Author Archives: Fred Sauer

  • 0

How the Missouri General Assembly Could Force a Merger of St. Louis City with St. Louis County

On January 29, 2016 the St. Louis Post Dispatch reported:

JEFFERSON CITY • The city of St. Louis’ single largest source of general revenue would be phased out over 10 years under a measure approved by a Senate committee Thursday.


 Anyone who lives or works in the city of St. Louis or Kansas City must pay the 1 percent tax. In St. Louis, the tax generates one-third of the city’s general revenue, a total of $185 million last year. It pays for city services such as police and fire departments, park maintenance and street repair.

Sen. Kurt Schaefer, R-Columbia, who is running for attorney general this year, sponsored the measure. He says the tax is unconstitutional based on a recent Supreme Court decision in Maryland because a credit for income taxes paid to other states is not provided.


City residents last approved the tax in 2011, an election forced by a Rex Sinquefield-backed proposition that bars the creation of any new municipal earnings taxes in Missouri. St. Louis and Kansas City voters must reauthorize the tax every five years. If voters ever fail to pass the tax, it would be phased out over 10 years.


Schaefer has received $750,000 from Sinquefield, a retired investor and the state’s No. 1 political donor, in his quest for the attorney general’s office.

On Thursday, April 21, we mailed members of the Missouri House and Senate copies of “Wake Up St. Louis County: Rex Sinquefield Wants You to Pay for His Empire.”

Here is a copy of the open letter that accompanied each book. It will give you some very keen insight into the problems St. Louis County would inherit from a merger with the city of St. Louis.


An Open Letter to Senator Kurt Schaefer and the Missouri General Assembly

Dear Kurt:

Has Rex Sinquefield paid you $750,000 to bankrupt St. Louis City and then merge it into St. Louis County? There is no way that St. Louis County should bear the extravagances and bad management of St. Louis City! Shouldn’t you tell us how you are going to replace 30%, or $150 million of the City’s revenues? What government do you know that could replace 30% of its revenue?

Are you a Sinq-o-phant (someone whose integrity has been neutered by receiving massive contributions from Sinquefield)?

Do you know that:

  • The City’s taxes are $1,242 per citizen vs. the County’s $449 per citizen. The City’s are 2.8 times greater than the County’s.
  • The City’s total debt is about $1,900,000,000, or $5,967 per citizen vs. the County’s $617,934,308 total debt, or $617 per citizen. Thus, the City’s debt is almost 10 times greater per citizen than the County’s debt.
  • The City’s salary and fringe benefits in the 3 major classifications average

(96,160 + 94,738 + 118,468) / 3, or $103,122. The County’s salary and fringe benefits in the 3 major classifications average (84,671 + 42,140 + 52,630) / 3, or $59,813. The City’s average is 1.7 times greater than the County’s average. The average wages in Missouri are $43,610.

  • The City has 48 citizens for every employee (6,703). The County has 248 citizens for every employee (4,031). Thus, the City has almost 5 times the amount of employees per citizen than the County!
  • And these employees all make the 1.7 times greater City average salary and fringes of $103,122 vs. the County’s $59,813.
  • Here is a way for the City to save $30,000,000:

Decrease the salary and fringes of 692 City employees or 10.3% of 6,703   employees to the County average salary and fringes of $59,813.

  • Here is a way for city to save $150,000,000:

Decrease the salary and fringes of 3,464 employees or 51% of 6,703 employees to            the County average salary and fringes of $59,813.

  • The City has annual debt service of about $77,000,000 on runway 11/29 at Lambert Field which should have never been built!

The enclosed booklet contains unprecedented details of most of St. Louis City’s major problems. These include:

  • Sinquefield Committees (p. 12)
  • City & County taxes (p. 19)
  • City & County Debt (p. 22, 23)
  • Adverse effects of combining City & County taxes & debt (p. 25)
  • City’s invisible “Undisclosed Deferred Compensation Plan” (p. 37)
  • City salaries with pensions & health care (p. 41)
  • Compare City & County salary & fringes (p. 47)
  • Enplanement trends – Lambert Field 1980-2012 (p. 48)
  • City management catastrophe – Lambert Field billion dollar runway 11/29 (p. 54, 57)
  • City mismanagement of Southwest Airlines (p. 60, 63)
  • Boeing flyover of Lambert Field for Charleston, South Carolina (p. 65)
  • How political contributions defeat jobs (p. 71, 72)
  • Compare Sinquefield’s massive political contributions to National Federal Elections

(p. 76, 77)

  • Details of why Sinquefield’s so called tax cut, Senate Bill 509, is really a “fraud” against the people of Missouri – it’s for multi millionaires and billionaires with S-corporations. This tax cut proves his only loyalty is to himself and turning a merger of City & County into the Chicago of Missouri! (p. 79-85)
  • How Sinquefield’s huge political contributions will become a criminal activity (p.87)

So Kurt, what you are doing proves that it is essential that Missourians throw out of office anybody who has received outsized contributions from Sinquefield!


Fred N. Sauer


Contact me at:

  • 0

How Many Have Heard of the UN’s Agenda 30?

In 1992 the United Nations convened an Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro to address climate change. Radicals from around the world came together to build a plan to save the planet and that plan was named Agenda 21. Last Friday, almost 200 nations including the United States signed the “Paris Agreement,” the climate change pact that the United Nations put together during the environmental summit last fall and which is referred to by many as Agenda 30. Signing the agreement is a major step toward implementing this radical socialist agenda and subordinating our national sovereignty to unelected bureaucrats at the UN.

Agenda 21 has nothing to do with the environment and everything to do with socialists shaping society to their “values” and limiting the lifestyles of the common people, while allowing the ruling class to live as they please.

