The above comment was made by a self-described "liberal" just the other day. Now, that an American citizen would utter such a statement at all should give every freedom loving person in the country chills. But he is not alone. Where once you would have heard such talk only in university classrooms, America's socialists are "coming out of the closet." Perhaps emboldened by the election of  "one of their own" to the American Presidency, they are suddenly popping up everywhere.

And they are not just cheering Obama from the sidelines - they are influencing policy. A list of Obama's closest advisers, from his cabinet to his growing cabal of unelected "czars," reads like a who's-who of the American Communist Party - virtually all of them committed to turning the United States into a socialist state.

But that pesky old Constitution keeps getting in their way.

Obama himself has stated on the record that he finds the Constitution "flawed" because it does not allow for the "redistribution of wealth" and makes it more difficult to implement what he calls "social justice" programs. For those unfamiliar with the term, "social justice" is barely disguised liberal code for "using the force of government to confiscate the income of people who are smarter, harder working, and more ambitious than their fellow countrymen, and then 'redistribute' it to the stupid, the lazy, and the indolent" - in other words, giving your money to people who, in simpler and more honest times, we called bums.

The American Left has always lamented the fact that the United States is not a "pure" democracy - they seem to forget the record of other such "pure democracies" around the world. Venezuela, currently under the thumb of dictator Hugo Chavez. is a "democracy" - Chavez was, after all, duly elected.

Iran, too, is a "pure" democracy - it is also a 10th century Muslim oligarchy that executes young girls for holding hands with a boy, but, hey, why quibble over details. True, Iran is headed up by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, one of the original architects of the 1980 hostage crisis, but after all, he too was "elected" (at least technically).

But America is not a democracy - it is a Constitutional, Democratic, Republic - and thank God it is. For if we ever dismantle the structure of the richest, most successful nation in the history of the world, we risk becoming very much like a Venezuela, or, if the Left has their way, an American version of Iran - except that instead of the fanatical mullahs pulling the strings behind the scenes, we will have fanatical atheists performing the same function - ensuring ideological "purity" among the masses (see: "Fairness Doctrine").

If you do not understand how crucial the Constitution is to your liberty, you either never read it, or you need to read it again, carefully. Especially the Preamble. The American system of government, with its three branches of government, prevents the very kind of "mob rule" that is the hallmark of those "pure" democracies.

Even the concept of the electoral college performs a critical function - preventing the country from being ruled by only one or two states. As it is, the huge populations of New York and California exert an undue influence on national elections, not to mention policy. Without the electoral college, a socialist candidate could easily lose in EVERY STATE except California or New York, yet wind up as President.

But wouldn't all candidates have an equal chance of winning? Not a chance. Because with the extreme concentration of Democrat voters in just those two "coast" states, along with the lop-sided Democrat majorities in the major cities (due to the increasing number of social program recipients, as well as the army of government employees who also depend on a check from the state), using the so-called popular vote alone would virtually guarantee that socialists (otherwise known as Democrats) would have lifetime employment.

Why do you think that it is the Left in America that wants so desperately to eliminate the Electoral College and replace it with a simple popular vote?

So, be thankful that we have the system we have, and be wary of those who attempt to seduce you into scrapping it, especially when they do so with promises of government goodies like "free" healthcare - the purpose of getting more and more Americans dependent on the government is simply to guarantee that a majority of the public votes to "keep the checks coming."  But such promises of "free stuff" always come with a (very expensive) price tag, not only in dollars, but in terms of the loss of your precious freedoms.

Let the whitewash begin. You knew it the moment you heard the name of the Fort Hood killer: Nidal Malik Hasan. Gee, now what do we suppose we're going to find out about his, ahem, religious affiliation? And, as more and more becomes known about this mass murderer, are any of us going to be surprised by his political views?

This is going to be a tough one for the mainstream press to ignore, yet they can't even summon the courage to call the attacker what he is - a terrorist. Unfortunately for them, there is a clear history of the assailant's radical anti-Iraq war views beginning to emerge, not to mention the videos of him stopping in at the local convenience store for coffee, dressed in traditional Muslim garb. Kind of makes it difficult for the press to hide his Muslim religion. And oh, how they would desperately like to avoid bringing the killer's religion into the discussion.

We will instead hear news types talk about being "puzzled" over his motivation, despite beginning his attack by shouting "Alah u Akbar" ("God is Great") the preferred battle cry of suicide bombers (and the last words of the 9/11 hijackers just before they hit the World Trade Center). These politically correct media nitwits act as if Nidal Malik Hasan were no different than Seung-Hui Cho, the student who shot up Virginia Tech in 2007.

Even worse, some in the media are even tying to evoke sympathy for Hasan, portraying him as a victim of "harassment" who just needs to be "understood" and who "didn't get the [psychological] help that he needed." Got it - it's the Army's fault he went on a rampage. Get ready for "sensitivity training" for soldiers who deal with Muslim recruits.

But just imagine if the Ft. Hood shooter had been a garden variety soldier who just happened to attend Christian church a couple of times a year - aaah, then the flood gates would have opened. There would be "investigations" into Evangelical churches, attempts to connect the shooter with some "white-supremacist" or "right-wing militia" group. And, no doubt, comparisons with the media's holy grail of "home grown" terrorists, Timothy McVeigh - they do love him so.

Now, this double standard in the media is nothing new. Look at how the they handled the recent case of Faleh Hassan Almaleki, the Muslim father who ran down his on daughter in yet another "honor killing" - she finally died in the hospital just days ago. The press did everything possible to hide the primary motivation for his act: her violation, in his twisted mind, of Sharia law. Check out the initial stories - only now does the phrase "honor killing" even appear, and only in a few reports from independent news organizations.

