An ongoing legal battle in Illinois may prove to be a watershed event, one that could easily result in Democrats taking an even bigger hit in 2012 than they did in last year's mid-term election. As the excerpt from the article below summarizes:

"In a showdown over the privacy rights of gun owners, the Illinois State Police are refusing to release a list identifying all firearm permit holders in the state after Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan determined that the information 'must' be made public."

In what can only be described as an outrageously intrusive and dangerous betrayal of confidentiality, the Democrat Attorney General of Illinois has decided to essentially "out" all of her state's gun owners. This would not only make gun owners a target of burglars (looking to steal firearms), but would simultaneously put all those who do NOT own guns at risk, essentially announcing to every thug on the street that "anyone not on this list is unarmed and unable to protect themselves."

Thankfully, even the Illinois State Police recognize the danger and stupidity in implementing such a policy. And law enforcement officials nationwide will doubtless be watching this story as it unfolds. Most working street cops distrust invasive government as much as we do - they own firearms, too.

But this latest attack on legitimate gun owners is only a small part of a much  larger issue, and one that could be exploited by Republicans. So far, however, Republicans have been paying  little attention to a grass roots movement that could be a game-changer for the GOP in the 2012 election.  I'm talking about what the public has been doing lately when it comes to guns - they have been voting with their dollars.

Because while most of the economy has been mired in recession, the gun business is booming - sales of all types of firearms have been going gang-busters, up 25% on average this past year alone, and even higher in some states. Now, if any other part of the economy were experiencing such remarkable growth in the midst of a moribund economy, it would be big news in the media financial circles. But the bull market in guns has been a story largely untold.

The reason behind the lack of coverage is simple - most members of the mainstream press hate guns. Moreover, to properly report on the roaring sales of guns it would be necessary to explain the reasons that more and more people are buying them. Savvy political observers have noted that that the surge in buying began almost to the day that Democrats took over the Congress in 2006, with an even larger increase in sales coinciding perfectly with the election of Barak Obama. And, being overwhelmingly supporters of Democrats, the press would hate to publicize those facts.

Ammunition sales have followed a similar pattern - in the year following Obama's inauguration, severe shortages of popular pistol and rifle calibers were reported across the country, as ammo flew off the shelves. I can personally attest to the fact that one big-box store in my city would receive a shipment at midnight, stock the shelves before they opened the doors at 6:00 AM, and within hours they were completely cleaned out.

Interestingly, since the 2010 election, and the Republican takeover of the House as well as many state legislatures and governor's offices, the number of new gun purchases, while still at historic highs, has slowed a bit, and the ammo shortage has subsided. Shelves are now back to being full. And once again, the correlation between guns and politics is unmistakable.

Meanwhile, the mainstream press continues to eagerly report on the latest shootings, as in the case of the Arizona Congresswoman, Gabrielle Giffords. But today, the  public is not responding to such incidents with calls for new gun control laws. On the contrary, they're buying guns - stores report that sales of firearms invariably increase in the days immediately following reports of public shootings.

Even more important from a political standpoint is that a substantial percentage of those shopping for guns and ammunition today are first time buyers. Gun shops and large sporting goods chains alike will attest that new gun owners make up an increasingly larger share of their firearm sales.

What all this means is that there are significantly more gun owners today than there were just a few years ago, and support for gun control continues to decline. In the past, Democrats learned the hard way that gun control is a loser at the ballot box - and it's even less popular today.

So if Republicans have any brains at all, they will welcome this latest attack by Democrats on what is a growing and and highly motivated voting bloc. And if they're really smart, and they pick it up and run with it, Republicans may find that they truly can "turn lead into gold" - in the voting booth.

Since the 1960s, the radical Left in America has been quietly using both the media and the public school system to gradually condition American young people to accept and embrace the idea of socialism. And nowhere is this indoctrination campaign more glaringly obvious than in our major universities.

But don't take my word for it, especially if you happen to be one of those gentle souls who have been paying no attention whatsoever to what is happening in our schools. Just watch the video clip (see below) of an interview with a number of these radical socialists, most of whom reside in (or temporarily occupy) Madison, Wisconsin. It will go a long way in helping you understand the disease that afflicts many of our citizens, and the threat they represent to our very way of life:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/young-madison-socialist-reveals-popular-noodles-company-restaurant-is-actually-harsh-dictatorship/

One young man, with a straight face, actually refers to the restaurant where he works as a "dictatorship" because (are you ready?) he is required to show up at work on time, he must prepare the food the restaurant has on the menu, and in the manner that the restaurant wants. Oh, the horror! An American gulag if ever there was one.

Naturally, if this young man is so unhappy with his employer, he could simply exercise his freedom to quit his current job go and go to work someplace else - as you and I would do. Instead, this budding neo-communist believes that the "workers" should take over - he wants to replace the entire free market system with socialism, the ideology that has destroyed freedom across the globe (and in the process murdered more than 50 million people in the 20th century alone).

Now, it would be funny to listen to this self-proclaimed member of the International Socialist Organization if it weren't so pathetic. One must ask how it is possible that in the United States of America we have young people so obtuse, so oblivious to the fundamental realities of life, not to mention the basics of economics, that they can make the kind of comments he does. Words like "moron" or "imbecile" are simply insufficient - they don't begin to cover the enormity of his ignorance of capitalism, entrepreneurship, and the operation of free markets.

But even more disturbing is that this young man is not alone. The radical "protesters" in Madison (many of whom are professional agitators brought in by various Socialist organizations) are of the same socialist mindset. And while there are certainly some good teachers who do not agree with the angry mobs infesting the Wisconsin capitol, unfortunately the majority of those in the education community do.

So, be warned that if you have a child either in college or soon to be enrolled, you might want to do some serious investigation into your chosen school's "curriculum" - and the background of the professors who teach there.

