Bill O'Reilly: Fascist

When it comes to gas prices, Fox News icon Bill O'Reilly is a fascist.

I can agree with maybe a majority of things O'Reilly says, and that doesn't make me a fascist, and when Adolph Hitler was painting a still life, he was not in that act a fascist. But Bill O'Reilly is a fascist when it comes to gas prices, and this is seen in his latest column for Human Events entitled "Oil and Trouble." He begins,

This week, Republican senators blocked a Democrat-sponsored bill that would have imposed a "windfall profits" tax on the five major oil companies. Since these companies made about $36 billion in profits in the first quarter alone, "windfall" may be understating it.

"Windfall" is defined by InvestorWords.com as:

Money received which was not expected and not a direct result of something the recipient did.

It's ridiculous to ignore all the human labor involved in exploration, drilling, shipping and refining billions of barrels of oil a day, humans whose paychecks have to be cut before a single dollar in profit is received from a gas pump, and the cost of billions of dollars invested out of profits into drilling, shipping, and refining infrastructure to provide oil products in the future.

Calling oil profits "windfall" profits is immoral.

O'Reilly continues:

The GOP says the bill would not have lowered gas prices as any tax punishment would be passed along to gasoline consumers. But let me break this to the Republicans gently: Folks are angry with the oil companies. Unless you guys can help bring some relief to beleaguered American working people, the Democrats will wipe you out.

"Folks are angry with the oil companies." And Bill O'Reilly is whipping up this anger. Read my paragraph above about why oil company profits are not "windfall" profits. Why is it folks are not grateful to the oil companies for all they do? This question of character, virtue and morality is possibly one of the most important issues facing our nation. The politics of both Democrats and Republicans, fed by demagogues like O'Reilly, is rooted in envy rather than Godly character.

And O'Reilly panders to and feeds this ignorant anger.

Oil Prices, when adjusted for inflation, are not much higher today than they were 20 years ago. Most price spikes have been caused by U.S. military actions in the middle east.

Americans have been trained to blame corporations for "higher prices," when the real culprit in the long run is the declining value of "federal reserve notes." If Washington bureaucrats were following the Constitution (like they took an oath to do), then only gold and silver would be legal tender in this country, and gas prices would not be much higher than they were decades ago. The U.S. Constitution prohibits paper money, or the emitting of "bills of credit." (Art. 1, § 10, ¶ 1) That provision of the Constitution reads:

No State shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make any thing but gold and silver a legal tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex-post-facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts; or grant any title of nobility." ...

In Federalist Paper No. 44, possibly the most authoritative source for constitutional interpretation, Madison explained the provision:

The extension of the prohibition to bills of credit must give pleasure to every citizen, in proportion to his love of justice and his knowledge of the true springs of public prosperity. The loss which America has sustained since the peace, from the pestilent effects of paper money on the necessary confidence between man and man, on the necessary confidence in the public councils, on the industry and morals of the people, and on the character of republican government, constitutes an enormous debt against the States chargeable with this unadvised measure, which must long remain unsatisfied; or rather an accumulation of guilt, which can be expiated no otherwise than by a voluntary sacrifice on the altar of justice, of the power which has been the instrument of it. ... No one of these mischiefs is less incident to a power in the States to emit paper money, than to coin gold or silver. The power to make any thing but gold and silver a tender in payment of debts, is withdrawn from the States, on the same principle with that of issuing a paper currency.

Paper money is immoral. Washington D.C. is the greatest source of immorality and ignorance in our country, if not the world. As a result, the average American citizen today lacks a "love of justice and [a] knowledge of the true springs of public prosperity."

Here's what passes for economic analysis from the mainstream media:

The oil apologists say it's a "supply and demand" thing. Sure. Here's a bulletin: When you limit the supply, as OPEC is doing, the demand will skyrocket. Yeah, China and India are using more oil. Yeah, the U.S. dollar is weak. But in most competitive businesses, if your customers want more product -- you put out more product. Not in oil. OPEC keeps production down to maximize profits.

Economics bores readers, but ignorance costs more at the pump. Even the most basic law of economics -- the law of supply and demand -- isn't understood by the leaders of America (Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, et al). O'Reilly says if you limit supply, demand will skyrocket. Suppose my business annually produces one thousand Drivers Test Manuals in braille, and (surprisingly) one hundred are actually purchased. If I limit the supply to one hundred produced each year, will the demand for braille driving manuals "skyrocket" as a result?

What O'Reilly presumably meant was that if you reduce the supply produced while consumer demand stays the same, the price will skyrocket.

O'Reilly ignores all this: "Yeah, yeah," he says.

Then O'Reilly compounds the confusion by bringing in the issue of profit, claiming that OPEC keeps production down to maximize profits. This is a fallacy.

When automobiles were first manufactured, only a few were produced, and only the rich could afford them because the price of the first few cars was very high. Henry Ford changed all that with his process of mass production, which increased the supply of cars, lowered the price (making cars available to the middle class), and made Ford a billionaire. On O'Reilly's theory, Ford would have made more profit and become richer by only making few cars for the rich instead of millions of cars for a million times more people. Who was right, Ford or O'Reilly?

Now, based on this middle-school level understanding of economics, O'Reilly goes on to make public policy proposals that would have made Hitler proud:

Congress must mandate by law that American car and truck manufacturers begin to produce a high percentage of flex-fuel vehicles. Once that law is passed, gas stations will begin installing alcohol-based fuel pumps. Congress must also drop import tariffs on alcohol-based fuel so countries like Brazil can sell them to us.

I'm all for dropping tariffs. Let consumers decide what kind of gas they want to buy, not Congress. But it's precisely because I believe in choice that I'm astounded at the pure fascism proposed by O'Reilly. Congress should tell Americans like Henry Ford what kind of cars they can make? The schoolboy dream that begins, "I want to grow up to be . . ." is interrupted by "whatever Congress tells you to be"?? This is utterly astounding. Fascism is actually a form of slavery -- indentured servitude.


O'Reilly wants every car to be a Volkswagen, which literally means, "The People's Car." The government will tell your business what kind of car to make, and the government will tell you what kind of car you can buy. Welcome to the land of the "free" and the home of the envious.

Ultimately, liberty depends on morality. Liberty depends on gratitude. Covetousness and envy cloud out gratitude, and send us howling to Washington for "the government" to be our Savior.