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.

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear what is arguably the most important gun rights case in U.S. history - the Chicago handgun ban. Without going into arcane administrative details, since 1984 (how appropriate) if you live in the city of Chicago, you are not allowed to own a handgun. Period. Not even in your own home.

You might find it ironic, if not downright laughable, that a city like Chicago, which is awash in drug and gang violence, is more worried about normal citizens owning handguns. After all, the city's legions of gang-bangers are most certainly armed - the latest FBI study shows that these inner-city thugs are carrying guns as early as age nine, and by age seventeen, most carry a gun every day - it's part of their wardrobe. So denying the innocent people the right to protect themselves and their families seems rather ludicrous on its face.

Besides, after years of piling gun law upon gun law - Chicago citizens even have to get a photo ID card just to buy even rifle ammunition - the affect on crime has been zero. The carnage on their streets continues unabated, with Chicago vying every year for the title of "Murder Capitol, USA" - competing with such violence-ridden meccas as Detroit, Los Angeles, and Washington, D.C. - all of which, coincidentally, have equally restrictive gun control laws.

Obviously, people have a fundamental right to protect themselves, and we should do everything possible to guarantee that right. But perhaps a more provocative question is: do citizens also have a duty to protect themselves? After all, it is a well known fact that the mere existence of the high gun ownership rates in the United States contributes to our very low incidence of "hot" or "occupied home" break-ins - only the most ruthless thugs consider entering the average American household.

And here is a case where even the exception proves the rule - in cities like Chicago and Washington D.C. which ban gun ownership almost completely, the rates of home invasion are much higher. Of course they are - the thugs know they are less likely to encounter an armed home-owner than in states and cities with few restrictions. 

Thus, it can accurately be said that where a large percentage of the populace arms themselves, they contribute to the safety of the community at large - because even home-owners who don't own guns get the benefit of the deterrence affect. They are, in economic terms, "free riders" in the system.

Which goes to my original question: since high rates of private gun ownership have been shown to deter crime, is it reasonable to require, or at least, reward, gun ownership? In the spirit of freedom, we would of course not mandate gun ownership - although there are several cases of individual American small towns doing just that. But we certainly could give citizens the choice of either a) owning a gun, or b) paying a tax to offset the benefit they receive from all the other taxpayers who do own guns. Call it the "free-ride" tax (an oxymoron to be sure, but it works).

Well, just such a bill is being proposed - and not in Texas, or Arizona. No, this bit of legislative inventiveness has been the work of State Rep. Fred Maslack of... Vermont. Yes, ultra-liberal Vermont, the only state in America with a registered socialist senator. And instead of registering gun owners, the bill would require all NON-gun owners to obtain a permit for the luxury of going about unarmed, and to pay a fee of $500 for the privilege.

Sound  crazy? Well, Vermont already boasts a high rate of gun ownership along with the least restrictive laws of any state - they even allows citizens to carry concealed firearms...without a permit. And for those who still believe in the myth that somehow more guns must equal more violence, note that Vermont's combination of plenty of guns and few laws regulating them has resulted in a crime rate that is the third lowest in the nation.

And since additional data show that the proliferation of handgun carry laws (now in all but two states - Wisconsin, and, no surprise, Illinois) has a beneficial affect on deterring crimes out on the street (the bad guys don't know who is armed and who is not) is it not then also reasonable for us to assign a tax to all those who, even though they themselves don't carry a gun, are just a bit safer thanks to the millions of Americans who do?

Hey, President Obama wants to fine people thousands of dollars for not protecting themselves with health insurance, on the grounds that their lack of financial responsibility means they are receiving the benefits paid for by the rest of us. Why then should we not tack on a fee to all of those whose refusal to protect themselves means they, too are getting a free ride in terms of crime deterrence?

The time bomb of Liberal Fascism is ticking. While the debate over the unprecedented government takeover of the private sector economy rages, the real impact of Obama's disastrously ill-conceived policies will not be felt until it is virtually too late to do anything about it. For example, the actual implementation of the majority of the proposed reforms is not scheduled to happen until 2013. But if the need for healthcare "reform" is soooooo immediate, why wait?

Ditto the so-called "stimulus" expenditures - while Federal Money (that is, your money) is being freely given out to questionable recipients for even more questionable projects, the bulk of the spending is not scheduled to begin until well after the next election cycle. Here, again, if "stimulating" the economy was so vital that the bill just HAD to be passed lickety-split, why then hold up the dispersal of the money?

