JOIN THE TEA PARTY : BE PATRIOTIC--AND IT'S MORE FUN THAN YOU THINK

LET FREEDOM RING

By : Mr. H. Henry Patrick, Esq., Former State Legislator (Virginia); Real Estate Owner (1400 Acres in several Virginia counties); Former Chair, Citizens for the Abolition of the Income Tax (1982-1997); Outdoorsman; Contributing Editor, Breathe Free Magazine (2004-present); Author, Government, Get Your Goddamn Stinking Hands off my Hard-Earned Keep, And Stop Poisoning My Children : I'll Spend my Money Any Way I Please, Thank You Very Much (a Pamphlet published by Freedom Press)(forthcoming 2010); Winner, West Virginia Sport Shooters Remington versus Doe Contest (1999); Volunteer Fireman.

In 2008, Barack Obama took the White House promising "change we can believe in." But in the months that followed, Obama did something terrifying: He expanded the government. He began policing banks, stealing private property, handing out cash to unemployed luggards and awarding free health care.

Now, government threatens everything we hold dear. It threatens to seize our property, tax our children and kill our grandparents by condemning them to wait in grimy clinics for necessary care. Government threatens to spy on our wives, monitor our whereabouts and punish us for defending liberty. Put simply, government is suppressing freedom in a way never before seen in the United States. And we're all paying for it.

Barack Obama may have thought government could solve our problems. But to quote Ronald Reagan, government is the problem. And if we don't act soon, we will live in a gulag in which our daughters will be forced to wear red bandanas and sing workers' hymns.

Smart Americans recognized Obama's shtick for what it was: Socialist snake oil. That is why they banded together to form the Tea Party. We are committed to resisting Obama at every turn. We are committed to protecting our children from government propaganda. We are committed to the ideal that every American deserves to own his own property without governmental interference. We are committed to keeping every penny in our paychecks.

Obama believes exactly the opposite. He believes that government has a right to take away property and give it to people without property. That is why we resist him. We refuse to surrender our property so that some black beggar in New York can get a free heart transplant. We refuse to give up our rifles to government agents. We refuse to pay a single nickel so that lazy unemployed people can get a free meal. After all, free meals are un-American.

In the Tea Party we believe in a simple virtue: Responsibility. Sadly, that virtue does not carry much weight in Obama's America. Yet responsibility made America great. Our forebears did not wait around for government checks. They cut down trees, built homes and warded off Indian raids. They did not whine about being poor. They started wholesale companies, sold wheat and made their own fortunes. Or they died trying. That is the American way: Make money, ask no one for help, or go down like a man. In this country, you need to fight hard to survive. We aren't softies. We're toughies. We pass by dying people in the street without a second thought.

Government used to know its place in America. Our forebears established government in this country not to feed the poor, but to protect their property. They did not establish government to handicap their economic affairs. Rather, they established government to keep order so that they could attend to business in a responsible way. Furthermore, our forebears hated taxes. They revolted from England because they did not like paying taxes on their hard-earned labor. After all, who would want to work knowing the government could just come in and take away all his profit? That is why our forebears broke from England.

And that is also why we began the Tea Party: To resist tyrannical government and to protect private property from government seizure.

We believe that every American should join the Tea Party. If you are sick and tired of paying away your honest paycheck to the government, you should join us. If you don't like the idea that you slave away at a horrible office job so a toothless homeless man can get a free hospital stay, you should join us. If you don't like the idea that your children read propaganda praising the Kennedys in public schools, you should join us. And if you can't stand the idea that government can steal your land, you should definitely join the Tea Party.

Americans are all about freedom. So are we.

In the Tea Party, freedom is not just an abstract principle. It is an impetus for action. We have work to do before we achieve freedom. We will not be truly free in this country until we cast off the terrible burden that government has thrown upon us. We will not achieve freedom until government removes its filthy tentacles from our bank accounts, mutual funds, paychecks and corporate treasuries. We will not be free until we drive government tax collectors off our property and drive our automobiles without government licenses. Nor will we achieve freedom until we remove our children from pernicious public schools. In a word, we have a battle to fight. And words alone will not win it.

To realize the dream of freedom through the Tea Party in America, we must rise up against tyranny. We must declare that We are the People. We made this government; and that means we can un-make it, too. When government disrespects our property, then turns around to give free meals and diabetes treatment to black people, it must be abolished. We have a right to overthrow tyrannical regimes. Obama is a tyrant. He disrespects private property. Unless we act against his government today, he will plunge our country into a new dark age in which every American can obtain low-cost health care and unemployment insurance. What's more, unless we act against him today, we will drown in taxes. And our children will not be safe from schools that observe Black History Month and Gay Awareness Week.

Do not hesitate to do the right thing. Do not hesitate to be a patriot. But joining the Tea Party is not as grave as you think. It is also very fun. It is fun to angrily carry torches through the streets and chant slogans like: "Down with the income tax!" It is fun to break windows and smash down doors. It is fun to participate in anti-tax riots. It is fun to tar-and-feather IRS officials. It is fun to throw half-clad judges from third-floor chambers. And it is very fun to burn down courthouses. What's more, it is simply exhilarating to exchange smalls arms fire with Federal officers. And it is even more thrilling to blow up police cars. In this light, Tea Party membership is not just about boring policy speeches. It is also about having a great time actively rebelling against the government: And that means fighting, shooting, burning, breaking, smashing and blowing things up. Everyone loves that.

There's a place for everyone in the Tea Party. You don't need to own land to join us. We need everyone. We need young people to storm State houses and string up legislators. We need sociopaths to set fire to government buildings and kill tax collectors. We need children to stop going to school. We need hardened gun owners to give us muscle to match our spirit. And we need educated people--like Sarah Palin--to direct our loyal followers. In a word, we need everyone--and we need you now.

It is time to send government a message it will never forget. It is time for freedom. It is time to stop paying taxes. It is time to own your own property again. It is time to pay your laborers whatever you want, not what the government tells you to pay them. It is time to spend your money as you please, not to pay for unfair entitlement programs and free medical care for lazy people. You want to hold on to your own money, don't you? If you make $10 an hour, you don't want $241.97 for working 40 hours, do you? Well, if you want a fair-and-square $400 for 40 hours at $10 an hour, the Tea Party is the party for you.

Americans want freedom. They want a life without government interference. They are sick and tired of tax returns, excises, duties, imposts and liens. They are sick and tired of Martin Luther King, Jr. Day and affirmative action. They are sick and tired of public schools and government propaganda. They are sick and tired of jury duty and ineffective courts. They don't want their sons and daughters learning about cultural perversions. And they want the liberty to hire whomever they please. Put simply, Americans have this to say: "Government, hands off my goddamn money and kids!"

So be patriotic. Stand up for freedom. Tell Obama that he'll get your money and kids--in hell. And have fun doing it. Open your drawer and take out that pistol. Take the shotgun off the mantle. Grab a rock. Light up a torch. Then take to the streets. Start shouting about liberty. Prowl for fire stations and police outposts. Hunt down crossing guards and public school teachers. Get together with your friends, fill up a few Molotov cocktails and toss them into your nearest courthouse. Vandalize police vans. Tear things down. Spit on a town councilman. If the police try to arrest you, fight back against government tyranny until your last breath. Yell out to them: "You may take my life. But you'll never take my freedom!"

Join the fun. Join the Tea Party. Stand up for a full paycheck. And tell Obama that you refuse to allow America to sink into the new dark age of free health care and financial industry regulation.

Over our dead bodies. And Mr. Taxman, you'd better run, because the Tea Party is about to begin.

So to all you aggrieved Americans out there, we have just one thing to say: Lock and load. We're taking this mother down.

DEMOCRACY : AN AMERICAN MYTH

AN ESSAY

Americans learn to revere the word "democracy." In public school, they learn that the American government is "democratic." They take pride in "democracy" because "democracy" is a "free" form of government that is "better" than other governments. After all, when students learn about the American Revolution, they inevitably hear that our Framers established a "democracy." And "democracy" is "better" than the unjust "monarchy" that led them to revolt. Applying these indoctrinated ideals, Americans claim that they never believe in "family distinctions," "aristocracy" or other "elitism" based on inherited titles.

I venture that this is all nonsense. The United States is not--and certainly never was--a democracy. And Americans believe in aristocracy far more than they like to publicly admit: The truth is that both democracy and equality are American myths.

I first doubted the rhetoric about American democracy when I read history books about ancient Greece. In those books, I learned that pure "democracy" imposed no limitation on a person's participation in government. Every voice was equal. Everyone could vote and every decision required majority approval by all. There was no "representative body" that made decisions "in the people's name." No, in pure democracy, the people rule--literally. Everyone has an equal say in policy, from the richest landowner to the lowliest beggar.