And remember the "D.C. Sniper" rampage? John Alan Muhammad and his young apprentice killed 13 people, yet no one in the press dared make the obvious link between his (newly adopted) Muslim faith and his violent, dare I say, anti-American, shooting spree. Nope, he was just a "disturbed" individual.

But why is the press so adamant about denying the reality of Muslim extremism? After all, it isn't exactly news that most of the world's terrorism is being perpetrated in the name of Islam. The press, however, would like you to believe that "most Muslims" are nice, law-abiding people who would never think of engaging in the kind of slaughter we saw at Ft. Hood.

And that is probably true, at least technically. Indeed, most Muslims, especially those who are American born and bred, are not likely to be terrorists. But as one astute reader pointed out, "most Germans didn't participate in the Holocaust either" - they just looked the other way. So the larger question is, while they may not actually engage in terrorist acts themselves, how many American Muslims, just like Nidal Malik Hasan, secretly support the actions of the jihadists? Since surveys of Muslims indicate that more than 30% of them feel suicide bombings are "justified in the defense of Islam" the number today who privately condone what Hasan did is likely to be disturbingly high.

So I just can't help wondering: if they were to overhear a conversation in which other Muslims were clearly discussing an upcoming terrorist attack on their fellow Americans, what percentage of these so-called "good Muslims" would actually pick up the phone and call the FBI?

Or are they, as Nidal Malik Hasan declared, "Muslims first, and Americans second."

Yes, I do wonder....

As predicted, following the Republican's razor-thin loss of New York's 23rd Congressional District, Newt Gingrich made it clear that he is still clinging to his losing strategy of running so-called "moderate" candidates. He also somewhat arrogantly reminded us, several times, that, "as someone who engineered the first Republican majority since 1928" he was the all-seeing, all knowing expert in such matters - suggesting rather clearly that we mere peasants should bow to his superior intellect and political skills.
 
True, he did preface his statements with a brief admission that he was remiss in not realizing what a bad choice the party had made in nominating liberal-Democrat-in-Republican-clothing Dede Scozzafava. But he then went immediately back into his now tiresome speech about how, in order to achieve a majority, Republicans need to offer candidates who can appeal to "moderates."

But if Newt's theory is true, then how exactly did Rarak Obama, the most radical left-wing presidential candidate in history, get elected? After all, you cannot find a single policy on which Obama's position is even close to being "moderate" or "centrist."

The answer isn't that complicated. Obama won because he simply waged a carefully crafted campaign that hid his extremist views in bland and unspecific promises about "hope" and "change" - while portraying himself as a centrist moderate, not becoming one. Even today, he peppers his sales pitch for the most extreme socialism in American history with downright Reaganesque language about "competition" and "choice."

Newt, like too many Republicans today, misses two key points. First, most Americans are not nearly as "moderate" as he thinks. Most people who refer to themselves as "moderate" or "centrist" do so simply because it makes them feel like "independent thinkers" rather than ideologues, but at the end of the day, they are far more conservative than even they realize. Recent events have demonstrated this rather clearly - from the outcry over amnesty for illegals, to the rising opposition to socialized medicine, Americans are showing their true (conservative) colors.

Second, for decades now, Republican elites have thought the way to win is to adopt policy positions that more closely resemble those of their opponents, otherwise know as "moving to the center." But the real secret to success is to adopt their tactics, not their policies. Look how Democrats push their agenda. They kick. They claw. They bite. In other words, they FIGHT.  And more importantly, just as in the classic Judo principle, Democrats use our own words against us. Even Newt Gingrich admitted this - but then went straight back into defending the strategy of running Republicans who are little more than "Democrat Light" candidates.

So, instead of using dull facts and "me-too" approaches that have about as much appeal as cold oatmeal, Republicans should adopt the language and tactics that actually appeal to the broader populace - in other words, they they need to do a better job of marketing. You already have a superior product in conservatism - don't replace it with a Yugo - learn how to sell it.

But no matter what, Republicans must return to their conservativie roots, and start offering candidates who represent a clear alternative to the liberal Democrats. Otherwise, we will see increasing losses, as voters, seeing less and less difference between the parties, go for the "real" Democrat over the pseudo-Republican.

Or worse, more and more disaffected voters will look to 3rd party candidates like Doug Hoffman, which will ultimately just split the center to moderate vote, and virtually guarantee Democrat victories, just as it did in the 23rd district race.

Wise up, Newt...

Now that Democrats and their ever more socialist policies have been soundly repudiated in Tuesday's elections, you can bet that the results will be misinterpreted, by both Democrats and Republicans. Democrat talking heads (other wise known as "TV Journalists") are already engaged in almost laughable denial, calling the Dems thrashing "an anomaly" and "not all that important in the big scheme of things."

Republicans especially are likely to completely misconstrue what happened when it comes to the one high profile contest they failed to win - New York's 23rd Congressional seat. In that race, virtual unknown Doug Hoffman came within a hairs breadth of defeating a well financed Democrat. Unfortunately, the Republican elites who are responsible for Hoffman's loss will likely use his defeat to reinforce (and escalate) their losing strategy of running "Democrat Light" candidates.

But the truth is that Hoffman likely would have won, had he not been forced to run as a 3rd party candidate by the RNC - who then also spent more than $1 million to run ads against him! No, had this been a typical two-way race, there is little doubt that Doug Hoffman would now be in the U.S. Congress. Because it was the RNC hacks who selected a socialist Democrat as the Republican candidate, a woman who, when she saw she had no chance of winning, suspended her campaign, but then had the gall to endorse the Democrat!

More broadly, Tuesday's elections were a clear victory for conservatives, not Republicans. Remember that a large number of people who voted for Democrats (including Obama) in the last election, this time supported the candidates who clearly voiced opposition to the soaring taxes and reckless spending that are strangling the economy. That they happened to elect Republicans is beside the point - we should instead credit the common sense of the American people, who are more and more waking up to the destructive agenda that today's radical socialist Democrats are pushing.

