The last several years have exposed the utter falsehood of just about every tenet of the Church of Liberalism. And this is not an opinion - it is now a matter of record. Let's look at just two of the more glaring examples.

"Global Warming"

After more than a decade of relentless propaganda (Al Gore's horrible piece of science-fiction has been force-fed to your kids in many of the public schools, and more than a few private ones), even the most biased supporters of "man-made-global-warming" are beginning to recognize the reality - it's a myth.

Not only has it been discovered that the entire theory is based on faulty "research" (carbon dioxide, the primary bogeyman of the climate change crowd, has now been proven to have NO RELATION whatsoever to the temperature of the Earth) but we now know that their computer models were intentionally rigged to produce the desired results. Worse, when caught, a number of these pseudo-scientists actually defended their dishonesty, saying if it got people to reduce their energy use, it was an acceptable tactic! So much for scientific integrity.

But perhaps the biggest pin in the global warming ("hot-air") balloon is the documented fact that the earth is NOT warming at all - over the last dozen years it has actually been cooling! And remember, this has occurred during a period of unprecedented industrial expansion, fueled (pun intended) primarily by the enormous economic growth in China and India. If there was a shred of truth in the alarmists' premise, we should have seen a substantial rise in temperature, not a decline.

Yet the onslaught by the climate change hysterics continues - despite the fact that the Earth is now cooling, and despite the proof that CO2 has no affect on climate, the EPA has now declared Carbon Dioxide to be...a pollutant! Silly, you say? Carbon Dioxide is no more a pollutant than Oxygen. Of course it isn't - we wouldn't be alive without CO2, a naturally occurring substance that allows plants to convert sunlight into energy, and in the process producing life-giving oxygen. Thus, no carbon dioxide, no us.

But the real, insidious motive behind this little "environmental" sleight-of-hand is that a "pollutant" can be regulated (and taxed) by the government, more specifically, the unelected (and unaccountable) bureaucrats at the EPA. The real reason for the Cap-and-Trade movement has nothing to do with clean air - it's purpose is to strangle the economy of the United States (by taxing us to the breaking point) and in the process, make Al Gore and his friends billionaires (remember that someone has to act as the "broker" for the buying and selling of all those imaginary "carbon credits").

The "Green" Movement

One of the clever tactics the Left has used has been to conflate unrelated issues with language that blurs the debate. Note that in any discussion of "global warming" you hear words like "environment" and "pollution" - as if to say that if you don't go along with their climate change policies, you must want dirty air and undrinkable water. Nonsense - we simply know the difference between real, workable approaches to clean air and water, and those whose real purpose is to advance a political agenda.

The "Greenies" support disastrous policies such as tax-payer financed subsidies for Ethanol, based on the claim that ethanol-based fuels are "cleaner" than petroleum products. They aren't - ethanol is no cleaner than gasoline, and, because it is less thermally efficient than petroleum fuels, it not only substantially reduces fuel economy, it actually costs more energy to produce an gallon of ethanol than the ethanol itself contains! As a result, ethanol actually increases our net energy use - disproving yet another claimed benefit of "going green."

And there's more - now that we have measured the extensive destructive affect of ethanol plants on the environment, we find that a single ethanol plant has a far more negative affect than several oil refineries. Thus, "green" fuels are anything but! And let's not forget the huge increase in food prices due to Ethanol's insatiable demand for corn, as well as the takeover of valuable farmland that could otherwise be producing food crops.

The "Green" types also pushed for (and got) a government mandate requiring you to buy so-called "energy efficient" light bulbs. Now, I'm all for saving money, but that decision should be left up to the people themselves. We don't need the government getting this deep into our homes - not to mention the risk of toxic levels of mercury being released should you happen to break one of these overpriced little gems.

Wind power is another Quixotic venture of the Green types. Despite the fact that wind power will not in our lifetime ever come close to delivering even 5% of our energy needs, it is relentlessly pushed as a source of "clean" and "unlimited" energy. Needless to say, facts be damned, the propaganda is not likely to stop anytime soon. Remember, people like General Electric and others who just happen to make the light bulbs (and the wind turbines) are among the Democrat party's biggest contributors.

Gone are the "good old days" when people used to say that Democrats were "for the little guy?"

In their relentless attack on just about every American industry, Democrats have shown their hatred of our free enterprise system - and their genuine hostility toward those who succeed in it is even greater. If it isn't "Big Oil" it's "Big Tobacco" or "Big Pharma" (as in pharmaceuticals - you know, those evil people who keep many of us alive).

The latest object of liberal vitriol is of course the Insurance Industry, more specifically, Health Insurance companies. If you listen to Obama and friends, you'd think these companies (whose sole purpose for existing is to contract to pay YOUR liabilities), were one step removed from Simon Legree, "ripping you off" at every opportunity.

