The Fed is pushing America dangerously close to socialism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When did Americans start cheering for chaos?

MATHIEU LEWIS-ROLLAND / Contributor | Getty Images

Every time we look away from lawlessness, we tell the next mob it can go a little further.

Chicago, Portland, and other American cities are showing us what happens when the rule of law breaks down. These cities have become openly lawless — and that’s not hyperbole.

When a governor declares she doesn’t believe federal agents about a credible threat to their lives, when Chicago orders its police not to assist federal officers, and when cartels print wanted posters offering bounties for the deaths of U.S. immigration agents, you’re looking at a country flirting with anarchy.

Two dangers face us now: the intimidation of federal officers and the normalization of soldiers as street police. Accept either, and we lose the republic.

This isn’t a matter of partisan politics. The struggle we’re watching now is not between Democrats and Republicans. It’s between good and evil, right and wrong, self‑government and chaos.

Moral erosion

For generations, Americans have inherited a republic based on law, liberty, and moral responsibility. That legacy is now under assault by extremists who openly seek to collapse the system and replace it with something darker.

Antifa, well‑financed by the left, isn’t an isolated fringe any more than Occupy Wall Street was. As with Occupy, big money and global interests are quietly aligned with “anti‑establishment” radicals. The goal is disruption, not reform.

And they’ve learned how to condition us. Twenty‑five years ago, few Americans would have supported drag shows in elementary schools, biological males in women’s sports, forced vaccinations, or government partnerships with mega‑corporations to decide which businesses live or die. Few would have tolerated cartels threatening federal agents or tolerated mobs doxxing political opponents. Yet today, many shrug — or cheer.

How did we get here? What evidence convinced so many people to reverse themselves on fundamental questions of morality, liberty, and law? Those long laboring to disrupt our republic have sought to condition people to believe that the ends justify the means.

Promoting “tolerance” justifies women losing to biological men in sports. “Compassion” justifies harboring illegal immigrants, even violent criminals. Whatever deluded ideals Antifa espouses is supposed to somehow justify targeting federal agents and overturning the rule of law. Our culture has been conditioned for this moment.

The buck stops with us

That’s why the debate over using troops to restore order in American cities matters so much. I’ve never supported soldiers executing civilian law, and I still don’t. But we need to speak honestly about what the Constitution allows and why. The Posse Comitatus Act sharply limits the use of the military for domestic policing. The Insurrection Act, however, exists for rare emergencies — when federal law truly can’t be enforced by ordinary means and when mobs, cartels, or coordinated violence block the courts.

Even then, the Constitution demands limits: a public proclamation ordering offenders to disperse, transparency about the mission, a narrow scope, temporary duration, and judicial oversight.

Soldiers fight wars. Cops enforce laws. We blur that line at our peril.

But we also cannot allow intimidation of federal officers or tolerate local officials who openly obstruct federal enforcement. Both extremes — lawlessness on one side and militarization on the other — endanger the republic.

The only way out is the Constitution itself. Protect civil liberty. Enforce the rule of law. Demand transparency. Reject the temptation to justify any tactic because “our side” is winning. We’ve already seen how fear after 9/11 led to the Patriot Act and years of surveillance.

KAMIL KRZACZYNSKI / Contributor | Getty Images

Two dangers face us now: the intimidation of federal officers and the normalization of soldiers as street police. Accept either, and we lose the republic. The left cannot be allowed to shut down enforcement, and the right cannot be allowed to abandon constitutional restraint.

The real threat to the republic isn’t just the mobs or the cartels. It’s us — citizens who stop caring about truth and constitutional limits. Anything can be justified when fear takes over. Everything collapses when enough people decide “the ends justify the means.”

We must choose differently. Uphold the rule of law. Guard civil liberties. And remember that the only way to preserve a government of, by, and for the people is to act like the people still want it.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

In the quiet aftermath of a profound loss, the Christian community mourns the unexpected passing of Dr. Voddie Baucham, a towering figure in evangelical circles. Known for his defense of biblical truth, Baucham, a pastor, author, and theologian, left a legacy on family, faith, and opposing "woke" ideologies in the church. His book Fault Lines challenged believers to prioritize Scripture over cultural trends. Glenn had Voddie on the show several times, where they discussed progressive influences in Christianity, debunked myths of “Christian nationalism,” and urged hope amid hostility.

The shock of Baucham's death has deeply affected his family. Grieving, they remain hopeful in Christ, with his wife, Bridget, now facing the task of resettling in the US without him. Their planned move from Lusaka, Zambia, was disrupted when their home sale fell through last December, resulting in temporary Airbnb accommodations, but they have since secured a new home in Cape Coral that requires renovations. To ensure Voddie's family is taken care of, a fundraiser is being held to raise $2 million, which will be invested for ongoing support, allowing Bridget to focus on her family.

We invite readers to contribute prayerfully. If you feel called to support the Bauchams in this time of need, you can click here to donate.

We grieve and pray with hope for the Bauchams.

May Voddie's example inspire us.

Loneliness isn’t just being alone — it’s feeling unseen, unheard, and unimportant, even amid crowds and constant digital chatter.

Loneliness has become an epidemic in America. Millions of people, even when surrounded by others, feel invisible. In tragic irony, we live in an age of unparalleled connectivity, yet too many sit in silence, unseen and unheard.

I’ve been experiencing this firsthand. My children have grown up and moved out. The house that once overflowed with life now echoes with quiet. Moments that once held laughter now hold silence. And in that silence, the mind can play cruel games. It whispers, “You’re forgotten. Your story doesn’t matter.”