Or you could end up with one of your own children coming home at Thanksgiving mouthing the same kind of Socialist nonsense that the astonishingly stupid young man in the video is advocating.

If there was any doubt that Barak Obama is completely unsuited to being the leader of the free world, all such doubt has been erased. His pathetic comments on the violent crackdown in Libya are merely the latest examples of his lack of experience and judgment. Faced with a maniacal dictator who is gunning down his own people, and after waiting more than a week to say anything at all, the only thing that President Obama can do is to call the carnage "unacceptable."

Slaughtering people in the streets is "unacceptable?" Wow. That will surely strike terror in the hearts of the world's dictators and terrorists. It's like calling rape or child molestation "inappropriate."

Yet this is nothing new. Time and again, when tyrannical leaders have thrown down the gauntlet, Obama's roots as a "community organizer" have become painfully obvious. With his effete, pampered background, and his intellectually constipated and morally bankrupt character, he simply cannot help himself. He waffles. He waivers. He looks around for "consensus."

Then again, why is anyone surprised? What else would you expect from someone with less actual experience than any previous president, and less executive experience than Joe the Plumber. Barak Obama is our first "Trainee President." And his "learning curve" has been painfully slow. He still does not seem to have a clue when it comes to the most important aspects of his role as President: National Security and International Relations. He is almost childlike in his naivete.

But perhaps the most disturbing element of Barak Obama's character is his glaring indecisiveness. And while his adoring fans, especially those in the press, attempt to defend his inability to act decisively as "proof" of his intelligence and his "nuanced" thinking, many of those who have worked closely with him are becoming more and more concerned. Because while Obama has no problem "campaigning" for his pet social projects like Obamacare, when it comes to dealing with the real, serious threats to the stability of the world, the man simply can't make a decision.

And of all the qualities that a leader must have, decisiveness is paramount. Whether in politics, war, or business, the ability to quickly assess a situation and take clear and substantive action is absolutely essential to success. Think of Winston Churchill, General George Patton, or even Harry Truman, who had to make one of the most monumental decisions of the 20th Century - dropping the first atomic bomb.

But when the time came, these men did not hesitate. They acted. Decisively.

And the world is better for it.

But decisiveness in a leader is the result of confidence that can only be gained by experience. And not just any experience, but the experience gained while making executive decisions that cannot be laid at the feet of someone else. In other words, jobs where "the buck stops here."

Unfortunately, Obama had absolutely zero executive experience prior to the Presidency, and he has never had any real job in the private sector at all.

And it shows.

The current chaos in Wisconsin and elsewhere has illuminated the biggest reason that so many American states are at or near bankruptcy - government unions. As more and more Americans discover exactly how much government workers are raking in with their lavish compensation and benefit packages, they have less and less sympathy for the protesters. Which does not bode well for the future of government unions.

But the chaos has also been a Godsend to one group of government union members: public school teachers. Because in all the furor over the attempts to reign in costs, one of the most important issues facing parents of school age children has been pushed to the background. I'm talking about teacher performance - what parents, and tax payers, are actually getting for all the dollars they spend on "public education."

Well, the headline of an article on cbsnews.com - the CBS news website - says it all:

"Two-Thirds of Wisconsin Public-School 8th Graders Can’t Read Proficiently—Despite Highest Per Pupil Spending in Midwest."

The details are even more embarrassing, showing that:

"...only 32 percent of Wisconsin public-school eighth graders earned a 'proficient' rating." And, that "the reading abilities of Wisconsin public-school eighth graders had not improved at all between 1998 and 2009 despite a significant inflation-adjusted increase in the amount of money Wisconsin public schools spent per pupil each year."

How much money?

"In fiscal 2008, the federal government provided $669.6 million in subsidies to the public schools in Wisconsin." Further, "The $10,791 that Wisconsin spent per pupil in its public elementary and secondary schools in fiscal year 2008 was more than any other state in the Midwest."

Not surprisingly, the situation in public schools across the country is no better:

"Nationwide, only 30 percent of public school eighth graders earned a rating of 'proficient' or better in reading, and the average reading score on the NAEP test was 262 out of 500."

In plain and simple terms, government unions representing teachers are extorting premium pay and benefits for workers who  produce results that go from mediocre to downright deplorable (see Detroit). More importantly, if any group of employees in the private sector exhibited the same level of performance that public school teachers do, they would be summarily fired.

But this is precisely what you should expect when government unions are allowed to hold parents and taxpayers hostage to their demands, and there is no  mechanism (such as vouchers) that would allow real competition for education dollars.

So, unless and until we get serious about truly reforming the system of public education, including putting the brakes on government unions, nothing will change.

We will continue to pay more, and get less.

The "protests" by government union members in Wisconsin are a perfectly predictable reaction to the beating that Democrats took in the 2010 elections. When hard-working people of Wisconsin finally had enough of liberal tax-and-spend policies that threatened to bankrupt their state, they threw the bums out - Republicans swept the state legislature and the governor's office.

And how did their so-called "public servants" react when it was announced that their bloated compensation packages were going to be reigned in just a little bit? Why, they threw a hissy-fit, of course. Because, just like the welfare parasites who show up every time someone tries to curb bloated social subsidies, government workers see their checks as a "right."

The Wisconsin teachers were by far the worst - they not only called in sick (forcing many schools to actually close), many of them had the audacity to drag their students with them to "protest" at the Capital (buses courtesy of the Democrat Party, of course). So much for the phony claim that they "care about the kids."

But the situation unfolding in Madison is not peculiar to Wisconsin. It is a microcosm of what is happening across the nation. Because the real divide in America is not between "the rich and the poor" - it is between those who get a check FROM the government and all the rest of us who send our checks TO government: the taxpayers. And it is about to get ugly.

