NAUGHTY BAILED-OUT BANKERS ARE ENEMIES OF THE PEOPLE

Советские Решения Современных Экономических Проблем в Америке Обамы

(SOVIET SOLUTIONS TO CONTEMPORARY ECONOMIC PROBLEMS IN OBAMA'S AMERICA)

By : Mr. Lavrenty Pavlovich Beria, Member, Communist Party of the Soviet Union; Commissioner, National Office of Internal Affairs (NKVD)(1938-1945); Senior Investigator, People's Commissariat to Eradicate Spies, Traitors and Unpatriotic Defeatists Uncommitted to the Public Good (1934-1948); Close Confidant to Joseph Stalin (1926-1953); Orchestrator of Soviet Wartime Production (1941-1945); Manager of Undesirable Population Relocation Program to Central Asia (1941-1951); People's Prosecutor against Lithuanian, Polish, Latvian, Estonian, Ukrainian, German, Hungarian, Czech, Romanian, Slovak and Yugoslavian Traitors and Capitalist Counter-Revolutionary Troublemakers (1938-1953); Pistol Enthusiast and Marksman; Executed 1953; Resurrected 2010.

I am here in America at the request of the Chairman of the Federal Reserve System, Mr. Ben Shalom Bernanke. This Mr. Bernanke--Jewish capitalist intellectual counterrevolutionary though he may be--is a capable man. He understands that your country is in grave danger. He knows that the American economy is teetering on the brink. Most importantly, he understands that traditional "American" methods will not return your country to prosperity. That is why he called me.

Let me briefly summarize my conversation with Mr. Bernanke. He said that the United States is now suffering from a "persistent recession" that has resulted in massive unemployment. He attributed this "recession" to unregulated banking practices and large-scale greed among large financial firms. He also informed me that government has begun playing a much larger role in private financial affairs. He even said that government has paid billions to private banks in order to prevent them from failing. I believe I say this correctly: Your government "bailed out" the wealthiest capitalist pigs in order to allow them to continue loaning money to everyone else.

I applaud America's new commitment to government intervention in the economy. Although it does not come close to the Soviet example, it nonetheless represents a step in the right direction. In Stalin's Russia, we regulate everything. There is no private property. The State owns the banks. If a miserable little banker gets out of line, we shoot him and bury him in an unmarked grave. We even shoot his children and wife. That's how we regulate bankers in Russia. True, this frightens bankers. But it also prevents them from defrauding the people. Sometimes pistols are more effective than laws.

I understand that your country is not the Soviet Union. Mr. Bernanke informed me, however, that these ungrateful bankers have actually taken government money and used it to pay their own bonuses. Additionally, they have thumbed their noses at the very government that saved them from ruin. Mr. Bernanke told me that "something must be done" about these devious, greedy bankers. He asked my advice on the subject.

I am happy to lend my expertise in dealing with your banking problem. First off, let us understand the situation. Your government has taken an unprecedented step to rescue private banks from their own capitalist follies. It has actually given State money in order to prevent them from failing. In return, government can expect allegiance from the banks. In essence, "bailed-out" banks are no longer private. By taking government money, they have subjected themselves to government regulation. They have ceded their private nature. As such, they must listen to your orders. If they don't, they must suffer serious consequences.

Yet now the bankers act as if they never took your money. Worse, they have used your money to invest in the evil New York stock market, where they earned spectacular profits. Rather than return the money to you, they have insolently awarded themselves monstrous bonuses and sent their children on European vacations. They have renovated their villas and hired high-priced prostitutes for week-long champagne orgies at sultry Caribbean hideaways. They have purchased long yachts, "cigarette boats" and Bentley automobiles. They have gallivanted on million-dollar ski trips. All the while, they have refused to hire more workers or act in the public good. To the contrary, they have done little but enrich themselves. They are having the time of their lives--all thanks to government funds.

I share your disgust with these ungrateful outlaws. I am pleased to offer my assistance in "regulating" them. They are Enemies of the People.

We must increase our regulation efforts. Your country must cease relying on "laws" and "procedures" to tame wayward bankers. You will only stop naughty bankers by adopting Soviet-style banking regulations. Bankers are ruthless pirates by nature. Ruthless pirates only understand one language: Brutality. If America wishes to rein in these pirates, it must start regulating with pistols.

Let me explain what I mean by "pistol regulation." As Commissioner of the Secret State Police in the Soviet Union, I became an expert in the craft. Here’s how it works: Once I identify an enemy of the People, I quickly dispatch agents to his home at about 4:30 AM. Generally, most people are either asleep or just waking up at that time--even ambitious capitalist pigs like your wayward bankers. They are in no position to resist ten armed police agents. Most surrender without a fight. In fact, very few ever know we're coming. We investigate in secret.

Once taken into custody, my agents bring the enemy to a secret building with no windows. There, a State security agent informs the enemy why he is an enemy, then tells him to explain himself. This is just a formality: Nothing he says will save him. Basically, it just gives us an opportunity to have a good laugh while the man pisses himself, falls on his knees and begs for mercy. After we've laughed enough, we bring in an officer who says he has judicial power to pronounce sentence. He gravely tells the enemy that he has been found guilty of treason, at which time several armed guards take him into another dimly-lit room. They push the enemy face first against the wall, then shoot him in the back of the head with a pistol like this one:

After that, the guards clean the blood, skull fragments and brains off the floor, remove the body and send it off for cremation. Then I release a press statement describing the enemy's crimes against the people. I close the statement by noting that the "dangerous enemy" has "faced justice for high treason."

Now, once your naughty bankers know that they may face "pistol regulation" for squandering State funds, they will think twice about buying new homes and throwing lavish dinner parties. In fact, some might even invest their money in public projects or--God forbid--hire some people. As you can see, "pistol regulation" carries two benefits. First, it eliminates bad behavior, like embezzling public money. Second, it encourages good behavior, like reducing unemployment. After all, no one wants to get that knock on the door at 4:30 AM. Bankers start behaving much better once they notice that their greedy colleagues aren't in their offices anymore.

You have made a wise decision to enlist my help in regulating your financial industry. You understand that your traditional "American" methods will not impress these rapacious profit-hounds. To the contrary, your entire constitutional system--with its burdensome right to counsel, "independent judiciary" and "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" procedure--favors the accused. Worse, when the accused has money--as these bankers do--it is even more difficult to convict them. Even then, it takes years for appeals to pass. Plus there's a chance that banker-friendly judges will free their pals. Under your laws, you can't even execute these piratical bankers for their offenses.

This is simply unacceptable: You need Soviet "pistol regulation" or these dogs will walk all over you with "procedures."

Still, you can do it. You have already made an unprecedented step by allowing the government to intervene in the economy. Now, you must take the next step by holding bailed-out bankers to their bargains. If a banker takes government money, he must do as the government says. No more can you tolerate their ingratitude. It is not just embarrassing. It is bad for the country.

To that end, I will do my part to hunt down these criminals. Their lawyers and cash bribes will not stop my agents from putting bullets in their brains. I have wide experience sniffing out wrongdoing; nothing escapes my notice. We will work together to send a simple message: "If you take government money, you had better not use it to pay your own bonus."

I will find every banker who scoffs at government regulation. Believe me, they won't be scoffing after my agents show up at their swanky penthouses at 4:30 in the morning. In fact, they'll be crying, begging, moaning, wailing, pissing and shitting themselves. A few will get angry and shout. But my men will pistol-whip them until they behave.

Enough talking. Let's get to work. We have an industry to regulate. And we have Enemies of the People to eliminate.

COMMUNISM : STILL UNBEATABLE IN THEORY

AN ESSAY

During the Cold War, America faced a serious intellectual challenge. It fought several wars and invested its entire economy into proving that its free market economic system was superior to communism.

Between 1945 and 1990, communism appeared a viable alternative to the free market. In both theory and practice, the Soviet Union and China loomed as proof that major world powers could function under communist governments. During this era, America did what it could to demonize communist countries: They were repressive; they did not allow free expression; they made it hard to earn a living; they were gray, forbidding places; they did not offer limitless opportunities for wealth; you couldn't own a home. Yet until the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, America did not have really tangible arguments to show that communism was ineffective. After 1991, it gained a valuable new rhetorical weapon. From then on, free market defenders could say: "See? Communism doesn't work. Look what happened in Russia. Our system is better. I told you so."

Many Americans accept this argument without further thought. If educational and social indoctrination did not suffice to bias them against communism, the "Soviet example" put the nail in the coffin. "Our system is better," goes the argument, "because the Russians lost and we won."

But why exactly did the Soviet Union "fail?" And why do Americans use the Soviet failure to claim that "communism does not work?" In my view, the answers are not so simple. To the contrary, the Soviet failure does not reflect that communism is theoretically flawed. It merely reflects that communism did not work in practice in Russia. More vexingly, Americans base their conclusion that the free market is "superior" to communism only after making some embarrassing assumptions about human nature. In a word, capitalist defenders must admit that human beings are greedy, rapacious, egotistical scoundrels in order to sustain their argument that "the free market is better" than communism.

