Just when you thought that liberals had run out of insane socialist policy ideas, they come up with yet another one - this time attempting to override the laws of physics...by government decree.

I'm speaking of course, about Obama's plan to dictate outrageously unattainable fuel economy standards (achievable only by producing dangerously tiny "mini-cars") that will raise the price of a new car by $1300 or more - thereby putting a stake in the heart of the already anemic American auto industry.

No surprise, this latest idea for destroying the economy in the name of "energy independence" was born in, where else, California. Now there's a winning strategy - going nationwide with an idea spawned by the state whose fiscal condition is bordering on terminal.

We have often observed that if you ever wanted to see what the United States would look like if it were allowed to be run by a Democrat majority, you need only look at California, where decades of Democrat rule has produced one catastrophe after another:

Out of control taxes.

A prison system where 1 in every 3 inmates is an illegal alien.

A failing union-run school system overflowing with the children of illegal aliens.

A bankrupt healthcare system (due also in part to the enormous drain of services by - you guessed it - illegal aliens.)

Endless "green" initiatives that do nothing but drive up the cost of every product and service in the state - not the least of which are the mindlessly bureaucratic mandates on vehicles, as well as on the gasoline that Californians put in their tanks.

In other words, California is a massive failure - so naturally, Obama wants to use the same model across the nation.

Got it.

The only question is, if having the government take over banks, insurance companies, and the auto industry isn't enough to make Americans get off their apathetic behinds and demand an end to this nonsense, will being forced to drive the equivalent of those ridiculous little "Smart Cars" do the trick?

With a sappy sentimentality more appropriate in a Dr. Phil than in a U.S. President, Mr. Obama listed the "qualifications" he will seek in his first Supreme Court appointment. Not surprisingly, absent from Mr. Obama's description of the ideal Supreme Court Justice were any of the skills and qualities that even liberal judicial experts would agree are vital.

Things like experience in both the criminal and civil legal courts, a sound knowledge of the Constitution, and, most importantly, a clear understanding of the role (and limitation) of the courts in the American legal system. Justices Roberts, Alito and Scalia are stellar examples of this sort of judicial restraint.

But instead of seeking judicial excellence, President Obama seems more interested in nominating someone who "comes from outside" the system, someone who "knows what it's like to be a single mom." He would likely appoint someone like Ruth Bader-Ginsburg, whose rambling opinions defy logic. She consistently rules based on her own emotional biases, rather than the dictates of the Constitution - her decision in the Heller case makes one wonder if she's ever even read the Constitution.

Now, we shouldn't be surprised. Like most neo-liberals, Obama does not view judges as the unbiased "umpires" they were intended to be - no, he sees them as potential advocates for a political point of view. The problem is that this creates what amounts to a second legislative branch of government, and the result is an over-reaching Judiciary that can override the lawful will of the Legislature. 

It is astonishing how many Americans today do not understand the principle of separation of powers, much less the inherent danger when that separation is blurred, or worse, breached. Courts exist to see to it that the process follows the law - not to MAKE the law. Even if they don't personally approve of a particular law, the duty of judges, especially Supreme Court Justices, is to rule solely on the Constitutionality of that law.

Naturally, this means that some rulings might not give you the outcome you want. When this happens, the process is that you go back to your legislative representatives and try to persuade them to adopt the changes you espouse.

And this is where modern liberals and conservatives differ. Conservatives do not merely want "right-wing" judges in the way that liberals want "left-wing" judges. Conservatives, (and classical liberals) want judges to stay out of law-making altogether, even when the courts rule against them. But when today's liberals lose, they want to use the courts to get around the legislative process.

So-called "Gay Marriage" is a good example. Currently, most states define "marriage" with a variety of restrictions (age, sex, relationship limitations, etc.). Want to change that? No problem - just persuade a majority of your fellow citizens to agree with you.

But, other than in a handful of states, the neo-libs have failed to get "gay marriage" initiatives passed in state legislatures - even liberal bastions like California have rejected it. So, they should just role up their sleeves and try, try again, right?

Wrong.