Now we've come to expect such idiocy from today's Left - they cannot exist without some manufactured crisis imperiling societies losers (a.k.a. the average Democrat voter) who are invariably portrayed as being the "victims" of whatever organization happens to be the "target de jour" of their venom.

But my gripe is directed toward the CEO's and other top level managers at these companies who let them get away with it. The current "demand" by members of the Congress for the records of salaries, bonuses, premiums, and other financial information from some of the nations top health insurance companies is their latest stunt, and a rather silly one at that. After all, since the insurance industry is already one of the most OVER-regulated industries in the country, all such information is readily available.

And the political thugs sitting in our Congress know it. But they did not expect the massive public resistance to their proposed massive government takeover of healthcare, so they needed to deflect attention away from the real issue. And a corporate "witch hunt" is always good for headlines, and especially so when it involves an industry that has already been so maligned as insurance.

But that aside, why do so many of these obviously smart, talented, hard working insurance executives knuckle under to a bunch of effete snobs who most of the time do not have one tenth their brains or experience? Instead of fighting like fearless lions, they behave like frightened puppies in the presence of a rolled up newspaper. Guys, most of these arrogant, impudent, elitist little twits have never had a real job - ever! They work for YOU!

Wouldn't it be refreshing to see one of these captains of industry stand up at one of these "inquisitions" and (figuratively speaking, of course) lay one of these blithering idiots like Barney Frank or Nancy Pelosi out cold on the floor?

Just once, before I die, I would like to hear one of you tell them simply:

"With all due respect, Senator...you go to Hell."

MSNBC twists a story of a man who brought a rifle to a healthcare protest into a propaganda piece about "angry white racism."  They went so far as to make sure the video of the man clearly showed his AR-15 rifle, but studiously avoided showing his face - in order to hide the fact that the "gun-toting-white-racist" was...a black man!

Liberals viciously turned on Whole Foods (a company that is about as "granola-eating-bicycle-riding-liberal" as you can get ) demanding that people boycott the company for daring to offer PRIVATE health insurance to their employees. More importantly, for those who still doubted that "single-payer" government run healthcare is their ultimate goal, they made it clear that their vitriolic attack on the CEO of Whole Foods was based precisely on his opposition to a European-style single-payer system.

But if you really want to get an insight into the mind of today's American Left, you need only read the latest from Uber-Liberal New York Times columnist Frank Rich:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/23/opinion/23rich.html

In "The Guns of August" Mr. Rich hauls out the same old litany of left-wing hysteria, from "the rising threat of right wing extremism" to the usual demonizing of the NRA (obviously, anyone with a gun is a "nut"). And of course, there is the inevitable exhumation of the specter of Timothy McVeigh.

But perhaps the most illuminating aspect of Mr. Rich's article is to be found in the comments by his (mostly) leftist readers. I urge you to spend the time reading as many of them (370 at last count) as possible. You will learn exactly what they think of anyone who does not share their radical socialist vision.

You will also learn that they are consumed with hate. Hatred of conservatives. Hatred of  gun owners. Hatred of free enterprise. Heck, they even hate FOX news - because they have no interest in free speech. Nor in true democracy. As one neo-fascist liberal reader expressed it so succinctly (and tellingly):

"It's time for moderates and liberals to stop making nice with right-wing weirdos and worrying about their sweet little opinions, and start ruling. As the winning side in a free and fair election, we don't need the participation of the right to govern this country, we don't need their permission, and they don't have to like the results."

You may be surprised. You may be angered. But what I do hope is that you will be motivated to become even more active and involved in the 2010 election.

[The following article by noted firearm expert John Lott is well worth the read. - Ed]

A story about an American with a gun who behaved properly is twisted into something else: a narrative about crazy conservatives who want to threaten the president.

In Portsmouth, New Hampshire recently, a man carried a handgun a few blocks away from the site where President Obama was scheduled to hold a town hall a couple of hours later. Was it a danger or not? The man carrying the gun, William Kostric, even had permission to have the gun on private church property while he was protesting Obama's appearance. Everybody from the New York Times to USA Today to CBS News expressed their outrage, interpreting it as a hot head threatening the president and linking it to militias and conservative talk radio. A prominent liberal radio talk show host came out saying that conservatives "want Obama to get shot." New legislation related to this incident is even being proposed in Congress.

Obviously no one wants to see a president even remotely threatened and people need to be sensitive to such things. But worrying over a law-abiding citizen legally carrying a gun several blocks and a couple of hours away from an indoor event that the president will attend is overdoing it.

