News - Category 'A. Dru Kristenev's Op-Eds'

George Soros Contradicts Mentor Karl Popper

26 Mar : 19:21 Category: A. Dru Kristenev's Op-Eds


George Soros, in his own words, has regarded Karl Popper as his mentor, the philosopher and instructor at the London School of Economics under whom he studied. Of interest to me, as I was compiling research on Soros in 2007-08 in preparation of writing “Gold Baron,” was the fact that, for someone who supposedly so revered his mentor, Soros plainly disregarded and even contradicted Popper’s teachings. Not to say that he didn’t learn the lessons in class. In actuality, Soros applied them well in what he calls “reflexivity.”

In order to streamline where Soros deviated from the wisdom of Popper, in this brief of working notes, the entry from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is utilized for the clarity and concision of Popper’s work in social and political philosophy, revised since this paper’s writing.

The following quoted excerpts are from the Stanford document. My emphasis on Soros’ obvious contradiction of his mentor’s teachings are highlighted, and my comments are italicized:


Popper, then, repudiates induction, and rejects the view that it is the characteristic method of scientific investigation and inference, and substitutes falsifiability in its place. It is easy, he argues, to obtain evidence in favour of virtually any theory, and he consequently holds that such ‘corroboration’, as he terms it, should count scientifically only if it is the positive result of a genuinely ‘risky’ prediction, which might conceivably have been false. For Popper, a theory is scientific only if it is refutable by a conceivable event. Every genuine test of a scientific theory, then, is logically an attempt to refute or to falsify it, and one genuine counter-instance falsifies the whole theory.[Thus, global warming which Soros uses freely as a rationale for his philanthropy, by Popper’s definition, is unscientific] “In a critical sense, Popper's theory of demarcation is based upon his perception of the logical asymmetry which holds between verification and falsification: it is logically impossible to conclusively verify a universal proposition by reference to experience (as Hume saw clearly), but a single counter-instance conclusively falsifies the corresponding universal law. In a word, an exception, far from ‘proving’ a rule, conclusively refutes it.

Popper emphasises both the importance of questioning the background knowledge when the need arises, and the significance of the fact that observation-statements are theory-laden, and hence fallible. For while falsifiability is simple as a logical principle, in practice it is exceedingly complicated — no single observation can ever be taken to falsify a theory, for there is always the possibility (a) that the observation itself is mistaken, or (b) that the assumed background knowledge is faulty or defective.


Against this Popper strongly advances the view that any human social grouping is no more (or less) than the sum of its individual members, that what happens in history is the (largely unplanned and unforeseeable) result of the actions of such individuals, and that large scale social planning to an antecedently conceived blueprint is inherently misconceived — and inevitably disastrous — precisely because human actions have consequences which cannot be foreseen. Popper, then, is an historical indeterminist, insofar as he holds that history does not evolve in accordance with intrinsic laws or principles, that in the absence of such laws and principles unconditional prediction in the social sciences is an impossibility, and that there is no such thing as historical necessity.[However, does this not combat the assumption that “global warming” can be avoided by attempting to predict human effect on the atmosphere by predicting (through false science) the energy expenditure of humanity? And is not Soros promoting exactly this?]

Open Society…

More specifically, the open society can be brought about only if it is possible for the individual citizen to evaluate critically the consequences of the implementation of government policies, which can then be abandoned or modified in the light of such critical scrutiny — in such a society, the rights of the individual to criticise administrative policies will be formally safeguarded and upheld, undesirable policies will be eliminated in a manner analogous to the elimination of falsified scientific theories, and differences between people on social policy will be resolved by critical discussion and argument rather than by force.

The open society as thus conceived of by Popper may be defined as ‘an association of free individuals respecting each other's rights within the framework of mutual protection supplied by the state, and achieving, through the making of responsible, rational decisions, a growing measure of humane and enlightened life’ (Levinson, R.B. In Defense of Plato, 17). As such, Popper holds, it is not a utopian ideal, but an empirically realised form of social organisation which, he argues, is in every respect superior to its (real or potential) totalitarian rivals. But he does not engage in a moral defence of the ideology of liberalism;[the exact opposite of his, and the true, definition of which has come to be understood in modern Western society – in that the concept promotes free enterprise (economic competition) and limited regulation by the state. Within today’s society, the bastardized form of “liberalism” is behind increasing governmental regulation of economic enterprise] “rather his strategy is the much deeper one of showing that totalitarianism is typically based upon historicist and holist presuppositions, and of demonstrating that these presuppositions are fundamentally incoherent.


The latter,” (human society and human history) “of course, is not an isolated system (in fact it's not a system at all), it is constantly changing, and it continually undergoes rapid, non-repetitive development. In the most fundamental sense possible, every event in human history is discrete, novel, quite unique, and ontologically distinct from every other historical event. For this reason, it is impossible in principle that unconditional scientific prophecies could be made in relation to human history — the idea that the successful unconditional prediction of eclipses provides us with reasonable grounds for the hope of successful unconditional prediction regarding the evolution of human history turns out to be based upon a gross misconception, and is quite false. As Popper himself concludes, "The fact that we predict eclipses does not, therefore, provide a valid reason for expecting that we can predict revolutions." (Conjectures and Refutations, 340).” [So how is human energy development and consumption, and its subsequent affect on the atmosphere, predictable when human society is not a closed system and thus unpredictable? Is this the purpose of Soros’ idea that regulation must be instituted on the governmental level to direct capitalism? To create, or attempt to create a closed system?]

Following quote is that of George Soros and not from the Popper paper:

"Global integration has brought tremendous benefits: the benefits of the international division of labor ... But global capitalism is not without its problems, and we need to understand these better if we want the system to survive. By focusing on the problems I'm not trying to belittle the benefits that globalization has brought ... The benefits of the present global capitalist system, I believe, can be sustained only by deliberate and persistent efforts to correct and contain the system's deficiencies.” George Soros. "Toward a Global Open Society".1998. The Atlantic magazine. (,

Historical antecedents…

For the truth is that the number of factors which predate and lead to the occurrence of any event, past, present, or future, is indefinitely large, and therefore knowledge of all of these factors is impossible, even in principle. What gives rise to the fallacy is the manner in which the historian (necessarily) selectively isolates a finite number of the antecedent conditions of some past event as being of particular importance, which are then somewhat misleadingly termed ‘the causes’ of that event, when in fact what this means is that they are the specific conditions which a particular historian or group of historians take to be more relevant than any other of the indefinitely large number of such conditions (for this reason, most historical debates range over the question as to whether the conditions thus specified are the right ones). While this kind of selectivity may be justifiable in relation to the treatment of any past event, it has no basis whatsoever in relation to the future — if we now select, as Marx did, the ‘relevant’ antecedent conditions for some future event, the likelihood is that we will select wrongly.” [Global warming falls into this category.]