Democracy sounds like a wonderful idea. After all, don't we all want to be equal to one another? Should we not all have an equal right to decide on important public questions? Isn't it somehow reassuring to know that the government works for you, and that you have a real chance to influence it? Of course it sounds great. Democracy is idealistic. It lends itself to myths. And like all myths, it does not really exist.

Lately, I've been re-reading Aristotle's Politics. As the world's first real political scientist, he presaged almost every significant political debate that came after him. By categorizing governmental forms, he created the vocabulary of modern political discussion. And Aristotle's text gives me immense support for my contention that the United States is no democracy--not even close. Rather, the United States is an oligarchy.

In criticizing Plato's Laws, Aristotle makes some cogent observations about voting. Americans learn that "democracy" is all about voting. They learn that "going to the polls" proves that "everybody means something" in our political system. There is a theme in American voting rhetoric about equality and dignity. Because we all can supposedly vote, that makes us all equally powerful and worthy. But Aristotle says: "The practice of selection by lot from a number chosen by election is common to both oligarchy and democracy; but to impose upon the richer citizens, and upon them only, the obligation to be members of the Assembly, to vote for office-bearers and do any other duty that falls upon a citizen--that is oligarchical." The Politics, Book II, ch. vi, § 1266a5.

In early America, only white men with sufficient landholdings could vote for representatives. In other words, the "obligation to be members of the Assembly" and "vote for office-bearers" fell solely upon the "richer citizens." Women, slaves and the vast majority of white men had no say whatsoever in government. They could not even go to the polls. Although voting restrictions have certainly diminished over time, it is still no easy thing to vote in the United States. State laws impose numerous handicaps on citizens' right to vote. And in a good year, we're lucky if 50% of the eligible voters actually show up to cast their ballots. Other State laws completely disable people from voting. For example, if you commit a felony--even a relatively minor one, like writing a bad check--you might lose the right to vote for the rest of your life.

In this light, America has historically been far more "oligarchical" than "democratic." If this were a true democracy, everyone would have been able to actively participate in government from the outset. We know this is not the case. Americans have never actively participated in their government. Rather, they elect "particularly distinguished people" from "particular social strata" to rule for them. This, too, is oligarchical. Think about where the Representatives and Senators come from. They are all generally wealthy, white and well-educated. They do not represent a fair cross-section of American society. If anything, they resemble the "richer citizens" Aristotle mentions in The Politics. Just look at Congress. These are not typical Americans: They are 535 people who are far more powerful and wealthy than the people who elected them. And for over a century in this country, they were exclusively landed white males.

Aristotle provides further support for the conclusion that the United States has been--and in many ways, still is--an oligarchy. Concerning oligarchy, he writes: "So also is the attempt to secure that a majority of the office-holders should come from among the wealthy, and that highest offices should be filled by those from the highest property-classes." The Politics, Book II, ch. vi § 1266a5.

What a striking insight. It is as if Aristotle predicted what the United States government would look like 2000 years later. Think about the "majority of the office-holders" in American government. What social class do they represent? You guessed it: They largely come from the "highest property-classes," or at least act like they do. Even President Obama made quite a bit of money as a lawyer and law professor before diving into politics. The fact that there are only two political parties reinforces the oligarchical nature of American government. Unlike European parliamentary systems, Americans have only two choices: Liberal rich guy #1 (the Democrat) or Conservative rich guy #2 (the Republican). There are no "Greens," "Socialists," "Labor Men," "Women for Animals' Rights" or "Christian Theologues." In the American system, every "high office holder" is basically the same: A wealthy believer in free market capitalism who owns significant amounts of property. That is oligarchy.

In the final analysis, it is clear that people from the "highest property-classes" run the American government. They always have, and they always will. Let's just be honest about our terminology: This is an oligarchy, not a democracy. It is simply false to call our system a "democracy," no matter how many people can technically vote. Despite this, it works in the government's favor to identify itself as a "democracy." After all, "democracy" has a magical ring to it. It conjures all kinds of hopeful ideals. It also fools the people into believing that they actually have a say in policy. History shows that people revolt when they feel they are powerless. But when they think their government actually speaks for them, they refrain from revolution. In that sense, calling America a "democracy" maintains social control, even if it is untrue. Calling America a "democracy" keeps things quiet. And that's just how oligarchs like it: It lets them continue to hold all the power.

Oligarchy proceeds on the premise that only a few hold political power. It implies inequality. Democracy, on the other hand, proceeds on the premise that everyone holds political power. It implies equality. Yet a quick look at inequalities in the American political system beginning in 1787 reveals just how absurd it is to call the United States a "democracy." And a quick look at the "kind of people" who have held high office in the United States over the years--Presidents, Senators, Supreme Court justices--merely confirms Aristotle's analysis: These guys (well, almost all guys) all came from the "highest property-classes."

In this light, it is simply disingenuous to delude our children into thinking that they live in a democracy. If they do not come from "high property-classes," they stand a much lower chance to ever influence government. That does not mean that they cannot rise into a "high property-class." It simply means that they must first obtain wealth before even thinking about politics. After all, it wouldn't be an oligarchy if poor folks suddenly held all the high government jobs.

In truth, no country can ever be fully democratic. Could a country in good faith entrust its most pressing concerns to half-fed beggars, idiots and wage laborers? Certainly not. It is reasonable to put political power into "competent" hands. And generally the wealthy are those most competent to administer the State. I simply believe we must be honest in the way we think about our government. That means dropping all aspirations to "equality" and "dignity." The sad fact is that perfect equality is a very bad idea when it comes to government. It would be better if we simply acknowledged that and stopped perpetuating myths that "everyone is equal" in American society. That is not the goal, nor can it ever be. Yet even the oligarchs in power circulate meaningless rhetoric about democratic opportunity and equality for all in America.

We are oligarchs; why not just admit it? Let's at least stop lying to our children about democracy.

TEETERING ON THE BRINK OF RUIN

A CRITICAL MESSAGE FROM THE OFFICE OF OVERSTATEMENT, ALARMISM AND BASELESS FEAR-MONGERING

WASHINGTON, D.C.

By : Mr. Herbert G. Scheuche, Bureau Commissioner and Press Secretary

We regret to inform the American public that the situation is critical. Based upon credible reports, it appears that our Nation has never faced as grave a crisis as the one it faces today. Although national security protocols prevent us from disclosing precisely how this crisis is developing, we can tell you that it is very serious. We urge you to stay alert as you go about your daily routine. Nonetheless, we admonish everyone to remain afraid, because this is no hoax. We are in the crosshairs. Our society teeters on the brink of ruin. We simply cannot describe how.

Our children are in mortal danger. At any moment, a terrible health threat could cause untold carnage among young people between 4 and 24. We are informed that a lethal virus exists. We are also informed that it can cause death. For these reasons, we urge all parents to keep their doors locked. Wear face masks. Do not take chances; this is a life-threatening situation. We will do our best to tell you more details. But for the moment, we ask that you merely remember that this is a crisis and you must be afraid. Only constant fear and terror will save you and your children from imminent death.

America faces numerous crises. They are all critical. Last week, Halloween candy sales proved that there is a very real threat to pediatric dental health nationwide. Americans bought more than 500,000 tons of candy last week, more than they have ever bought in a single week since our Founding. That unleashed a devastating amount of sugar into American diets. In a Nation already hobbled by diabetes, the sugar menace presents a genuine danger. Not only will children require increased dental care, but elderly Americans now face perhaps the most critical health crisis since the Spanish Influenza of 1918. Sugar kills. And it is everywhere.

President Barack Obama has also led this country into crisis. Yesterday, the United States House of Representatives passed a sweeping health care reform bill that threatens to change health care as we know it. This is a mortal danger. We warn all Americans to expect the worst. By reforming health care, President Obama has created both an economic and medical emergency. The bill will drive billions of Americans into bankruptcy. It will cause employers to cut jobs. Worse, it will cause health insurance companies to lose quarterly profits. These are unprecedented dangers. We must be afraid.

We must remain afraid no matter what anyone says. Our Nation gets nowhere when it denies dangers. Danger is everywhere. President Obama tells us that we must "keep hope alive" and "live positively." But this is a recipe for disaster. Fear and suspicion are the only things that will keep us safe, not health care reform or hopeful rhetoric about "change." No matter what Obama says, we have a duty to tremble in terror every day. We betray our obligations when we suddenly feel good about the future.

We urge Americans not to be fooled. We must remember that we face unspeakable calamities from every corner. In times of crisis, we cannot afford to feel good about the future. Rather, we must shrink down and wait for official word about what to do. Here at the Office of Overstatement, Alarmism and Baseless Fear-Mongering, we are committed to providing vague, official statements to guide Americans through their daily terror. Occasionally we have good news. But even good news carries with it new admonishments and qualifications. For example, if we report that we captured a dangerous terrorist, we will always mention that his accomplice is still at large. Or if an earthquake does not destroy a city, we mention that it is still on a fault line. Put simply, we will always remind you that we are still in a crisis.

