At what point will the "average American" finally realize that today's Democratic Party is being run by adolescents who are utterly clueless about economics? Face it - just about everything wrong with America today can be attributed to liberal Democrats and their insane policies.

Democrats have destroyed the housing industry. Starting with the naive and utterly incompetent Jimmy Carter, and continuing with the rest of the ersatz Socialists like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, the Democrats somehow concluded that every American has a "right" to own a home - even if they could not possibly pay for it. So they instituted the "Community Reinvestment Act" and other such measures that forced lenders to give loans to people with little or no credit, then got Fannie May and Freddie Mac to back them - the result was the housing crash, when more and more of those loans defaulted (Gee, who woulda thought?).

Now we have the sudden and massive spending by the Obama administration, who ran up a $2 TRILLION tab on the nation's credit card in less than three months - a bill that your grandchildren will be paying off into their old age. Worse, this so-called "stimulus" package is being used to fund every conceivable project EXCEPT those that are the real business of government (you know, those little things like military defense, roads and bridges, police and fire protection, that sort of thing).

Today, more than TWO-THIRDS of the Federal budget (and a similar majority of most state budgets) is for social welfare and "entitlement" programs, including that gigantic financial black hole, the public "education" system. The one that in many cities can barely graduate half of it's students (and the same union-dominated education system that Democrats protect from any real competition).

Which brings us to the entire "Green Movement" - a fraud of epic proportions that so far has resulted in:

The ethanol scam that enriches Big Agribusiness (while driving up the food bills of the average American family).

The hamstringing of American oil companies that prevents domestic drilling and forces them to buy oil from the likes of Hugo Chavez.

The complex maze of fuel regulations that force gasoline producers to blend dozens of different (and expensive) "recipes" to satisfy the whims of bureaucrats in 50 different states.

The idiotic policy of NOT using our own vast storehouse of coal (America is the Saudi Arabia of coal - we have over 40% of the worlds reserves). Meanwhile, the Chinese are cranking up new coal-fired generators every WEEK.

The stubborn refusal of liberal Democrats to allow the development of nuclear power (even the French get 80% of their power from the atom, for Pete's sake - how embarrassing). Instead, they want acres of "windmills" that are grossly inefficient in generating power, but VERY efficient at generating profits for Democrat-friendly companies like General Electric, who make the wind turbines (and just coincidentally seem to show up at Obama administration energy policy forums).

The Federal government decreeing what kind of light bulbs you are "allowed" to have in your own home - making the poor even poorer, while enriching the companies who just happen to make those over-priced bulbs .

The Obama administration's quasi-socialist takeover of banks, insurance companies, and now even automobile companies (got to keep those union sheep voting Democrat you know, regardless of the hard to the country), a barely disguised attack on the very capitalist system that has produced the wealth that Democrats want to redistribute to their primary constituency: those who suck at the government teat.

But the last (and most potentially disastrous) piece of "green" thuggery is the "Cap and Trade" bill. This monstrously dangerous piece of legislative chicanery is nothing more than a gigantic tax on every business, household, and individual in America. It will, quite literally, drive up the cost of every single product or service you buy, igniting inflation and destroying the U.S. economy. And make Al Gore a billionaire, of course.

And for what (alleged) purpose?

To deal with a problem that doesn't even exist: so-called "carbon emissions."

For those who get their "news" from ABC, CBS, NBC, the New York times (or worse, from John Stewart) Carbon Dioxide is not, as declared by the brainless drones at the EPA, a "pollutant" - it is vitally necessary for the survival of plants, who take in CO2 in order to convert sunlight into energy, and in the process release - Oxygen, (a substance most of us find rather convenient for...er, well...living).

Scientists (REAL scientists, not the fake one's you see hawking the "green" propaganda) know that CO2 isn't even a major greenhouse gas at all (water vapor is the earth's primary greenhouse gas). More importantly, they have recently discovered that an increase in CO2 comes as much as 400 to 800 years AFTER a period of a global increase in temperature, not before. Thus CO2 cannot possibly have a causal relationship to "global warming" (which, when it does occur, is primarily the result of solar output, not SUV's).

But more to the point, the earth is not warming at all anyway - it is now clear that the earth has been COOLING for at least the last 10 years. Now, since the last decade has seen the greatest increase in industrial output in history, led by dramatic surges in energy use by China and India, if the "greenies" were indeed correct, then the increase in so-called "greenhouse" gases should by now have us all cooking in our own sweat. But, as it turns out, the entire "man-made global warming" scare has gradually been exposed as bogus.  But, hey, why let genuine science get in the way of taking over every aspect of the average American's life?

Then of course, there's the  mad rush by the Democrats to have the Federal government take over health care. That's right, after decades of increasing government interference in the health care market (over half of the money in health care already comes from Medicare, Medicaid, and numerous state programs) that have driven medical costs sky-high, these economically illiterate nitwits propose as the solution...MORE government!