Neither conditional nor unconditional predictions can be based upon trends, because these may change or be reversed with a change in the conditions which gave rise to them in the first instance. Popper does not, of course, dispute the existence of trends, nor does he deny that the observation of trends can be of practical utility value — but the essential point is that a trend is something which itself ultimately stands in need of scientific explanation, and it cannot therefore function as the frame of reference in terms of which anything else can be scientifically explained or predicted.

Moreover, he argues, it is logically demonstrable by a consideration of the implications of the fact that no scientific predictor, human or otherwise, can possibly predict, by scientific methods, its own future results. From this it follows, he holds, that ‘no society can predict, scientifically, its own future states of knowledge’. (The Poverty of Historicism, vii).

Popper's arguments against holism, and in particular his arguments against the propriety of large-scale planning of social structures, are interconnected with his demonstration of the logical shortcomings of the presuppositions of historicism. Such planning (which actually took place, of course, in the USSR, in China, and in Cambodia, for example, under totalitarian regimes which accepted forms of historicism and holism), Popper points out, is necessarily structured in the light of the predictions which have been made about future history on the basis of the so-called ‘laws’ which historicists such as Marx and Mao claimed to have discovered in relation to human history. Accordingly, recognition that there are no such laws, and that unconditional predictions about future history are based, at best, upon nothing more substantial than the observation of contingent trends, shows that, from a purely theoretical as well as a practical point of view, large-scale social planning is indeed a recipe for disaster.[Is this not the very supposition that is intruding into increased governmental regulation? The concept that planning and directing via legislation and rules, one can direct the outcome and subvert the natural direction of history and/or nature itself?] “In summary, unconditional large-scale planning for the future is theoretically as well as practically misguided, because, again, part of what we are planning for is our future knowledge, and our future knowledge is not something which we can in principle now possess — we cannot adequately plan for unexpected advances in our future knowledge, or for the effects which such advances will have upon society as a whole. The acceptance of historical indeterminism, then, as the only philosophy of history which is commensurate with a proper understanding of the nature of scientific knowledge, fatally undermines both historicism and holism.” [Why then is Soros promoting the opposite of what Popper contends?]

Here we go… this answers all my previous questions…

Popper's critique of both historicism and holism is balanced, on the positive side, by his strong defence of the open society, the view, again, that a society is equivalent to the sum of its members, that the actions of the members of society serve to fashion and to shape it, not conversely, and that the social consequences of intentional actions are very often, and very largely, unintentional. This is why Popper himself advocates what he (rather unfortunately) terms ‘piecemeal social engineering’ as the central mechanism for social planning — for in utilising this mechanism intentional actions are directed to the achievement of one specific goal at a time, which makes it possible to monitor the situation to determine whether adverse unintended effects of intentional actions occur, in order to correct and readjust when this proves necessary. This, of course, parallels precisely the critical testing of theories in scientific investigation. This approach to social planning (which is explicitly based upon the premise that we do not, because we cannot, know what the future will be like) encourages attempts to put right what is problematic in society — generally-acknowledged social ills — rather than attempts to impose some preconceived idea of the ‘good’ upon society as a whole. For this reason, in a genuinely open society piecemeal social engineering goes hand-in-hand for Popper with negative utilitarianism (the attempt to minimise the amount of misery, rather than, as with positive utilitarianism, the attempt to maximise the amount of happiness). The state, he holds, should concern itself with the task of progressively formulating and implementing policies designed to deal with the social problems which actually confront it, with the goal of eliminating human misery and suffering to the highest possible degree. The positive task of increasing social and personal happiness, by contrast, can and should be should be left to individual citizens (who may, of course, act collectively to this end), who, unlike the state, have at least a chance of achieving this goal, but who in a free society are rarely in a position to systematically subvert the rights of others in the pursuit of idealised objectives. Thus in the final analysis for Popper the activity of problem-solving is as definitive of our humanity at the level of social and political organisation as it is at the level of science, and it is this key insight which unifies and integrates the broad spectrum of his thought.”

Popper response to criticism…

Popper's final position is that he acknowledges that it is impossible to discriminate science from non-science on the basis of the falsifiability of the scientific statements alone; he recognizes that scientific theories are predictive, and consequently prohibitive, only when taken in conjunction with auxiliary hypotheses, and he also recognizes that readjustment or modification of the latter is an integral part of scientific practice. Hence his final concern is to outline conditions which indicate when such modification is genuinely scientific, and when it is merely ad hoc. This is itself clearly a major alteration in his position, and arguably represents a substantial retraction on his part: Marxism can no longer be dismissed as ‘unscientific’ simply because its advocates preserved the theory from falsification by modifying it (for in general terms, such a procedure, it now transpires, is perfectly respectable scientific practice). It is now condemned as unscientific by Popper because the only rationale for the modifications which were made to the original theory was to ensure that it evaded falsification, and so such modifications were ad hoc, rather than scientific. This contention — though not at all implausible — has, to hostile eyes, a somewhat contrived air about it, and is unlikely to worry the convinced Marxist. On the other hand, the shift in Popper's own basic position is taken by some critics as an indicator that falsificationism, for all its apparent merits, fares no better in the final analysis than verificationism.”

Introduction amended: March 26, 2011

A. Dru Kristenev

Author, The Baron Series of novels: Land Barons (2007 – soon to be published by New Patriot Publishing), Gold Baron (2008), Energy Barons (2009)

printer friendly create pdf of this news item

Dru-Unreported Face of Homelessness

21 Oct : 15:20 Category: A. Dru Kristenev's Op-Eds
October 20, 2010

The Unreported Face of Homelessness

When we think of a homeless person, what comes to mind? Generally, what some people used to call bums. People who were unkempt, uneducated, unmotivated, drug addicts, alcoholics, disturbed, mentally diminished or just plain lazy. They could be any one or all of the above. This outdated picture of homelessness doesn’t have much validity in today’s world.

In this economy (where the latest Gallup poll places this month’s unemployment figures as sharply rising, projecting numbers above 10% there has been an upsurge in the homeless situation for single working parents, who, after government’s cut, simply do not make enough to provide housing, food and clothing on the pittance they take home. Shades of Bob Cratchit (who actually still had a roof over his head despite being desperately poor). Finally, the working homeless are now getting attention from the press and Congress, albeit the wrong kind, as in, “how can we take care of all these poor, downtrodden folks?” This perpetuates the problem rather than solving it.