Before the president's town hall meeting, an MSNBC host noted: "Apparently there is fairly significant, almost disturbing news, let us know what is happening there in New Hampshire." A reporter, Ron Allen, breathlessly responded: "There is a man in the crowd who has a gun, a handgun strapped on his lower leg. . . . And I suspect that he won't be here when the president gets here in a couple of hours time."

Chris Matthews' cross-examination on "Hardball" of Kostric was sent all over the Internet, with various versions on YouTube picking up a total of nearly 200,000 viewings. But Matthews' interview fell flat by trying to link Kostric with extremist groups such as the"birthers," who challenge Obama's legitimacy as president. And Kostric did not come across as the hot head that Matthew's tried so hard to portray him as.

On the "CBS Evening News," Katie Couric asked: "Are we really still debating health care when a man brings a handgun to a church where the president is speaking?" Kostric did bring a gun to the church, but Couric was plainly wrong about where the president was speaking. He spoke at the town hall at the high school down the street. She somehow linked Kostric's gun to the "fear and frankly ignorance drown[ing] out the serious debate that needs to take place about an issue that effects the lives of millions of people."

Yet, the most amazing thing about the news coverage was how much the media missed. Far from being a hot head, Kostric and a friend had been roughed up by a union member. The union member had spit on and kicked the person who was with Kostric. But Kostric didn't threaten the union member, and didn't respond physically in any way. Kostric and his friend notified the police of the incident, but the police officer shrugged and went away. Kostric's gun did however defuse the volatile situation with the union member -- once the union member saw Kostric's gun in its holster he backed up and moved away.

Also the coverage missed that Kostric regularly carries his gun for protection. He did not bring the gun as part of his protest against President Obama's policies.

Is there a sudden trend with health care protestors threateningly carrying guns? Gail Collins' New York Times column "Gunning for Health Care" claims there is such a trend. She also misrepresents the risk of law-abiding citizens carrying guns. Collins simply provides two anecdotes as evidence. One involved Kostric -- she is shocked his actions "turned out to be completely legal under New Hampshire law." The other case was a dropped gun at a political event in Arizona with Congresswoman Gabreille Gifford (D-Ariz.). But Collins' description of that event was also misleading, as Giffords herself never felt there was any danger. Giffords stated: "A lot of people carry firearms here... at no point did I ever feel in danger and at no point did I ever feel there was a problem."

Nor does the issue look like it is going to go away. On Monday in Phoenix an unidentified black man outside of Obama's latest health care rally carried a semi-automatic rifle (referred to in the media as an "assault rifle"). When asked about whether anyone openly carrying a gun outside Obama's event endangered the president's safety, the U.S. Secret Service spokesman Ed Donovan said: "of course not." Not happy with all these events there is a move in Congress to ban guns within the "vicinity" of President Obama.

MSNBC probably went the farthest on all this with some truly remarkable claims on Tuesday, August 18. Showing the clip of the anonymous black man carrying the "assault rifle," but editing it so that one was not able to see the man's race, Contessa Brewer said: "But also there are questions whether this has a racial overtone. I mean here you have a man of color in the presidency and white people showing up with guns strapped to their waists." Another person on the same show noted the"anger about a black person being president" and about "the black man becoming president. You know we see these hate groups rising up."

The five million Americans who legally carrying concealed handguns permit holders are extremely law-abiding. Take Arizona, given that Collins' points to the event there. There were 99,370 active permits as of December 1, 2007. During 2007, just 33 permits were revoked for any reason -- a mere 0.03 percent rate. In New Hampshire, where Kostric lives, permit revocations are even rarer.

What should have been a story about an American with a gun who behaved properly was somehow twisted into a storyline focusing on something else: crazy conservatives who want to threaten the president.

John Lott is an economist and author of "Freedomnomics."

Predictably, just when the political battle is turning in favor of Conservatives, a number of our own "troops" want to drop their guns and run from the fight. And I mean, literally drop their guns.

During 8 years of vicious, vile, and over-the-top attacks (including actual acts of violence by far-Left "protesters"), not once did you hear liberals repudiate any of these radical groups.  But let a few average, non-violent, concerned citizens show up at a town hall meeting LEGALLY carrying firearms, well, gosh almighty, from out of the woodwork come the "conservative" appeasers.

On talk shows, TV, and in interviews, even high profile conservatives like Michael Medved seem to find it necessary to apologize for "our side" - even agreeing with the likes of lefty Chris Mathews that carrying a gun was "a stupid thing to do." Their basic argument tends to be along the lines of "this kind of behavior makes all conservatives look bad" or that "it gives ammunition to the liberals." Are these people delirious? Or just fools?