Yet I have not the slightest doubt that the RNC elites will continue with their current losing strategy, which basically consists of whining that "we're not as bad as those guys." Instead of exposing the "global warming" insanity for the fraud that it is, they will sign on to the economy-killing "Cap and Tax" bill (but just "not a much as those guys"), cave in on energy independence by not pushing for drilling in Alaska, the Gulf Coast, and other known sources of energy, while going along with silly "wind farms" and other such "green" nonsense.

Instead of proposing real reforms in health care (eliminating state mandates to allow genuine competition, passing serious malpractice reform, tax breaks for individuals, etc.) they will go along with some form of Democrat "Healthcare Reform" but "just not as much."

Instead of pushing for serious education reform (vouchers, tax breaks, and other measures that will give actual choice to parents) they will support every new education spending bill (i.e. - another big check to the teacher's unions), but just "not as much as those guys."

And on and on it will go.

Until Republicans get the message that simply running as "Democrat Light" is not going to cut it.

No sooner had pseudo-Republican Dede Scozzafava, candidate for New York's 23rd Congressional District, announced suspension of her clearly doomed campaign, than she turned around and gave the finger to her misguided Republican cheerleaders, Newt Gingrich and Michael Steele. After withdrawing from the three-way race, did Ms. Scozzafava tell her supporters to vote for the other Republican in the race, Doug Hoffman (who, after being snubbed by the Republican elites, was forced to run under the Conservative Party banner)? Nope. She endorsed...the Democrat.

Her betrayal comes as no surprise to those of us familiar with the mentality of so-called RINOs (Republicans In Name Only). These putative Republicans have inevitably turned out to be little more than reeds in the wind, going along with whatever policy they see as beneficial to their own re-election, regardless of the affect on their constituents, not to mention the damage they do to the Republican Party.

You'd think the recent defection of Arlen Specter would have been sufficient to persuade the Republican Party leadership that sacrificing basic conservative principles in the hope of gaining a bigger share of those supposed "moderates" in the electorate is a deal with the Devil. But no, rather than backing a real conservative like Doug Hoffman, the once reliably conservative Newt Gingrich embarrassingly defended Ms. Scozzafava's selection by the Party's back-room boys - in spite of the fact that she is so out of step on fiscal matters that the Democrat in the race accused her of being the "tax and spend" candidate!

Even Michael Steele, to whom I gave the benefit of the doubt as a possible fresh conservative voice, lost all credibility when, in an attempt to justify the Party's pick, he actually repeated the tired old canard about not being able to win "with only 38% of the vote." For those unfamiliar with this comment, he is referring to the mistaken idea that appealing to the "conservative base" will automatically result in losing the "mushy middle" to Democrats.

But that is a false premise. The most recent polls show that a solid 40% of voters declare themselves to be "conservative" while only 20% of voters characterize themselves as "liberal" - with 36% claiming to be "moderates." Now, I know more than a few liberals who oppose Democrats on gun rights, taxes, and other fiscal polices, but just for the sake of argument, let's take that 20% figure at face value, and presume they will all vote Democrat. Ditto the conservatives - very few of those 40% are going to go for Democrats, even less so in the wake of the radical policies that Obama and the Congress are pursuing.

Which leaves us with those 36% of the electorate who fall in the "moderate" category - the ones that clueless Republicans seem to think will only respond to a Republican candidate who "moves closer to the center." But why do they continue to believe that, in spite of being proved wrong, time and again?

After all, even if we make the calculation that this group is roughly split between those leaning slightly liberal and those leaning slightly conservative, you end up with at least 18% of moderates supporting the conservative. And in case you've forgotten your basic math, coupled with the 40% solid conservative vote that works out to a total of 58% for the conservative candidate - a landslide figure in a presidential race (which is just about exactly what Reagan got - running as a clearly defined conservative).

But wait, it gets better. Given that TWICE AS MANY Americans are willing to call themselves conservative as liberal, would it not make sense to presume that there are likely just a few more conservative-leaning moderates than liberal ones?  In that case, you are looking at even stronger majorities in support of a Republican, even a conservative one. History has shown that while liberals do well in high-density inner city venues (enclaves of welfare recipients and government workers), almost everywhere else, real conservatives fare much better. That is because America is, and always has been, a fundamentally center-right country. And recent polls show the marked shift back to these conservative roots.

Ever wonder how Reagan got such a big share of that supposedly moderate vote? It wasn't his personality. It certainly wasn't that his policies moved "to the center" - on the contrary, from building up the military to the point that it forced the collapse of the Soviet Union, to facing down the unions when he fired the recalcitrant Air Traffic Controllers, Reagan stuck to solid conservative principles. And yet moderates gave him landslide victories...twice.

Because here's the secret that seems to elude Michael Steele and the rest of the Republican "leadership" - most "moderates" don't vote on policy. Any reliable survey of them indicates that they often don't even know much about what's going on politically (ask a moderate friend who George Soros is and you'll likely get a blank stare). No, moderates, lacking much in the way of solid understanding of policy issues, but fearing anything too radical, invariably vote for the candidate who seems to have a clear message, delivered with passion, and most importantly, with conviction.

Obama, even though he said almost nothing substantive, seemed to believe what he said. John McCain, on the other hand, had trouble standing for anything (he went along with Obama on everything from "global warming" nonsense to giving in on immigration). As a result, given a choice between two candidates who didn't seem all that different policy-wise, they picked the one who seemed the most committed.

Regardless of the outcome of the 23rd District race, the message being delivered to the obstinate Republican leaders who still cling to the "moderate model" is clear: take a stand or take the bus home. Because if Republicans persist in trying to be little more than "Democrat Light" they will be consigning the GOP to permanent minority status. After all, if there is no discernible difference between the parties, who needs Republicans?