Think about how Americans craft their traditional responses to the Soviet failure. They say: "Well, communism might be great in theory, but it doesn't work because of human nature." What exactly does that mean? After all, in theory, Marxism posits that every human being is equal and that every human being deserves dignity and respect. It warns against the divisive influence of private property on human relationships. It also posits that labor is free and that no man should exploit another for profit. Further, Marxism posits that government has a responsibility to care for people because government is essentially humanitarian. From a Marxist perspective, the people deserve care, not merely the freedom to exploit one another for money. Moreover, Marxism supports these principles by assuming that human beings are naturally good. It also places great emphasis on individual worth as opposed to economic "instrumentalization" that sacrifices individual identity for "usefulness."

Are these bad principles? Do they reflect a vicious attitude toward our fellow man? Certainly not. If anything, Marxism espouses an extremely positive--even brotherly--approach to human nature. Yet according to the capitalist defenders, this approach fails because it misapprehends what humans are "actually like." To defeat the Marxist vision, the capitalist defender must say: "No, this system does not work because humans are not brotherly. Rather, they are conniving rascals who seek at all times to enrich themselves, even if that means backstabbing and betraying their brothers. Individuality is only useful to the extent that some individuals can reduce other individuals to economic servitude. Additionally, this system does not work because humans do not live for equality and dignity, but rather for crass personal gain, even if that means oppressing and exploiting their fellow man. Finally, government does not exist to care for these rascals, but rather to allow them to engage freely in rascalry, because self-interested rascalry leads to economic prosperity."

In a word, the American response to communism confesses that human beings are ruthless, savage, insensate exploiters who have no duty to their fellow man. In a sense, it admits that the communist vision is admirable. But it discounts that vision by sighing: "We are not so noble." In a strangely depressing way, capitalist defenders take solace in the recognition that human beings are brutal competitors without decency or compassion. After all, that brutality and competitive spirit keep the shelves stocked and the children fed. Who cares about theoretical appeal when merciless self-interest gives you all the shaving creams, sneakers, steak varieties and breakfast cereals you could possibly desire?

In this light, I do not believe that the Soviet failure theoretically debunks communism. No historical event will ever discount Marx's hopeful vision of human society, nor will any one State's experience tarnish the communist ideal in theory. Perhaps communism will never escape its theoretical constraints. Perhaps no State will ever live up to its high theoretical ideals. Perhaps we are just not good enough.

But sometimes ideas are beautiful, even if they are not realizable in present circumstances. I think communism fits in that category. We can all dream about utopia, even if utopia is not attainable given our limitations. Still, that does not detract from the dream. If anything, it merely shows that we are not capable of living the dream. And that is not something to be proud of. It is just an embarrassing confession that highlights our weaknesses.

Maybe human beings will never successfully practice communism. But that does not prove that communism is "bad in theory." It merely proves that we are weak, selfish, fungible, vicious creatures. Non-communist governments accommodate that weakness and harness it to good effect. Yet I would argue that there is nothing laudable about our natural weakness. The sad truth is that free market prosperity depends on inequality, exploitation and savagery. Although the benefits might outweigh the burdens, it does not change the fact that it is an ugly business. And the individual only matters to the extent that he can use other individuals to enrich himself. That is pretty bleak.

But this is what makes America strong. What a strange business. In the end, the question is: "Who am I? What am I worth? Does anyone care about me?" The communist says: "You are a valuable individual. Everyone cares about you. If you are in need, you will receive help." The capitalist says: "You are nothing unless you make something of yourself. And if you don't, that's your fucking problem, because no one is going to help you, pal. So get out there and start earning."

Guess which perspective won? So much for humanity.

WHAT'S WORSE, IRAQ OR VIETNAM? LOW POINTS IN AMERICAN HISTORY

AN ESSAY

Before the "conflict" in Vietnam during the 1960s and 1970s, America had a hearty appetite for war. In the decades before Vietnam, Americans had waged several very successful wars against traditional opponents in Europe and Asia. They used their overwhelming industrial might to grind their enemies into submission. And because they always waged war far from home, these wars never directly impacted the civilian population. American cities never burned, nor did rampaging armies rape American women. In short, America had an appetite for war because it won them with comparatively little sacrifice.

But Vietnam tempered America's appetite for war because it was "unwinnable." Unlike the world wars, Vietnam was a civil war between ideological enemies in the same country. The "enemy" did not fight along traditional lines; they fought a dispersed war. They made it difficult for America to leverage its massive industrial might against them. Despite America's massive technological and material advantages, the North Vietnamese continued to resist. They never fought pitched battles with the Americans. They used hit-and-run tactics, preserved their forces and vanished into the jungle. No matter how many B-52 bombers or helicopters the Americans threw at them, they always managed to reappear. For a country accustomed to obliterating its enemies in open combat, this was a rude awakening.

America called Vietnam a "quagmire" because it could not crush its enemies in a single campaign. America does not like "quagmires" for the same reason it does not like unprofitable businesses: If you can't deliver success quick, people lose interest and close you down. America likes quick wins, not protracted struggles. Vietnam was a protracted struggle. When it appeared that no measure of carpet bombing or napalm would bring the North Vietnamese to heel, the American people simply lost interest and gave up.

This was a sobering moment in American history. Ragtag communist rebels turned away the world's most advanced army. The North Vietnamese never defeated the Americans in the field, but they successfully protracted the war long enough to deprive America's will for further combat. In this sense, they did not inflict a "military defeat" on the United States. But they prevented the United States from "achieving victory." That was a first in American history. And it disheartened many Americans.

Disbelief and frustration over the "unsatisfactory result" in Vietnam colored American public opinion about war for decades. During the buildup to the First Gulf War in 1990, President George H.W. Bush reassured the public that the coming conflict in Kuwait would result in "decisive victory." He invoked the "quagmire" in Southeast Asia when he said: "This will not be another Vietnam." He knew that Americans would not tolerate a protracted struggle. So he set his goal modestly: Destroy the Iraqi army, liberate Kuwait and go home. It was an achievable goal. He accomplished it. Unlike Vietnam, the First Gulf War was not a "quagmire" because it had a limited scope. Americans were happy with the outcome.

But the Second Gulf War did not have a limited scope. Unlike his father, President George W. Bush did not set achievable goals when he planned to invade Iraq in 2003. He said he wanted to "find weapons of mass destruction" and "remove Saddam Hussein from power." Yet any novice policy adviser knew that occupying a Middle Eastern country would entail a much broader involvement than merely liberating one Nation from another. Sure enough, this is exactly what happened. After ousting Saddam, American forces assumed a "police role" in Iraq. By removing Saddam, they unleashed a power vacuum that triggered a civil war. American troops found themselves in the crossfire between two warring factions. Casualties mounted. There was no end in sight.

We are still there: Another quagmire.

Both the Second Gulf War and Vietnam represent low points in American history. They both represent moments in which America questions its ability to wage successful wars. They both caused immense dissent at home. But I venture that the "Iraqi adventure" is a lower point in American history than the Vietnam war. I say this because there is a key distinction in motivation between them. I judge history by the intentions of those who animate it. And by that standard, Iraq appears a more unethical struggle than Vietnam.

Although both Vietnam and Iraq resulted in military "quagmires," America had a much purer purpose in Vietnam than it did in Iraq. For better or worse, America involved itself in Vietnam for an almost naive ideological reason: To halt the spread of its philosophical nemesis: Communism. America did not have any particular loyalty to the South Vietnamese government, nor did it have vested commercial interests in Southeast Asia. Instead, it embroiled itself in a bloody civil war 10,000 miles away solely to show that it did not like communism. No matter what you think about communism, you cannot fault the United States for believing in its "principles" in Vietnam. It had a clear philosophical "purpose" in fighting that war. It may have been the wrong purpose, but at least America believed in something to justify its sacrifice.

In short, America's motivations were apparent in Vietnam. And they were based in philosophical disagreement. Vietnam, then, represented America's belief in its own economic system over another. It was a "battle of principles."

But America's motivations for war in Iraq were far less naive. Despite Bush's rhetoric about "delivering democracy to Iraq" and "freeing Iraqis from tyranny," no one really believed those explanations. No, any reasonable person could see that America had massive commercial interests in an oil-producing country like Iraq. Even the Vice President owned shares in a company that stood to greatly benefit from any military involvement in the Middle East.

Worse, America took a dishonest course in shuffling toward war in 2003. President Bush used public hysteria about Islamic terrorism to forge a fanciful link between Osama bin Laden and Iraq. He even exaggerated stories about Iraqi "weapons of mass destruction" to deceive Americans into thinking that invading Iraq was necessary for "self-defense." He presented false testimony to the United Nations and the American public to garner support for military action. All the while, he failed to mention the crude commercial reasons why war in Iraq would benefit industrial interests.