Just take a glance through the “CRS Report for Congress - Homelessness: Recent Statistics, Targeted Federal Programs, and Recent Legislation
Updated May 31, 2005,”, and check pages 19 and 20 of the report to see where all the effort is being channeled and the amount of tax dollars being funneled to help these categories of unfortunate people. In fact, check any statistics compiled by homeless activist groups. Since this report, submitted years before the last recession (an ignored red flag?), the number of programs and allocations has expanded exponentially through new legislation during this administration alone.

Am I advocating that nothing is done to help? No. However, there is a significant category of homelessness that has received no attention, nor does anyone suspect that it even exists. How do I know? Simple, I’m seeing it with my own eyes among individuals of my acquaintance. Who are they? Professionals who have lost their income and are now without a real place to lay their heads, having also lost their homes. Not due to overindulgence, overspending, or taking advantage of the poor underpaid worker class, either, but to businesses that are cutting positions, hours and salaries as they fight to stay afloat. These professionals are living in their cars, under friend’s roofs and anywhere they can find shelter while they work their inadequately paying jobs, as working capital is siphoned by the voracious appetite of Congress that is too busy funneling money to people who won’t work for a living.

Oh yes, I’m heartless and exaggerating. Hardly. These self-starters are just not about to run to Lord Gov for money when things are a little tight, and sometimes dire. I was recently informed that a nearby city is suffering with 47% of its population on food stamps. This is not a good thing, no matter what Mother Pelosi seems to think. It does not boost the economy.

This is an example of what is occurring in the cities and suburbs of our nation to which no one is paying attention:

The conversation was between a customer and the service provider for his cell phone. Let’s start with the background. This is a professional who, due to the downturn in the economy, which dramatically affected his income, now finds himself underemployed and no longer ensconced in his home, having lost it to the plummet in housing market values. He manages to get by depending on his cell phone and e-mail to maintain vital business contacts. When all of a sudden, 24 hours’ worth of imperative communication disappeared from his e-mail account, he called the provider to get the problem fixed. Little did he know what a nasty can of worms he was opening. Not only could they not help him, but after hours of wasted time working with customer service, they were questioning whether he could retain the account since it had been attached to his landline.

“I don’t have a landline anymore, because I no longer have a house,” was the exasperated explanation. The provider was unwilling to accept the fact that the customer still had a cell phone and computer from which he could access the account, but was adamant that the e-mail address was no longer valid if the hardline were not linked to it. As you can imagine, the dialog was circular and I was frustrated just listening to the idiocy that precluded the businessman from retrieving his e-mail.

It’s bad enough losing your home and half your livelihood, having to crash with friends who are themselves struggling. But to have what connection you have to the world, and the possibility of earning a living, yanked from beneath you because of a policy?

It’s no wonder that folks like us are losing ground in America. We are being brushed aside in favor of the “truly needy,” for whom we pay taxes to feed and clothe, only to find that our limited individual resources are being reduced even further. If the working professionals are being disenfranchised, and the “disenfranchised” are being cared for, who is going to pay the ultimate bill? There is no more money to come from businesses and professionals as they begin to find themselves among the homeless, unreported by the media and hopelessly dropping by the curbside. The pitiful homeless cannot be supported by the working homeless, (or by the so-called wealthy), and yet, that is precisely to where Congress is devolving our nation… the productive homeless, or near homeless, paying for the privilege of the non-producers to have a home that they can call their own and can’t afford.

You do the math… it doesn’t add up.

A. Dru Kristenev

A. Dru Kristenev is a citizen of the great Northwest United States, former journalist and author of the Baron Series, novels of political intrigue, world markets and presumptive power brokers based on research of the underpinnings of real-time political and global financial maneuvering, and who’s instigating it.

Don’t miss for news links and insightful postings by a legal researcher as Toddy Littman, “Gold Baron” character. Toddy reappears in the new sequel, “Energy Barons.” Read “Land Barons” which introduces the very premise that we see unfolding before our eyes… the sacking of America.

CW.O, the first innovative and interactive website of its kind.

printer friendly create pdf of this news item


12 Oct : 22:38 Category: A. Dru Kristenev's Op-Eds
October 12, 2010

Since when is religion a race?

The latest uproar by Arab citizens of Israel over a bill requiring new citizens to take an oath of allegiance to the ‘Jewish and Democratic’ state is yet another misdirection of word use, and it is the press that’s causing the stir.

Nowhere within the quotes from Arab leaders, that I could find, has the term “racist” appeared. Yet the mainstream press is crying that the Arab minority within Israel is labeling the new amendment to a bill, that was passed by the Cabinet by a vote of 22 to eight on Sunday, October 10, 2010, as being so.

Yes, the Arab leadership was claiming that the legislation would undermine their rights within the nation. However, despite the AP asserting (without providing any facts to back the contention) that the Arab minority suffers general discrimination, this is one population that is provided equal rights under Israeli law and is well represented within the legislative body. Today’s miniscule protest, staged at Tel Aviv’s Independence Hall, of 150 foolhardy artists and academics, who live in a world of their own contrivance, claimed Israel is now ‘fascist’ for taking a stand on it’s right to exist as a nonexclusive homeland for Jewish people. The smattering of rabble-rousers was unworthy of international press coverage, proving yet again how far the media will go to create controversy. Minister Benjamin Netanyahu clarified the rationale for the bill as being necessary to remind the world that the State of Israel was established to be a homeland for the dispossessed Jewish people People who truly had been discriminated against, to the point of attempted extermination not sixty years ago by an actual fascist nation.

How quickly the world forgets.

They forget also that the slow migration of Jews, back to what was historically considered their homeland, took place over decades of immigrants purchasing square miles of empty tracts from the absentee Ottoman Turk landlords. No one really lived there aside from nomadic Arabs who were not called Palestinians, in that there was no Palestine. The term was instituted at a later date when the whole area came under the purview of the British Empire, which utilized the Roman name to describe the region. This area of the Middle East was essentially underpopulated to the point of being virtually barren. Even the land itself was little more than desert, with some malaria-infested swamp, that was revitalized by displaced Jews from Europe who developed the first drip irrigation systems.

And calling Israel racist? This isn’t the first time the epithet has been thrown at the Jewish state. In fact, I wrote a paper on this very issue when the United Nations first levied the charge, branding Zionism as racist in 1976 with a resolution that was unwarranted and utterly fatuous. Neither Zionism nor Judaism are racist, or can be described as such. Zionism is a political philosophy, and Judaism is a religion. Racism is generally related to categorizing humans by skin color, and even here the term is misapplied more often than not.

