Thursday, April 30, 2009



By : Mr. A. Long Wiener, Ph.D. (Harvard Divinity School), M.P.H., Party Spokesman and Director of Moral Arguments; Charter Member, Gay Men’s Association for the Restoration of Sodomy Laws and the Common Law Prosecution of Lewdness Offenses; Atheist.

Morality does not distinguish between Democrats and Republicans. It does not distinguish between gay and straight. Bad behavior is bad no matter whether a gay Republican or a patriotic Democrat engages in it. Stealing, rape and theft are bad whether the perpetrator is Protestant, Catholic, Mongolian or Native American. Morality does not judge the man; it judges the conduct. There is some conduct in this world that is fundamentally wrong because it is disgusting. It also violates God’s law and the natural order. I am talking about sodomy. In America today, State governments no longer prosecute sodomy as they did in the past. In our view, this is a colossal mistake. By permitting sodomy, America is descending into godless infamy. As gay Republicans, we are committed to the greater good. We are determined to restore harsh common law criminal penalties for sodomy. Although these penalties will disproportionately fall upon us, we are willing to suffer to advance America down the path to righteousness.

Sodomy is evil because it is unnatural and transgresses God’s law. The Apostle Paul said: “Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.” Romans 1 : 26-27. God is not the only one who condemns sodomy as an “error” deserving “due penalty.” Our wise common law ancestors in Great Britain also forbade sodomy in the harshest terms. Courts in 18th Century England sentenced “sodomites” to death by hanging. See, e.g., Rex v. Griffin (C.C.C. 1726). They also publicly castigated sodomites for engaging in “beastly” conduct “to the disgrace of Human Nature,” “to the Displeasure of Almighty God,” and “not fit to be named.” These wise English jurists labeled convicted sodomites “degenerated Miscreants from the Race of Men…moved by the instigation of the Devil” who “did not have the fear of God before their eyes.”

Our Nation proudly follows the common law in virtually every legal field, from contract to tort to property and criminal law. Our common law ancestors knew what they were talking about. We should listen to them about sodomy, too.

But who listens? Last year, America forsook righteousness and elected a Mohammedan President to the White House: Barack Hussein Obama. This man professes love and tolerance for all Americans, whether black, white, Asian, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Muslim or Pagan. He promised to “expand liberty” for traditionally unpopular groups, such as homosexuals and paupers. He publicly praised an abhorrent Supreme Court decision that abolished sodomy laws in the United States: Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003). In short, Obama has endorsed sodomy. He considers it “normal,” despite a compelling common law tradition to the contrary. He feels no moral qualms about allowing two men to commit abominable acts “not fit to be named” in the United States. He professes to follow God’s Commandments, but any ruler who permits sodomy in his realm is no true believer. He says that “liberty” guaranteed under the United States Constitution means the “freedom to make intimate life decisions and to determine one’s own bodily integrity without undue governmental restraint on moral grounds.” According to this perverse argument, Obama certifies genital sin of the worst sort.

This is a dangerous commitment. Obama says he supports liberty. Liberty to do what? To engage in conduct “instigated by the devil” and deserving “due penalty” under God’s law? No matter what Obama thinks “liberty” means in the United States Constitution, we know beyond doubt that God does not allow men to commit sodomy. Both Scripture and common law tradition forbid “unnatural intercourse” between members of the same sex. Just because the Constitution permits something does not mean it is consistent with God’s law. In a sense, Obama is encouraging Americans to violate God’s law by misleading them with false hopes about “constitutional liberty.” In so doing, Obama wages war against God and leads Americans to damnation. As gay Republicans, we are aghast. We demand that President Obama renounce his support for “the liberty to commit sodomy.” We demand common law penalties for sodomy. If the Supreme Court strikes down these penalties, we insist that Congress pass a constitutional amendment providing special protection for sodomy laws. We can no longer tolerate a Constitution that permits Americans to willfully violate God’s law. Our government is assisting the Devil. It is encouraging Americans to make choices that will send them to Hell. Government has a duty not only to protect America from Muslim terrorism and crime, but also to ensure that they find their way to salvation in Christ. Yet Obama is not doing this. His support for sodomy will condemn countless Americans to the everlasting Pit. This is not “Change We Can Believe In.” Put bluntly, Obama’s “liberty” will deliver countless Americans into Satan’s hands. As gay Republicans, we cannot allow this to happen.

“Liberty” does not mean the freedom to engage in non-procreative sexual activity. God says that human beings may only engage in sex in order to beget children. This is the healthy approach to sex. Carnal pleasure cannot provide a motivation for natural sexual intercourse between men and women. Every sexual encounter must be calculated to yield a child in Jesus’ name. God wants new followers. And he is watching you to make sure you are having sex for the right reasons. He knows why you have sex. Whenever you have sex for some reason other than producing a child, you sin. Whenever you place your genitals in a place other than a place reasonably calculated to fertilize a woman’s egg, you commit sodomy. There are two inquiries relevant to God’s law in sexual matters: (1) Why are you having sex?; and (2) Where are you putting your genitals? If you are having sex to please yourself, with no intention to fertilize an egg and expand God’s kingdom, you betray the Lord our God. If you place your genitals in your hand, in a mouth, in an ear, in an anus, on a thigh, on a windowsill, on a car seat or in a dog, you commit sodomy, be the dog male or female. God knows what you do and why you do it. No one escape’s God’s glance. No one deceives God. Americans are God’s people. They must follow God’s word. They cannot follow God’s word when their President encourages and allows them to have sex for the wrong reasons. Proper sex is about the intent to create children. Without the right intent, sex is sin. As gay Republicans, we are shocked that President Obama actually encourages Americans to engage in sin that will land them in Hell.

We refuse to fall into Obama’s trap. We refuse to allow America to slide into moral degradation and squalor. To win the war on sodomy and immorality, we must withdraw all legal protection for sodomy and unnatural sex. Although man’s law does not necessarily serve God’s law, we must provide an earthly incentive to comply with God’s law. If men and women fear to engage in sodomy because they know man’s law will punish their bodies for it, they will likely refrain from conduct that angers God. Sodomites and sinful flesh worshippers know only bodily sensation. The law can affect their bodies by torturing and killing them. These sinners will respect laws that threaten to harm their bodies. In so doing, man’s law will serve God by making it less likely that men and women will have sex for improper reasons.

Tradition supports this position. Until 2003, many American States maintained criminal penalties for sodomy. Prior to that, every Western Nation condemned sodomy in the harshest terms. Even Germany forbade it until 1994. See Criminal Code § 175. In that light, we reject the argument that “evolving standards of acceptable behavior” render sodomy an antiquated crime. States only abolished criminal penalties for sodomy because Godless lobbyists and homosexual infiltrators secretly bribed legislators to repeal the statutes. For centuries before that, sodomy was both a crime and a sin. There is no good reason not to make it a crime again. In fact, by punishing sodomy, we protect our citizens from eternal damnation and wretched carnal delights. In America, we have no time for delight. As God’s people, we must keep our minds focused upon God, not ourselves. No matter how nice it would be to have an orgasm without a resulting child, we must suppress that urge for God and country. Tradition works. America evolved from a colonial backwater into the world’s preeminent military and economic power while criminalizing sodomy. Let us return to our roots. Let us keep God before our eyes as we make our way into a new century.

As gay Republicans, we are aware that criminalizing sodomy will bar our only sexual outlet. We are also aware that the Apostle says we are: “[F]illed with every kind of wickedness, evil, covetousness [and] malice.” Romans 1 : 29. He also says that we: “[K]now God’s decree, that those who practice such things deserve to die.” Id. at 1 : 32. Nonetheless, we are prepared to sacrifice our own pleasure for the common good. After all, we make up only a “relatively small fraction of the population.” See Judge Richard A. Posner, Becker-Posner Blog, Internet Matching – Posner’s Comment, March 22, 2009, at True, we are largely deviants with hypersexual impulses, “idiosyncratic tastes” and a penchant to rape children. But we are also principled Republican thinkers. We realize that our own forbearance will save this Nation from damnation, immorality and vice. Our own spiritual misery is insignificant compared to the benefits we will bestow upon the country by restoring traditional common law death penalties for sodomy. We have the capacity to use our reason, despite the maddening passions that draw us to commit genital abominations with other men and mammals. We will persevere because we are bold gay Republicans. We will not fall into Obama’s trap. We reject constitutional liberty because constitutional liberty gives refuge to the Devil. We prefer to placate God than to defend man’s perverted law. Although our service will transform us into bitter, sex-starved maniacs, we will show the world the measure of our resolve. We care about America. We are willing to punish ourselves for America. We are willing to make ourselves into pariahs to save souls. We are even willing to suffer the ultimate legal punishment if we transgress.

We are honorable gay Republicans. We will stop all sodomy and non-procreative sexual contact for all time. Through our sacrifice—and even through our executions—we will guarantee that every orgasm in this country results in a new citizen. And in so doing, we will restore morality to these troubled United States, no matter what damage Hussein Obama inflicts upon them.

Wednesday, April 29, 2009



By : Dr. T. Vernon Letterman, Professor of Market Solutions, Wharton School of Business, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Chairman, American Credit Professionals United For Growth Through Debt.

America faces economic crisis because we do not properly educate our children. Recent studies revealed that American children rank behind Albanians and Somalis in basic math and science skills. They also rank behind Togo and Trinidad in English reading ability. This represents a grave danger for the American economy. Without math, reading and science skills, American bankers cannot effectively use calculators, loan officers cannot tabulate interest rates and chemists cannot invent profitable new medications for erectile dysfunction. Our economy needs bankers, loan officers and chemists. We need loans and drugs to function as a modern society. Without such contributions to society, we can expect a bleak future. If our economy faces difficulty now, imagine how bad things will be once these poorly-educated children join the workforce. Given this alarming trend, we must take swift action. There is only one way to prevent imminent economic ruin: We must make our children smart—fast.