Newsflash: The left, aided and abetted by their allies in the media, are going to demonize conservatives NO MATTER WHAT WE DO. These turncoats seem to have forgotten that it was the Left who have used the words "Hitler" and "Nazis" to describe conservatives and Republicans for more than 40 years. Heck, who do you think invented the word "Pig" to describe police officers?

Apologizing won't make them like us. And throwing our gun carrying friends under the bus won't bring about some sudden resurgence in "objectivity" in the mainstream press. Quite the opposite, because when you turn against our own people, the result is that instead of making our side look better, you actually VALIDATE the position of our opponents. So, to my "moderate" conservative friends I say:

BUTCH UP, SALLY! POLITICS IS A STREET-FIGHT!

And as my Special Ops and SEAL friends are fond of saying, "if you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck." Because in a street-fight, nothing matters but survival. And taking the "high road" will get you only one thing.

A beating.

The liberal media's pathological obsession with race was on display this past weekend, both nationally and locally. Apparently, if you express disagreement with ANYTHING that the Obama administration is doing, then, you see, those concerns are CODE for, well, racism.

CNN's Don Lemon, long known for his cozy relationship with the anti-gun zealots, this time took aim at those opposing Obama's government takeover of healthcare. When one of the protesters he was interviewing explained their motivations as being "real Americans" who wanted to have their voices heard, Lemon practically attacked him for using "divisive" rhetoric. Lemon was visibly agitated - at least 3 times he abandoned his role as a reporter and inserted his own personal views, telling the protester that he shouldn't use "that phrase" because, after all, "we're all real Americans, aren't we?"

Now, in the first place, a supposedly objective journalist has no business getting into an argument with the person he is interviewing. And in the second, how the heck does this guy get off telling people what words and phrases they are allowed to use to describe THEMSELVES? And besides, Mr. Lemon, I would suggest that we are most certainly NOT all "real Americans" - those like you, who are trying to turn America into a Marxist dictatorship, come to mind.

Then there was our own Minnesota Liberal-Democrat-Hack-in-Residence, Pat Kessler. Mr. Kessler, the "Political Reporter" for WCCO (perhaps the most blatantly Left-wing station in the Midwest) has always shown his bias, on everything from "taxing the rich" to attacking gun owners, but you had to pay close attention. Now he has finally come out of the closet, so to speak. In an interview Saturday morning he accused those who oppose the government in any way of most assuredly doing so because...the President is black.

In Mr. Kessler's liberal bubble, if you don't like being taxed to the hilt, why, that's just "code" for racism. Do you oppose a government takeover of healthcare? Yep, more "code" for racism. But perhaps the most ludicrous accusation by Mr. Kessler is that anyone who wants people to "take personal responsibility" for their lives is actually using "a code phrase" for "I don't like black people."

Worse, he stated that this phrase, along with the phrase "I want my country back," are "both frightening to minorities" - like most liberals, he sees minorities as helpless victims unable to handle even "scary" words like "personal responsibility."

Even more interesting is that Mr. Lemon and Mr. Kessler made their comments just a week after another CNN talking head made the inane suggestion that calling a socialist a socialist is, well, code for...you guessed it - racism.

Now, any rational human being would scratch their head over all this nonsense, but then, if Mr. Kessler can find hidden racism in opposition to high taxes, he is most certainly NOT a rational human being.

Hmmm, I ride a motorcycle, and I do not want government to mandate that I wear a helmet.  I guess, somehow, opposition to helmet laws is yet another "code" for hating black people....

Once again, MSNBC talking head (i.e. Democrat partisan hack) Chris Mathews betrayed his hysterical liberal bent. He practically blew a gasket over the fact that a protester at a New Hampshire townhall meeting was a legal handgun carry permit holder, and that he was...legally carrying a handgun.

Of course he would be fearful of a normal citizen being armed - Chris Mathews, like most liberals, sees the mere presence of "the gun" as a threat (unless they are guns carried by paid bodyguards protecting "important" people like, well, Chris Mathews).

Laughably, Mathews asked him if it was loaded - the New Hampshire man pointed out the stupidity of the question when he asked Chris what kind of idiot would carry an UN-loaded gun.

But Mathews would not be calmed - or deterred. Railing on about the "history of America and people who bring guns to presidential forums" (the permit holder did not enter the forum - he stayed outside the entire time) Mathews could barely contain himself. What was even more revealing was that the more calmly and rationally the permit holder fielded the attacks, the more apoplectic Mathews became.

Mathews desperately tried to corner him over the poster the man brought, which was a partial quote from Thomas Jefferson regarding his famous statement that "from time to time the Tree of Liberty must be watered with the blood of both patriots and tyrants" - coming close to accusing the man of being a potential presidential assassin, simply because he carried a gun...and a sign. Talk about profiling!

