All Hope And Change Roads Lead To Greece

Tyler Durden's picture

Who says Barron's covers are only good for timing contrarian market inflection points to the millisecond? In this specific case, we learn that all hope and change roads (soon to be de-potholed following another trillion in road renewal stimulus, aka ARRA 2.0, spent shortly and paying a minimum wage of $9.00 to the depotholers) lead to, where else, Athens, Greece.

Meanwhile in Greece, free food for everyone!

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
B2u's picture

Looks like Walmart on Black Friday.

Skateboarder's picture

Walmart stampedes on Black Friday will look like common decency compared to what a similar situation in America would look like should there be no food ferreals.

Manthong's picture

At least we are gaining a lot of new residents and friends.

TruthInSunshine's picture

Never forget--


"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better."


Senator Barack Obama (D-IL)

Speech Given on U.S. Senate Floor Objecting To Raising Debt Ceiling Limit

March 16, 2006

Official National Debt at that time: 8 trillion USD


*Even Obama/Krugman/Feinstein bootlickers are losing Hope, and scraping for Change:

Barack Obama, Wall Street Co-Conspirator? -Bill Moyers

francis_sawyer's picture

 PRIVATE jew bankers [who print the shit out of thin air] love all that freshly minted debt [dontcha kno]?


NEVER FORGET, however, to call it all what it really is... 'PAPER FIATS'... [NOT 'joobux' ~ oh heavens no, not THAT word]...

Bendromeda Strain's picture

Why not just call it "judefetzen"? Worked the first time it was used...


WayBehind's picture

Print, print, print .... oooops .... where can I get some ammo? 

Jay Gould Esq.'s picture

Well done, Barron's.

Frankly, I did not think you had it in you.

TwoShortPlanks's picture

3 missed meals and America will be under new [the ultimate] free market rules.

  1. Cardio
  2. The Double Tap
  3. Beware of Bathrooms
  4. Wear Seat Belts
  5. No Attachments
  6. The “Skillet”
  7. Travel Light
  8. Get a Kick Ass Partner
  9. With your Bare Hands
  10. Don’t Swing Low
  11. Use Your Foot
  12. Bounty Paper Towels
  13. Shake it Off
  14. Always carry a change of underwear
  15. Bowling Ball
  16. Opportunity Knocks
  17. Don’t be a hero (later crossed out to be a hero)
  18. Limber Up
  19. Break it Up
  20. It’s a marathon, not a sprint, unless it’s a sprint, then sprint
  21. Avoid Strip Clubs
  22. When in doubt Know your way out
  23. Zipplock
  24. Use your thumbs
  25. Shoot First
  26. A little sun screen never hurt anybody
  27. Incoming!
  28. Double-Knot your Shoes
  29. The Buddy System
  30. Pack your stain stick
  31. Check the back seat
  32. Enjoy the little things
  33. Swiss army Knife
francis_sawyer's picture

Sorry about the rude comment there above...


I forgot that the debt just printed itself & NOBODY was the beneficiary... Especially not families who are the private shareholders of the Federal Reserve...

@TIS ~ You use an avatar that says END THE FED... I'm speechless...

TruthInSunshine's picture

What's going on, Francis.

The Fed is just the latest institution, made of bricks, mortar, double-speak and bag men, to represent the tentacles of fractional reserve private fiat banks that swallow "sovereign governments" (ostensibly democratic and other forms, included) whole, and make the citizenry & their future children perpertual debt slaves.

We're on our 3rd version of this monstrosity in the United States, and when it implodes, they'll merely attempt to bring it back in some other form and iteration, for the same true purpose, but with a much more "warm & patriotic" name, and with a rehashed stated mission of improving the American Economy & allegedly setting "monetary policy" to assist in improving the lives of the majority of Americans, while doing the precise opposite.

But I couldn't fit all that in my avatar.

walküre's picture

Rude? Dude, you're right on the money. Have they ever apologized for anything? They just cry every time someone dares point a finger at them and go all wailing about persecution. Whatever, it's in their own book. Speak of a self fullfilled prophecy. They started the debasing of currencies and creating their own wealth and fortunes from nothing but fraud and manipulations. The best gig in town since Christ was an infant. Several other industries are "in on it" as well and part of the process to protect the gig. Think about the legal profession. They've got it all in the bag.