Especially when there are now genuine conservatives willing to proudly run under that banner.

If I hear the phony "both sides do it" line one more time, I'm going to vomit. Time and again it is those on the American Left, not conservatives, who use the most hateful, violent rhetoric as a political tool. And time and again it is the same out of control, radical liberal loonies who end up eventually committing acts of genuine violence.

During the '60s and '70s it was the mobs of so-called anti-war protesters who frequently "expressed themselves" by vandalizing and destroying property. I lived in Chicago during the 1968 Democratic Convention, when these unwashed scum practically destroyed the city.

There were (and still are) the various eco-terrorist groups like the Earth Liberation Front, who have perpetrated arson on homes and vehicles, and jeopardized the lives of loggers by placing steel spikes in trees - all in the name of "saving the planet" you see.

We had the anti-business, anti-free enterprise, anti-just-about-everything WTO protesters, who ran wild in the streets of Seattle and other cities, smashing store-front windows and overturning cars. These Che-Guevera worshiping, nihilistic anarchists are uniformly from the left (the far left) side of the political spectrum.

And let's not forget the busloads of filthy professional trouble makers (transportation provided by ACORN?) who came to Minnesota in 2008 with their bags of urine and feces, intent on disrupting the Republican Convention - only a well disciplined phalanx of local police and Homeland Security kept them from succeeding.

Just days ago we were treated to a vile, sexually bitter old man, Gore Vidal, saying on national television that when he saw George Bush on the TV, he wanted to "jump right through the screen and kill him" then, for the benefit of those who might not fully comprehend what he meant, he added that it was "one murder I regret not committing."

Not surprisingly, Mr. Vidal's murderous sentiment was then wholeheartedly seconded by his host, the unutterably imbecilic left-wing whack-job, Joy Behar, who further lamented that it was now "too late" to kill President Bush.

Can you even begin to imagine the brouhaha that would have exploded across the airways had some conservative writer made similar comments regarding President Obama? Why, there would be the rending of garments, gnashing of teeth - Nancy Pelosi would likely summon up fake tears, abhorring the "hateful" rhetoric.

Yet when liberals express the most unconcealed hatred - even in language that it is impossible to "take out of context" - there is no outcry. No demands for an apology. Not even a raised eyebrow. There is no "hate-speech" in liberal la-la land.

But words are one thing. Far more ominous is the news that earlier this month, someone, obviously angry with CNN business and financial commentator Lou Dobbs, decided to make their dissatisfaction known by...shooting at his house...while his wife was home:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,570296,00.html?test=latestnews

Now, rest assured that the left-leaning media will do everything in their power to suggest that the perpetrator was somehow connected to some "right-wing" cause or group. But given the fact that Lou Dobbs is perhaps best known for his opposition to unfettered illegal immigration, it seems rather obvious who will likely be found with the smoking gun.

But if this was supposed to be some kind of warning to the likes of Mr. Dobbs, I would caution those behind this gutless act to remember one thing:

Our side has a whole lot more guns than yours...

...and we won't miss.
 

After almost single-handedly destroying the U.S. economy, President Obama's dithering on sending more troops to Afghanistan shows how this man-child pretending to be an adult is not only unfit to be America's domestic leader, he is even less qualified to be its commander-in-chief. By showing uncertainty and hesitancy, he has merely emboldened Al-Qaeda - they have stepped up attacks, not only in Afghanistan, but all over the world, including Pakistan, our putative ally.

Obama claims to be taking a "thoughtful" approach, saying in a speech last week that he "would not put troops in harm's way" without serious consideration. But American soldiers are already in harm's way, and Obama's own choice for commander has asked for more troops. Obama's indecisiveness has resulted in more Americans being killed last month than any time in the last eight years.

The ancient Romans had a saying, "Si Vis Pacem Parabellum" (roughly, "If you seek peace, you must be prepared for War") - they recognized the reality that peace, real peace, can only be achieved when your enemies are certain of your willingness to use force to protect your interests. Unfortunately, Obama is sending the message to our enemies that he is neither ready, nor willing, to use force.

Now, while having a pacifist American president may seem just dandy to the socialist Europeans or Marxist dictators of South America (not to mention the American Left, who see Obama's sitting on his hands as yet more "proof" of his "awesome" intellect), it does little to deter terrorists around the world. From Kim Jung-Il to Jugo Chavez to Iran's mullahs, the avowed enemies of America continue to thumb their noses at the man who is supposed to be the "leader of the Free World" - practically daring him to react.

The unfortunate reality is that, whether a leader of a rogue nation or a bully on the playground, those who seek domination over others are deterred by one thing, and one thing only - fear of retaliation. And today, it is obvious that no one fears Barak Obama - the world's violent thugs see him as little more than a frightened schoolboy, wringing his hands over what to do next in dealing with grown-up problems.

In less than a year, Obama has already shown his utter lack of understanding of fundamental economics - his profligate spending of money we don't have, combined with an unprecedented expansion of government interference in the private sector, has sent the country into a dangerous tailspin.  Now we see that Obama is no more adept at navigating the world of international relations than he is at dealing with domestic issues.

But the most disturbing thing about this situation is that Obama's woefully inadequate experience, along with his lack of backbone, is putting every American, regardless of political affiliation, at greater risk than ever before in our history...both economically, and physically.

We've all heard the above phrase uttered by seemingly intelligent, (and supposedly "moderate") people, followed immediately by a statement in support of, you guessed it...socialism. A sampling:

"I'm not really a Socialist, but..."