And yes, Republicans over the last few years have been little better, often going along with many of these insane policies. But by this point, most people, including sensible Democrats, should begin to notice what these liberal lunatics are doing to the economy, not to mention to the American way of life.

Contrary to the false claims that he "inherited" a recession, the truth is that less than a year before Obama took office, the Dow was at 13,000 and unemployment was at less than 5% - the real crash came when investors (and employers) saw what Obama and the Democrat Congress were actually doing. In less than six months, Obama and the Dems have LOST over 2 Million jobs (unemployment is about to hit 10% - the worst it's been in over 25 years) and the Dow has fallen to below 8300, wiping out more than a Trillion dollars, even forcing millions of Americans to postpone their retirement.

It makes you wonder how high the deficit (not to mention the unemployment rate) has to get before even the most politically illiterate citizen begins to realize the obvious - that today's Democratic Party simply can't be trusted to be in the majority, let alone a veto-proof one.

Liberal journalists were worried - how would they avoid reporting on disgraced Congressman William Jefferson. The New Orleans Democrat was found with $100,000 in his freezer, and is right this moment on trial, after being indicted on 16 counts of bribery, racketeering, conspiracy, and other charges. Even more importantly (and more newsworthy) is that testimony by key witnesses has revealed that Jefferson's malfeasance was far deeper than was initially known.

Not only was the $100,000 in Jefferson's freezer meant to be used to bribe a Nigerian official, but two executives of Nigerian Digital Television have testified that Jefferson received an ADDITIONAL $100,000 in cash. But that wasn't enough for Jefferson, who apparently demanded even more: a share in the corporation in exchange for brokering a deal between NDTV and an American technology company. He could have raked in as much as $5 Million over the course of the contract.

Now, in a time of lay-offs and recession, this sort of blatant corruption and arrogant flaunting of governmental power by an elected Representative should be front page news. And, with Jefferson's trial in full swing, the press would certainly have to (grudgingly) report this very uncomfortable (for them) story. At least you would think so.

But try to find any prominent mention of Jefferson anywhere - there is virtually NO coverage. Not on TV or radio, and barely a mention in any of the major newspapers. Other than in the local New Orleans press, Congressman William Jefferson has pretty much gotten a pass. But why?

Thank Governor Mark Sanford, who came to Jefferson's rescue in the nick of time, and whose name just about EVERYONE in America now knows. From coast to coast, in every newsroom and newspaper across the land, we have now heard about the South Carolina Governor and his troubles. And what was his transgression that warrants such voluminous coverage?

After sneaking away for a week in Argentina, Governor Sanford announced at a news conference that he had an affair.

Now, any normal American might see a rather stark difference between the "newsworthyness" of a story about a governor who had an affair (and which, so far, appears to have involved NO official misconduct) and the story of a U.S. Congressman who was not only found with a $100,000 in cash in his refrigerator, but is currently on trial for a whole host of criminal actions directly related to, and arising out of, his conduct in elected office. So, why the glaring disparity in news coverage? Simple, actually.

Governor Mark Sanford is a Republican.

Congressman William Jefferson is a Democrat.

If you haven't noticed it until now, in today's overwhelmingly liberal newsrooms, nothing, and I mean NOTHING, is as important in determining whether a politically charged story gets covered as the party affiliation of the person involved in the issue. Thus every story that involves a Republican in any sort of trouble will be shouted from the rooftops, while coverage of a Democrat in similar (and let's fact it, even far worse) circumstances, will be reduced to a small paragraph on Page 28 in the print media, and given barely a 3 second sound-byte on the evening news, if at all.

Because today's "journalists" understand all too well what one of TV's most insightful pioneers said back in the late 1950's - "We may not tell you WHAT to think, but we most certainly control what you think ABOUT." And they use that power to skew, massage, and edit everything you read, watch, or hear, based on one primary criterion: how will this story help or hurt the cause of liberalism (and by extension, Democrats).

Get ready for the endless "panel discussions" (made up of Democrats, of course), somber speculation on Governor Sanford's future, and most of all, the usual annoying red herring about whether or not the governor is a "hypocrite" for having an affair, what with him being a Conservative and all, you see.

Now, aside from the obvious double standard - why it is never "hypocritical" for a Democrat to cheat on his wife - is there anyone more hypocritical than William Jefferson, who took a solemn oath to protect and defend the Constitution, and then arrogantly violated his position of public trust in order to enrich himself? But none of that matters. Because the press have all decided that "the BIG STORY" is a governor's affair (did we mention he's a Republican?)

So, don't hold your breath waiting for any meaningful coverage of the far more egregious exploits of Congressman William Jefferson - that's just, you know...."old news"...and he's, well, a Democrat.

No matter what happens in Iran, Obama will be able to defend his "non-involved" approach by claiming he "did the right thing." And why not? Obama learned from his time in Chicago politics that voting "present" on potentially contentious issues is the way to go - politically, that is.