Over and over again, people misuse the word ‘racist’ by employing it to describe ethnicity, a completely different standard. Whether one is Hispanic, Arabic, French, Azerbaijani or Polynesian, these titles indicate ethnicity in regard to one’s native culture and language. It has nothing to do with race. In fact, the idea of race is consistently misapplied assuming that it is a categorization of people by skin tone, which it is not. The concept of races (of which there are only three – Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Negroid) was originally assigned according to the geographic origin of a people (e.g. Australian Aborigines are classified as Caucasoid, as are Polynesians).

I hope that this is computing with all of you who constantly abuse the terminology in order to instigate divisiveness. Yes, that’s what I said… diversity is based on division of people, not the opposite, and all hypocrites who insist upon stressing the differences between people, particularly here in the United States of America, are nothing better than provocateurs.

Media must be responsible for the words they use and headlines they blare, seeking only to create rifts and undermine communities and nations. It belongs to us, the people, however, to correct misuse of language and ignore the destabilizing media and the agitators who would only degrade our society for their own gain.

Recognizing the reason why a nation came into being and pledging allegiance thereto, is no premise for division, but one of cohesion, wherein all citizens of that nation share equal rights under those laws. Israel is a democracy, different in its establishment from our own republic, but the people must uphold the state to which they profess loyalty as citizens. Look to the Pakistani immigrant who was just landed behind bars with a life sentence for attempting to destroy citizens of his adopted country, the USA.

An oath of allegiance must have meaning for a naturalized citizen of any nation, let alone a bitterly embattled state such as Israel.

A. Dru Kristenev

A. Dru Kristenev is a citizen of the great Northwest United States, former journalist and author of the Baron Series, novels of political intrigue, world markets and presumptive power brokers based on research of the underpinnings of real-time political and global financial maneuvering, and who’s instigating it.

Don’t miss for news links and insightful postings by a legal researcher as Toddy Littman, “Gold Baron” character. Toddy reappears in the new sequel, “Energy Barons.” Read “Land Barons” which introduces the very premise that we see unfolding before our eyes… the sacking of America.

CW.O, the first innovative and interactive website of its kind.

printer friendly create pdf of this news item

A.Dru-Christmas 2009

25 Dec : 19:32 Category: A. Dru Kristenev's Op-Eds

It Came Upon a Midnight Clear…

Actually, it was about 3 a.m. but the skies were crystal and cold. What am I talking about? A Christmas message for me that seemed significant enough to share, and it clarified some correlations between Scripture and how we mind the business of our lives and our neighbor’s lives.

It started for me with the realization that it has been 40 years since the first Christmas after the death of my mother. This triggered some thought about the 40 years the Israelites wandered in the wilderness, opening a door in my mind that maybe I’ve inadvertently followed in their footsteps. Not a pleasant thought, but as this year has unfolded, I’ve begun to realize that my penchant to cling to past experiences has kept me in my own personal wilderness for the span of a generation.

All right, this may sound like idle musings about why the Israelites meandered the desert, however these ponderings brought me to understand that I have perpetuated their same fault. Doubt.

Early on, the Lord led and protected the Israelites through every avenue of escape from slavery. He gave them a beacon to follow, opened the seas and fed them every day in their sojourn. The story of the manna alone is the lesson that most struck me. God gave them daily sustenance that could not be stored. They needed to collect the gift of the day’s provision every morning. If they attempted to hoard more than was necessary for their nourishment, it would be gone. The Israelites were being given a daily message that they can, should and must trust the Lord in all things. Doubt would be their undoing, yet they did not understand or accept His gift in the manner it was meant.

Instead, they couldn’t even contain themselves for the 40 days it took Moses to receive the written Law from God and deliver it to them. They doubted. They crafted an idol and cavorted in its presence, placing faith in something of their own making and not the wonderment of God’s proven gifts. They paid the price… 40 years of waste, leaving the Promised Land to the next generation.

There are many correlations here, in my estimation. To doubt God and His ability to supply all you need is manifested in the action of hoarding. As much as the Lord tried to teach the recalcitrant Israelites that hoarding (doubt) is futile, they still murmured and complained that what He gave wasn’t enough. They wanted more and paid the price. My own price is intensely personal, but it is a price all the same, and the overall lesson that I received is what I’d like to share.

Christmas Eve all those years ago, we didn’t want to spend the night at home. It had been a very special time for my mother and we were all too raw to even attempt to approach the holiday with cheer – and here I use the scriptural sense of the word, ‘courage.’ We packed up the car and went to the drive-in to watch the new release, “Scrooge” with Albert Finney, which is still one of my favorite Christmas films. But it was only this last “midnight clear” as I pondered the 40 years, that brought home yet another meaning of hoarding.

Yes, hoarding is the embodiment of doubt, but it is also the physical and spiritual storage of waste. All kinds of waste. Hoarding riches is wasteful because it is never used to anyone’s benefit. Not the hoarder, not the poor. It piles up in one’s heart as well as in one’s household or bank account. But why do we hoard anything? Because we doubt God’s ability to adequately provide for us.

I am not disparaging prudent saving, hoarding goes far beyond that. It is waste stored in one’s body, perhaps as pain or fat or even, if you’ll pardon my being crass, constipation. Scripture associates the bowels with the core of our very being in numerous instances, both physically and spiritually. In fact, Christianity is not the only faith or philosophy that does so.

Waste is a stumbling block for many of us because we will continue to doubt and rely on the instinct to hoard, giving in to the animal part of our construction rather than the spiritual which the Lord placed in our hearts. Scrooge had help to figure it out and we do too if we give ourselves over to the Lord to complete the equation.

But that takes faith.

Faith is something that has become lacking in our society and the runaway Congress is proof of that. Many have abandoned the faithful founding of this nation that was cobbled together by men of faith who studied the Word and were guided down the path of freedom.

Doubt is now the way of life. We so doubt our purpose that we have given over to hoarding. Oh no, we aren’t compiling the riches personally, we’ve given that onerous duty to government to do it for us. Let the Congress tax and hoard and what do they do? They create legislation that is filled with literal and actual waste. TARP, Stimulus, and the federal budget alone are monstrosities of compiling waste that is not getting to the hands of the needy, it is filling the coffers of the rich – those that feed off the vulnerability of the poor as did Scrooge, the privileged members of Congress and financial bottom-feeders – not the productive business builders who provide employment for the would-be poor.

If this has been too rambling for you, let me break it down into my little epiphany. To doubt is to hoard; to hoard is to amass waste; and waste is what a miser compiles that is beneficial to no one… the hoarder or the needy. And accumulating waste poisons the body, be it an individual’s or the body politic.

For me, it’s been 40 years and I, like the new generation of Israelites, am ready to accept God’s gift of Faith.

