You just knew it would happen, didn't you? In a speech to military professionals, Barak Obama recently made a particularly egregious blunder, horribly mispronouncing the word "corpsman" - a military term that is pronounced "KOR-man" - the "p" and the "s" are silent. Anyone with even a passing familiarity with the military would know this. You could almost hear the military guests thinking - "did he really just say KORPS-man?"

Such a mistake might be overlooked in a 6th grader with no understanding of military jargon. But for a President of the United States, a man who is supposed to be the Commander in Chief of the American Armed Forces, to show such a complete lack of understanding of such a common military term is simply inexcusable.  Worse, he didn't just do it once, he did it several times, and not only in last week's speech - he used the same annoying mispronunciation on another occasion back in October of last year.

Now, had George Bush made such an error in pronunciation, the howls of criticism would have been deafening - it would have been the subject of endless negative commentary by the mainstream press - complete with raised eyebrows and condescending smirks. But, just like the endless gaffs of Joe Biden, Obama's ludicrous error has been completely ignored (spiked?) by the same press that can't contain themselves from highlighting even the most minor linguistic stumbles of any Republican or Conservative.

Obama's embarrassing butchering of the language was naturally delivered while reading off of his omnipresent teleprompter - Obama even needed the device to deliver a speech to...6th graders. That's right, the "Great Orator" was incapable of talking to a classroom of children without his electronic security blanket. But don't hold your breath waiting for any commentary from the Obamamedia on that one either.

But let Sarah Palin give an address (without a teleprompter, by the way) to the Tea Party Convention in Nashville, and what is the buzz racing through the mainstream (read: Obama owned) media? Are they analyzing Governor Palin's potential run for the presidency? Dissecting her economic policy statements?

Not a chance.

Almost as if they were all reading from the same DNC handout (certainly a possibility) one mainstream reporter after another just had to comment on...the fact that Sarah Palin had a couple of speech notes written on her hand.  Now there's a blockbuster of a story. What nonsense. I know dozens of public speakers who have used the same technique. I've done it myself. And besides, what difference does it make whether one has a few key words on some 3 by 5 cards, or on your wrist? The point is, Palin delivered her speech off-the-cuff, from memory - she didn't read it word for word off a computer screen.

Obama, on the other hand, is clearly lost without his teleprompter - whenever he has found himself in any unscripted situation, Obama stammers, hesitates, hems and haws, and often blurts out something that is not only politically damaging, but reveals something of his real philosophical position - his "Joe the Plumber" moment was a perfect example, where he basically admitted that he truly believes in Marxist socialist principles. Yet no one in the press (other than perhaps FOX news) ever points out his verbal clumsiness, or that his so-called "oratorical skills" are limited to reading speeches that someone else has written. Even though by that standard, any mediocre Hollywood actor could qualify as a "great orator."

But that is the current state of the "Old media" (or, the "Lame-Stream Media" as Bernie Goldberg calls them). They have long ceased even pretending to be engaged in objective news reporting, they are now shamelessly running interference for "their" President, whether covering for his mistakes, or attacking someone like Sarah Palin for something so inconsequential as to be unworthy of even a comment, much less the kind of biased "piling on" that has now become the rule.

In a lame attempt at using humor to make a point, President Obama denigrated Republicans for casting his government takeover of health care as a "Bolshevik plot." Now, putting aside for the moment that you cannot find a single piece of file tape showing ANY Republican using those words, what Obama is really doing is to cleverly cast any opponents of his policies as "fringe" types who should not be taken seriously.

But the fact is, in numerous unguarded moments Obama has shown that he clearly does embrace the Marxist (dare I say, Bolshevik?) view of the world. His "Joe the Plumber" comments were probably the most widely publicized - Obama came right out and said that hard-working entrepreneurs like Joe should be willing to "spread the wealth."

And the Marxist slant of Obama's philosophy was apparent long before he began his political career. Check into his early activities as a "Community Organizer" and you find little more than a garden variety socialist trying to bully private corporations into "spreading the wealth" - their wealth of course, never his.

Obama's own mother was a committed leftist, and for his entire life, he has been surrounded by people who, quite literally, hate Free Market Capitalism, the very foundation of American prosperity. From the likes of Reverend Wright to the home-grown terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, Obama has been immersed in the teachings and views of radical far-left activists. Obama still worships at the shrine of the unabashedly Marxist Saul Alinsky (who, coincidentally, was also a "community organizer").

So it should surprise no one, least of all Obama himself, that his policies are seen for what they are - socialism. And attempting to hide the obvious by ridiculing those who disagree with him simply doesn't work anymore. Poll after poll shows a rising tidal wave of opposition to the direction Obama and the Democrats are taking the country - the 2010 mid-term elections are now beginning to look like an outright massacre for Democrats.

We can only hope...

Like a badly skipping CD, Barak Obama seems stuck in campaign mode, endlessly repeating the same hackneyed slogans from his run for the presidency. Obama has made more public appearances in the first year in office than just about any president in history, with most of his speeches being little more than infomercials for his massive spending initiatives and health care "reform" proposal.

Even Obama's first State of the Union address sounded like a continuation of his 2008 campaign, consisting primarily of empty catch-phrases, promises of yet more government giveaways, and of course, continuing to blame the previous administration for the economy he "inherited" - conveniently ignoring the enormous damage done by his own disastrous "Stimulus" program, and the fact that Congress has been controlled by the Democrats since 2006.

But perhaps the most disappointing moment was Obama's unprecedented attack on the Supreme Court - something that should disturb all Americans for several reasons. Because besides the fact that Obama's comment was completely inappropriate in a State of the Union address, the President was completely wrong - not just morally, but factually.

For those unfamiliar with the case, Obama disparaged the court for its recent decision in Citizens United v. FEC, a ruling which restored the right of American organizations, whether corporations, unions, or even groups like Planned Parenthood or the NRA, to make their voices heard right up to election day - essentially, a victory for free speech, and one that in fact benefits the "little guy" as much as anyone else.