The best thing about the current meltdown of the Left in full view of the public is that more and more people, especially those mushy moderates, are seeing who modern liberals really are. And the picture isn't flattering.

It has become increasingly clear that these neo-fascists want to control virtually every aspect of your life - what you eat, what you drink, what kind of car you drive, what kind of light bulbs you use, where you live, how you live, you name it. And more than anything else you do, they want to control your ownership of firearms - the Left absolutely HATES that you own guns.

So, I have a warning for my gun-owning Democrat friends - your party is bound and determined to do everything in their power to restrict, restrain, inconvenience, tax, and otherwise infringe on your ability to defend yourself.

They cannot take away your right of self-defense - the right to protect yourself, your family, and your neighbor existed long before there was a Constitution, or even before there was a Magna Carta. Nearly every culture, from the most modern to the most primitive, recognizes self-preservation as a fundamental human right.

But what they can do is make it virtually impossible for you to EXERCISE that right - by denying you legal access to the most effective tool available for that task, a firearm. Not directly, mind you, as in outright bans, but by ever more insidious regulations and restrictions - they are doing it right now, behind closed doors.

And when you wake up one day and wonder where your freedoms went, just don't say we didn't warn you...

In a desperate attempt to demonize anyone who opposes Obama's takeover of the nations health care system, one of the "useful idiots" (Carlos Watson) at MSNBC suggested that the mere use of the word "socialist" is "code" for racial hatred of Obama.

Oh, please.

I hate to break the news to you, but the only thing the term "socialist" is code for is...SOCIALIST. Now, we understand that in the world of the SOCIALIST staff at MSNBC, it is impossible to accept that real, normal Americans do not share their goal of turning America into a Marxist nightmare. But instead of dealing with the substance of the opponents' objections, the Obama faithful try to portray disagreement with ANYTHING put forth by the President as occurring because he is black (OK, half-black).

Sorry, but real Americans oppose the SOCIALIST ideas of Nancy Pelosi, the SOCIALIST ideas of Barney Frank, and yes, the SOCIALIST ideas of Barak Obama because SOCIALISM is a vile, despicable, and failed ideology, and one which would destroy the very free-enterprise system that has made America the most successful nation in the history of the planet.  The race, religion, or sex of the SOCIALIST is utterly irrelevant.

But then, they know that - they simply hope that repeating the accusation of racism over and over again will eventually intimidate enough people to the point that many of you would rather keep quiet than risk being labeled a racist.

And they have good reason to believe in the strategy - after all, they are well aware of the fact that a fair number of people voted for Omama for no other reason than that they didn't want think of themselves as not "embracing diversity."

Aaaah, "diversity" - now THERE is a code word if ever there was one....

Nancy Pelosi and others in the Democrat Politburo are now slandering voters who belong to their own party, likening them to Nazi's and calling them "un-American" - simply because these ordinary citizens showed up at townhall meetings and dared to question the "Commissars" about a monstrously expensive and bureaucratic government takeover of the health care industry.

Meanwhile, Rahm Emanuel and his political thugs are working feverishly to counteract the growing backlash, setting up bogus townhall meetings for Barak Obama where he can field soft-ball questions from hand-picked audiences, including a pre-teenish girl whose "question" was as scripted as it was silly (oh, who, by the way, just HAPPENS to be the daughter of a major Obama contributor).

Perhaps the most illuminating was the exchange between turncoat Republican-turned-Democrat Arlen Specter and, ironically, a roomful of angry Democrats and Republicans. Not surprisingly, Specter displayed the hopeless disconnect with the American people which has become the hallmark of too many career politicians of both parties.

The American people are slow to anger, but when they see not merely incompetence, but unbelievable stupidity combined with outright deception and lies, they react the way you would expect them to - they are outraged.

Then again, maybe this is exactly "what the Doctor ordered" to jerk the uninvolved off their couches...and into the streets, the meeting halls, and the offices of their elected officials. And it's about time. But hey, better late than never. So to Barak, Nan, Rahm, Arlen, and the rest of you neo-socialists, I say:

Keep it up...PLEASE keep it up.

Because 2010 is coming faster than you think...

Well, the gloves are off. Obama's Brown Shirts are now attempting to bust up townhall meetings across the country. In Florida, Missouri, Detroit, and elsewhere, the party of "peace" and "sensitivity" is showing their true (red?) colors.

You thought we were exaggerating when we told you that Obama and his radical Democrat comrades were nothing more than fascists in "progressive" clothing. But the events of the last few days leave little doubt that the Democratic party is currently being run by nothing more than political thugs.