So, taking neither side is the smart play for Obama - whatever the outcome, he will be able to claim a foreign policy victory. And, naturally, his worshipful minions in the media will coo and fawn over his "brilliant handling" of the situation, regardless of the cost to the Iranian people.

If the Mullahs crack down ruthlessly on the protesters and crush the rebellion, he will have "shrewdly kept America out of yet another Middle East entanglement." Oh, sure, he will make some bland statement lamenting the failure of the Democracy movement as "a temporary setback" - then immediately cozy up to Ahmandinajad to show that "diplomacy" is the answer.

And if the protesters win? Why then, Obama "played it just the right way" - and he may even attempt to take some credit for the success of the revolution. But in any event, the press will almost certainly laud Obama for his role in promoting the "change" in Iran, by "preventing the U.S. from muddying up the waters."

But leadership in the world of international power politics is about making a stand. And, no, I'm not suggesting military intervention by the United States - a straw man argument used by the Left in defending Obama's timidity. I'm talking about simply expressing a much stronger condemnation of blatantly obvious voting fraud (something with which Obama should be intimately familiar from his Chicago days), while announcing clear and unambiguous support of "the efforts of the Iranian people to achieve freedom and democracy."

Instead, Obama continues to straddle the fence, proving once again that he either doesn't really have what it takes to be a true world leader, or, and perhaps even worse, he simply values his own political career more than he values the lives and freedoms of the Iranian people.

Nothing illustrates the extent of out of control Liberal Fascism as well as the recent obnoxious comment made by California's Barbara Boxer in an exchange with Brigadier General Michael Walsh.

Displaying her complete lack of understanding of all things military, the current holder of the "Dumbest Female in the Senate" title expressed annoyance that the general addressed her as "Ma'am" - apparently Ms. Boxer was not aware that all military personnel are trained to use this honorific, and that it is a gesture of genuine deference.

Now, when Ms. Boxer rudely interrupted the General to proclaim her majesty's annoyance at not being addressed as "Senator" (because she "had worked very hard to earn that title" you see), I wished the General would have said something like:

"Senator, you are obviously unaware that a member of the U.S. military addressing a woman as 'Ma'am' is a sign of respect, and furthermore, as a Brigadier General in the United States military, I would strongly suggest that I have worked far harder, and risked far more, to earn my title than you could possibly have done in obtaining yours."

The General, of course, behaved as the gentleman he is, and simply complied with her juvenile demand - like most members of the U.S. military, he has more class in his little finger than Ms. Boxer could ever hope to have under any circumstances.

This kind of temper-tantrum throwing is indicative of a much larger problem - the growing arrogance of the political class. These people suddenly seem to act as if they are royalty, and the rest of us peasants had damn well better get used to it.  Just look at video of oil company executives testifying before these preening peacocks - you'd have thought that the CEO's were the employees of the Senators.

And it is visible at all levels. Most of us are familiar with the haughty personnel at any government office (the driver's license bureau in any state is a good example), but now, even the staff of elected representatives are acting like martinets. Across the nation, constituents report of administrators who act annoyed that anyone should even dare to interrupt their (government mandated) coffee breaks.

Newsflash, Senators (and all the rest of you in government), you work for US - not the other way around. You are government PUBLIC SERVANTS, whose (excessive) salaries are paid by those of us who actually work for a living.

As for Ms. Boxer, I have nothing but contempt. That a sitting legislator should be so self-absorbed, so petty, and so consumed with narcissistic anxiety as to behave like some insecure adolescent is bad enough, but showing disrespect toward a man who has given his life in service to our country is simply inexcusable - it truly is time for a change.

No sooner had the Holocaust Museum shooting hit the news, than the media talking heads began speculating (dare I say, salivating?) over the possibility that "this incident might re-ignite the gun debate." But it didn't happen - and here's why.

When initial reports indicated that the shooter used a "long gun" (i.e. a rifle of shotgun), you could sense the excitement. Would the shooter's "weapon of choice" turn out to be one of those "scary guns," such as an AR15? Or an SKS? Oh, please, PLEASE let it be that Holy Grail of anti-gun news reporting, the AK-47! The press corps was giddy with anticipation.

Until they found out that the gun used was a weenie little 22 rifle - the same kind of gun that many of us learned to shoot at summer camp when we were 8 or 9 years old.

"Damn!" you could almost hear them grumble, "how are we going to demonize THAT?" Because, to the gun control true believers (of which there are many in the liberal press), "the gun" is to be feared more than the shooter himself, and a plain old 22 rifle just doesn't have the same "scare quotient" as one of those "military looking" guns.

But those of us familiar with firearms know that any gun can be used to kill - there is no such thing as a "good" or a "bad" gun. As a friend of mine who is a former member of the Israeli Defense Force put it, rational people "fear the terrorist, not the tool." Even the Marines rightly point out that "this is a rifle - the weapon is the Marine."