For decades, American children have wallowed in an overly permissive culture. They no longer want to achieve great things; they simply want to drink Kool-Aid®, eat cookies, play Super Smash Bros.® video games and go nighty-night. In decades past, American children learned the skills they needed in school and went on to successful careers. In 1960, schoolchildren wanted to be astronauts, bridge builders and pediatricians. Today, they just want to hang around and talk about High School Musical® or imitate no-good rappers. We need to bring the spirit of achievement back to America’s youth. We need to make American children want to learn, not play video games and or wander around malls with their friends. We need to tell our children that they are Americans, not Albanians or Slovaks. They are better than that. Yet the scores say that Americans can’t solve word problems as well as an ignorant Portuguese peasant. This must change.

As a Professor of Market Solutions at Wharton Business School, I believe in American enterprise. I know that private enterprise can provide a solution to the education gap. We simply must find the right teachers to help our kids. The time for soft-hearted permissiveness is over. Kids need to take school seriously and get ready for tests. Private enterprise can equip them with the tools they need to learn everything. We must no longer settle for Albanian math achievement levels; we must strive to be the world’s best. To that end, schoolchildren must start algebra in first grade and calculus in second grade. This is the only way to get our children excited and motivated about math. If our second-graders can’t compare the cosine differentials in inconsistent parabolas, we are failing as a country. Private businesses can make it fun to learn calculus. By working with companies such as Disney® and Fisher-Price®, I am confident that even the stupidest kid can work out a differential equation under time pressure by the time he reaches third grade. In America, we can achieve anything for our kids.

We want results for our children. For too long, Congress has obsessed about protecting children from internet pornography, child molesters and playground killers. Instead, Congress should have been worried about children’s deteriorating academic skills. While Congress fretted about immoral Hollywood movies, our children stopped learning how to read. While Congress enacted laws protecting children from al-Qaeda, our kids became stupider than the Sudanese. We need to prioritize. What good are safe children if they are stupid? Without proper education, we sabotage America’s chances to succeed in the 21st Century. The smart people are all dying. Now, the idiots who can barely read or balance their checkbooks are succeeding to powerful positions in government, finance and science. We face national embarrassment, bankruptcy and international ridicule. All over the world, other countries call our kids fat, lazy, Twizzler®-eating do-nothings who can’t distinguish circles from squares. They point to the geometry test scores. They note that American kids think triangles have six sides and that isosceles means “ice cream.” Is it any wonder that our economy fails? Look at our children—they are horrendously stupid.

We must get tough on our children. It is in our interest to make our kids smart again, because smart kids make money later. And when people make money, it makes everyone else happy. Additionally, smart kids might even turn out to be inventors or patentholders; and inventors give us all useful things like hand vacuum cleaners, improved anxiety pills and disposable pets. Parents may want to “go easy” on their children so they don’t “hurt their feelings.” But the time for mercy is over. We need to get strict with our kids so they don’t turn into mush-brained couch potatoes. We can no longer afford to call failed kids “individuals with delayed achievement issues.” No, we must return honesty to education. When a kid can’t add or subtract on a math quiz, we cannot write “Nice try! You will get it next time: B+.” We must write: “You dumb fuck. Get it right or ship out: F.” In American business, we do not tolerate failure. We should not encourage failure among our children, either. Our economy depends on their success. We must foster it. And we must harshly punish failure, just as private enterprise does.

We must close the achievement gap. Private enterprise can do this by setting firm goals for students all over the country. The time for “curricula” and “lesson plans” is over. We must treat schools like corporations with deadlines, achievement patterns and incentives. We must foster a new culture that demands success. To that end, we propose demanding that all first-graders read Milton and Shakespeare. We cannot wait to move into challenging texts; we must challenge our students from day one. How will our students outdo the Germans and the French if they are still reading Elmo books when they are 18? Our students must achieve everywhere, all the time. They must achieve in math, reading, science, astronomy, literature, art, physics, chemistry, history, philosophy, Spanish and writing. We will not achieve without bold, corporate-style goals. It is not enough to read large-print books with simple sentences. Our second-grade students must read Descartes, Homer, Dante and Aristotle in the original. We refuse to be a Nation of junk-food eating losers any longer. We are determined to outdo the Japanese. And that means our kids will solve calculus problems at age 7.

Detractors say that we should go easy on our kids. They say that children face developmental problems at early ages, and that academic success must take a back seat to emotional stability and “socialization.” This is precisely the attitude that landed us behind Albania on the international intelligence list. While our kids should have been reading Paradise Lost and solving calculus word problems, they were playing with building blocks and drinking apple juice with their 4-year-old classmates. Their teachers wanted them to “acclimate to life with other people” rather than study for achievement tests. What a bunch of losers! These teachers bred our children for failure and condemned our country to international embarrassment. In life, “getting along with other people” is not as important as scoring highly on tests and getting a good job. American educators failed to see this for decades. They failed to prepare our kids for everyday challenges; rather, they made our kids into lazy, ungrateful, petulant whiners who prefer to chat about Britney Spears than write geometry proofs. Now our economy is in shambles.

We face difficult years. It will not be easy to reverse the damage caused by years of wrongheaded educational theory. Nonetheless, I am confident that private enterprise will find a way to make our kids smart—fast. Private enterprise feeds our troops, builds airplanes, finances construction projects and provides entertainment to millions. It breeds a culture of success because only the strong survive. Private enterprise always finds the best way to get things done, and I know it will find the best way for our kids. Of course, it will be no cakewalk. Our kids need to adjust the way they think. They need to think about scoring highly, achieving, winning and doing their best. They need to think about physics, chemistry, calculus and Shakespeare, not about Guitar Hero® or the new Zac Efron album. In short, American kids need to start thinking like employees: They must want to win. They must have the zeal to outdo their neighbors and friends. They must constantly thirst for victory. We need ambitious kids who want to ace tests, go to great schools and land super-paying jobs. To do that, we must hit them early. We get nowhere as a Nation when our eighth-graders are still playing Tiddlywinks® in math class. When private enterprise brings achievement back to American education, eighth graders will be building rockets and refining jet fuel, not answering “true” to the question: True or false? 6 X 7 = 44. Our eighth graders will be writing sonnets and grammatically perfect essays, not plodding through Sesame Street® primers and struggling to write their names in crayon. We demand success from our kids. And they will give it to us—fast. In private enterprise, we get results. If a kid does not deliver, he’s out. There will be no more comfort in failure.

America can beat Albania in math ability. When private enterprise provides the solution, American kids will outdo everyone on earth. Soon, America will be #1 in math, science, economics and literature. Our kids will be smarter than any Norwegian. And when we have smart kids, we guarantee a bright economic future, complete with bankers who can add, subtract, multiply and divide interest rates, as well as chemists who can formulate profitable new erectile dysfunction medications. By closing the education gap, we will triumph over the financial crisis. And we will make America the smartest—and richest—country in the world. We will no longer share company with contemptible Albanians, Slovaks and Yugoslavians. Soon, our 10-year-olds will be smarter than even the most brilliant Oxford scholar. Put simply, once private enterprise provides sensible, market-driven guidance to education, we cannot fail.

Let’s start winning. Let’s get smart. Let’s close the education gap. And let’s make sure that our bankers and chemists do their jobs, so that all of us have a better life.

Tuesday, April 28, 2009



Last week, New York Times columnist Maira Kalman wrote a cartoon-laden editorial entitled “May It Please the Court.” See N.Y. Times, April 23, 2009. In it, she discusses her trip to Washington, D.C., during which she attended oral arguments at the Supreme Court and met Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Later, she discusses “great women” in American legal history, culminating in general praise for lawyers who “seek justice.” To make her point about justice, she references Susan B. Anthony, a freed slave named Sojourner Truth and Eleanor Roosevelt. Although she makes a few obliquely critical remarks about the Supreme Court, she essentially praises it. She reserves special respect for “traditional practices,” such as the clerk in a “dapper morning suit” who told her that “adversaries in the Court are not [enemies],” as well as the Court officer who “gets to slam the gavel and say ‘Oyez, oyez, oyez’” before the session begins. Intriguingly, she also writes that the Court: “[is] friendly. There is a sense of well-being and harmony. No miserable clerks scurrying around. They seem to love it here. Hear, hear!”

Apparently Ms. Kalman has not read many recent Supreme Court opinions. In past essays, I have noted that the United States Supreme Court has fallen away from collegiality. In fact, I find that the Justices spend much less time finding common ground about constitutional principle than they spend lambasting their ideological foes. Last term, for example, Justice Scalia wrote several footnotes in his opinions to specifically call Justice Stevens a moron. He did not use that word, of course, but he personally attacked Stevens for writing what he considered “a bad argument.” Justice Alito and Justice Thomas also pull few punches criticizing their fellow jurists when they disagree. In essence, there are many bad losers on the Supreme Court. No matter what Ms. Kalman saw during her visit, it is not an “intellectually friendly” forum. Worse, it is merely a showcase for Ersatz politics. No Justice rises to the Supreme Court without sponsorship by the President. See U.S. Const. Art. II § 2, cl. 2. And in Washington, no President sponsors you unless you pay your party dues. In that sense, Supreme Court justices, despite their outward erudition and declared commitment to enduring principles over expedient results, are little more than appointed political actionaries in 18th Century robes. They are intellectual stand-ins for their Presidential sponsors: Reagan and Bush appointees are generally conservative and unforgiving; Clinton appointees are generally liberal and forgiving. On the Supreme Court, it is “politics as usual”—along with all the rancor and recrimination you would expect from it. Just read Heller v. District of Columbia, 554 U.S. 290 (2008)(holding that the Second Amendment grants an individual right to carry handguns for self-defense purposes) or Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. ___ (2008)(holding that even non-citizen “enemy combatants” at Guantanamo Bay may petition for habeas corpus review in U.S. Federal Courts) to grasp my point here. Contrary to Ms. Kalman’s perceptions, the Supreme Court is not friendly; it is a battlefield. And these constitutional warriors do not take prisoners.

Ms. Kalman seems awed by “Supreme Court traditions.” She likes the “oyez” ritual that precedes oral arguments. She admires the clerk’s “dapper morning suit” and old-fashioned manner. She marvels at the marble pillars and velvet drapery behind the imposing Justices’ bench. She praises Justice Ginsburg’s “doily collar” that she bought in a Parisian boutique. She even titles her editorial “May it Please the Court,” quoting the mystical shibboleth all lawyers must recite before addressing the Justices.

