It has become abundantly clear that, with a few notable exceptions, neither Congress nor the American people are really serious about dealing with the nation's financial crisis. Most of the blame for where we find ourselves today can be put on the ever increasing (and ever more costly) expansion of government intrusion into the lives of private citizens. And despite the multitude of excuses for the "Nanny State" the results are always the same: more and more taxes and debt, and less and less personal freedom and liberty.

Make no mistake, while the belief in expanding government as the solution to every social ill is a hallmark of today's socialism-infected Democratic party, there is no doubt that far too many Republicans have also gone along for the ride. In the immediate aftermath of the 1994 "Republican Revolution" the newly elected Republicans did initially show some backbone (in tax rate reductions and welfare reform, for example) but it wasn't long before they began to "go along to get along" with massive increases in spending on huge social programs like Medicare and Education.

The bottom line is that nobody today wants to deal with the fundamental problem: we simply spend too much, and if we are going to get out of this mess we are going to have to make cuts - big, painful cuts. But like the weak parents of a spoiled child, Congress simply can't say "NO" to any demand for more and more "stuff" - even when they have no way to pay for it other than running up the credit cards or taking out a second mortgage. And like temper-tantrum throwing brats, the recipients of all these "free" goodies don't care. They expect their "parents" to pony up (i.e. raise taxes on "the wealthiest Americans"), no matter what the long term repercussions.

President Obama announces a "freeze" on Federal workers' salaries. Big deal. When Federal workers are being paid nearly twice as much as private sector workers doing the same job, what difference does it really make? The bottom line is that we can no longer afford to tinker around the edges or limit cuts to "discretionary spending" which amounts to only 17% of the budget. "Entitlements" make up more than 75% of the Federal budget (and nearly the same percentage of state spending). So unless and until we face up to the harsh economic reality and deal with Education, Medicare and Medicaid - and that 800 pound gorilla of spending, Social Security - we may as well be trying to lighten a 747 by emptying the ash trays.

Unfortunately, in today's world no one wants to accept cuts in their government check. We don't want to hear that "root canal" is going to be necessary - we want "novocain" instead. Just mask the pain and hope the real problem somehow magically goes away. But just as ignoring an infected tooth will only lead to far more pain later, so will our failure to reign in spending inexorably lead to even greater disaster down the road. Let's hope that the newly elected Republican majority (and sensible Democrats) finally begin to act like good doctors, rather than bad parents.

As predictably as credit card bills after Christmas, Democrats are ranting over extending the Bush-era tax rates, falsely claiming that to do so would be to "give" a "tax break to the rich."  They are wrong of course, as liberals invariably are when it comes to anything remotely related to finance and taxes. They seem incapable of understanding that cuts in tax rates for ANYONE is good for the economy, and in fact, reducing taxes on the HIGHEST earners is even better for the economy, which ends up benefiting everyone.

Besides, whether tax rates are kept where they are currently, or lowered even further (as savvy economists recommend), reducing tax rates is never a "gift" to anyone - what occurs is merely that less of THEIR OWN money was taken by the government. Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows this. After all, if your "take home" pay goes up $25 because of a cut in your income tax rate, do you light a candle in thanks to the Federal government for the "gift" you received? Of course not. You rightly see that the government didn't "give" you anything - they are simply taking less of the money YOU earned.

Aaah, but when those "rich guys" who make so much more than they do get a similar reduction in the (much larger) amount they pay, then those who are prone to jealousy suddenly see THAT person's  tax reduction as a "break" - made all the more believable with socialist Democrats shouting the same "class envy" message.

Then there is that "third rail" issue of Unemployment Compensation. Here, liberal Democrats use exactly the opposite "logic" from their misguided tax views - they talk about how horrible it would be to "cut off" benefits at Christmas, or that not extending benefits further (already up to an astonishing 2 YEARS), is somehow "taking away" something from the unemployed. But just as with the Minimum Wage (which inevitably ends up costing jobs) too many fall for emotion-laden rhetoric over cold, harsh reality.

By the way, if you have any doubt about how utterly clueless liberal Democrats are about economics, note that soon to be unseated Speaker Nancy Pelosi said, with a straight  face (no Botox jokes please), that "extending Unemployment Compensation will create jobs" - that's right, she actually contends that paying people not to work will...get more people to work. Never mind that even ultra-socialist countries like Denmark have cut back their own programs, after discovering that the longer people got a check, and the higher amount of  the check, the less likely the recipients were to accept a job. Gosh, who'da thought?

But  paying someone to NOT work is, in truth, just another social welfare program - taking money from those who earn it and giving it to those who don't. You have no "right" to unemployment compensation. If your favorite uncle sent you a check for $100 every year for your birthday, and then, after losing his job, stops sending you the check, you haven't had anything "taken away" from you. Because it was never YOURS in the first place.

Republicans, unfortunately, still haven't learned how to deal with the rhetorical attacks by liberal Democrats - they persist in using sober, rational economic arguments - financially sound, but boring. With a few exceptions (like Governor Chris Christie), Republicans have also not yet exhibited the kind of backbone that voters are seeking. They continue to allow the Left to demonize Americans for daring to achieve - "the wealthiest Americans" - as if being rich and successful is something to be ashamed of.

So while we can hope that Republicans might actually stand firm on maintaining current tax rates, they will likely cave in on extending Unemployment Compensation. To do so will appeal to those getting the checks, but, like applying a temporary pain killer to a toothache instead of filling the cavity, it only makes the inevitable "root canal" that much more painful.

Whether using class envy rhetoric to financially loot the nation's job creators, or attempting to buy votes from the unemployed with yet another government check, liberal Democrats are proving why they were routed in the last election - and why they should remain a minority party for the foreseeable future.

A string of four horrific rapes in a North side Minneapolis neighborhood on the eve of Thanksgiving has shocked the Twin Cities - the four assaults occurred over the span of less than two hours. Even more disturbing were the ages of the perpetrators - two 14-year-olds, a 15-year-old, and a 16-year-old - and the cold-blooded viciousness of the attackers. The first victim, a 45-year-old mother who was cross country skiing in the park, was raped and robbed in front of her 10-year-old son and 13-year-old daughter.