You see, when the modern Left can't get its way in the legislature, they don't simply redouble their efforts - they turn to the courts. Because they have come to see the judiciary as a kind of "alternate legislature" - a way of by-passing the People in order to get their agenda into law. The preferred method of dealing with legislative failure is now to file a lawsuit, usually claiming that some sort of "right" has been violated.

That the "rights" they claim as being infringed are often nowhere to be found in the Constitution means little to them. As long as they can pack the courts with judges who are willing to stretch the Constitution to the breaking point, they can magically "find" the rights they seek (Roe v Wade is a perfect example). Franklin D. Roosevelt was the first to pack the court with judges who promised to "rule his way" - that is how he was able to pass a sweeping, and blatantly unconstitutional, spate of left-wing social programs.

Have no doubt that Barak Obama hopes to do the same. But if that happens, we will have what amounts to an Imperial Court, usurping the role of the legislature.

And then, the law of the land will no longer be determined by the People through their elected legislators, but by 9 unelected men and women in black robes.

Imagine passing a law that would make the killing of a black man a "lesser crime" than the killing of a white man. Well, welcome to 21st Century Liberal Fascism, where left-wing zealots are doing exactly that - they've merely changed the target of the bigotry.

These Orwellian nitwits want to put into law that crimes are more or less evil based, not on the severity or viciousness of the crime itself, but instead on what the perpetrator may have been thinking, and on the various characteristics of the victim. But there are two fundamentally dangerous problems with such lunacy.

First, such laws criminalize thought. Defendants will no longer be prosecuted for what they actually DID to the victim, but for what they were THINKING while doing it. This is far more dangerous than most people realize. For if we can add an "extra" punishment to any particular offense, just because of what your thought processes were in deciding to commit the crime, then there is absolutely no reason not to proceed to the next step - prosecuting you for the thought processes themselves, whether or not you actually followed through with the alleged crime.

The modern day Brown Shirts of the Left have already been setting the stage for thought crimes laws - attempting to ban all sorts of expressions that they deem "unacceptable." It started with "speech codes" on campuses, and has expanded into such things as banning the Confederate flag on some kid's car (note that a Hamas banner or a Che Guevara t-shirt is considered "free speech").

And now Ted Kennedy has decided to make it a crime to "offend" someone - if he gets his way you could soon be prosecuted not only for what you think, but for what someone else thinks about it!

The second problem with "hate crimes" legislation is that it sets up exactly the kind of government sanctioned bigotry that was the hallmark of the Hitler regime - declaring some citizens more or less equal, based on race, sex (or sexual proclivities) and any other characteristic that they might decide to include. 

Note that we already have a list of "protected classes" - such a term should be abhorrent to anyone who believes in "equal protection under the law" rather than selective protections based on membership in some particular "identity" group.

The result of such radical distortion of the legal system is best illustrated by the following comparison between two hypothetical crimes:

In the first case, a young white male, whose bedroom is decorated with Nazi posters and other such expressions of "white supremacist" thinking, wakes up one day, walks down the street, and encounters a black businessman. The "skin-head" screams a racial slur, then pulls out a gun and shoots the black man in the head, killing him instantly.

In the second case, an "enforcer" (who is black) is hired by a local loan shark to "make an example" of a guy who is behind in his payments. The enforcer kidnaps the deadbeat (who is white), then takes him to an abandoned warehouse. After duct-taping him to a chair, the hired killer proceeds to torture the victim for hours - beating him, using bolt cutters to chop off his fingers and toes, then using a blow torch on him. Finally, the victim is doused with gasoline and set on fire.

Now, any sane person would recognize that the second crime is a far more heinous crime in every way. The victim was subjected to hideous torture (real torture, not water-boarding) and unimaginable suffering for hours before finally being killed in one of the worst way possible - being burned alive.

But guess what. The first crime, in which the victim was instantly shot and killed, would most certainly be classified as a "hate crime" - based on race of the victim, and the supposed motivation of the killer. But the second crime, would NOT be considered a hate crime! After all, the hit-man had no particular "feelings" about the victim at all - he was simply doing a job. Even the guy who hired him was acting only out of financial interest - not any "hatred" for the unfortunate debtor.