America's "quagmire" in Iraq is not just a military fiasco. It is also the culmination of unethical behavior and dishonesty on an international scale. That is why I think it warrants greater condemnation than American involvement in Vietnam. As bad as Vietnam was, at least the President did not deceive both the international community and his own people to launch an unjust war. In Vietnam, America fought honestly to combat a philosophy it rejected. Everyone was relatively clear about that. But in Iraq, America fought--and still fights--an unnecessary war born in ignorance and deception. Worst, even a mild cynic can see that America has a direct interest in seizing territory in the oil-rich Middle East. And the commercial explanation renders all other explanations disingenuous. There was no such commercial explanation for war in Vietnam.

In sum, both Vietnam and Iraq stand out as bleak moments in American history. Both drove America into social turmoil because they did not result in "quick wins." But because America resorted to dishonesty to garner support for war in Iraq, I conclude that our experience in Iraq is a more embarrassing national humiliation than Vietnam. Unlike our naive--and foolishly misguided--motivations for war in Vietnam, our motivations for war in Iraq were simply crass, greedy and dishonorable. And we even had to lie and cheat to gain popular approval for action.

That is just unethical and shocking.

VALUES IN THE LAW : WHY YOU CAN'T BE A LAWYER AND A COMMUNIST IN AMERICA

AN ESSAY

Values play a huge role in the law. They infuse American legal doctrine just as they infuse all other associational activities in the United States. Still, values do not blare as loudly through the law as they blare through in more visible discourses, such as popular politics. In fact, values dominate the law in a much more subtle way. After all, according to popular understanding, the law "is blind." In other words, it is somehow detached, fair, unbiased, neutral, cerebral, rational and just, even though it governs biased parties and hotly contentious subject matter.

But it is a mistake to think that values do not infuse the law just as deeply as they infuse popular politics. Through ostensibly "fair" and "neutral" rules, our common law actually reinforces a dominant value system, namely: A complex, bewilderingly unbalanced system prizing industry, commerce, individual responsibility and vested property rights. Broadly speaking, legal rules favor those who own property. They provide predictable guidance in disputes over property, land, liability and money. They encourage unbridled property exchange. They arm property owners with numerous advantages to stop claims that their property or business injured someone. Superficially, the rules appeal to justice. Yet when push comes to shove, the common law's commitment to "vigorous, predictable commerce" and "personal responsibility" (a value judgment in itself) takes precedence over "abstractions." Lawyers who dedicate themselves to justice in practice all too often find themselves submerged in a world of unforgiving procedure and dizzying, often counterintuitive "everyday customs." When they insist on justice before grumbling judges with full dockets, they often invite ridicule rather than respect.

In the end, the common law is not about justice at all. Sometimes justice happens to flow from the rules. But it's not required.

To be a really effective lawyer in the United States, you have to possess certain values. Specifically, you need to have a basic respect for property rights, social distinctions, governmental institutions, order, "appropriateness," commercial activity and the notion that people exist in the world to profit from one another. These values all find expression in American legal rules. They are not necessarily "correct" or "just" values in themselves; they simply reflect dominant values. After all, law has always reflected dominant social values. Those with power dominate others. They obviously will want to brand their views about the world as somehow "official," "correct" and "sacred." In the West, commercial power generates practical power. That is why the common law so rigorously incorporates commercial values.

You cannot be a really effective lawyer if you do not wholeheartedly accept these values. If you have qualms about the notion that profit is the reason why human beings interact with each other, you will have difficulty advocating for a business client who claims he lost money in a deal. If you cannot understand why a person should lose a lawsuit because he filed something a day late due to unavoidable circumstances, you do not possess the "order values" (ie, "deadlines are deadlines") so necessary to bring reliability and predictability to commerce. If you find it repugnant that a client can get away with fraud by inserting the word "or" instead of "and," you are too morally sensitive to be a lawyer. Lawyers comply with rules and zealously manipulate them in order to win money for their clients. Those are the values necessary to be an "effective advocate" in our system. In the law, a conscience is not an asset. It is an impediment.

On some level, all lawyers know this. Until the late 1960s, Bar Associations in virtually every State refused to admit prospective attorneys who conceded membership in the communist party. Some Bar Associations even asked applicants whether they agreed with communist philosophy or Marxism. Even sympathizing with socialistic ideals was sufficient to deny admission to a hopeful lawyer. This may sound appalling to anyone who believes in the First Amendment. But for anyone who understands the values inherent in the common law, this hostility toward communism is hardly surprising. In fact, it is perfectly warranted.

Why is communism relevant to law practice in the United States? Simple: Because socialistic values clash fundamentally with the values enshrined in most common law doctrine. State Bar Associations correctly presumed that anyone who truly believed in Marxism would not be able to "effectively" or "zealously" represent clients in a capitalist system. After all, communism teaches hostility to free market enterprise, economic exploitation, private property ownership and power relationships built upon commercial inequality. It also teaches respect for the dignity and equality of man as an individual, not as a commercial "instrument." Given these values, no one who truly believes in communism could serve a client committed to owning more property, dominating more employees, making more profits, seizing more land and basically becoming richer than his neighbor.

For better or worse, lawyers in the common law system are essentially accessories to capitalistic enterprise. Their very craft defends these values. A communist lawyer, then, would be a walking contradiction.

Our Supreme Court ultimately concluded that States could not condition Bar admission upon matters of conscience or belief, including belief in communist principles. But this does not mean that communists make good lawyers. In fact, I think that States' former restrictions on communist sympathies among lawyers made abundant sense. In our system, after all, lawyers owe a duty to "zealously" represent clients. It is an "adversary system." One side fights to the figurative death for his client's interests, while the other does the same for his client's interests. In most cases, a client's "interests" mean "property interests:" Will the client make money or lose it? To be "zealous," the lawyer must do everything under the sun to vindicate those interests. How could he do that in good conscience if he believes in communism? How could he pull out all the rhetorical stops to either enrich one person or drive another into poverty? Quite simply, he could not. In fact, his communist principles would disable him from putting up a fight at all on behalf of someone who just wants to make more money. Lawyers are ineffective when something blocks their ability to fight tooth and nail for their clients. If a lawyer truly believes in communism, his beliefs will surely block him from advancing legal rules that result in unfairness, economic inequality, class distinction, exploitation and crass private profit. In this light, determining whether a future lawyer believes in communism has prime relevance on the question whether he can "effectively" represent a client.

I write all this to demonstrate that the law is neither neutral nor detached. Contrary to popular belief, it is not "blind," nor does it always fall fairly. Put simply, it is a human institution that voices the values of the society that creates it. In the United States, power created law to suit its purposes. For the most part, those purposes are commercial. Commercial values dominate the law just as much as they dominate the minds of those who practice them. Why do criminal penalties for theft increase according to the value of the goods stolen? Why is stealing a car worse than stealing an old shoe? Isn't the act the same? Why does the law disfavor restrictions on the ability to sell land? And why does the law equip landowners with defenses that make it easy for them to defeat the claims of people who suffer harm on their land?

In all these cases, the answer is the same: Because the law enforces the values of those who own property and seek to gain more. Common law rules make it easy for them to make profits, sell goods, sell land, develop land profitably and defeat lawsuits brought by those who suffer injury due to these activities. They all reflect a dominant value judgment. Those who write rules will naturally tilt the field in their own favor. This is precisely what property owners have done with the common law: They have inscribed their self-serving commercial values into the rules that govern our society. If you own, you're in luck. If you don't, you're not.

Those who own lots of property certainly want fairness and justice for themselves. They commit themselves to it on paper. But when fairness and justice interfere with vigorous commercial activity, "exceptions can be made" and "procedures must be followed." And they expect their lawyers to defend their values and their interests, not start mouthing about "justice." A client in our system does not want abstract justice; he wants "justice for me." Generally, that means making a profit or saving a potential loss.

Against this background, it is no surprise that State Bar Associations ostracized communists. Communists just do not fit in a club dedicated to greasing commercial wheels and furthering profit ambitions. In fact, they probably would gum up the works by talking about "extraneous issues," like avarice in society, inequality and sympathy for disadvantaged people.

Common law judges don't care about all that. They want to know whether the testator used the words "within twenty-one years of the death of a life in being at the time aforesaid," or whether a paper was stamped on the 14th rather than the 15th.

Justice? That doesn't help resolve a case. Rules do.

VIVE LA FRANCE!

OESTERHOUDT STRIKES

I am in a rush this morning. But I have enough time to say that I do not like the television show "NYC Prep." It is about six ultra-rich white Upper East Side prep school students who talk incessantly about clothes, advantages and money. They cannot reveal their names or their parents' names for fear that they might be abducted. It is as if they know that their wealth and lifestyles immediately inspire resentment in viewers.