But Obama blasted the Court, claiming that the decision would "open the floodgates for special interests - including foreign corporations - to spend without limits in our elections. Well, I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities."

One minor problem for Obama - his statement was clearly, and provably, false.

As legal experts, including Capital University Law Professor Bradley A. Smith, have documented, "Foreign nationals, specifically defined to include foreign corporations, are prohibiting from making 'a contribution or donation of money or any other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State or local election' under 2 U.S.C. Section 441e, which was not even at issue in the case."

Professor Smith further points out that "Foreign corporations are also prohibited, under 2 U.S.C. 441e, from making any contribution or donation to any committee of any political party, and are [also] prohibited from making any 'expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication."

The Citizens United Supreme Court ruling that Obama attacked had nothing to do with the laws regarding political donations by foreign interests, who are clearly prohibited from any direct or even indirect involvement in American elections. Thus President Obama - who is supposed to be a Constitutional "scholar" - is either embarrassingly ignorant of the law, or he is simply guilty of arrogant political deception of the worst kind.

In other words, Obama is either an idiot, or a liar - take your pick.

Time and again the elites in the "political class" have confused Independent voters with so-called "moderates" - as if the terms are interchangeable. Unfortunately, more than a few Republicans make the same mistake - they erroneously think that the way to attract those very important Independent voters is to "move to the center."

This is the kind of thinking that caused Republicans to wind up with a candidate like John McCain, who really is a "moderate" in every sense of the word - he takes a "centrist" position on just about every issue. And "centrist" or "moderate" positions - marked by their "both sides have a point" compromises - end up losing as many of the true Independents as they attract.

Moderates typically think of themselves as "not like those 'extremists' on the left or the right" - they desperately want to feel like they are more "thoughtful" than you and I are. And that they are more "nuanced" in their thinking than the rest of us. They "weigh both sides" and "consider all the options." They may even actually try to convince themselves that they, too, are "independent thinkers."

But the reality is that, after their endless mental gymnastics, most "moderates" seldom take a clear stance on anything. A moderate typically stands with one foot in the boat, and the other on the dock. When it comes to welfare, for example, a moderate will not join conservatives in scrapping the existing system and starting over, nor will they opt for the massive spending increases that liberal Democrats invariably propose - they will instead go with some "middle of the road" approach (a "little bit of socialism" must be OK, right?) so they end up changing nothing.

On something like gun control, the "moderate" will not side completely with the radical gun control fanatics who would love to ban every gun you own, nor will he join those who view their right to own guns the way the Founding Fathers viewed it - as a right that "shall not be infringed." No, the "moderate" voter will go along with so-called "reasonable" gun control (moderates just LOVE thinking of themselves as "reasonable") or agree with attacks on "certain types of guns" (those ridiculous "assault weapons" bans that failed to achieve anything).

But a genuine "Independent" is just as likely to support what most would see as a solidly "liberal" view on something like abortion, while simultaneously vehemently opposing any attempt to infringe on their right to own guns, a position liberal Democrats see as a "conservative" stance. Missing this fact can be politically hazardous.  Time and again Democrats have been burned when they let their party be influenced by anti-gun zealots like Barbara Boxer and Chuck Schumer. More than a few Democrats crossed over to vote for George Bush when they recognized Al Gore's anti-gun bias.

Another major mistake made by the political pundits is assuming that "moderate" equals "liberal-leaning" - thus they presume that all those "Independents" are more likely to be liberal, or, at a minimum, that they want "centrist" approaches. But more than 40% of all Americans describe themselves as "conservative" while only 19% describe themselves as "liberal." And since independents tend to be more concerned with their personal freedoms than being part of some big government welfare program, it would be logical to conclude that their views would tend to be more conservative than liberal on most issues - and they are.

Nothing brings this point home than the last three special elections, where Independents were critical in electing the more conservative candidate in every case, the most widely felt being openly conservative Republican Scott Brown's victory in one of the most liberal states in the nation, Massachusetts. Surveys of Independents following the "Massachusetts Massacre" show clearly that they solidly oppose just about every initiative proposed by Obama and the Democrats. And remember that Brown also pulled a sizable number of Democrats over to his side.

America is, and always has been, a "center-right" country, and the voters who most clearly illustrate this are the Independents. They don't want big government. They don't want big taxes. They don't want gun control. They don't want repressive legislation like "Cap and Trade" to combat mythical "global warming." And they most certainly do not want Obama's big government takeover of their health care.

So as we approach the 2010 mid-term elections, Republicans would be well-advised to be careful. Because while they have a magnificent opportunity, if they persist in attempting to appeal to Independent voters in the same old way - by becoming ever more "mushy moderates" - they will make a huge mistake, and one from which they may never recover.

If you wonder how disconnected Democrats and their Ministry of Propaganda (i.e. the mainstream media) are, you need only listen to their incredible contortions in trying to "explain" why the American people have soundly rejected government run health care. Obama, of course, blames it on you - like most elitist liberals, he assumes that if you reject his "enlightened" policies, it must be that you're just too stupid to know what's good for you.

Obama lamented not "explaining" his plan more clearly, so that you dunderheads would better understand it. He apparently still doesn't grasp the fact that his socialistic takeover of the health care system was rejected precisely because voters DO understand it. Surveys now show that 77% of Americans oppose his "healthcare reform" - and the more they learn about the hidden taxes, payoffs to unions, and cuts in Medicare that are in the bloated bill, the greater their opposition.

In fact, so great is the anger over Obamacare that even the staunchly liberal voters of Massachusetts ended more than 40 years of Democrat control and elected a Republican to occupy the Senate seat formerly held by ultra-liberal icon Ted Kennedy. Yet Obama himself had the audacity to suggest that Brown was "swept into office by the same forces" that got him elected in 2008! According to Obama, the voters in Massachusetts were so angry at the "8 years" of Republican George Bush, that they elected a Republican in 2010!