I know something about thugs - I grew up in Chicago, the home of the most infamous mobster of all time, Al Capone. My father played cards with George "Bugs" Moran. But Chicago is also the adopted home of Barak Obama, soon to become the most infamous President of all time, not only for destroying the Democratic party, but for attempting to turn America into nothing less than a socialist gulag.

Think "gulag" is too strong a word? Tell me, when in your lifetime have you seen union goons attacking American citizens, not for attempting to cross a picket line, but for simply demanding answers from their elected representatives?

Liberals are fond of throwing out the term "Nazi" at every turn - then again, as Shakespeare observed, "methinks he doth protest too much." Because it has become abundantly clear that the real Nazi's today are almost invariably on the Left - "speech codes" on campuses, smoking bans, trans-fat bans, onerous regulations on everything and everyone. And of course, it is the Left who has relentlessly pushed for more and more Gun Control - yet another favorite of the original Nazis (ask the Jews how that worked out).

And now we have the final straw - open warfare on the American democratic process, at the very time that our own "Prince Harry" dares to accuse the folks who show up at townhall meetings of (are you ready?) "interfering with the democratic process." Apparently, in the world of Obama and Bill Ayers, only leftists are allowed to express disagreement with their government's policies.

We have commented before on the overbearing, arrogant, elitist liberals who think they know what's best for you. Now they are showing you what they are prepared to DO to you. And at this point, even "mushy" moderates who thought it would be "cool" to have a black president are beginning to recognize who the real "nazis" are.

And they will not go quietly to the "ovens" - why do you think so many of them are buying guns?

The veil has been lifted on the Liberal Fascists - their disdain for all of you serfs who don't seem to "know your place" is now on display. For nearly a decade we've watched Democrats excusing, if not openly supporting, the legions of filthy, foul-smelling, feces-throwing, window-breaking, paid Left-Wing protesters. Hilary Clinton even had the audacity to suggest that such anarchy was "the highest form of patriotism."

But that was then - today, we have neo-Marxists like Barbara Boxer taking umbrage at the mere fact that some of you regular (unpaid) citizens dare, DARE, to show up at a (contrived) town hall meeting, and...demand answers from your elected representatives. And in what was perhaps the most laughable example of liberal elitism, Ms. Boxer complained that "you people" (unlike her unwashed left-wing constituents) were TOO WELL DRESSED!

Ms. Boxer seems to forget that when loony leftists "protest" they do not merely ask questions in an angry voice - they do everything possible to "shout down" speakers, they break things, they vandalize the offices of ANY institution they find offensive to their liberal sensibilities, they riot. Remember the "protests" over the WTO? Millions of dollars worth of damage.

Even worse, Ms. Boxer and friends immediately flooded the airways with slickly produced propaganda commercials claiming that these groups of citizens were "manufactured" by "right wing talk shows." Talk about the pot calling the kettle black - just about EVERY left-wing group that shows up anywhere is either paid by an uber- liberal "foundation" or is hooked up with some Marxist agitation group like ACORN.

Even here in the land of "Minnesota Nice," during the Republican Convention we were subjected to Che-Guevera wannabes obstructing traffic, throwing bags of urine, and otherwise making a nuisance of themselves. And where did many of these trouble-makers come from? California, Washington State, and other liberal enclaves - free transportation included, of course.

Meanwhile, can you cite a single incident of "angry right wing" protesters committing acts of violence at the Democratic Convention? Of course not. Where are the "right wing" counterparts of the eco-terrorists and animal rights whackos, who perform acts of arson to "express" their views? There aren't any.

But, as usual, the Obamamedia jumped at the chance to portray all of you as illegitimate - furrowed brows prevailed as the various talking heads fed Democrat "spokespersons" soft-ball questions about where all this anger is "really" coming from. And they obviously all got the same directive from their bosses at the Democratic Party - within minutes of each other, a dozen "journalists" all obediently mouthed the phrase "Brooks-Brothers activists" to describe you.

But perhaps the most chilling comment came from Obama himself. In what was frighteningly like Orwell's world of "1984" (or any modern Marxist state like Cuba) the President of the United States asked that American citizens "inform the government" if any of you express opinions and views that sound "fishy" - he wants your neighbor to snitch on you. If THAT comment doesn't cause you to rethink your support for an Administration and a party that are racing to plunge us headlong into dictatorial socialism, then I don't know what will.

No, not car dealers - we're talking about GUN dealers. And they don't need a bogus "Cash for Clunkers" program to "stimulate" sales, either. That's because the one area of the economy that has continued to go gang-busters is the market for guns and ammunition.