Because this is a war - the greedy government unions have made it so. They do not care that most government union members have pay and benefit packages that are nearly double what their private sector counterparts have. They do not care that nearly one in five Americans are out of work, or that those still employed are being forced to make do with less. Because in the world of the government union worker, no matter how badly the economy is doing, no matter how much the rest of the country is suffering, THEY must never feel the pain. Ever.

Oh, sure, they'll try to claim that they have taken "cuts" in pay and benefits. But much of the time, these "cuts" turn out to be merely temporary "freezes" that end up being paid back retroactively. And even when an actual cut does occur, when they are so over-compensated to begin with, government workers have little to complain about. And they should expect little sympathy from the average American, especially in the middle of a stagnant economy.

But no matter how you feel about the legitimacy of government workers' pay, the harsh reality is that it is simply no longer possible to pay excessive salaries, provide "Rolls Royce" health insurance, AND pay lavish pension benefits to thousands of people who are no longer working. The money is simply not there.

And lurking in the wings like an economic assassin is that most dangerous villain of all: inflation. As already increasing prices for food, gasoline, and just about everything else begin to spike up even more steeply, tax-payers who are finding their disposable income shrinking will be less and less likely to go along with outrageous compensation packages for government workers, especially when they are accompanied by demands for higher and higher taxes on the rest of us.

Thus the stage is set for a battle that will ultimately determine, not just the fiscal health of both Federal and State governments, but the very economic survival of the nation. We can only hope that fiscal sanity prevails over the demands of government union mobs.

You've heard the liberal pundits, giddy with delight as they report on the new wave of "democracy" that is sweeping Egypt. Well, they would be well advised to take a deep breath and consider a bit of reality before celebrating.

First, the Egyptian Army currently controls the country, and we will have to wait to see exactly what sort of substantive governmental changes finally do occur. I've spent time in the Middle East, including Egypt, and I can tell you things in that area of the world are never what they seem - or what we as Westerners expect.

But the larger issue is the American Left's persistent inability to understand the difference between a "democracy" and the form of government that we have in the United States. We are not, and hopefully never will be, a pure democracy - for a number of very good reasons.

The United States is actually a Constitutional, Democratic Republic. And thank God, (or, if you're an atheist, the Founders) that we are. Because it was the Constitution, not a popular vote, that provided for the means to ultimately end slavery in the United States (see "13th Amendment"). Had there been no Constitution, slavery might well have endured for another 100 years.

Because pure democracy is nothing more than mob rule. Get 51% of the population to agree with you, and you can implement even something as heinous as slavery - or Sharia law, which is not all that different, especially for women (see "19th Amendment").

Even more disturbing is that this lack of understanding of the basic construction of the American political system even extends to members of Congress. Just last week, Democrat Senator Charles Schumer, no newcomer to politics, embarrassingly announced that we have "three branches of government - the House, the Senate, and the Presidency." Pathetic.

Now, most grammar school students (especially those in private schools, where history and civics are still taught) will be able to tell you that the three branches are "the Executive, the Legislative, and the Judicial." And as a side note, imagine if a Republican Senator had made the same idiotic statement - the uproar from the press would have been deafening (once the aforementioned grammar school student explained the error to the Editors at they New York Times, that is).

But more to the point, pure Democracy is no guarantee of liberty, especially for those who are not part of the majority - without the Constitution, the rights of the minority would always be at risk. Many of the most tyrannically oppressive dictatorships around the world are "democracies" - they even have "democratic" elections. Hugo Chavez' Venezuela is a "democracy." Iran is a "democracy" - anyone want to pack up and move to either of those beacons of freedom?

What is even more ironic is that members of the American journalism establishment, most of whom have clearly Leftist leanings, are often one of the first targets in a pure democracy. Because once in power, with no Constitution (with its guarantee of freedom of the press) and no independent judicial system to provide oversight and protection, their rights, like everyone's, are only what the ruling majority says they are.

In a pure democracy, even freedom of religion would likely disappear - those of the majority religion could, and almost invariably do, simply declare their religion the official state religion. Does anyone believe that if an Egypt, which is predominantly Muslim, were to end up being ruled by the Muslim Brotherhood, that they would have the same freedoms we in the United States have?

Now, the Egyptians can do whatever they want in their country, but for those in America who still mistakenly equate "democracy" with "freedom" I suggest they do some serious reading of history, especially our own.

After announcing to the Chamber of Commerce that he would continue unsustainable Federal spending, while doing nothing to reduce the mountain of onerous regulations on business, President Obama's toadies in the media had the audacity to suggest that his speech was somehow reminiscent of John F. Kennedy.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Unlike Barak Obama, John Kennedy actually understood the realities of business, and more importantly, how cutting taxes on businesses and individuals not only stimulates economic growth, it results in increased tax revenues to both Federal and State treasuries.

Additionally, while Barak Obama does little to hide his hostility toward corporate America, President Kennedy evidenced a genuine respect and admiration for the entrepreneurs who are the foundation of American prosperity. Because JFK understood that a vibrant private sector is good for all Americans. If you were to read one of Kennedy's speeches on tax policy to one of your liberal friends today, without letting them know whose it was, they would likely conclude they were listening to the words of Ronald Reagan, if not Rush Limbaugh.

Remember that it was John Kennedy who time and again advocated reductions in tax rates for those in the top income brackets, both businesses and individuals - something that Obama would abhor as a "gift" to the "rich," whom Obama reviles to an extent heretofore unseen in any American President. Even when Obama does allow for the possibility of modest reductions to the corporate tax rate (as he finally did recently) it appears almost painful for him to consider.

But Kennedy knew that success should be admired, not demonized, and that cutting taxes on those who provide the vast majority of the private sector jobs is the most effective way to get the economy moving and grow employment opportunities. Obama, on the other hand, seems obsessed with growing only government jobs - a strategy which drains yet more capital from the private sector, while adding to the already bloated Federal budget. Not to mention pushing our debt to stratospheric levels unseen in our nation's history.

