most fair and just”
“earned success is the stuff of entrepreneurs who seek explosive value through innovation, hard work and passion”
“but earned value isn’t just related to commerce”
“earned success is also what parents experience when their children do wonderful things, what social innovators feel when they change lives and what artists feel when they create something of beauty.”
“people who believe they have earned success – measured in whatever life currency they want – are happy”
“your mother was right: money can’t buy happiness” – many still mistake the symbol of success for success itself”
“the truth is that if you were given a pot of unearned cash, it wouldn’t improve your life. one of the best known studies showing this examines lottery winners.”
ben franklin grasped the truth about money’s inability to deliver life satisfaction – “money never made a man happy yet, nor will it. the more a man has, the more he wants. instead of filling a vaccuum, it makes one”
“if money without earned success does not bring happiness, then
re-distributing money won’t make for a happier america”
free enterprise is not just an economic alternative, but a moral imperative
“it’s not just the most efficient system; it’s the most fair and just”
“the goal of our political system should be this: to give all americans the greatest opportunities possible to succeed based on their hard work and merit”
“and that’s exactly what the free enterprise system does – makes earned success possible for the most people. this is the liberty our founders wrote about, the liberty that enables the true pursuit of happiness”
“the pursuit of re-distribution and income equality will never deliver on president obama’s promises for better lives”
“The competitive nature of politics encourages politicians to appeal to the SMALLEST MAJORITY that they NEED to in order to GAIN POWER. In a democracy this usually means that any percentage more than 50%, for example, 51% is ENOUGH“
“The first reason that a politician appeals to the SMALLEST MAJORITY POSSIBLE is that this MAXIMIZES the BENEFITS that the politician can PROMISE to that MAJORITY“
“The second reason is that the politician needs to SPREAD the DISADVANTAGES of their policies over the largest possible minority of non-supporters. “
“in other words, if you try to appeal to too large a constituency, the size of the minority that you can screw is too small, which limits what you can steal from them, and the benefits passed onto the majority will be spread too thinly“
“every politician can choose a majority of supporters and a minority of non-supporters and openly promise to ‘benefit’ the majority by screwing the minority“
“the aftermath of the 2008 financial meltdown followed the same script. the crisis arose from a strange connivance between loans to the unqualified and huge profits for wall street

free enterprise is essentially a formula not just for wealth creatioN, but for LIFE satisfaction
there are three basic things that make people happy:
1)meaning in their lives,
2)control over their environment, and 3)success in creating value in the world
“and the way people get these things is not with money or power or fame – it is with their values”
people who are serious about healthy values in their LIVES, FAMILIES and communities are much happier than others
“the data say that these values come in eight categories: faith, family, personal liberty, private morality, non-materialism, opportunity, work, and service to others”
“many journalists and academics dismiss these as just “cultural issues”
“but what happy americans know is that nothing is more important than these values for building true happiness”
“if we know we have the possibility of earning success, we know we can improve our lives and our lot”
“that is one of the great gifts of the american free enterprise system – the opportunity for people to re-invent themselves, to work toward a future that is better than their past”
“progressive taxation dismantles the cause-and-effect relationship between working hard and achieving success”
“tax revenues will actually decline in the long run because of the negative impact on the incentives for successful people to work and earn.”
according to brooks, obama’s economic “vision” does not produce a “fair” society
“if you think spreading money around by force seems like an odd definition of fairness, you’re not alone” – arthur c. brooks

brooks argues that virtually all americans share two principles. “they demand a fair society. and they believe we should be lifting up those in poverty”
brooks: “there is nothing inherently fair about equalizing incomes.
if the government penalizes you for working harder than somebody else, that is unfair”
brooks argues that virtually all americans share two principles. “they demand a fair society. and they believe we should be lifting up those in poverty”
to brooks, free enterprise possesses the greatest opportunity for “the poor” to “lift” themselves out of poverty
“the system that enables the most people to earn the most success is free enterprise, by matching up people’s skills, interests, and abilities.”
“yes, free markets tend to produce unequal incomes. we should not be ashamed of that.
on the contrary, our system is the envy of the world and should be a source of pride”
“in contrast,
re-distribution simply spreads money around. even worse, it attenuates the ability to earn success by perverting economic incentives”
“the 30% coalition’s solution to poverty is simple: redistribution”
fascist regimes subordinate free enterprise to perceived national interests
“by shifting wealth from the rich to the poor, they believe they can solve poverty. but this is a failing strategy”
the public “welfare state” perpetuates poverty, not “lifting” people out of poverty, fostering “dependence”, not independence