DoChenRollingBearing's picture



Attention Barron's publishers!

Your issue, for the 3rd week in a row, has not been available in my town, not even at the Ritz-Carlton!  Your distribution is in tatters here in S Fla!  I had to go to the AIRPORT to buy it, and NewsLink (one of the two newstand chains there) does not even carry it...

I wonder if there is a decline in readership or what.  As she told me at 7-11 (who carried until two weeks ago, "No lo traen."

Review in due course when I finish...

Freddie's picture

I think Barrons readership is wiped out due to Hope & Change for seniors and baby boomers.   A lot of Barrons readers were probably in that age group.  Loads of those people have been wiped out.   Obummer has destroyed everything including magazines, newspapers, small business, etc.   F the media.  They supported it.

TruthInSunshine's picture
For those who (for whatever reason) are being redirected to a pay wall(?) Related Features Barack Obama, Wall Street Co-Conspirator? January 31, 2013 by David Sirota

This article first appeared on

After all the big news last week about Barack Obama’s all-too-close relationship with Wall Street, my dad and I got into a back and forth email exchange about whether to feel optimistic about the president’s second term and about how to explain the administration’s refusal to prosecute a single banker connected to the financial meltdown.


Though my father is no Obama apologist by any stretch, his politics lean liberal, and so in response to watching last week’s PBS Frontline report, he asked me questions that were similar to those I’ve heard before. He wants to believe Obama really hopes to “hold Wall Street accountable,” as the president claimed, and so my dad wonders whether the president’s refusal to do so can be explained by something other than corruption. He wants to believe — or at least to explore the possibility — that the depressing situation isn’t simply about Obama raking in massive Wall Streetcontributions and then paying back his donors with immunity from prosecution — immunity, mind you, that the rest of us are not afforded.


It goes without saying, of course, that when this line of discussion is initiated by liberals about Obama, there is a serious double standard at work. Simply put, if a Republican was president right now and hadn’t prosecuted a single banker and had appointed a scandal-plagued Wall Street defense lawyer to head the SEC, liberals would be — rightly — screaming bloody murder on Twitter, on Facebook, on blogs and on cable television. They wouldn’t be looking for ways to excuse that president from personal culpability, nor would they be looking to claim the situation exemplified anything other than the kind of ugly-but-legal bribery that dominates American politics.


No doubt, that depressing double standard illustrates a deeply problematic red-versus-blue-ification of our society — one that blinds Americans to their responsibilities as citizens. However, let’s set that whole crisis aside for a moment and go to the substance of my dad’s question. Regardless of why he and others may be asking them, the queries are important: How can we explain Obama’s servile posture toward and genuflecting reverence of Wall Street? Is it possible Obama is not at fault?


To my mind, the only school of thought that could even slightly reduce the amount of blame Obama deserves is the one so harrowingly evinced in Oliver Stone’s 1995 film, Nixon. In that movie’s scene at the Lincoln Memorial, the sullen president tries to have a rational discussion with anti-war protestors about his escalation of the Vietnam War. Nixon claims to sympathize with those who want to end the conflict. Yet, when he is asked why he doesn’t just use his presidential authority to stop the war, Nixon has no answer, leading the students to conclude that the president actually doesn’t have the power to stop the war, because the Military-Industrial Complex is just too big for even a commander in chief to assert his will.


In theory, you could try to make the same argument about Obama and Wall Street. You could argue that through campaign contributions to Congress, through revolving-door promises of future riches to current regulators and through an army of lawyers who tilt the judicial system in its favor, Wall Street has so much political power that a president simply has no ability to change things, even if he wanted to.


The problem with this argument, though, is that it doesn’t make sense when it comes to actions over which the executive has complete control.


A president, for instance, has the unilateral power to at least propose tough Wall Street regulations, even if Congress is too corrupt to pass them. A president, likewise, has the unilateral power to nominate genuinely independent regulators, even if a Wall Street-dominated Senate might try to halt such a nomination. In short, a president has the unilateral power to at least force a serious fight over these issues — and Obama has refused to even do that. Instead, he championed bailouts and a Wall Street “reform” package that let the banks off the hook, and he has appointed Wall Street pals like Lanny Breuer at Justice and Mary Jo White at the Securities Exchange Commission.


