The only thing that can interfere with the plans of the Marxists now is if there were to be a military coup staged by loyalists to the Constitution. The Marxists have almost certainly taken the military into account and made plans for it.

I do not believe the US military could be counted on by the Marxists. They are too much a part of the public fabric and not conditioned to viewing the people with the sort of detached hostility that politicians are. Therefore, they must be dealt with carefully.

On the other hand, cultural Marxism is affecting the military as much as anyone. Something to watch and study.

The regime in the White House is committed to implementing a Socialist system of expensive domestic programs regardless to any danger it poses to national security or to the future viability of the American system of government. There are those who suspect the aim of the regime is to bring down the Constitutional Republic by sheer weight of financial debt. It was disgusting to see on TV our Sec. of State almost on her hands and knees over in Beijing begging an enemy of the United States to please buy more of our debt.

We have absolutely NO money whatsoever to fight ANY wars. America is bankrupt. But instead of dealing with the alarming crisis in a responsible, sane manner, the administration has gone on the wildest and biggest spending spree the world has ever known. It is very frightening.

So, if the Leftists in America were worried about the military blocking their path to Marxism, and if they were able to successfully place a Marxist in the Oval Office…

… how might they go about neutralizing the United States military?

… and isn't Afghanistan a very convenient place to be right now?

Stripped of its academic jargon, the welfare state is nothing more than a mechanism by which governments confiscate the wealth of the productive members of a society to support a wide variety of welfare schemes. A substantial part of the confiscation is effected by taxation. But the welfare statists were quick to recognize that if they wished to retain political power, the amount of taxation had to be limited and they had to resort to programs of massive deficit spending, i.e., they had to borrow money, by issuing government bonds, to finance welfare expenditures on a large scale.

Under a gold standard, the amount of credit that an economy can support is determined by the economy's tangible assets, since every credit instrument is ultimately a claim on some tangible asset. But government bonds are not backed by tangible wealth, only by the government's promise to pay out of future tax revenues, and cannot easily be absorbed by the financial markets. A large volume of new government bonds can be sold to the public only at progressively higher interest rates. Thus, government deficit spending under a gold standard is severely limited.

The abandonment of the gold standard made it possible for the welfare statists to use the banking system as a means to an unlimited expansion of credit. They have created paper reserves in the form of government bonds which-through a complex series of steps-the banks accept in place of tangible assets and treat as if they were an actual deposit, i.e., as the equivalent of what was formerly a deposit of gold. The holder of a government bond or of a bank deposit created by paper reserves believes that he has a valid claim on a real asset. But the fact is that there are now more claims outstanding than real assets.

The law of supply and demand is not to be conned. As the supply of money (of claims) increases relative to the supply of tangible assets in the economy, prices must eventually rise. Thus the earnings saved by the productive members of the society lose value in terms of goods. When the economy's books are finally balanced, one finds that loss in value represents the goods purchased by the government for welfare or other purposes with the money proceeds of the government bonds financed by bank credit expansion.

In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. There is no safe store of value. If there were, the government would have to make its holding illegal, as was done in the case of gold. If everyone decided, for example, to convert all his bank deposits to silver or copper or any other good, and thereafter declined to accept checks as payment for goods, bank deposits would lose their purchasing power and government-created bank credit would be worthless as a claim on goods. The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves.

This is the shabby secret of the welfare statists' tirades against gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the “hidden” confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights. If one grasps this, one has no difficulty in understanding the statists' antagonism toward the gold standard.