In any event, talking about "more gun control" for Washington D.C. is like advocating "more liberalism on NPR" - they already have the most repressive gun laws in the nation. Not only are NO residents allowed to carry a firearm for personal protection, but until the U.S. Supreme Court struck down their overreaching "safe storage" law in the Heller Case, citizens of our Nation's  Capitol could not even possess a working firearm in their own homes!

Additionally, regardless of any local laws, accused shooter James Von Brun was already a convicted felon, and thus prohibited by Federal Law from owning any gun. Not that such laws ever stop anyone from obtaining firearms, especially criminals. D.C. gang members routinely carry guns - D.C. has some of the highest violent crime rates in the nation. Even anti-gun Mayor Adrian Fenty admitted as much when he stated that "in these days and times you never know when anyone is going to grab a gun and use it in an inappropriate way."

Now, putting aside Mayor Fenty's obscenely Politically Correct choice of words in describing the senseless murder of a security guard as the "inappropriate" use of a gun, any reasonable person would respond to his comment with an astonished "Well, duh! Ya think?"

The recent upsurge in gun sales, spurred by many first time gun owners (including a growing percentage of women), is a clear indication that, unlike the mostly liberal media, when it comes to guns and crime, the American people get it.

The real issue is when, if ever, the anti-gun political and media classes are going to "get it."

When the attack on the Holocaust Museum was first reported, you could almost feel the fear in every reporter's voice. Since the target was a Jewish memorial, the culprit might logically be expected to be some sort of Muslim extremist, or even worse (for them) a "person of color."

But then the shooter turned out to be an old white guy, and better yet, a "white supremacist." Well, Hallelujah! It was a left-wing journalist's dream come true. And the propaganda floodgates opened.

On every network, those annoying panels of "experts" popped up like mushrooms (consisting almost exclusively of left-leaning pundits, of course). Furrowed brows required. Predictable at these hand-wringing sessions was the term "white supremacist" - repeated over and over with undisguised relish. Another buzz-phrase, "right-wing extremists" popped up almost as often.

But the big talking point was how this attack supposedly legitimized the recent Homeland Security memo warning of the "rise of right wing extremism" - the same report that basically accused every military combat veteran, pro-life advocate, and gun owner of being a potential domestic terrorist.

Following closely on the heels of the shooting of Dr. Tiller, a despicable late-term abortion doctor in Kansas, the Holocaust Museum shooting seemed like a gift from the (media) gods. Here, finally, was the "proof" validating the liberal paranoia about hordes of gun-toting "right-wing" (hint: Caucasian) males massing for an all out assault on the commonwealth.

Note that, like the press, the HS report did not see fit to even mention truly radical left-wing groups like ELF (the "Earth Liberation Front"), who have actually committed violent acts of domestic terrorism.

Now compare today's reporting with the coverage of the "Beltway Sniper" shootings in 2002. It was by any measure a far more deadly rampage, with more than a dozen people murdered. For weeks, the entire tri-state area around Washington D.C. was paralyzed with fear.

You may also remember that prior to the capture of the two men who carried out the attacks, all of the media "experts" predicted with complete confidence that the killer would surely turn out to be a "young, white, likely Christian male."

When the actual shooters turned out to be a pair of black men, a teenager and his older "mentor," well, damn, that presented a conundrum to more than a few in the press, who simply hate to publish stories in which the villains are "minorities" under any circumstances.  Note how often the press avoids giving physical descriptions of at-large suspects in rape cases (unless the rapists are white - in which case the description will be circulated with near hysterical abandon).

More to the point, in the Beltway Sniper case, the press did everything possible to downplay what was a very significant fact - that both men were recent converts to Islam. Now, in a world rife with Muslim extremists, such a discovery should elicit at least a modicum of curiosity from anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty.

But not our illustrious press. No discussion panels. No endless surmising as to the "larger significance" of the perpetrator's "Muslim connection." On the contrary, the press bent over backwards to dismiss the very idea that their religious affiliation had ANYTHING to do with their actions. Oh, no. Simply not possible. The result is that even today, few people remember that the killers were indeed Muslims.

This sort of selective reporting is not new. Most people recall the Unibomber as one of America's most famous home-grown terrorists, but very few know that he was a militant environmentalist, and that his targets were selected precisely because they offended his radical left-wing sensibilities.

But the mostly liberal press couldn't stand the thought of having to point out that ANYONE associated with the environmentalist movement (which they overwhelmingly support) was a vicious, murdering terrorist. So they dutifully skewed the coverage to paint the Unibomber as "anti-business" - a view the press also shares - and buried Mr. Kaczynski's real motivation: his radical, and unarguably left-wing, views.

Then there was the term "hate" - which was (excuse the expression) liberally sprinkled throughout the reporting on the Holocaust Museum attack, usually in connection with accusing anyone (especially a conservative talk show host) who criticizes the policies of the Obama administration of "encouraging" acts of violence. And being a racist, of course.