obama’s regulatory state MARCHES ON
By Bryan Preston August, 2011

The end of “Democracy in America” DE TOCQUEVILLE WARNED AGAINST the government becoming “an immense tutelary power . . . absolute, detailed, regular” . . .
” . . . cover[ing] [society’s] surface with a network of small, complicated, painstaking, uniform rules through which the most original minds and the most vigorous souls cannot clear a way.”
tocqueville also foresaw exactly how this regulatory state would suffocate the spirit of free enterprise:
“it rarely forces one to act, but it constantly opposes itself to one’s acting; it does not destroy, it prevents things from being born; it does not tyrannize, it hinders, compromises, enervates, extinguishes, dazes, and finally reduces [the] nation to being nothing more than a herd of timid and industrious animals of which the government is the shepherd.”
“we will have bigger burecracies, bigger labor unions and bigger state-run corporations”
“it will be harder to be an entrepreneur because of punitive taxes and regulations. the rewards of success will be expropriated for the sake of attaining greater income equality”
“opportunity breeds happiness and efforts to diminish economic inequality – without creating economic opportunity – will actually lower america’s gross national happiness,
not raise it”
“stimulating prosperity, not simply alleviating poverty, should be the goal for helping the poor and vulnerable.”
“study after study of impoverished communities around the world shows that prosperity, not poverty is the right focus if we want to ‘lift people up’”
“only free enterprise truly addresses the root causes of poverty”
“our solutions are not based on a re-slicing of the existing economic pie by government officials and bureaucrats, effectively taking money from the well-off and giving it to the poor through punitive taxation and growing welfare”.
“they are based on an expansion of the pie in ways that will increase everybody’s share
through policies and a culture that creates incentives for americans allows them to tap into
the generative power of entrepreneurship and ultimately lets them earn their own success”
free enterprise is essentially a formula not just for wealth creation, but for life satisfaction
“most americans don’t see free enterprise as just an economic matter, they see it as kind of a lifestyle issue, they see it as the bedrock of american culture”
the key to president obama’s success – working to change the conventional wisdom about the fairness of the american system” …
“the end is we have to change conventional wisdom.” if you’re battling against conventional wisdom, the conventional wisdom is going to win”
“All the perplexities, confusion and distress in America arise, not from defects in their Constitution or Confederation, not from want of honor or virtue, so much as from the downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit and circulation. – john adams
“property is surely a right of mankind as real as liberty.” – john adams
“liberals have largely succeeded in defining the conventional wisdom when it comes to economics” …
“in the left’s eternal vigilance to fend off fascism, they have in fact
created it”
“they foster precisely the sickness they hope to remedy”
the fight against “private” corporate monopoly led to a
“public” corporate monopoly (by the state)
“progressive” muckrakers did not end monopoly – despite the “populist” rhetoric, the big business- big government “merger”
created and even larger monopolistic “leviathan”
a “corporate state with an even more powerful”; “stranglehold” on “the system.”
reinforcing, not “reining in” corporatism
replacing “private” concentration of power with a
far larger “public” concentration of power
“many liberals are correct when they bemoan the collusion
of government and corporations.”
“they even have a point when they decry special deals for a halliburton or archer daniels.’
“it’s fine to say that incestuous relationships between corporations and business are fascistic”
“what they misunderstand completely is that this is
“the system” they set up … they want … mobilize and march for.”
“in the left’s eternal vigilance to fend off fascism, they have in fact created it”
“they foster precisely the sickness they hope to remedy”
another myth is that big business is inherently
“right wing” or “conservative” (in the american sense)
european fascism was a
“tool” of “conservative” big business
however, “right wing” or conservative positions espouse
free markets, competition and private property rights”
true “laissez faire” economics “separates” government “interference” from the “free market”
simaltaneously using state rhetoric against private “crony” CAPITALISM,
while establishing a public crony capitalism
the state rhetorically fights for “the people” to “protect” the “free market”,
yet colludes with big business to prevent a “free market”
the fascist state manipulates public resentment of “private” monopoly” to create a state “public” monopoly of power

by Neil Weinberg American Banker September 22, 2011

Neil Weinberg is American Banker’s editor in chief. Neil came to the American Banker in May 2011 after 18 years at Forbes Media, where he was a reporter, Japan bureau chief, senior editor and executive editor in charge of Money & Investing coverage for Forbes magazine and Neil was awarded the Overseas Press Club’s 2006 award for the best business story in a magazine and is co-author of Stolen Without A Gun: Confessions from inside history’s biggest accounting fraud — the collapse of MCI Worldcom. He is based in New York.