Wealth divides Americans as much as it divides citizens in any other civilization. While we can talk about theoretical inequality all day, it is something else to see the way really privileged people live. It evokes true populist nausea. Most people struggle from paycheck to paycheck their whole lives. They never seem to get anywhere. Their parents had nothing to give and they didn't know anyone who could get them a job that actually could lead someplace. Yet the children on NYC Prep worry about whether they will receive a Mercedes or BMW on their 16th Birthday. How could a wage-earner or debtor not feel outrage when they hear about such blatant excesses?

As I watched these children move through luxurious apartments laughing, texting and planning European excursions, I thought to myself: "This is the kind of stuff that started the French Revolution." And my thoughts led me further: "Wouldn't it be satisfying to guillotine these little assholes along with their absurdly wealthy parents?" That would finally put some fear in them, wouldn't it?

Class inequality starts trouble when enough people realize how bad it really is. Class inequality touches both an emotional and a philosophical nerve. In America, wealthy people do a good job concealing their lives and lifestyles from public scrutiny. But when they come to light, outrage is swift and almost bloodthirsty. Human beings have an innate intuition about fairness. When they see some people with everything, while they struggle for nothing, they cannot help feeling that unfairness is afoot. When these emotions reach a critical mass, revolutions happen. Anger about unfairness topples governments. That's what happened in France in 1789. That was a bad year to be rich.

Revolutions excite me. I love studying them because I love reading about times during which old orders break down and the law fails. In pre-Revolutionary France, for instance, the law supported the wealthy. By law, they maintained their status, property and unequal privileges. But that did not give them right. In fact, the people smashed the law and killed those who violated right. The same thing happened in Russia in 1917. Revolutions obliterate unfair legal systems and the unequal social structures they support. Yet in both France and Russia, there was a spark that ignited smoldering resentments. Both France and Russia experienced international turmoil prior to their revolutions that weakened the law's grip. Thus, a historical pattern emerges: Revolutions happen when two things are present: (1) Massive popular resentment caused by social inequality and wealth disparity; and (2) A destabilizing event at home or abroad that compromises the law's power to restrain dissent.

In America, we have not fulfilled either prerequisite for revolution. While there is enormous social inequality and wealth disparity in America, there is a substantial counterbalance. Namely, there are millions of middle-class people who are sufficiently content with their economic lot that they are not prepared to risk comfort for something better. Additionally, America has never faced the kind of truly devastating "destabilizing event" that weakens faith in government altogether. America has not faced crippling wars in which millions of civilians die. Nor has its currency ever gone worthless, as it did in Germany in the 1920s. Put simply, America is quite stable. And that stability enables the law to control resentment engendered by social inequality. Unfairness, in other words, can survive in peaceful times when enough people really don't give a damn. This is the case in America today.

But resentment lives. You can feel it the minute you tune into NYC Prep and wonder how it is possible that some people have it so easy. And you'll have to forgive yourself for your intuitive desire to dethrone these modern-day nobles. Revolution or not, we can still dream about how gratifying it would be to humble these petulant bon vivants. After all, it's in our nature to recoil from intuitive unfairness.

THE PROFIT PROBLEM

AN ESSAY

Newspapers often publish stories about corruption and greed. People have an appetite for hearing about well-placed individuals who get caught gorging themselves just a little too much at the profit pot. They relish all the seedy details: The lies, the doublecrosses, the secret cash payments and admonishments to keep quiet. In the end, the public loves these stories because it gives people an opportunity to vent their collective outrage against a villain who “broke the rules” and enriched himself “too much.” After all, only a few manage real success in America; and when they do, they inspire as much envy as respect. When “successful people” stumble into scandal, the public gloats. Finally they get a chance to express their envy. “He profited too much,” they cry. “Now we want his blood.”

Profit always lurks behind corruption stories. “The dream of profit” always provides the initial impulse to scheme, double-deal, deceive, swindle and conspire. Profit sets nefarious gears in motion. But who said that profit is wrong? In fact, private profit motivates virtually all economic activity in a free market system, whether beneficial or not. Without hope of profit, no entrepreneur would take chances introducing a new product. Without hope of profit, banks would not lend money to promising new enterprises. And without hope of profit, inventors would be afraid to invest their toil and sweat creating useful new technologies for everyone else. In short, commercial life springs from our society’s universal quest for private profit. If a person works, he wants a profit. Even the lowliest checkout clerk needs a profit to pay the bills and stave off eviction. In word; profit underscores all economic activity. When commercial actors lose their focus on profit, their balance sheets fail and they go out of business. Even employees must think about profit. If an employee’s compensated labor does not generate profits for his employer, he loses his job. In this sense, profit motivates all economic activity in this country, even if the economic actor at issue does not reap the profit he helps to create.

Why then do we condemn profit in corruption/greed scandals? If we all seek profit in our economic lives, why do we castigate those who win fabulous profits? In my view, we do this because most people have a schizophrenic, love-hate relationship with profit. On the one hand, everyone wants to profit; people live their whole lives seeking profit. But on the other hand—and despite all encouraging rhetoric to the contrary—very few people ever find true success in our economic system. This breeds resentment, bitterness, envy and animosity in all those who work hard for a profit, but never win it. This reflects basic inequalities in commercial life: A few succeed wildly; most do not. While this makes sense from a free market perspective—i.e., success would mean nothing if everyone had an equal right to it—it nonetheless propagates negative human emotions. When a child sees another child with toys, he thinks: “No fair. I should have those, too. How come he gets them all and I don’t.” This is precisely how “average people” react when they hear about a person who makes “too much profit.” Profits are adults’ toys. Everybody wants them; only a few get them.

This may oversimplify the profit problem. But on closer reflection, it largely resolves it. After all, human beings are selfish creatures who tend toward avarice and envy. They want to ensure their own pleasure and success, even if it means denying success and pleasure to others. In a competitive economic system with limited resources, this can lead to genuine social trouble. Competition ensures that “only the best” people make the “big profits” and control the resources. Everyone else struggles for handouts (wages), or perhaps a piddling profit, all the while enriching some economic superior. And because human beings are selfish, they feel resentment when one person appears to enjoy all the advantages, leaving them to struggle for almost nothing. In the United States, dominant social classes maintain the status quo by hypnotizing the population with rhetoric about “equal opportunity,” “class mobility” and “universal success.” These myths convince most people that if they “just work hard enough,” they, too, can win the “big profits.” Even if they barely stand a chance to fend off bankruptcy in our economic system, they still grope blindly after the elusive “success mirage.” The mirage keeps them from completely giving up on the insultingly vain pursuit. More usefully, the mirage keeps them from rebelling against the economic order by fooling them into thinking “they have a chance.” Whether duped or not, most people still feel resentment toward those who make more profits than they do. They simply stay their hands, believing that one day they, too, may finally “make it.” But it is all an illusion.

Corruption and greed scandals bring latent public resentments about profit into the daylight. When some unfortunate politician fails to cover his financial tracks and public realizes just how much money he made in a crooked deal, they unbottle their resentments. The politician may not have even violated any law to make his profit; the mere fact that he benefits suffices to unleash pent-up popular resentments about profit. I find this particularly interesting because it appears that public outrage about “excessive profit-seeking” stems not from profit in the abstract, but rather from the fact that enough people discovered it. In other words, profit-seeking is “OK” as long as you are discreet about it. Scandals break when large numbers of people find out about someone’s “questionable behavior.” If no one discovers certain behavior, it will not result in scandal, even if the behavior is undeniably “questionable” or even criminal. Corruption and greed scandals all involve profit. The public condemns the perpetrators for “shameless profiteering.” But they would not condemn it if they never discovered it. In this sense, the perpetrator’s real error is not profit-seeking; it is indiscreet profit-seeking. No one complains about secret, private, discreet profit-seeking. After all, everyone does that; it sustains our economic system. Yet if a person brazenly makes profits for all to see, he can expect social reproach. The sin, then, is not profit-seeking; the sin is indiscretion about profit-seeking.

As a society, we have a bizarre relationship to profit. I analogize it to sex. Everyone seeks and enjoys sex, just the way everyone seeks and enjoys profit. In some way, we “hunger” for both, even we have moral qualms about our quest for them. Moreover, both sex and profit are “touchy subjects” that demand discretion; we can only whisper about them. We expose neither sex nor profit to candid, open dialogue. No one likes to tell others how big a profit he won in a deal; he worries that he will inspire resentment in those who have been less than successful in business. In the same way, no one likes to brag about sexual exploits in mixed company; he worries that he will inspire resentment in those whose amorous pursuits have been less than satisfactory. Yet everyone seeks both sex and profit. And the problems only develop when there is indiscretion about the subject. This is because human beings naturally feel resentment toward those who achieve success in an area in which everyone seeks success. Still, human beings envy only what they see. To avoid difficulties involving either profit or sex, a person must merely cover his tracks and remain discreet about it.