What utter nonsense - their has never been as much genuinely hateful rhetoric as is found on the American Left today. From David Letterman's vile remarks about Sarah Palin's daughter, to the the vicious rantings of MSNBC's left-wing media brown shirts Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow, the hate-filled commentary from the Left is relentless.

And that's just the TV media. If you want REAL hate, just check out the Daily Kos or MoveOn.org. where they routinely wish ill of anyone with whom they disagree, including expressing hope that their opponents "die a long and painful death."

But don't hold your breath waiting for the American press to begin doing anything approaching real reporting on violence-promoting left-wing organizations. It simply doesn't fit with their ideology. And in the mainstream media today, ideology trumps truth.

Every time...

On June 7th, the temperature in Duluth, Minnesota was the lowest reading in more than 100 years - in International Falls it was a bitter 27 degrees, an all-time record low for a June 7th, breaking the previous one set back in 1958. Worldwide, records now indicate that the earth has actually been cooling for at least the last 10 years.

Elsewhere in the environmental wars, it has become clear that the entire Ethanol scam is...well, just that, a scam. In addition to driving corn (and therefore, food) prices sky-high, and spending Millions (if not Billions) of taxpayer dollars to build nearly 200 ethanol plants, they now tell us that (Oops!) it costs more energy to produce a gallon of ethanol than the ethanol itself contains!

Ethanol doesn't even "reduce oil consumption" - since adding ethanol to petroleum based gasoline reduces your mileage, you are burning more total fuel to go the same distance, thus you end up using the same (or more) net amount of gasoline you did before!

Even more ironically, after a massive campaign to portray ethanol as "good for the environment,"  it turns out that ethanol production is extremely destructive of...the environment! Ethanol production not only removes valuable farmland from food production, it's manufacturing processes consume enormous amounts of precious water, and produce substantial waste.

So, why is the public not challenging the global warming hysterics? Oh, I forgot,  not long ago they cleverly changed their mindless chant from "global warming" to "climate change" -  making it possible to blame absolutely EVERY weather-related occurrence on human activity. And Ethanol is still being relentlessly promoted as the "environmentally responsible" thing to do.

In fairness, the tide does seem to be changing, at least a little bit - recent polls show that fewer and fewer Americans believe the radical environmentalist propaganda. And more and more people are concerned about the influence of the "Green" lobby on their lives.

But what I am really wondering about is when will the tipping point be reached where the majority of Americans demand an end to ever more intrusive governmental controls, especially when it is now being revealed that so many of these economically disastrous policies are based on data that is scientifically inaccurate, if not downright fraudulent.

Time will tell...

The human ability to adapt to our social environment was once a survival mechanism - 40,000 years ago it allowed our ancestors to endure famine, drought, and even the Ice Age. "Going along" with the tribe ensured that you remained under the protection of the group.

This tendency persists even today - psychologists and anthropologists have christened it the "cascade affect." It's what happens when any idea or viewpoint reaches the point where "most people" seem to share it ("global warming" for example) and to disagree with it is to risk "ejection from the tribe."

But while "adapting" had its advantages, all human progress has come from those who refuse to adapt - the mavericks who would not accept things as they were, but instead were willing to challenge the conventional wisdom.

Today, in a world of large and complex societies, mindlessly following the group can easily lead to a disturbing erosion of something arguably more important than life itself - personal liberty. Look how many people "just go along" with each new restriction on their freedoms.

OSHA, EPA, FDA, EEOC - the number of Federal regulatory agencies that didn't even exist a scant few decades ago should be enough to give any libertarian nightmares. And that's just the Feds. When you start going down the list of State and local bureaucracies that exert control over our lives, it is even more frightening.

Permits for this, licenses for that, "impact studies" for everything. In most states, you can't even put a gold-fish pond in your backyard without jumping through at least a dozen hoops (each with an attendant fee, of course).

Then there are the explosion of laws governing what used to be private behavior - smoking bans, seat-belt laws, motorcycle helmet laws, laws against leaf-burning, even laws restricting what foods you are "allowed" to eat.

And what do most people do? They simply shrug their shoulders (if they even think about it at all, that is) and just "go along" with the incremental growth of government control over their lives. Many seem unconcerned about relinquishing their freedoms, even eagerly trading them for the promise of "security" - usually in the form of some "safety net" or other (i.e. "free" healthcare).

Perhaps even worse are those who jump on the bandwagon, actually embracing each new governmental restriction on personal freedom because it's what people "should be doing" anyway.

Astonishingly, not only have we gotten to the point where the Obama administration has cavalierly plunged the country into a $2 TRILLION deficit, but we now have the United States government literally taking over private corporations  - banks, insurance companies, and automobile manufacturers (to, ahem, "save" them, you see).

And the response from the average citizen to this outrageous expansion of government power (not to mention debt that your grandchildren will still be paying off)?

Not a peep.

Instead of mass demonstrations in the streets, we have...apathy. Most folks seem disturbingly content to just sit back and let "the government" take care of things.