As we've reported before, since the '08 election, millions of Americans, many of whom never owned guns before, have been flocking to local dealers to buy handguns, shotguns, rifles - you name it. Certain firearms, such as AR-15s and other military style rifles, are flying off the shelves so fast that dealers often have to put people on a waiting list. And the boom has continued.

Contrary to the media portrayal of gun owners as "rural" types, gun owners come in all ages, sexes and colors - and these new gun buyers are no different. There appear to be several reasons for the uptick in sales. Naturally, part of the demand, especially when it comes to ammunition, is from existing gun owners, many of whom keep close tabs on the political situation, and were quick to see the threat that a Democratic majority would pose. So they're stocking up on ammo.

Then there are the new gun owners, people who didn't have anything against guns, but never actually got around to buying one - they, too, looked at the anti-gun bias of the incoming administration, and realized that if they were going to buy a gun, now would be the time.

One segment of the market that has seen especially strong growth is younger women - they are buying handguns, signing up for training, and often getting permits to carry handguns for self-defense. It is no longer unusual to find women in gun stores, perusing the merchandise and asking about the comparative merits of a 9MM Glock versus a 357 Smith and Wesson.

Another thing that may be driving some of the demand is fear - gun dealers tell us that as the economy worsens, some folks have expressed a genuine concern about social unrest, or even riots, should things get as bad as they were during the Great Depression.

Regardless of the reasons, the fact is that in the middle of some of the worst economic times in more than thirty years, one industry is booming. Now, this should be quite a story - and were such dynamic growth taking place in any other segment of the economy, it would be.

But don't expect MSNBC or any of the other Obamamedia outlets to give it any serious coverage of this rather interesting phenomenon. They can't - for to do so would require them to also report the primary reason for the dramatic surge in gun and ammunition sales: Obama himself.

In the la-la world of the economically illiterate socialist, any government program is a "success" for no other reason than that lots of people sign up for it. Never mind that the Cash for Clunkers program is a classic "rob Peter (taxpayers) to pay Paul (auto buyers)" scheme - all that matters is that a certain number of people get in line for their government check. Gee, Martha, what did you expect - "free" money!

Now, if the Obama administration, and Democrats in general, had ANY understanding of economic realities, they would have offered an income tax CREDIT to everyone who bought a new car. THAT would have been a genuine stimulus. Right now, we are simply taking money from one tax payer and writing a check to another (the car buyer) with a net increase in private capitol of...zero.

With a tax credit, on the other hand, you would have allowed the purchasers to keep more of their OWN money, increasing the amount of private capital in the economy. The $8000 housing credit for new home buyers is a good example, and the only thing Obama and friends got right - don't tell them, though, or they'll likely repeal it!

But you see, there's a (political) problem with such economically sensible policies - tax credits don't help the 40% of American workers who already don't pay any income tax, because they have nothing to apply a credit to anyway (and since most of these free-loaders voted for Obama...).

Which is precisely why today's Democrats resist tax cuts - real, substantive tax cuts don't normally visibly benefit their primary constituency, the lower income voter (I know, I know, cutting taxes on "the rich" and corporations DOES benefit the poor immensely in terms of job creation, but most Democrat voters don't get that - if they did, they wouldn't BE Democrats).

And in any event, no government give-away program put forth by Democrats has anything to do with promoting growth and prosperity - it has to do with buying votes from the poor. The sooner you realize this, the better you will understand the long term strategy of the neo-socialists who currently control both the White House and the U.S. Congress - creating a permanent majority of non-tax-paying Democrat voters, by TAKING from those who achieve and giving to those who don't.

As usual, the far Left has used carefully crafted language to obfuscate the entire debate about...oops, I almost fell for it - using the misleading term "healthcare." Because the issue is not, and never has been "healthcare" - the medical treatment of patients. Nor is it about that old stand-by "access to medical care." EVERYBODY in America has access to ANY medical care that they desire - the real issue is:

WHO IS GOING TO PAY THE BILL.

Talk to anyone who has a complaint about American medicine and you will find that it always comes down to something like: "well, yes, we have excellent medical care in America...BUT it's so expensive." Unlike any other service or product in life, when it comes to their medical bills, a huge percentage of people now seem to think that someone else should pay. Which of course makes them easy dupes of the neo-socialists that make up the majority of today's Democratic Party, and who are more than willing to "prescribe" BIG GOVERNMENT as the cure for whatever ails you.

The problem is that whenever the cost of ANY product or service is paid by someone other than the "end user" (i.e., the patient), then demand (and price) inevitably increase. And, thanks in great part to the mandate that Doctors treat everyone who walks through the door, whether they pay or not, the cost of all this "free" medical service is passed on to...you and me. Or to our insurance company - same difference.