In my view, this whole discretion complex misses the conceptual point because it mistakes peripheral questions for substantial ones. Why is indiscretion about something worse than the thing itself? Here, we must leave the sex/profit analogy and examine profit alone in the abstract. Objectively speaking, profit-seeking is a much more pernicious vice than sex, if sex can even be deemed a vice. Lust for profit in our economic system leads to far worse social problems than the mere biological impulse to sex. Profit-seeking spawns inequality, unfair competition, disparities in wealth, class discord and pervasive suspicious throughout society. Perhaps worst of all, it disparages human dignity by relegating individual human beings into instrumental “roles” intended to placate a “master’s” greed for personal profit. Given these abstract problems with profit-seeking, we should condemn it more strongly than mere indiscretion about profit-seeking. But that would contravene our entire raison d’etre in a free market system.

Our society, then, maintains its bizarre relationship with profit. After all, if our society candidly condemned profit, it would nullify itself completely. For better or worse in America, everyone lives for profit. We envy those who succeed, but we do not express our resentment until successful people drag their shameless profiteering into the daylight. If they had been discreet about their profiteering, they would have faced no trouble. They would merely have been “good at business.”

What is the lesson, then? The lesson is that everyone wants to make a profit, but no one wants others to know about it. Because when one person gets all the toys, everyone else starts whining. When it comes to profit in our society, it is best to just quietly deposit our checks and shut the hell up. And try not to leave a paper trail on your way to the bank.

PRIVATE ENTERPRISE UNITED FOR A MILITARY RESPONSE TO OBAMA-ERA REGULATIONS

By : Mr. D. Albert Ludlow, M.B.A, M.S.; Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Wellman Pharmaceutical Solutions Co., Inc., a Fortune 500 Company

Private enterprise means prosperity for all. Our free market system rewards the strong and passes their hard work on to everyone else. Although we believe in democratic ideals and equality, we do not believe that everyone should possess equal advantages in this country. There are owners and there are renters. There are debtors and there are creditors. There are payors and there are payees. The playing field is not exactly equal. And there is nothing wrong with that. After all, no one would work hard if the goal were merely to be “equal” to everyone else. In the free market, men work in order to become unequal. Why toil harder if you reap no special reward for your efforts?

For over two centuries, the United States has thrived as a free market economy. True, our economy has endured difficult times. But we have always prevailed because we retained our essential free market identity. Even after the government began regulating private markets in the 1930s, our free enterprise system has remained largely intact. Individuals and private corporations still own the essential means of production and distribution in our economy. Individuals and private corporations still provide most professional services. And individuals and private corporations still compete with one another to guarantee the best quality and lowest prices for the buying public. All the while, individuals retain their incentive to work hard and advance, because they know that our system will reward them for beneficial activity.

Things changed in 2008. During a seasonal economic downturn, Americans lost their nerve. Due to failures in the banking, securities and housing markets, Americans began clamoring for increased government regulation. In a dramatic move, they elected Barack Hussein Obama, a radical black man determined to bring “change we can believe in.” Now, he threatens to undermine our free market system with crippling government intervention. He threatens to buy out struggling banks and impose oversight on all the others. In essence, he intends to reduce our economy to State control. The American people blindly play along. Obama says he means no harm to the free market. We are not fooled; we see the danger. We will not let Obama succeed.

Our free market system follows a cyclical pattern. There are good times and bad times. Private enterprise responds to supply, demand and world market pressures. Inevitably, these variables at times combine to depress economic activity. If there is not as much oil one month, oil prices will increase. If there are too many lawyers, lawyers will have a hard time finding work. If companies do not have enough money to maintain healthy returns for their investors, they will not hire more employees. Private enterprise answers immediate needs; and needs are not always immediate. To that extent, our system necessarily ebbs and flows. We have always weathered the hard times. In 2008, we encountered another hard time. Yet unlike past recessions, this time Americans lost their nerve. Rather than trust private enterprise to bring America through the storm, they elected a President who wishes to scrap the entire system. Americans said they do not want the recession/boom cycle any longer. This was a grave error. And President Obama has no idea what he is doing—or whom he is crossing.

President Obama believes he can just waltz into Congress and pass massive initiatives that take power away from private enterprise. He thinks he can subject major companies to oversight and control their day-to-day affairs. He thinks he can cap salaries and seize our property at will. He thinks he can redistribute our products to people who cannot pay for them. He thinks he can entice us with government funds. He is wrong on all counts. President Obama will not regulate us. He will not force us to comply with horrific paperwork requirements. He will not force us to pay more taxes or cede our products without compensation. He will not force us to pay our workers more or provide them with costly health insurance. And he will never seize our facilities. We know what’s coming: Interventionist Socialism. We will never cooperate. We will never surrender.

President Obama, we are Private Enterprise United for a Military Response to Obama Era Regulations. United we stand. We say this: “You can regulate us—but you’ll have to kill us first.”

For too long, government has enjoyed a monopoly on military power. Yet private enterprise provides the wealth that sustains government. Without private enterprise, there would be no factories to build bombers, tanks or rifles. Without private enterprise, there would be no nifty body armor, helmets or even uniforms for the troops. The government buys all these things from private businesses. Every piece of every Abrams tank comes from a private contractor. Do you think private contractors are going to sit down and be regulated? Certainly not. Private enterprise will unite to stop Obama’s tyranny. We have the wealth. We have the money. To build an effective army, all you need is money. And with an effective army, no one can tell you to do anything. They can try, but they won’t get away with it without a fight.

We intend to establish private armies to resist Obama’s tyranny. For example, the pharmaceutical industry will pool its resources to purchase attack helicopters, anti-tank rockets and Bradley fighting vehicles to protect its operations. We have enough money to buy military equipment at market prices. And we have enough money to lure trained military men away from the United States Armed Forces. If a Master Sergeant earns $1,000 weekly in the Army, we will offer $4,000. If a Captain earns $1,100 weekly in the Army, we will offer $6,500. This is legitimate business competition. We are confident that Army personnel will make reasonable economic judgments and fight for us. Once we raise our private armies, we will welcome President Obama’s efforts to inspect our premises and take our land. We will welcome the President’s efforts to tax us. Go ahead and raise taxes. We will not pay. Come and collect: And you had better bring a few regiments of infantry with you, because we are not budging. This is war.

Industry should be allowed to purchase anything it wishes. If a business can afford an F-16 fighter, it should be allowed to buy it. If a business can afford a squadron, it should be allowed to buy it. We refuse to submit to governmental regulations concerning what we can and cannot buy. This is pure meddling. If a person can afford something, he should be allowed to pay market price for it. In the free market, reasonable men should be allowed to bargain for whatever they wish. Yet Obama presumes to interfere with our judgment and steal our property. He presumes to prevent willing buyers from bargaining with willing sellers. He presumes to modify our contracts and tax our sales. Worse, he spends the money he steals from us to pay for free health care and food stamps. We could have used that money for capital investment, job creation and year-end bonuses. But Obama snatched it and used it for Medicaid. That is not free market sense. That is socialist lunacy.

We have a simple message for the President: If you want to reform the free market, you will have to fight us for it. In the past, we grudgingly acceded to new government regulations in particular markets. But this is getting out of hand. Government-owned banks? Burdensome filing requirements? Oversight and accountability requirements for hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, car manufacturers and utilities? Whatever happened to private autonomy? Obama seems to think that we cannot be trusted to protect the people. He can think what he wants; now let’s see him try to impose his new regulations. When the IRS man comes calling, our private army will block the doors. If the IRS man tries to arrest a company officer for tax evasion, we will order our troops to open fire. We are confident that the U.S. Army will not follow the President’s orders. After all, virtually every trained soldier will have found better employment opportunities in our private armies. Private enterprise always finds a way. And it will not accept commercial indignities any longer.

Some say that the U.S. Armed Forces will not respond to our employment offers. They say that some soldiers love their country and would prefer to fight for honor than higher pay. True, there are probably soldiers and officers in our Armed Forces who genuinely love the idea of national service. But we believe there are more soldiers and officers who love money. In that light, if the Armed Forces ever came into conflict with our private armies, we are confident that our armies would win, because people who love money outnumber those who love their country. Furthermore, arms contractors will more willingly do business with us, because we will pay more competitively than government buyers. With time, we will own all the military hardware; the government will be stuck driving yesterday’s models. To that extent, let Obama think that he can outgun us. He is wrong: We will outgun him.