The United Nations description of Agenda 21 is very revealing:

Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced — a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences of every human action be integrated into individual and collective decision-making at every level.[1]

The following descriptions explains how Agendas 21 and 30 will completely regulate the style and standard of living to which Americans are accustomed…deliberately.

On 25 September 2015, the 193 countries of the UN General Assembly adopted the 2030 Development Agenda titled Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Following the adoption, UN agencies, under the umbrella of the United Nations Development Group, decided to support a campaign by several independent entities, among them corporate institutions and International Organizations. The Campaign, known as Project Everyone,[16] introduced the term Global Goals and is intended to help communicate the agreed Sustainable Development Goals to a wider constituency. However the decision to support what is an independent campaign, without the approval of the member states, has met resistance[17] from several sections of civil society and governments, who accuse[18] the UNDG of ignoring the most important communication aspect of the agreement: Sustainability.

  1. Poverty – End poverty in all its forms everywhere.
  2. Food – End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture.
  3. Health – Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages.
  4. Education – Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all.
  5. Women – Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls.
  6. Water – Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all.
  7. Energy – Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and clean energy for all.
  8. Economy – Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all.
  9. Infrastructure – Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and foster innovation.
  10. Inequality – Reduce inequality within and among countries.
  11. Habitation – Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable.
  12. Consumption – Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns.
  13. Climate – Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts.
  14. Marine-ecosystems – Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development[33]
  15. Ecosystems – Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity
  16. Institutions – Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels.
  17. Sustainability – Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development.[2]

Climate change is a religion for many of the elite socialists advocating on its behalf.

 Rajendra Pachauri, head of the the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) since 2002, has stepped down amidst a sexual harassment scandal. In his letter of resignation to U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, Pachauri declared: “For me the protection of Planet Earth, the survival of all species and sustainability of our ecosystems is more than a mission. It is my religion and my dharma.”  

While these earth crusaders impose a religious preference that many do not share, they also pursue a reorganization of the world’s wealth, another fundamental goal of socialist elites.

Wealth redistribution and limiting the freedom of the common man to live as he chooses are all ideas and philosophies that have been tried hundreds of times across the pages of history. Always the result is the same: oppression of the individual, destruction of the innocent, wrecked economies, and war. The socialists have found a new way to foist their failing plan on the masses. They are doing so through the ideology of climate change and the cooperation of all the nations to UN dictated regulations.   How much further can you get from representative constitutional government? We can only look forward to unelected bureaucrats regulating all of our lives.

In a great piece for USA Today, John Coleman, founder of The Weather Channel, remarked:

As a skeptic of man-made global warming, I love our environment as much as anyone. I share the deepest commitment to protecting our planet for our children and grandchildren. However, I desperately want to get politics out of the climate debate. The Paris climate agreement is all about empowering the U.N. and has nothing to do with the climate.

Socialism doesn’t work. It is time to reject the United Nations and Agenda 30 for the failure and fraud the two represent. How did we ever get to the point that the UN has this power over all nation states?

[1] United Nations introduction of Agenda 21

[2] Wikipedia: Sustainable Development Goals

  • 0

Questions for Rex Sinquefield About the City/County Merger


For Immediate Release

Thursday, March 24, 2016

Contact: (314) 540-1010



St. Louis, MO—On Wednesday, March 23, 2016 Fred N. Sauer placed this ad in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch to invite St. Louisans and Missourians to a presentation that will address a looming economic crisis.

fns ad jpeg

Through millions of dollars of political contributions, Rex Sinquefield and others are determined to merge St. Louis City with St. Louis County. This disaster would burden St. Louis County residents with the bad management and fiscal disasters of the City’s government—both their past mistakes and the inevitable future results.

If successful in this plan, St. Louis County residents will feel the very real consequences of years of terrible City policies, and we will be left with the Chicago of Missouri in the control of Rex Sinquefield.

At this upcoming event, Fred Sauer will present significant research about the current economic peril in which Rex Sinquefield and his plans have placed St. Louis County residents.

On March 30, 2016, at 9:30am, please join us at the St. Louis Frontenac Hilton for a continental breakfast and a presentation entitled:

Wake Up St. Louis County!

Rex Sinquefield Wants You to Pay!


All are welcome to attend. Thank you.



  • 0

Fox News Implodes

On the night before the Republican Convention in 2008, Bill O’Reilly of Fox News interviewed Democratic candidate Barack Obama. The tone of the interview was surprising. It was sort of a friendly embrace, not much rigorous discovery, not even about infanticide, which Obama supported when he was a senator in Illinois. I stopped watching O’Reilly thereafter.

Thanks to a gift of two of his books, he would come back to me and fail again by his disrespectful, if not false claims, about President Reagan.

After being uncabled for quite a while, I returned to Fox News to watch Megyn Kelly’s new show. At the outset, well-documented new consultants provided insightful objections to many of Obama’s policies. As her show rose in ratings, however, the content and approach began to change, and I found myself tuning in less frequently.

 Then came the first debate of the election cycle—which I did not watch. Although I missed watching it, I learned that Megyn Kelly addressed Scott Walker first. Walker was one of the most self-accomplished and self-propelled candidates.

Imagine if this had been our candidate in 2012, instead of Romney, who installed Obamacare in Massachusetts and stopped aggressively engaging Obama and his policies after the first debate.

As governor of Wisconsin, Walker changed it from a Democratic stronghold to a great Red State in record time. He faced brutal opposition and even life threatening outbursts. It was recently reported that his reforms have saved Wisconsin $5 billion![1]

What question did Megyn Kelly ask this revolutionary new Republican governor that would allow him to articulate the excellence of his accomplishments in defeating liberalism?