"...something should be done to make health care more affordable."
(Translation: you believe that your fellow citizens should be forced to pay your medical bills - i.e. socialism)

"...something should be done about the price of gas (or medicine, or food, or insurance, or whatever)."
(Translation: you believe that "the government" should control the prices of privately produced goods and services - i.e. socialism)

"...people should be able to earn a decent wage."
(Translation: you believe that "the government" should somehow guarantee a certain standard of living, even to the lazy or incompetent - i.e. socialism)

"...it's not fair that CEO's make so much."
(Translation: you believe that "the government" should restrict the income of people more successful than you - i.e. socialism)

"...my husband lost his job and we need help."
(Translation: you believe that you are entitled to have "the government" protect you from risk - i.e. socialism)

"...I really think smoking bans are a good idea."
(Translation: you believe that "the government" should be able to force private businesses to cater to your personal wishes - i.e. socialism )

"...the rich should pay more because they can 'afford' it"
(This one is easy - "from each according to his ability" is straight out of classic Marxist doctrine - Face it; you ARE a Socialist)

It's not hard to explain why so many Americans have fallen prey to the lure of the nanny-state - it's tempting to believe the seductive offer of "free stuff" combined with a promise to "protect" us, not merely from foreign invaders or domestic criminals, but from every conceivable difficulty that life might throw at us.  Especially when it's wrapped in cozy rhetoric about "compassion" and "fairness."

Unfortunately, starting with Franklin Roosevelt, incremental socialism has already created the exact situation the stealth Marxists have been seeking: a populace so inextricably bound to one government program or another, that each additional tiny step towards a socialist America seems, by itself, insignificant.

And they never stop, no matter how many times their policies prove to be wrong, and wrongheaded. We now know that Roosevelt, adored and worshiped by the Left, put into place policies that exacerbated an economic recession that would likely have been short and shallow, and instead produced the Great Depression. Yet they're commitment to socialism persists.

As bad as the socialism of the 1930's was, the changes that will occur under a Democrat legislative majority AND the first unabashedly Marxist president in American history will be even more catastrophic in the long term. An Obama presidency represents nothing less than a threat to the very existence of the world's most successful Constitutional Free Market Democratic Republic.

But Obama can only accomplish his Socialist dream with the aid of "useful idiots" - those willing enough (and arguably, STUPID enough) to go along with him. So, the next time you start a sentence with "I'm not really a socialist...but" you might want to take a moment to contemplate what you're saying.

And what you are actually doing to your country.

By now, you've likely heard the hysterical rant by Democrat Representative Alan Grayson, accusing FOX News of being "the enemy of America." According to Alan, if you merely report that more than a few people in America don't agree with a massive government takeover of the healthcare system, you are "the enemy of anybody who cares about health care,"

If you report that many Americans are disenchanted with the current government run indoctrination centers known as public schools, then you are "the enemy of anybody who cares about educating their children."

If you report that a growing number of Americans want energy independence by going after the oil we have in our own country, rather than looking to pie-in-the-sky nonsense like windmills and solar panels, then you are "the enemy of anybody who wants energy independence."

And if you report that most Americans recognize that maintaining a strong and effective American military is the best and surest way to ensure peace in an age of rogue nations and terrorism, well, by gosh, you are "certainly the enemy of peace, there's no doubt about that."

The loony liberal rhetoric aside, is this man certifiably insane? FOX News is the "enemy" of America? Surely he is just engaging in the kind of outrageous hyperbole we have come to expect from those on the Left, especially when any individual or organization dares to question the powers that be. Or does this self-appointed arbiter of the "public good" actually believe that, more than a world wide recession, more than Muslim terrorists, more than Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda, it is FOX News that is the "enemy of America."

Then again, after enjoying decades of outrageously biased coverage in support of liberal policies in general and Democrats in particular, to have even one network that is willing to report accurately on both sides of any issue might be seen, by someone like Mr. Grayson, as a genuine threat.

But the reality is that FOX's news - and I do mean FOX's hard news shows like Britt Hume and Shepard Smith - not editorial "news magazine" formats like Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity (who have every right to express a particular viewpoint) provides coverage on any issue that is far more complete, far more accurate, and far more trustworthy than any of the so-called major networks. Time and again, important stories that are buried by the mainstream press are broken first by FOX.

Nor are the reporters on FOX of only one stripe - many of those on staff are overtly liberal - but over at CNN (and the rest of the major news outlets) conservatives are rarer than cheeseburgers at a PETA meeting - over 90% of the on-air anchors who grace your screen voted for Obama. Even discussion panels on FOX commentary shows are composed of genuinely balanced viewpoints - most often including equal numbers of liberals and conservatives.

In sharp contrast, a typical "panel discussion" on CNN (or "Meet the Press") will consist of a liberal host, three liberal guests, and (if you're lucky) one moderately conservative panel member (who will be inevitably beaten up the the rest of the guests). And I doubt that we even need to discuss MSNBC, whose management have thrown off all pretense of objectivity, becoming embarrassing cheer leaders for Obama and the Democrats.

No, in today's world, FOX News is fast becoming the only real news. And that is why their audience is growing faster than ever - while the numbers for the other networks, especially cable outlets like MSNBC, are plummeting.

But how illuminating it is to finally have a Democrat congressman say out loud what we have always suspected they are thinking: that anyone who disagrees with the policies advanced by Obama and the rest of the big government liberals is, ipso facto, an enemy - and worse, that by extension, any news organization who reports on such disagreement is also "the enemy."

Amazing...

In a disgusting display of corporate cowardice, U.S. Airways has knuckled under to what can only be described as political extortion by a group of politically savvy Muslim clerics. The airline has agreed to a "settlement" in a lawsuit brought by several Imams who were removed from a flight in 2006 at the Minneapolis airport.

For those unfamiliar with the case, it began when passengers, both in the terminal and on the plane, reported suspicious and disturbing behavior by the Imams. The Imams of course, were quick to cry "discrimination!" Just as predictably, there was the usual contingent of liberal media apologists who went along with them - can't have any of that horrible "profiling" you know.