Because by 2013, in Obama's calculations, he will have already been re-elected, along with a sufficient number of Democrats to keep control of the Congress. So when the inevitable disastrous consequences of their policies (like "Cap and Tax") have finally taken place, it will already be too late do anything about it at the ballot box - at least until the next election cycle.

Now, those who have a basic understanding of economics, as well as historical knowledge of the unavoidably negative ramifications of socialist policies, are already concerned enough to do everything they can to make sure that Obama is a one-term president. But even if that effort succeeds, the country is still stuck with Obama until January of 2013 - and when you consider the damage Obama's policies have done in just nine months, it is clear that we simply cannot afford three more years.

It is therefore critical to take away Obama's legislative majority in the Congress in 2010. Because without a majority of like-minded socialists in the House and the Senate, Obama is powerless to implement his radical agenda - losing the Congress would render him politically impotent. This is exactly what happened in 1994 - just two years into the Clinton presidency, Republicans took control of the House, forcing Bill Clinton to adopt more moderate policies. The media types often fawn over the "Clinton Economy" - while conveniently forgetting that it was due in great part to the attenuating affect of Republican initiatives like tax cuts and Welfare Reform.

Most people in the country will not actually feel the effects of Obama's programs until well after 2010, so by the time the average moderate voter does realize what a colossal mistake they made in putting Democrats in control of the Congress and the Presidency, the damage will already have been done. Even worse, should Obama be elected to a second term, AND have a Democrat majority in his pocket, all need for restraint will vanish - without having to worry about re-election, Obama would be free to unleash the full force and fury of his agenda.

It is absolutely essential that those who care about the survival of the Republic begin to work tirelessly to guarantee that 2010 is the turning point in returning America to its successful roots: maximum liberty, minimum government, and competitive free markets.

The alternative is too frightening to consider...

At the rate Obama is making mis-steps on the international stage, he may eclipse Jimmy Carter as the most inept president in recent history when it comes to foreign policy. After a weak and unconvincing speech at the U.N. attempting to secure support for action against Iran, we now have Obama's embarrassing failure to persuade the Olympic Committee to bring the Olympics to America.

What is even more surprising is that in his bungled sales trip to Denmark to shill for the city of Chicago, Obama made a mistake that even amateurs in Chicago politics wouldn't have made - he went to this highly public meeting without having the deal done in advance. Talk about bush-league (pun intended).

I grew up in Chicago, and I have seen first hand how every neighborhood development program, every new facility, even the route of a new expressway, are all agreed to in private hand-shake meetings...months, sometimes even years, in advance. The agreement is "locked up" verbally long before the first article announcing a "preliminary study" even appears in the news.

So, for Obama, a veteran of "the Chicago way," to have failed to do something so basic as making sure that everything has been worked out before he makes a public spectacle of himself, gives even more credence to the charge that Obama is in over his head.

When it comes to serious international politics, Obama seems more and more to be, simply put, a lightweight. And that is not merely bad for Obama's own political career - it is downright dangerous for America.

In one fell swoop, previously invisible Democrat Alan Grayson has done more to illuminate the lunacy of today's Democratic Party than any conservative commentator could possibly hope to achieve in a lifetime.

The Florida Congressman, whose resume is shorter than Joe Biden's memory, got his 15 minutes of fame by using the same time-tested tactic that Democrats always revert to when cornered on any issue - accusing Republicans of wanting to kill people (children, the elderly, black people, take your pick) simply because they disagree with Democrat's ever more radical socialist proposals.

This time, the charge was based on Republican resistance to Obama's government takeover of the health care system. And make no mistake, this was no off-the-cuff remark - Mr. Grayson even had posters made up in advance, stating that Republican's health care plan was to avoid being sick, but if you do get sick, at least do us all a favor and "Die Quickly."

Now, we are used to this sort of hyperbole from Democrats. You may recall the late Ted Kennedy's vicious attack on Judge Samuel Alito, saying that if Judge Alito were to take his place on the Supreme Court, we would go back to the days when women would be condemned to back alley abortions, and African-Americans would be banned from lunch counters.

We are also not going to be the least bit surprised to see the "Old Media" immediately spring to the defense of Mr. Grayson, either minimizing the idiocy of his statements, or worse, actually giving credence to his charge. That is the state of "journalism" in 2009.