We can achieve great things when we are afraid. When we are afraid, our adrenaline flows. And when our adrenaline flows, we can accomplish things we never thought we had the strength to accomplish. Our Nation benefits from fear and exaggeration. It also benefits from confusion, misinformation, mutual distrust and malice. That is why we are committed to disseminating the most terrifying yet vague reports we can possibly broadcast. Just when it looks like we might get out of the woods on one crisis, we always mention another one to keep you guessing.

We are in trouble. Osama bin Laden is still alive. True, we have killed many al-Qaeda operatives over the years. But terrorists still lurk among us. Worse, our educational system is in shambles. And we have received disturbing information from scientists that the swine flu is mutating into a deadly airborne plague. If we do not all retreat into our homes now, we could face the most critical crisis America has ever encountered. We would like to tell you more, but our commitment to inspecific vagueness prevents us from fully dispelling your fears. Suffice it to say, the danger is very real and you should be afraid. Because when you are scared, you can do anything.

Rest assured that we here at the Office for Overstatement, Alarmism and Baseless Fear-Mongering will do everything in our power to keep you just informed enough to be terrified, suspicious and agitated. Yes, we face untold crisis and danger on a colossal scale. But as long as we have just enough information to react irrationally, we can prevail.

Beware. America has never faced more violent crime than it does today. Prisoners are escaping from prison in huge numbers, although we cannot say where. Additionally, we have just received word that the U.S. Customs Service failed to prevent a highly toxic Chinese tree from entering an undisclosed American port. According to Bureau doctors, this tree has already released deadly spores that could have already infected several thousand Americans somewhere. Put simply, we face botanical crisis on an unimaginable scale.

Until further notice, we urge you to lock your doors, buy a gas mask, don't answer the phone and stay tuned for further bulletins. Don't trust anyone, including your relatives and spouse. Avoid contact with plants and trees. We will provide more information as we receive it. Until that time, make sure your heart rate stays elevated and maintain a suitably high anxiety level. That is the only way to deal with crisis. And when we deal with crisis, we show our strength.

Don't be a hero. Cower and wait for instructions.

WHY DO AMERICANS HATE SOCIALISM SO MUCH?

AN ESSAY

Since Barack Obama won the White House last year, Republicans have galvanized their opposition by claiming that Democrats want to introduce "socialism" into American life. They do not really understand what "socialism" means; they just use it as a catchall pejorative to label anything they don't like. They don't like anything that makes them pay more taxes or finance other people's welfare. They don't like anything that transfers money to so-called "wasteful programs," like health care, education and environmental protection. They know that the word "socialism" sends shivers up American spines, so they use the word to describe everything they're not. They even criticize other countries for embracing "socialism."

But all these critiques fundamentally miscomprehend "socialism." The United States is not a socialist country, not even close. True socialism means that the State owns all property and controls the means of economic production and distribution. It also means that every citizen is literally equal to every other citizen. It is essentially humanitarian in theory, even if historical examples show that it can tragically fail in practice. No matter the historical record, there is nothing even remotely socialist about the United States. Americans live for private property and class distinctions. If they were socialists, they would not strive for these things; in fact, they could not even own property. Democrats are little different than Republicans in this sense. Neither party wants to abandon the free market system. The only debate is how much they want government to "interfere" in the free market.

This is the point at which Republicans stray into conceptual ignorance. They think that any government interference into the free market is "socialism." Yet this overlooks a trend that has evolved in the West at least since the early 20th Century: Increased government supervision over private economic enterprise. Governments in traditionally capitalist countries understood that leaving all economic functions to the free market led to labor exploitation, dangerous goods and unfair social relationships. Democratic governments (or at least quasi-democracies like Great Britain and the United States) also found that unbridled capitalism tended to subvert constitutional principles, such as human dignity and equality.

For these reasons, governments in traditionally capitalist countries began encroaching upon private economic liberties for the public good. They instituted labor control boards, product safety boards and oversight committees. They enforced minimum wages and guaranteed workers the power to fairly bargain with management. They even began creating social security nets and health care systems for their populations, distributing tax revenues in such a manner as to realize the dream of a better society for all. These reforms were all "social" in nature, but they never completely replaced the free market. Rather, they merely tempered the free market, reconciling principle with economic reality. Yet Republicans today call such efforts "socialism." This is simply untrue. If anything, Western Nations have "modified free market" systems, not socialist systems.

European Nations have generally made many more "social modifications" to their free market systems than the United States. For many reasons, Europeans have been willing to curtail unbridled economic liberty in order to bring greater social advantages to their populations. This is the reason why many Europeans do not understand why Americans cannot resolve their "health care mess." For Europeans living in "modified free market systems," it goes without saying that every citizen has a right to medical care at State expense. Yet in America, that sentiment is not so widespread. Here, there is always a grave tension between social "guarantees" and economic freedom. When social "guarantees" mean that some people cannot amass as much money as they could without the guarantees, they staunchly oppose any effort to curtail their economic liberty. This is the reason why social modifications to the free market system in the United States are much more modest than in Europe: Too many people resist them in order to preserve their ability to make more money fast.

Both the United States and European Nations are free market societies. Both allow private property. Both have central banking systems, stock exchanges and tolerate massive class distinctions. But citizens in European Nations have allowed government to restrict their economic freedom more than their American counterparts. In exchange for those restrictions, they live in more secure circumstances: There is universal health care, ample housing and free education. European Nations understand that pure free market life is not easy. Employment depends as much on the winds of the market as it does on individual ability. In that light, they made sacrifices to provide a safety net against the market's inevitable "down periods."

By contrast, the United States does not provide such a safety net. True, the United States does provide health care to the elderly, the disabled and those who serve government. It provides modest income to retirees and injured people. It also allocates some funds to protect citizens against homelessness and ruin. But that's about it; America's commitment to "modifying the free market" essentially stopped in the 1960s. Since then, any effort to make "European style" changes has met with angry cries of "Socialism!" Both Europe and the United States made substantial changes to their free market systems in the decades after the 1929 Crash. But only Europe continued along that path after the 1960s. Once America asserted global dominance, it somehow decided that caring for its own people was no longer a top priority.

I think this is an unfortunate development. Americans should not shy away from "European style" improvements to our social order because they are supposedly "socialist." Europe embraces free market capitalism, just like we do. It simply imposes greater controls on unrestricted economic liberty than the United States. Those restrictions translate into tangible social benefits in the form of health care, consumer protections, access to justice, labor oversight, transportation, child care, unemployment insurance, pensions and education. People do not go bankrupt financing their education in Europe, nor do they die waiting for a private insurance company to approve surgery. They might pay more taxes to finance these social protections, but they know they will always have a place to stay or health care if they get sick. Unlike Americans, they do not need to worry about losing their precious jobs if illness strikes. Yet all the while, they can own private property and perhaps get rich. Just because they enjoy social protections at government expense does not make them "socialist."

Why does America reject these things? What makes us so different from our European counterparts? Do we treasure our rugged "do-it-yourself" spirit so much that we tolerate social injustice on a massive scale? Are we too greedy or too proud to abandon our chance to make fabulous wealth at a low tax rate? What is it, exactly? I cannot pinpoint it; I can only speculate based on my own impressions.

One thing is certain: There is a poisonous aura surrounding the word "socialism," and that aura preemptively sabotages many efforts to implement meaningful reforms to our social system. Sadly, opponents to social reform in the United States do not even understand what the word "socialism" means. And they do not even understand that they are not opposing socialism, but rather incremental modifications to the free market system they love so much.

We have known for more than a century that pure capitalism does not work. Any system premised upon human greed will inevitably become top-heavy and collapse. And purely capitalistic values clash starkly with core principles central to a democratic State in modern times, such as dignity, fairness and equality. From the 1930s until the 1960s, the United States understood that. It made meaningful modifications to the free market in order to mitigate the social shockwaves caused by its cyclical booms and busts. But then the progress stopped. Capitalism failed again last year and people have felt the pinch ever since.

America will not progress as long as it embraces false rhetoric about "socialism." It is not "socialism" simply to safeguard our citizens from economic ruin in a free market system. It is humanity.

Then again, perhaps that is what really rankles Republicans. After all, pure capitalism and humanity don't mix. Genuine humanity is bad for business. Humanity makes it harder to exploit others. Maybe that's what all the Rush Limbaugh rhetoric about "economic liberty" is all about: Liberty means the freedom to be economically inhumane to others in order to advance yourself. Or, phrased another way, liberty means freedom from government regulations that prevent you from being economically inhumane in order to advance yourself.

Against opposition like this, we have a long way to go in this country toward social reform.

THE NATIONAL ALLIANCE FOR STIRRING YET EMPTY RHETORIC : AN APPEAL FOR ACTION AND UNITY

By : Mr. Burgess E. Gottlieb, Jr., Ph.D., Chief Logician and Chairman of the Board of Trustees (1995-present); Simon F. Bamberg IV Emeritus (Deceased 1890) Professor of Logic, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut (1960-present); The National Review, Theater Critic (1967-present); Senior Fellow, New York Illusionists' League (emphasis on disappearing acts) (1981-1990).