But even more inexplicable than the actions of the violent juveniles have been the reactions of some who live in the neighborhood. In place of the kind of outrage one would expect in the wake of such a vicious crime, there have been a number of area residents expressing sympathy - not for the four rape victims - but for the rapists!

A StarTribune article covered some of the responses by the Powderhorn community:

http://www.startribune.com/local/111014214.html?elr=KArksUUUycaEacyU

We noted the following tid-bits:

"...the young suspects, who are also accused of sexually assaulting two teenage girls after the attack on the woman, need help to 'reconnect to their essential goodness.'"

And this gem:

"It's the kind of neighborhood where, until recently, the neighborhood association had funds for a 'restorative justice' program that asked suspects to meet face-to-face with their victims, admit responsibility for what they had done and then listen to how their actions hurt the community."

Newsflash - these nasty little thugs did not hurt "the community" - they brutally raped and robbed real, live, flesh and blood human beings. And while "restorative Justice" programs can produce some results with shoplifters, burglars, and other property crime offenders, the idea that we can "restore" a rape victim or the mother of a murdered child is not only ludicrous, it diminishes their suffering to a level that is downright offensive.

By now you're probably getting a pretty good picture of the political leanings of most who live in the Powderhorn Park area. Ironically, the park's very name, Powderhorn, refers to the container (usually made from a bull's horn) used by Revolutionary War era frontiersmen to carry the gun powder they needed to load their muskets. That a place with such a name would be inhabited by so many pacifists is all the more perplexing. For example, their answer to these sexual assaults is, you guessed it, a candle-light vigil:

"Violence doesn't need to provoke a violent response from the community," said Soren Sorensen, a resident who said he plans to be at the vigil."

As for perfectly reasonable suggestions like volunteer foot patrols around the park, Sorensen's dismissal of such measures is illuminating:

"If we're not careful with that, all we're going to do is form a street gang of white progressives," he said.

Apparently, Mr. Sorensen cannot even distinguish between criminals, who randomly attack the innocent, and ordinary citizens protecting themselves from those very same criminals. This is a common problem with those who inhabit the "progressive" world - they are unable to differentiate between unlawful and immoral violence such as rape and murder, and the legal (and morally legitimate) use of force as might occur in an act of self-defense. (Hint: It's called "justifiable homicide" for a reason.)

Most normal people recognize that a gang-banger who kills an innocent by-stander in a drive-by shooting (as recently happened to 12-year-old Guadalupe Galeno-Hernandez) is completely different from a woman who shoots a would-be rapist. But not Mr. Sorensen and those like him. To them, ALL violence is bad. They actually do believe that the execution of a killer like the infamous Tookie Williams (who brutally murdered four people with a sawed-off shotgun in a violent crime spree) is just as "unfortunate" as the deaths of Williams' victims.

Now, we can have endless discussions revolving around which philosophical position (to use force or not) is the morally "superior" - but what is most important in talking about what to do to prevent violent crime is not philosophy, but effectiveness. We must focus on which policies actually work, and which do not.

And on that score, the evidence is overwhelming - "peace" programs and "restorative justice" approaches do nothing to stop vicious violent offenders. Neither do "gun control" laws - none of the teenage offenders could legally buy a handgun, yet they obviously had no trouble getting one. Meanwhile, the decline in violent crime associated with the proliferation of "concealed carry" laws across the nation has shown conclusively that deadly force, even the mere threat of it, truly does work to deter violent crime.

My heart goes out to the victims of these heinous crimes. But I fear that as long as the "bleeding hearts" continue to determine the policies of the Powderhorn Park area, they will only succeed in guaranteeing yet more (literally) bleeding hearts.

TSA and security - The naked truth

Profiling passengers is more effective than government groping

In a USA Today editorial Monday - http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2010-11-15-column15_ST1_N.htm?csp=hf - Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano unintentionally illustrated what's wrong with the current approach to protecting the traveling public - it is focused on all of the wrong things. And "things" is the operative word here. Because in spite of all that we have learned from some of the best security experts in the world, we continue to look for "things" - nail clippers, pocket knives, razor blades, toothpaste tubes or bottles of shampoo that are "too big" and on and on. 

And now, in the unrelenting search for some little "prohibited" item, the TSA has decided to subject passengers to ever more intrusive, annoying, and humiliating procedures, with little guarantee that such measures will stop any determined terrorist from getting on board. And thwarting terrorists is the point, or at least it should be.

This obsession with focusing on the tools of the violent perpetrator, instead of the perpetrator themselves, is nothing new. The people behind the airport nonsense have long used the same flawed reasoning in their approach to dealing with ordinary violent crime. Rather than using tried and true methods of preventing and deterring crime, they invariably push for yet more "gun control" - once again, focusing on the tool instead of the criminal.

The predictable result of such an ill-considered approach is to disarm only the potential victims of violent crime, in the vain hope that they just might prevent some "prohibited" person from getting their hands on a gun. Yet no matter how ineffective such laws turn out to be (see the History Channel's "Gangland" series), they persist in thinking that forcing innocent citizens to jump through ever more absurd hoops will somehow make a difference. Just as they do at the airport.

Oh sure, Ms. Napolitano also talked about terrorist "watch lists" and other such intelligence based activities (which I fully support), but when it comes to airline passenger screening, she admits in the article that American security procedures focus almost exclusively on trying to "detect concealed metallic and non-metallic threats." As my Israeli friends say, "You Americans look for weapons - WE look for terrorists."

On El Al, Israel's national airline, you even get real steak knives! Because the Israelis know that the most squeaky clean, unarmed terrorist who passes the "screening" with flying colors and gets on board an airliner can, and more importantly, will do far more catastrophic damage than your 74 year old grandmother would do, even if she were allowed to get on board with a Glock in her purse.