Now, most normal, thinking adults recognize that it is the nature of the criminal act that determines its severity - and the second crime was far more horrible by any measure. It is the act itself that matters - not the motivation. True, we may look to motivation in order to determine who may have committed a crime, but not in judging the nature of the crime itself.

And of course, we do consider the nature of the victim in any violent crime - we cannot help being more outraged by the murder of an innocent child than we are by the murder of some drug dealing thug by a gang rival. But we don't encode into law such differences in the "status" of the victim - the crime is still murder.

Mathew Sheppard's death was horrible because he was beaten and left for dead - it is not "more horrible" because he happened to be gay, or because his sexuality may have been the reason for the crime.

We'd best be careful where we tread in such matters. Because when we begin to prosecute people for what they are thinking, or declaring one victim as being entitled to "special protections" over another, we are imperiling the very liberties we should most strongly cherish.

This season of the hit TV show "24" is an interesting study in two fundamentally different philosophical views of the world regarding how best to fight terrorism.

In one corner you have the hard-nosed realists - Jack Bauer and his former colleagues at the dismantled Counter-Terrorism Unit. They are ready and willing to do whatever it takes to stop the cabal that is threatening bio-terror on a massive scale.

In the other, shall we say, less aggressive camp, we have those who seem to view any action not run through some bureaucratic maze of protocol checking as a violation of the Constitution.

The standard bearer for this kind of thinking is the liberal computer expert played by real life left-wing loon Janeane Garafalo.  Given Ms. Garafalo's delusional accusations of "racism" against anyone who dares oppose Obama's excessive spending, such a role requires little acting on her part.

I give the show credit for avoiding simplistic plot-lines - the twists, turns, and betrayals are enough to keep even the most jaded fans wondering what will happen next. And some of the characters actually question their positions as facts and situations change.

The female President of the United States comes to realize that people like Jack Bauer are simply necessary in a complex world where the greatest threats no longer come from some well-defined super-power, but from loose coalitions of like-minded crazies. And the FBI agent, Rene Walker, also comes to realize that, like it or not, Jack's methods get results.

But Jack, too, engages in self-reflection, questioning some of the things he's done, and even admitting that he had often violated some laws.

The show is indeed a fantasy, but it does one thing sorely needed in our sound-byte world, where the temptation is to view every problem as having a simple (and often simple-minded) solution. It underlines the fact that the world is a very dangerous and unpredictable place, where yesterday's friend is today's foe, and today's foe may be tomorrow''s ally.

It also makes us wonder why some people are "horrified" by something as relatively innocuous as water-boarding, while they scarcely raise an eyebrow over suicide bombers or Islamic "honor killings" of teenage girls.

For decades, the Democrat Party has successfully shafted minorities and the poor - the disastrous Welfare State created by liberal Democrats has virtually destroyed the African-American family. Yet the same people who suffer the most from their policies keep electing them. African-Americans continue to blindly vote for anyone with a (D) after their name - over 90%. Not even Hugo Chavez get's that kind of a majority. And lower income white and Hispanic voters are not much different.

Why? Because Democrats tell them what they want to hear.

Obama's phony "tax cut for 95% or Americans" is merely the latest in a long line of Democrat Party moves that claim to "help" the poor. But in reality, the opposite is true. Not only are his "cuts" actually welfare checks to people who already pay no income tax at all, but the increase on that "top 5%" will hit the poor the worst.

You would think that eventually, even the stupidest voter would be able to see the light. But no, time and again, the people at the bottom of the economic ladder put in office the very same people whose policies continue to keep them poor.

So, why do they keep falling for the same Democrat policies that keep THEM poor? Simple, the primary technique for duping the poor is to use envy, jealousy, and sometimes, even downright hatred. Keep 'em angry at those who have more than they do, and you can keep them from thinking too much.

Democrats have been bashing "big business" and demonizing "the rich" since Franklin Roosevelt. They aren't even subtle about it - they constantly explain their tax increases as OK because they "only affect the wealthy" (as if targeting the wealthy is somehow a good thing in the first place). And the economically illiterate buy into it.

But the harsh reality is quite the opposite. For example, raise tax rates on a business and guess what you force the business to do - lay off workers, or, if the tax burden becomes totally untenable, move the company to another state, or even to another country.