As we celebrate the birth of Christ, our Savior, may God bless you in your journey,

A. Dru Kristenev, Author of Land Barons, Gold Baron, and the upcoming Energy Barons

With special thanks to Toddy Littman and his tremendous insight.

printer friendly create pdf of this news item


24 Mar : 14:40 Category: A. Dru Kristenev's Op-Eds
Dear Friends,
Thank you for considering the following:

March 24, 2009

The Reichstag is Burning…

The Reichstag is burning and the nation’s leader, elected officials and the press are whipping the populace into a furor about the evil Jews, sorry, AIG employees who set it afire.

Did I confuse my history? Not really. The President, Congress and the media have been jumping up and down declaiming AIG and the outrageous bonuses that the administration knew about, and actually approved, from the outset, pushing the people’s anger to such levels that death threats are being made against businessmen and their families.

If you think I’m mixing metaphors, think again. This is a flashback to the 1930s’ diversion that gave Hitler the fodder he needed to distract the German people away from the true ailments of their country and focus all of their ire on a scapegoat, the Jews. All in order to pass legislation that would strip the people of basic rights and infuse the Führer with more power until the result was what the greatest generation of Americans had to fight in a battle to the death. Literally. We lost millions of brave American soldiers in the war against the Third Reich and all the evil for which it stood.

All right, perhaps I’m charting a future that’s a little beyond the pale. However, if we would pay attention to the details of the outrageous budget that President Obama is proposing and leave the Jews, er, AIG employees alone by not reinventing our own form of Kristalnacht, we might see the larger and vastly more imperative issue.

The budget has just been relegated to second banana as the Congress shoved through legislation that will tax a select few for receiving federal money as bonuses via an ill-conceived and reckless stimulus package. Now, as in Nazi Germany, only some of the facts are revealed and the people are fueling a frenzy of outrage at the wrong culprits. We should be angry as hell with the President, his pick for treasury secretary, who underwrote the bonus fiasco, and the Congress, not a few executives who actually did what they were contracted to do.

Juan Williams on Fox News Sunday this week said that at least the dems are taking action in a crisis. How does “action” help if you’re administering the wrong antidote for the poison? The patient is still dying. Even as far back as February the Congressional Budget Office predicted that the stimulus would hurt the overall recovery effort. over-long-haul/. The latest CBO report on the budget demonstrates the ingenuousness of the administration by explaining how the proposed budget will present the country with an unsustainable $9.3 Trillion deficit over ten years. hit-trillion-year/. The president then tried to slough off blame to the previous administration as having caused the problem (there go those Jews again) and the only way to fix the trouble is to go deeper into debt and grasp more control over every aspect of American life I’m just waiting for the roundup of economists, entrepreneurs and conservatives who are being saddled with the responsibility for the economy because they are pointing out how asinine is President Obama’s budget.

I will go one step further in the comparison to Nazi Germany… Blitzkrieg.

We are being attacked on every economic and social level by the new administration’s power grab that is being wholly supported by the Democrat controlled Congress. Each of the executive orders that have been signed expands the reach of the executive office (closing Guantanamo, federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, etc. - for some reason the pages come up blank… must be my computer). Add to that the steamrolled bill to tax bailout bonuses, which opens the door to further abuses of power, the budget plans to takeover and restructure healthcare, to enforce a cap and trade predicated on faulty science that CO2 is a planet killer, and last but not least, the redistribution of your “hard-earned,” as a local checker always says when he collects payment for groceries.

Unfortunately, that’s not the half of what is in the budget that will further decimate this country’s economy. When the administration’s budget estimates are $2.3 Trillion less than what economists in the CBO have calculated and even the “cross the aisle” Arizona Republican John McCain spouts that it should be made “clear what it really is: a risky, debt-ridden threat to the Nation,” it’s time to draw the line. All of the jiving, partying and dangling of red herrings should have every one of us on guard.

AIG isn’t the enemy. Corporate America isn’t the enemy. We are not the enemy.
This budget surely is.

A. Dru Kristenev
Author of “Gold Baron,” a novel of political intrigue, world markets and presumptive power brokers based on research of the underpinnings of real-time political and global financial maneuvering, and who’s instigating it.

Check out to review the Baron Series and for news links and blogs posted by a legal researcher as “Gold Baron” character, Toddy Littman. CW.O, the first innovative and interactive website of its kind.

printer friendly create pdf of this news item

Dru-Golden Calf

13 Mar : 16:13 Category: A. Dru Kristenev's Op-Eds
Dear Friends,
Thank you for considering the following:

February 13, 2009

The Golden Calf Revisited

When we talk about history repeating itself we have a tendency to think in terms of relative recent history, but in this instance it would behoove us to go back a few millennia.

Let’s begin by pondering the free enterprise system that has been the true stimulus of prosperity in this country since its institution here by our forefathers. How, over time, the hard work that each person expended could be rewarded with wealth… a good life for themselves and their families. It was all accomplished by following the basic tenets of reaping what was sown through labor, thoughtful investment and generous giving of the fruits of that labor. Yet even as the benefits of diligent work were heaped upon the populace, some among them were unhappy with working responsibly to create wealth for themselves. They grumbled that it wasn’t easy enough to become successful and they sought to have something, some entity give them what they desired, even unto believing that that object was powerful enough to handle their needs – feed them, clothe them, heal them. So they turned to giving the foremost grumbler their assets so he could manage them and borrow against them in order to fulfill their wishes to be coddled, expecting a return beyond that of the venture. Many expected to be included in the plan even if they hadn’t contributed.

But it was all an illusion. In fact, what was gathered was actually put into a bailout that only created more for those who controlled the bailout and they determined how, when and even if it was to be used. What the lead grumbler did was make a promise that the bailout would create prosperity simply by being established. That it wasn’t even really necessary to actually distribute what had been gathered if a show of good intentions were demonstrated. And, all the while the people continued to believe that the almighty bailout was being made for them, to help them, to provide jobs and allay want.

This is no different from the Israelites who, having wandered only a few months after being freed from captivity, grew weary of what had already been provided for them. They were fed morning and night, given water and asked only to follow the rules of personal responsibility in order to reap true freedom and contentment, which lay just beyond the horizon. While Moses went onto the mount to receive instruction on how this multitude could truly flourish, they grew restless. Less than forty days did it take for them to turn from the good life they had been provided to proceeding to pile all their gold into the crucible to fashion, not a miraculous bailout, but a miraculous idol. It was a golden calf that would answer all their desires, not because it had any real power or even was able to give a moving speech to assure them of happiness and wealth. No, it was because they simply wanted to believe that it could cure all their ills, real and imagined. And this they did after they had already experienced the benefit of following the guidance of the Lord to reach a true goal.

They abandoned what was real in favor of an empty promise.