Reaching deep into what hereafter has been an unknown part of her political attitude, she said:

“Would you really let a mother die rather than have abortion? And with 83% of the American public in favor of life exception, are you too out of the mainstream on this issue to win the general election?”

I call this the Todd Akin question. On a St. Louis media outlet in 2012, a similar question was asked of Todd Akin, Republican candidate for the United States Senate. At the time of this interview, Akin was about 10 points ahead of his Democratic opponent, Claire McCaskill.

The outcry from Karl Rove, Mitt Romney, and the entire Republican establishment was unprecedented! They stomped Todd Akin and his outstanding voting record in Congress with money and rhetoric that would assure that Claire McCaskill would return to the United States Senate. Very revealing! In this instance, the true goals of the Republican establishment would not be denied. Just recently, Mitt Romney revealed his character by saying he would write in a vote rather than supporting Trump. This is tantamount to a vote for Hillary Clinton! Romney and the Republican establishment would rather an outspoken advocate of abortion be elected, than a pro-life Republican whom they do not like. This is truly terrible, if you give it just a moment’s thought.

And now, Megyn Kelly and Fox news have joined the wrecking crew. Unexpectedly, I just came across this information on Breitbart:

A few weeks after Senator Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) joined a bipartisan push for an immigration overhaul in 2013, he arrived alongside Senator Chuck Schumer at the executive dining room of News Corporation’s Manhattan headquarters for dinner.

Their mission was to persuade Rupert Murdoch, the owner of the media empire, and Roger Ailes, the chairman and chief executive of its Fox News division, to keep the network’s on-air personalities from savaging the legislation and give it a fighting chance at survival.

Mr. Murdoch, an advocate of immigration reform, and Mr. Ailes, his top lieutenant and the most powerful man in conservative television, agreed at the Jan. 17, 2013, meeting to give the senators some breathing room.


The dinner at News Corporation headquarters — which has not been previously reported — and the subsequent outreach to Mr. Limbaugh illustrate the degree to which Mr. Rubio served as the chief envoy to the conservative media for the group supporting the legislation. The bill would have provided a pathway to American citizenship for 11 million illegal immigrants along with measures to secure the borders and ensure that foreigners left the United States upon the expiration of their visas.[2]

I have written more about Rubio and his stance on amnesty in “Why Rubio Could Kill the Pro-Life Movement.

Depressing—to think how long we cheered Fox News as opposition to the Liberal media, whose lying about the outcomes of Democratic polices gives them so much of their political power.

But, thanks to Megyn Kelly we now know the truth about her and Fox News. They are agents of the Republican establishment—a more ideological enemy than outspoken Democrats. While liberals lied to us, we trusted Fox News.

Yes, thanks to Megyn Kelly for telling the truth about Fox News by taking down a great Republican governor in the Republican debate.

Good luck in the future, Fox; you’ll need it.

Fox News has a problem. . . According to a YouGov Brand Index survey, the perception of Fox News among Republicans has hit a three-year low, “has declined by approximately 50% since January of this year.”[3]

[1], Walker’s Wisconsin Reforms Five Years After Fleebaggers: $5 Billion in Savings 3/1/16

[2] Breitbart: NY Times Bombshell Scoop: Fox News Colluded With Rubio To Give Amnesty To Illegal Aliens. 2/27/16

[3] Breitbart. Trump-Effect: Fox News Channel’s Brand Takes 50% Hit Among Republicans, 2/27/16

  • 1

Why Rubio Could Kill Pro-Life Momentum

Recently, a good friend and faithful supporter asked me what I thought of Marco Rubio as a presidential candidate. Marco Rubio is not my first choice and the reason is very simple. Marco Rubio has been dishonest about his immigration policy from day one, and immigration is too crucial at this juncture in our history, to be ignored.

 Consider this recent revelation about the presidential candidate from Breitbart:

The campaign of GOP frontrunner Donald Trump is speaking out to defend American war veteran and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Council President Chris Crane. Over the weekend, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) demeaned Crane, who’s critical of Sen. Rubio’s involvement in the Gang of Eight bill.

“This courageous ICE officer—a man that Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) 80% has called ‘an American hero’… has served his country in so many different capacities: in the Marine’s uniform, as an ICE officer, [and] as a representative for all of America’s ICE officers,” said Donald Trump’s Senior Policy Adviser Stephen Miller on Breitbart News Sunday.


Prior to joining the Trump campaign, Miller served as Jeff Sessions’ communications director.

On Friday, Breitbart News published an exclusive interview with Chris Crane, an ICE officer of 13 years and a U.S. Marine, in which Crane said Sen. Rubio treated law enforcement “like absolute trash” during his push to pass his 2013 amnesty bill. On Saturday, Rubio appeared on Fox News and implicitly denounced Crane and his service to the country. “He’s not an ICE official, he’s head of a union,” Rubio said angrily.

Miller, who worked for Sen. Sessions as Rubio sought to push the Gang of Eight amnesty bill through the Senate, explained that: “Chris Crane was a central figure in stopping the Gang of Eight immigration bill from becoming law. He did that in his capacity as the ICE Council President for America’s nearly 6,000 ICE officers and personnel. What that means is that the 6,000 ICE officers and personnel cast a ballot to pick one from among their own ranks to represent them nation-wide… He [Crane] was a central figure in exposing the Gang of Eight bill and stopping it.”


A quote from Miller in the article:

“I want to explain just a little bit more about why Chris Crane is such an exceptional person. Consider the situation he finds himself in: he represents America’s ICE officers, who are in a political environment in this Homeland Security Department under Obama where they are ordered every day to violate their oath; where they face unceasing pressure from the political chain of command to release criminal aliens and violent people back on the streets and have nothing they can do… And Chris Crane in 2012 spoke out, when precious few did, about President Obama’s first executive amnesty. And he and nine other ICE officers courageously filed a lawsuit to stop President Obama’s 2012 executive amnesty. Think about the courage that takes about how it affects your future career, in terms of how it affects possible political reprisal.”