I ran into an old neighbor of mine the other day. He was on his way to the airport to inspect his company's brand new manufacturing facility - in Ireland. Why? Because the United States has an outrageously high corporate income tax (39%) while Ireland's corporate tax is...12.5%. Talk about a no-brainer.

And when this happens, do the layed-off workers blame the Democrats who drove the jobs off-shore? Oh, no, they blame "business" and "those heartless rich guys." Out-sourcing is nothing more than an economic decision - a reaction to increased costs, whether labor costs or taxation.

Small business owners, too (you know, those "rich guys" like Joe the Plumber, who make over $250,000 a year) can be forced into the same choices. Remember, he (or she) probably has anywhere from half a dozen to a hundred employees - and increased taxation will mean that two or three of those workers will have to be let go. Anyone want to guess who those pink-slipped workers voted for?

Even taxes aimed squarely at the wealthy often backfire. Everyone older than 40 remembers the ill-fated "luxury tax" on boats. Yeah, let's stick it to those guys with their expensive toys. Right?

Well, as anyone with even a modest understanding of economics could have predicted, the result was that many of the wealthy stopped buying boats. What followed was a downturn in sales of boats, leading to layoffs of blue-collar boat builders, as well as staff cuts at marinas and other businesses that support the boating industry.

Once again, whose bumper stickers do you think were on the cars of the laid-off boat workers? Yep - Democrats.

And it doesn't stop there - countless taxes enacted by Democrats hit the poor disproportionately. Gasoline costs consume a much larger percentage of the budgets of lower income workers. So when Democrats announce that they are going to "stick it to Big Oil" they are in fact sticking it to you. But hey, it's "only another nickel a gallon" right?

Taxes on liquor, cigarettes, and other such "sin" taxes always hit lower income people the most. Ditto taxes on jet-skis, snowmobiles, and other "unnecessary" recreational equipment - last time I checked, there were a lot more moderate income folks than millionaires riding ATVs.

I remember many years ago a tough old Chicago truck driver (a Democrat, oddly enough) who once said; "People ain't stupid because they're poor - they're poor because they're stupid." He was right.

But hey, if you're poor and want to stay that way, just keep voting Democrat.

Just remember the old axiom: "Insanity is continuing to do the same thing, and expecting a different result."

For the few remaining Americans who still don't recognize the blatant bias in the mainstream press, the coverage of the April 15th "Tea Parties" should remove all doubt.

From the laughably under-reported numbers of participants, to the incredibly hostile comments from journalists who have forgotten the meaning of the word "reporting," the mainstream media maniacs did everything but pledge allegiance to the Obama administration.

The Associated Press described the rallies this way in their opening paragraph:

"Whipped up by conservative commentators and bloggers, tens of thousands of protesters staged "tea parties" around the country Wednesday to tap into the collective angst stirred up by a bad economy, government spending and bailouts."

"Whipped up?" Apparently, to today's "journalist," anyone who doesn't embrace Obama's brand of Liberal Fascism and economic insanity MUST be being led astray by "conservative commentators and bloggers." They couldn't possibly be merely expressing disagreement with policies they correctly identify as disastrous.

Here in Minnesota, overhead video clearly showed about 6000 to 8000 people at the peak of the rally. Given that many people were coming and going throughout the event, the total number was likely closer to 10,000. So how did our local press and TV report the attendance?

Well, WCCO, the CBS affiliate, announced at around 5:30 PM that the crowd numbered "almost a thousand people" then added "although organizers expect as many as twice that number." Even the police on scene laughed at that one - though the rally ran from 5:00 until 8:00 PM, and the biggest crowds didn't arrive until around 6:30, by the time of the WCCO "report" there were already at least 4000 people present.

The TV reports also made sure they reported about the "counter protest" from some socialist group that loves high taxes (on you, that is), but surprise, surprise, they failed to mention the number of people in that group: about a dozen.

And local print media was no better - the StarTribune (known affectionately as the "RED Star tribune") also reported a figure of around a thousand. Coincidentally, these are the same people who refer to half a dozen "welfare rights" protesters as "a large crowd."