But liberty is worth fighting for - or at least, it used to be. One can only imagine what Patrick Henry would think, were he to see what his country has become...

Just when you thought that liberals had run out of insane socialist policy ideas, they come up with yet another one - this time attempting to override the laws of physics...by government decree.

I'm speaking of course, about Obama's plan to dictate outrageously unattainable fuel economy standards (achievable only by producing dangerously tiny "mini-cars") that will raise the price of a new car by $1300 or more - thereby putting a stake in the heart of the already anemic American auto industry.

No surprise, this latest idea for destroying the economy in the name of "energy independence" was born in, where else, California. Now there's a winning strategy - going nationwide with an idea spawned by the state whose fiscal condition is bordering on terminal.

We have often observed that if you ever wanted to see what the United States would look like if it were allowed to be run by a Democrat majority, you need only look at California, where decades of Democrat rule has produced one catastrophe after another:

Out of control taxes.

A prison system where 1 in every 3 inmates is an illegal alien.

A failing union-run school system overflowing with the children of illegal aliens.

A bankrupt healthcare system (due also in part to the enormous drain of services by - you guessed it - illegal aliens.)

Endless "green" initiatives that do nothing but drive up the cost of every product and service in the state - not the least of which are the mindlessly bureaucratic mandates on vehicles, as well as on the gasoline that Californians put in their tanks.

In other words, California is a massive failure - so naturally, Obama wants to use the same model across the nation.

Got it.

The only question is, if having the government take over banks, insurance companies, and the auto industry isn't enough to make Americans get off their apathetic behinds and demand an end to this nonsense, will being forced to drive the equivalent of those ridiculous little "Smart Cars" do the trick?

With a sappy sentimentality more appropriate in a Dr. Phil than in a U.S. President, Mr. Obama listed the "qualifications" he will seek in his first Supreme Court appointment. Not surprisingly, absent from Mr. Obama's description of the ideal Supreme Court Justice were any of the skills and qualities that even liberal judicial experts would agree are vital.

Things like experience in both the criminal and civil legal courts, a sound knowledge of the Constitution, and, most importantly, a clear understanding of the role (and limitation) of the courts in the American legal system. Justices Roberts, Alito and Scalia are stellar examples of this sort of judicial restraint.

But instead of seeking judicial excellence, President Obama seems more interested in nominating someone who "comes from outside" the system, someone who "knows what it's like to be a single mom." He would likely appoint someone like Ruth Bader-Ginsburg, whose rambling opinions defy logic. She consistently rules based on her own emotional biases, rather than the dictates of the Constitution - her decision in the Heller case makes one wonder if she's ever even read the Constitution.

Now, we shouldn't be surprised. Like most neo-liberals, Obama does not view judges as the unbiased "umpires" they were intended to be - no, he sees them as potential advocates for a political point of view. The problem is that this creates what amounts to a second legislative branch of government, and the result is an over-reaching Judiciary that can override the lawful will of the Legislature. 

It is astonishing how many Americans today do not understand the principle of separation of powers, much less the inherent danger when that separation is blurred, or worse, breached. Courts exist to see to it that the process follows the law - not to MAKE the law. Even if they don't personally approve of a particular law, the duty of judges, especially Supreme Court Justices, is to rule solely on the Constitutionality of that law.

Naturally, this means that some rulings might not give you the outcome you want. When this happens, the process is that you go back to your legislative representatives and try to persuade them to adopt the changes you espouse.

And this is where modern liberals and conservatives differ. Conservatives do not merely want "right-wing" judges in the way that liberals want "left-wing" judges. Conservatives, (and classical liberals) want judges to stay out of law-making altogether, even when the courts rule against them. But when today's liberals lose, they want to use the courts to get around the legislative process.

So-called "Gay Marriage" is a good example. Currently, most states define "marriage" with a variety of restrictions (age, sex, relationship limitations, etc.). Want to change that? No problem - just persuade a majority of your fellow citizens to agree with you.

But, other than in a handful of states, the neo-libs have failed to get "gay marriage" initiatives passed in state legislatures - even liberal bastions like California have rejected it. So, they should just role up their sleeves and try, try again, right?

Wrong.

You see, when the modern Left can't get its way in the legislature, they don't simply redouble their efforts - they turn to the courts. Because they have come to see the judiciary as a kind of "alternate legislature" - a way of by-passing the People in order to get their agenda into law. The preferred method of dealing with legislative failure is now to file a lawsuit, usually claiming that some sort of "right" has been violated.

That the "rights" they claim as being infringed are often nowhere to be found in the Constitution means little to them. As long as they can pack the courts with judges who are willing to stretch the Constitution to the breaking point, they can magically "find" the rights they seek (Roe v Wade is a perfect example). Franklin D. Roosevelt was the first to pack the court with judges who promised to "rule his way" - that is how he was able to pass a sweeping, and blatantly unconstitutional, spate of left-wing social programs.