We can solve any problem. A Nation of laws trusts its principles. And trust in principles solves problems. Thus, when we trust in our principles, we can solve anything. Logic favors our cause. Logic, too, can solve any problem. We believe in logic. That is why we are on the road to success.

There are those who say that our Nation will never recover from economic turmoil. We disagree. A well-argued speech can put all doubts to rest, no matter how severe. As Horace said many centuries ago: "Despite the darkening sky, our resolution shall brighten the horizon." With strong language and compelling logical transitions between paragraphs, we are not just confident of victory. We are certain of it.

Our opponents claim that this is no time for college essays. They even say that papers that might have earned an "A" from the most vindictive, anally-retentive graduate student can do nothing to solve intractable problems that now plague our society. In sum, our opponents claim that rhetoric merely distracts attention from hard reality.

We have a simple response for these naysayers: "Not on our watch." As a National Alliance committed to Empty Yet Stirring Rhetoric, we trust in the power of pleasant, conventional language. We believe that properly moving from verbal premise to conclusion--all the while employing traditional devices such as allusion, metaphor and contrast--can overcome any practical difficulty on earth. No tax quandary, budget deficit or even health crisis can resist a moving speech that draws parallels to sunrises, sunsets, tides or other natural phenomena.

True, practical problems demand practical solutions. But rhetoric is an exception to that rule. Just as every doctrine must yield to a caveat, so too must every practical problem yield to rhetoric. We believe in language, not complexity. We believe that people respond better to conventional linguistic displays than gloomy hopelessness. We believe that people feel better when they hear traditional speech techniques, even if the speech signifies nothing at all. Assurance goes a long way. As rhetorical masters, we understand that.

Solutions are irrelevant compared to comfort. No matter how fiercely the storm may rage outside, a great speech will always give hope. A great speech can lift even the most broken heart. Let the defeatists talk about bankruptcy and disorder. As believers in rhetoric, we speak a different language. We speak the language of hope, inspiration and grandeur. Even if our words have no basis at all in reality, they can still move hearts. And that's all that really matters. Who needs reality when you have great rhetoric?

We stand on a precipice. We stand against the wind. Today we stand. Tomorrow we rise. On the third day, we shall prevail. There is no day but what we make. These are our days. We are what we say. We are the People because we are free. Let freedom ring. We refuse to go quietly. We shall never surrender.

No issue can withstand a well-placed cliché. No problem can frustrate an inspiring, empty phrase. We are the People. We are unafraid. We are not afraid to believe in empty words. They make us feel good. We expect to hear them. We like to hear what we expect.

We believe in logic, too. Like rhetoric, logic assures us. Men named George all live to be older than 50. If a man is named George, he will not die at 36. This man is named not named George. Therefore, he might die at 36. Who can resist logic?

What difference does it make in the end whether we actually solve problems? As long as we speak fluently and make logical sense, we have succeeded. We understand that people do not really want solutions; they just want to hear what they expect. Logic and rhetoric sound nice. One idea flows from the next. People deserve to hear what they expect. That is why we believe in logic and rhetoric. Convention is more important than reality.

What is reality but what we believe? Rhetoric makes us believe. Thus, rhetoric can shape reality. Our opponents say that we do nothing but talk. But talking creates reality as much as action does. And when enough people listen to us, we truly change the world. That is why our rhetoric is not as empty as our critics think. We even use similes to help our listeners grasp our points: "Like a sturdy oak, our roots run deep."

We do not need to explain. It just sounds good. And people believe in things that sound good.

Now is now. Right now means right now, not yesterday. Yesterday means yesterday, not last Friday. It is time to seize the moment. Put your faith in appealing language. What do you care about reality? Let language become your reality. Isn't it about time that you believed in something? Do not put your faith in fickle facts and figures. Put your faith in inspiring phrases, hackneyed slogans and memorable one-line syllogisms. Life is complicated enough as it is. Give your mind a break. You must simply decide to believe. You must simply accept the rhetoric. Then you will be free.

You know you want to. You want to suspend your disbelief. You want to say: "I am the People" without guilt or embarrassment. You can do it. Answer the call. Be part of the solution, not the problem. All you need to do is listen. All you need to do is be free.

Let us all unite for a simpler world. Let us all unite for language we can all anticipate and admire. This is not a time for division. This is a time for healing and love. Healing and love are better than discord and strife. Belief in rhetoric leads to healing and love. Healing and love lead to unity, not division. Therefore, you must believe in rhetoric if you wish to unite. It is not just the most comforting choice; it is also the logical one.

You see? Rhetoric does not exclude logic. In fact, good rhetoric makes logical sense. In that way, it marries emotion with reason. It offers the best of both worlds. Great rhetoric lets us feel at the same time it prompts us to think. Just as the blacksmith smelts ore and charcoal to make steel, so too does the great speaker marry reason and emotion to create rhetoric.

But enough of that. It is time to believe. It is time to trust. Give in to rhetoric; you can do it. Haven't you endured enough uncertainty in your life? Well, it's time to move on. It's time to let yourself be swept away in grand rhetorical fantasies. There is no reality but what we make. Today is yours. You can believe.

Today is a moment in time. Grasp your moment. Time is yours. There is no time but today. And it is time. Together is better than apart. Together, we can do anything. Let's get together. Because together is better. It is time to get together.

FOX NEWS, THE UNITED NATIONS, 9/11 AND OTHER FUNNY STUFF

OESTERHOUDT STRIKES

I found some untroubled moments to watch the news this afternoon. Once in a while I like to know what FOX News has to say about the world, if for no other reason than to assemble new ideas for satire. I must actually hear crazy arguments before I can properly mock them. You can't do impressions without listening to your subject first.

FOX started its 7 PM broadcast with "Three Top Stories." The first involved a Muslim terror suspect who allegedly scoured beauty salons throughout New York buying up hydrogen peroxide. The newscaster said that hydrogen peroxide is a "key ingredient in explosives." FOX showed FBI men leading a young, Arab-looking man away in handcuffs.

In the second story, FOX informed me about a "terror imam from Brooklyn." He allegedly knew about the young man's plot, then lied to the police about it. FOX told me that he was being held on a $1.5 million bond for conspiracy. It also told me that authorities charged this "terror imam" with sexual abuse in 1992. I didn't see the connection between sexual abuse and international terrorism, but it sure made the "terror imam" look like a villain. After all, terrorists are bad, and so are sexual predators. But terrorist sexual predators are worse than both: A sum is always more than its component parts.

Finally, FOX interrupted its broadcast to alert me that officials in Dallas arrested a "young Muslim man" for attempting to car bomb a government building. They did not have any pictures to show. They just showed the man's long, Arab-looking name underneath a menacing-looking silhouette. FOX told me that they "would bring me more on this story as soon as they could."

Why were these the top stories? Did 9/11 just happen or something? Is it still October 2001? Does the whole Muslim fear-mongering thing still have traction among FOX viewers? Michael Moore famously mocked FOX for its relentless fixation on "evil Arabs" and vague, terrifying plots in 2004's "Fahrenheit 9/11." It was funny then, even relatively soon after 9/11. But now it's been eight years; Bush's fear-mongering has decayed beyond passe. Any assertion that bloodthirsty Muslims lurk among us now seems pathetically old-fashioned, even hackneyed. It's not 2001 anymore; there's no more Anthrax in the air. People are more worried about Medicaid now than Osama bin Laden. And for good reason: Because health care in America affects many, many more Americans than any terrorist ever will.

But for some reason FOX didn't get the memo or check the calendar. On FOX, it's still a brave battle between proud Americans and evil Muslims with long names and skull caps. Black is still black and white is still white. Hey, I guess it sells; Rupert Murdoch doesn't dish stuff that doesn't sell, truth or fashion be damned.

This is not the only funny thing I saw on the news tonight. I also saw coverage about all the world leaders at the United Nations this week. Leaving all media bias aside (ie, United States and Israel = good; Iran and Libya = bad), I just have to say how silly "collective security" really is. Woodrow Wilson started the League of Nations back in 1920. He wanted Nations to get together and respectfully solve differences without war or acrimony. It didn't work. Franklin Roosevelt tried to do the same when he conceived the United Nations in 1945. There have not been any world wars since then, but just one look at history shows that there has not been too much world peace since the United Nations started hosting world leaders.

But I am not writing about diplomacy. I am writing about the utter foolishness of U.N. speeches. No one listens to them for their substance. No one even really hopes to change minds or solve problems with them. Rather, people listen to them solely for theatrical value. After all, it's all-too predictable what happens, and it is all very staged. For example, Moammar Ghadaffi got up yesterday and railed against Israel, capitalism and the United States for over 90 minutes. As if on cue, the U.S. and Israeli delegations theatrically walked out. They did the same thing when Iran's Ahmedinijad got up and made similar points. Today, Israel's Prime Minister got up and spoke. Libya's and Iran's delegations theatrically walked out. Then the Prime Minister denounced every delegation that did not walk out on Libya's and Iran's speeches the day before.