Now, I do hope that at least this finally puts to rest the absurd argument that "both sides do it." Oh, sure, some MSNBC pundit will try to equate Grayson's hysterical nonsense with Representative Joe Wilson's remark accusing Barak Omama of telling a lie (which Obama did). They always do. But even the most politically uninvolved are beginning to recognize the reality - the vast majority of hateful rhetoric today is coming from Democrats. Mr. Grayson's behavior simply reinforces this view.

Most important of all, I hope this inspires Republicans to finally take the gloves off.  Joe Wilson had no reason to apologize for his (absolutely accurate) statement that Obama was lying about his healthcare plan not covering illegal aliens (it most certainly will). Yet Joe Wilson did apologize - worse, some Republicans felt obligated to turn on their own colleague, joining in the criticism.

But the unrepentant Mr. Grayson not only refused to apologize for a far more outrageous comment than Mr. Wilson's - no, the Florida Democrat went even further off the deep end, claiming that not passing a government run healthcare plan is akin to perpetrating a "holocaust" on the American people who don't have insurance.

And note that not a single Democrat has repudiated even this deranged, and insulting, comparison with the slaughter of 6 million people, let alone Mr. Grayson's childish show-and-tell in the Congress. Unlike Republicans, Democrats NEVER criticize their own.

If we're lucky, the next time some honest conservative does the unthinkable (i.e. telling the truth about some lying socialist) Republicans will remember the antics of Democrat Alan Grayson...and the way his party handled it.

It has become painfully clear that Barak Obama simply lacks the intellect, the experience, and the wisdom to lead a nation under any circumstances, let alone during a time of crisis. And the majority of Democrats in the Congress have proven equally inept and untrustworthy.

Facing what should have been a modest, and temporary, economic downturn, Obama showed his utter inability to grasp even the most basic economic concepts - not to mention the lessons of history. Because, instead of reducing tax rates to free up the formidable engine of American capitalism, he blew the top off of the Federal budget with egregiously profligate spending that has sent the country into suffocating debt.

Even worse, when faced with the stark reality that tax revenues would not even begin to cover his massive spending program, his "solution" was to have the Treasury crank out paper money by the bushel, setting the stage for unprecedented inflation and devaluation of the dollar.

But perhaps most disturbing is the discovery that much of Obama's ill-named "stimulus" package is little more than a stack of thinly-disguised bribes to the organizations that helped him get elected. From big labor unions to the unimaginably corrupt ACORN, those who subsist on the backs of American tax-payers are lined up to get their payoff.

Even more emblematic of Obama's lack of understanding is his support of economically suicidal policies like the "Cap and Trade" bill, which will result in dramatic increases in energy costs that will affect every single American, the poor worst of all. Thankfully, his equally disastrous "healthcare" initiative has been stalled, at least for now.

And Obama's lack of fitness for office doesn't stop there - he is the first president ever to openly attack capitalism itself, the very foundation of American prosperity. He has surrounded himself with the most radical socialist group of advisers in living memory - including people who have made no secret of their desire to turn America into a neo-communist state. The spate of "bail-outs" - which amount to nothing less than a government takeover of private industry - is but a foreshadowing of their long term agenda.

Obama's naivete in foreign policy is yet another area of concern. From his annoying "Apology Tour 2009" where he has nauseatingly apologized for America's prosperity to just about every Third World thugocracy on the planet, to his inability to confront terrorism, Obama has proven to be incapable of inspiring even a grain of confidence in the people he is sworn to protect. Instead, he worries about the discomfort of the terrorists held in Guantanamo Bay.

And now we learn that, while he has more than enough time to appear on numerous TV shows, including David Letterman, in more than two months Obama was only able to find sufficient time to make ONE PHONE CALL to General Stanley McChrystal, the senior field commander in Afghanistan.

Meanwhile,  the crazy mullahs in Iran announce that, yes, they most certainly are rushing headlong into becoming a nuclear power - after numerous previous statements declaring that their ultimate goal is to "wipe Israel off the map." And all Obama can do is pontificate at the United Nations about "talking" to them (in a "stern" manner, mind you).

The Iranian's response to Obama's embarrassing display of foreign policy impotence tells us all we need to know about how little they respect him, let alone fear him - they fired off several long-range missiles, basically giving the finger to Obama (and by extension, us).

We are living in unsettling economic times. We need leaders who understand the inherent strength of the American system of free-market capitalism - not neo-communist radicals who want to "change" this country into a socialist nightmare.