But even more interesting was the mainstream media's take on the election of Scott Brown - according to their almost laughable "analysis" of the situation, the voters of Massachusetts elected a Republican candidate who outspokenly ran on the pledge to be "the 41st vote AGAINST the Obama health care plan" because...they actually wanted the Obama health care plan!

Democrat Howard Dean almost came to blows with the nearly hysterical MSNBC talking head Chris Mathews when Dean claimed that the vote for Brown was (are you ready?) a validation of Obama's plan! Even the ultra-left Mathews couldn't believe he was serious, asking Dean "so, what you're saying is that if your candidate wins, the voters wanted healthcare reform, and if your candidate loses, they wanted healthcare reform, is that it? Are the voters crazy?" All Dean could do was to say that "the only crazy person in this room" was Mathews. Now, now, boys, let's not lose our tempers.

Yet liberal media pundits persist in trying to spin the Brown victory, casting it as not being a repudiation of Obama and the Democrat's failed economic policies and expansion of government. Oh, no. In spite of the recent polls showing that the majority of Americans now want less government, the media types assert that the voters in Massachusetts must have been saying that they want even more government!

Each time we think we've heard the most outrageous insanity from the liberals in the Congress and the media, they seem to rise to the challenge and outdo themselves yet again. What's even more confusing is that they can't seem to decide whether:

A) Americans have rejected Obamacare because they are too stupid to understand how wonderful it is

or

B) Americans aren't really rejecting Obamacare - they are actually angry (and voting for Republicans) because is hasn't been passed!

But no matter which version of their personal reality they choose to embrace, as more and more Americans get to the point of being as "mad as hell, and not going to take it anymore" it will be interesting to see when, if ever, they will see the light...or will they remain in their insulated little bubble until they "feel the heat" in November?

The wailing and gnashing of teeth from the Liberal Censors aside, the latest Supreme Court ruling is a great step in returning to the People the ability to say, and more importantly, hear, whatever they choose when it comes to the election of public officials.

To summarize the Court's majority opinion, the Supreme Court simply ruled that as an exercise of free speech, corporations, labor unions and other groups can directly spend on political campaigns. Essentially, they overturned McCain-Feingold. The vote was, once again, 5-4. Just why the more liberal members of the Court (who supposedly stand for "free speech") so often seem unable to read the Constitution is something I still find disturbing.

Note that since the ruling made no distinction between corporations and other groups, the protection of the right to express political views extends not only to labor unions, but to groups as disparate as Planned Parenthood and the NRA. Thus the opinion is clearly a victory for free speech, regardless of your own political position.

Now, you are probably not shocked that the news coverage focuses almost exclusively on the affect that the ruling has on "corporations" (whom the media, like most liberals, hate). A sampling:

The New York Times - "Sweeping aside a century-old understanding and overruling two important precedents, a bitterly divided Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that the government may not ban political spending by corporations in candidate elections." (Also note the "bitterly divided" editorializing by the Times writer).

NPR - National Public Radio - The headline says "Supreme Court Ruling: No More Ban on Corporate Campaign Money" then the article ominously warns "The ruling, in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, takes effect immediately, and could play a huge role in the 2010 midterm elections."

FOX News, not surprisingly, was the only major media outlet that gave a neutral, and accurate synopsis - "Supreme Court Removes Limits on Corporate, Labor Donations to Campaigns" and further clarified the ruling by stating "the Supreme Court ruled Thursday that as an exercise of free speech, corporations, labor unions and other groups can directly spend on political campaigns."

Naturally, liberal Senator Chuck Schumer, who would like nothing better than to control the political speech of his opponents, completely ignored the union element of the decision, and predicted only that "corporations" would benefit, adding that "the Supreme Court has just pre-determined the winners in next November's election." Odd that Mr. Schumer is so frightened by the prospect of a freely informed and politically active electorate.

But the fact is, the ruling finally reverses the impact of the egregiously anti-free speech McCain-Feingold Act. The decision will actually protect rights of all people, whether they be employees of a corporation, members of a union, or simply individuals who join some other entity like the NRA or NARAL (the National Abortion Rights Action League) to pool their money in order to get their message out.

Contrary to the claims made by opponents of free speech, "getting the money out of politics" is not only impossible, it is not even desirable. It takes money to produce ads, buy airtime, print fliers, rent billboards, whatever. In a sense, the court has rightly concluded that, in essence, money IS free speech - and any restriction on the amount of money you can spend is in fact a restriction on your political speech.

And even if you don't like them, corporations pay a huge percentage of the nation's taxes, so it would be hard to argue that they don't have the same right to participate in electing the people who are going to tax them as anyone else. So it is a bit disingenuous when politicians, especially Democrats, simultaneously demonize corporate America...while taxing the hell out of them. U.S. corporations pay the second highest tax rate in the world - only Japan's is higher (a fact that led to a 10 year recession that only now is abating).

In reality, McCain-Feingold did nothing to restrict the ability of corporations or unions to get their message out - the "big guys" just created the now infamous "527" groups to accomplish the same goal that direct campaign contributions previously did. The only thing McCain-Feingold actually accomplished was to make it harder for the "little guy" (you and me) to make our voices heard. Gun owners are acutely aware that unless the $50 they send to the NRA can be used to campaign for specific candidates, right up to election day, the ability to protect their rights is severely limited.

But, let's say, by the wave of some magic wand, it actually was possible to "take all the money out of politics" - just like the "fairness" brigade would like to so. No more 527 groups, no campaign donations at all, nothing. Zero, zip, nada. Great, right? Not really, because most of us "regular folks" would no longer have any way to influence elected representatives, let alone the President of the United States.