Frisking grandmothers is bad enough, but man-handling a terrified 3 year old girl, as was caught on video last week, is simply inexcusable. Is some screening warranted? Of course. But unless and until we learn to abandon our politically correct position of "treating everyone the same" and begin to focus on the real threat, the terrorists, and adopt real solutions - like profiling - we will be trading more and more of our freedoms for a false promise of security.

If Barak Obama actually wanted to help the "middle class," he would do everything possible to slash taxes on the highest income earners, not the lowest. But Obama's intransigent refusal to extend the so-called "Bush Tax Cuts" for all income levels illustrates two problems common to most liberals.

First, they simply don't understand basic economics, let alone how American business operates - Obama's cabinet is almost entirely made up of people who have never even held a private sector job, let alone run a business. And second, the Left sees the tax code not as a vehicle to fund government effectively, but as a way to redistribute income - hence the compulsive desire to tax "the rich" at utterly absurd levels, in order to give out checks to lower income earners (and buy their votes in the process).

But anyone with an understanding of economics and business knows that if you had to choose between tax cuts for the lower income group or for those earning over $250,000 then the best thing you could do for the middle class (and the poor) would be to cut taxes on the top earners. Why? Because the so-called "middle class" includes people who not only pay little or no income taxes at all - many of them actually get a check, courtesy of those who do have to pay. So "cutting" their taxes would have little affect on the economy - some increased consumer spending would occur, but not business investment, because lower income earners don't hire people.

Meanwhile, most of the people in the over $250K group are small business owners who create the lion's share of jobs in this country, and they usually declare their earnings on their personal income tax returns. Cutting taxes on such people invariably acts as a (real) stimulus to the economy, because it frees up capital (that's "money" for those of you who went to government schools) to allow for expansion and growth of the business, rather than forking it over to the government.

This is not theory - it is both sound economics and simple common sense - and has been proven time and again. Even today, while most of the nation is in the midst of a recession, the only real growth in jobs is occurring in those states that have the lowest taxes on business and individuals, especially states with no individual state income tax.  And private sector jobs (not government jobs) are the key to real economic growth.

Even more important is that cutting tax rates is also the best way to increase tax revenues. Because the primary determinant of tax revenue is not the rate - it is the increase (or decrease) in economic activity. So even if all you want is to bring in more tax revenue to the treasury, the best way to do that is by cutting the rates on those most likely to produce the desired economic activity, those who create jobs. Conversely, hiking taxes on "the rich" reduces their capital that could (and would) be used to grow their businesses, which also hurts the lower and middle income workers - in lower wages, cuts in benefits, and in the worst case, losing their jobs altogether.

The problem is not merely that liberals do not understand economic fundamentals. They also have an ingrained hatred of successful people. Note how often they will whine about "income disparity" being "unfair" - which is the mindset driving their constant demonizing of "big business" and "the rich." Remember the "luxury boat tax" that Democrats came up with to "really stick it to those rich guys?" It backfired when (quite predictably) it caused a major downturn in boat sales, which resulted in both a drop in tax revenue and the loss of thousands of jobs. And who was it that got laid off? Blue collar boat builders.

It is this class envy strategy that results in the almost laughable distortions of language invented to justify taxing the hell out of our most productive people. An example is the constant mantra from liberals about "paying for tax cuts." This simplistic phrase is based on a false premise - that confiscating less of your money is somehow a "cost" to government - an "expense" that has to be "payed for." But this is nonsense, of course -  time and again, cutting tax rates has resulted in increased revenues to the treasury.

It is astonishing how otherwise intelligent people fall for the "tax the rich" rhetoric, in spite of all the proof (not to mention common sense) that should tell them otherwise. Then again, the average American can get through elementary and high school, and even get a college degree, knowing absolutely nothing about the economic principles that affect every aspect of our lives, from what we pay in taxes to the cost of gasoline at the pump. And the average politician is no better, although in their case it is often less a matter of ignorance than a willingness to play to populist sentiment.

So, Mr. Obama, if you really want to get the country moving again, we would urge you to PERMANENTLY extend the expiring tax cuts for ALL income levels, but especially for those "rich" you hate so much. Because if you persist in your efforts to divide the nation through class envy, and punishing those who are the foundation of sustained economic growth, then you will only succeed in delaying the recovery.

And if you think that a prolonged recession will get you re-elected, Mr. Obama, you are sadly mistaken. When millions of Americans are still unemployed, they won't likely appreciate it when they realize that your tax policies bankrupted the very small business owners who might otherwise have been able to offer them a job.

Many gun owners are unaware of the recent spread of militant anti-gun groups masquerading as "gun rights" organizations. Worse, even though these groups often have virtually no genuine members, they are heavily funded by wealthy individuals and "non-profit" foundations. The article below chronicles some of the more recent examples: http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/7493

On a cool October evening on the West side of Chicago, the middle-aged man in the navy blue jacket and jeans walked briskly down the sidewalk. A black baseball cap was pulled low over his forehead, hiding his ice-blue eyes, which were constantly and methodically scanning his surroundings. They missed nothing.

Having parked his car discreetly on a quiet side street, he was heading for the university campus just a few blocks ahead. As he crossed to the far side of the street, his ears picked up the unmistakable thudding of helicopter rotor blades coming from the Southwest. His pulse quickened and his body tensed as it always did whenever he heard that sound - it had once been the background music of a major part of his life.

Coming toward him on the sidewalk ahead was a bearded young man with shaggy hair, lugging a backpack snugged over his gray sweatshirt, hands in his pockets against the chill air. As he neared the man a detached observer might have noticed that the younger man seemed to reflexively step to the edge of the concrete to let the older man pass. Was it courtesy, or an unconscious reaction to some long-forgotten primal defense mechanism?

As they passed each other, the man in the ball cap seemed scarcely to notice the backpacker, but in fact he had already assessed the young man's height, weight, even his athletic ability. More importantly, his keen eyes could see no signs that the younger man was armed. Just a student, he decided.