Tell me how this is not precisely what has swept through our country now? How is it that a tried and true method of hard work and responsible action embodied within the free enterprise system can be tossed aside when an arguably charismatic character comes forward and promises “change” that will give them “more”? Have we so lost our way in the wilderness that we will gather up our riches, hand them over to a man and a Congress who will create another golden calf for us to fawn over and worship because it will magically provide what we think we lack? If you listened to the questions directed at President Obama during the town hall at Ft. Meyers, Florida on February 10, 2009, you would certainly think that is the case.

We are blinded by the manipulation of a limited number of power brokers who have facilitated the creation of an economic “emergency.” Hm-hmmm, right. This is such an emergency that the first idol, in the form of TARP, didn’t do its job and wasn’t even fully utilized. And now we are urged, panicked rather, to believe that the bigger and better golden calf will cure our ailments when all we need do is allow the proven market to step in and naturally guide us back to fiscal health over time.

No one said it would be an easy or simple road. Not even God told the Israelites that they’d reach their goal without a little sacrifice and some work. No, He laid out a method by which the multitude could improve their lot, but they preferred a quick fix, an unproven “hope” – basically, a fantasy. A fantasy that rewarded their foolishness with forty more years of unnecessary wandering.

You show me how the power of a golden calf is no more imaginary than that of the so-called stimulus package.

A. Dru Kristenev
Author, “Gold Baron,” a novel of political intrigue, world markets and presumptive power brokers based on research of the underpinnings of real-time political and global financial maneuvering, and who’s instigating it.

Check out to review the Baron Series and for news links and blogs posted by “Gold Baron” character, Toddy Littman. CW.O, the first innovative and interactive website of its kind.

printer friendly create pdf of this news item

DRU-CO2-The More, The Better

08 Mar : 14:46 Category: A. Dru Kristenev's Op-Eds
Dear Friends,

Thank you for considering the following:

March 8, 2009

CO2 – the More, the Better…

Oh, did I ruffle a few feathers? Perhaps it’s time more of us did, because allowing popular “science” (with apologies to the respected periodical) to guide fiscal policy will kill us.

I imagine that you’re shaking your head in disbelief at the foregoing. Well, let me expand on the statement that you may eschew with some vehemence.

Getting down to the real science, let’s take a look at what has been occurring with the decline of solar winds. I know, you’re wondering what that has to do with fiscal policy and its dangers, so let me fill you in.

The temperature and density of solar winds has decreased by approximately 20% over the last ten years. So what, you say? The import of the NASA report is fairly clear (web address below). With the decline of the solar wind, cosmic radiation from deep space encroaches upon Earth’s atmosphere. It is the solar wind that expands the reach of the heliosphere, which protects our solar system from the bombardment of high velocity galactic particles.

"The solar wind isn't inflating the heliosphere as much as it used to," said Dave McComas of the Southwest Research Institute in San Antonio, Texas. "That means less shielding against cosmic rays." McComas serves as the chief investigator of the SWOOPS (solar wind sensor) carried by the Ulysses satellite that circles the sun and measures solar activity. The upshot is that as solar winds decrease, the shrinking heliosphere and its magnetic field affords less protection outside of our own atmosphere.

That doesn’t sound so bad, does it? We still have our plush atmosphere to shield us from the growing intensity of cosmic rays spewing from black holes and the like, right? Sure, as long as we understand that the thick barrier we thrive beneath is now under attack by, not atomic particles from space, but our own government. Let’s look at that a little more closely.

The Environmental Protection Agency now has the power to designate what greenhouse gases are destructive to our planet’s atmosphere by doing what… by creating a thicker atmosphere that hold’s in heat, i.e. global warming. Oh, pardon me. Now it’s “climate change.” It seems that the obvious protection against cosmic radiation, which damages satellites housing crucial and delicate communications and research equipment that orbit the earth, is losing its capacity to work. The magnetic field that adds extra shielding for Earth is shrinking, leaving the outer layers of our atmosphere vulnerable to a steady assault of dangerous radiation. And what is Washington doing? They are planning on passing a cap and trade, as part of President Obama’s colossal budget that will penalize every citizen with extra costs, passed on by businesses of all sizes that are saddled with a carbon tax. This is a tax bent on forcing Americans to lessen their “carbon footprint” by supposedly reducing their contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere, which NEEDS the gas in order to maintain its depth and density to protect us.

Have we gotten the gist of this yet? The solar wind is deflating; the magnetic shield of the heliosphere is shrinking; cosmic radiation is increasing, attacking the outer layers of Earth’s atmosphere; we are trying to decrease the density of Earth’s atmosphere by limiting carbon emissions (and taxed out the wazoo to do it) thereby weakening the Earth’s natural shield against the increased bombardment of cosmic radiation.

We are to be taxed to make ourselves less safe from the invisible projectiles emanating from deepest, darkest space. Yes, this is simplifying the science, but it is no less fact that our own “representatives” are making us pay to be under attack by, no, not little green men from Mars, but no-seeums from space. Though it wouldn’t be a stretch to view all these global warming activists as "little green men," irrespective of Al Gore's sizable carbon footprint.

It’s time we stood up to the power grab in Washington – the real “change” being ushered in by this “transparent” administration – and made it clear that the only danger from CO2 is the hot air that’s emanating from the White House and the Congress in their attempt to refocus our attention, away from their efforts to cement government expansion and ultimate control, to Earth’s supposed well-being.

Looks like they’ve gotten both wrong.

A. Dru Kristenev
Author of “Gold Baron,” a novel of political intrigue, world markets and presumptive power brokers based on research of the underpinnings of real-time political and global financial maneuvering, and who’s instigating it.

Check out to review the Baron Series and for news links and blogs posted by a legal researcher as “Gold Baron” character, Toddy Littman. CW.O, the first innovative and interactive website of its kind.

printer friendly create pdf of this news item

Dru-Gore vs. Humanity

30 Jan : 16:41 Category: A. Dru Kristenev's Op-Eds
Dear Friends,
Thank you for considering the following:

January 29, 2009

Earth Gore vs. Humanity

Bet you didn’t know we had to make a choice between the earth and humanity, did you? If you have been paying attention to the climate change debate (Yes, there is a debate. Ask the 31,000+ scientists that have signed a statement rejecting the Kyoto Accord and its premise of global warming), then you will know that whatever society does to better the human condition, it is at odds with Nature.

Oh no, you say. That isn’t the case. You have heard over and over again that the only way we can save the earth is to institute measures to counter global warming - or climate change as it is now being called due to the fact that we have been in a period of documented cooling for ten years. So if we are preserving the earth with “green” endeavors, how can we possibly be anti-humanity? Aren’t the two symbiotic?