Have no doubt that Barak Obama hopes to do the same. But if that happens, we will have what amounts to an Imperial Court, usurping the role of the legislature.

And then, the law of the land will no longer be determined by the People through their elected legislators, but by 9 unelected men and women in black robes.

Imagine passing a law that would make the killing of a black man a "lesser crime" than the killing of a white man. Well, welcome to 21st Century Liberal Fascism, where left-wing zealots are doing exactly that - they've merely changed the target of the bigotry.

These Orwellian nitwits want to put into law that crimes are more or less evil based, not on the severity or viciousness of the crime itself, but instead on what the perpetrator may have been thinking, and on the various characteristics of the victim. But there are two fundamentally dangerous problems with such lunacy.

First, such laws criminalize thought. Defendants will no longer be prosecuted for what they actually DID to the victim, but for what they were THINKING while doing it. This is far more dangerous than most people realize. For if we can add an "extra" punishment to any particular offense, just because of what your thought processes were in deciding to commit the crime, then there is absolutely no reason not to proceed to the next step - prosecuting you for the thought processes themselves, whether or not you actually followed through with the alleged crime.

The modern day Brown Shirts of the Left have already been setting the stage for thought crimes laws - attempting to ban all sorts of expressions that they deem "unacceptable." It started with "speech codes" on campuses, and has expanded into such things as banning the Confederate flag on some kid's car (note that a Hamas banner or a Che Guevara t-shirt is considered "free speech").

And now Ted Kennedy has decided to make it a crime to "offend" someone - if he gets his way you could soon be prosecuted not only for what you think, but for what someone else thinks about it!

The second problem with "hate crimes" legislation is that it sets up exactly the kind of government sanctioned bigotry that was the hallmark of the Hitler regime - declaring some citizens more or less equal, based on race, sex (or sexual proclivities) and any other characteristic that they might decide to include. 

Note that we already have a list of "protected classes" - such a term should be abhorrent to anyone who believes in "equal protection under the law" rather than selective protections based on membership in some particular "identity" group.

The result of such radical distortion of the legal system is best illustrated by the following comparison between two hypothetical crimes:

In the first case, a young white male, whose bedroom is decorated with Nazi posters and other such expressions of "white supremacist" thinking, wakes up one day, walks down the street, and encounters a black businessman. The "skin-head" screams a racial slur, then pulls out a gun and shoots the black man in the head, killing him instantly.

In the second case, an "enforcer" (who is black) is hired by a local loan shark to "make an example" of a guy who is behind in his payments. The enforcer kidnaps the deadbeat (who is white), then takes him to an abandoned warehouse. After duct-taping him to a chair, the hired killer proceeds to torture the victim for hours - beating him, using bolt cutters to chop off his fingers and toes, then using a blow torch on him. Finally, the victim is doused with gasoline and set on fire.

Now, any sane person would recognize that the second crime is a far more heinous crime in every way. The victim was subjected to hideous torture (real torture, not water-boarding) and unimaginable suffering for hours before finally being killed in one of the worst way possible - being burned alive.

But guess what. The first crime, in which the victim was instantly shot and killed, would most certainly be classified as a "hate crime" - based on race of the victim, and the supposed motivation of the killer. But the second crime, would NOT be considered a hate crime! After all, the hit-man had no particular "feelings" about the victim at all - he was simply doing a job. Even the guy who hired him was acting only out of financial interest - not any "hatred" for the unfortunate debtor.

Now, most normal, thinking adults recognize that it is the nature of the criminal act that determines its severity - and the second crime was far more horrible by any measure. It is the act itself that matters - not the motivation. True, we may look to motivation in order to determine who may have committed a crime, but not in judging the nature of the crime itself.

And of course, we do consider the nature of the victim in any violent crime - we cannot help being more outraged by the murder of an innocent child than we are by the murder of some drug dealing thug by a gang rival. But we don't encode into law such differences in the "status" of the victim - the crime is still murder.

Mathew Sheppard's death was horrible because he was beaten and left for dead - it is not "more horrible" because he happened to be gay, or because his sexuality may have been the reason for the crime.

We'd best be careful where we tread in such matters. Because when we begin to prosecute people for what they are thinking, or declaring one victim as being entitled to "special protections" over another, we are imperiling the very liberties we should most strongly cherish.

This season of the hit TV show "24" is an interesting study in two fundamentally different philosophical views of the world regarding how best to fight terrorism.

In one corner you have the hard-nosed realists - Jack Bauer and his former colleagues at the dismantled Counter-Terrorism Unit. They are ready and willing to do whatever it takes to stop the cabal that is threatening bio-terror on a massive scale.

In the other, shall we say, less aggressive camp, we have those who seem to view any action not run through some bureaucratic maze of protocol checking as a violation of the Constitution.

The standard bearer for this kind of thinking is the liberal computer expert played by real life left-wing loon Janeane Garafalo.  Given Ms. Garafalo's delusional accusations of "racism" against anyone who dares oppose Obama's excessive spending, such a role requires little acting on her part.