Mr. Obama, we knew Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy was a friend of ours. And you, sir, are no Jack Kennedy.

The following article underscores the egregiously dishonest approach taken by the New York Times whenever the facts are at odds with their Left-Wing bias:

Another "Mistake" in The New York Times

By John Lott, Jr.

February 04, 2011

Since the tragedy in Tucson, the New York Times has started an all-out campaign for gun control, with a relentless number of pieces -- news, editorials, and op-eds. In its advocacy, even the news stories are heavily biased by selectively quoting only academics who support pro-gun control positions. These seemingly unbiased sources are then contrasted with opposing views from clearly biased people on the other side, such as an NRA spokesman or a right-wing politician. The implied conclusion: scientific evidence favors gun control, but self-interest stands in the way.

Take two recent news stories by Michael Luo (here and here). He quotes seven academics who agreed with the New York Times position, but no one on the other side was even interviewed. Talk about misrepresenting academic opinion. The overwhelming majority of studies actually supports the claim that more guns mean less crime. Among peer-reviewedstudies in academic journals, criminologists and economists studying right-to-carry laws have produced 18 national studies showing that these laws reduce violent crime, 10 indicate no discernible effect and none finds a bad effect from the law. One would never guess that 294 academics from institutions as diverse as Harvard, Stanford, Northwestern, the University of Pennsylvania, and UCLA released an open letter to Congress during 1999 warning that new gun laws were “ill advised.”

A frequent claim in these recent New York Times articles has been that more guns mean more gun deaths (see also here). As evidence, the Times articles usually bring up comparisons across states or a selective set of countries, showing that where people possess more guns, there are also more deaths from guns.

On the face of it, this argument seems very straightforward: the guns must be causing the additional deaths. Yet, a closer look at the numbers reveal that an overwhelming proportion of gun deaths are suicides, not homicides, and that rural areas generally have high suicides. What is driving the correlation is simply the factors linked with rural areas (hunting and gun ownership) and suicides (relatively more unmarried men and isolation).

Simply taking away guns doesn't prevent suicides. If there are guns around, some people will use them to commit suicide. But if guns are not handy, there are still a long list of alternative ways to end one’s life. So, more guns available will enable more gun suicides, but there is no evidence that eliminating guns would reduce total suicide.

There are many reasons that different states or countries have different crime rates, and comparisons across places at one point in time simply won't properly account for them. The UK has a low murder rate relative to the U.S. today, and many attribute it to their lack of gun ownership. But before the UK imposed its first gun laws back in 1920, it compared even more favorably to the United States despite extremely widespread gun ownership.

The New York Times pieces stayed far away from this point. It is no wonder, because no place - not a single one -- that has banned guns has seen its murder rate fall. In the US, murder and other violent crime soared in DC and Chicago after their handgun bans were enacted back in 1977 and 1982, respectively. Conversely, after the Supreme Court recently struck down their bans and gunlock law, murder and violent crime rates in DC and Chicago have fallen. The same pattern has occurred across the world, even for island nations that don't have neighbors to blame for gun smuggling.

One columnist, Nicholas Kristof, claimed that in the seven years after Australia banned some types of handguns and rifles "the firearm homicide rate was almost halved." But note that he does not point to overall homicides. He has good reason to avoid that statistic, as there was no decline in overall homicides during that period. Criminals simply shifted to other ways of killing their victims.

A couple of articles in the Times point to a University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine survey claiming that those who carry guns are far likelier to get shot—and killed—than those who are unarmed. This fails to ask why people carry guns in the first place. Of course, individuals who are threatened and at higher risk tend to carry guns more frequently. The study also includes criminals and gang members among those carrying guns. Furthermore, the survey only included people in Philadelphia who had been shot during assaults, which means that it totally ignored the vast majority of defensive gun uses. That issue has been addressed by other academic studies, though, with the majority of refereed academic studies finding a benefit from law-abiding citizens carrying concealed handguns.

Other attacks are more flippant. A Texas congressman suggesting that people carry concealed handguns after Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords' wounding is dismissed by Timothy Egan: "Gohmert has enough trouble carrying a coherent thought onto the House floor. God forbid he would try to bring a Glock to work." No effort is made to look at how careful permit holders actually are. In 2009, 164 out of 402,914 Texas permit holders had their permits revoked, a rate of 0.04 percent, and most are trivial. Or that "It defies logic, as this case shows once again, that an average citizen with a gun is going to disarm a crazed killer," but he made no attempt to discuss why civilians with permitted concealed handguns so regularly stop not only multiple victim public shootings but also violent crimes of all types.

With multiple mistakes per article, the New York Times would never want to compare its error rate to the rate of mistakes by permit holders. But then these biases are so obvious and over the top that accuracy really doesn’t seem to be their goal. Is it really that hard for the Times to quote any academics who disagree with their position?

John R. Lott, Jr. is a noted economist and author of the revised third edition of "More Guns, Less Crime"

If you've ever tried to calmly explain to a liberal why some government policy is good or bad, you have doubtless run into the "Wall of Ignorance" - simply put, the absolute refusal to confront factual reality. No matter the topic, as soon as you start running down the list of facts that completely refute the premise of your liberal friends, they will simply refuse to admit that their position is untenable.

It's as if they live in a world where "belief" or even more disturbing, "opinion" takes precedence over fact and reality. For example, I have heard the following statement, almost verbatim, from at least three liberal legislators, in defense of one ridiculous law or another: "I have no evidence to support it, but I believe...."

Think about that for a moment. No evidence. None. Yet they are ready to ram through some new infringement on the public's freedoms, pocketbooks, or both - simply based on a "belief." But why? Wouldn't any thinking person be honor bound to reconsider their viewpoint in the face of evidence to the contrary? True. But more often than not, those on the Left don't think - they feel. Worse, even after you prove that the beliefs which were the basis of their stance are completely untrue, it will make not one whit of difference to them.