Sorry to be bearer of good news, but data show that no earthbound entity’s actions affect the planet’s cycles of heating and cooling since even before the appearance of primordial swamps, and of course ourselves, onto the scene. However, if we heed the dire, and scientifically unsupported, predictions of Nobel Laureate Al Gore, we will watch the steady demise of the human condition. Those struggling economies that lie mostly below the equator are already spiraling into the depths of calamitous crises brought on by green policies that severely confine agricultural and resource development. That translates into the following: they are starving while being prevented from growing crops, producing goods or mining ores that could save their lives.

We are blessedly ignorant of the hardships encountered by poor countries desperately trying to handle their own predicaments in providing for themselves. All we hear is that genetically modified seed is detrimental to Nature (tell that to Gregor Mendel, the father of genetics, and anyone who relies on manufactured insulin to be able to live) although that seed would yield a hardy harvest that might feed millions in a country where crops are regularly devastated by pests and blights. Or, those countries are banned from exporting those crops as a valuable commodity by science-phobic Europeans and Americans.

Does that seem like an oxymoron to you, that these advanced countries are afraid of science? Perhaps you would argue that we rely on science for every aspect of our luxurious lifestyles and even that it is “science” that has warned us about global warming. I beg to differ. No, science has given us much, but it is the pseudo-science of environmentalism run amok that has besieged us with the understanding that science is actually bad for us. We have become enslaved by fads of pop science, which, God help us, isn’t science at all.

The point is, that environmentalism is not science, but an economic agenda. Let me explain… Carbon has been designated as a pollutant when in fact it is the basis of all life on this planet and nature absorbs 98.5% of all carbon dioxide produced by every living organism on earth, including ourselves. However, since carbon dioxide is now classified as a pollutant there is a burgeoning industry waiting in the wings to take advantage of regulations ready to be implemented by legislative bodies worldwide – the trade of carbon credits – an industry that Mr. Gore envisioned back in the early nineties when he incorporated a carbon trading business with folks like Hank Paulsen.

You may wonder how this has anything to do with the starving masses in undeveloped nations and a new type of genocide. Yes, I used the “g” word. It comes down to monetary gain by so-called environmentalists at the expense of the poorest people. Let’s see how this can be…

Environmental policies create the following problems:
a) restriction of development and sale of viable energy (clean coal, nuclear, hydropower, oil) in favor of economically unsustainable “green” modes (wind, solar, ethanol);
b) imposition of “green” energy sources limits hours of electrical supply for industry and household usage such as simple lighting and food refrigeration, mostly felt in third world countries;
c) plant-based fuels use grain and sugar, creating food shortages and running up costs to unaffordable levels;
d) denial of crop production by imposing genetic regulations on exports, creating shortages for agrarian economies who cannot sell their harvest abroad;
e) refusal to allow usage of pesticides in suffering countries. Consider the malaria-plagued populations who are constrained from treating their homes and communities with DDT, which has been proven to be benign. Instead, they are forced to use ineffectual mosquito nets to try to stave off millions of deaths.
That’s only a sample of the numerous infringements of sovereign nations’ attempts at self-reliance and improving their people’s health.

On top of it all, the global warming agenda is a scandal in that it diverts our attention from providing true humanitarian aid where it is needed most. Not in providing computers to low-income schools so the children can be programmed to believe humankind is a pestilence on the planet, or underwriting “green” cars no one wants to drive, or even saving non-existent wild feline populations in regions they never traversed; but in restraining the murderous conflicts that are devastating whole populations in places like Sudan’s Darfur.

In the name of saving Nature, Al Gore and his buddies have told us that humanity is less important than a weevil, a fly along a stretch of I-10 in San Berdoo, or a rat in “tuleville” We are battered by the press to worry about an insect whose habitat is diminished in order to build needed infrastructure, rather than use our time and money to aid a beleaguered people who are being denied the ability to create a reasonable living for themselves. We have been told to place Nature above Humanity and yet, we forget that Humanity is an integral part of nature.

I don’t know about you, but I am exhausted by the mantra exhorting me to write-off my brothers and sisters and love the earth, forgetting that we are a natural component of it.

Al Gore and friends… put your money where your mouth is and relinquish your hate for humanity by taking a stand against the atrocities being committed that don’t make you a dime. Support life-saving efforts rather than life-threatening business schemes. Halt violent genocide that is preventable instead of the heinous promotion of genocide by economic means for the sake of personal gain.

A. Dru Kristenev
Author, “Gold Baron,” a novel of political intrigue, world markets and presumptive power brokers based on research of the underpinnings of real-time political and global financial maneuvering, and who’s instigating it.

Check out for news links and blogs posted by “Gold Baron” character, Toddy Littman. The first innovative and interactive website of its kind.

printer friendly create pdf of this news item

Dru-Eenie Meenie

02 Jan : 04:12 Category: A. Dru Kristenev's Op-Eds
January 1, 2009

Eenie-Meenie-Miney-Mo… Vote counting in the new millennium

Perhaps that is overstating the process and, as the new year arrives, this beleaguered election is finally about over. Tabulating the vote appears to have gone from actual counting to digging through basements, warehouses, dusty boxes and car backseats to mine for ballots. There have been outcries about the growing problem of skewing the count for twenty-five years – longer if you go back in time to the complaints that surrounded the original Daley Machine in Chicago.

The wonder of it all is how the Democrat-aligned League of Women Voters has been central in the election oversight process for decades (“Votescam: The Stealing of America” by Kenneth Collier and James Lincoln Collier, 1993) and at the beginning of the height of accusations about vote fraud by those same Democrats in the 2000 national election.

When viewed through the magnifying glass of how elections have been manipulated over time, it has always been Democrat voices that have been loudest in charging abuse, yet in every instance it is also the Democrat candidate that miraculously discovers more votes, rarely (ever?) the Republican.

What does that tell the average person? The answer seems clear to this observer, who has been more than attentive in the last twenty years. Human nature is such that the person who seeks most to throw suspicion on someone else for their own misdeeds will raise their voices loudest in making accusations against others of what they have themselves perpetrated. You don’t have to be a psychology professional to reach the conclusion that the guilty most vociferously decry the culpability of others while claiming their own innocence. Just watch children on the playground for textbook examples of the behavior. This is what we have been witnessing over this new millennium in particular.

Setting the stage for manipulation of the vote began in earnest in the 2000 presidential race. It’s unlikely the scheme was expected to work that early in the game. It was more to program the American people to accept the coming wave of challenged races such as we have just seen. The process began with skewing polls and taking so many unscientific polls that any survey with credibility was overwhelmed by the sheer number of the subjective samplings. The media was central in this. The process continued with incompetent reporting of ‘news’ and character assassination of ‘opposition’ candidates, i.e. Republicans. Creating celebrity status for a ‘right-thinking’ (in leftist terms) candidate came soon after.