in my four months at the banker, i’ve often been struck by the way banking and regulatory
types inside the beltway talk of the dodd-frank act as if it were as natural a part of the
environment as the air and water
terms that would befuddle the average mba grad – cfpb, qrm, fsoc, sifi, udap – roll off their
tongues as if they’ve been with us since the days when banks printed their own currencies
to me, a lot of it’s still alphabet soup. that’s probably helpful in understanding what this uniquely
washingtonian response to a crisis looks and feels like to the folks whose day jobs it is to run our
nation’s banks and parcel out its credit
to bankers in the trenches, it hardly matters whether you take the democratic view that dodd-
frank is a thoughtful reaction to recent financial misdeeds or subscribe to the republican
notion that it’s a leading culprit in our economic malaise
bankers of all political stripes now face the prospect of complying with a law that will do everything from raise capital and liquidity standards to dictate how derivatives are traded to determine how much banks charge in debit card fees
weighing benefits against costs and in pondering the unintended consequences, dodd-frank starts to look like a threat to our financial system
at 2,319 pages, including 250 amendments, and with vastly more rulemaking to come, dodd-frank’s costs are only now starting to mount
what’s not in dispute is that dodd-frank will impose a major drag on the business of commercial banking and have numerous knock-off effects that were neither intended nor necessarily desirable
the unintended consequences, which by definition are impossible to predict. here are few early bloomers that came up at our conference:
fewer and bigger banks: because the legislation will be so costly to comply with, banks will have more incentive than ever to consolidate into the sort of too-big-to-fail banks the bill was designed to stamp out
“dodd-frank has raised the cost of financial transactions in america and that encourages consolidation because it’s the only way you can spread the costs over larger assets,” said tom hoenig, president of the federal reserve bank of kansas city.”
drawing lines in the sand: under dodd-frank the federal reserve is charged with deciding whether mergers would create too-big-to-fail institutions.
higher consumer costs: with higher regulatory costs, including debit card fee caps imposed by government fiat, banks are hiking fees elsewhere
fewer mortgages: with dodd-frank, negative press and pressure to buy back soured home loans, big banks are becoming increasingly inclined to pull out of the mortgage business
what all this will cost is impossible to say. robert wilmers, chief executive of m&t bank, said the added paperwork is already requiring 18 full-time employees
all this leads to the ultimate absurdity of dodd-frank that seems so obvious from outside the beltway: it’s a fool’s mission for our government to try to micro-manage our financial system
ill-conceived as it is, dodd-frank is destined to fail in its main mission of preventing the next financial crisis
the law doesn’t even try to address what many regard as key culprits in the financial crisis – the roles of fannie mae and freddie mac, the credit ratings agencies
the fact that our financial system is more consolidated than ever in the hands of a few too-big-to-fail banks
anyone who’s tempted to think big government knows better need only consider that in 2005 barney frank was just as certain there was no housing bubble as he is today in the wisdom of dodd-frank
is the “agenda” about “free markets”, “monopoly” or “fairness” –
or is the real “agenda” state power ???
the fascist state thus dominates both “the people” and “big business”, (towards totalitarian control over all of society)
“the people” (“main street”) and big business
(‘wall street”)subordinated to “state street”
the state dominates, able to both “protect”
everyone has their “agenda”, “the people”, the big business –
is the “state” agenda ignored?
fascism #11:

the fascist state uses both “wall street” and “main street” to further its own agenda
eisenhower warned against the “military-industrial complex”
the potential dangers of combined military and
big business interests
should we add a fascist
big government big business industrial complex to the mix ???
what’s the largest “corporation” in the world ??? what is it’s interest ???
thomas sowell: “what socialism, fascism and other ideologies of the left have in common is an assumption that some very wise people – like themselves” …
… “need to take decisions out of the hands of lesser people, like the rest of us,” …
… “and impose those decisions by government fiat”
“the left’s vision is not only a vision of the world,” …
… “but also a vision of themselves, as superior beings pursuing
superior ends”