Don't believe me? Imagine that, shortly after eliminating all money from the political sphere, you call the White House. What do you think the chances are that your call will be put through to the President? Yeah, right.

Now imagine that 5 minutes after your call, the White House phone rings again, only this time the President's assistant comes in to the Oval Office and says "Mr. President, you have a phone call - it's the CEO of Exxon-Mobil (or SEIU, the Service Employees International Union), shall I put them through?"

What do you think ANY President's answer will be?

The deflated and defeated looks on the faces of CNN and MSNBC talking heads said it all - after more than 50 years, Massachusetts voters finally broke the Democratic Party's stranglehold on their State. Like their liberty loving forefathers who dumped tea into Boston harbor, the People had finally had enough.

For those of you who may have been living in a cave, Republican newcomer Scott Brown went from virtual obscurity to winning the Senate seat held for more than four decades by liberal icon Ted Kennedy. Brown beat the Democrat "machine" candidate Martha Coakely, who just a month ago held a comfortable double-digit lead in the polls.

Even more telling, Brown won by a solid margin, sparing the citizens of Massachusetts the pain of a nasty and divisive court battle such as occurred in Minnesota, where very suspicious last minute votes came out of the (ACORN?) woodwork to put Democrat candidate Al Franken (yes, that Al Franken) in the U.S. Senate - and embarrassing the State of Minnesota in the process.

The ramifications of Brown's stunning upset will be felt across the nation, now, and for the next decade. Democrats in particular are reeling, attempting to make sense of it all. Naturally, many are eagerly blaming Martha Coakley herself, while doing everything they can to distance the cataclysmic loss from Democrats in general and Obama in particular.

But there is simply no way to hide from the reality that if an unknown Republican can soundly trounce a Democrat in a State like Massachusetts, where Democrats outnumber Republicans 3 to 1, something very big is happening. And Democrats had better pay attention.

Clearly, the voters are angry. Polls have shown that they are angry at the out of control spending by Obama and his Congress. Angry at the quadrupling of the budget deficit. Angry at the relentless push for a government takeover of the American health care industry.

And perhaps most of all, like most Americans, Massachusetts voters are angry at an arrogant, elitist Democrat leadership that has demonstrated nothing less than contempt for the "unwashed" electorate. High ranking Democrats such as John Kerry and Obama himself, in stumping for Coakley even went so far as to ridicule Scott Brown for...driving a truck. Apparently, they forgot that a hell of a lot Massachusetts voters drive trucks, too.

But Republicans had also better beware - voters are not merely angry at Democrats. They are angry at all politicians who refuse to listen to them, and more than a few Republicans who have gone along with the Democrats on things like spending, tax hikes, and the "global warming" scam, may soon find themselves in the same position as Martha Coakley.

For too long, Republican "strategists" have been counseling the GOP to "move to the left" on a whole range of issues, and to become more "moderate" - all in the vain hope that a "me too" approach will somehow attract independent voters. But, contrary to the false image portrayed in movies, on TV, and in most news media, America is not a liberal country. While more than 40% of Americans call themselves conservatives, only 19% admit to being liberals.

And a clear majority of Americans want less government intrusion in their lives, even if it means giving up some things. A recent Rasmussen poll showed that a solid "Sixty-six percent (66%) of U.S. voters prefer a smaller government with fewer services and lower taxes over a more active government with more services and higher taxes." And when it comes to job creation, an overwhelming majority of voters, including most Democrats, favor tax cuts over government spending.

Scott Brown ran a campaign that mirrored these values - he clearly and unambiguously stated his very conservative positions - he opposed the Democrats' government health care plan, advocates lower taxes, and endorses expanding personal liberty over increasing governmental control. And if even the historically liberal voters of Massachusetts responded with such enthusiasm, then "moderate" Republicans everywhere should rethink their strategic planning.

If they don't, they may once again succeed in snatching defeat from the jaws of victory - as they did in nominating the yawningly "compromising" John McCain.

We've reported before on the media's obsession with hiding the racial identity of criminal suspects:

http://havegunwillvote.blogtownhall.com/2009/03/02/media_malpractice_in_crime_reporting.thtml

The latest example of this disturbing practice occurred this week in relation to the reporting of a string of home invasions in Robbinsdale, a neighborhood on the Northwest edge of Minneapolis.

Holding fast to their politically correct stance, the ultra-liberal Minneapolis StarTribune reported on the crimes - but left out one notable element. Anyone care to guess what it was that got deleted from the official Robbinsdale Police Crime Alert? Rather than take my word for it, I will let you first read the actual alert for yourself:

CRIME ALERT 

January 8, 2010

Information from the Robbinsdale Police Department-Steven Smith, Chief of Police

What:  Residential Burglaries

How: Forced entry through doors

Who: Teen aged black males.

When: December 1 2009-January 6 2010

Times:  Both day and night time.

The City has experienced a recent rash of residential burglaries.  17 home burglaries have occurred between Dec 1^st and January 6^th.  Suspects are kicking in doors and taking electronics, jewelry, and cash.  In some cases, suspects are knocking on doors to see if anyone is home.  If confronted they flee or say there are looking for someone.  If no one answers then forced entry is attempted.  These have been both daytime and nighttime burglaries.  Suspects that have been seen are teen-aged black males.

The Robbinsdale Police Department is looking for any possible leads or witnesses. If you have any information about these crimes, please call Officer Seibert at 763-531-1220 or via email Rseibert@ci.robbinsdale.mn.us.

If you see suspicious activity happening-CALL 911!

Now, take a gander at the article written by StarTribune "reporter" Tim Harlow:

Burglars targeting homes in Robbinsdale

Thieves have hit nearly 20 homes, primarily in the eastern and southern sections of the city, since early December.