Take the oft-heard liberal lie that "the rich don't pay any taxes"  - often used as an excuse to raise taxes on "the rich" even more. (Note: They never explain why they paradoxically want to raise taxes on people who, according to them, "don't pay taxes" - how does that work, exactly?) Even when you point out that IRS official records, taken right off actual tax returns, show that the higher up the ladder in income you go, the more the income tax burden falls on "the rich" - liberals don't care.

They either refuse to accept the cold hard facts, or respond with a non-sequitur like "those rich guys all have loopholes." Never mind that IRS figures are for net earnings after all deductions, and show that the top 10% of wage earners pay 70% of all income taxes. Never mind that without the taxes paid by the top 1% the Federal Government would have to lay off about 30% of their workers, and State governments would be even more broke than they are now. Nope. Doesn't matter. Gotta "stick it to those rich guys" you see.

And then there's gun control. No sooner had Gabrielle Giffords got to the emergency room than the anti-gun fanatics were demanding more laws to "prevent this from ever happening again." Now, aside from the fact that nothing we do will ever completely prevent bad things from happening, when you ask the gun control supporters why they believe that restrictions on the 99.5% of gun owners who never harm or even threaten anybody, will somehow stop some crazed killer, the answers will be along the same lines: "I just believe that guns should be regulated" or "We have to keep guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them."

But when you present them with hard data from the FBI and the BATFE showing conclusively that crime is highest where gun control laws are the strictest, and lowest where laws are less restrictive, and that no laws have been able to keep gang members and the mentally deranged from getting guns via the black market, once again, the response is completely irrational: "But something must be done!"

Then there is the global warming hoax, that has produced disastrous policies such as Ethanol subsidies and mandates, attempts to tax energy even more, and government mandated light bulbs. Even now, after the perpetrators of the global warming fraud have been caught red-handed "cooking the books" - and world wide temperatures have been proven NOT to be rising for more than 10 years - the liberal "climate change" faithful persist. And why? Because, "even though I have no evidence to support it...I believe that the earth is warming and man is causing it."

Which is what makes arguing with liberals such an enervating and frustrating exercise. What do you say to a person who says, as a fellow did just the other day, after his entire argument was completely, and factually, dismantled, "I don't care what the facts show - that's my opinion."  Faced with looming issues such as the impending bankruptcy of programs like Social Security and Medicare, not to mention the country itself, liberals will simply refuse to admit that they are wrong, in spite of the most obvious facts to the contrary.

But if we are to survive as a nation, coming to grips with the harsh realities we face is absolutely vital, no matter how much we want to "believe" otherwise.

One of the primary differences between liberals (or "progressives," or socialists, or whatever they are calling themselves these days) and the rest of us, is that those on the Left typically love government and hate private business. And at the root of their view is the idea that a government bureaucrat is somehow more trustworthy than their civilian counterpart.

Now, when you ask them why they trust a government worker more than someone in the private sector, they invariably assign some sort of noble intentions to the government worker (they "care" about people), while describing the private sector worker as being motivated by "money" or "profit" - usually accompanied by a sneer of contempt. Because in the world of the liberal, "intentions" count more than results, and profit is a dirty word.

But let's examine that view. First of all, is it really even true that government workers are in their jobs to "help their fellow man" as the Left contends? Well, surely there are some who fall into that category - nurses and doctors in Veteran's hospitals come to mind, some of whom are no less than genuine angels. God bless them.

Then there are those who, literally, put their lives on the line - no one would dispute that most cops, firefighters, and those in the armed forces overwhelmingly do so for reasons far beyond personal gain. But the further away we get from such high-risk occupations, the less we find "public service" as the primary goal.

Take public school teachers, for example. Far from being the paragons of selfless devotion that the press loves to portray them as being, the number one reason they give for picking the teaching profession is (are you ready?)..."I have summers off." And that's just the beginning - they time and again have shown that your kids come in a distant second to their own pocketbooks. No matter how badly things are going for the parents of the kids they teach, teachers adamantly refuse to take even a pay freeze (let alone a pay cut). And they will go on strike at the drop of a hat to prove it.

The recent snowstorm in New York glaringly illustrated an even more selfish disregard by public employees for the very lives of the public they are supposed to serve, when it became apparent that government snow-plow drivers purposely engaged in a work slow-down to protest layoffs - several people, unable to get to the hospital, died as a direct result. And this was not the first time such tactics have been employed by government employees to essentially engage in extortion.

Then there is the army of administrators, social workers, and others who make up the majority of government worker bees. Here, too, let any legislator dare to discuss even the most modest reductions, either in salary, benefits, or in staffing levels, and there will be hell to pay. I've personally heard (more times than I can count) government workers indignantly proclaiming that they should "never have to take a pay cut" - no matter how badly the economy is doing for the rest of us. And as far as these folks being in it to "serve their fellow citizens" think about the last interaction you had with anyone at the Post Office, or the Department of Motor Vehicles.

And we haven't even begun to talk about those arrogant little fascists who join government for no other reason than to tell the rest of us what to do in our private lives, from smoking bans in private businesses to Michelle Obama's attempts to have government determined food choices for your children. But that's a topic for another day.

So, what about those who work in the private sector? Why do free-market advocates like me have so much more faith in someone who works for a private business than we do in any government employee?

The answer is "accountability" - the private sector employee knows full well that it is in their own self-interest do a good job of pleasing their customers, whether directly or indirectly. If they do, they will benefit - higher pay, promotions, and recognition. If they don't, they will likely earn less than their better performing co-workers, be less likely to be promoted, and, in the extreme case, lose their job altogether.