Falsely reporting the attendance was only the beginning. The real story was the nearly hysterical fear mongering by the news types. From CNN's Jeffrey Toobin, who found the events "disturbing," to various other talking heads fearfully expressing similar "concerns" (with properly furrowed brow, of course) the verdict was unanimous: be afraid, America. The way they talked, you would have thought they were reporting on a 1930's Nuremberg rally (then again, these are the same people who actually did call George Bush "Hitler" so we shouldn't be surprised.)

But there was no more perfect example of the downright delusional mental state of the media than the CNN female talking head who verbal assaulted a participant at the Chicago Tea Party.

If you haven't seen it, she asked a man who was with his toddler why he was at the rally, and before the man had said half a sentence, she jumped all over him and went into what can only be described as a pro-Obama rant about how grateful the man should be for the "stimulus" money that Illinois will receive.

And as if that weren't enough, she signed off with a completely outrageous comment about the crowd being "anti-goverment, anti-CNN" and opining that this was to be expected since the event was "promoted by the right wing, conservative FOX network" (it wasn't, of course).

But the larger issue is this: Why was this woman arguing with the man in the first place? She is supposed to be reporting - NOT advocating (in this case, almost violently) for the policies of the Obama administration.

Now, anyone with a functioning brain knows the answer: Mainstream news people today are NOT interested in objective reporting of the news. And they are certainly not interested in the truth.

Instead, today's media (who are 90% left-wing Democrats) are committed to promoting the expansion of Big Government Liberalism, by electing, protecting, and defending liberal Democrats who share their vision of a Brave New World.

And they say WE'RE crazy...

Like crack addicts, the anti-gun nut jobs at "20/20" just can't quit. Pretending to be "investigating" what might happen if students in a classroom were carrying concealed handguns when confronted by an armed attacker, their latest propaganda effort was almost laughable to anyone in the firearm training field.

Not surprisingly, the entire scenario was clearly rigged to produce their desired result (convincing you that you shouldn't carry a gun). For starters, rather than using a student as the shooter (as is almost always the case in real life), "20/20" instead employed a highly trained firearms expert to act as the attacker.

Even more ridiculous - the "attacker" not only knew in advance that there would be an "armed" defender, but even WHERE THEY WOULD BE SITTING - they had the defender sitting in the same seat every time! Why not at least have the defender sitting in a different seat? And why not sometimes have multiple defenders?

To further slant the results, the defenders were not trained shooters.  In addition, the clumsy "safety" equipment they had to wear made handling their "guns" even more difficult.

All this silly nonsense aside, this latest episode begs the question: Why did "20/20" decide to manufacture this absurd charade in the first place? Why not look at what has actually happened in such situations where students really were armed?

After all, if the producers of "20/20" were genuinely interested in "investigating" armed defenders in mass public shootings, you would certainly think their first step would be to contact Professor John Lott, the one person who has done more legitimate research on the subject of multiple victim homicides than anyone in the country.

Professor Lott, an economist and statistical expert, has investigated dozens of actual  incidents, both in America and around the world - and these are REAL cases, not simulations. More to the point, a number of these cases involved armed defenders.

But he didn't even get a phone call.

Sort of like doing a special on astro-physics, and NOT interviewing Stephen Hawking.

Naturally, "20/20" did see fit to contact just about every gun-control group in the country. You need only look at their website to see the overwhelming bias - it is peppered with talking points right out of the Brady Campaign playbook, along with sappy emotional stories of victims of "gun violence" - leaving out the fact that most of these victims died at the hands of gang members.

Oh, sure, they found a couple of people from the pro-gun side to give the impression that they were being "balanced" in their report, but don't hold your breath waiting for ANY mainstream media organization to be truly honest in their treatment of guns and gun ownership.

The anti-gun (and anti-self defense) media propaganda machine will continue to roll along, misinforming the public...and threatening your very right to defend yourself.

After listening to the endless hand wringing of gutless politicians, it was deeply satisfying to see some Navy SEALS finally teach the rest of the world how you deal with pirates.

You kill them.