By TIM HARLOW, Star Tribune

January 18, 2010

Police in Robbinsdale are telling residents to lock their doors and windows, turn on outside lights and report suspicious activity and vehicles in the wake of a rash of home burglaries over the past few weeks.

Thieves have hit nearly 20 homes, primarily in the eastern and southern section of the city, since early December according to a crime alert issued by Police Chief Steve Smith.

In many cases, the thieves have been knocking on doors to see if anybody is home. If not, they've kicked in doors or used force to open windows to gain access to the residence, then made off with electronics, jewelry and cash, police said.

The string of burglaries began around Dec. 1 and have continued with the latest happening over the weekend. In one case, the thieves attempted to break into a home of an 89-year-old woman who lives alone. Somebody tried kicking in her door while she was there.

Police say the burglaries and attempted break-ins have occurred during daylight and after dark. Police say they have little information about suspects, but said that victims who have seen suspects say they are teenagers or young adult males.

 Police encourage residents to call 911 if they see suspicious activity and to be good witnesses by noting height and hair and eye color, getting descriptions of clothing and or vehicles, and noting the direction of travel.

At first glance it might seem like a fairly complete report...until you notice the one tiny little omission: the racial identity of the suspects. In spite of the fact that eyewitnesses identified the perpetrators as "black" it seems the 'Strib folks decided that "teenagers or young adult males" was all we needed to know. Because remember that all of the information in the Crime Alert was available to the "journalist" before he wrote the article.

Time and again, we have seen the American media suppress any reference to racial characteristics of suspects in criminal cases, even after they have been taken into custody...unless, of course, the suspect turns out to be a white male. In that case, not only will there be numerous references to his race - his photograph will likely be plastered all over the front page.

But as annoying and frustrating as such political correctness is, it is also downright dangerous - because keeping hidden important details about suspects, especially when they are still at large, puts all of us at risk.

Talk about jumping on the bandwagon. The dust from the Haiti earthquake had barely settled before President Obama was pushing and shoving his way to get in front of the TV cameras - to let us all know how concerned HE is, how much HE is doing to alleviate the suffering of the Haitian victims.

Meanwhile, the real work of ministering to the injured and homeless was being done by the same people who always step up when needed - the American military, and the legions of unpaid volunteers from private charities, most of whom are religious organizations, predominantly Christian, by the way - a fact that is no small annoyance to the left-wing media pundits.

Now, none of us who have followed such disasters in the past are surprised at the incredibly generous spirit of the American people. Throughout history, and especially in modern times, regular American citizens have proven to donate money, time, and food at a rate many times that of any other nation on earth, even the most prosperous European countries.

Yet liberals persist in disparaging their own country on an almost regular basis. They call America "selfish" - they see America's prosperity itself as "proof" of our "greedy" and "excessive" use of the world's resources. But that's because most liberals (who in every survey are proven to give far less than their conservative counterparts) see government, not the individual, as the source of all "charity" - in spite of the fact that nothing done by government is ever charity at all. Nonetheless, we have Obama and his P/R staff seeing this tragedy as the perfect opportunity to reinforce the idea that government is the primary source of assistance in a time of crisis.

Not to mention taking the opportunity to perpetuate the persistent myth that the Bush Administration was somehow "slow" to respond to the victims of hurricane Katrina. Never mind that the real fault for that debacle lay at the feet of the DEMOCRAT Mayor of New Orleans, and the DEMOCRAT Governor of Louisiana, both of whom not only horribly bungled their own responsibilities, they actually rebuffed the initial offers of help from the Bush Administration. At least the citizens of Louisiana recognized the truth - they drove their Democrat Governor out and elected a Republican, Bobby Jindhal, in a landslide.

Then of course, there are the left-wing "climate change" crazies, already attempting to link the earthquake to "global warming" - apparently unaware that quakes are caused by friction between subterranean tectonic plates and have nothing to do with climate at all. But then, when did actual science deter the climate-change nuts?

Make no mistake, it is not just liberals who make hay out of tragedy. The ever more goofy Reverend Pat Robertson immediately blamed the earthquake on the Haitian people - calling it punishment from God for their "compact with the Devil" - one wonders what this supposed "man of God" is thinking. We pray that henceforth he will just keep his outlandish musings to himself.

And finally, now that violence and looting has exploded in this Third World hell-hole, don't be surprised if somehow Obama  attempts to blame the ensuing chaos in Haiti on, you guessed it - poverty. And, like the socialist he is, Obama will naturally see the "solution" as simply sending yet another $100 million of American taxpayer money, if not more.

But the fact is, while Louisiana is nowhere near as poor as Haiti - both have had a history of being run by corrupt political organizations. Both have leaders who live in relative luxury while many of their people live in poverty. And more to the point, both have been recipients of huge sums of welfare payments courtesy of American taxpayers.

We all feel for the horror that the Haitian people are enduring. And as Americans, we will, as we always do, offer our time, money, food, and clothing to lend a helping hand. But we should also use this tragedy, not as a political opportunity, but as a teachable moment - a chance to look with fresh eyes at which policies promote a healthy, prosperous society, and which approaches virtually guarantee the kind of poverty and despair we see in Haiti today.

By now you've doubtless heard about Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's monstrously stupid remark about Barak Obama. In their book, "Game Change" authors Mark Halperin and John Heilemann reported that the gaffe occurred during the 2008 campaign, when Reid announced to all within earshot that Obama had a couple of "advantages" in the presidential race: that he was "light-skinned" and was not burdened "with a NEGR0 dialect, unless he wanted to have one."

Let that one sink in for a moment. This was not a remark made decades ago when he was in college - this was just last year. And not only were Reid's remarks clear and unambiguous statements about Obama's race, his choice of wording reflects the view of black Americans that was prevalent among Southern Democrat segregationists of the 1950's. Given the ultra-sensitivity that Democrats have shown about all things racial, you might have expected a firestorm of protest, not to mention calls for Reid to step down.