One hackneyed retort to all that is to cast Obama as a “realist” who doesn’t want to pick fights with Congress that he knows he cannot win. That logic is predicated on the absurd notion that a president cannot use the bully pulpit to change public opinion — that is, to actually lead and, ultimately, to win. But even if you accept such apologism, it still cannot account for how the president has used — or, really, not used — his unilateral power to prosecute.


Obama is a president who asserts the right to execute American citizens without judge, jury or trial. That means that in his role overseeing the Department of Justice, he (like his predecessors) clearly retains the lesser-but-still-serious power to tell his political appointees at the Justice Department to prioritize certain kinds of prosecutions. In fact, this is exactly what he just did when this month he issued an executive order instructing the Department of Justice to “maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.”


He could just as easily have a similar executive order after winning a presidential election on promises to “hold Wall Street accountable.” But he chose not to back then, just as he chooses not to today.


To know that is an active choice rather than a decision forced on Obama, recall the prosecutorial record of a New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer. He had to run for office in the very state that domiciles Wall Street and he held an office with far less power than President of the United States. And yet, he chose to use his prosecutorial power in a way that made him the “Sheriff of Wall Street.”


Considering all of this, and further considering, again, just how much money Obama has taken from the financial industry, it is hard to believe anyone can see Obama as anything but an active, proud, engaged co-conspirator with Wall Street.


Of course, that many can and do see him as something else is proof that Obama’s cynical political formula works — and works well. As I wrote in my column last week, he seems to know that in a short-attention-span country where the electorate focuses more on TV packaged rhetoric than on reality, he can give tough-sounding speeches and be widely credited as “tough on Wall Street” — even if he isn’t doing anything to stop financial crime.


He also seems to know that liberals, in particular, want to believe “their guy” is trying to do the right thing, even when he’s trying to do the opposite. He knows that for many liberals, it is simply too painful to admit “their guy” is often as duplicitous and destructive as their sworn GOP enemies — and so he knows he probably will face no real opposition movement among the voters who put him in office.


In this, he is not some weakling getting bowled over by more powerful forces. Like I told my dad, he is one of the strongest presidents in recent history, deftly leveraging the most powerful office in the world to get exactly what he and his Wall Street donors want. Those donors didn’t give him millions as an altruistic gift — they gave him millions as an investment. And he is paying back that investment every single day the bankers who cratered the economy are not prosecuted.


David Sirota is a nationally syndicated newspaper columnist, magazine journalist and the best-selling author of the books Hostile Takeover, The Uprising and Back to Our Future. E-mail him at, follow him on Twitter @davidsirota or visit his website at

JR's picture


I wouldn’t miss Salon; I read it, every day. They’re over-the-top liberal but I get more from them than anything. If there’s anything anti-government, they find it. Salon had the frightening background and the details of Obama’s pick for SEC head, Mary Jo White, material that few other websites dared to use.

And how many sites would run the story I saw yesterday regarding surveillance cameras at intersections and on the city streets…? So in Berlin guys get together, all in black with black masks, and go out and break these things up. They call it Camover. And so now it’s starting in the US.

Who would support anything like that?  Salon would.

The Obama article is spot on, but as for Sirota telling his dad that Obama is “one of the strongest presidents in recent history,” the reality is, it’s as if he wasn’t there. He’s not powerful. He’s a follower. It would happen without him. When he has all his economic advisers on the stage so he can lead, who’s on the stage?  Bob Rubin. The Fed cartel pipes the tune and Obama skips along to the music.

CompassionateFascist's picture

It took Moyers and the Libtards at Salon 4 years to figure this out? Alex Cockburn and the Left-populist gang at had Zero pegged from Day One. 

boogerbently's picture

Ha !

S. Fla.!!

You answered your own question.

DoChenRollingBearing's picture

We have a derogatory term (which actually IS pretty mean and a little uncalled-for) down here: "Cuban Craftsmanship", which would apply to distribution as well, certainly in this case...

90 minutes more...


Better late than never?