But far from being just another case of unfair treatment of some innocent Muslims who were following their religious practices, it is instead a perfect example of how professional victims have learned to use "identity politics" to game the system. These supposedly religious men did not simply recognize a financial opportunity in an event that just "happened" - nope, it is clear that they went to the airport that day, planning to create the entire scenario that they knew would ultimately result in a big payoff.

Think about it. In a post-9/11 America, a bunch of Muslim clerics go to an international airport dressed in attire that clearly advertised their religious affiliation. They then conspicuously (and loudly) pray in Arabic, and more to the point, make disparaging remarks about the United States and its involvement in the war in Iraq.

But they didn't stop there. Once on board the plane, they then asked for seat-belt extenders - the exact tool that the 9/11 hijackers used to block passengers from running down the aisles of the doomed aircraft that slammed into the World Trade Center. Now, seat belt extenders are intended to be used by very obese passengers who can't get the standard seat belt fastened, but the Imam who requested them was downright slender in physique. Noooooo, nothing suspicious about that, right?

Oh, please. Everyone with an ounce of common sense knows what was going on here. These guys were nothing more than opportunistic con men who saw how easy it would be to use political correctness to get a big check.

And they were right.

Without a doubt, the Imams are this very minute sitting around some coffee shop, laughing at you, laughing at me, laughing at all of us. Not to mention laughing all the way to the bank. But then, why shouldn't they? They read the zeitgeist properly, and they won. And sadly, they won because too many corporate types don't have the insight, much less the guts, to recognize that sometimes, it is better, in the long run, to spend ten times as much to fight for what's right than it might cost to just "settle" the issue.

Note how often an absolutely terrible employee, who legitimately loses their job for poor performance, is eventually bought off because...they were a minority. Today, a "wrongful termination" lawsuit is almost routine whenever a woman or minority is fired - they've learned that claiming discrimination, especially racial discrimination, is a ticket to easy money.

And as long as everyone knows that this is how the system works - because no one has the courage to fight back - the kind of blatant fraud that the Imams successfully perpetrated will be repeated, again and again.

If you had any doubt that the mainstream American press has all but abandoned its primary responsibilities, you need only look at the way the "Baloon Boy" family played them like a fiddle. And to hell with fact-checking (except of course, when someone on Saturday Night Live does a skit that dares to poke fun at their idol, Barak Obama - then, by God, the folks at CNN are on the case).

But not here - despite the mounting evidence that the entire story might be a hoax, the likes of Wolf Blitzer and Meredith Vieira were falling all over themselves to give face-time to this pathetically dysfunctional family.  Even after the six year old boy actually threw up on two TV shoes - likely betraying his anguish at being forced to continue the fraud - the media farce continued. And now that the father faces potential criminal charges, don't be surprised by daily updates of the case.

Now, it's bad enough that we have  people like the Heene family who seem so obsessed with "being on TV" that they will do anything, even emotionally abuse their own children, to get in front of a camera. But we also have the media themselves, who are willing participants in the lunacy as long as it gets ratings. And then there are those who stay glued to their TV's watching this crap...and ensuring that more such nonsense will likely follow.

This sad state of affairs didn't happen overnight - it's been brewing for some time. But the real seismic shift to "reality" television began with the O.J. debacle. From the absurd (and pointless) "bronco chase" footage to the endless coverage of the trial, a wife-beating murderer got many times more coverage than the assassination of President Kennedy.

But perhaps more disturbing than any of this silliness are the recent attacks by the Obama administration on a free press - specifically, FOX news. Apparently, decades of ever-increasing left-wing bias on the part of the real propagandists (the mainstream outlets like ABC, CBS, and CNN, and the now openly expressed liberal-advocacy journalism of MSNBC) is not sufficient for Obama's taste. No, he wants every news outlet to goose-step to the the (Democrat) party line.

Unless you've been living in a cave (and/or getting your "news" exclusively from CNN and MSNBC) listening to one of Obama's mouth-pieces accuse FOX news of  "bias" is so laughable as to be almost beyond comprehension. Talk about the "pot calling the kettle black" - even the most cursory investigation shows time and again the depth and breadth of the mainstream media's collusion with Democrats on virtually every issue.

Whether refusing to run stories of horribly vicious crimes (because the perpetrators turn out to be "minorities") or openly cheer-leading for "gun control" laws, the mainstream press has all but abandoned its role as the "watchdogs" of the government - on the contrary, they are using their soap-boxes to actively lobby on behalf of Obama's socialist policies, including government run health care.

Then there is their glaring double-standard on covering scandals. If it's a Republican, even an unknown city council member in some tiny town in Idaho, well then, that's "worthy" of wall-to-wall coverage (including the "panel" discussions, complete with dour-faced head-nodding), along with the relentless repetition of the word REPUBLICAN in every story. But if it's a Democrat at the center of some particularly ugly controversy, even a high-profile figure like a Senator, Governor, or a former presidential candidate (John Edwards), then it is suddenly "old news" or, at best, unworthy of more than a passing mention (all reference to Democrat Party affiliation carefully deleted, of course).

The Obama Whitehouse is awash in tax-cheats, worshipers of Mao Tse-Tung, and those who believe that American parents should be limited by the government to one child (a la Communist China) and that the elderly should be allowed to die rather than "unfairly" consuming limited healthcare resources. Then there is Obama's "Safe Schools" Czar who once counseled a teenage boy (who was being sexually solicited by a 40-something man) to "use a condom."  But if you get your "news" from the "Obama Media" then you probably can't name even one of these ethically bankrupt political hacks.

Given such slanted reporting, it should come as no surprise that, by merely refusing to go along with the left-wing bent, and daring to present genuinely balanced analysis, FOX News becomes, in the deeply distorted view of extremist liberals, a "right-wing" organization. Yet to the dismay of the Obama administration, a growing number of Americans (not just conservatives) have begun to notice the bias in mainstream outlets, and have been looking for an alternative. As a result, FOX has been growing by leaps and bounds - FOX News now has a larger audience than all of the other cable news outlets combined, and they keep on growing - closing in on even the old stalwarts like ABC and CBS.