So is this international diplomacy? Is this genuine dialogue? No--it is classic theater: Simple, emotional, sensational, uncomplicated. The orators speak in grand, emotional tones. They play to the audience. Their rhetoric delights some and outrages others. It is intentional. Delighted delegations applaud; outraged ones visibly walk out. Then later orators chastise delegates who did not walk out on speeches the orators did not like.

Funny stuff. But the sad part is that after all the fun and games, the world's differences remain starkly unchanged.

SALAZAR TO OBAMA : TANKS AND RHETORIC CAN STAMP OUT RIGHT-WING REVOLTS

MEMORANDUM

TO : President Barack H. Obama

FROM : Kenneth Salazar (D-CO), Secretary of the Interior

RE : “Big Government Protests” in Washington, D.C. and Proposed Response

As you no doubt saw, throngs of angry people marched through Washington last week. They came from all over the country to denounce the Administration for “expanding government,” “raising taxes,” “dishonoring the military,” “destroying marriage,” “chastising banks,” “championing fairness” and “providing health care to all Americans.” Thankfully, our allies in the Press downplayed these disturbances. When they did cover the marches, they called them “insignificant,” “misguided” and pointed out various grammatical and syntactical errors on the protesters’ placards.

Yet our control over the media cannot conceal the fact that many Americans do not want our reforms. Our approval ratings are in decline. Protests such as this will continue to erupt out as we push health care reform and mortgage relief through Congress. The more help we give the American people, the more we can count on Republican protesters to march against socialism. And in the future, these revolts will not be so peaceful. After all, these are not environmentalists or gay rights advocates. These are guys from Nebraska who have known how to assemble a rifle blindfolded since before Kindergarten. Put simply, we must draft contingency plans for containing dissent against economic relief efforts. Whenever we try to help Americans get through the depression, we outrage millions.

This memo is intended to outline a plan for dealing with right-wing revolts. I understand that you always adopt a conciliatory—even cerebral—approach to dealing with dissent. I applaud your trust in reason and rational debate. But I must point out that there is no point reasoning with those who think that any action undertaken by a Democratic Congress amounts to “communism.” There is no point reasoning with people who are prepared to shoot you for daring to “expand government.” You may think this is mere error, and that your law school-style rhetoric will correct it with deft logic. You may think it is dignified to simply ignore this foolishness. Yet rhetoric is insufficient to neutralize the danger. And it is even more dangerous to sit idly by, dignified or not.

When dealing with right-wing protesters, we must speak to irrationality in a language it respects: Force. As Secretary of the Interior, it is my duty to ensure domestic tranquility and to preserve this Administration’s commitment to reform. We are not Sarah Palin; we do not think in absolutes. Nonetheless, our opposition does think in absolutes. Unless we fight fire with fire, they will infect the whole country with irrationality, rendering reform impossible.

To stop irrational disturbances, we must be prepared to show our strength. I advise against appealing to “unity” and “the national good” in order to defuse Republican outcry against reform. Rather, I advise a more aggressive approach. If the protesters think we’re advancing socialism, let us deal with them socialist-style. History provides several examples. When protesters rose up against the Chinese government in 1989, China did not grovel. It did not try to explain itself to the protesters. It did not address their concerns with respect, understanding or dignity. No, it sent in tanks and drove over anyone who still held a placard. Similarly, when the Czechs rose up against the Soviet Union in 1968, the Russians did not condescend to “explaining” why the protesters were wrong. They merely sent in tanks and arrested anyone who complained.

True, we are not a totalitarian government. But the lesson remains: When dealing with protesters, the best way to solve the problem is with tanks. If protesters think that every government initiative is “socialism” or “big government,” let us show them how big our government really is. Tanks are big, too. They can squash people too ignorant to see that we are not advocating socialism. If these protesters are unwilling to listen to our explanations about health care reform and mortgage relief, then let us reason with them with tanks.

I sincerely hope that we do not have to resort to these measures. I am confident that Americans will see that our reforms will not outlaw private employment, nor will they make it impossible for people with private health insurance to see doctors. I trust the American people. But recent disturbances do not bode well. From town hall meetings to the march in Washington last week, dissent is becoming ever more strident. Protesters say that we plan to outlaw money and create a Federal Wealth Redistribution Board that gives white taxpayers’ money to black mothers with at least seven children and two felony convictions. They say that we plan to commute all black criminals’ sentences and appoint them to high positions in the Federal government. They say we plan to force Burger King to give any American a free Whopper® if he asks for one. They even say that we plan to close down all retail stores and replace them with “government handout shops,” in which every American must wait in line for every single consumer commodity.

How can rhetoric correct these misconceptions? How can we possibly set the record straight with people who believe these things? You can orate until you are blue in the face with disgruntled Republicans. But if they believe that you plan to abolish the Supreme Court and create a new Court composed solely of illegal aliens, what can you say to change their minds? They will call you a liar or worse. Then they will say that you plan to make every Friday “National People’s Worker Day” and force all white children to sing “The Internationale” before saluting the flag in the morning. You might think these are imaginary fears. As Secretary of the Interior, however, I have information proving that protesters believe all these things. They even think you plan to create an African Assistance Fund that will transfer all the profits of the Fortune 500 to the Zambian National Treasury. To top it off, there is a substantial number who believe that you are neither an American citizen nor even an earthling; rather, they think you were born on the dark side of the moon. Put simply, you cannot trust your oratory or your knowledge as a constitutional scholar to prevail over people who believe these things.

Mr. President, you must trust tanks. If you wish to contain ever-growing Republican dissent against your vision for a more just America, you cannot depend on principle alone. You cannot depend upon reason or compassion. You cannot depend on goodwill or brotherly love. Republican protesters will label any effort to help the poor “socialism,” and they will call you a “moon-born, un-American communist dictator who wants to steal service sector jobs and give them to illiterate Mexican peasants.” You must be prepared to force these dissenters into line. If they think you want to “take away their freedom to contract,” tell them: “No I don’t,” but back it up with tanks. There’s nothing quite like tanks to reinforce your arguments. In a word, you’re not in Harvard Law School moot court anymore. You’re dealing with Republicans who bear arms. Logical arguments are all well and good. But logical arguments supported by tanks and artillery are even better.

Please consult with me as you plan your response to ever-growing Republican dissent. Discord is rising quickly. The more you talk about compassion, care and equality, the more resistance you will face. The more you talk about fairness, justice and peace, the more violence you will provoke. The more help you offer those crushed by economic disparity, the more unrest you will engender. There are strong forces arrayed against you, Mr. President. They are boiling over. They fight you now with words and recriminations. They are prepared to say anything about you, even that you were born on the moon. It is just a matter of time before their words transform into action. Today they march and call you Stalin. Tomorrow they will not be so civil. Only tanks will save you.

I am a practical man. Successful Presidents combine vision and theory with practical knowledge. Let me help you. As Secretary of the Interior, I know how to make crops grow and how to save pine trees. These are practical skills. I know nature. And I know how to deal with dangerous animals in the wild. Just as you must show force against a rabid grizzly bear, so too must you show force against rabid Republican protesters who call mortgage relief “communist big government tyranny.” When faced with a raging bull, you do not give a power point lecture about social justice or wealth inequality. Rather, you get a gun and shoot it before it kills you. These are practical skills. This is survival.

Do not give another inch, Mr. President. Enforce your vision with arguments and tanks, not just arguments. I know you do not wish to condescend to this, but this is the only practical way to avert disaster. You must defend yourself. If you continue to simply ignore those who label everything you do “socialism” and “big government,” you risk open revolt. To prevent this, simply use tanks when you must. I am certain that you will change at least a few peoples’ minds with tanks. In short, you have an opportunity to turn dissent into support. Tell the protesters: “No I am NOT obliterating the free market…and if you don’t believe me, here’s a tank in your face to prove it.” Or: “No I am NOT going to take away your private doctor…and if you don’t believe me, here’s another tank in your face.” This is not repression. This is merely “tank-assisted reasoning.” If protesters will not listen to reason alone, throw in some tanks to make your point.

There is no time to delay. You must no longer sit by while protesters make outlandish claims about your plans for America. I know you think it is dignified not to respond to these arguments. But you must start fighting back. As soon as the Republicans assemble to protest again, send in the tanks first, then make a speech about fairness and equality.

Do what is necessary. Reason with tanks. In short, Mr. President, sometimes you need to be a little irrational yourself if you want to triumph over irrationality.