All these things reflect wooden allegiance to tradition. “Oyez?” Are we on Lexington Green listening to the town crier in 1750? “May it please the Court?” That is an archaic double subjunctive straight from 17th Century English common law discourse. In 17th Century English common law discourse, courts burned women at the stake for killing their husbands and disemboweled men for counterfeiting coin. Yet now it is somehow “quaint” to recite their old-fashioned language? What is it about the law that so inveterately clings to stilted tradition? No other profession professes such love for the past. Its very intellectual power derives from ancient decisions; lawyers win cases by analogizing their client’s situation to centuries-old fact patterns. For example, “products liability law” traces its origins to an English case decided in 1703 involving a poorly-constructed outhouse that overflowed and ruined a neighbor’s grass. Tenant v. Goldwin, 92 E.R. 222, 224 (King’s Bench 1703). In that case, the common law judge fashioned a principle that landowners must ensure that their cattle does not wander off and trample their neighbors’ land, just as they must construct outhouses that do not overflow. Id. at 224. In the centuries that followed, lawyers seeking to hold others liable for “dangerous instrumentalities” all analogized their cases to the “runaway cows” and “poorly-constructed outhouses” from the 1703 case. Now, products liability law implicates jet engines, brake pads and roller coaster ball bearings. But lawyers arguing cases must show that these modern technologies somehow relate to those evil cows from 1703. This is tradition run amok. Lawyers and judges are not creators. If they are inventive at all, they are inventive only in the sense that they cunningly relate modern issues to archaic cases without being utterly facetious.

Tradition carries weight. I cannot really fault Ms. Kalman for feeling awe when she stepped into the Supreme Court. Grand pillars, robes, doily collars, marble facades, 17th Century English subjunctive requests, magic words like “oyez,” dapper morning suits and velvet curtains all combine to make an unmistakably imposing impression. It is nothing like everyday life in 2009. Rather, it is more like stepping before the Wizard of Oz, with smoke and lightning bolts pouring forth from a huge altar, complete with amplified voices speaking a half-unintelligible language replete with incomprehensible technicalities. I have always written that law is sorcery. When combined with tradition, it is even more mystifying. It does not illuminate social issues in an accessible way. To the contrary, it obfuscates the issues with myriad “traditional” rules, customs, usages and procedures that confound rather than enlighten.

In my view, it is all empty show. Tradition is reassuring, but when it degenerates into “blind allegiance to the past,” it becomes absurd and pretentious. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes understood this. In a Harvard Law Review article published in 1897, he savagely critiqued undue reliance on tradition in legal reasoning: “[It] is revolting to have no better reason for a rule of law than that so it was laid down in the time of Henry IV. It is still more revolting if the grounds upon which it was laid down have vanished long since, and the rule simply persists from blind imitation of the past.” The Path of the Law, 10 Harv. L. Rev. 457, 469 (1897). Sadly, however, very few people can see through tradition. No matter how stilted and inapplicable traditional rules and customs may be, they carry weight. They symbolize power and authority. They have “been around for a long time,” and people trust “staying power.” It is no surprise that the uninitiated feel awed when they confront tradition in the law. It all looks so impressive; it is all so foreign, yet so imposing. That is the law’s strength. It represents the weight of the past, with all its accumulated authority and power. It speaks beyond generations, cowing those who come centuries later. It certainly cowed Ms. Kalman. It even fooled her into thinking that the Supreme Court was “friendly” and that “adversaries” in the Supreme Court are not “enemies.”

To speak broadly, law is tradition. In some sense, it must be. Tradition refers to “the way in which people always behave or think” in certain circumstances. We know tradition because we live with it. We can predict it. We know what tradition dictates at Christmastime, or at Easter, or on Halloween, or at a wedding, or at a birthday party, or during an election. We have experienced all these things in the past; we know what to expect when they happen. By embodying tradition, the law allows citizens to predict behavior and tailor their own conduct to meet traditional expectations. It gives them a way to deal with inevitable disputes in commerce. It also provides them a reliable mechanism to seek compensation when another person wrongs them. When the law criminalizes behavior, it embodies traditional morals concerning “bad conduct.” In that sense, it encourages people to conform to tradition; and it allows them to predict how the law will treat them if they do not. Tradition is simple. If something is traditional, we know what’s coming. It is not profound; it simply embodies common experience. This is precisely what the law does.

Like tradition, the law is unexciting and unprofound. In virtually every case, the law conforms to traditional understandings in most social matters. If a person breaks a contract, the law provides compensation to the wronged party and a penalty to the dishonorable one. If a person intentionally harms his neighbor, the law provides compensation to the victim and penalizes the wrongdoer. If a person kills his neighbor, the State punishes the killer as a murderer. In all these cases, the law reflects traditional moral understandings to meet the situation at hand. It may speak its own, inaccessible language, but the results are intuitively familiar to anyone who lives in the society. In short, the law reflects and embodies traditional social values, no matter the subject. Traditional social values, at least in the United States, are not very exciting or inventive. They simply provide assurance to all citizens that they can live, work, make money and raise families without worrying about being robbed, killed, defrauded, dispossessed or negligently injured. They keep power in place and prevent popular discontent by providing a semblance of “justice for all.” At the same time, the law maintains respect for itself by dressing itself up in traditional garments and awing the population with impressive power displays, just as it awed Ms. Kalman.

I feel sorry for Ms. Kalman. The law blinded her with its magic show. Not only did she buy into its tradition-based rhetoric, but she also failed to see how uninventive it really is. Toward the end of her editorial, she extols Justice Ginsburg, Susan B. Anthony and Sojourner Truth for “fighting for justice their whole lives.” By including these examples in a piece about the Supreme Court, I can only conclude that she believes the law exists to expand justice and vindicate “right.” Again, Ms. Kalman reveals her ignorance of the law. Still, her error is forgivable. After all, even the Supreme Court building bears the words: “Equal Justice Under Law.” Our public institutions all profess to “serve liberty and justice.” Even the Pledge of Allegiance reminds us that our Nation purportedly guarantees “liberty and justice for all.” But in practice, the law stands for something completely different than “natural right” or “true justice.” It stands for traditional social values, and those values necessarily exclude “justice for all.” To be regrettably blunt, commercial success for some means that not all can be successful. The law assures this result. It is “traditional.” It does not aim for justice or abstract virtue, even if justice results in many cases. It aims for prevailing social order and commercial stability. Just look at any Court docket. Most cases involve petty private disputes for money or property. These litigants could care less about justice; they want money damages and profit. In England and America, commercial success always came first. It would be nice if justice always accompanied commercial success, but it is not necessary. After all, when one man succeeds in business, there is always another who fails. The man who fails always believes he has suffered injustice. But the winner believes that justice has been done. Our legal tradition reaffirms Anglo-American society’s dedication to free market success and commercial stability. All other concerns are incidental, including justice.

I wish the law did serve justice. I wish there were more Susan B. Anthonys and Sojourner Truths in the world, especially the legal world. But the fact that these women had to “battle injustice” in the first place reveals that the law does not traditionally advance justice. These women “fought the law.” From their perspective, the law was unjust. From the majority perspective, however, the law represented “traditional social values about women;” women like Susan B. Anthony were “troublemakers.” The law’s fixation on tradition gives crusaders causes to advocate. In this sense, the law does not readily change with the times. It takes fearless zealots to make war on “tradition” and to wring meaningful change in society. The law certainly will not take the first step. During Susan B. Anthony’s time, the law and tradition weighed against her cause, no matter how “abstractly just” it was. Tradition does not favor reformers who fight for justice. Yet without reformers, the law would never change. Reformers always “want justice.” The law never gives it to them, because it blindly follows traditions. In that sense, it is foolish to think that the law “embodies justice.” If it did, there would be no need for reformers; change would come from within. Tradition and reform are mutually exclusive concepts. The law serves tradition. Thus, it can never instigate reform.

Tradition is problematic. I applaud Ms. Kalman for praising women who fought for justice. But fighting for justice necessarily implies a battle against ingrained social tradition. In general, the law embodies and defends those ingrained social traditions. In that light, I must point out that the law does not serve justice. It may provide a cumbersome vehicle for change, but until the change occurs, it ruthlessly suppresses every attempt to alter tradition. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., went to jail many times to before achieving a few legal changes favoring African-Americans. He wanted the law to serve justice. To achieve that goal, he knew the law would assert tradition over him. In so doing, he understood that the law was unjust. If it had been just, there would have been no need to reform it. Before Dr. King wrought his changes on the law, the law had only one purpose: To rigorously defend its traditions and the social values enshrined in those traditions.

Not all traditions are “quaint,” like doily collars or morning suits. To the contrary, in many cases they are pernicious, like the racial values against which Dr. King crusaded or the brutal punishments for women who murdered their husbands in 17th Century England. Put simply, the law generally defends traditions without regard to their substance. Justice advances; the law favors the status quo. They do not readily coexist. Before justice prevails through law, there is always a confrontation between old and new, a battle between reform and tradition. There is always a rebel and there is always a State official who seeks to suppress him. The law never rebels; it only suppresses. To that extent, Ms. Kalman should not look to the law as a source for justice. Rather, she should look to individual heroes—like Susan B. Anthony—who fight to change the law and its pernicious traditions. Individuals create, invent, change and reorder the world. The law simply provides a framework for people to make money and to maintain social distinctions.

By serving tradition, the law resists change. Justice evolves more quickly than the law. That is why true justice flows from individuals, not legal institutions. While the law may change over time, it will not change by itself. It needs a good jolt from daring individuals before it alters its old-fashioned, backward-looking ways.

Monday, April 27, 2009


By : Mr. Mitch McConnell, United States Senator (R-KY); Senate Minority Leader; Obama Opponent; Homeland Security Expert; Member, Agriculture Committee.