Unlike government workers, who, because of union contracts, seldom have any motivation to out-perform their colleagues - they will be paid the same regardless. Nor do they have any real concern that their downright mistreatment of the public will result in any real negative consequences - when was the last time that the most outrageous conduct, sometimes even criminal conduct, ever resulted in the firing of a government employee?

Even more compelling, the Harvard University School of Business long ago found that the desire for profit leads to both happier employees and more satisfied customers. The Harvard Business Revue detailed this in "The Service-Profit-Chain" a long term study which showed that companies who treated their better-performing employees well, and - perhaps just as important - got rid of their bad employees, produced happier, more loyal workers. This in turn attracted and retained an increasing number of loyal, long term customers, which yielded greater long term profits - turns out that good moral conduct is good for business. Well run companies prosper and grow.

And poorly run companies don't. Because in the private sector, it is also true that bad conduct is punished. The story of corporate "bad guys" like those who ran ENRON prove this - they went to jail. And even if there had been no criminal conduct, they were bound to fail. Because those who mismanage their organizations may get away with their incompetence for a while, but the record clearly shows that poorly run companies either clean up their acts, or they fail. Which is as it should be.

Because the reality is that self-interest, the desire to profit from one's own efforts, actually leads to better outcomes for everyone concerned than all the world's "good intentions" have ever produced.  After all, look at the list of some of the greatest innovations in modern human history:

The steam engine.

The electric light bulb.

The automobile.

The radio.

The airplane.

The computer.

Television.

The cell phone (OK, the jury is still out on that one)

MRI and EKG devices.

Miracle drugs that allow millions to live who just decades ago would have died.

And on and on.

Now, how many of these breakthroughs were the brainchild of some government social worker?

None.

Oh, sure, someone will advance the argument that because some professor at a "government funded" university came up with this or that new idea, it thus "proves" that government sometimes produces beneficial results. But even in that case, it is the private sector that drives all innovation - because at the root of all research is the desire for profit.

Mankind's major achievements were all the result of private sector entrepreneurs bent on producing a product that could make them a hell of a lot of money. And even though people like Thomas Edison and Henry Ford also had some very noble views on contributing to the general well-being of their fellow citizens, what gave them the ability to do the good works they did was...profit.

And whether it is what kind food I want to eat or what kind of health insurance I want to buy, I will always trust any private sector employee more than I do some government bureaucrat whose sole goals in life are a job they can't be fired from, at a salary twice what it would pay in the private sector, a Rolls-Royce health plan, and a lavish retirement pension at the expense of the taxpayers.

Just the other day,  NBC's Tom Brokaw opined that he would be nervous about being in an Arizona bar because (horrors!) there might be people with "concealed weapons" around him. I was not surprised, since liberal elites like Brokaw have a history of being almost phobic about guns (except of course, the guns carried by their personal security staff. Chicago's Mayor Daley is a prime example - he surrounds himself with heavily armed bodyguards, but makes sure that the average Chicago citizen is virtually defenseless).

But when MSNBC's left-wing talk show host Chris Mathews recently proclaimed that merely using expressions like "gun" or "lock and load" in political rhetoric was somehow promoting violence, I had to laugh. Not because Mathews is being hypocritical, although he most certainly is. Mathews has engaged in some of the most vicious and hateful attacks on conservatives, often using the most inflammatory language imaginable.

No, my real amazement is that anyone should find "gun references" something new, let alone something "scary" or threatening. After all, every one of us, whether we realize it or not, regularly pepper our language with expressions that have their origins in firearm nomenclature. Perhaps a few comments I have overheard in just the last month will illustrate:

"My daughter has her sights set on law school."

"I love the new Mustang 5.0 - that motor is bulletproof!"

"Important meeting next week; they're bringing in the big guns from corporate."

"My proposal to the City Council was shot down."

"My 16 year old wants a new car. I told him, point blank, the answer was no."

"Don't go off half-cocked." - A reference that came from the operation of single action "cowboy" six-shooters - in the half cocked position, the gun could not fire. Thus going off half cocked is to act without being properly prepared.

"He has a gun for an arm." A comment about a quarterback's ability to "fire a bullet" to a receiver in the end-zone. And naturally, the "linebackers were gunning for him."

"I sold it all, lock stock and barrel." - The lock, the stock, and the barrel are the three main parts of any gun. The phrase thus has come to mean "the complete package" or, as some people also say, "the whole shootin' match."

"He's just a flash in the pan." - Contrary to the recently created notion that this expression came from prospectors panning for gold, it actually goes all the way back to Colonial times, and refers to the operation of their flintlock muskets. If the spark from the flint against the steel (which took place in the "pan" on the side of the barrel) did not ignite the main powder charge in the barrel, the pan "flashed" but the gun failed to fire. Thus a "flash in the pan" came to mean someone who initially showed promise, but failed to follow through, or live up to expectations.

"I tell my sales reps to aim high." - a reference to the arcing trajectory of a bullet. If you seek to achieve your goals you have to aim well beyond where you ultimately want to wind up. Note also that virtually every business organization has their monthly, quarterly, and annual (you guesses it) targets.

Even the expression, "He's a dud," comes from the term used to describe ammunition (whether a bullet, an artillery shell, or a bomb) that failed to fire.

And there are many, many more. But the point is that there is nothing unusual, let alone sinister, about Americans using words and phrases that refer to guns. It is even part of our national identity. Because the truth is that America does not have a gun culture - America IS a gun culture. No one with any knowledge of history would deny that fact, or be surprised that so much of our language has its origins in  firearm design and/or function.

As much as the pacifists hate to admit it, the harsh reality is that the United States would not even exist today if it weren't for guns. Because without their muskets, the Colonists would never have been able to even challenge (let alone defeat) the British, who had the most heavily armed and best-trained military force in the world. It is an indisputable fact - No guns, no America.