We are also living in times of great physical threat - terrorism has not gone away. We need leaders who understand that foreign policy cannot be based on empty threats - it must be grounded in a clear and unambiguous message to the world that our words are backed up by the ability, and the willingness, to use whatever means necessary, including military force, to protect our interests, and the lives of our citizens.

No terrorist nation or organization takes Obama seriously - and apparently, neither do a growing number of Americans.

When teachers were found to be showing Al Gore's now thoroughly debunked "global warming" movie, it should have caused parents across the country to demand that it be stopped, or at the minimum, counter-balanced with something remotely resembling genuine science.

Now we find out that "The Story of Stuff" - a blatant socialist propaganda film insidiously targeted at young children - is being shown in schools across America. And there has been some reaction, but nowhere near what it would have been in, say, the 1950s, when I was in elementary school just outside of Chicago.

For one thing, the principal would have very soon found himself face to face with my father, a former semi-pro football player and Master Sergeant in the Air Force (the Army Air Corps back then). It would not have been a pleasant encounter. Nor would my father have been alone - the number of irate parents waiting their turn to speak their minds would likely have made the principal's office "standing room only." They would have been furious.

But not today.

Oh, sure, there has been some angry reaction - at least among the parents who do not restrict their news-gathering to watching the major network nightly news shows. But what will actually be done about this bald-faced attack on the very way of life that defines America? Will the teachers who showed this vile piece of Neo-Communist trash lose their jobs?

Doubtful.

Will parents across the nation set aside their political differences and agree that at least in the classroom, such outrageous political manipulation must be stopped?

Again, I don't see it. At least not yet.

Because unfortunately, for far too many people, it appears that their "pain threshold" has risen to such a level of that it will take a 9/11 style catastrophe to get them off their couches. And that is not hyperbole.

Look at the "human-caused global warming" scam - even after it has now been all but completely discredited, a huge percentage of people continue to go meekly along with the "green" movement, sitting back while the "government" determines which cars they can buy, not to mention letting the Congress pass a FEDERAL law dictating what kind of light bulbs they are "allowed" to use - in their own homes.

Now, I understand how it is easy for people to become numb to the constant avalanche of "green" propaganda aimed at adults - as a result, too many otherwise intelligent people have fallen for the "global warming" snake oil (a.k.a. "Cap and Trade"). But when it comes to brain washing our kids, that should be the last straw - every parent, regardless of political views, should go absolutely ballistic. After all, this is the kind of thing you expect to see in classrooms in North Korea or Cuba, not in the United States.

It does make me wonder what it will take to get the majority of people upset enough to actually DO something. And perhaps this time they will. But they'd better do it soon. Because if too many parents out there continue to sit back in abject apathy, they may be shocked at what kind of "educational" movies will be shown to their children next...

As usual, the Israelis had it right all along - we now learn that Iran has been concealing a separate nuclear facility. This comes as no surprise to those of us who live in the real world - we have suspected for quite sometime that the maniacal mullahs were well on their way to developing the ability to produce tactical nuclear weapons.

But the bigger issue is, what is the world going to do about it? I certainly don't expect anything substantive from the laughably inept United Nations - besides, half of the member nations would be just fine with Israel vaporized in an atomic fireball. And I have no faith at all that our Pacifist-in-Chief will do anything other than express his "indignation" at their actions. What ingrates! And just when Obama was about to announce free health care for all Iranians!

Besides, Obama, and his like-minded cronies in the Congress, have been busy attempting to disarm America - somehow, in the twisted world of the American Left, whenever some looney tunes threatens the world, the solution is always the same: we Americans should give up our ability to defend ourselves.

Oh, sure, we can count on the pompous posturing, the speeches "condemning" the actions of Iran (gosh, I'll  bet that'll have them quaking in their sandals), and eventually the U.N. "resolutions" demanding that Iran "cease and desist."

If we had a President who truly understood the essence of power politics, we might even be able to handle this issue in a way that does not give the anti-Semitic bigots of the world the excuse they want to blame Israel for the eventual outcome.

I've spent some time in the Middle East, including Israel and the West Bank, and I have little doubt how this will end. At the end of the day, it will likely be the Israelis who finally do something to genuinely deal with the problem. They will be left with little choice.

But the chaos that will inevitably result, from skyrocketing oil prices to potential violence directed against the West in general, and America in particular, will not be the fault of the Israelis.

It will rest with the gutless, pacifist American Left, who have sent the message to the world's crazies that, as of January 20, 2009, they are now free to run wild, with no fear of serious consequences.