Review of Barron's -- Dated 18 February 2013

steve from virginia's picture




Hey Schicklgruber, why not just quote a line or two from The Protocols of the Meetings of the Learned Elders of Zion next time. 

The Heart's picture

"Why not just call it "judefetzen"? Worked the first time it was used..."

...and they are so really still angry that they now call them stupid Americans.

Antifaschistische's picture

NEVER FORGET to call it what it really REALLY is.  Counterfeiting!!   Counterfeiting always has, and always will benefit the counterfeiter because the first spenders of counterfeit money not only get money for free, they buy without dilution.  Only the 99% have to deal with the dilution.

Mr Lennon Hendrix's picture

I'm not sure why anybody would focus on which branch of the unHoly Religion Tree is printing the money, when it is obvious that the whole Tree is a deak oak. 

Sure, there are some evil ass Jews out there, and Israel is as bad as anyone when it comes to killing innocents.  We all know about the deRotheschilde family, and that they are Zionists.  We all know that the US Establishment is Pro-Israel.  But at the same time, lets look at the other angles of the Tree.

First, let's look at WWII, a war fought to save Jews, suppossedly.  How many Jews died?  5M?  10M?  15M?  Well how many Christians died?  So was it a war to kill Jews, or CHristians?  Or was it a war to kill people.  Anybody, no mater their religion, just get rid of some bodies and bring forth bloodshed.

Now the US establishment is far from Jewish.  Sure, Hollywood is heavily Jewish and the media has that influence, but the banking sector is not very Jewish.  The Rockefellers are not Jewish; the Pierces, the Forbes, the Vanderbilts, the Morgans, the Pierponts, the Astors, the Goulds, the Bakers, the Carnegies, the Mellons, the Bushes, the Walkers, the Harrimans, the Whitneys, the Delanos, they are all WASPs.  Wall Street is a group of WASPs, not Jews.

The idea that Jew bankers run the world is laughable.  Which banks went bankrupt in '08?  The Jew banks of Bear and Lehman.  The WASP banks threw them under the bus.  Sure, Bernanke is a Jew, and so was Greenspan, but Volker isn't.  G. William Miller wasn't jewish.  Burns was jewish, but WIlliam McChesney Martin wasn't.  Thomas McCabe wasn't.  Mariner Eccles was a Morman.

I don't know about the rest of the group (Meyer is probably jewish) but I don't think they are.  So the whole "Jew Banker" running the world is just a recent Greenspan/Bernanke thing.

Temporalist's picture

I was going to say the same LH so thanks for that.  On Banzai's latest post there is more of the same hate directed at one group of people without asking "who has run the US govt for decades?"  Who created the Fed?  Who allowed the Fed to be created?  Big Bad Billy Clinton eliminated Glass-Steagal.  How many congresscritters are not and have not prosecuted lying stealing cheating scum and are they all the same?  How about the FBI?  Or the CIA?  Or the DOJ?  Are they all run by the same people?  And the MIC are they all the same?

I think the overall point is greed is not specific to any group and stupidity certainly isn't. It's easy and lazy to think so narrowmindedly.  Ever look at Chinese, Japanese or Roman history?  Those civilizations had the same problems as anywhere else, which are egomaniacs, megalomaniacs, greedy and violent rulers.  The Britsish empire, the Dutch, the Spanish...all the same.  Putting trust in people in power who wantonly rob and kill with little recourse and it doesn't matter where they came from.

The first problem is that people want to believe that humans are inherently good.  They may inherently know the difference between right and wrong but that doesn't make them fall on the side of good.  The majority of humans are greedy, jealous, selfserving, insecure and the only way to make things better is to make sure people like that don't get into power just by making empty promises.  That is way too much to ask since the people that vote are also greedy, jealous, selfserving, etc.

What is the opposite of a virtuous cycle?  A death spiral.  Civilization crashes and burns time and again because of the same reasons.  Humans won't get it right.  The US got corrupted and it was the first and last experiment of its kind that could prevent people from making the same mistakes they always make. 

CompassionateFascist's picture

One Bank to Rule Them All: Rothschild. As for the US, Franklin said it at the Convention and in his Letters: "do not let the Jews in. They will destroy all we have accomplished." And so it has come to pass. 