We are unique in our gifts, but not in our humanity. Recognizing this shared struggle is how we overcome loneliness.

It’s a lie.

I’ve seen it in others. I remember sitting at Rockefeller Center one winter, watching a woman lace up her ice skates. Her clothing was worn, her bag battered. Yet on the ice, she transformed — elegant, alive, radiant.

Minutes later, she returned to her shoes, merged into the crowd, unnoticed. I’ve thought of her often. She was not alone in her experience. Millions of Americans live unseen, performing acts of quiet heroism every day.

Shared pain makes us human

Loneliness convinces us to retreat, to stay silent, to stop reaching out to others. But connection is essential. Even small gestures — a word of encouragement, a listening ear, a shared meal — are radical acts against isolation.

I’ve learned this personally. Years ago, a caller called me “Mr. Perfect.” I could have deflected, but I chose honesty. I spoke of my alcoholism, my failed marriage, my brokenness. I expected judgment. Instead, I found resonance. People whispered back, “I’m going through the same thing. Thank you for saying it.”

Our pain is universal. Everyone struggles with self-doubt and fear. Everyone feels, at times, like a fraud. We are unique in our gifts, but not in our humanity. Recognizing this shared struggle is how we overcome loneliness.

We were made for connection. We were built for community — for conversation, for touch, for shared purpose. Every time we reach out, every act of courage and compassion punches a hole in the wall of isolation.

You’re not alone

If you’re feeling alone, know this: You are not invisible. You are seen. You matter. And if you’re not struggling, someone you know is. It’s your responsibility to reach out.

Loneliness is not proof of brokenness. It is proof of humanity. It is a call to engage, to bear witness, to connect. The world is different because of the people who choose to act. It is brighter when we refuse to be isolated.

We cannot let silence win. We cannot allow loneliness to dictate our lives. Speak. Reach out. Connect. Share your gifts. By doing so, we remind one another: We are all alike, and yet each of us matters profoundly.

In this moment, in this country, in this world, what we do matters. Loneliness is real, but so is hope. And hope begins with connection.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.


Russell Vought’s secret plan to finally shrink Washington

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump’s OMB chief built the plan for this moment: Starve pet programs, force reauthorization, and actually shrink Washington.

The government is shut down again, and the usual panic is back. I even had someone call my house this week to ask if it was safe to fly today. The person was half-joking, half-serious, wondering if planes would “fall out of the sky.”

For the record, the sky isn’t falling — at least not literally. But the chaos in Washington does feel like it. Once again, we’re watching the same old script: a shutdown engineered not by fiscal restraint but by political brinkmanship. And this time, the Democrats are driving the bus.

This shutdown may be inconvenient. But it’s also an opportunity — to stop funding our own destruction, to reset the table, and to remind Congress who actually pays the bills.

Democrats, among other things, are demanding that health care be extended to illegal immigrants. Democratic leadership caved to its radical base, which would rather shut down the government for such left-wing campaign points than compromise. Republicans — shockingly — said no. They refused to rubber-stamp more spending for illegal immigration. For once, they stood their ground.

But if you’ve watched Washington long enough, you know how this story usually ends: a shutdown followed by a deal that spends even more money than before — a continuing resolution kicking the can down the road. Everyone pretends to “win,” but taxpayers always lose.

The Vought effect

This time might be different. Republicans actually hold some cards. The public may blame Democrats — not the media, but the people who feel this in their wallets. Americans don’t like shutdowns, but they like runaway spending and chaos even less.

That’s why you’re hearing so much about Russell Vought, the director of the United States Office of Management and Budget and Donald Trump’s quiet architect of a strategy to use moments like this to shrink the federal bureaucracy. Vought spent four years building a plan for exactly this scenario: firing nonessential workers and forcing reauthorization of pet programs. Trump talks about draining the swamp. Vought draws up the blueprints.

The Democrats and media are threatened by Vought because he is patient, calculated, and understands how to leverage the moment to reverse decades of government bloat. If programs aren’t mandated, cut them. Make Congress fight to bring them back. That’s how you actually drain the swamp.

Predictable meltdowns

Predictably, Democrats are melting down. They’ve shifted their arguments so many times it’s dizzying. Last time, they claimed a shutdown would lead to mass firings. Now, they insist Republicans are firing everyone anyway. It’s the same playbook: Move the goalposts, reframe the narrative, accuse your opponents of cruelty.

We’ve seen this before. Remember the infamous "You lie!” moment in 2009? President Barack Obama promised during his State of the Union that Obamacare wouldn’t cover illegal immigrants. Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) shouted, “You lie!” and was condemned for breaching decorum.

Several years later, Hillary Clinton’s campaign platform openly promised health care for illegal immigrants. What was once called a “lie” became official policy. And today, Democrats are shutting down the government because they can’t get even more of it.

This is progressivism in action: Deny it, inch toward it, then demand it as a moral imperative. Anyone who resists becomes the villain.

SAUL LOEB / Contributor | Getty Images

Stand firm

This shutdown isn’t just about spending. It’s about whether we’ll keep letting progressives rewrite the rules one crisis at a time. Trump’s plan — to cut what isn’t mandated, force programs into reauthorization, and fight the battle in the courts — is the first real counterpunch to decades of this manipulation.

It’s time to stop pretending. This isn’t about compassion. It’s about control. Progressives know once they normalize government benefits for illegal immigrants, they never roll back. They know Americans forget how it started.

This shutdown may be inconvenient. But it’s also an opportunity — to stop funding our own destruction, to reset the table, and to remind Congress who actually pays the bills. If we don’t take it, we’ll be right back here again, only deeper in debt, with fewer freedoms left to defend.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.