A WORD ON JOE WILSON AND THE NATIONAL DEBATE

A REFLECTION

I would be remiss if I did not write something about Representative Joe Wilson’s (R-SC) outburst last night during President Obama’s congressional health care address. I was genuinely stunned when I heard someone—a Washington politician, not some anarchist on the street or even a stealthy outside activist—call out “You lie” as the President spoke. Don’t get me wrong: I’m all about disrespecting authority. But I have some standards about the time and place to do it.

For a moment, I thought that we had gone the way of the British parliament, in which acting politicians traditionally interrupt their colleagues as they speak. Yet there is something hallowed about Presidential speeches before Congress. They are not “routine debates.” There is an unspoken code of decorum when the President speaks during a joint meeting of government. For a brief moment, Congressmen and Senators put aside their everyday quarrels in deference to the Executive. When both parties sit and listen to the President—no matter his own party affiliation—it reinforces the notion that the government is united, even if only symbolically. To return to the British example, not even the cheekiest MP ever shouts at the Queen when she speaks.

Joe Wilson’s outburst destroyed even that fictional unity. And why? To protest President Obama’s contention that the Democratic health care reform plan would not cover illegal aliens. This man took an unprecedented step against congressional protocol to personally attack President Obama’s honesty in the very halls of government. Pundits on both sides will endlessly debate whether the President’s statement was “technically accurate.” But that is really not the point. Rhetoric is not science. It does not work when it bogs down in minuscule details. Statements do not carry as much rhetorical punch when they nitpick. Perhaps Obama did not remember every single proposed section in every single proposed bill about health care. Perhaps he even misspoke. I don’t know.

Still, misspeaking does not warrant the pejorative exclamation: “You lie.” Those are fighting words. They do not impinge upon technical knowledge. They impinge upon personal honor, integrity and decency. They are as much an insult as a critique.

In a way, Joe Wilson’s outburst does not surprise me. I have warned over and over again that Obama faces very real dangers simply because he is an African-American in a country with a longstanding tradition of intolerance toward African-Americans. I have warned that Obama’s mere presence courts danger in some parts of the country. His first months in office have borne out my warnings. Never before has dissent been so ominous as dissent on Obama’s health care push. Town hall meetings descend into shouting matches and fistfights. Republicans show up to Presidential appearances with loaded rifles. Opponents concoct absurd stories about “death panels” and suggest that President Obama is not an American citizen. Now Joe Wilson ignores traditional respect for the President’s office by calling him a liar on the floor of Congress.

These are not good omens. They show that Obama’s opponents not only do not respect him, but they are willing to put aside all civility in order to derail him. It is just a matter of time before heated words and sneering disrespect turn into violence. Worse, Joe Wilson’s outburst shows that not just private citizens adhere to these sentiments. So do elected officials. And they actually swore an oath to uphold the constitutional system.

Republicans will undoubtedly counter that Democrats showed no respect toward George W. Bush during his time in office. They will say that fiery partisanship is the order of the day in modern Washington politics. True, many private citizens paraded against Bush. They even threw eggs at his Presidential limo during his inauguration in 2001. Democratic politicians, too, reserved harsh words for Bush in public statements. But in no case did any Democratic Congressman ever interrupt President Bush while he spoke to Congress, let alone call him a liar in public. In this sense, both Democrats and Republicans are guilty of partisan politics. The difference is that Republicans willingly disrespect constitutional traditions in order to spew their bile.

I venture that Democrats had every reason to interrupt Bush for lying during his Congressional addresses. After all, Bush told Congress that African nations were supplying uranium to Saddam Hussein. He also manufactured stories to suggest that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction in order to induce support for a foreign war. These were lies that led America into bloody armed conflict and bankruptcy. They were not casual misstatements about thousand-page health care legislation. If ever a congressman had reason to scream “You Lie” at the President in the Capitol Building, it was in 2002 or 2003.

Yet I applaud the Democrats for never doing so. Rather than disturb traditional respect for the President while he speaks to Congress, Democrats waited until after the speech to register their dissent. They observed protocol, if for no other reason than to maintain the fictional unity that the protocol is intended to generate.

Not so with Joe Wilson. Protocol meant nothing to him, nor did the importance of the “unity fiction in government.” What does this mean? I think it means that the national debate is flying off the handle. In recent months, rhetoric about health care has reached white-hot levels. It is as belligerent as it is unreasonable, misinformed and confused. Civility has no place in this debate. And Joe Wilson’s outburst shows that civility cannot even survive in the Capitol Building while the President speaks.

This is the state of our national debate. It does not bode well. Democracy only works when the losing party accepts the winning party’s rule. It fails when the losing party revolts and refuses to cooperate on anything. In ancient Rome, civil wars broke out whenever an Emperor died because there was no protocol for succession. In the United States, we peacefully transition power to winning Presidents, even though millions and millions of people voted against them. The losers do not rebel against the winner. They grin and bear their loss for the good of the Nation as a whole. They continue to dissent, but they accept some things as sacred. They know when and where to dissent. Even MPs in England know that.

Joe Wilson’s outburst seems to show that the losers don’t really think that way anymore. On health care, nothing is sacred. Civility is dead. Not even age-old congressional traditions and unspoken deference to the President during an official address constrain those determined to undermine ideas with which they disagree.

I have many objections about the American constitutional system. I do not shy away from expressing them. To use a hackneyed phrase, criticism is patriotic. Nonetheless, I would never get up and yell at the President, especially if I were an elected official who took an oath to serve our constitutional system. For all my sneering irony and sarcasm, I know my place. Not only that, criticism works best in private.

I do not believe that Joe Wilson is an isolated case. He spoke for a very real constituency when he yelled at the President. There are others just like him. They have even less respect for democratic traditions than Joe Wilson. They are regular guys with guns; and they do a lot more than call people liars.

This is what happens when reform-minded Presidents try to shake things up in the United States. And they weren’t even black.

THE POLITICAL ASSOCIATION UNITED FOR THE MURDER OF ALL PEOPLE WITH WHOM THEY DISAGREE

POLITICAL PARTIES FOR A CHANGING WORLD

By : Mr. Martin F. Buckley, Esq., Chairman and Political Analyst; J.D. (Harvard Law School 1983); Free Speech Advocate (with exceptions for appropriateness).

We live in a great country because everyone can speak their mind. The United States became powerful because we tolerate many different viewpoints and we profit from an exchange in ideas. Even our legal traditions embody this tolerant approach to intellectual discourse. Unlike many so-called “progressive” European governments, the United States does not ban speech because it disagrees with its content. In Germany, for example, the government bans any speech that glorifies Nazism. Yet here in America, we tolerate such speech. We trust that the American people will listen to every idea and reject the bad ones. In other words, our law doesn’t make martyrs. We let every idea compete for attention in the “marketplace of ideas.” Nazism can’t compete, so Nazis can yack all they want. They have a right to.

But law only tells half the story about free speech in the United States. Just because our law tolerates all viewpoints does not mean we agree with every viewpoint. I, for instance, cannot bear speech about free health care, single-payer systems or “a woman’s right to choose.” I disagree profoundly with all these ideas. Although I acknowledge that our law gives everyone in this country the right to express their views on important issues, that does not mean I do not wish to kill people who disagree with me.

We, the The Political Association United for the Murder of All People With Whom They Disagree, stand for a simple premise: Some ideas are inappropriate. We have particular views about life, property, employment, immigration, child-rearing, health care, military affairs, foreign policy and politics. We have appropriate ideas. We firmly believe that our ideas are the best. If we do not follow them, we are convinced that America will disintegrate into anarchy, socialism or worse. That is why we are committed to defending appropriate ideas. We do not stop with rhetoric. When we lose verbal arguments, we jump over podiums and beat our opponents with iron bars. Free speech is wonderful. But there is only one guaranteed way to defend appropriateness against inappropriate speakers: Murder.

We advocate murder whenever we reach an impasse with people with whom we disagree. Yet we are reasonable people; we only kill our opponents when lesser measures fail. For example, we buy as much airtime as we can to convince our opponents that they are wrong. We show up at their meetings to shout them down or throw trash on their stages. We send targeted newsletters containing false and skewed information about the opposing viewpoint. We even get on national news television shows to make our case before the American people. Yet when these measures fail to convince inappropriate speakers to change their minds, we have no choice. We have to kill them. True, everyone has a right to speak their mind in America. But we also have a duty to ensure that America is safe from inappropriate speech and behavior. The only way to fulfill that duty—while maintaining a healthy respect for free speech rights—is to murder people who disagree with us.

On the whole, murder is a much more effective rhetorical tool than either language or logic. On hot button issues like the environment or race, it is not enough to speak eloquently or convincingly. When a person disagrees with you about race or the environment, you can proffer the most beautiful, logically-airtight arguments in the world, but you still will not sway him. In such cases, murder is the only way to solve the disagreement. It is more fun, too. After all, it is frustrating to debate with a person who stubbornly refuses to change his mind. After a hot verbal exchange, there is nothing more satisfying than to pull out a pistol and shoot the opposing speaker in the head. BANG! That’ll teach you to advocate clean-air technology and affirmative action! In such circumstances, logic only goes so far: Only firearms can firmly settle deadlocked debates.