When he got to the street that marked the beginning of the school campus, he stopped under a streetlamp, pulled a folded sheet of yellow legal paper from his jacket pocket, opened it, and looked at the map that was drawn in black marker. After a few seconds, he nodded to himself, replaced the paper in his jacket and stepped onto the walkway that lead to the center of the tree-studded campus, the brilliant fall colors already lost in the blues and grays of twilight.

He noted each building as he passed, many of which had well-worn signs at their entrances, proclaiming which wealthy benefactor had written a check large enough to garner a kind of academic immortality. He smiled when he thought about the fact that many of those who showered colleges with generous financial gifts were successful capitalists, who were then shocked when their own children came home from their alma mater, wearing Che Guevera t-shirts and spouting Marxist dogma. Payback's hell, he mused. Indeed.

The building he was looking for appeared just ahead, and he turned up the narrow walkway to the entrance, where ancient oak doors were adorned with massive, well-worn brass handles. The sign on the right side of the doorway read "College of Education" - he pulled open the heavy door and stepped inside.

Once in the lobby he took note of the number of people still in the halls. A trio of young girls walked past, one of whom was chattering loudly, more to herself than her two companions, who were deeply involved in texting with their mobile phones. They paid no attention to the older man, who had long ago perfected the covert operative's ability to be "invisible in plain sight" - for them, he didn't even exist. Which was just fine with him. When they were questioned by the police, as everyone in this building no doubt would be, they would likely not recall seeing him at all, let alone any salient details of his appearance.

Halfway down the main hallway he found the room marked "Maintenance -Authorized Personnel Only" - he looked both ways, and when he was certain that no one was looking his way, used the key he had copied to open the locked door. Inside he saw that his "equipment" was right where it was supposed to be. A wheeled cart with a big gray plastic garbage can at the front, and racks of cleaning supplies at the back, along with towels and a toilet plunger.

Quickly, he removed his jacket, revealing a green work shirt with an official looking logo of the university on the left chest with the name "Lemont" beneath it, and the words "Maintenance Staff" on the back. He stuffed his blue jacket into a plastic bag, and placed it into the garbage can. He put on pair of cheap black plastic glasses, the kind that geeks in those teen movies always wear, and finally, he clipped a ring of several plastic identification cards to his belt, along with a key fob sporting more than a dozen keys of various sizes.

He was ready.

He took a breath, then casually backed out of the door, dragging the maintenance cart behind him. Once in the hall, he wheeled the cart around and pushed it toward the service elevator. He pushed the "UP" button and was surprised that the doors immediately parted - he quickly pushed the cart inside.

When he got to the second floor, he exited the elevator and turned right, following a path that led him past the offices of various professors, until he got to the one he was seeking. Room 223. The man smiled. That a militant, anti-war, anti-military, anti-American and admitted former terrorist like Professor William Byers would have a room with that particular number was irony of the highest order. As anyone familiar with firearms would know, especially someone with a military background, the "223" was the civilian designation for the very cartridge used by the military M-16 rifle.

He paused before entering to listen. He heard what sounded like soft music coming from the room. Then, just barely, the sound of a drawer opening and closing. Good. As the intelligence that he had been given assured him, the professor almost never left before 1930 hours, and it was not quite 1900 yet - he still thought in "military time" even though it seemed like ages since his days in RECON. Old habits died hard.

After waiting a few more minutes, just to be certain that there were no students or other guests in the professor's office, "Lemont" gave a cursory knock and walked in, whistling softly, just like anyone simply going about their boring job might do. "Evenin', professor," he muttered toward the balding man seated behind the large wooden desk with the leather trimmed blotter.

"Hmmph," the professor grunted, barely glancing up from the papers he seemed to be studying, as he nodded in the general direction of the man with the cart. Professor Byers did not seem to notice the new face, nor the fact that even the real Lamont was not due to make his rounds until nearly midnight. Neither did the professor notice that the "maintenance man" had locked the door after he had entered, or that the man now stood directly in front of his desk. He also did not see that the man no longer had his hands on the garbage cart.

Only when the maintenance man muttered something unintelligible did the professor look up. It was then that he saw that the man's hands were covered in blue surgical rubber gloves, and that they were holding something dark and shiny that looked like a thick metal tube, which was now pointing directly at the professor's face.

"What did you say?" asked the professor, now showing something approaching puzzlement, but not yet fear.

"I said, I've walked over better men than you," the man repeated, slowly pronouncing each of the words, this time with a tone so malevolent, so full of quiet rage, that Professor William Byers finally began to feel the cold grip of terror. For if the fierce eyes of the man standing over him were not enough to make the Professor understand the gravity of the situation, the sudden recognition of what the man was pointing at him made things all too clear. Because he now realized that it was not a "tube" that he was staring into, but the business end of a silencer - more accurately a suppressor - affixed to a .22 caliber Ruger pistol.

"Give my regards to Karl Marx," said the man. Professor Byers may have been about to protest, or perhaps even plead. But before a single word could come out of his now open mouth, there were three quick coughs from the pistol, and almost simultaneously three small holes appeared in the professor's forehead, making a neat little triangle. The upper half of the professor's high-backed chair was not so neat. As the professor slumped forward, it became obvious that the three 60 grain hollow point rounds had exited the rear of the professor's head, leaving a red mist of bone, brains and blood splattered all over the chair's beige fabric.

The man quickly picked up the three empty cartridge casings that had landed on the floor in front of the desk, took off his green work shirt, and after a quick inventory of the keys, gloves, false ID's and the gun, placed everything into a black plastic trash bag. He then removed his blue jacket from the other bag, and put it back on. He continued to wear the "Dollar Store" eyeglasses.

Then he slowly opened a small crack in the door of the office and listened. When he could hear no footsteps or conversation out in the hallway, he opened the door and came out, pushing the cart as he walked calmly toward the service elevator, once again whistling quietly. Just another blue collar worker going about his business. When he reached the ground floor he retrieved the plastic trash bag from the garbage can, threw it over his shoulder, and, looking like some low-rent Santa Claus, walked out the heavy oak doors.