When asked if there was anything Sen. Rubio has done to indicate that he now takes law enforcement seriously, Miller gave a review of Rubio’s record:

“The Gang of Eight bill had the following provisions in it: it legalized sex offenders, it legalized gang members, it legalized criminal convicts, it legalized child predators, it legalized people with multiple criminal convictions.

“Chris Crane and other ICE officers asked for all those provisions to be removed. Now, again, Rubio had all of the leverage. Rubio could have gone to Chuck Schumer at any point in time, and say to him, “Hey Mr. Schumer, I can’t support this bill unless we change our minds on this whole amnesty for sex offenders thing. Maybe let’s not give amnesty to sex offenders. I can’t support it unless we make sure that no sex offender in the United States can get amnesty…’ Did he do that? No, he didn’t. And he had all the leverage in the world, if he wanted to. By the way, let’s be real here, how much leverage do you need to tell someone not to give amnesty to illegal alien sex offenders?”


Another quote from Miller:

“In 2015, Rubio introduced another immigration bill. . . [W]hat bill did Sen. Rubio introduce in 2015 [instead]? It was legislation to help large corporations replace American workers with foreign guest workers. Was there any security in the bill? No. Any new screening tools? No. Any new ICE resources? No. Just a massive uncapped increase in the number of foreign nationals who could be employed in the United States in place of U.S. workers . . . Sen. Rubio is the most pro-amnesty candidate in the race, so he inherits completely and solely and exclusively the mantel of the official amnesty candidate.”


Miller explained that “Sen. Rubio has [also] been an enthusiastic backer of Obama’s sovereignty-crushing trade agenda. Only 11 percent of GOP voters think these trade agreements raise wages. And only seven percent of GOP voters want more foreign workers, so that means that… the two pillars of Sen. Rubio’s agenda: Obamatrade and Obama-immigration—at most— appeal to 7 and 11 percent of the Republican electorate at the high end.”

As conservative icon, Phyllis Schlafly explained, “Senator Rubio is not Main Street’s Obama, he is Wall Street’s Obama: President Obama was a hardcore leftist running as centrist; Senator Rubio is a Wall Street globalist running as a tea party conservative… Rubio is the candidate of open borders, Obamatrade and mass immigration, making one last attempt to pull off one big con.”[1]

If you are interested in hearing more of Phyllis’ thoughts, she released a 15-page memo in which she detailed very thoroughly Rubio’s failings in this area.

She began by reminding us that when Rubio was in a position of leadership in the Florida legislature, he was a champion of the pro-immigration lobby and squashed many bills that would have tightened up restrictions on illegal immigration.

When it came time to run for U.S. Congress, Rubio knew he had to change his tune, and he did, distancing himself from the amnesty crowd and promising to oppose amnesty. No sooner did he make it to Capitol Hill, he jumped right into the fray to push amnesty!

In a Breitbart article last month, a staffer involved with the Gang of Eight bill confirmed that Rubio could have been an influence to stop the legislation, but he affirmatively aided it and in doing so, he betrayed all the conservatives who had placed their trust in him. Thankfully, that bill did not pass, but it was no thanks to Rubio, it was in spite of his best efforts. How bad was the bill? Phyllis succinctly presents the breathtaking scope:

Rubio’s repeatedly stated reason for joining the Gang was to get the most conservative bill out of the Senate; the reality, however, was that Rubio sold Republican lawmakers on a bill radically to the left of McCain-Kennedy: a bill that granted instant legalization, doubled annual foreign worker admissions (a much larger increase than McCain-Kennedy), issued 30 million green cards, provided mass amnesty, expedited citizenship for DREAMers without an age cap, removed the limits on family-based migration, etc., etc. Rubio’s bill was supported by every single Senate Democrat, every single liberal house lawmaker, every progressive politician and group in the country, Nancy Pelosi, Luis Gutierrez, Harry Reid, La Raza, Center for American Progress, George Soros, and on and on. Of course the White House was the biggest champion.

Rubio has a pattern. When he runs for election, he tells the voters what we want to hear. Once in office, he works for his own ideals and for the cash that comes from wealthy lobby that wants to throw open the borders.

I know for many of you, your concern and your priority is first and foremost the protection of life, particularly the lives of the unborn. At first blush it might seem these issues could not be more separate, but they are closely connected.

The Democrats push for open borders because the Hispanic vote swings heavily Democrat. If they legalize the millions of aliens who have made their ways to America outside the boundaries of the law, they will have imported a massive voting block to propel them to victory in every future election.

And how will this destroy the life movement? The Democrats are the party of death. If they are able to boost the number of Democratic voters by such a significant number, they will handily win most if not all elections. A Democratic majority will squash pro-life bills before they can get out of committee. Even more disturbing and perhaps hopeless would be a Democratic president, who would then appoint the next Supreme Court justices to control the court for the foreseeable future. If we want to win the life battle, we must defeat the Democrats.

Rubio’s stance on amnesty, if successful, would doom us.

Friends, I hope we will give long and hard thought to the ramifications of this election and of course, significant prayer.


Fred N Sauer

[1] Breitbart: Trump Campaign Defends’ “American Hero” Chris Crane from Marco Rubio’s Screed, 2/22/16

  • 0

James O’Keefe’s Focus on Common Core

Many of you probably know who James O’Keefe is—an activist who specializes in undercover exposés. He and Lila Rose shot onto the national stage when they filmed two videos at Planned Parenthood in which she posed as a teenager who was a victim of statutory rape seeking an illegal abortion. The duo exposed Planned Parenthood’s willingness to thwart the law and enable double child abuse: abortion and statutory rape. Lila has gone on to found LiveAction, a large and successful, nation-wide pro-life organization. She speaks at many conferences across the country and is a bright and articulate advocate for the life movement.