And naturally, since the Captain of the hijacked ship was rescued unharmed, everyone in the media is gushing about how Barak Obama should be credited with "leadership" even thought it is clear that he was pretty much "hands off" on this operation (so if it didn't happen to turn out so well, he could escape responsibility).

But the real issue is this: why have Americans gotten to the point that we are afraid to take necessary action if there is the slightest possibility of someone getting hurt?

After all, anytime force is used, whether in military operations or day to day police work, collateral damage is always a possibility. And in a hostage rescue operation, the chances are even greater that innocents will be hurt, or even killed. That's just the reality that we need to face.

But if the most powerful nation on earth can be cowed into inaction by the potential loss of even ONE life, we are basically making the statement to every terrorist and thug in the world that all they need to do is get a hostage or two, and we will capitulate to their demands. And the result of such indecision and capitulation will always be an increase in such attacks.

Because all bullies operate in the same way. The big bully on the playground may know full well that he could easily beat up his victim, but what he depends on is that his victims will be so fearful of getting hurt that they will give him what he wants. Thus, the kids who give the bully their lunch money will be targeted again and again, while the little kid who is willing to get hurt by fighting back, and let's the bully know that he won't have an easy victory, will be left alone.

This is not about some kind of macho chest-thumping. It is about saving lives by recognizing a reality that has existed since the dawn of humankind. Some people simply cannot, and will not, be "reasoned" with. There will always be situations where it will be necessary to use force to  protect and defend ourselves.

Will military action to rescue hostages occasionally result in casualties among those we seek to save? Of course, but quick and decisive action will ultimately save many more lives in the long run. If we cannot understand and accept this reality, we will be dooming ourselves, and our children, to more and more such incidents of international extortion.

In a major food store near my house, there is an aisle marked "international" foods. Above the aisle, banners hang from the ceiling announcing various cuisines. But a couple of these banners seem to be more about political correctness than food choices.

For instance, one of the signs says "Asian" -  but don't bother looking for delicacies from Mongolia or the Philippines, both of which are Asian countries. Also missing are specialties from Afghanistan, Indonesia, Lebanon, Turkey, Armenia, Bangladesh, or any of the more than two dozen countries on the world's largest continent.

Not even Russia, by far the largest country in all of Asia, garners even a foot of shelf space. But you WILL find lots of space dedicated to Chinese, Thai, Vietnamese, Korean and Japanese foods and sauces. But why only these particular countries?

When did "Asian" stop being about geography and instead come to mean ONLY those cultures with...wait a minute. What DO these cultures have in common? Oh, that's right, these are all cultures whose people have, you know, "those kind of eyes" - the people we used to call "Oriental" precisely so we could distinguish them from the other "Asian" peoples.

Seems that the politically correct just HAD to come up with some different word to describe "those people" - and indicate umbrage at a term that had nothing to do with "racism" in the first place. Then again, these are the same people who imperiously pronounce that henceforth, "colored people" would be "racist" but that somehow, "people of color" would not. Get it? Oddly, the PC crowd used to say that "Oriental is a food, not a person" - apparently, now it's NOT a food, either.

In reality, the thought police have simply engaged in the same kind of racial generalizing that they pretend to abhor - putting all people with similar physical features under one bland label: Asian. Imagine someone describing a friend whose ancestors came from Sicily as "my European friend" - you'd look at them like they were a bit weird. But had the same person referred to "my Asian friend" you wouldn't raise an eyebrow.

As for me, I simply describe people of Vietnamese descent as Vietnamese, people from Korea as Korean, and my many Hmong friends as, well, Hmong - I prefer to recognize the true "diversity" that these very different cultures represent, rather than lumping them into some catchall term like "Asian." And setting aside why it is that some people feel compelled to define people by their ethnic ancestry, if you do feel such a need, do NOT refer to me as "European" - my ethnic background is Irish. Not Italian. Not Norwegian. Not German. Nor any of the other very different countries that make up the continent of Europe.

And can we all please refrain from that "hyphenated-American" nonsense - but that is a subject for another day.

The other example of idiotic political correctness run amok in the "international" food aisle: right down from the "Asian" banner there is one indicating "Hispanic" food - Uuuh, folks, there is no such thing as "Hispanic" food. Hispanic does not refer to a specific ethnic heritage, or even a country. Hispanic merely means "Spanish speaking." Thus Cubans would be considered Hispanic, just as immigrants from Mexico, Spain, or Nicaragua would be.