This may all sound belligerent. Although we are determined to resist Obama’s regulations by military means, private enterprise does not want war. We want peace. Peace guarantees orderly commerce and healthy profits for all. Peace guarantees safe transit for goods and a safe environment for professional services. Consumers need peace in order to shop; no one can purchase beachfront property or a new television when bullets fly and bombs fall. As private businesses, we just want to do business as usual. We want a stable environment in which to develop and market our products. We want the opportunity to provide consumers with the best possible value for their money. And we want to be able to live the American dream. We want our hard work to matter again. We want to enjoy our money, go on vacation and buy condominiums for our children. We are sick and tired of government’s greedy hands rifling through our just rewards. To achieve these goals, we must resist force with force. While we shrink from military action, we believe it is the only way to stop Obama’s socialist regulations.

You should care about this issue because it affects you. You don’t want government bureaucrats telling you how much money you can earn, do you? You don’t want government bureaucrats deciding which doctor you can see, do you? You don’t want to pay higher prices for prescription medications, do you? Well, this is what will happen if you allow Obama to regulate us. The free market needs you. Think about the free market; it gives you everything you want. It lets you be the person you want to be. It treats you fair. It lets you keep your money and buy what you want. Yet if you allow the government to tie our hands and raise our costs through meddlesome oversight, taxes and regulations, you will make it impossible for us to sell you all the things you need.

Support us. Support private armies. It is the only way to equip private enterprise against marauding socialist incursions. Government will be hesitant to interfere with us if they know we can effectively resist their efforts. Government only wins when it feels confident that it can force its will upon us through arms. But we can undermine that confidence by taking up arms ourselves. This is not a revolt; this is self-defense. We are defending our way of life. In fact, we are resisting a revolution in government. We do not tolerate free lunches in this country, nor do we tolerate efforts to poison the spirit of work. It is time to end the madness. We will take up arms to protect our right to bargain without fear or paperwork requirements. We will take up arms to protect our right to sell stock without telling the government about it. We will take up arms to hire and fire as we please. And we will take up arms to save our money from Obama’s rapacious redistributionists. Believe us: You will thank us for it. After all, we have your best interests at heart.

If you are an able-bodied man or woman and you need a job, join up. We need troops in our private armies. Fight for something higher than national pride. Fight for free enterprise; and make more money in the process. Even buck privates in Wellman Pharmaceuticals’ Army make $50,000 a year with no college degree. We supply training, equipment, good clothing, outstanding benefits and a purpose. Forget about patriotism; think about yourself for once.

CHRISTIANS' CLUB AGAINST ALL MUSLIM COMMUNIST HOMOSEXUAL IMMIGRANTS

POLITICAL PARTIES FOR A CHANGING WORLD

By : Bishop Msgr. Theodore A. Gates, Spiritual Leader & Honorary Prince of Tolerance at the Church of Christ’s Hope, Newark, N.J.

Jesus told us to love our neighbors as we love ourselves. Matthew 22:36-40. All good Christians observe this fundamental teaching. We love our fellow man. We respect him for who he is. We do not judge, lest we be judged. Matthew 7:1-5. Yet we do not inhabit a perfect world. As American Christians, we must remember Christ. But we must also remember that we are Americans.

In times past, strong Christian Americans transformed this country from a backwater outpost into the world’s most powerful industrial power. They did this because they believed in Christ and worked hard in His holy Name. Christian Americans asked for nothing and gave everything. Today, however, America faces dangers on all sides. Racial equality, social welfare programs, Muslim terrorism, sexual abomination and now a black President threaten to destroy the very foundations upon which good Christians built this land. Every day, more and more immigrants overrun our borders, flooding our schools and institutions with millions of ill-educated, popish Hispanic criminals. Every day, fewer and fewer Americans speak English. Even in government buildings, there are more signs in Spanish than in the language in which the Constitution was written.

Paul the Apostle told us: “Vengeance is mine, and I shall repay.” Romans 12:19-21. That means there is no need for earthly justice, because the Lord will avenge all injustice in the hereafter. While we respect the Apostle’s teaching, we cannot sit idly by while Muslim Communist Homosexual Immigrants defile the United States of America. We must take action now—and that means standing boldly against these devilspawn.

Many infiltrators threaten our country. But no group is more devious than Muslim Communist Homosexual Immigrants. Muslims are evil because they renounce Christ and because they commit terrorist acts intended to disrupt the American order. Communists are evil because they renounce the Christian spirit of free enterprise and private property that provides an incentive for thrifty Christians to work and save. Homosexuals are evil because they commit horrific sodomies and blasphemies through shameful lust. Additionally, homosexuals anally rape and murder children, violating the Commandments. Finally, immigrants are evil because they were not born in the United States and they come to this country to steal jobs and to seduce young American maidens with Latin charms.

Each group is evil for its own reasons. In combination, however, they pose a truly dangerous threat. A communist may pose a threat alone, but a Homosexual Communist poses a worse one. Similarly, a Muslim Immigrant may seriously threaten Homeland Security, but a Muslim Communist Immigrant poses a worse threat. After all, a Muslim only threatens America with terrorism. But a Muslim Homosexual threatens America with terrorism and filthy anal sex. In a similar way, a Communist Immigrant undermines American economic values with talk about “the equality of man” while filching State benefits and speaking Spanish. Yet nothing could be worse than a Communist Muslim Immigrant, who not only undermines the economy and steals State benefits, but also practices terrorism.

We, the Christians’ Club Against All Muslim Communist Homosexual Immigrants, refuse to surrender to evil. It is our public mission to inform everyone that the Muslim Communist Homosexual Immigrant threat is real; and we all have an interest in stopping it. If you care about your job, your children, your religion and your language, you will join hands with us to stop them—no matter the cost.

Some say that we stereotype. Critics label our party’s efforts “bigoted,” “shortsighted,” “racist,” “homophobic” and “simplistic.” They say that there are homosexuals who do not anally rape 9-year-olds, and that there are immigrants who learn English. They even tell us that not all Muslims are terrorists, and that not all communists conspire to overthrow the free market order.

We beg to differ. We believe that Muslims, Communists, Homosexuals and Immigrants all threaten America. We have never met a Muslim who does not secretly admire bin Laden or does not smile when he watches 9/11 footage. Additionally, if a critic tries to convince us that every homosexual has not anally raped a 9-year-old, we will show you a liar. Nor have we ever met an English-speaking immigrant, or a communist who did not wish to redistribute wealth to beggars. Put simply, if we trusted our critics, we would allow deviants to overrun the country. This is no time for tolerance; this is a time for national defense. This is the Christian way: Tolerance is wonderful; but when it threatens the church and its values, we the faithful must rise to defend it. Our Nation has taken one too many steps backward. Our party refuses to yield even a single inch to Muslims, Communists, Homosexuals and Immigrants.

Other critics say that there is no such thing as a Muslim Communist Homosexual Immigrant. Although we cannot precisely verify how many such “multi-layered evildoers” currently live in the United States, we know they are out there. And because they pose such a serious threat, we believe it is our duty to inform the public how to spot them. Our party believes in information. To that extent, we advise all Christian Americans to watch for: (1) Beards: Many Muslims wear beards. Consult a picture of Osama bin Laden or Khalid Sheik Mohammed for more information; (2) Prayer Rugs: Muslims carry Oriental rugs with them so they can kneel and worship their pagan Lord. If you see a bearded man carrying a rug, maintain your vigilance and call authorities immediately; (3) The Arabic Language: Muslims speak Arabic; if you think you hear this language, investigate to determine whether the subject is a Muslim; (4) Trendy Clothing: Communists wear funky, trendy clothes. If you spot a young person with hip jeans, a cool hoodie and/or an Obama button, chances are he is a communist; (5) Banners: Communists call for revolution with banners, placards and other visible media. If you see a person carrying such media, they are likely hostile to the free market; (6) Tight-fitting T-Shirts: Homosexuals are hopelessly vain. Tight-fitting T-shirts display their muscles; if you see such T-shirts, you might be dealing with a homosexual, especially if the T-Shirt is “Abercrombie & Fitch,” “Hollister” or otherwise contains an ironic saying, such as: “Middlebury High School Tight End Party ’97;” (7) Small Dogs: Many homosexuals have pets because they have companions, not wives. If you see a man with a Chihuahua or other small, dainty dog, be advised: It might be a homosexual; (8) Impossibly well-groomed skin, nails and eyebrows: Homosexuals meticulously maintain their physical appearance in their continuous effort to sodomize other men and boys. In that light, if you encounter a very good-looking man with fastidious appearance, you could be face-to-face with a homosexual; (9) The Spanish Language: Immigrants come from third-world countries, chiefly in Central and South America or the Caribbean. People from those backward lands speak Spanish, not English. Thus, when you hear Spanish, you should immediately consider whether the person is an immigrant bent upon claiming free State benefits; and (10) Bad shoes or socks: Immigrants come from outside the United States. Different countries produce strange-looking shoes and socks. You can spot an immigrant by looking for unfamiliar shoe brands (ie, “Que Bueno Zapatas”) or spotted, speckled or striped socks.