O’Keefe has also continued with his more militant approach, and recently released another set of undercover videos. Interestingly, he has shifted his focus to a new target: Common Core.   In a series of videos, the undercover reporter interviews a number of people involved with Pearson Education, the creators of the Common Core textbooks.

In one video, Kim Koerber who was once an executive at Pearson, discusses Common Core, the new “standardized” system in which Pearson has an incredible amount of money invested. Pearson Education has a lot invested in Common Core and holding their monopoly on the American testing system. Common Dreams—a progressive news source–reported a year ago:

 Pearson Education, the British-owned, for-profit education publishing and high-stakes testing service, rakes in tens of millions in profits at all levels of the American education system—”even when its results don’t measure up.”. . .The education behemoth writes textbooks, workbooks, and standardized tests “that drive instruction in public schools across the nation.” It has developed myriad educational technology products, including software that grades student essays, tracks student behavior, and diagnoses—and allegedly “treats”—attention deficit disorder. At the other end of the pipeline, the company administers teacher licensing exams and coaches teachers once they’re in the classroom.[1]

With her background at Pearson, Ms. Koerber’s candid analysis of Common Core’s principles are troubling. The program, she admits, aims at removing Christianity from curriculums, teaching children about other world religions, particularly Islam, and de-emphasizing the importance of the Founding Fathers in America’s history.

Throughout the video, Ms. Koerber displays a distain for parental rights and local control, two fundamental building blocks of family and society, and freedom. This elite attitude that only certain, enlightened people can decide how parents raise their children and choose what they will be taught had manifested itself more than a few times in the course of human history, and always with disastrous outcomes.

Common Core is an aggressive final push to control the minds of the next generation, to reshape society in a new and un-American mold. It is imperative that we fight for our children’s education—so they have a chance at the future they deserve. It is great to see that James O’Keefe, who has worked to save those young lives from abortion, is continuing to fight for them now in the classroom as the struggle for truth and control continues.

[1] Bad Apples: One Companies Stranglehold on the American Education System, 2/10/15

  • 0

To Understand the Angst in the Financial Services Industry, You Have to Understand the Real Consumption of Oil

This month, the Wall Street Journal ran a piece about oil consumption: Oil, at $31.41, Skids to 2003 Levels. The piece suggests that demand and consumption have driven the fluctuating prices of oil over the past few decades and are now causing a crisis in the energy industry.

Several years ago I wrote a detailed analysis about oil inflation, and I discussed the impact that futures trading has had on our economy and economies all over the world.

[I]n 1999 something radical happened. Oil prices took off in an almost vertical ascent. From the beginning value of $16.56/barrel, oil prices shot up to an unbelievable near peak price of $140.00/barrel on June 30, 2008. The compounded growth rate from this time frame would be 26.8% compounded annually for 18 years. Phenomenal, unprecedented and unjustified.

[G]uess what the change in [America’s] consumption was during this period? In 1999, it was 19.5 million barrels/day and in 2008 it was the still about 19.5 million barrels/day. No change![1]

Oil consumption was not massively fluctuating and the huge spikes in oil prices were not justified by demand. Instead, something else has skewed the market and artificially inflated oil prices to numbers far beyond reality:

In finance, a futures contract is a standardized contract between two parties to exchange a specified asset of standardized quantity and quality for a price agreed today (the futures price or the strike price) with delivery occurring at a specified future date, the delivery date. The contracts are traded on a futures exchange. The party agreeing to buy the underlying asset in the future, the ‘buyer’ of the contract, is said to be ‘long,’ and the party agreeing to sell the asset in the future, the “seller” of the contract, is said to be ‘short.’

To understand how futures trading exports inflation into the economy, and, thereby is constantly imposing an effective tax on consumption of most all our necessities, we are going to examine in extensive detail from the period from 1999 to 2010. This was a period of extreme volatility in oil prices. It was triggered by the removal of the Glass-Steagall Act.

The second Glass-Steagall Act (the Banking Act of 1933) was a reaction to the collapse of a large portion of the American commercial banking system in early 1933. It introduced the separation of bank types according to their business (commercial and investment banking), and it founded the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation for insuring bank deposits.[2]

Commercial banks and Investment banks would remain in separate domains. And Investment banks would tend to remain in private partnerships. In this form, its owners would be personally liable for its debts and losses rather than stockholders.

As the years ticked by, though, banks found ways around many of the imposed separations and when the legislation was repealed in 1999, we had much the same problem we faced in the 1920s:

‘Robert Kutter (Stanford University) testified before Barney Frank’s Committee on Banking and Financial Services in Oct. 2007. ‘Since repeal of Glass-Steagall (FDR Banking Act) in 1999, after more than a decade of de facto inroads, super banks have been able to re-enact the same kinds of structural conflicts of interest that were endemic in the 1920s – tending to speculators, packaging and securitizing credits and then selling them off, wholesale or retail, and extracting fees at every step along the way. And, much of this paper is even more opaque to bank examiners than its counterparts were in the 1920s. Much of it isn’t paper all, and the whole process is supercharged and automated formulas.’

[T]he repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999 was the primary cause of rivers of money flowing between commercial banks, investment banks, hedge funds, pension funds and endowments to be used in leveraged investments for their own accounts thereafter . . . [T]hrough these institutions, excessive and bad lending would find its way into the highly leveraged trading of futures contracts.