But don't hold your breath.

You see, while any Republican who had made precisely the same statement would be facing a veritable lynch mob in both the press and the Senate, as a Democrat, Harry Reid has what could be compared to "diplomatic immunity" - Democrats are never held to account for the most outrageous (even egregiously racist) comments. No matter how blatant and inexcusable the comment, even when there is absolutely no doubt about what they said, nor the context within which they made the statements, Democrats get a pass. And they are not merely defended - they are often even praised.

The reaction of Democratic Party Chairman Tim Kaine was typical: "If you look at those comments, they clearly were in the context of praising Sen. Obama." He's got to be kidding, right? Nope. And as far as Reid's being asked to step down, Kaine wasn't even considering it, saying "I don't think this is an issue that's going to affect his leadership at all."

Obama himself seemed to take little offense, saying "I accepted Harry's apology without question because I've known him for years, I've seen the passionate leadership he's shown on issues of social justice, and I know what's in his heart," Obama said. "As far as I am concerned, the book is closed."

Now, compare the reaction to Reid's comments to the treatment of Trent Lott, the Republican Senate Minority Leader, who was involved in a similar incident just a year before Reid's faux pas. Senator Lott was hit with an avalanche of criticism, eventually eventually forcing him to step down from his post, for remarks made at the 100th birthday party of then Senator Strom Thurmond.

So what did Trent Lott say that could cause such an uproar, leading to demands for his resignation? Well, his exact words were: "I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either."

You're probably confused. What exactly could any reasonable individual find in the above statement that would cause the furor that followed? Aaaah, but you are forgetting something. While Democrats get little more than a wink and a nod for what they actually say, Republicans are pilloried for what the mainstream media says they (secretly) mean.

And boy, were the left-leaning types at CNN, the Washington Post, the New York Times, and all three major networks just certain about what Trent Lott really, really meant by his birthday comments - that he agreed with segregation. You see, waaaaaay back in his earlier days, Strom Thurmond was, like many Southern Democrats, a segregationist. So, obviously, when someone, 50 years later, at a birthday party, tells the old man that the country would have been better off had he been elected president, well, then there is no doubt that their words just had to be "code" for supporting those racist policies.

If all this seems just a bit disingenuous, it is. Any sane person would see what was going on. Lott was doing what any of us might do in the same situation. He was simply complimenting a very old man. Nothing more. Yet Lott not only apologized (a mistake, in my view - it merely gave credence to the absurd charges), he also resigned. But of course he did.

Because Lott was a Republican, and thus subject to the linguistic equivalent of a proctology exam - followed by calls from his fellow Republicans for his resignation.

But Reid is a Democrat, so he gets away with a tepid apology - and little more than a limp-wristed rebuke from his own party.

And, thanks in large measure to the media's ability to determine what is, or is not, a story, that is the state of politics and journalism in America today. But Reid's comments also expose what many of us have known for a long time - the utter disdain and contempt that Democrat elites have for black Americans. From Harry Reid to Obama himself, Democrat party leaders see African-American voters as little more than tools to be used to amass and retain more and more power over the lives of all Americans, no matter what their skin color.

So the real question is: How long are black Americans going to stay on the Democratic Party Plantation?

More has happened in just the past year than anyone could have imagined - all of it reflecting badly on Democrats and Liberals (which, let's face it, are now pretty much the same thing). A few examples should suffice.

The whole "climate-gate" fraud - as if a decade of cooling weren't enough, we then found out that the so-called scientists were "cooking the books" under the rubric of "research." And now we have near arctic conditions sweeping as far South as Florida! It's as if Mother Nature were poking a stick in the eye of Al Gore and all the other "climate crazies" who have been predicting the end of the world due to "global warming." We should only hope for a little warming! Yet Liberal Democrats are set to sell out our national sovereignty to a "world government" bureaucracy - all in an insane effort to counter a threat that doesn't exist.

And not only does the current cold snap make it increasingly difficult for the "global warming" zealots to make their case,  it also underscores the reality that a cooling Earth would represent a far more serious threat to the survival of the human race than a warming Earth ever could. News Flash! Warm is good!

Then there are the disastrous economic policies of Obama and the Democrats. In little more than a year, they have quadrupled the deficit, blown the top off of the debt ceiling, and gone on a government spending binge, with the result that the only jobs created are for yet more government workers - in the private sector, the published unemployment is now at 10% - and when you include all those who no longer collect unemployment  insurance but are still out of work, the actual number is a frightening 17.5%.

And now, after more than 8 years without a terrorist attack on American soil, we have had 3 attacks in less than 9 months. Worse, the weak and tepid response by the Obama administration has been bordering on the laughable - to Al-Qaeda, that is - Americans are not amused. And should, God forbid, the next attack be by someone just a little less inept than the "underwear bomber" was, it would likely blunt the adoration of Obama by even his most rabid fans.

Oh, and let's not forget the ominous "Health Reform" behemoth - Democrats are poised to ignore the overwhelming majority of Americans (77%) who oppose the bill, and shove a massive government takeover of the American medical system down their throats - along with massive tax increases that will hit every American, not just the so-called rich.

Given all this, it is perfectly reasonable to wonder whether, in the long term, Obama and the Liberal Democrats might actually do more damage to the American way of life than Al-Qaeda could achieve in their darkest dreams.

When Washington Wizards players Gilbert Arenas and Javaris Crittenton pulled guns on each other in their stadium locker room, they confirmed what most people already think about the NBA - that they are pretty much a bunch of former street thugs. Ironically, the team chose to replace their previous name - the "Bullets" - with the much more politically correct "Wizards" precisely to avoid this type of stigma. Oh, well.

But besides living up (or down) to the NBA stereotype, Arenas and Crittenton also made history - it was the first time in living memory that two professional athletes had ever actually engaged in an armed standoff. But more to the point, they did it in Washington, D.C. - rather embarrassing for a city that has probably the most stringent gun control laws in the nation.