President Barack Hussein Obama has led this country for 100 torturous days. During that time, the President has made war on the American people by releasing brutal terrorists from our military base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. He has also eased restrictions on immigration, flooding our land with Spanish-speaking beggars, criminals and litterbugs. Backed by a majority in Congress, Mr. Obama has dismantled the wall his predecessor erected to defend this country from terror and miscreants, both foreign and domestic. Worse, he has put an emphasis on “fair process for all” and a “commitment to constitutional liberty” over security for American women and children. He has staffed the Homeland Security Department with liberal lawyers and law professors, some of whom are practicing Arab-loving homosexuals. He has committed to quitting the fight against al-Qaeda in Iraq. In short, Obama is a national disgrace; Democrats do not know anything about Homeland Security. As Republicans, we have a duty to protect America. And to protect America during the Obama era, we must strongly oppose anything he does, says or thinks. It is the only way to protect America’s children from terror attacks.

Our Founding Fathers knew that an elected democratic majority could be just as tyrannical as an unelected King. In the Federalist Papers, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton wrote at length about the dangers inherent in “small majorities.” They knew that a “small majority” could trample on very significant minority interests. For that reason, they provided such measures as the veto override mechanism, the constitutional amendment procedure and the bicameral legislature. They also embodied their commitment to minority rights through parliamentary procedures such as the filibuster, which allows the minority to stop small majorities from voting on key issues. Today, Republicans have a duty to invoke these procedures against Obama and his socialist-terrorist allies. When it comes to national security, Democrats prefer to shake hands with terrorist scum rather than detain, waterboard and kill them. When Republicans see turbans, we shoot; we don’t ask questions. This is the approach we need to defend America. It makes no sense to talk to Arabs; there is no such thing as “friendly relations” with terrorists. George W. Bush understood that.

In 2001, George W. Bush established the Homeland Security Department in order to protect this Nation from all enemies. In the beginning, Mr. Tom Ridge led the bureau. Both Mr. Bush and Mr. Ridge knew that old-fashioned ideas like due process, liberty, privacy, access to counsel, the right to remain silent and fair trials would not defeat terror in the 21st Century. For that reason, the Department suspended civil liberties in order to catch the bad guys. That was the right decision; after 9/11 America enjoyed seven years without terror. We caught many, many bad guys, although national security protocols forbid me from disclosing their names or how many we caught. We foiled many plots, although I cannot say what they were or how many. Despite all the criticism, Mr. Bush proved that his approach to Homeland Security was the right one.

Now the Democrats control the Homeland Security Department. This is the ultimate irony. During Mr. Bush’s term, the Democrats opposed everything the Department did. They said it trampled on civil liberties and increased Executive power. They said it harassed law-abiding citizens and perpetuated ethnic stereotypes. They said the Department did nothing to protect America; rather, they said it simply increased the President’s power to detain citizens without grounding in law. Of course, these Democrats fail to see that the Department did stop terror. The Department did protect America. The Department seized millions of gallons of contraband shampoo at airport security lines. It made tens of millions of Americans and foreigners remove their shoes and flip-flops. It inconvenienced millions of travelers who had no connection whatsoever to al Qaeda. It forced millions of Americans to take off their clothing and submit to searches without probable cause. It even listened in on millions of innocent phone conversations without court authorization, in many cases uncovering other, minor crimes in the process. Those measures doubtlessly foiled a would-be bomber. In any event, they allowed authorities to track down marijuana sellers and petty thieves. Most importantly, they sent a clear message: America takes security seriously. If America is willing to strip-search normal-looking white citizens for no reason, then certainly an Arab would know that he could not move about freely without attracting attention. Homeland Security reduced America’s privacy; and that was a good thing. If it came between safety and privacy, we would take safety every time. The 9/11 plotters conspired in private. Can I be any clearer on my point that privacy is dangerous? Thanks to the Department’s disrespect for both privacy and the Constitution, we lived in a safe society.

Not anymore. Democrats in the Homeland Security Department have already begun easing restrictions established under President Bush. Rather than viewing every American as a potential terrorist, Democrats assume that all Americans are good and peaceful. They no longer eavesdrop on random phone conversations. They allow Americans to travel with hair gel, personal lubricants, shoe polish, water bottles, shampoo and conditioner. They even smile and say: “Welcome to O’Hare International Airport!” to brown people wearing Muslim headdress, veils and Mohammedan robes. Rather than suspecting Arabs, they apologize for them and send them on their way without a boarding pass. They treat everyone with “decency and respect for constitutional liberty.” They say they want to “restore faith in the Constitution” after President Bush’s “abuses.”

This is no way to run a government. A President has one overriding duty: To protect the American people at all costs. President Obama and his Homeland Security Department mock that duty. Now, they view Americans with compassion and respect, not suspicion and rancor. They follow constitutional procedures and the Bill of Rights; they no longer hold terror suspects without cause or counsel. These idiots! We do not protect America by giving everyone liberty. We protect America by imprisoning the bad guys. Although we Republicans believe in the Constitution, we regard it the way it should be regarded: As optional advice. It would be really nice if we could give everyone habeas corpus and obtain warrants before searching them. But we would leave this country open to attack if we did. If we followed the Constitution—as President Obama suggests—our entire government would break down. Worse, terrorists, hoodlums and immigrants would overwhelm our borders, disturbing business and commerce. If torture, indefinite detainment, unlawful searches and eavesdropping protect this country from Muslims, we say: “Give us torture, indefinite detainment, unlawful searches and eavesdropping.” Good citizens have nothing to hide. In the 21st Century, we face many dangers. We believe that liberty is for criminals and terrorists. In that light, we believe that Mr. Obama and his soft-hearted Homeland Security Department are leading us down the path to ruin.

Democrats could not protect their own mothers, let alone the United States of America. They are a bunch of weak-willed, overintellectual cowards who would rather give an insane beggar welfare than tell him to get a job, get moving and get over it. They cannot even protect America from flu-infected pigs in Ohio and New York, let alone from terrorists in Pakistan. Some lesbian in the Homeland Security Department said yesterday: “We must accord proper respect for the dignity of the livestock before rushing to judgment about their health status.” This is Democratic rule for you: They would rather respect a hog’s rights than protect America from disease. Well, we are glad to provide the minority voice about security. When Republicans see a diseased hog, they do not worry about its “health status” or “dignity.” They kill it and bury it faster than you can say: “Don Rumsfeld.” The same goes for terrorists. When we see a terrorist, we do not worry about constitutional liberty or “proper interrogation procedures.” We lock the towelhead up, waterboard him and throw away the key. If some lesbian ACLU lawyer makes a fuss about it, we might let an Army Colonel look into his case. But if not, it’s Game Over for Habib. Democrats say we disparage the principles that define America. We say those principles don’t apply to terrorists. That’s the difference.

We are committed to preserving democracy in America. For that reason, we will resist every Democratic effort to weaken procedures intended to sniff out terrorists, criminals and immigrants. George W. Bush knew that following the Constitution would not protect this Nation in the 21st Century. When Republicans controlled Congress, they certified the President’s belief by eradicating basic liberties in order to bolster security. Now, the Democrats are determined to reverse our work. We will resist to the last man. We would rather die than see every American treated with respect and dignity. We would rather die than follow the Constitution in every case. We will not “cooperate” or “compromise” when it comes to protecting our children from Muslims and liberal university professors. We will not “go along with the program” to increase free speech rights or abolish domestic warrantless wiretaps. No, we are determined to hold the line against liberty, because liberty is dangerous.

In a word, President Obama is playing with fire. He thinks he is defending liberty and principle. He thinks he is restoring America’s honor because he says that President Bush tarnished our image abroad. In fact, he is opening the door to terror attacks, anarchy, discord and moral rot. And who gives a flying fuck what Europe thinks of us? As long as the good people of Kentucky support me, I am happy. I don’t give a shit what the Parisians or Belgians think. Yet Mr. Obama would rather placate some communist in Holland than protect the American people from ruthless Arab suicide bombers. He would rather give the Iraqis wedding cake and free champagne than kill them once and for all. Screw free elections; let’s just kill all of them and be done with it. Who really cares whether some Iraqi goatherder votes for another Iraqi goatherder to represent him in a sham parliament? I certainly don’t. This is the Republican way, and these are the values we intend to serve in Congress as long as the Democratic dictatorship continues: Security over liberty; peace over the Constitution; commerce over dignity; privilege over rights; suspicion and rancor over reconciliation and cooperation. We will not work with the Democrats. To the contrary, we will seek to scuttle every single legislative initiative they put forward.

We look forward to resisting the Democrats. Although we would much rather hold a majority in Congress, it is quite fun to simply sit back and whine about everything the Democrats do. After all, we are not really obligated to do anything. We do not have the votes to pass what we want, so why not have some fun and just frustrate everything the Democrats try to pull? In the process, we can stand up and rail about security and our values. We are the minority voice. We will be heard. And we will never trust a Muslim, no matter how well-dressed, well-educated or well-meaning. He’s just another terrorist, and he can stick our Constitution where the sun shineth not. It wasn’t even written for him, anyway. Despite all this, we worry about this Nation with Democrats running the Homeland Security Department. Before you know it, they will be inviting Osama bin Laden and his children to Chuck E. Cheese® for pizza, beer and a kumbaya singing session with Nancy Pelosi.

This is Homeland Security in the Age of Obama. We want no part of it. Nonetheless, we still have a Second Amendment. If the Homeland Security Department cannot protect our children, then we will do it ourselves with our own rifles, pistols and shotguns. In America, we know how to defend hearth and home. And we will.

Sunday, April 26, 2009


I have noticed that my creative powers increase when I sit down, reflect, catch my breath and take in new ideas. For the last seven months, I have written seven days a week. During that time, I have almost completely discussed all the issues I wanted to discuss in the year before I started writing. I think that is an accomplishment: I lived life, suffered hardship, identified problems, sketched them, then completely analyzed them in writing.

Good writing requires experience. Many of my ideas come from situations I encounter in life. But when I actually sit down to write, I foreclose myself from experiencing new situations. And when I write, I can't read. Reading broadens me. It is essential. As a satirist, I would have nothing to mock if I did not read my targets' arguments first. If I spent all my time writing, I would not have time to absorb new material.

I am going to start taking Sundays as "reading days." If I feel truly inspired on a particular Sunday and I cannot repress the muse, then I will make an exception. Still, I think it is important for me to maintain my stamina by taking a day every week to reflect, soak in experience, get new ideas and "add grist to the mill."