The key element causing artificially high oil prices was and is the low margin requirements on futures contracts. You only have to put up cash of 10% percent of the value of the contract. Stocks in contrast require 50% of the price to be put up in cash.

This is the combination of toxic stuff that propelled and is still propelling volatility on an unprecedented scale in almost all categories of commodities and producing inflation throughout our economy.

This inflation has had a profound benefit on a number of Arab nations whose “economies” are built on the price of oil. For years, these countries have been flooded with money in exchange for their oil. This money funds lavish lifestyles for the ruling class and what is left is distributed to the people.

The artificially high price of oil, however, has encouraged more and more people to jump into the energy game. Oil became so profitable, Americans began sinking deep wells in the gulf and invested in fracking operations. As supply shifted, the Middle Eastern countries began to feel a pinch as the price of oil dropped toward realistic levels.

The cheap price is ruining the Eastern economies, because economic growth depends on the free exchange of goods and services. Their “economies” are built on oligarchs profiting off of inflated oil prices.

The collapse of oil is one of the greatest benefits to free nations, but will crush oil dependent tyrannies and their redistributive economies.

It will be very interesting to see how this develops. In the meantime, you can find more details on futures trading and the creation of the current market in my complete piece: How the Few Inflict Inflation on the Many.

[1] How the Few Inflict Inflation on the Many

[2] Wikipedia: The Glass-Steagall Act

  • 0

Socialism’s Lifeblood—Lying

In my book A Simple Guide: How Liberalism, a Euphemism for Socialism, Destroys Peoples and Nations, I discussed the Democrats’ terrible track record of failed policies and the breathtaking and deliberate lies the Democrats tell about those policies:

We are about to examine a proposal by the current ruling class in 2009, the Democratic Party controls the White House, the House of Representatives, and the Senate. They want to create a single party system for the health care industry. They want to micromanage the health care industry and ration health care to the point of deciding how much, if any, health care older people should receive.

All the entitlement programs that are in the process of imminent failure were originated by Democrats when they controlled all three branches of government. These include the following programs:

  • Social Security Franklin Roosevelt
  • Medicare Lyndon Johnson
  • Medicaid Lyndon Johnson
  • Single Payer Healthcare Barack Obama

Democratic politicians have proven themselves completely incapable of taking responsibility for any of these fiscal disasters originated by their control of government.

How do they have any credibility whatsoever based on their dismal history of trying to buy votes with entitlements that always go broke? How did we ever get to the point that we would ever let them even dream of socializing the United States healthcare system?

The answer is ideology and illusion. [1]

If you asked Americans what their opinions were on Socialism, the vast majority would immediately respond with negativity. America has fought more than one war to free other people form the terrible chains of Socialism, and we have enjoyed the remarkable success we have achieved, while watching Socialist countries founder and suffer. In general, because the media calls it progressivism, not what it really is, Americans think Socialism is a world away and largely confined to the history books.

Unfortunately, the destructive political ideology is alive and well right here at home, and slowly but surely wreaking the same havoc it has in every other nation where it has been implemented. If we actually examine many of the policies put forward by Democrat politicians, we will find socialism cloaked in lies. The Democrats understand that if they honestly presented their policies, Americans would reject Socialism. Let’s look at just one example.

Do any of you remember “Hillarycare?”

“The Clinton health care plan, known officially as the Health Security Act and unofficially nicknamed “Hillarycare” (after First Lady Hillary Clinton) by its detractors, was a 1993 healthcare reform package proposed by the administration of President Bill Clinton and closely associated with the chair of the task force devising the plan…”


The Clinton health plan required each US citizen and permanent resident alien to become enrolled in a qualified health plan and forbade their disenrollment until covered by another plan….People below a certain set income level were to pay nothing.


The bill was a complex proposal running more than 1,000 pages, the core element of which was an enforced mandate for employers to provide health insurance coverage to all of their employees.”[2]

Sounds familiar, doesn’t it? Here are some critiques:

Op-eds were written against it, including one in The Washington Post by conservative[12] University of Virginia Professor Martha Derthick that said: ‘In many years of studying American social policy, I have never read an official document that seemed so suffused with coercion and political naivete … with its drastic prescriptions for controlling the conduct of state governments, employers, drug manufacturers, doctors, hospitals and you and me.’”[3]

Here is another noted author:

Democratic Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan qualified his agreement that “there is no health care crisis” by stating “there is an insurance crisis” but also indicated “anyone who thinks [the Clinton health care plan] can work in the real world as presently written isn’t living in it.”[4]

Despite the passage of time, the same Hillary is trying to carry water for Obamacare by proposing price control for drugs. And what do we know about Obamacare? Remember Jonathan Gruber? Here are some miscellaneous facts about his career.


  • In 1999, the Quarterly Journal of Economics published “Abortion legalization and child living circumstances: who is the ‘marginal child’?”[14] a version of a which was prepared by Gruber and colleagues for the National Bureau of Economic Research[14] which suggests that the legalized abortion has a selective effect for reducing the birth of “marginal children” that saved the government over $14 billion in welfare payments through 1994.
  • In November 2014, a series of videos emerged of Gruber speaking about the ACA at different events, from 2010 to 2013, in ways that proved to be controversial; the controversy became known in the press as “Grubergate“.[29] Many of the videos show him talking about ways in which he felt the ACA was misleadingly crafted or marketed in order to get the bill passed, while in some of the videos he specifically refers to American voters as ill-informed or “stupid”….in October 2013, Gruber said the bill was deliberately written “in a tortured way” to disguise the fact that it creates a system by which “healthy people pay in and sick people get money”. He said this obfuscation was needed due to “the stupidity of the American voter” in ensuring the bill’s passage. Gruber said the bill’s inherent “lack of transparency is a huge political advantage” in selling it.[5]

What Gruber is really saying here is that if the American voters don’t agree with the policies of the Socialist Democrats they are stupid. But, if the Socialist Democrats ever clearly stated what they were doing, the American voter would vote against it.