The press is focusing on the two players, and what may or may not happen to their careers as a result of their little dust-up. But when it comes to the criminal justice system, my guess is that neither of them will be subjected to the same "justice" that you or I would experience.

True, Arenas already has a weapons conviction for carrying a gun illegally in San Francisco in 2003, so he might be a little more likely to find himself in hot water than Crittenton. But there has been a history of professional athletes (not to mention the politically connected) being "given a pass" when it comes to gun law violations - something rarely done for the average citizen.

Cities like Chicago, where anti-gun left-wing Democrats have been in control for decades, are notorious for their sports and political figures cavalierly violating gun laws - with little or no consequences. In 1994, then Chicago Bulls player Scottie Pippen was arrested for having a gun in his SUV outside of a Chicago nightclub. Pippen of course charged "racism" - and the charges were ultimately dropped.

At least New York hit Plaxico Burress with actual prison time (2 years) for illegally carrying a gun at a nightclub...where he clumsily shot himself in the leg when he tried to stop the gun from sliding down the inside of his (are you ready?) sweat pants. They should have tacked on an extra year just for being guilty of "felony stupid."

And when it comes to special treatment for political big-shots, Chicago is the hands down winner. Because while Chicago citizens (just like the people of D.C.) cannot even own handguns at all, it is almost routine to read about some alderman not just owning, but carrying, a handgun - and suffering not so much as a fine. Meanwhile the average citizen would likely face felony charges for the exact same behavior.

But regardless of the legal ramifications, Arenas and Crittenton have certainly succeeded in validating the argument of gun rights activists that gun control laws have virtually no affect on criminals, and that society's "elites" behave as if they have no need to follow the same rules the rest of us do.

We shall see...

It was impossible for the mainstream media to avoid making comparisons between "belly-bomber" Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab and "shoe-bomber" Richard Reid. But there has been a remarkably consistent avoidance of some rather intriguing details about the young man who tried to ignite an explosive device in his shoe on board an American Airlines plane in 2001.

First, he was not merely "Richard Reid from the UK," as a talking head referred to him the other day - which might give the (intended?) impression that he was just some disturbed young British lad who was having a bad day. Not even close.

Mr. Reid was in fact a member of Al-Qaeda who went mostly under the names "Abdul Raheem" and "Tariq Raja" and was a follower of the most radical form of Islam known as "Salafi" or "Wahabism."

Like his father, he spent much of his youth in and out of prison, where he converted to Islam. He later attended a virulently anti-Christian madrasah in Pakistan.

Even more interesting is the fact that Mr. Reid (dare I say "Abdul") was sent to bomb American Airlines Flight 63 by none other than Khaled Shaikh Mohammed - yes, the very same senior Al-Qaeda operative who is set to go on trial in New York.

In other words, the "shoe-bomber" has the resume of a typical jihadist - young, ideologically radical, and Muslim - hardly the picture one gets when presented with nothing more than "Richard Reid from the UK" is it?

But remember that the same sort of "camouflage" was applied to the "Beltway Snipers" of 2002. Before the two shooters were captured, the "experts" were oh so certain that they were "young, white, and likely Christian males" - when they turned out to black, and the senior member of the team was legally named "John Allen Muhammed," well, disguising their Muslim affiliation was a bit more difficult.

Nonetheless, the media skillfully avoided discussing the fact that both Muhammed and his young protege, Lee Malvo, were recent converts to Islam.  And even when the obvious question could no longer be avoided, the press did everything to downplay the idea that their newly adopted religions had anything to do with their murder spree.

More recently, look how long it took for the media to admit that Ft. Hood shooter Nidal Malik Hasan was, quite simply, yet another radical, Islamic jihadist - just a home-grown one. It is probably not a shock that the most ridiculous comment came from the oh-so-politically-correct MSNBC, who said the following:

"There was no official word on motive. But Hasan was scheduled to be deployed overseas on Nov. 28, officials said. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, said military officials had told her that Hasan was 'pretty upset' about his deployment, which she said was to be to Iraq."

The reason for the media's doing everything possible to avoid the obvious reality of Muslim extremism is simple - it conflicts with their liberal world view that all evil comes from white, Western, mostly Christian peoples, while "people of color" are invariably seen as "victims" of "oppression" by the industrialized nations of the world. Thus the media will always try to hide the Muslim connection whenever possible. And when they simply cannot avoid reporting on an act of terrorism perpetrated by a Muslim, they minimize the religious motive by calling the jihadist an "isolated extremist" - just as President Obama did.

So, don't be surprised to see all sorts of attempts at justifying, or at the very least, "explaining" this latest attack by yet another young, male, radical, Islamic terrorist. However, given that Al-Qaeda is publicly bragging about recruiting, training, and equipping Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab for his attack on Delta Flight 253, it will be a bit more difficult to deny his jihadist credentials.

But don't think for a moment that they won't continue to try...

Pathetic - that is the only word for the response of Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano to the attempted bombing of Flight 253. Astonishingly, after the bomber was only thwarted thanks to the quick thinking (and quick action) of the passengers and crew, Napolitano had the audacity to proclaim that "the system worked."  Uuuuuh, what planet is this woman living on?

Actually, we are not surprised. The grossly incompetent Napolitano has long been castigated for her amateurish approach to serious matters of national security - remember that she is the one who asked that we refer to Muslim terrorist attacks as "man caused disasters" - don't want to offend Muslim terrorists, you see. Ms. Napolitano is also the person who couldn't even admit that Mexican border jumpers who enter the United States are guilty of a crime. Apparently, Ms. Napolitano has a hard time assigning the term "criminal" to, well, criminals.