by Thomas Sowell September, 2008

“conservatives, as well as liberals, would undoubtedly be happier living in the kind of world envisioned by the left”
it is hardly surprising that young people prefer the political left
“the only reason for rejecting the left’s vision is that the real world in which we live is
very different from the world that the left perceives today or envisions for tomorrow.
“individuals can refuse to grow up, especially when surrounded in their work and in their social life by similarly situated and like-minded people”
“should we be surprised that the strongest supporters of the political left are found among the young, academics, limousine liberals with trust funds, media celebrities and federal judges?”
“the agenda of the left is fine for the world that they envision as existing today and the world they want to create tomorrow”
“that is a world not hemmed in on all sides by inherent constraints and the painful trade-offs that these constraints imply”
“theirs is a world where there are attractive, win-win “solutions”
in place of those ugly trade-offs in the world that the rest of us live in”
“the limousine liberal democrats and the country club republicans are the most unrealistic people in each party”
“it is usually futile to try to talk facts and analysis to people who are enjoying a sense of moral superiority in their ignorance”
– thomas sowell
does fascism live up to its promise or deception ? – pro big business anti-populist
does not benefit “collective”corruption, not “spiritual “rebirth” a hypocritical civic religion
demogogic hindenburg quote

half the harm that is done in this world is due to people who want to feel important. they don’t mean to do harm – but the harm does not interest them. or they do not see it, or they justify
it because they are absorbed in the endless struggle to think well of themselves. – t. s. eliot
thomas sowell: “in the united states, however, this vision conflicts with a constitution that
begins, “we the people” only our own awareness of the huge stakes involved can save us from
the rampaging presumptions of our betters, the self-flattery of the vision of the left also gives its
true believers a huge ego stake in that vision,”which means that mere facts are unlikely to make
them reconsider, regardless of what evidence piles up against the vision of the left, and


by Thomas Sowell

“It bothers me a little when conservatives call barack obama a ‘socialist’ he certainly is an
enemy of the free market, and wants politicians and bureaucrats to make the fundamental
decisions about the economy. but that does not mean that he wants government ownership of
the means of production, which has long been a standard definition of socialism.
what president obama has been pushing for, and moving toward, is more insidious:
government control of the economy, while leaving ownership in private hands
that way, politicians get to call the shots but, when their bright ideas lead to disaster, …
they can always blame those who own businesses in the private sector. politically, it is heads-
i-win when things go right, and tails-you-lose when things go wrong”
this is far preferable, from obama’s point of view, since it gives him a variety of scapegoats
for all his failed policies. without having to use president bush as a scapegoat all the time”
government ownership of the means of production means that politicians also own the
consequences of their policies, and have to face responsibility when those consequences are
disastrous something that barack obama avoids like the plague”

fascist economics: designing dystopia the “big bargain” bought, our birthright (freedom) sold

by noel sheppard may, 2013

the rhetoric of conflict and reality of collusion: obama protesting the same government he and
his “cronies” are in charge of even comedians that have been almost universally squeamish
about telling jokes about barack obama have begun to do so with all the scandals now
surrounding this white house
jumping on the bandwagon saturday was political satirist andy borowitz, who published a
piece deliciously titled “obama denies role in government”:
president obama used his weekly radio address on saturday to reassure the american people that
he has “played no role whatsoever” in the u.s. government over the past four years
“right now, many of you are angry at the government, and no one is angrier than i am,” he said. “quite frankly, i am glad that i have had no involvement in such an organization.”
borowitz joked that obama’s outrage increased when he became aware of something called the justice department.
“they sound like bad news,” the president said
in borowitz’s world, obama ended his address saying that he was going to implement a new zero tolerance policy on governing:
“if i find that any members of my administration have had any intimate knowledge of, or involvement in, the workings of the united states government, they will be dealt with accordingly,” he said
thomas sowell: “what socialism, fascism and other ideologies of the left have in common is an assumption that some very wise people – like themselves” …
… “need to take decisions out of the hands of lesser people, like the rest of us,” …
… “and impose those decisions by government fiat”
“the left’s vision is not only a vision
of the world,” …
fascist economics: designing dystopia the “big bargain” bought, our birthright (freedom) sold
… “but also a vision of themselves, as superior beings pursuing superior ends”
fascist economics: designing dystopia the “big bargain” bought, our birthright (freedom) sold
“only our own awareness of the huge stakes involved can save us from the rampaging presumptions of our betters,” …
… “whether they are called socialists or fascists”
“in the united states, however, this vision conflicts with a constitution that begins, “we the people”
“the self-flattery of the vision of the left also gives its true believers a huge ego stake in that vision,” …
… “which means that mere facts are unlikely to make them reconsider,” …
… “regardless of what evidence piles up against the vision of the left,” …
… “and regardless of its disastrous consequences”
“so long as we buy their heady rhetoric, we are selling our birthright of freedom”