As always, many thanks to everyone who takes time out to read what I have to offer. Last week I felt I really hit some good satirical targets; I even wondered whether some particularly vindictive "public figures" might even take me to legal task for my works. In response to that, I say: "Bring it on!" I have little faith in our Supreme Court, but I have every reason to believe that the First Amendment--even in its exception-riddled, tattered, state-serving condition--fully protects my "imaginative expression," "lampooning" and "hyperbolic exaggeration." In my view, the Court's opinions in New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), and Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988)(unanimous opinion) represent high points in this country's troubled commitment to liberty. Those opinions are still "the law." No matter how bad a public figure may feel when he sees himself lampooned, he cannot claim damages against a speaker who satirizes him. That is the price of fame, at least until Chief Justice Roberts & Co. rewrites the law on this point. They probably will, but they have not gotten around to it yet.

I do not report facts. I do not espouse truth. I present opinions and I write satires. Unlike a lawyer, I do not aim to persuade anyone to adopt any viewpoint. I do not live to win, nor do I regard my fellow man as an instrument for my own gain. My goal is simply to show that there are injustices and absurdities in this world. But I also believe there is no need to despair. I think we can all find good for ourselves. My blog simply describes the way I view the world. As far as I know, I still have a right to express that, no matter what contrary reports you may have heard from your employer, your mother or the government.

Here's to more Reason, Commerce, Justice and Free Beer!

Saturday, April 25, 2009



By : Ms. Geraldine F. Goldman-Marquez, J.D., M.D., Ph.D., M.P.A., D.D.S., C.P.A., D.V.M., Wyoming State Champion Skeet Shooter (1989); Art History Expert; Chairwoman, Fly-Fishing & Big-Game Hunting Association of Northern Montana; President and Chief Spokeswoman, The National Association for Gender Equality Everywhere and Forever.

In Connecticut last week, authorities charged a woman with rape. Newspapers reacted with horror, quoting police officials who claimed that this was an “extraordinary case” because “women do not commit rape.” Reports also quoted shocked acquaintances. They all said: “Mrs. X could not have raped that child. She is a caring, tender woman.” Court officials say that no woman has ever been convicted for rape in Connecticut. That is not surprising; after all, for centuries in every American State, the rape statute defined the offense: “Rape means the carnal knowledge by a man of a woman not his wife against her will (emphasis added).” Grammatically, only men could commit rape. Only brutal men could seize and defile innocent, pliable women. Here, as in almost every other legal field, the law condescended toward women, making assumptions about their merit, their inclinations and their capacities. Although Connecticut rewrote the rape law to encompass male-on-male rape and female rape, we have yet to see prosecutors bring a case against a woman. Today, Connecticut faces a historic challenge in the battle for absolute gender equality.

We demand that women be liable for rape. We refuse to live in a society that assumes that women cannot do all the things men can do. Rape laws reflect misogynistic, outdated prejudices about women’s roles. They assume that women are “objects” who must be protected from dominant male aggression. Even if women sexually abuse other women, men or children, the law stands idly by, calling such behavior an “abomination.” It does not prosecute sexually violent women because it assumes that “women do not do such things.” Yes they do. And we have a right to be just as vicious, sexually perverse, lascivious, cruel, savage and bloodthirsty as the worst male rapist. We take equality seriously. True gender equality does not exist when women only enjoy beneficial opportunities open to men, such as voting, drinking and working in government. Rather, true gender equality exists only when women enjoy both every opportunity open to men, and suffer every potential liability open to men. Rape is a major criminal liability. Although the law technically covers women now, no prosecutor has dared to charge a woman for the offense. We refuse to accept the law’s stereotypically sexist protection from rape liability any longer. We are women. We are equal to men in all things, good or bad. We do not just stay home, sew and cook meals. We can rape, too.

In the Connecticut case, the female suspect allegedly violated a male child by inserting objects into his body cavities. This is not the first time such conduct has taken place in North America. Yet this is the first time prosecutors have initiated formal proceedings against a woman for it. We applaud Connecticut for pressing forward against this woman. We urge prosecutors not to heed the public outcry defending this criminal. She is a woman, but she is just as much a criminal as a male would be in the same circumstances. We defend her right to be legally judged for sexual deviancy, violence and brutality. We reject all reasoning that “women cannot be sexually deviant, violent or brutal” because women are “nicer” or “daintier” than men. This is Victorian balderdash. It is 2009, not 1879. Women have a right to equal treatment under the law, and that means equal liability for rape. Men do not have a monopoly on sexual viciousness. Women, too, can depredate other people’s sexual integrity to satisfy their carnal lusts or assert their power. Men are not the only ones who commit atrocities for pleasure. Women have insatiable passions, too. And they are equally able to turn those passions into violent, shocking and horrific crimes.

Our Constitution provides that both the Federal government and the States must provide “equal protection” under the law. That means that no law may make distinctions between men and women unless those distinctions are “substantially related to an important governmental purpose supported by an ‘exceedingly persuasive justification.’” See, e.g., United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515 (1996). But the constitutional standard says nothing about equal liability under the law. We believe that women have a right not only to equal legal protection, but also equal legal liability. We have won the war for equal employment opportunities, equal pay and equal political rights. But the law continues to treat us like defenseless damsels because it refuses to hold us liable for so-called “male crimes” like rape. We assert that this is unconstitutional. We demand the right to face equal suspicion, equal condemnation and equal moral revulsion for committing the same acts as men. This is the only way to truly equalize our society. As long as the law countenances gender-based stereotypes in any field—no matter how well-meaning or benign—it perpetuates the same injustice that has always plagued our Republic with regard to women’s rights. We demand an end to injustice. We demand equal liability for rape NOW.

Some legal scholars will argue that differential liability for female rape is appropriate because rape implicates a “real gender difference” between men and women. See, e.g., Michael M. v. Superior Court, 450 U.S. 464 (1981). In that case, the Court held that because women could become pregnant and men could not, the “effects of rape” fell upon women more severely than upon men. That “real gender difference” justified holding only men liable for rape. We wholly disagree with this reasoning because it makes unwarranted assumptions about women and rape. It is true that only women can become pregnant. But that biological difference has nothing to do with the reasons why the law condemns rape. Rape may lead to pregnancy, but impregnating the victim is certainly not the actor’s primary purpose. Instead, rape involves the assertion of raw, sexual power over an object, whether the object resists or not. Rape involves sexual integrity and control over the body. The rapist commits a terrible crime because he or she forces the victim to intimately use his or her body in a way he or she does not want to be used. The rapist does this merely to satisfy his or her base lusts, completely disregarding the victim’s bodily and spiritual well-being in the process. Typically, rape involves violence. Sometimes it does not. In either event, however, rape degrades and humiliates the victim solely to placate the rapist’s sexual desire. That is the heart of the crime. The fact that pregnancy may result from male-on-female rape does not change the crime’s essential character. In short, you do not need a penis to commit rape. You must merely be a sexually violent, ruthless, unrepentant person determined to sate your sexual urges against another person’s will. Being sexually violent, ruthless and unrepentant is not a “real gender difference.” Women can be just as sexually violent, ruthless and unrepentant as men. For that reason, there is no justification in either logic or law to accord differential treatment to women for rape.

We are not hypocrites. We believe in absolute equality. We are not “fair-weather crusaders.” The battle for gender equality did not end when women obtained beneficial advantages in society. No, the battle rages on. Now, we must fight the battle for equal liability. As long as the law refuses to hold us liable for despicable sexual offenses, it perpetuates stereotypes about women. When the law says: “Women cannot do such things,” it makes assumptions about our character as women. This is a fundamental injustice. We do not want the law to evaluate our character as women. We want the law to simply evaluate our character. There is no “woman character” or “man character.” There are not things that “only women do” or “only men do.” The law must understand this. Women can be irrepressible sexual deviants just as readily as men, no matter what the Victorian prudes say to the contrary. In fact, we demand that the law evaluate us for our flaws as well as for our merits. We insist that society stop assuming that women can “do no wrong” in certain areas “because we are women.” Yes we can. We can be just as naughty, evil, merciless and cruel as men. People should not assume that a man commits every violent and shocking act that appears in the news. Nor should they gasp when they hear that a woman committed some atrocity. We can be just as atrocious as men. We may not be as physically intimidating as men, but we can stab, shoot and thrash if our muscles prove insufficient to the task. We do not want legal and social solicitude. We do not want to benefit from outmoded, chivalrous assumptions about quaint “women’s ways.” We just want to be regarded the same as men in every way, and that includes liability for rape.

We may not have penises. But we can savagely violate orifices just as effectively as a man. And we should be punished just as severely for it, too. Equality means taking the good with the bad. When the law gives women advantages at the same time it protects them from liability because they are women, we perpetuate injustice. It is a new day; it is time to stop thinking that women cannot be sexually violent and heartless. We are not dainty maidens. We are not always peaceful creatures who wear frilly dresses and cook dinners. We can be tattooed, recalcitrant rapists, thugs, killers and child molesters, too. The next time you look at a woman, do not assume she is a flimsy, meek little kitten. She can be an ogre, just like you.

Friday, April 24, 2009



Nobody likes to default. It is a dirty word. It means that you failed to uphold your promises. But few people worry about staining their honor when they default. Rather, they worry about the massively stressful legal process that will soon befall them. Soon, they will receive harassing telephone calls, summonses, judgments, late payment assessments, lien notices and garnishment orders. They will experience firsthand the whole legal arsenal with which the law arms creditors. Worse, their creditors will call them “irresponsible people who do not consider the rights of others,” adding a wholly unnecessary moral dimension to purely legal questions. All for what? Because they ran out of money. Life threw them a curve; they couldn’t afford the payments anymore.