Perhaps 15 minutes later he dumped the trash bag into a dumpster he had earlier selected for its location, and for the fact that it was one that he knew would be emptied the very next morning. He walked back to his car, climbed in and started the black BMW's big V-8 engine, snicked the transmission into first gear, released the clutch, and disappeared almost silently into the frosty Chicago night...

In all likelihood, Minnesota can thank convicted felons for the embarrassing fact that their newest United States Senator is an unutterably moronic, washed-up comedian - Al Franken. Why? Because an investigation into the election has so far uncovered 342 convicted felons who voted in the 2008 election, and that's just the ones we've discovered so far.

But wait, it doesn't stop there. Here in Minnesota, all that is required in terms of "identification" is that someone "vouches" for you. That's right, if you show up at a polling place in the State of Minnesota, with NO IDENTIFICATION WHATSOEVER, as long as you have someone standing next to you who says "yep, he's Joe Smith, and he lives with me" - Joe Smith (or whoever he really is) can vote!

Every election, hang out at a polling place long enough and a van (or even a bus) will show up, unload a bunch of people who seem lost and confused, who will be "vouched for" by the the one English-speaking member of the group as all "living with me" - and they will then vote. And given that at least one of the "voters" will be wearing a Che Guevera t-shirt, there is little doubt for which party they are punching the ballot.

"Senator Al Franken." Just hearing that phrase still sends chills down the spines of normal Minnesota residents.

What's next? President Joy Behar?

Don't laugh. If Democrats continue to have their way when it comes to election fraud, such a frightening scenario is all too much of a possibility. And when it comes to voter fraud, this is not one of those "both sides do it" situations - voter fraud has always been a disproportionately Democrat phenomenon. Insiders know that it was the Chicago Daley "Machine" that produced more than enough votes (from voters dead or alive) to give JFK his razor thin margin of victory in 1960.

Nor is it a case of "only a few bad apples" - for the Far Left that controls the Democrat party today, vote fraud has become an accepted, and intentional, political strategy, a hallmark of Democrat politics everywhere. A perfect example is the "Secretary of State Project" which was conceived and funded by Far-Left billionaire George Soros. He knew that when it came time to deal with the election challenges of Republicans and Independents, having a bought-and-paid-for Secretary of State to make the final decisions in contested elections would be, shall we say, convenient. Minnesota's own Democrat Secretary of State, Mark Ritchie, was part of the SOS project.

From King County in Washington State to the infamous Cook County "Democratic machine" in Chicago, Democrats have been waging a coordinated and strategically planned war against fair and honest elections. And whenever an election is close, as the 2008 Minnesota Senate campaign was between Franken and Republican Norm Coleman, a little bit of fraud can go a long way - after losing by around 900 votes, Franken eventually won by only 312 votes, after a recount in which a disturbingly high percentage of votes turned out to be for the Democrat, in spite of the fact that the overall election results had produced an almost exact 50-50 split.

Another avenue for fraud that needs to be supervised much more closely is so-called "absentee voting" - putatively a way for people who may be out of state or out of the country at election time to cast their votes in advance. American military personnel are a good example. But Democrats have used a number of tactics to cook the books.

With military voters, who tend to vote heavily Republican, ballots are often "delayed" in being sent to soldiers, especially those overseas in combat areas. When the ballots are eventually returned, the presiding authority (in our case the aforementioned Mark Ritchie) can decide if they are "legitimate" if they arrived past the official deadline - gosh, I wonder which way a Soros-and-ACORN backed official is likely to decide...

Then of course there are the magically "found" ballots that turn up at the last minute - the only thing magical about them being that they are invariably 90% in favor of the Democrat candidate.  In the Franken-Coleman debacle, boxes of votes were "forgotten" by an election official in the trunk of his car. And yes, they were allowed to be added to the recount total - once again, amazing as it may seem, almost all of the votes were for....Al Franken.

It is long past time that all voters - Democrat, Republican, and Independent - demand that we have consistent, reliable, and fraud-proof standards for EVERY state. Voting is too important to be made too easy - it SHOULD take at least a modicum of effort if you actually care about the integrity of the process.

NO same day voter registration - you have at least 2 YEARS to register to vote. If you are so lazy that you can't take a half hour out of your life to register even a day in advance, then your vote is likely not important enough to you.

NO "online" voting - if ever there was an idea that would make wholesale fraud possible, it is the thought that people should be able to vote from their computer, sitting at home in their pajamas.

But more than any other procedure we can establish to prevent, or at least reduce, voter fraud, nothing is more important than POSITIVE VOTER I.D. - it is time to DEMAND that anyone who wants to vote MUST provide a genuine, tamper-proof, government-certified, PHOTO I.D. that VERIFIES that they are who they say they are, that they are a CITIZEN of the United States (and an actual resident of the district in which they vote), and that they are NOT prohibited from voting (i.e. a convicted felon).

And unless and until we take that step, Democrat operatives, from ACORN to MoveOn.org to George Soros, will be tilting the tables in every close election. Because after all of the bogus arguments against Voter ID are exhausted, there is only one reason for anyone to oppose it...

...they want to be able to cheat.

Californians have long been viewed (by normal folks, at least) as the most insane group of people in the nation. And their reputation is well-deserved - after decades of liberal Democrat rule, much of the most onerous government regulations and policies that now affect all Americans originated in the "Sunshine State."

Today, with real unemployment of 22%, an illegal immigration problem that has reached epidemic proportions, and a budget deficit of $20 BILLION dollars, you would think that Californians would have had enough of failed liberal policies, right? Wrong. The latest polls indicate that Californians are poised to reelect the very same Democrats who have nearly destroyed their state.

In the Senate race, long-time Democrat Barbara Boxer still leads Republican challenger Carly Fiorina. In a contest that pits an incumbent Democrat political hack who has never had a real job against a truly accomplished business woman (Fiorina was CEO of high-tech giant Hewlett-Packard), one would expect that Californians would be eager to give the newcomer a chance. But an astonishing 45% of voters are still poised to press the button for Boxer.