Kitler's picture

Well said. And you forget Hank "the shank" Paulson.

Also let's not forget that ALL Christians are actually Jews since Christianty was merely another Jewish sect at the time of it's evolution. (Check out the Popes cap...)

Jesus (or Joshua as he was then called) was a social advocate for the sick, poor and elderly unlike most American Jewish Christians today.

He was decidedly anti-banker.

The Heart's picture

He was anti-moneychangers for sure.

Truth is not only known by the eyes, ears, hands, taste, and nose, but more so by the Heart.

Learn to follow your heart!

exartizo's picture

he that trusts in his own heart is a fool.

Proverbs 28:26a

Buckaroo Banzai's picture

The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?

Jeremiah 17:9

Cap Matifou's picture

And 3 days later he was a goner.

Freddie's picture

Got the same treatment as U.S. Presidents who crossed Central Banksters.  James Garfield, Abe Lincoln (who sucked on the civil war), JFK. They also tried to kill Andrew Jackson. Central Banskters were constantly attacking JAckson.

zapdude's picture

Jesus actually cleaned out the temple twice, about three years apart. 

The first time was at the start of his public ministry, the second was at the end. 

"He made a whip of cords..." -- He was far more merciful than what many others have suggested here (ropes & lamp posts, torches & pitchforks, etc).

boogerbently's picture

Following your logic, all humans are neanderthals, as evidenced by the "haters."

Anusocracy's picture

Savages certainly.

They would rather have someone killed than let them be free of their control.

exartizo's picture

he that despises the Word shall be destroyed.

Proverbs 13:13a

Things that go bump's picture

Mr. Lennon Hendrix, so sorry, the US certainly did not enter WWII to save the Jews.  There is actually very good circumstantial evidence to the contrary, and that we, in fact, facilitated it or at the very least, if you want to be generous, turned a blind eye to it; as train lines that were used for transporting Jews were scrupulously avoided, even though the underground resistance was pleading with the allies to bomb them.  Whocudanode? Anti-semitism was not then and is not now unknown in America. The US entered WWII after we were attacked by Japan, though Roosevelt was certainly champing at the bit to get involved.  Three days after the Pearl Harbor attack, Germany and Italy declared war on the US.  

Diogenes's picture

Oh yes, and if they had bombed trains full of innocent (Jewish) civilians, in contravention of the Geneva Convention and all the rules of civilized warfare, what do you suppose the reaction would have been?

How in the Hell did NOT bombing train loads of Jews become antisemitic?

Railroads were targeted because they were carrying troops or weapons or military supplies. Specifically, carrying them towards the front lines. Not trains going in the opposite direction, that had no military value, carrying civilians.

To have done any different would have made no sense, and would have been counterproductive in terms of ending the war, not to mention being war crimes.

Things that go bump's picture

They were asked to bomb the tracks, of course, not the trains full of people. That, of course, would have been a war crime.

lasvegaspersona's picture


well said

Truth be told every single jewish male i know is a doctor (but then I am too). The whole 'zionist conspiracy falls apart when the real problems with the monetary system are considered. In the end we may see Ben was really just doing all he could to keep the system going a bit longer (as I fear what comes next will be rather unpleasant)....or maybe not...

walküre's picture

First, let's look at WWII, a war fought to save Jews, suppossedly

Who is teaching you that the war was fought to save Jews? Complete and utter bullshit. The war was fought over resources and the expansion of Germany's influence in the ME. Rommel's objective in North Africa was to secure oil fields for Germany. It was a race about who would secure the Saudi oil fields FIRST.

Germany was technologically superior to America which ultimately couldn't happen and naturally had to be stopped. In the process, Germany was completely decimated and thousands of IP stolen from all sorts of industrial sites.

As for the rest .. pure speculation from either side.

Gutenberg invented printing, a Jew invented money printing and the English and French royalty were all too eager to have their faces printed on currency that was backed by their warfare. Jewish loans to finance the wars of England and France even against each other is what made the banking sector. The first bankers were Jews and eventually WASPs entered the game. The English Lords were all too cogniscant of the Jewish money problem and they didn't trust the Jews just as little as anybody else did. The Jew bankers made their first home in the City of London and later-on migrated to Jew York. Jewish banking families spanning all corners of the world today.