Contract law fascinates me because it allows private parties to create private law. Contrary to popular belief, private contracts do not directly implicate the State; the State only steps in to enforce them when deals go awry. In large part, however, contracts represent quintessentially private ordering. They allow private individuals to make their own, compulsory rules in order to obtain some material benefit from others. In theory, parties to a contract are equal. One party possesses something the other wants; each side gains exactly as much as the other loses, and vice versa. Yet this “equality” in bargaining power only exists in law textbooks. In modern commerce, most transactions involve gross disparities in power. One party (usually a corporation) has something others desperately need, leaving them to accept difficult terms in order to get it. Often, these difficult terms include high prices and an agreement to waive a jury trial if something goes wrong. More often, these difficult terms impose crushing penalties, fees and other procedural handicaps that make it hard—if not impossible—for the party to prevail if there is a dispute. In practice, contract law allows powerful parties to impose their will on those who wish to acquire things they possess—and it is all legal.

There is nothing surprising about this. When human beings deal privately with one another, they always attempt to secure maximum advantages for themselves while assuming minimum risk. If one party has something the other needs, he can leverage that need to his advantage by negotiating extremely favorable terms. Of course, the same party could not secure extremely favorable terms if the buyer could go to a different seller. But in many commercial settings, individual buyers must obtain their goods through much more powerful sellers. When they do not have enough money to buy things outright, they must seek financing; and debt places them at a consummate disadvantage. In our society, very few people have enough money to buy all the things they need. They are stretched to the limit. In many cases, even “honest, hard-working people” have no choice but to take out loans for necessary items. In so doing, they expose themselves to creditors’ virtually unbridled legal power. Debtors are glorified beggars; and creditors have immense power over them. In debt relationships, contract law gets even uglier than usual. Yet debt is unavoidable for most people. In that sense, most people find themselves in an extremely unfavorable legal position. They sign contracts that subject them to brutal sanctions if they miss payments. They need the money. They take their chances that their income stream will remain intact to make their payments.

Many debtors make their payments. But life is not so kind to others. Perhaps a breadwinner dies or suffers an injury that forecloses him from work. Perhaps a debtor loses his job. Perhaps a debtor moves and bills get lost in the mail. Perhaps intervening expenses arise that wipe out a debtor’s savings, making it impossible to repay existing obligations. Perhaps a debtor has children who drain his income more than he could have imagined when he took out the loan. In America, most people cling desperately to financial stability. Their money is generally spoken for the moment they make it: rent; mortgage; taxes; clothing; food; car note; gas; tuition; student loan; credit card bill; utilities; medical expenses; dental expenses; the list goes on until the last penny is gone. They calculate their expenses to match their income stream. If there is an interruption, the entire financial structure unravels. And when a creditor does not receive a bargained-for, contractually-mandated payment from the unfortunate debtor, the creditor’s legal arsenal grinds into action. At these moments, contract law shows its true, pitiless colors. When creditors assert rights, somebody starts suffering.

I always found it perversely entertaining when creditors informed me that I owed “late fees” and “interest payments” if I failed to make a scheduled payment. This is standard contractual stuff. Loan contracts say that you must pay so-and-so amount on so-and-so date every month, plus interest (which may be raised at will and added to the principal). Then they say you must pay a special “extra fee” if you miss a payment. Why do creditors do this? If a person fails to make a payment, doesn’t that lead a reasonable person to conclude that he did not have the money to pay it? If that is true, how can a creditor expect a person to pay the payment he could not afford and extra fees? If a person does not have $400, he cannot pay $400 plus $250 in fees. In my view, this is sadism. It is like kicking people when they are down. Still, the law squarely favors the creditor in this situation. In the law’s view, you bargained for all the terms in the contract, no matter how counterintuitive or cruel. When you default, you entitle the creditor to apply all those terms against you, no matter how apparently unfair or oppressive. If the contract says the creditor can charge late fees and interest on your late payment, he can. It does not matter that you are broke. It does matter that you have children to feed. It is the creditor’s right. And the law enforces private contractual rights. It does not query whether they are oppressive or even ludicrous in practical effect. In short, contract law allows superior parties to exercise their rights over those who default, no matter how shameless it may be to do so. Those rights include the right to charge all the fees they defined in the contract, as well as obtaining a judgment for the full loan amount now. Once they obtain the judgment, they can legally seize all your cash and property to “satisfy” it, the same way a zookeeper “satisfies” a hungry lion with raw meat.

From a legal perspective, this all makes perfect sense: The debtor defaulted; he owes the amount; the debtor must pay. Yet from a practical and humanitarian perspective, this result is perverse. If a debtor cannot pay a monthly payment, how can a creditor reasonably believe that he can pay the entire loan amount now? If a person does not have money to pay $400, he obviously does not have money to pay $125,000, plus interest, fees and attorney’s costs. It defies imagination to think that the creditor could reasonably make these demands. But they do—all the time. Why? In my view, it is because the law gives creditors a smug feeling of total entitlement. Creditors believe that, because the law supports their position, they can do whatever the contract says they can. No matter how absurd the demand, the law permits it; thus the creditor feels he can make the demand in good conscience. It may be utterly impossible to wring $125,000 from a penniless debtor, but it makes the creditor feel good to crush him with legal process simply because he has the right to crush him. When people have commercial rights, they exercise them to the fullest. After all, rights are about power; when a person has power, he will exercise it. There is something distinctly human about rights. When people feel entitled to do something, they feel much better about doing it than they would if there were no such official imprimatur. The law gives exactly such an official imprimatur to the exercise of private commercial power. To answer the question “why” a creditor charges late fees on a debtor who obviously has no money to pay them, we must simply cite the smugness that flows from legal rights: “They do it because they can.”

Some may call this cynical nonsense. But I challenge anyone to provide me an example of a creditor who chooses not to exercise power over a debtor when the law permits. Do banks show mercy? Do commercial actors forgive? Here, we see that forgiveness and mercy necessarily involve rights. Specifically, to forgive someone, you must first have the right to punish him. Those who forgive have the right to visit hardship and pain on those who aggrieve them. Yet they forgo exercising their right because they pity their debtors, or at least understand that it would serve no purpose to punish them. Such values are entirely inconsistent both with the values of modern commerce and human nature. In commerce, people want to win profits. If exercising commercial rights allows them to win profits, they will not “forgive” those from whom they could rightfully obtain money or property. And human beings like to exercise power over their fellow men. It is in their nature to dominate others. If rights make it easier to tyrannize and dominate others, human beings will not forgo the great satisfaction they experience when they exercise their rights. That is just the way we are.

Christ may have admonished us to “forgive our trespassers.” But Christ never lent money. Nor did he write finance contracts with capitalized interest clauses. In fact, we can reasonably posit that Christ hated debt relationships and commerce in general because he overturned the moneylenders’ tables and "cast them out." Matthew 21:12-14.

In sum, debt relationships bring out the worst in both people and the law. Although legal theorists praise contract law because it allows “responsible people” to “prudently allocate risk and make sensible rules for themselves,” modern commerce belies the contention that there is equality between buyers and sellers. Modern commerce provides plentiful opportunities for strong parties to brutalize weaker ones because the law permits it. This is the dark side of legal rights. When human beings feel entitled to visit misery on others, they rarely forgo the chance. When the natural human impulse to dominate combines with the commercial impulse to win profits, the result is grim. Put simply, debtors do not stand a chance. In America, at least, they find themselves between a rock and a hard place: They must borrow money to buy necessities, to care for their health and to educate themselves. In so doing, they subject themselves to creditors’ “legal rights.” Those “rights” enable creditors to ruin debtors’ financial lives if there is any interruption at all in their tenuous income stream. It is not a pleasant way to live. And it never feels good to know that your entire life hangs on your ability to make regular payments, especially when experience confirms that life circumstances can change overnight. Today, you may be healthy and employed. Tomorrow, you may be paralyzed or laid off. But that means nothing to a creditor; he has his rights and you have your obligations. Unforeseen tragedy or disruption has no effect on his right to sink you. And he will exercise that right if he can.

True, our economy would not work if creditors forgave their debtors all the time. A “merciful economy” is a contradiction in terms. Commerce is warlike; warriors do not spare their foes or let their enemies escape. But that does not make our economy thematically appealing. In my view, forgiveness and mercy are positive qualities. Does it not say something about our society that such positive qualities simply do not belong in commercial life? To be blunt, we are engaged in a death struggle to fulfill obligations. When the law allows, we like to dominate our neighbors. We die if we fail to make payments. The law allows us our creditors to brutalize us, and it allows us to die. Guilt has nothing to do with it. No, contract law knows only power and survival, not conscience.

Perhaps the lesson is this: When possible, be a creditor. It is always better to be on top; and it is always easier to have the law on your side.

Thursday, April 23, 2009



Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) did not attract fame or fortune during his lifetime. His ideas were ahead of their time; the world was simply not ready for him. He lost his mind in 1888; he died twelve years later, embittered and alone. Interestingly, you can sense his desperation in his late writings, such as On the Genealogy of Morals (1887). In his Prologue to the Genealogy, Nietzsche wonders why people criticize him for “readability.” He defends his aphoristic style, but he seems to want others to understand him. In his last essay, Nietzsche even ventures an “interpretation” of his own writing. He reaches out to the reader as if to say: “Look! It’s not that complex; this is what I am trying to say.”

Nietzsche explained that there really is no explanation. Truth depends on power and judgment. It depends on the narrator, the legislator and their values. Every story is to some extent a judgment; a story gives voice to only one perspective on unique events. That was Nietzsche’s core point in all his writings. During the 19th Century, people had difficulty grasping that concept. After all, most “good bourgeois citizens” in the Victorian era believed that there was a “single good” and a “single evil.” There was no room for debate. The Bible and “popular morality” told them about right and wrong. They comfortably viewed the world equipped with these metaphysical assumptions. Against such entrenched resistance, Nietzsche was bound to fail. He was too progressive for his time. He was a relativist in an absolute world.

But Nietzsche’s influence survived. Within decades after his death, his ideas took root in numerous intellectual fields. Authors such as Franz Kafka and Albert Camus followed in his footsteps. Psychiatrists such as Sigmund Freud formulated scientific theories that substantiated his thought. And 20th Century philosophers such as Michel Foucault and Martin Heidegger all paid tribute to Nietzsche’s groundbreaking “polyperspectivism.” In death, Nietzsche’s relativism triumphed over metaphysics. For all these disciples, Nietzsche’s message was clear: “Truth is illusory. Only raw power and judgment declare truth. Life is a constant battle between individual perspective and constraining powers that impose rules on the individual in all social circumstances, from education to employment to family to law. In the end, it is a war for individual souls; and in most cases, the individual loses badly.”