Naturally, this shift is seen as a threat to Obama's (and Democrat's) hegemony in the control of what the public sees and hears. And not only do they attempt to conflate commentary shows like Glenn Beck with actual news programming, FOX's critics have sunk to simply making things up. The outlandish liable against Rush Limbaugh (repeated by CNN, MSNBC and others, even after it was revealed to be a complete fabrication) is emblematic of their hysterical fear - and hatred - of any dissenting voice.

FOX is seen as almost treasonous by the liberal faithful. As it is, any liberal who dares to step off the Democrat plantation will be turned on with vitriolic anger - but being associated with FOX News, even for an avowed liberal, will practically invite a left-wing lynch mob. There is no better example of this than the recent interview between FOX News liberal commentator Juan Williams, who is black, and left-wing talk show host Warren Ballentine, who is also black.

When Williams backed Ballentine into a corner - exposing Ballentine's blatant lying about conservative icon Rush Limbaugh - Ballentine reacted by telling Juan Williams to "go back to the porch" - a nasty "Uncle Tom" reference. Worse, not only did Ballentine fail to apologize for this ill-mannered smear, he actually bragged about it on his radio show. And they attack FOX News?

Talk about media madness...

If you consider what slavery really is - essentially a 100% income tax - then you will have to admit that a tax on income is indeed little more than incremental slavery. Think about it - the slave works totally for the benefit of the plantation owner, since the entire value of his labor (what it would cost to pay a worker to do the same work) is completely confiscated. Today, we too work for a different "plantation owner" (the government) who also confiscates (through taxes) the fruits of our "labor" (our income) - not 100% of it to be sure (at least not yet) but the principal is the same.

Worse, the hardest working "slaves" of today (successful people) have the biggest percentage of their labor confiscated. And if you think that's hyperbole, remember that not long ago, it was the socialism-worshiping Democrats who imposed a 90% income tax - about as close to absolute economic slavery as you can get.

Now, naturally, the plantation owner of old "took care of" the slaves - providing food, shelter, and clothing - to protect his "investment." Sound familiar? It should - today's "slaves" are "taken care of" too - only now we call it welfare, food stamps, subsidized housing (the "slaves' quarters"), and, oh yes, "free" medical care (got to keep those slaves healthy and able to work).

We survived as a nation quite nicely until 1913, when the first income tax was enacted. And today, there are those, myself included, who support the complete elimination of the income tax - replacing it with a national sales tax. Whether of not we have the legislative will to achieve such a change remains to be seen.

But the ugly truth remains that any confiscation of a person's income is a form of slavery - thus the more of someone's income you want the government to take, the more "slavery" you support. So, instead of taking completely fabricated comments that supposedly "endorse" slavery and falsely attributing them to a radio talk show host like Rush Limbaugh, liberals might want to contemplate their own "plantation" mentality...

What do air travelers and a six-year old Cub Scout have in common? They are both victims of Political Correctness gone berserk. You have probably heard of the case of Zachary Christie, the first grade student who was suspended and sentenced to 45 days in reform school:

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/33289924/ns/today-today_people/?GT1=43001

And what serious crime did little Zachary commit to warrant such a harsh punishment? Why, he came to school with a Swiss-Army style camp tool, which, along with its bottle opener, fork and spoon, included (horrors!) a small knife blade.

Enter the Delaware School District's "zero-tolerance" policy toward "weapons" in school. For those unfamiliar with such rules, they require all school officials responsible for their implementation to basically have their brains surgically removed, or at least have all common sense neurons anesthetized.

Contrary to all reason and reality, teachers many not exercise any discretion in the application of the rule - if the item can even remotely be considered a "weapon" then out the door in handcuffs you go. Even more onerous, the punishment is not open to discussion or modification.

Now, it should come as no surprise that such a ridiculously rigid policy has its roots in - you guessed it - the fear of "racism" charges. After all, any reasonable person would think it wise for school officials to apply reason and common sense in such matters -  differentiating between a Swiss Army camp tool carried by a first-grader with no history of trouble, and a gun in the back-pack of a 12 year old who has a record of violent behavior.

But alas, when they do use sensible procedures in the application of such "no-weapons" rules, lo and behold, a "disproportionate" number of black students are disciplined. And that will invite the likes of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, hurling accusations of racism. And if there's one thing public school officials fear, it's the specter of being labeled "racist."

It should be noted that study after study reveals that black youths actually do engage in violent behavior at a disproportionately higher rate (Bureau of Justice Statistics show that a black teenager is 8 times more likely to commit murder than a Caucasian or Asian of the same age). But if any group (racial or otherwise) appears to be over-represented in any particular activity, shouldn't such a disparity indicate that there may be a problem that needs to be addressed in that community, rather than blaming the system?

Sorry. In the distorted world of today's "progressive" - facts be damned, if one racial group appears to be "disproportionately" represented in any negative set of circumstances, well, then, we'll just have to tinker with the process until we get the "right" numbers.

Which unfortunately leads to precisely the kind of moronic behavior exhibited by the Delaware School District in the case of Zachary Christie. When we bend over backward to avoid using common sense and reason in order to not "offend" some group or other, we cannot help but end up with policies that are not only ineffective, but often downright counter-productive.

This is the same kind of "thinking" that has led to the utterly stupid policies we find at airport "security" check points. So fearful are we of offending some ethnic group, we subject a little old Norwegian lady to the exact same invasive screening as we might apply to a Middle-Eastern male in his twenties. Even worse, under such policies, that hypothetical potential jihadist may very well receive less scrutiny than you or I would - fearing the dreaded "profiling" charge, screeners often give such passengers a pass. Which, in the end, places you and me at greater risk, not less.