SeattleBruce's picture

@francis_sawyer: I thought they were 'joos' according to your 'fine' British sensibilities?! Come on man blast on your own minority race now and again!

Al Gorerhythm's picture

At Francis;

Blaming Jewish bankers is like claiming only lions feed at night.

You have to eliminate the racist overtones and go to the core of the matter; Who enabled them? The legislation for them to practice their embezzlement, of using a deposit as their asset to use (use MF Global as a prime example of this fraud, where customer accounts were used (stolen) for the benefit of the bank's business), became standard practice under law about 200 years ago, after courtcases embarrassed certain bankers, caught red handed using depositor's money as their own to risk. A currency deposit used to be recorded as athe asset of the depositor but now it is recorded on the asset side of the bank's balance sheet, which is fradulent because the bank and the depositor can't own the deposit at the same time. Bankers have been gifted the cover of legality in using depositor's money, through government legislation. You or I cannot do this legally, so the laws that are enacted in favour of the banks is diametrically opposed to the laws that govern individuals. Whether or not the banks or the government approval came first is irrelevant; The mere fact that the governing bodies that are empowered with creating laws for the nation allow two different outcomes under law, creates a situation of elitism under that law.

Bankers are universal. You can't ignore the whole by only blaming a subset. Under bailment laws of contract, the warehouse (bank) is obligated to return the item stored, in the same condition as when it was deposited. This is irrelevent whether it is a car or money. The car has to be returned as it was deposited, not with an extra 20K miles on it and money has to be returned with the same purchasing power. The depositor always owns the deposit under bailment contracts. Under "tantundem" agreements, depositors hand over ownership rights to the warehouse. These contracts are devised for "pool" deposits where the deposits are qualitively the same, such as wheat or grains of the same quality, siloed for storage by various farmers and where the silo operator can sell quantities of the same grain without ownership issues relative to hallmarked and ID numbers.

Money was never included in the "tantundem" catagory until it was unteathered from the weights and measures that identifed its quality and ownership. Bailment contracts are no longer legally tied to money deposits. The banks collectively have been given a free ride in swindling purchasing power from depositors by using their stored savings as their own, by counterfeiting (copying through fraud) the depositor's warehouse receipts (currency) and using it to demand goods fraudlently in the open market. They spend your purchasing power whilst your demand deposit is locked away, waiting to be used in the future. Surprise!; Sucker!


eatthebanksters's picture

Yes, so true...and isn't it wonderful that he is enjoying all the privileges afforded to a man of his stature and position. I am so proud tha he has the courage to show the world that America is strong, so strong in fact that he can take so much vacation time while flying off to one spot on Air Force One to spend $1,000 per hour on golf lessons while his wife and children fly on a different jet to Aspen to play and ski with their very affluent friends...and Michelle will get to eat lobster every day! (Just like when she took all her friends to Europe!). Aren't we so very lucky that we have a president who can stand up to world opinion!? Better yet, aren't you proud of your fellow Americans who are so supportive of this agent of hope and change...after all, can anyone say when was the last time we had an emperor, er president, like Obama? He certainly knows better than me what's best for me and I am so grateful he shouts that message to the world! Fore! Would love to hear an opinion from MDB

macholatte's picture



Greece is an upgrade compared to what the Communist Muslim - Soros Clinton Machine has in mind.

Think Totalitarianism, brutality, opression, thought control, propaganda.    Think Mao.


What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy?
Mahatma Gandhi


Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.
Mao Zedong 


I once said, "We will bury you," and I got into trouble with it. Of course we will not bury you with a shovel. Your own working class will bury you.
Nikita Khrushchev


Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas.
Joseph Stalin 


steve from virginia's picture



"What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy?
Mahatma Gandhi"


   In the long run we're all dead!

   John Maynard Keynes


"Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.
Mao Zedong"


   Wrong, power grows out of a hole in a woman's butt.


"I once said, "We will bury you," and I got into trouble with it. Of course we will not bury you with a shovel. Your own working class will bury you.
Nikita Khrushchev"


Your own working class will bury you with shovels.


"Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas.
Joseph Stalin"


That obviously worked!