The first real test of the old plan came in 2004 in the state of Washington’s gubernatorial race. It was a tight race to begin with, but with every recount a number of ballots were ‘discovered’ that favored the Democrat candidate. It finally worked! The Democrats cheered and the Republicans were shut down in the courts even though the evidence weighed heavily in the favor of proving misfeasance of election management.

Four years later, race after race has been closely contested where ‘new’ ballots were allegedly found in dubious places, such as the car of an election official in Minnesota, though that was supposedly discredited. After numerous ‘eureka’ cries were heard over new-found ballots and the court ordered acceptance of ballots that did not meet mandatory standards, the senate seat in that state looks like it’s being handed to the Democrat as the ‘winner.’ Sound familiar?

In Washington State, where the voter registration rolls were examined before the 2008 election, numerous illegally registered names and dead people could have been culled. They were not, due to this fact: the Washington election officials stated that they were unwilling to have theoretically disenfranchised voters instigate legal proceedings after the election.

Let’s get this straight… your vote may have been discounted because of threatened litigation by known felons, imaginary cartoon characters and corpses. If it weren’t such a serious deficiency of accountability that verges on criminality, it would be hysterically funny.

Consider the fact that more and more states, including Washington, have moved to institute mail-in ballots, closing down precinct voting where a person must physically appear and prove their identity. This practice has created the growing industry of inventing registrants out of thin air. How easy has it become for one person to impersonate any number of individuals (real or concocted) in order to cast one or several ballots if they are not required to appear with proper identification?

One other observation. Take a gander at the previously designated western ‘red’ states that are largely rural or sparsely inhabited except for one or two major population centers. These liberal leaning hubs appear to have been targeted by ACORN for swinging (manipulating) the vote and, lo and behold, this election year the formerly ‘red’ state has flipped to become ‘blue.’ Hey, it’s just a theory.

Clearly, the election process has degraded to the level of a banana republic and we aren’t even paying attention because the other guy infuriatingly, and falsely, pointed fingers from the outset.

A. Dru Kristenev
Author, “Gold Baron,” a novel of political intrigue, world markets and presumptive power brokers based on research of the underpinnings of real-time political and global financial maneuvering, and who’s instigating it.

Check out for fully researched blogs by “Gold Baron” character, Toddy Littman. The first innovative and interactive website of its kind.


printer friendly create pdf of this news item

Dru-Wanting & Making Believe

09 Dec : 05:35 Category: A. Dru Kristenev's Op-Eds
Dear Friends,
Thank you for considering the following:

December 8, 2008

Wanting to Believe Does Not Make it So…

Elections have come and gone where candidates entered office on the coattails of the ‘hope’ and ‘change’ mantra. No, this is not the first time however much the naïve might like to think so. In fact, the comparisons between Obama and every charismatic personality from Jesus Christ to JFK to FDR have flooded the media for months. It is the last name mentioned, however, that I would like to discuss.

Hmmm, FDR, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the President of the United States who stood at the helm throughout the Great Depression and World War II… the man who was the standard bearer of the free world for an unprecedented four terms (notwithstanding his early death while in office)… the man ever my father paid homage to by designating himself as a New Deal Democrat until his own passing.

The question is twofold. Was FDR a savior or a scourge and, depending on the answer to that query, is this the man to whom Mr. Obama would really prefer to be compared?

I realize that many who actually weathered the Depression will likely take offense at the foregoing, but I have my reasons for writing those words. First, because the Depression was so deeply felt for so many years, those who survived were scarred in some way by the experience. For my father, it was the need to keep a stocked pantry in preparation for a possible time of being without enough food for his family. For others it may be the need to have real funds stashed somewhere safe, or own their home mortgage-free. Second is the need to believe that whatever the government instituted to combat the fierce battle with unemployment, hunger, inadequate clothing, lack of shelter or illness, it was all to the good of the country.

But was it?

Economists who now have the privilege of hindsight can thoroughly evaluate the actions taken by the Roosevelt administration and whether or not they were truly beneficial to the United States. The conclusion does not jibe with the wistfulness of my father and many of his generation. In fact, many experts agree that the economic programs he instituted actually extended the Depression by years rather than alleviating the suffering.

How could that be? The answer to that is simpler than one would think. By the government interfering with market momentum and initiating price fixing, artificially high wages and blocking foreign competition, the economy slogged along without change creating a dependency on itself for succor – a duty that it (government) was, and is still, incapable of managing.

All one has to do is look at the recent stock market devaluations that occurred as soon as this Congress got their greedy hands on a multi-billion dollar bail-out package. No sooner do lawmakers inveigle themselves in an attempt to shore up a pending economic disaster than they actually create one. Hence, the doom that overshadows current everyday news reports creating panic at every turn. Did not the same thing occur after the stock market crash of 1929? Isn’t this partially how ‘yellow journalism’ received its moniker in the 1890s?

Obama has made the promise that he will create two and a half million new jobs rebuilding infrastructure (i.e. “crumbling roads” and bridges, etc.) through government oversight. Shades of FDR and the Public Works Administration and the Civilian Conservation Corps. How does he expect to pay for the work? The same way Roosevelt did, tax dollars. Well, that’s the only way that government workers receive a wage, isn’t it? Money doesn’t appear out of nowhere. Though you’d think that’s the case if you listen to more than half the members of Congress, most of who have never worked in the business sector and have no knowledge of sound business practices. And this lack of business acumen is precisely what extended the Depression years rather than shortening them.

It isn’t change that Obama is planning, it’s New Deal Redux and a plunge into deeper economic distress than what is already on the doorstep. He’d be far better off to allow the free market to handle the problem once he takes office. At least business produces something other than high-faluting ideals that don’t add up on a balance sheet. The one difference between Obama and Roosevelt is that FDR had some opposition to deficit spending when Obama said, just November 17, 2008 that “the deficit doesn’t matter.”

Simply because one wants to believe with all their heart that FDR’s New Deal was the solution rather than part of the problem, doesn’t make it so. And believing that Obama has all the answers (those same ones instituted by a failed FDR policy) won’t make that any more real, either.

A. Dru Kristenev
Author, “Gold Baron,” a novel of political intrigue, world markets and presumptive power brokers based on research of the underpinnings of real-time political and global financial maneuvering, and who’s instigating it.

Check out for fully researched blogs by “Gold Baron” character, Toddy Littman. The first innovative and interactive website of its kind.

printer friendly create pdf of this news item
Go to page       >>