Based upon these characteristics, it is eminently possible to uncover Muslim Communist Homosexual Immigrants among us. If you see a bearded, well-dressed, perfumed, trendy-looking man with unfamiliar shoes carrying a rug and a bin Laden placard while wearing a tight-fitting Abercrombie & Fitch T-Shirt and conducting a cell phone conversation in Spanish but holding an Arabic newspaper and walking a small dog, you should alert the police at once.

If you are sick and tired of Muslim Communist Homosexual Immigrant tyranny, join a party that promises purity, not squalor. Put an end to damaging tolerance. Do the Christian thing. Join us today—because America is for Christian Americans, not Muslim Communist Homosexual Immigrants.

SOLVING THE FINANCIAL CRISIS : GERMAN-STYLE

By : Chancellor Otto von Bismarck (deceased 1898; resurrected 2009), Imperial German Parliamentary Leader; Inventor of Modern-Day Pension Fund System; Statesman; Critic of Weak and Vacillating Political Action

I am here at the request of the so-called “American Treasury Secretary” named Geithner. According to my preliminary briefing, I understand that your Nation faces a financial crisis. I am informed that your securities markets collapsed following a widespread public credit deterioration (weitverbreitetes öffentliches Kreditverderben). Please forgive me if I sometimes use German constructions to explain myself. Your weak and insubstantial English at times does not possess the conceptual clarity to correctly analyze the problem. In such situations I will also write in German to express my true meaning.

Let me say first that I am glad to be here. I promise to bring effective German solutions to your American crisis. We will overcome this crisis with discipline, sweat, toil, strength and determination. I will not stand for anything other than total victory (Endsieg). In Germany, I united a Nation and forged the greatest economy ever seen in Europe. I have encountered worse problems than yours. I will restore your Nation to prosperity. And I will punish the falsifiers (Verfälscher), rogues (Schurken) and banker terrorists (Bankier-Terroristen) who brought this calamity upon you. None shall escape my justice.

I understand that your financial markets collapsed because you extended too much credit. Your Geithner tells me that any peasant could obtain a loan to buy a mansion or a plasma screen television. Then your banks were surprised that these peasants could not pay back their loans. Why? Your banks should have known that these people could not pay their loans. In Germany, the Staatskasse does not give loans to people who cannot pay them back. If a German cannot afford a television, the Staatskasse does not give him money to buy it. Your American banks did not have discipline. They loaned money so they could boost their stock values and conceal their liabilities. They acted like banker terrorists and scoundrels (Lumpe). In Germany, I made sure that banker terrorists did not rule our people. I firmly brought them under my control. Under my plan, I will carefully monitor banks to ensure that they are honest. I will create a Bank Supervisory Committee (Bankaufsichtsvorstand) to carefully check their books every month. I will tolerate no fraud or misrepresentation. If I suspect that a bank is loaning money to boost its own accounts despite a borrower’s poor financial health, I will call that bank before the Bank Discipline Board (Bankdisziplinaufsichtsrat). I will impose fines on these scoundrels and publicly declare them Banker Terrorists. Borrowers do not deserve to suffer for the machinations of Banker Terrorists. Under my regime, aggrieved borrowers will have a right to cancel unfair mortgages with Banker Terrorists.

I will take swift action. Your so-called “Congress” takes far too long to act. I will immediately discipline the banking industry. We do not have time to debate. We must advance all along the line. We will not retreat. You rapacious Bank Terrorists (Ihr raubenslustigen Bank-Terroristen)! You deserve to be disciplined. How could you let your greed blind you to the good of this Nation? Didn’t you see that the People could not afford the homes you sold them? Instead, you thought about yourselves. Yes, the government now gives you bailout money. But you will not get away so easily under me. You will publicly appear before the People on national television and beg forgiveness for your greed. I will personally reprimand you for being undisciplined rogues and have you whipped for insolence. We will not solve this crisis unless you Americans change your greedy ways. I will make an example out of these greedy Banker Terrorists and ruthless Money Pirates (willkürliche Geldpiraten).

In Germany, I invigorated the economy by intertwining government aid with economic enterprise. I knew that I could not allow private labor barons (Arbeitsbarone) to do what they wanted all the time. That is why I instituted rigorous government oversight in business. I imposed minimum wage and child labor laws. I permitted collective bargaining and I even provided State health insurance because I knew that private business would not. I created a government pension fund in 1884 so that old people would not go into poverty. The Imperial German government understood that it represents the People; and we had an obligation to care for the people. Yet here the government does not do enough to care for the people. You let businesses run free and let workers go without medical care. You merciless industry captains (Ihr unbarmherzigen Industriehauptmänner)! You wonder why the Nation is in crisis. I will tell you: Because you only thought about yourselves! You have no discipline. You did not consider how your actions would affect the People. You have no sense of honor or shame. Yes, the government needs you. But you also have obligations to the government and the People. Under my regime, I will scrutinize you. No longer will you be concerned solely with profit. Now you must publicly account for yourselves. If you do not, I will have you paraded shirtless in front of your workers and flogged. That will put some discipline into you, you greedy scoundrel (Du gieriger Lump)!

Recently your government agreed to pay $782 billion to help floundering banks and companies. You also allocated funds to provide for increased government health care and unemployment insurance. This is a good step, but you must do more. If you had been more disciplined in the beginning, you would not have been in this position. But there is no use debating the past. Today we confront a Depression and we have no time to bicker. We will overcome this mess with blood and iron. That means we must stand up to the problem and bravely fight it. That means the government must spend money in order to save the People from ruin. What good will your government be if the People are destitute? They will overthrow you unless you do something now.

Your Republicans do not seem to understand that. Are you mad? You do not want the government to take action to confront this economic crisis? You do not want to spend any money? How do you propose that we rescue banks and employers? By sitting around and talking about tax cuts? You cowards! I do not like spending money, either. But in these circumstances we do not have the luxury to fantasize about unbridled free market virtues. Yes, it would be nice to cut taxes to allow more enterprise. Yet if we do that now, the People would starve. I believe in reason. Reason dictates that we take immediate, reassuring action to help the People. The People must believe in their government again. You, on the other hand, want the government to do nothing to ease the People’s plight. Rather, you want to send a philosophical message that spending is bad and tax cuts are good. You idiots, this is no time for abstract philosophizing! We must act. I did not philosophize in the War with Austria or France. I did what was necessary. Furthermore, I understand that at times we must spend money even if we do not wish to spend money. This is no time to advocate small government. Small government allowed these Banker Terrorists and Money Pirates to ruin your economy. Surely you do not advocate allowing them to do it again? Step aside, you unreasonable cowards. I have a Nation to save.

I have a conservative reputation. You Republicans probably cannot believe that I am siding with your President Obama on these matters. I may be a conservative, but I am not stupid. In fact, I believe that your President must go further to clean up this wretched free market mess (unverschämte Freimarktschweinerei). In Germany, I created a large, activist government. I introduced government spending programs that would make your conservative blood boil. I did this because I understood that government does not rise and fall with the wealthy; it rises and falls with the entire population. Not everyone can succeed in a free market economy. That is why the government must provide a safety net to protect those who fall through. If the government does not care for its People, Depressions like this will shake popular support. Why do you think I allowed for pension funds, health care, unemployment insurance and welfare? I hated to spend money, but I did not want a revolution on my hands. Capitalism is a good system, but unless you mix some socialism in with it, your government will fall with the stock market. By caring for the People, you can immunize your government from popular dissent. And why is the government here if not to represent and defend the People? Don’t you Americans believe that? I will force you to start acting like you do.

I will restore public faith in the government through discipline and strength. You summoned me to help save you. I will root out the Banker Terrorists and greedy Money Pirates who advanced themselves at your expense. I will harshly discipline dogs like Bernard Madoff who destroyed your faith in the stock market. Put simply, I will bring order to your lawless financial markets. You have seen what happens when you allow Banker Terrorists to police themselves. Never again. Under my regime, I will swiftly bring these pirates to justice. With discipline, you soon will be able to borrow money without fear. You will again be able to shop for items you can afford. You will be able to pay your rent and go to the doctor when you must. And through wise government intervention, you will have employment.

Do not fear government intervention. I have the strength to do what must be done in this crisis. Unlike your slow-moving Congress, I will scrap ideas that do not work. Unlike your Republicans, I will not cling to free market aspirations because those aspirations almost sank the whole ship. If government must spend money to rescue the Nation, then I will spend money. This is not undisciplined; this is reasonable. I may be harsh, but I am fair. To business owners, bankers and commercial men, I say you have nothing to fear. You will still make your profits. I will simply closely watch you to make sure you do not pillage the People. Finally, if your Supreme Court tries to stand in my way, I will discipline each Justice by forcing them to stand before the Nation and individually explain why they are obstructing our recovery efforts. This is a life-or-death struggle; we do not have time to ruminate. We must act now without worrying about what some American jurist has to say about it.