This produces the inevitable reality that the Democrats are only advancing their implicitly socialist agenda, by lying about and concealing what they are doing.

Consider what we have learned so far as the lies are being exposed:

All attacks of Socialism against representative democracy are characterized by a shift of power from the representatives of the general assemblies to the “presidents” of the failing democracies. This shift is one of the greatest dangers of Obamacare.

With an unprecedented expansion of the regulatory powers of the executive branch to the most important product we want to buy, healthcare, abuses of the regularity process are likely for affect everyone sooner or later. The evidence for this is increasing every day:

‘ObamaCare” is useful shorthand for the Affordable Care Act not least because the law increasingly means whatever President Obama says it does on any given day. His latest lawless rewrite arrived on Monday as the White House decided to delay the law’s employer mandate for another year and in some cases maybe forever.


Under the new Treasury rule, firms with 50 to 99 full-time workers are free from the mandate until 2016. And firms with 100 or more workers now also only need cover 70% of full-time workers in 2015 and 95% in 2016 and after, not the 100% specified in the law.


By now ObamaCare’s proliferating delays, exemptions and administrative retrofits are too numerous to count, most of them of dubious legality. The text of the Affordable Care Act specifically says when the mandate must take effect—”after December 31, 2013″—and does not give the White House the authority to change the terms.

Changing an unambiguous statutory mandate requires the approval of Congress, but then this President has often decided the law is whatever he says it is. His Administration’s cavalier notions about law enforcement are especially notable here for their bias for corporations over people. The White House has refused to suspend the individual insurance mandate, despite the harm caused to millions who are losing their previous coverage.

Liberals say the law isn’t harming jobs or economic growth, but everything this White House does screams the opposite.[7]

Now comes Hillary desperate to get into the White House in 2016. How does she fit into all this? All too well, as we shall see. Over the next few posts, I will explore the many times that Hillary has lied to the American people about her actions and motives, as she foists what will prove to be a cancerous agenda on America: socialism.

[1] A Simple Guide: How Liberalism, a Euphemism for Socialism, Destroys Peoples and Nations, Fred N. Sauer

[2] Wikipedia: Clinton Healthcare Plan of 1993

[3] Id.

[4] Id.

[5] Wikipedia: Jonathan Gruber (economist)

[6] Grand Theft Obama: The Biggest Heist in History

[7] WSJ: Obama Rewrites Obamacare 2/10/14

  • 0

Economic Realities Expose Socialism’s Liars

Anyone who has ever operated a business, large or small, recognizes the essential fact that you must make a profit to succeed. A profit can be a penny or a million dollars, but the fact is that it must exceed your costs over the relevant period of operation or you won’t be in business for long.

When any government has the power of what price you can charge, you lose all control of your products and your business and your investment in it.

Venezuela is a case study in the disastrous consequences of price control:

CARACAS—Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro began to extend price controls over a broad swath of the economy in a bid to control runaway inflation set off by his government’s increased spending, moves economists say risk exacerbating shortages in this oil-rich nation.

Mr. Maduro, who is seeking special powers from the National Assembly to pass laws by decree, said late Sunday that he would also set “percentage limits for profits in all sectors of the economy” if legislators oblige him.

On Monday, long lines of shoppers formed outside a leading electronics retailer named Daka after Mr. Maduro over the weekend ordered the stores to slash prices by half. The National Guard was also sent to arrest five managers of various electronics stores accused of overcharging customers.


Venezuela’s woes also come in an era of low global inflation, and when most neighbors, such as Colombia enjoy annualized inflation rates of around 2%.

The central bank report also signaled the likely culprit for the rise: The amount of bolívares in circulation rose 70% over the past year, a clear sign the government is printing ever larger amounts of money to stoke a slowing economy.


The moves underscore the increasingly difficult trade-offs faced by Mr. Maduro as he tries to consolidate his legitimacy following the death in March of his charismatic predecessor, Hugo Chávez. So far, it appears he is doubling down on what critics call Mr. Chávez’s populist playbook: spend money to buy popularity, employ price controls when inflation rises and blame the ensuing shortages on greedy capitalists.[1]

Note that “the amount of bolivars in circulation rose 70% over the past year, a clear sign the government is printing ever larger amounts of money to stoke a slowing economy.” In America’s Obama Land this is called quantitative easing. If left unchecked, later it will have the same consequences for us.

For instance, consider this:

LA SIBUCARA, Venezuela—Hours after they looted and set fire to a National Guard command post in this sun-baked corner of Venezuela earlier this month, a mob infuriated by worsening food shortages rammed trucks into the smoldering edifice, reducing it mostly to rubble.


…Venezuelans wait for hours in long supermarket lines for basics like milk and rice. Shortages have made hunger a palpable concern for many…

“What’s certain is that we are going very hungry here and the children are suffering a lot,” said María Palma, a 55-year-old grandmother who on a recent blistering hot day had been standing in line at the grocery store since 3 a.m. before walking away empty-handed at midday.

Food-supply problems in Venezuela underscore the increasingly precarious situation for Mr. Maduro’s socialist government…

The unrest is a response to dramatically worsening living conditions for Venezuelans as the economy reels from oil’s slump following more than a decade of populist spending that left the government broke.[2]


Price controls, government spending of printed money, and the government’s attempt to buy popularity all result in economic destruction. This is a perfect example of what Socialism is all about.