Now, I'm all for debating, but on the issues, not engaging in attacks on an opponent's physical appearance or other equally irrelevant personal attributes. But, please, if you are so timid or emotionally fragile that you can't deal with language that involves metaphorical references to firearms, then you might want to consider counseling.

But do not attempt to use Political Correctness about guns to silence your political adversaries.

Your efforts are certain to misfire...

Those on the American Left, having been slaughtered in the mid-term elections, are so furious at losing in the arena of ideas that they now want to do everything they can to stifle free expression. Their battle plan is simple: portray any disagreement with left-wing  policies as "promoting violence." Their targets are conservatives in general, but they have really set their sights on the most high profile critics of their creeping socialism - Talk Radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, and high profile critics of big government like Sarah Palin.

But their attacks are disingenuous - aside from the fact that "anti-government rhetoric" is fully protected by the 1st Amendment, it is also an American tradition - we were founded on opposition to an oppressive government. But more to the point, how does such language translate into violence? Well, according to the Left, it is because "right wing Talk Radio" is filled with "hate" and that surely "encourages" violence. By the way, when any of your liberal friends express agreement with this view, just ask them how often they listen to Rush Limbaugh or watch Glenn Beck. The answer will be that they themselves never listen or watch - but they "know it's true" because they heard about it on MSNBC or in some left-wing blog like the Huffington Post.

And what, specifically, can these people give as examples of such "hate" mongering? Can they produce a single video or audio clip of any prominent conservative actually urging anyone to engage in violence? Nope. Can they even find the kind of celebration of some liberal's ill health or death that we have seen time and again from the Left when a medical misfortune befalls a conservative? No again. So what are these frightening exhortations to violence? Apparently, it's that conservatives use expressions like "targeting" a specific Congressional district in an election, or that Sarah Palin once told an audience "don't retreat - reload" and even (horrors!) used images of "cross-hairs" to denote which states were considered "battleground" (a term, by the way, that is used by just about every newscaster in the nation).

Wow. THAT would certainly make any average American want to don a Kevlar vest and hide under their bed. We've never heard that kind of language before. What drivel. Far more hostile comments have been part and parcel of the American political landscape (dare I say, "battlefield"?) since the founding of the country. Any reading of newspaper editorials over the last 200 years would find commentary that would make today's dialogue seem almost tame by comparison. But today, it seems that any reference to "war" or "guns" is verboten - unless it is used by a Democrat, of course - Obama's "if they bring a knife, we bring a gun" comment comes to mind. And remember Bill Clinton's much heralded "war room" during his campaigns?

Conservatives have come to expect such attacks as standard operating procedure by the Left. But to use the recent shootings in Arizona as an opportunity to advance their political agenda is particularly despicable. And use it they did, and will continue to do. From Marxist professors like Dr. Lamont Hill, to the vile New York Times columnist, Paul Krugman, who, barely minutes after the shooting, sagely pronounced: "We don’t have proof yet that this was political, but the odds are that it was."

Gosh, a liberal Democrat partisan jumping to conclusions with no supporting evidence - now, there's a shock. And now that it has become clear that the shooter was most definitely not motivated by anything other than his own twisted, bizarre view of the world, don't look for a retraction from Mr. Krugman. As the motto of the new Left says,"never let a crisis go to waste."

Oh, as a side note, just imagine if the Arizona shooter had been a Muslim. You probably remember that when the Fort Hood shooter (who killed twice as many people as the Arizona killer) was found to be a (radical) Muslim, the American press practically fell all over themselves urging "restraint" and warning us not to "jump to conclusions" about Nidal Hasan's radical Muslim background. Surely it had nothing to do with his rampage, in spite of the fact that he yelled the now familiar Muslim terrorist battle cry, "God is Great!" as he opened fire on his victims.

So, how should conservatives respond to this media onslaught against free speech? Simple. Do not allow yourselves to be cowed into political correctness, in the futile hope that the mainstream press will somehow decide to treat you fairly. They never will. Instead, fight back. Lock and Load. Arm yourself with knowledge. Prepare yourself for battle. Never retreat. Never surrender. Improvise. Adapt. Overcome.

And use every weapon in your arsenal to defeat the enemies of freedom and liberty.

[Editor's note: if you don't understand the use of metaphors in the world of politics, then keep your ill-informed opinions to yourself.]

You knew it was coming. No sooner had the news broken of the Arizona shooting of a congresswoman and several others than the political opportunism by Democrats and the media began. Never mind that the shooter was, by all indications, a nut job with serious mental difficulties. And let's not dare to point out that the shooter's political leanings, if any, tend toward the left.

Because in the world of the mainstream press, any act of violence must be the fault of "the right" - in spite of the fact that violence, especially political violence, has become a hallmark of the American Left, not the Right. From the bottle and rock throwing WTO "protesters" to the Unabomber, those who actually act out their violent fantasies are far more likely to be Marxists, socialists, or, like Timothy McVeigh, outright anarchists.

And I'm getting particularly tired of the bogus claim that "both sides are equally guilty" - oh, sure, you can probably root around and find some example of less-than-appropriate language being used by some obscure conservative, but when it comes to violent rhetoric, including openly calling for actual violence, no one can hold a candle to the American Left. If you'd like to see some of the latest in an almost endless list of violent images and statements made by members of the Left, go to Michelle Malkin's site at:

http://michellemalkin.com

But no matter, the talking heads of the left-leaning media (CNN and NBC being the worst) immediately jumped on every conservative group or individual they could think of - the Tea Party, Talk Radio, you name it. CNN was the worst, interviewing mostly left-wing commentators, while showing endlessly in the "crawl" at the bottom of the screen the phrase "Some politicians blame Sarah Palin" - talk about subliminal propaganda.