In the contest for the governors office, the Republican candidate is Meg Whitman, another woman with a successful career outside of politics - as CEO of the Internet phenomenon eBay, she piloted the fledgling company from 30 employees and $4 million in sales to over 15,000 employees and revenues of more than $8 BILLION.

And the Democrat candidate? Jerry Brown, the 72-year old former governor. That's right, with their state in economic and social chaos, California Democrats have dredged up yet another lifetime politician, a man who has almost personified the wacky, left wing loon that most people associate with the politics of the state.

Brown was once considered a "fiscal conservative" - partly due to his being associated with Prop 13, a measure that limited property taxes - but Brown initially opposed the measure, later flip-flopping to support it when he read the political tea leaves. Not exactly a stellar resume. Yet with the most recent polls showing Brown leading Whitman 48% to 42% here again it seems that a substantial segment of the California populace is still ready to throw in with the Democrats.

I should have long ago given up trying to comprehend the bizarre behavior that seems to be part of the California psyche, yet I cannot help wondering what it is about that part of the nation that makes otherwise nice people apparently devoid of logic, reason, or even plain old common sense.

Are roughly half of Californians simply insane? Or just ignorant. Too much sun? Or sitting in hot tubs too long.

Who knows.

But one thing is certain. For at least the last few decades, the saying "as California goes, so goes the nation" has been true. From "sanctuary cities" that welcome illegal aliens, to the exploding welfare state with its "free" education and "free" health care, almost every bad law, destructive economic policy, and even politically correct nonsense like banning smoking and even certain foods, virtually all of these mistakes originated in California.

Even the so called "environmental" movement that eventually gave birth to disastrous policies like Ethanol subsidies and bans on drilling for oil began in the "land of fruits and nuts." So if Californians once again install the same neo-socialist Democrat leaders who have created the mess in which they now find themselves, then it does not bode well for the rest of us.

The firing of liberal pundit Juan Williams by oh-so-liberal National Public Radio has provided a perfect example of the dangerous nature of the insidious concept known as "hate crimes." For those not familiar with the issue which lead to Williams being tossed out on the street, you can see the report at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3Iqgxt7bg4

For simply admitting that he feels a level of concern and uneasiness when, at an airport, he encounters people who are obviously Muslim, Williams has been (to use an especially loaded term) "lynched" by his employer. And lynching is the proper term - Williams was not given anything approaching his "day in court" - his boss didn't even have the courtesy to tell him in person, she fired him over the phone.

But the larger issue is that Williams, a man with an impeccable history of defending civil rights, was punished not for anything he did, nor even for anything that he advocated, but merely for what he felt. Williams did not suggest that Muslims should not be allowed to fly. In fact, he did not endorse any action whatsoever against Muslims. He simply admitted what was going through his mind.

And let's face it, anyone in America today who denies that they have a similar reaction in the same circumstances is either lying or lobotomized. Given the realities of terrorism in the world today, it would be odd not to have such a reaction. And such feelings are not even unusual - Jesse Jackson once confessed that when he heard footsteps following him at night, he was "relieved" when the young men behind him turned out be white, and not black.

Naturally, the same left-leaning media types who ignored Jackson's comment immediately piled on Williams, calling his remarks "anti-Muslim" and examples of his "bigotry" - this against a man who has written more about race relations than anyone at MSNBC has ever read. By the way, the rather interesting fact that ultra-liberal socialist thug George Soros only recently wrote a $Million plus check to NPR (coincidence?) has been almost completely ignored by the press.

But more than political correctness run amok, Williams tribulations underscore the fundamental flaw in all "hate crimes" legislation - one's actions become secondary to one's thoughts, and even feelings. Civil libertarians have long warned that "hate crimes" laws would inevitably unleash the "Thought Police" - and if we continue down this road, how long will it be before someone like Juan Williams doesn't merely lose his job, but is prosecuted in criminal court?

Think it can't happen?

Think again.

It happens with monotonous regularity - the closer we get to an election, the more the link between the Democrat-friendly news and entertainment programming groups becomes clearly visible. For at least the last couple of decades, the meshing of entertainment and news has been a conscious (and often diabolically successful) propaganda effort - Heir Goebbels would swoon with envy.

And with Democrats looking at a near catastrophe this November, they are falling back on their usual time-tested tactic: demonizing Republicans as the "far right" in America.

Republicans want to "take away your Social Security!"

Conservatives "don't care about he poor!"

Tea Party members "are racists!"

The mainstream press is only too happy to jump on board - in just about every candidate debate, some left-wing "moderator" will somehow find a way to ask a question of the conservative candidate that is expressly designed to trap them (while taking the focus away from much bigger and more obvious problems like the economy -  a glaring problem for Democrats).

Abortion - "When do YOU believe human life begins?" Designed to portray the conservative candidate as "anti-choice" and "out of step" - no matter how they answer the question.

Evolution - "Do you believe that evolution should be taught in schools?" This is a "two-fer" - regardless of how this one is answered, it gives the Democrat the opportunity to attack their opponent as oh-so-ignorant peasant who is "out of step" with modern science AND a religious zealot.

Naturally, even when the Republican candidate says nothing particularly unusual or even incorrect, the media will carefully edit and craft their "reporting" to make the conservative candidate sound like a crack-pot, complete with the now standard condescending smirk by the liberal talking head journalist - the "wink-wink" that seals the deal.

But if the news media has all but abandoned their role as neutral reporters, the entertainment media has become even more involved in propagating the liberal viewpoint, sometimes even inserting blatantly biased political messages in the story lines of dramatic and even comedy shows.

"Boston Legal" is the reigning champ in this category. They seem unable to get through a single  episode without a 10-minute diatribe against capitalism, Republicans, the "rich" and just about everyone in America who does not subscribe to their overtly socialist view of the world.