Against thus background comes one of the world’s most world wise citizens and a former secretary of State, Hillary Clinton. Now admittedly, she is not sophisticated in the management of economic systems, for didn’t she say once upon a time that she and her husband were “broke.” This would be after Bill and Hilary had their dual careers in high-end law practice and well paid public service. This sort of stretches her credibility, but nonetheless, just a few weeks ago:


“Hilary Clinton proposed a $250 cap on prescription medication, which she claimed would stop the price gauging ‘of big pharmaceuticals.’”


The only thing that is clear about this statement is that Hillary Clinton is a radical socialist, just like Venezuela’s Cesar Chavez.

By the way, Chávez was not broke when he died. Socialist leaders somehow always figure out how to get their hands on a lot of money, in Chávez’s case, about 2.5 billion dollars.

But, getting back to Clinton, where has she been for the last 10 to 15 years while advances in biological drugs, and especially those against cancer, have been spectacular. For example:

Scientists at the American Society for Clinical Oncology’s annual meeting in Chicago last weekend announced “spectacular” results from one clinical trial of patients with skin cancer. More than half the patients with advanced melanoma, many considered to have little time left, saw tumours shrink or brought under control using a combination of drugs – ipilimumab, known under the brand name Yervoy, and the as-yet unlicensed nivolumab, branded as Opdivo.[3]


So at this point, we know that the Democratic Party’s leading candidate for President is a radical socialist who doesn’t know much about the American drug industry where the risks of inventing such drugs costs hundreds of millions of dollars—to make a profit. For without profits there would be no such drugs. Yes, this is just like Venezuela’s socialism—no profits—no food!

More on how socialism thrives on lies soon…

[1] WSJ: Venezuela Moves to Cap Prices 11/12/13

[2] WSJ: Venezuela’s Food Shortages Trigger Long Lines, Hunger, and Looting 8/27/15

[3] The Guardian: Cancer Breakthrough Triggers Big Pharma Interest in Drugs and Deals 6/1/15

  • 0

An Unpleasant Surprise Coming

Recently, I bought gas for $2.10 per gallon, a very pleasant experience indeed. This would be a typical reaction for anyone in a market economy where cheap energy is essential for building a growing and completely diversified economy.

 On the other side of the coin, there are many places where lower oil prices are not considered a good thing. Here is a comment about the situation in Venezuela almost a year ago:

 MARACAIBO, Venezuela—Amid worsening shortages, Venezuela recently reached a milestone of dubious distinction: It has joined the ranks of North Korea and Cuba in rationing food for its citizens.

On a recent, muggy morning, Maria Varge stood in line outside a Centro 99 grocery store, ready to scour the shelves for scarce items like cooking oil and milk. But before entering, Ms. Varge had to scan her fingerprint to ensure she wouldn’t buy more than her share.


The government rolled out the system last month across 36 supermarkets in this western border state, Zulia, whose capital is Maracaibo, with a recent expansion into a select number of state-owned markets in Caracas.

Venezuela is turning to rationing because of shortages caused by what economists call a toxic mix of unproductive local industry—hamstrung by nationalizations and government intervention—and a complex currency regime that is unable to provide the dollars importers need to pay for basics.

The tumbling price for Venezuela’s oil, which has fallen by nearly $15 a barrel since September to $77.65 on Friday, is likely to mean even more scarcity in the cash-strapped country, economists say.

Their suffering is getting worse because today the price of oil has dropped to almost $46 per barrel.

Other unhappy people include those of Saudi Arabia: 

The Saudi economy is heavily dependent on oil, which accounts for 90% of fiscal revenue, 80% of current account revenue, and 40% of gross domestic product, analysts at Fitch noted (WSJ 8/24/15)

Saudi Arabia has an oil based economy with strong governmental control over major economic activities. Saudi Arabia possesses 25% of the world’s proven petroleum reserves.

Saudi Arabia is a centrally planned economy. Private enterprises do exist, they are however regulated by the Saudi government. (Simple Guide P. 31) 

Even with immense oil reserves, government controlled economies do not produce high Gross Domestic Products per capita. Now, these economies are going to have to borrow a lot of money to replace their lost foreign currency reserves:

Saudi Arabia, the world’s largest oil producer, is the prime example of the swiftness and magnitude of the selloff: its foreign exchange reserves fell by $20.2 billion in February, the biggest monthly drop in at least 15 years, according to data from the Saudi Arabian Monetary Agency. That’s almost double the drop after the financial crisis in early 2009, when oil prices plunged and Riyadh consumed $11.6 billion of its reserves in a single month.

In the oil price collapse of 1998 to $20 per barrel (adjusted for inflation) Russia, formally the Soviet Union, defaulted on its debt. And it is suffering today from the current contraction of oil prices to $40 a barrel.

When a government’s economy fails, it has to borrow a lot of money to buy what it cannot produce. Therefore, the value of its currency falls because other producers of goods and services demand higher prices to protect them as recipients from the risk in further declines in the value of the currency they just accepted. Brazil is an excellent current example:

“Brazil’s currency hit its lowest level against the dollar in two decades, as investors wagered that the commodity rout and political turmoil will continue to batter the country’s economy. On Tuesday, the Brazilian real hit its weakest point since the currency was introduced in 1994. Trading as low as 4.0667 to the dollar, the real has lost 35% of its value against the dollar so far this year.” WSJ 9/23/15

The Federal Reserve is committed to lowest rates in our history after 7 years of the slowest economic recovery since the Depression. During this period, the Obama Administration doubled our national publicly held debt from 5.8 trillion dollars, which took over 200 years to acquire, to today’s 13.146 trillion in the same 7 years.

When interest rates go up, we in America will pay the price for the Obama administration’s “Socialism,” i.e. massive government spending.