Whether CNN, NBC, or any of the other "old media," the mantra seems to be that so-called "inflammatory rhetoric" is somehow responsible for the actions of an obviously deranged killer. And the discussion is always that such language is somehow exclusively the province of conservatives. They seem to forget that it was the Left who for eight years compared George Bush to Hitler, hung him in effigy, and even produced a movie titled "The Assassination of George Bush."

Then of course there are the predictable calls for more gun control, as if heaping yet more ridiculous regulations on the rest of us will somehow prevent a psychotic killer from finding a way to commit murder - Timothy McVeigh used nothing more sophisticated than fertilizer and diesel fuel to kill more people in 3 seconds than anyone with a gun, any gun, could kill in 3 hours.

But perhaps the most disturbing reaction was a call from a Congressman, a Democrat of course, who wants to make certain words and phrases a Federal crime. If that does not cause a chill to run up your spine, you need to step back and think carefully. The entire purpose of the free speech section of the 1st Amendment is to specifically protect political speech. And yes, that includes even the most "over-the-top" speech. Short of an actual exhortation to violence, political speech is, and must be, protected.

The guilty party in the Arizona shooting is Jared Lee Loughner. Whether he turns out to be as mentally disturbed as he appears to be does not change the fact that the responsibility for his acts rests with him. Guns are not responsible. Talk Radio hosts, whether conservatives like Sean Hannity or liberals like Keith Olbermann, are not responsible. The Tea Party is not responsible. "Inflammatory" rhetoric, whether from the Left or the Right, is not responsible.

Sadly, almost lost in all of the political maneuverings is the fact that one of the victims was a 9-year old girl, who ironically was born on September 11, 2001. I doubt that her "political viewpoint" mattered to the shooter. That such an innocent victim should be virtually ignored in the debate is more than a tragedy - it is a disgrace.

Why did Jerod Lee Loughner decide to go to a food store and randomly shoot at a crowd of people? We may never know. But the reality is that he is the only person responsible for these killings. And the sooner we face that fact the better it will be, for all of us.

Remember how, immediately after the inauguration of Barak Obama, the phrase "elections have consequences" became the mantra of the American Left? When the president nominated radical left-wing jurists to the Supreme Court, liberals dismissed objections on the grounds that he was only following the will of the people - after all, Obama had won. And, like it or not, that view is correct - picking Supreme Court judges is indeed the prerogative of the President.

But what about the "will of the People" expressed in the 2010 election? Certainly any objective observer would agree that the message sent by the People was loud and clear - perhaps the most unmistakable message to be sent to a sitting president in modern history. And since lawmaking is the responsibility of the legislature, it should be agreed that, here, too "elections have consequences" - and the President could rightly be expected to respect the will of the People, right?

Don't hold your breath.

As author Jason Lewis explores in his excellent book "Power Divided is Power Checked" the separation of powers written into the Constitution was expressly designed to prevent the accumulation of too much power in the hands of any one branch of government. The Executive, the Legislative, and the Judicial branches each have their role - and limiting their power, not expanding it, is the primary thrust and purpose of the Constitution. The Bill of Rights was, and is, all about putting checks on the power of government.

The same holds true for the States versus the Federal government - the entire reason for structuring the nation as a group of sovereign states, and not as a single Federal state, was to prevent the concentration of too much power in an overarching central government. Other than protecting obvious human rights, and ensuring free trade among the states, the Founders understood that the Federal government should simply stay out of the day-to-day policies of the individual states.

Would that it were so today.

In reality, the most minute aspects of every citizen's life are now increasingly under the control of the Feds. The Congress now tells us what sort of light bulbs we MUST purchase for use in our own homes. Ethanol mandates force us to burn corn to power our cars, not only reducing gas mileage, but driving up the cost of food. Now, tell me, did you, or any of your friends and family, ever take to the streets to lobby for Ethanol mandates? Of course not - corn producers did (from those overly-worshiped "family farms" to big agribusinesses).

Now, it would be bad enough if we merely had to deal with an ever more "Nanny State" Congress, but now we are seeing an increasing effort by the Left to essentially make law in spite of what Congress (or the states) want - through UNELECTED bureaucracies. The EPA is particularly guilty of usurping power that they have no business having. When it became increasingly clear that attempts to pass the bogus (and economy-killing) "Cap and Trade" scheme were doomed to failure, the EPA simply unilaterally declared that CO2 was a "pollutant" - making it something to be "controlled" by....why, the EPA of course.

One nitwit at the EPA even dared to propose a ban on lead bullets, which would have done nothing to "help the environment" but would have driven the cost of hunting ammunition through the roof. Luckily, as this brilliant suggestion occurred just weeks before the mid-term election, someone at the Whitehouse apparently realized what a firestorm it would have created, so the EPA quickly released a Gilda Radner-like "never mind" and withdrew the insane measure.

But the EPA is only the tip of the iceberg - we now have rumblings that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms is considering measures aimed at American citizens, supposedly in order to "stem the tide of illegal weapons" trade between Mexico and the United States, and so deal with border violence at the hands of Mexican drug cartels. Now, beside the point that the South American drug cartels have enough money to buy everything from RPGs (Rocket Propelled Grenades) to ATTACK HELICOPTERS (and get free delivery besides), why is yet another unelected bureaucracy being given the authority to write law? The BATF, like every arm of state or Federal government with police powers, has the obligation to ENFORCE law - not create it.

As an astute reader pointed out, even the FCC, an organization that is ultimately supposed to protect the right of free speech, now seems poised to become disturbingly like "Big Brother" in Orwell's 1984, deciding what program content is "acceptable" for the masses, whether on radio, TV, or even the Internet.

Increasingly, organizations that have no accountability to the People are being used to fashion laws that affect every American. What next, the UN determining American domestic economic policy? Oh, wait, they are already attempting to do just that - calling for the imposition of "Cap and Trade" on the American people under the guise of a "treaty."

Then there are those pesky American gun owners...what to do about them....