Michel Foucault theorized extensively about the “power relations” that constrain individuals in modern society. In that sense, he took up Nietzsche’s mantle and more closely analyzed his general ideas about power and judgment. I admire Foucault because he carried on Nietzsche’s original theories about power. My own life experience confirms to me that both Nietzsche and Foucault were right about power relationships in our world. We live amid unfairness, subjected to power from all directions. As individuals, we have little chance to realize our own potential without in part surrendering to massively more powerful forces that can impact our bodies and our property. These forces cannot directly impact our souls, but by impacting our bodies and our property, they can indirectly affect the way we value ourselves. We may not want to work at a certain job for our soul’s sake, but power relations (the landlord, the tax collector, the family, the student loan creditor) indirectly force us to work in order to satisfy their property demands. By forcing us to do things we do not want to do, these superior forces impact our souls. It is not a direct influence on us, but it is an influence nonetheless.

But it is no easy task to read Foucault. In that sense, he differs from Nietzsche. Nietzsche wrote in extremely clear, accessible prose. Even his aphorisms cut to the heart of a question, sometimes with irony, other times with pure rhetorical clarity. Nietzsche could argue as well as a lawyer and ruminate as well as a theologian; but he was too profound to be either a lawyer or a theologian. He was both cogent and creative. He used many voices. He could imitate other writers and mock them. Nietzsche’s facility as a writer makes him easy—and joyful—to read. With Nietzsche, you never know exactly what style you will get. Yet in the end you know you will get an unmistakably Nietzschean message about power, individuality and judgment.

By contrast, Foucault wrote in a much more stilted, academic style. Unlike Nietzsche, Foucault did not write real literature; he wrote academic criticisms. Nietzsche criticized with lively prose or ironic musings; Foucault criticized with analytical university-speak. This is not to say that Foucault did not write excellent criticism. Quite the contrary; Foucault’s work places him among the most cogent 20th Century philosophers. But he is not a writer’s philosopher. It is harder to read his books than it is to read Nietzsche. You need to pore over each page longer. It is worth the effort to read him, of course. It simply takes a bit more work to grasp his points because his language is more obscure and technical than Nietzsche’s.

I enjoy any criticism about law. Foucault wrote extensively about the law because law is an institution of power. During law school, I spent countless hours learning American legal doctrine without really reflecting on the power that created it. Since my last months in law school, I have reflected intensely on that very question. What is law? Where did it come from? How does it operate? Intuitively, I did not buy the American rhetoric about “equality under law” and the neutral “rule of law” that supposedly nullifies all human caprice. No, I thought. Law is not neutral, nor does it apply equally. Law is neither objective nor fair, although it claims to be both.

Why is law so flawed? Simple: Because it is a human invention. Human beings are deeply flawed creatures. They want nothing more than to enrich themselves and win as much power as they can before dying. To achieve that goal, they invent whatever mechanisms necessary to obtain and maintain power. Law represents a way to obtain and maintain power without alienating everyone else. By law, powerful people protect their values and assure their domination over the population. At the same time, the law espouses a superficial appeal that convinces its subjects that they are getting a fair deal, and that the law actually serves them. This encourages them to stay at work, pay their taxes and continue to support a system that really does not care whether they advance or not. In short, I learned that law simply codifies value systems and uses it to cement prevailing power relationships.

When I picked up Foucault, I found confirmation for many of the ideas I formulated after law school. Foucault provided me with additional insights into the power-law connection. Most strikingly, Foucault reminded me that the law is essentially crude and unimaginative. In The History of Sexuality : An Introduction (1976), Foucault asserts that Western discourse about human sexuality has never been repressed. Rather, he argues, we constantly talk about sex; we simply channel our discussions to conform to various power influences. The law is one such “power influence” that channels discussion about sex. In analyzing the law, Foucault writes: “[The law] is defined in a strangely restrictive way, in that, to begin with, this power is poor in resources, sparing of its methods, monotonous in the tactics it utilizes, incapable of invention and seemingly doomed always to repeat itself. Further, it is a power that only has the force of the negative on its side, a power to say no; in no condition to produce, capable only of posting limits, it is basically anti-energy.” The History of Sexuality (Vintage Books Edition 1990) at p. 85.

What a searing critique! Every law professor, lawyer and judge should read that passage and think about it. Why praise the law for its subtlety when it is actually so pathetically simple? When you get right down to it, what is the law except a crude mechanism of repression? What does the law really produce? It does nothing but forbid, then threaten punishment for infractions. It is remarkably simplistic. It is little more than a compendium of general “do’s” and “don’t’s.” Structurally, the law is no different than a kindergarten list that forbids such behavior as “eating crayons,” “punching your neighbor in the face” or “going wee-wee on the floor at nap time.” The lawgiver forbids; he then enforces obedience by punishing those who trespass against his word. It is a power relationship: One speaks; the other obeys. The powerful party inflicts pain; the weaker party submits.

But here we see another weakness in the law. After all, if the law can only say “no” to various human behavior, then the law must also observe and stop the behavior it prohibits. It is one thing to abstractly forbid conduct; it is quite another to find that conduct and punish it. Put simply, it is extremely easy to evade the law because the law has the burden to seek out the prohibited behavior. It is “poor in resources” because there is no way the police can be everywhere all the time. If the law cannot find a violation, it cannot punish. If it cannot punish, it cannot write its power on its subjects. Thus, its general, prohibitory statements mean nothing in practice. On the other hand, if it does find a violation, it punishes. In Foucault’s words, it is “monotonous anti-energy.” You know how it operates. It is simple. It is not subtle. It is not inventive. It “posts limits.” The lawgiver says: “Drive 55.” You drive 56. You transgress. Moreover, law creates nothing. Put simply, we should hesitate before speaking highly about noble legal principles. There is nothing special going on here; the law is little more than a glorified kindergarten “do and don’t” list.

There is reason for all this. The law is simple because it reflects an earlier time. Foucault explains that western legal systems as we know them evolved during the Middle Ages; and they have not essentially changed in the 1000 years since. See History of Sexuality at pp. 86-88. He argues that the law arose around the same time as modern nation-States. Modern nation-States replaced feudal chaos, in which fractured fiefdoms squabbled incessantly because each local prince had his own laws and customs. National Kings, however, imposed uniform rules on the warring nobles, bringing uniformity and peace to splintered realms. Foucault explains: “Faced with a myriad of clashing forces, these great forms of power functioned as a principle of right that transcended all the heterogeneous claims…forming a unitary regime, identifying its will with the law, and [acting] through interdiction and sanction.” Id. at p. 87. In this way, Kings imposed “pax et justitia (peace and justice)” on the land. Their royal courts replaced disruptive private vendettas between aggrieved nobles. Id. at p. 87. The people obeyed their father the King. The King forbade; the people listened. When a child disobeyed the law, the King punished him, assuming he found the transgressor.

This basic structure has not changed. While modern States no longer look to Kings for law, they put their faith in “replacement monarchs,” namely, written Constitutions. As Foucault eloquently points out: “In political thought and analysis, we still have not cut off the head of the King.” History of Sexuality at pp. 88-89. In sum, western societies still follow the “law model” to formulate power. The law has always been simplistic. It still is, even if we make a “Constitution” our sovereign father rather than a King.

Legal theorists applaud the law because it provides “fairness, justice and uniform procedure” for redressing public and private wrongs. In short, these theorists praise “the rule of law,” as if that phrase makes it impossible for tyranny to exist anywhere in a society committed to law. But these theorists unjustifiably elevate the law to a loftier station than it should occupy. They think that the “rule of law” makes it impossible for individual caprice to influence human relationships. Put simply, “rule of law” theorists dress a pig in fine clothes. The law is not ethereal or flawless. It does not provide infallible justice or equal results for all. In fact, contrary to all “rule of law” rhetoric, the law does not apply in all cases to which it should apply. Instead, exemptions, exceptions and immunities to the law are as old as the law itself. This is entirely consistent with the law as a system of power relationships, since powerful people will always treat themselves better than those who must obey. In short, the law is only uniform in theory; in practice, it is exceedingly inconsistent.

Foucault calls this phenomenon “tolerated illegality.” He reasons that every legal system does not enforce laws against certain “unlawful conduct.” It does not matter that certain conduct is “illegal;” power operates by suspending the law in its own favor. See Discipline & Punish (1975) (Vintage Books, 2nd Ed. 1995) at pp. 82-87. In short, every legal system purposely enforces the law in a discriminatory manner in order to favor those who control the system. After all, powerful interests create the law; they will not suffer punishment under rules they created to secure their own advantages. Why become powerful if you are subject to the same laws as the masses? The allure of power lies precisely in the right to play by “different, preferential rules.” In this sense, “rule of law” supporters completely misunderstand the law. The law does not exist to secure common justice and equality. Rather, it preserves the will of powerful interests, and if powerful interests technically violate the law, they will not face punishment. After all, they created the law; it exists to secure them in their superior positions. On this point, Foucault writes: “[The] bourgeoisie was to reserve to itself the illegality of rights: the possibility of getting round its own regulations and its own laws, of ensuring itself an immense sector of economic circulation by a skillful manipulation of gaps in the law—gaps that were foreseen by its silences, or opened up by de facto tolerance.” Id. at p. 87. At the same time, these powerful interests ensured that lower classes faced inexorable punishment for breaking “property rules:” “[This] illegality [of property]…was intolerable in commercial and industrial ownership...the development [of modern commerce] necessitated a severe repression of illegality [against property].” Id. at p. 85. In short, the powerful classes ensured that their conduct would not be punished, while they made every effort to punish conduct that affected their economic interests.