Imagine if every car repair business was required BY LAW to "treat" the automobile of every person who came in, whether or not they had the ability, or even the intention, of ever paying. Obviously, before too long the price of an oil change would go to $100, a new transmission would be $9000, and ANY repair would be double or triple what it is today. They would have no choice - they have to make up the losses somewhere, and those of us who pay cash or have a warranty (i.e. your car's "medical insurance") would see our costs soar.

Now imagine that in addition to having the "fix it or else" policy for car shops, we insituted Medi-CAR - government reimbursement to the shops for auto repairs made on cars owned by people "too poor" to afford warranties (insurance), or to pay for them out-of-pocket. The government would (just as in Medicare) control the amount of payment that the car repair shop would receive for each service provided. And, just as in the case of Medicare, the Medi-CAR payment would likely never come close to the amount the repairs would normally be worth.The result? When you and I go in to have the same or similar repairs, we will be charged far MORE than we were when everyone paid their own bills.

Now, there are a lot of other reasons that medical care costs a lot more today (in adjusted dollars) than it did 50 years ago, including the simple fact that we have developed wonderfully effective (and proportionately expensive) diagnostic tools like CAT scans and MRI's. There are the rampant lawsuits against Doctors, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, you name it - and when an anesthesiologist has to pay $300,000 a year just for malpractice insurance, who do you think ends up paying for it?

One of the biggest problems is the overbearing intrusive meddling by government in the health insurance industry.  Because when the government starts dictating what insurance companies must cover, whether the customer wants it or not, it forces insurers to raise premiums for everyone.

And we haven't even touched on the problem of 12 million illegal aliens and THEIR impact on the health care system...

All of these things drive up the cost, at least that is, for those of us who actually pay our own medical bills, whether out-of-pocket, or because we have purchased insurance to make sure we will be able to meet our obligations.

And that brings us to the real issue - paying for the services we use. Face it - the simple fact is that your medical bills are YOUR obligation. Not mine, not your neighbors down the street - but YOURS. Just imagine if we actually had a competitive system of delivering health care as we do in, say, LASIK eye surgery - since LASIK is not covered by most insurance plans, people have the incentive to comparison shop. And the result? Costs have plummeted - down from $6000 to less than a $1000, all thanks to competition.

A similar system for all health care services, including drugs, would see quality care at genuinely affordable pricing - because people would actually SHOP for the best care at the best price. Just last month, I needed a crown for one of my teeth. Since I do not have dental insurance, I did what any smart consumer does - I shopped around. And guess what? One clinic wanted over $1300 for the entire two-visit procedure, while another, staffed with just as many qualified dentists, and using all of the same equipment (I looked) agreed to do the entire procedure for $835 - with an unlimited free replacement guarantee. Sale made. And I'm not only happy with the work - I have $500 left in my bank account.

THAT is what a (truly) free market produces. Heck, is there the slightest doubt that WAL-MART could do an infinitely better job of delivering higher quality health care services at far more competitive prices that ANY government bureaucracy? (Hint: If you would actually trust the government more than you would a well-run American company like WAL-MART, you are already well on the road to becoming a socialist "useful idiot" anyway).

We have already seen that the more government gets involved in subsidizing (and regulating) anything, the more expensive it becomes. Now we have Medicare and Medicaid at the Federal level, and numerous taxpayer-funded subsidies for medical care at the state level, all of which dumps more money into the health services market. Yet no matter how much each new government program drives up costs and lowers the quality of care, today's liberal socialists always prescribe MORE government, not less.

And spare me the canard about healthcare being a "right" - you already have a right to any health care you can pay for. What you really mean is "I have a right to have my health care bills paid by my fellow Americans." We don't even talk about FOOD as a right, even though that while it is possible to go years, even decades, without ever seeing a doctor, you can't go more than a week without food.

True, we have a voucher system for the truly indigent (food stamps), but we do not for a moment believe that everyone has the "right" to lobster or filet mignon that is paid for by the tax payers. Yet when it comes to health care bills, that is exactly what the socialists demand - "filet mignon" health care for everyone, even the bottom 40% of people who pay NO INCOME TAXES AT ALL.

Come to think of it, a voucher system for the truly poor (not the millions of Americans who make over $50,000 a year but choose to not have insurance) could work remarkably well - they could shop for the best coverage at the best price, and insurance companies, having to compete for their dollars, would keep prices competitive. And, in a truly free market (not the quasi-government regulated mess we have now), insurance companies and patients would be able to keep doctors and hospital prices in check.

But none of this will work as long as people know they can waltz into any emergency room and walk out without paying, or sign up for Medicare (or the equivalent state program) and have you and me pay their bills.

When will we ever learn....