But the larger issue is the absolute refusal of the Obama Administration and its cabinet of bungling bureaucrats to confront the cold hard facts of the jihadist threat. Napolitano's answer to the latest attack by a disgruntled 23 year old Nigerian carrying a made-in-Yemen bomb onto a Delta Airlines flight from Amsterdam to Detroit is just the most recent example of their habit of letting politically correct feel-good nonsense trump aviation safety. Her response to a deranged suicide bomber is to further increase the burdens on already frustrated air travelers.

Napolitano wants all passengers on international flights to remain in their seats for the last hour of the flight. Gosh, that'll show 'em - because obviously it will never occur to the next "belly-bomber" to simply detonate his (or her?) device a few minutes early. But the absurdity of such a restriction aside, there have long existed effective ways of dealing with air safety. For decades, those of us who understand security have been urging the United States to adopt the methods used successfully by the Israelis.

Because the Israelis do it right - they haven't lost a plane to terrorists in over 40 years, in spite of being the #1 target of Islamic terrorists.

By using proven profiling techniques (yes, profiling works, and works very well) combined with rapid communication of intelligence information on suspected terrorists, the Israeli's have been able to achieve what we have not: actually doing something to make the skies safer. At the same time, we could reduce the annoying and pointless procedures that today's flying public is asked to endure, which only succeed in wasting valuable time and resources - instead of patting down Lutheran grandfathers, TSA employees should be focusing on those most likely to represent a threat.

But such common sense measures as profiling and intelligence sharing would result in some people (Muslims with connections to terrorist-supporting nations, for example) being subjected to more intense screening than everyone else. And heaven knows, liberals abhor any policy that has a "disparate impact" on one group or another - in their (distorted) view, having a tiny percentage of passengers (i.e. those most likely to actually be terrorists) submit to intensive screening is automatically "discriminatory" and therefore something to oppose.

However, these very same liberals see nothing wrong with forcing every one of America's 2 million air travelers to submit to the most humiliating (not to mention pointless) screening procedures - that's perfectly OK with them. Because in reality, liberals have no problem with governmental violations of privacy and civil rights - as long as the loss of liberty is "equally" shared. That's just "fair" you see.

Worse, both Obama and Napolitano apparently want to treat terrorists the same as they would shop-lifters - as criminals who need to be "arrested" and "tried" in civilian courts. This is no small thing - because instead of being immediately taken into military custody as an illegal combatant, where he could be interrogated for valuable information on his contacts in Yemen, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab has now instead been given a lawyer, and has stopped talking. Incredible. One wonders how we have gotten to the point that a President's administration seems staffed with so many unbelievably naive and incompetent boobs.

And truth be told, neither George Bush nor Bill Clinton did anything to deal with the aviation "security" problem either - no better than Obama, they, too went along with the politically correct, and ultimately futile, policies of their predecessors.

The real question, though, is how long the traveling public is going to sheepishly go along with taking off their shoes and submitting to "random" screening procedures, and worse. How long before the American people reach the same point as Howard Beale, the fictional character in "Network" who famously yelled:

"I'm mad as hell! And I'm not gonna take it anymore!"

You've doubtless heard by now about the attempted bombing of Delta Airlines flight 253 by a Nigerian national just prior to landing at Detroit. Thankfully, the young terrorist was stopped and disarmed by passengers and crew, and while several people, including the would-be bomber, were burned, the bomb did not detonate as planned.

It is interesting that, while the mainstream media have been giving their usual wall-to-wall coverage of the event, not one of them has pointed out that this is the first official terrorist attack on the U.S. by a foreigner in more than 8 years.

Then again, these are the same media types who bent over backwards trying to avoid calling the recent Ft. Hood massacre a terrorist act at all, in spite of that fact that it was perpetrated by an American Muslim who shouted "Alahu-akbar!" - the signature battle cry of Muslim jihadists worldwide - as he opened fire.

The obvious failings of our ludicrously dopey airport "security" procedures aside (not only did he have a bomb, but the young man was boarded even though he was apparently on several terrorist watch lists), I have the nagging feeling that this latest incident may very well have been some kind of test.

The 23-year old Nigerian who attempted to detonate what may turn out to be a binary explosive, was a bit too quick to give rather detailed information, both about his affiliation and the device itself. He immediately claimed to have connections with Al-Qaeda, and then volunteered that he obtained the explosive device from Yemen. If true, then it is clear that he is not just a "free-lance" jihadist who took actions on his own.

More to the point, he claimed that his Yemeni contacts gave him "explicit instructions on what to do and when." The fact that he waited to arm the bomb until the aircraft was on final approach would support this claim - his handlers likely wanted to be sure that the attack occurred on American soil, for maximum propaganda effect.

Now, one would presume that his Yemeni mentors also gave him instructions as to what to do (and say) if he were to have been discovered before being able to carry out his "mission." So his eagerness to let all the world know that he was working closely with collaborators from Yemen is rather puzzling.

Unless they wanted him to.

Coming on the heels of Iran's firing of a long range missile, clearly thumbing their noses at the Obama administration, is it really much of a stretch to think that Al-Qaeda operatives in Yemen might just want to see what the United States is going to do about the first attack on an American airliner since 9/11, when we are clearly told who is responsible?

We have cautioned that President Obama's obsequious behavior before numerous heads of state, combined with his endless apologizing for his own country, can only lead to a lack of confidence in our allies that we have the stomach for dealing with terrorists. We also warned that, as a result, Al-Qaeda and terrorists everywhere would be emboldened. This latest venture may very well be a chess move - sacrificing a pawn just to gauge the American President's next move.

The passengers and crew of Delta flight 253 responded to this latest threat quickly and decisively, preventing a catastrophe - and just maybe deterring future attempts. If it does turn out that Yemen has been involved in the attack, either directly or by tacitly tolerating Al-Qaeda operations from its homeland, Mr. Obama's weak record on matters of national security gives little hope that his response will be either quick or decisive...