These are not new ideas. Throughout history, appropriate speakers have won debates by eliminating their ideological opponents. Roman emperors killed those who advocated inappropriate solutions to problems. So did medieval kings. Put simply, only those willing to kill for their ideas have truly left a mark on history. No one ever prevailed in a substantial social debate by outwitting his ideological opponents with florid speeches. No, only murder can put real disagreements to rest. When people make up their minds to think inappropriately, nothing you say will shake them from it. You have to kill them to shut them up.

We proudly follow this tradition. As The Political Association United for the Murder of All People With Whom They Disagree, we are committed to speaking our minds. We have not only a constitutional right, but also a moral obligation to lead America in the appropriate direction on contemporary policy questions. Inappropriate ideas are more dangerous to America than any foreign dictator or Muslim bomber. That is why we stand united to debate and—if necessary, shoot—anyone who refuses to see things our way. We promise always to first use logic and reason to convince others that they are wrong. But when it is clear that we have reached an ideological impasse, we promise to murder our opponents. America deserves to speak with one voice: When disagreements exist, we cannot speak with one voice. That is why we are unafraid to murder those who disagree.

This does not mean that we gainsay the right to free speech under the First Amendment. To the contrary, we believe in the Constitution and liberty. Every American is free to speak, think and believe as his conscience directs. But anyone who disagrees with us does so at his peril. If someone thinks differently than we do, we admonish him to keep a lid on it, because if he debates us, we will kill him. In this way, we maintain a proper balance between our respect for constitutional liberty and our duty to lead America in an appropriate direction. In a word, you are free to think and say what you want; just don’t you dare disagree with us or we’ll put a bullet in your brain.

Never before has our Nation needed our party as much as it needs us now. Never before has our Nation faced so many burning policy questions. For the first time in our Nation’s history, lawmakers seriously debate dismantling the free market system. For the first time in our Nation’s history, a black President is calling for national health care reform. And for the first time in our Nation’s history, we face unprecedented threats from Muslim enemies bent on our destruction.

Yet we are not moving forward. Debates on these issues degenerate into shouting matches and finger-pointing competitions. Both sides tender arguments. Both sides think they know what to do. Nothing gets done because there are too many disagreements.

This is where we come in. Only we can resolve the paralyzing impasse in the national debate. Only we have the courage and fortitude to resolve disagreements in the only way they truly can be resolved: By murder. We will not avert health care collapse until we kill everyone who advocates single-payer systems and Soviet-style “Canada” medicine. We will not achieve domestic security until we kill everyone who advocates closing down Guantanamo Prison and withdrawing from Afghanistan. And we will not rescue the economy until we kill everyone who advocates greater government control over private contracting. At the moment, we cannot move forward on these issues because no one is communicating. People are just jumping up and down, screaming and accusing the other side of “being wrong.” But we promise progress. We promise to solve the disagreements. History is our guide: Disagreements go away as soon as you kill the people who disagree with you.

Aren’t you tired of ineffective government? Aren’t you tired of shrill debates and inappropriate arguments? Don’t you want to start moving forward as Nation? Don’t you feel that we’ve been stuck in the mud for too long? Haven’t you had enough recriminations, backbiting and angry arguments?

If you have, do something about it. Put a party in power that will put an end to all these verbal altercations. Put a party in power with the courage not only to scream and yell at opposing speakers, but kill them, too. We are the Political Association United for the Murder of All People With Whom They Disagree. We are committed to America. We are committed to making the right choices. We do not get bogged down in debates and feuds over abortion and parenting. We just kill people who refuse to see things the way we do.

It’s time to stop the disagreements. Let us be one Nation. Let us speak with one voice. At this challenging time in our Nation’s history, we need unity more than ever. Let us unite—and kill everyone who refuses to join us.

TURNING THE TABLES ON THE EXECUTIONERS

AN ESSAY

During my break from writing this week, I have had time to read some interesting history. I am always searching for historical material to flesh out my satires and inspire essays that link modern-day problems to ancient precedents. I found a good one in the story of Simon Fraser, 11th Lord Lovat (1667-1747), a Scottish Baron who had the honor to be the last man beheaded at London's Tower Hill.

I have studied capital punishment at length. I think it measures a society's moral progress. You can tell how advanced--or barbaric--a society is by investigating three things: (1) Does its government kill its own citizens "by law?"; (2) If it does, how does it "officially kill" them? and (3) If it does, how many does it kill every year? For over a year now, I have cataloged which countries (and US States) allow capital punishment. I have also investigated which methods they use to execute people. It is a grim business, but I think it reveals a lot about human societies and their claims to "civilization." Capital punishment, after all, is the ultimate government action vis-a-vis the individual. Government can take many things from you. It can take all your property, your dignity, your self-respect, your money, your liberty and even your children. But it can't take anything more than your life.

Yet it impossible to talk about capital punishment without talking about history. Throughout the ages, capital punishment and brute political power have gone hand in hand. Political power uses law to advance its own purposes, not in order to vindicate abstract principles like justice or right. Victorious governments execute rebels and others who commit "treason" against them. In this sense, capital punishment masquerades as a "legal sanction," when in fact it is merely an exercise in raw, arbitrary political power. The strong man kills the weak one who opposes the "establishment." The strong man deploys judges to cover up the killing with official-sounding legal gobbledygook.

But law doesn't fool me. Law is supposed to speak against killing our neighbors, not kill them itself. I have profound difficulty believing legal rhetoric that justifies capital punishment when the same legal rhetoric condemns common, intentional homicide. If intentional homicide is "wrong" when a citizen commits it, how is it different when a State officer does the same to a citizen? There is a glaring inconsistency here. And this inconsistency persists because governments have always claimed a power to kill their own citizens. In my view, blind tradition is no reason to keep foolishness alive in our time.

In all my studies about capital punishment, I routinely run across ironic tales that expose these philosophical inconsistencies. Simon Fraser's story is a perfect example. Fraser was sentenced to die because he conspired with Jacobite rebels during their attempt to overthrow King George II in the 1740s. He "had to die" because he threatened to dislodge those with political power. He lost, so he "had to die." If he had won, he probably would have executed the losers. It had nothing to do with principle; it was about power.

In any event, Fraser went to Tower Hill. Huge crowds gathered to watch his head roll off the block. The government built wooden scaffolds to accommodate the overflow crowd. They wanted to see this "traitor" die. But before the headsman struck, a scaffold collapsed, killing 20 bloodthirsty spectators.

I laughed when I learned this. I found it ironic that men and women died while waiting to watch an execution. They paid for their perverse desire to watch the government ritually kill someone. Something turned the tables on them. They thought the law supported them against the "traitor," but they died, too. Victorious political power might have killed Lord Fraser, but some other power killed the spectators who prepared to celebrate his death.

In my view, this shows that executions do not prove that the government is "right" about anything, even if the condemned person is guilty. No matter what legal arguments the King's judges and prosecutors made to justify Lord Fraser's death in law, they could not prevent "innocent" spectators from dying, too. In short, government had power to order Lord Fraser to die, but it had no power to prevent the spectators from dying. Thus, the government's own claim to "power over life and death" appeared pitifully limited.

In principle, then, government is not "naturally right" when it kills its own citizens. It has simply arrogated the power to execute people "by law" because power creates law. There is nothing in nature that entitles government to put citizens to death. All the procedures, trials, rules and rhetoric underlying modern capital punishment are mere inventions, not a priori truths.

There is not much I can do to dislodge power. I just like to think that government should aspire to something better than the crude, human urge for revenge against "trespassers." I have written before than men will always kill each other. Men are emotional animals. They have individual weaknesses, passions, idiosyncrasies and even delusions. Yet government is supposed to be better than the individual men who compose it. Just because men constitute government does not mean that government must mirror all men's weaknesses. To the contrary, government has a unique power to stand on principle and dignity, even when individual men cannot. To my mind, there is no substance to the argument that "government can kill because men can kill." Rather, I believe that government has a unique opportunity to insist on behavior that transcends human weakness. Principles might not work for individual men, but governments can demand them.

Law should mean something more than mere power. Lord Fraser's story reveals power at work through law. Yet his story also reveals that neither law nor power can control everything, despite their claims to the contrary. While power might have ordained Lord Fraser's death, it did not ordain the spectators' deaths. No legal solemnity or argument killed the spectators. Law may have justified Lord Fraser's death with florid rhetoric and even legal citations. But its pretentious reasoning could do nothing to justify--or prevent--the spectators' deaths.

In short, power has limits. But power acts as if does not. I love stories that reveal those limits, chastising those who adhere to power. The spectators at Lord Fraser's execution confidently took their seats on the scaffold to behold "their" power at work on a man "their" law had condemned. They felt justified in exercising "their" power. But they wound up dying, too, even though the "law was on their side." They didn't "deserve to die;" but apparently--to quote The Unforgiven--"deserve's got nothing to do with it."