“american prosperity and american free enterprise are both highly unusual in the world, and we should not overlook the possibility that the two are connected“ thomas sowell

“of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. it would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. the robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” – c. s. lewis
it is usually futile to try to talk facts and analysis to people who are enjoying a sense of moral superiority in their ignorance – thomas sowell
“most people who read “the communist manifesto” probably have no idea that it was written by a couple of young men who had never worked a day in their lives, and who nevertheless spoke boldly in the name of “the workers”. – thomas sowell
”we shall not grow wiser before we learn that much that we have done was very foolish.” – f. a. hayek
fascist vs. free market economics the battle of visions collective utopia (progress) vs private enterprise (profits)
civilization falls when government serves the special interest rather than citizens at large

“of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. it would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. the robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience“ – c. s. lewis
“remember, democracy never lasts long. it soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. there is never a democracy that did not commit suicide” – john adams
radical saul alinsky simply called the american middle class “the enemy”
(that would be you and me)
the left is a manichean creed, always pitting the children of light against the children of darkness.
psychologically that kind of light-against-dark worldview is considered to be a low-level defense mechanism.
it comes from people with fragile egos,
and it’s a defining feature of something called borderline personality disorder.
the basic rule for people with bpd is that they are constantly idealizing some of their relationships and demonizing all the others.
every now and then they flip, and change their current angels into demons.
it’s impossible to maintain stable relationships with them because eventually everyone is perceived as their enemy.

by Hyatt Seligman The American November, 2012

chicago style politics. kill your opponent by character assassination and
promise freebies to your base. toss in a little scapegoating and blame-gaming through envy
and class-warfare. his simple plan of dividing and conquering through fear, envy and
CLASS WARFARE trumped all else, barely. appeals to race, gender and emotion triumphed
over economic reason and self-interest. it didn’t matter to them that unemployment was at
record highs and their communities and lives devastated the last four years. the community
organizing, empty-suit incumbent won by pandering to the democratic base, a cobbled,
bare majority of “victims”. His simple plan of dividing and conquering through fear, envy
and class warfare trumped all else, barely. appeals to race, gender and emotion triumphed
over economic reason and self-interest and the good of the country
the most important thing about you is ‘tribal’ identity. obama is the master of the “basic
instincts” of his self-centered, narcissistic base. it’s not complicated once you understand
the CON”

bpd tends to go along with narcissism. when you mix the two, you get enormous grandiosity
as in you-know-who) combined with the very simplest division of all human beings into
good or evil. mixed npd-bpd is the story

karl marx was always raging at his personal enemies, and of course marx’s good-vs-evil
division between the bourgeoisie and the workers turned everything into white hats vs.
black hats. the whole world divided up very neatly into the people you can hate
(because they are objective evil, of course)
and the ones you idealize in the most absurd ways (because they are objectively good).

they all mixed the egomania and grandiosity of narcissism with the global demonizing
characteristic of borderline personality disorder. it’s the narcissism that keeps them from falling
apart, and it’s the love-hate relationships that keep them oriented to other people
leninism is malignant, but not just because it divides all of humanity into good versus evil,
like some bad spaghetti western. it gets actively harmful because it is a political program aimed
at absolute power – not just an academic philosophy.
“the mystery of government is not how washington works but how to make it stop”
– p.j. o’rourke, parliament of whores: a lone humorist attempts to explain the entire u.s. government