But then, whether it be "zero tolerance" policies at schools or the "take-off-your-shoes-and-belts" nonsense at the airport, such policies are no longer about protecting you or your children - they are about protecting the "sensitivities" of some ethnic group.

My Israeli friends say it best: "You Americans are so foolish. You look for weapons - we look for terrorists."

Whether ghosts from the past like Bill Ayers and the Reverend Wright, or the current White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, much has been made of the far-left leanings of those who have surrounded Barak Obama. Likewise, the clueless rants of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have caused many Americans to ask how it could be that we have people so obviously unqualified, not to mention arguably insane, running the country. Seriously, who would have thought even a few years ago that the words "Senator Al Franken" would ever have to be uttered. That phrase alone should be enough to give chills to anyone with an ounce of common sense.

But how did we get to this place? After all, someone had to elect them. And while it is easy to blame the far-left, they alone could not possibly have taken control of the Congress and the presidency. They needed the votes of a small but important group of voters - those "moderates" in the mushy middle who often make the difference in both national and local elections.

So what happened? How is it that so many people who were likely of normal intelligence, and capable of exercising reasonably sound judgment, fell for the almost completely vacuous, mindless campaign of Obama and his cohorts in the Democratic Party, when Obama's far-left socialist agenda was made abundantly clear to anyone who actually listened to what he was saying? Simple - too many Americans have gradually allowed themselves to just "go along" with each new, and slightly more socialist, proposal - desensitizing them to the next, even more insidious one.

"Not me," you say? Oh, really?

Are you afraid to challenge the "global warming" fraud - even when Al Gore's bogus movie is force-fed to your kids - because you don't want your friends or neighbors to think you aren't "green" enough - you know, concerned about "the environment?"

Do you go along with those who think "the government" should "do something" to make healthcare more "affordable" -  rather than supporting genuine free market competition?

Do you claim to be "for free enterprise" yet go along with each new welfare scheme because you think "safety nets" are necessary?

Do you think that the "oil companies" control the price of gasoline (they don't) and that it should be "regulated" by the government?

Do you go along with every nanny-state intrusion by government into the private sector - like"smoking bans" or "assault weapons" bans or motorcycle helmet laws - just because it won't affect you personally?

Do you go along with the idea that there is such a thing as a "living wage" - and that government should dictate what that should be?

Do you go along with "taxing the rich" because you think it's "not fair" that others make more than you?

Finally, are you so utterly ignorant about current events and basic economic principles that you are not able to discuss the issues intelligently with your conservative friends?

If you answered "yes" to one or two of these questions, you might still be amenable to a good old free-enterprise capitalist intervention. But if you agreed with three or more, you are likely well on your way to letting a small but committed minority of far-left liberal fascists take control of virtually every aspect of your life.

And if you continue to sit back and let that happen, just don't complain to me when some "central government energy commission" dials back your thermostat because you're using "too much" energy...

If you had any doubts about how meaningless the Nobel Peace Prize has become, they were removed today. Giving such an honor to a person who has been in office for less than nine months is suspect on its face - suspiciously premature by any standard.

Then again, since the Nobel Prize is supposedly awarded on the basis of accomplishment, it is at least hypothetically possible that one could have achieved some major breakthrough in such a short period of time. If that were the case (an announcement by al-qaeda of an end to Jihad for example) then at least an argument could be made for bestowing such an award on a neophyte world leader.

But what exactly has Barak Obama accomplished? Not "tried" to do, but actually achieved? Other than to parade around the world, embarrassingly apologizing for America's prosperity and power, you cannot name a single positive outcome as a result of his being president. The Nobel Prize committee vaguely referenced Obama's "extraordinary efforts" and "outreach to the Muslim world."

But, so what? Al-Qaeda has most certainly NOT backed off. Muslim extremists have continued their attacks on civilians around the world. Iran continues headlong toward becoming a nuclear power - not to mention firing off a series of missiles as a direct response to Obama's overtures. Not exactly a resounding recommendation.

Elsewhere, the promised change in the world's view of America has not emerged, unless you consider getting the "thumbs up" from some of the world's worst dictators. But how receiving fawning praise from Libya's Muammar Qaddafi, Cuba's Castro regime, or Venezuela's Jugo Chavez qualifies one for a "peace" prize is likely to elude any thinking person.

What this event symbolizes is more than the triumph of style over substance - it is emblematic of the views of those who, quite simply, hate everything that the United States has always represented - freedom, achievement, and recognition of the individual.

Additionally, this award illustrates a fundamental difference between the values of those who built (and continue to build) America, and those who would remake this country into a socialist nightmare. Conservatives honor achievement - liberals worship "intentions."

But peace, especially global peace, is not a strategy - it is, at best, a temporary condition. And peace per se is not enough - the dead are at peace. Peace must be accompanied by freedom. And throughout history, whenever peace, real peace, has been accomplished, it has not been the result of "talking" - but because of the efforts of courageous people doing what is necessary to achieve it and then maintain it. Which sometimes mean the willingness to use force, even, paradoxically, to wage war.

Ronald Reagan won the Cold War without firing a shot - forcing the breakup of the Soviet Union, and in doing so did more than any president in modern history in terms of achieving long term peace and freedom. But don't hold your breath waiting for even a (belated) recognition of his achievements by the overtly socialist Nobel committee.

Now, if and when President Obama actually does achieve something resembling a condition of peace, for some recognizable period of time, and more importantly, a peace that does not require that Americans give up their freedoms and their prosperity, then I will be the first to praise him. But awarding what should be a serious accolade to such a rookie on the world scene is simply outrageous, not to mention insulting to the world's genuine "peacemakers" - Americans in the armed forces around the world.