I will not allow this Nation to disgrace itself. Rather, I will break it back into line like an unruly soldier. Americans, this financial crisis will not destroy you. With blood, iron and effort, I will establish a new financial order. This is no longer about petty profits and free market excess. This is about total victory for all (Endsieg für alle). Achtung! Ein neuer Tag dämmert auf! (A new day is dawning!). Are you ready for it? I am here to crush the Banker Terrorists and Money Pirates who ruined your lives. Rally behind me for discipline and German solutions that work. Would you rather suffer with half-measures, political bickering and vacillation? Certainly not. You want jobs, health care and a stable stock market. I will give them all to you—quickly. And I will punish all who threaten to undermine the new economic Reich.

Enough discussion. We must get to work now.

HOUSE REPUBLICANS' STATEMENT ON THE OBAMA STIMULUS PACKAGE : WHAT YOU DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT THE BAILOUT

By : Mr. John Boehner, B.S. (Business Studies) (R-OH), United States House of Representatives, Republican Leader

Earlier this week, the United States House of Representatives passed President Obama’s “stimulus package” over unified Republican opposition. The United States Senate followed suit, sending the bill to the President for signature. This is a sad day for America. Americans have no idea what this legislation will do. This is “tyranny by the majority;” and House Republicans will not stand for it.

We live in pressing times. All Americans want to overcome the financial crisis that has paralyzed Wall Street. In last year’s election, Americans foolishly chose Barack Hussein Obama to lead them through this crisis. Responding to hackneyed calls for “change,” Americans entrusted this monumental task to a political neophyte with African ancestry. Democrats made substantial gains in Congress, too, giving Obama a virtual “clean slate” to enact radical legislation. Americans clamored for rapid recovery. They clamored for unemployment insurance, health benefits, mortgage protection, child care and tax rebates. Congress obliged. Within weeks after Obama’s inauguration on January 20, they passed an enormous stimulus bill totaling $820 billion without a single tax cut for business.

Republicans led a principled stand against this waste. We argued that economic times may be desperate, but we refused to countenance any bill with more spending than tax cuts. After all, consumers and “average Americans” got themselves in this mess by spending beyond their means. It makes no sense to target innocent banks, lenders, credit card companies, business owners and manufacturers for the sins of the masses. Banks, business owners and manufacturers create wealth by offering employment. They cannot do that without tax cuts. Higher taxes mean fewer private sector jobs. Obama’s “stimulus” bill does not provide a single tax cut. Rather, it vilifies enterprising business owners and crushes them with taxes intended to benefit homeless mothers and abortion doctors. We Republicans voted against this tomfoolery. And we believe that Obama is leading America down a dangerous, un-American road.

Americans do not know the truth about this “stimulus package.” Like starry-eyed children, they trust Obama to save them from unemployment and bankruptcy. They blindly follow his every move like mice following the Pied Piper. They avert their eyes from the enormous changes he plans to make. The press exerts no check upon him; virtually every mainstream news network praises Obama for his “vision and direction.” Only FOX News fairly treats the issues. Sean Hannity, a commentator at FOX, ventured that the “stimulus bill” amounts to “socialism.” He is more right than he knows. Mainstream media outlets castigate House Republicans for “defying the Will of the People.” But they misunderstand us: We House Republicans are fighting for much, much more: We are fighting to protect life as we know it.

We believe it is our duty to inform the American public about the “stimulus package.” It is a veritable orgy of government spending that will upend the entire American social order. Nancy Pelosi and her leering Democratic minions mislead the public by claiming that the bill contains “poor relief, unemployment insurance, government assistance and private sector regulation.” These are gross mischaracterizations. In fact, as Sean Hannity hinted, the bill topples our free market system and replaces it with a communist State. Unless we act now, we will no longer live in a free democracy. We will live in a Soviet Republic.

Private enterprise drives this Nation’s prosperity. Any sensible economist knows that. Yet the “stimulus package” wages open war private enterprise. In little-known sections, the bill outlaws property ownership beyond $100,000 net worth per family. It also creates a “Federal Soviet Collectivized Farming Bureau” that will regulate how much grain individual farmers can harvest. The bill amends the Constitution to permit free abortions for any man or woman who wants one. Worse, the “stimulus package” creates a “People’s Soviet Health Network” in which every American citizen may obtain high-quality health care at no cost. Another section empowers a “Federal Soviet Wealth Equalization Commissar” to seize private land and transfer it to homeless beggars. Yet another section guarantees all Americans the right to employment at government expense, while another symbolically declares: “Economic recovery depends primarily upon the dignity and equality of every American.” To secure that “dignity and equality,” the bill abolishes corporations, promises free housing and creates a “Federal Soviet Food Distribution Commissariat” through which every American may receive hot meals at no cost.

Socialism? This is communist tyranny.

Americans deserve to know what Obama and his Democratic thugs are planning. At this very moment, the “stimulus package” awaits the President’s signature. We House Republicans attempted to slow him down, but to no avail. We tried our best to stop this bill. We believe that American have a right to know what “recovery” means in President Obama’s book. This bill does not just cripple industry with burdensome “green” regulations and mandatory unemployment insurance for workers. It also replaces the Star Spangled Banner with this song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hOip2czWyw&feature=related. It mandates that the President publicly wear a fur ashanka hat—with a red star pin—during all public appearances. It also gives poor black mothers the opportunity to profoundly influence public policy through the “Poverty and Urban Issue Reconciliation Board,” which permits any unmarried black mother to decide on city budgets, public works projects, wages and work hours. By the same token, the bill empowers the Federal government to seize savings from white families and transfer them to black families. The bill allows black people to cut white people in any line in all 50 States. It abolishes the death penalty, labeling it a “medieval anachronism that sullies respect for the law and disproportionately affects racial minorities.” It replaces all white federal judges with unemployed black men who have served prison time. And it creates a mandatory presumption in all criminal statutes that a white person committed the crime, not a black one. In short, this bill proves Obama to be a radical race-baiter who aims to take revenge on white America for perceived injury to his ancestors. In a word, we must stop this attack on the American way of life; and time is running out.

America does not want communism. America just wants to get back to normal. Americans had no idea what Obama really meant when he said: “Change we can believe in.” Through skillful oratory, exploitation, well-told lies and a complicit press, Obama cleverly disguised his true intentions from the American people. American voters thought Obama would bring minor changes to their lives in order to restore their jobs and the free market economy. They had no idea that Obama meant a “change” from capitalism to communism. Americans do not want communism. They do not know how to live without worrying about bills, health care, wages, taxes, rent, heat and child support. They simply will not know what to do when the government starts providing them with free housing, medical care, food, laundry service, legal representation, babysitters, college education and even employment. Americans like to be worried about money. They like to know that they might not get a job, or that they might go bankrupt paying unforeseen medical bills. They like fending for themselves in a hard, free market. They like proving that “they can do it,” no matter how hopeless their circumstances may be. Uncertainty about money makes life risky and exciting. Americans like working three low-wage jobs in order to pay for their children’s needs. Under the “stimulus package,” they will suddenly face no more economic worries. This will be a profound shock. All psychologists agree that rapidly moving from “extreme anxiety” to “total calm” can cause dementia and even heart failure. Yet Obama ignores these risks. By solving Americans’ money worries overnight, Obama places millions of our citizens in direct physical danger. We Republicans fought to keep Americans worried about money. We regret to say that we failed.

But this is not the end. If you do not want to live in an Obamian-Marxist utopia, take to the streets. Tell Congress that you have been misled. Tell the government that you do not want to stop worrying about money. Tell the government that you refuse to give up your property to homeless black mothers and abortioneers. Tell the government that you would much rather spend your own $45,000 for a magnetic resonance image. Tell the government that you do not need a social safety net; you would rather be homeless than receive help from a monolithic government bureau that treats everyone equally. Tell the government that you do not want to stand trial before convicted black felons on the federal bench. And tell government that you would rather die than receive free, top-quality healthcare. You have a right to worry about money. You have a right to live in an unequal society. Obama threatens to take away your rights. How can you just sit there and let this happen? Do you want to be treated the same as ignorant immigrants, smelly beggars and homosexual, drug-addicted HIV patients? This is what Obama wants to do. Only you can stop him. Take to the streets now to stop tyranny before it overtakes our lives.

We do not have time to vote. Our democratic system has failed. We must remove Obama from power before he signs the “stimulus package.” Join House Republicans today in our effort to topple Obama before he alters America as we know it. Take a stand for your rights. This is not “change we can believe in.” This is communist revolution. Stand with us now to foil this fraud on the American people. And defend your right to own as much property as the free market permits. Let’s get back to normal.