On the whole, then, what is law? A crude, predictable, exception-riddled and ancient system that does little more than “say no,” and even then only selectively. And it is precisely the law’s “selectivity” that makes it so suspect. After all, if all people do not face equal treatment under the law, it supports the argument that law embodies the will of the powerful. Powerful people impose their will on others; they do not allow others to impose their will on them. Law provides a superficially appealing—and straightforward—way for power to maintain itself while allaying popular discord with nice-sounding rhetoric about “equality.” In many individual cases, of course, the law works. It enforces everyday private promises and provides some redress for various wrongs. But this does not make it thematically spectacular, nor does it embody metaphysical truth. It is merely a convenient way to channel power in society. Its goal is not to provide justice or equality. Its goal is to enshrine dominant values in a familiar, awe-inspiring manner: As the father who commands obedience from his children. Yet upon closer inspection, we see that our father is not infallible, nor does he embody metaphysical truth. Instead, he is simply a metaphor for power.

There is nothing grandiose about human attempts to obtain and maintain power. This is law’s function, and the law operates crudely. This is why I disagree with the starry-eyed “rule of law” fanatics. There is nothing spectacular about the law. It is merely power incarnate. And its methods are easy to decipher. As Foucault said, law is “monotonous” and “uninventive.” Power, too, is “uninventive.” It has two simple goals: (1) To stay where it is; and (2) to restrict others from joining its ranks. The law facilitates these two goals.

Wednesday, April 22, 2009


By : Mr. Rudolph W. Giuiliani, “America’s Mayor;” Former Mayor of the City of New York (1994-2001); Senior Partner, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, A Law Firm Specializing in Service to the Fossil Fuel Energy Industry (2005-present); Director and Founder, Giuliani Partners LLC, a Leadership Consulting Firm Specializing in Courage & Integrity for Corporations and Governments (2002-present); Director, Founder and Shareholder, Giuliani Capital Advisors LLC, an Investment Bank Specializing in Bankruptcy Consulting (2002-present); Desirable Speaker on the Lecture Circuit (2002-present); United States Attorney (1981-1989); Presidential Candidate (2008); Leader; Orator; Hero; Scholar; Author of the Bestseller Leadership; Enemy of Enemies of Freedom; Crimestopper; Graduate, New York University School of Law cum laude (1968); Millionaire; Republican; Yankee Fan.

I have lived a great life. It’s amazing, but my career just keeps getting better. I thought I had reached the top as New York City Mayor. Then September 11, 2001 happened. On that terrible day, many heroes died. But I stepped up to the plate and gave this Nation hope. I provided determined leadership at a time when the country seemed lost. At the time, it looked like I genuinely cared about the tragedy that befell the City and the Nation. I told the press that we had lost more people in the attacks “than we could bear.” That struck a chord. My words and actions told people I was not only a great leader, but also a caring human being with feelings. The whole world was looking at me. Overnight, I became a superstar.

After the smoke cleared, my term as Mayor ended. I suddenly found myself a national celebrity. My career boomed like never before. I have been very successful in my life (look at my resume), but I have never been as successful as in the years after September 11. People wanted to hear me talk about leadership, courage, dedication, honor, self-sacrifice and perseverance. This suited me fine; I wasn’t mayor anymore, so why not go into private business? I just give the people what they want. I get phone calls from everyone. They all want me to speak out at some function or other. They all want to hear my voice. They want inspiration from “America’s Mayor” to guide them through tough times. Everyone from South Adelaide Children’s Cancer Hospital in Australia to Belt Parkway Community College in Brooklyn books me for speaking engagements. I am always happy to oblige. Since 2002, I have become a regular on the speaking circuit. I talk about September 11, freedom, terrorism, sacrifice, vigilance, leadership, principle, high ideals and other values that make people feel all gooey and proud. I enjoy it, too, even if the coffee and food is bad in some lecture halls.

But inspiration costs money. I don’t speak for free; hiring “America’s Mayor” for a lunch chat is a major expenditure. My speaking fees start at $100,000 per engagement, plus travel expenses. If a school can’t fork over the cash, the students do not get to hear me talk about nail-biting emergency response, vigilance and security measures. I won’t even talk about how I reduced crime in New York using Federal money in the 1990s. In fact, without full payment in advance, my lips are sealed; I won’t even show up at your campus. I have more lucrative business to address.

People have criticized me for charging too much. But not everyone is “America’s Mayor.” When you hire me, you are not hiring some two-bit “motivational speaker” with a polyester jacket and a toupee. You are hiring the King of New York, the man who took on bin Laden and won. When I speak, you hear real words of wisdom, not corny slogans recited from a cheap overhead projector. In short, I am worth every penny, because not everyone is a leader like me. How can you criticize me? I defeated the terrorists. I protected you. Don’t I deserve some compensation after a lifetime serving this country? And how can you criticize my speaking fees when a crook like Bill Clinton racks in mucho speech cash every day? Sure, he might donate his fees to charity, but the fact remains: He charges a lot, too. And let’s be honest here about making money: Don’t hate; appreciate. I am just living the American dream.

Since 2002, I have averaged about $8,000,000 gross from my speaking engagements. But that is not my only income source. After realizing how much people liked me, I decided to start some consulting firms. Giuliani Partners LLC offers top-notch professional advice on leadership, crisis management and organizational culture for business and government. After all, companies like take-charge guys like me. When CEOs and business managers saw me on TV marching through dust-covered streets on 9/11, they said: “Now look at him! That’s a can-do guy! We need guys like that in our boardrooms!” Sure enough, once I left the Mayor’s office, my phone started ringing off the hook. Just about every Fortune 500 Company wanted some leadership tips from Rudy. I brought in some old hands from the Mayor’s office and we started giving private speeches to business leaders all over the country. We taught them about emergency procedures, integrity, values, security, accountability and ethical organizational structures based on principles. And I believe in equal opportunity: I even provide advice to companies I used to prosecute as U.S. Attorney. I have a good heart; I can let bygones be bygones. I love this country because we forgive even those who trespass against us.

Our consulting fees begin at $1,000 per hour per consultant or $125,000 per month for straightforward cases. Most companies don’t complain about the cost; they can afford it. And quite honestly, we provide real value. After all, wouldn’t you love to know that Rudy Giuliani certified your corporate culture and emergency response protocols? Wouldn’t you love to know that Rudy Giuliani gave his seal of approval to your security measures? Of course you would. That is why we deserve to be well compensated for our services. To be blunt, I know what I’m talking about. Not everyone can claim to have single-handedly defeated al-Qaeda, taken down the mob in New York, inspired a Nation, banned bad art from Brooklyn museums, imprisoned slander-spewing “artists,” stopped crack dealing in Washington Heights, cleaned up the streets, brought tourism back to Times Square, jailed the junk bond swindlers and chased the homeless from Manhattan. But guess what? I have done all these things and more. I have cultivated a culture of success. And when I consult, I put that culture to work for my clients. If you can’t afford me, well, what can I say? You can’t afford the best. You’ll have to take your chances or hire some low-grade hustler to manage your security needs.

Since September 11, I also have had time to write. In 2002, I published Leadership, a biographical memoir detailing my response to the terrorist attacks and the values that make me so great. I highly recommend reading my book. You might learn something about character, values, determination, integrity and purpose for your life. It is essential to be modest; but it is also essential to give credit where credit is due. Put simply, all the critics agree that Leadership is a tour de force from “America’s Mayor.” It is a “must-read” for anyone who wants to learn “effective management strategies” from America’s most experienced manager. These are their words, not mine. Don’t take my word for it; I am just telling you what the critics said. Do yourself a favor: Read Leadership. Be a leader. Learn from the best.

Sometimes I wonder: How would my life have turned out if September 11 had never happened? Would I be charging $100,000 per speech in North Dakota if my career as Mayor ended quietly? Would I have written bestsellers about crisis management, leadership skill, national pride and terrorism? Would I have been speaking at the Republican National Convention in 2004, then running for President myself in 2008? Would people have sought me out as a consultant on leadership issues? Would I have started my own investment bank? I readily admit that 9/11 boosted my image beyond all recognizable bounds. Before 9/11, people criticized me as a mean-spirited, boastful, unrepentant, petty, oppressive tyrant with a Napoleon complex. After 9/11, my critics vanished and I became an unassailable American hero in the same league as Nathan Hale and George Washington. No one dared say anything bad about the man who saved this country from terror. Perhaps if September 11 had never happened, I would have faded into relative obscurity as “just another former New York Mayor,” like poor old Abe Beame or—worse—David Dinkins. That thought bothers me. That is why I am grateful to all those who helped me win my fame. I am talking about the firemen.

Who can forget the firemen? I honor you for rushing into those burning towers. People remember you. When they think 9/11, they think about you. Your sacrifice provides me with endless material for speeches, anecdotes and consulting strategies. When I talk about courage, integrity and dedication, I mention you. Sure, I was courageous, dedicated and fearless when I coordinated disaster relief on 9/11. But you are the real heroes. You charged into burning buildings and died trying to save people. What a story. People always respond to it. It is a rhetorical gold mine; it just keeps on giving. I have been telling your story for almost 8 years now and I still get phone calls asking me to tell it again. I am a hero, too, but your bravery allows me to illustrate my theories about heroism, sacrifice, honor and freedom with real examples. Your bravery allowed me to write a bestseller and pursue my political ambition to the highest levels of American government. I am eternally indebted to you. I am not indebted to you in a legal sense, but you know what I mean.

I fought al-Qaeda on 9/11 and gave a Nation hope. You died to save others. Nonetheless, you are not as successful as I am. I use your stories to win consulting jobs and gain oil industry clients for Bracewell & Giuliani. Everyone wants to hear about the firemen. I tell them what they want to hear. When I talk about leadership and courage, I mention you. You have propelled me to national stardom. Thanks to you, I am at the top. I have never been so rich or famous; and I am not coming down. On the other hand, assuming you survived the collapse, you likely have life-threatening respiratory illnesses. You live on meager pension checks. You probably suffer from depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder. I am very sorry for that. But that’s the way life goes. I cannot offer you employment at this time, nor can I support you financially or medically. All I can say is that I am doing fine. My prostate cancer is in remission and I am doing extremely well financially.

My heart and my thanks go out to all the New York firefighters who participated in rescue efforts on 9/11. You made my career what it is today. I wish you the best of luck in all your future endeavors. God bless you.

If you wish to hire me for a speaking engagement at a Fire Department function, please contact my agent to discuss fees.