I give the show credit for avoiding simplistic plot-lines - the twists, turns, and betrayals are enough to keep even the most jaded fans wondering what will happen next. And some of the characters actually question their positions as facts and situations change.

The female President of the United States comes to realize that people like Jack Bauer are simply necessary in a complex world where the greatest threats no longer come from some well-defined super-power, but from loose coalitions of like-minded crazies. And the FBI agent, Rene Walker, also comes to realize that, like it or not, Jack's methods get results.

But Jack, too, engages in self-reflection, questioning some of the things he's done, and even admitting that he had often violated some laws.

The show is indeed a fantasy, but it does one thing sorely needed in our sound-byte world, where the temptation is to view every problem as having a simple (and often simple-minded) solution. It underlines the fact that the world is a very dangerous and unpredictable place, where yesterday's friend is today's foe, and today's foe may be tomorrow''s ally.

It also makes us wonder why some people are "horrified" by something as relatively innocuous as water-boarding, while they scarcely raise an eyebrow over suicide bombers or Islamic "honor killings" of teenage girls.

For decades, the Democrat Party has successfully shafted minorities and the poor - the disastrous Welfare State created by liberal Democrats has virtually destroyed the African-American family. Yet the same people who suffer the most from their policies keep electing them. African-Americans continue to blindly vote for anyone with a (D) after their name - over 90%. Not even Hugo Chavez get's that kind of a majority. And lower income white and Hispanic voters are not much different.

Why? Because Democrats tell them what they want to hear.

Obama's phony "tax cut for 95% or Americans" is merely the latest in a long line of Democrat Party moves that claim to "help" the poor. But in reality, the opposite is true. Not only are his "cuts" actually welfare checks to people who already pay no income tax at all, but the increase on that "top 5%" will hit the poor the worst.

You would think that eventually, even the stupidest voter would be able to see the light. But no, time and again, the people at the bottom of the economic ladder put in office the very same people whose policies continue to keep them poor.

So, why do they keep falling for the same Democrat policies that keep THEM poor? Simple, the primary technique for duping the poor is to use envy, jealousy, and sometimes, even downright hatred. Keep 'em angry at those who have more than they do, and you can keep them from thinking too much.

Democrats have been bashing "big business" and demonizing "the rich" since Franklin Roosevelt. They aren't even subtle about it - they constantly explain their tax increases as OK because they "only affect the wealthy" (as if targeting the wealthy is somehow a good thing in the first place). And the economically illiterate buy into it.

But the harsh reality is quite the opposite. For example, raise tax rates on a business and guess what you force the business to do - lay off workers, or, if the tax burden becomes totally untenable, move the company to another state, or even to another country.

I ran into an old neighbor of mine the other day. He was on his way to the airport to inspect his company's brand new manufacturing facility - in Ireland. Why? Because the United States has an outrageously high corporate income tax (39%) while Ireland's corporate tax is...12.5%. Talk about a no-brainer.

And when this happens, do the layed-off workers blame the Democrats who drove the jobs off-shore? Oh, no, they blame "business" and "those heartless rich guys." Out-sourcing is nothing more than an economic decision - a reaction to increased costs, whether labor costs or taxation.

Small business owners, too (you know, those "rich guys" like Joe the Plumber, who make over $250,000 a year) can be forced into the same choices. Remember, he (or she) probably has anywhere from half a dozen to a hundred employees - and increased taxation will mean that two or three of those workers will have to be let go. Anyone want to guess who those pink-slipped workers voted for?

Even taxes aimed squarely at the wealthy often backfire. Everyone older than 40 remembers the ill-fated "luxury tax" on boats. Yeah, let's stick it to those guys with their expensive toys. Right?

Well, as anyone with even a modest understanding of economics could have predicted, the result was that many of the wealthy stopped buying boats. What followed was a downturn in sales of boats, leading to layoffs of blue-collar boat builders, as well as staff cuts at marinas and other businesses that support the boating industry.

Once again, whose bumper stickers do you think were on the cars of the laid-off boat workers? Yep - Democrats.

And it doesn't stop there - countless taxes enacted by Democrats hit the poor disproportionately. Gasoline costs consume a much larger percentage of the budgets of lower income workers. So when Democrats announce that they are going to "stick it to Big Oil" they are in fact sticking it to you. But hey, it's "only another nickel a gallon" right?

Taxes on liquor, cigarettes, and other such "sin" taxes always hit lower income people the most. Ditto taxes on jet-skis, snowmobiles, and other "unnecessary" recreational equipment - last time I checked, there were a lot more moderate income folks than millionaires riding ATVs.

I remember many years ago a tough old Chicago truck driver (a Democrat, oddly enough) who once said; "People ain't stupid because they're poor - they're poor because they're stupid." He was right.

But hey, if you're poor and want to stay that way, just keep voting Democrat.

Just remember the old axiom: "Insanity is continuing to do the same thing, and expecting a different result."