What sweet, maddening irony. The history of power--and capital punishment--abounds with stories like this. In the end, you get the impression that no one is right, no matter who dies and who invokes law to justify death.

DANGEROUS RHETORIC ON HEALTH CARE : OBAMA IS NOT HITLER

AN ESSAY

Public rhetoric about health care reform is getting quite belligerent these days. It seems I can’t read the newspaper without noticing a story about some outraged maniac who disrupts a town hall meeting about health care. Interestingly, these outbursts do not break down along party lines. Both Republicans and Democrats publicly freak out as soon as anyone mentions health care. No one really seems to know all the facts. Misinformation is rampant. Everyone is worried. People think they either will lose their health care or pay away their entire salary in taxes. Seniors think the Federal government will take away their prescription drugs and repeal Medicare. Insurance companies have launched campaigns intended to make Americans reflexively recoil from the words “socialist medicine” and “single-payer system.”

But amid all this confusion, no one knows what will happen. This leaves a lot of room for propaganda, deception, manipulation and even violent rhetoric. So the Nation just blusters along: Shouting, screaming and accusing imaginary enemies of imaginary conspiracies. It is a dangerous climate. When large numbers become desperate and irrational like this, really bad things can happen.

Before Obama won the election last year, I wrote a piece about hatred in the United States. http://reasoncommercejustice.blogspot.com/2008/10/prediction.html. I openly worried that Obama could well face assassination in a country with such a profound legacy of intolerance, hatred and political violence, especially involving racial questions. During Obama’s first few months in office, he seemed to transcend those worries. The Nation was entranced; it could not really believe it just elected a black President. For a few fleeting weeks, Obama’s hopeful rhetoric seemed to have triumphed. In such a confident atmosphere, no one could think to assassinate this man.

But times are changing. Health care is Obama’s first major confrontation with deeply entrenched power structures in American society. To reform health care, hopeful rhetoric is not enough. Rather, reforming health care takes gritty, exhausting political pragmatism. It takes courage and clear vision. At the same time, it takes a fighting spirit. After all, there are too many vested interests with too many profits at stake in the current system. Insurance companies and drug barons will not just roll over and allow reform. Shouting “Yes we can” will not transform a free market bastion into a socialist utopia. In a word, genuine health care reform requires immense social changes. And vested interests resist immense social changes by any means necessary, including subversion, misinformation, propaganda, intimidation and murder.

This is not paranoia. This is history. When reforming Presidents and social leaders genuinely “threaten immense change” in American life, they put themselves in mortal danger. Abraham Lincoln dared to abolish slavery, a vital component in American life up to his time. That effort upset vested interests; he was murdered. John F. Kennedy dared to deconstruct America’s military industrial complex; he was murdered. Robert Kennedy promised to bring “social justice” to American life through civil rights legislation and “big government” spending; he was murdered. Martin Luther King, Jr. dared to propose racial harmony and to condemn inequality in the United States; he was murdered, too. President Obama—a black man, no less—now dares to dismantle private control over health care in the United States. Health care is a multi-trillion dollar business. Powerful people really like the way it is now, unjust or not. His effort has already ruffled vested interests. He is inviting danger.

You can sense the danger simply by following the rhetoric. Just last week, for instance, I saw pictures from a Republican rally somewhere in the Midwest. According to the news source, they were complaining about Democratic efforts to “socialize” medicine and prevent them from seeing doctors they wanted to see. But their complaints were less troubling than their banners. In one picture, a young man carried a placard with Obama’s face on it. The caption: “Hitler gave great speeches, too.”

If this were just another election battle, I might have dismissed this comment as mere imbecility. Whenever anyone doesn’t like a political opponent in the United States, the natural—and stupid—tendency is to label him “Hitler.” Anti-Bush protesters routinely compared Bush to Hitler. But this time the tables are strangely turned. Bush never pledged to reform health care in the United States. Opponents facetiously compared him to Hitler because he expanded government power against the individual, dismantled civil liberties and embarked on foreign war adventures. Bush defended vested interests; he did not threaten them. Those were vaguely “Hitler-like” interventions. Still, Bush was no Hitler—not even close. I think even the most fanatical anti-Bush protesters realized that. Bush may have disrespected the Constitution and trampled a few liberties here and there. But he never systematically exterminated people he considered racially inferior.

Obama, by contrast, represents the “little man” against massive private interests. And he is even less “Hitler-like” than Bush. Obama swore to defend constitutional liberty and to curtail American military adventures abroad. He has also pledged to resolve domestic “injustices,” including the health care conundrum. Moreover, Obama is a black man; he is a member of a race that Hitler wanted to exterminate. In that light, it is nonsensical to compare Obama to Hitler. It is almost like calling a Jew a Nazi. If anything, Obama represents everything Hitler was not: Tolerant, liberal, compassionate, hopeful, educated. True, both Hitler and Obama could deliver rousing speeches. But oratory alone does not render an American politician “Hitler.” Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan were great orators, too, but no one compared them to Hitler for their speechmaking skill. On the other hand, if great oratory makes you Hitler, I suppose that saves Bush from Hitler comparisons.

Still, the Hitler comments vex me. It really does not matter whether the Hitler analogy is historically accurate. Instead, when Americans call an opponent “Hitler,” it simply means they really detest the person. For Americans, “Hitler” means “evil incarnate.” It is impossible to imagine a “worse man” than Hitler. That is the sense in which Americans use the name “Hitler.” When they call Obama “Hitler,” they are not making a historical analogy. They are simply saying: “We absolutely hate this man because he is evil and must be stopped.” And in such a confused, emotionally charged atmosphere as the health care debate, calling an opponent “Hitler” is no small matter. It indicates a self-righteous willingness to do anything to stop the allegedly “evil man” from realizing his plans. In America, “anything” really means “anything.”

This rhetoric should bother everyone. As I wrote in my earlier essay, America does not have a strong track record on radical reform, especially when it intertwines with vested interests and race. All too often, when reform clashes with vested interests and race, people die. In Obama’s case, all these factors come into play. Health care reform touches deeply on vested interests and it emanates from the Nation’s first black President. In 1993, we saw vehement resistance to health care reform under President Clinton. There was no racial element in those days, yet the public hysteria was so intense that it derailed reform efforts even before they got underway. Against this discouraging background, President Obama has vowed to reform health care “no matter what.” He knows that people get irrational when they talk about health care. In short, he must confront the same public hysteria that broke out in 1993, but now he must contend with smoldering racial resentment, too. He knows that vested interests pulled out all the stops to win in 1993. He knows they lied, deceived, circulated misinformation, bribed and intimidated anyone who got in their way. He probably knows that he is risking his life in this crusade. The fact that intolerant white conservative Republicans sincerely label a tolerant black liberal Democrat Hitler defies rational explanation. He likely already knows there are people ready to pull the trigger on him.

Yet this is the danger all true reformers confront in America. We must wait to see whether Obama will truly follow through on health care. Will he insist on genuine reform? Will he abandon the effort altogether, as Clinton did? Or will he settle, compromise, negotiate, dilute and concede? No matter what happens, we should all ask ourselves whether it is healthy to hate our opponents so much as to label them “Hitler,” even when the label is completely nonsensical. When public rhetoric heats up this much, it threatens to cast the entire Nation into bitter lawlessness. It is just a matter of time before bullets start flying.

Reform tests democracy. Democracy cannot survive when minority opponents cannot abide majority decisions. America has lasted since 1787 precisely because Democrats do not revolt when Republicans win policy fights, and Republicans do not revolt when Democrats win policy fights. In most cases, the losing faction respects constitutional processes and allows the winning faction to pursue its policies, even if they disagree with them. Yet there have been cases in American history in which the losers can’t bear to lose, so they kill the winners. Health care just might be the next example.

Let’s hope it isn’t. But given America’s sad history on reform and race, I am deeply worried. When hopeful-sounding politicians courageously step forward against entrenched injustices, vested interests always neutralize the “problem.” Obama is quintessentially a “hopeful politician” who ran on reform. Those factors alone paint a target on him. The fact that he is black exposes him to even more danger. If he persists in his call for genuine reform against opponents who can call him “Hitler” with a straight face, he is putting his life on the line. Anyone with the twisted intellectual capacity to call Obama Hitler probably also has the misguided capacity to “save America” by killing him. After all, Hitler must be stopped, right?

These are dangerous times. We must merely follow the rhetoric to see where they will lead us. The rhetoric is militant. There is much at stake. Powerful institutions stand to lose. People are calling a liberal Democrat a Nazi. Something is definitely wrong here; and it is not rational. In this muddled, volatile atmosphere, anything can happen.

On the other hand, maybe Obama will just give in, abandon the effort and just leave the insurance companies alone. That would save his skin. In this country, there’s no better way to save your own life than to give insurance companies what they want.