Even shows like NCIS have gotten into the game - last night's episode of "NCIS - Los Angeles" featured a plot line involving a quasi-terrorist group attempting to buy Stinger-like missiles from a black-market arms dealer. And who, exactly, are these people who represent such a serious threat to the American public. Al-Qaeda? Hamas? Islamic Jihad? The ultra-violent Salvadoran gang M.S. 13, which has expanded its networks throughout the United States? The heavily armed Mexican drug-cartels who are already wreaking havoc along our Southern border?

Nope. None of the above.

The villains in this show turn out to be...."white supremacists."

That's right. In the La-La Land of the liberal TV writer, the real terrorist threat today does not come from the estimated MILLIONS of Muslim Jihadists around the world, searching the globe for nuclear and/or biological weapons. Nor do we need to be concerned about the thousands of violent street gangs now infesting every major city in America.

Oh, no. To these Leftist loons the people that Americans REALLY have to fear are a few red-neck trailer park dwellers and their 1st-cousin wives. Silly? Of course. But when you add up all of the time that such themes appear, over and over again, in a whole panoply of entertainment programming, it isn't hard to understand where a whole segment of the American voting public gets their skewed view of world.

And just in time for the mid-term election...what a coincidence.

Too many Republican politicians are already gleefully rubbing their hands in anticipation of retaking control of the House of Representatives. They should be careful - the voters' disenchantment with Obama and the Democrats does not automatically translate into trust of the GOP.

On the contrary, if Republicans do indeed take over the House, and gain a few seats in the Senate, they will be subjected to a level of scrutiny that is far more intense than the attention paid to Democrats. The reasons are not complicated. Voters have no illusions about the Democratic Party, which has clearly fallen under the "leadership" of a cabal of crypto-communist radicals, bent on remaking America into a socialist nightmare.

But the People will rightfully expect the Republicans to offer more than the usual "Democrat Lite" policies that lead the GOP astray after they last had a majority in the Congress. They want real, substantive policies that will make a difference - not just "tweaking" of the monstrous government takeover of business that has taken place under Democrat control.

Because in spite of some positive signs that Republicans have learned their lesson - the spate of new, young conservative leaders for example - there is still reason for skepticism. One reason is that much of the "Old Guard" types like John Boehner and Mitch McConnell are still at the wheel, and voters, especially independents, are looking for new ideas.

Even the so-called "Pledge to America" - while a move in the right direction - contains wishy-washy language about removing "parts" of the overreaching Obama agenda. But most Americans have made it clear that they don't want piece-meal reform - they want REPEAL of all the job-killing initiatives that have been force-fed to the country.

And there is also no guarantee that Republicans will hold fast even to the lofty principles they outlined in the Pledge. In discussing taxes, for example, more than one Republican leader made disturbingly qualifying statements decrying "raising taxes during a recession" - meaning what? That they are more than willing to raise taxes as soon as the economy picks up steam?

Republicans have a lot of ground to make up with voters who are rightly suspicious of a party that in recent times has proven to be only slightly less inclined to raise taxes and spend like drunken sailors than the Democrats they seek to replace. If Republicans do indeed make the gains in the Congress that they anticipate, they should understand that they will be on a very short leash - and any backtracking or reneging on their "Pledge" will lead to them being jerked back into reality with a force that will make a choke collar seem tame by comparison...

It happens every election cycle. As we wind down to voting day, we hear daily, if not hourly, the press reports on the various races around the country. And as always, we learn that mere weeks (or even days) before the election, a small but important segment of the voting populace remains "undecided."

"Undecided" they say? After months of campaigning, TV appearances, debates, and all those nauseating political ads, how is it that ANYONE is still unable to express a preference for one candidate or the other? Who ARE these people?

Well, such voters generally fall into one of several categories.

First, there are those who pay so little attention to politics in their day to day lives ("too busy" they often say), that come election season, they have little or no knowledge about the candidates, their voting records, or their political philosophies. In spite of the aforementioned avalanche of information at their disposal, they have pretty much ignored it. No surprise, these are also the folks who often get their news exclusively from the "Old media" - they don't watch FOX news or listen to Talk Radio.

So naturally, as the election draws near, they scramble to "catch up" - with the result that their vote is often influenced by whichever attack ads are the most ubiquitous or the most compelling. And it is just such people that those vicious ads are actually aimed at - not the rest of us who have already made up our minds.

Then there are those who simply can't make a decision, any decision. You probably have a friend or two like that - they agonize over which restaurant to go to for lunch, then when they get there, they can't decide what to order (they will often ask you "what are YOU having?").

These are the same people who, when buying a house, drive real estate agents crazy - after looking at 15, 20, or (as in one case I recall from an agent I know) 31 properties, they are no closer to making a decision than they were when they walked through the door of the first house. These people usually end up making a "flip-the-coin" decision when they can no longer put it off.

I recall a woman who admitted that, in the 1980 election, she literally made up hear mind staring at the ballot in the voting booth! I was astonished. That election offered as clear a choice as has ever been given to voters in U.S. history: Ronald Regan vs. Jimmy Carter. Yet this woman was "undecided" until she picked up the pencil and began filling in those little dots. Pathetic.

Finally, we have the people who claim that they "don't like the Democrat" but then add that they "don't think much of the Republican candidate either." Their problem is that they naively think that their choice should be between "Prime Rib" and "road-kill." These people need to grow up - the reality of politics is that all too often we are like the starving man who must choose between fresh "road kill" and "3-day-old road kill" - the only decision is "which one is least likely to make me sick?"

Unfortunately, it is this group that is the most dangerous, because they will either make a "protest" vote for a third party candidate, or worse, they decide to stay home and not vote at all. In either case, the result is often that the Democrat (whom they professed to hate the most) ends up winning by default. 

Here in Minnesota, the governor's race is just such a situation. We have a Democrat, an over-the-top, Ultra-Left trust fund baby, Mark Dayton. He wants to raise Minnesota's already outrageously high state income tax (to make those evil "rich" people pay, in his words, "their fair share" of taxes) thereby crippling the economy and driving even more businesses out of the state.

And God only knows what Dayton will do to gun-owners. While retiring Republican Governor Tim Pawlenty was able to keep the gun control contingent at bay for the last eight years, imagine the possibilities if we were to have both an anti-gun DFL controlled House and Senate, and a Governor Mark Dayton who would be more than willing to sign any gun control bill that crosses his desk. Raising the cost of a Carry Permit to $500 or even a $1000? Banning lead bullets? Think it can't happen? Think again - ALL of these and worse are already sitting in the desks of DFL legislators...just waiting.

Then we have Republican Tom Emmer, who would at least be far less likely to do the kind of harm to the state than Democrat Dayton is most certainly to do. Sure, Emmer is not exactly the world's greatest orator, nor does he possess the kind of off-the-cuff street savvy in an interview that someone like Chris Christie or Bobby Jindal have shown. But Emmer's fiscal and economic policies are far more likely to be sensible and responsible than either of the other two candidates. And he'll be far better than Dayton or Horner on gun rights.

Bringing up the rear is Independent Party candidate Tom Horner, who is running as a kind of mushy, middle-of-the-road "moderate" in an attempt to capitalize on those disaffected Democrats and Republicans who don't like either of their own party's candidates. But Horner cannot possibly win, and the Dayton campaign has cleverly highlighted Horner's historical connections to Republican law makers, believing (correctly) that he will likely siphon more votes from Republican Emmer than from Dayton.

So if all you "undecided" voters out there want to at least have a chance of reigning in the Democrat controlled Minnesota legislature, then man-up, and vote for Tom Emmer. Hold your nose if you must, but Emmer is, by far, the candidate least likely to "make us sick."

Or you can throw your childish little hissy-fit and cast your "protest" vote for the Independent candidate, Horner - which is effectively a vote for Dayton - and you will only succeed in electing a socialist Democrat, thereby turning Minnesota into a Mid-West version of California, with suffocating taxes, fleeing businesses, and stratospheric deficits.

The choice, unpleasant as it may be, is yours.

Gun control set off explosion of drug-cartel violence

by Robert Farago for the Washington Times

Last month, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton told an interviewer that Mexican drug lords are "what we would consider an insurgency." Diplomatically enough, the State Department immediately rescinded her remark. But Mrs. Clinton is right. To wit: So far this year, the cartels' henchmen have assassinated 10 Mexican mayors.

Clearly, the drug lords are subverting the rule of law, obliterating northern Mexico's political infrastructure. And why not? The cartels have bought off the Mexican military, surviving politicians, judges and the police. As we learned in Iraq and Afghanistan, it takes a village to stop an insurgency.

Too bad the Mexican people can't own guns.

According to Article 10 of the Mexican Constitution, our neighbors to the south have the same right to bear arms guaranteed by the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution:

"The inhabitants of the United Mexican States have the right to possess arms in their homes for their security and legitimate defense with the exception of those prohibited by federal law and of those reserved for the exclusive use of the Army, Navy, Air Force and National Guard. Federal law shall determine the cases, conditions and place in which the inhabitants may be authorized to bear arms."

There's your trouble. When it comes to personal protection, the Mexican government gets the last word. Or, in this case, the first. And that word is "no."

Long before the Mexican drug cartels cut a distribution deal with their South American confederates, back when Colombian drug lords were busy corrupting their society's democratic system, Mexico's federal government was cracking down on private gun ownership. Its war against civilian firearms began in 1968, after civil unrest spooked the powers that be. The Mexican government closed all privately held firearm stores. From that point on, all firearm sales had to go through the Mexican Defense Ministry. It determined what guns were sold to whom at what price.

As you'd expect, this artificial concentration of supply led to a worsening of endemic corruption. Bottom line: Only the wealthiest Mexicans could legally secure a firearm for personal protection. Sometimes not even they could. The Defense Ministry's sales practices also reflected its self-serving political agenda. It restricted legal access to guns to the point where some Mexican law enforcement agencies were forced to smuggle in weapons from the United States. So were thousands of civilians.

Ironically, given America's history of individual gun rights, the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) helped Mexico combat gun-running. It's a partnership that continues to this day, only more so. Congress has just sent the ATF an extra $37.5 million to open seven new southern field offices, charged with stemming the flow of guns to drug cartels south of the border. Question: Are these American-sourced guns going to the cartels or to civilians desperate to protect themselves from the drug lords' reign of terror?

Most of the exports end up in the drug lords' arsenal of anti-democracy. But that doesn't change the fact that America's hugely expensive gun-running interdiction efforts may be evoking the law of unintended consequences - making it easier for the cartels to increase their death grip on the populace of northern Mexico. While America is fighting foreign insurgencies by training and arming our ground-level allies overseas, we're spending hundreds of millions of dollars actively denying our neighbors to the South the weapons they need to defend themselves against terror, torture, corruption and intimidation.

Eradicating the scourge of Mexican drug cartels is not simply a matter of handing Mexican citizens a hundred thousand ArmaLites and a few thousand rounds of ammo each. Even if it were, the Obama administration wouldn't go there. But it is true that America has a long, noble history of helping the defenseless defend themselves. If we could pressure the Mexican Defense Ministry to liberalize its firearm licensing policies, even temporarily, we might be able to tip the balance of power away from the cartels and their unconscionable cruelty, and toward democracy and the rule of law.

Meanwhile, we can continue our support for Mexico's efforts to battle the drug cartels and shut down their U.S. distribution channels as best we can. If things get bad enough, we could legalize the drugs in question, pulling the rug out from under the criminals' feet as we did by ending Prohibition.

In any case, Mexico's problem needs a Mexican solution. The same guns that President Felipe Calderon and President Obama vilify for crossing the border could actually be the country's salvation. More guns, less crime? If it works for us, and there are those who argue that point most persuasively, why not for Mexico? Equally important and more personally, if you lived in one of Mexico's northern border towns, wouldn't you want to carry a gun?

Exactly.

[Robert Farago is editor of thetruthaboutguns.com. - © Copyright 2010 The Washington Times, LLC.]