Anyone who is well-traveled will know that there is an ocean of difference between Cuban and Spanish cuisine, or between Mexican and Nicaraguan food, for that matter. But then, sanity and reason must never be allowed to interfere with the march toward ever more absurd political correctness - not even in a grocery store.

It is becoming painfully clear that in a hundred-watt world, Barak Obama is a nightlight. In less time than it takes to say "hope and change" the Bumbler-in-Chief has shown himself to be utterly inept in almost every aspect of governance.

In filling his cabinet he seemed unable to find anyone who had actually remembered to pay their taxes. Now, true, the majority of people who voted for Obama don't pay taxes either, but, come on, are you telling me he didn't even check to see if prospective senior officials in his administration weren't tax cheats?

His embarrassing gifts to foreign heads of state have included, are you ready for this, an IPOD and a pile of...CD's. Gee, that ought to go a long way toward "rebuilding America's image in the international community."

Then there is his crowning achievement (pun intended) - his horribly misnamed "stimulus" package. Obama's answer to what should have been a minor economic slowdown was to turn it into a disaster by initiating the largest deficit spending orgy in U.S. history...and "paying" for it by sending the national debt into the stratosphere. He then went off the Socialist deep-end by announcing that the Federal Government would be taking over the auto industry.

The result has been a plummeting stock market and skyrocketing unemployment, as business leaders reacted to each new example of Obama's lack of financial acumen. And Obama's claims of "inheriting" a troubled economy were not convincing, at least to anyone with a memory longer than a sitcom - barely a year ago the Dow was at 13,000 and unemployment around 5%. The business community looks forward, not backward - and they don't like what they see from Obama and the Democrat controlled Congress.

And Obama's missteps have not been limited to the domestic arena.

Just this week, Obama gave a speech in France, where after basically apologizing for everything America has done since the founding of the country, he gave forth as to how the world should move to "wind and solar power" - while standing in a room blazing with lights powered by...nuclear reactors. (For those of you who get your "news" from John Stewart, France gets 80% of it's electricity from nuclear powered generators.)

It seems that Obama's idea of diplomacy is to stop referring to terrorists as terrorists, refrain from labeling enemy combatants, well, enemy combatants. And in the most laughable example of liberal idiot-speak, the Obama administration has announced that terrorist attacks on civilians will henceforth be called..."man caused disasters."

But perhaps the greatest example of Obama's naivete is his almost suicidal view on nuclear weapons - he wants the United States to unilaterally disarm itself. Now, we expect this sort of nonsense from the unwashed professional protester class who inhabit Seattle coffee shops, but not from the Commander in Chief of the most powerful military force in the world.

After all, America may be the "big dog" economically and militarily, but remember that we represent less than 5% of the world's population, and in Obama's "nuclear free world" the United States would be as vulnerable as an unarmed man in a forest full of wolves.

And this kind of wrong-headed thinking on defense is not limited to nuclear weapons - Obama is just as eager to see every individual American disarmed. His visceral hatred of the 2nd Amendment is well documented, and the anti-gun loons currently in charge of the Democrat party share his views.

We have come to expect a certain percentage of the American public to be naive in matters of national and international policy. But for a President of the United States to be so unutterably clueless on so many issues cannot bode well for the future of the country.

Because it's impossible to have "just a little bit" of either.

And like cancer, socialism always starts small, then grows and spreads.

Like cancer, there is seldom any pain or discomfort in the early stages.

Like cancer, the longer it is allowed to go unchecked, the more difficult it is to get rid of it.

And like cancer, socialism eventually destroys everything it touches.

Obama's speech on the auto companies was a perfect illustration of socialism in capitalist clothing (i.e. -  a lie). He claimed that the government had no interest in "taking over" the auto companies, and then in the next breath described how the government was going to do precisely that.

Because, if you have even a basic proficiency in the English language, you would be hard pressed to understand how telling auto companies what kind of cars they can build, how they will build them, and under what "business plan" they will operate, is anything BUT having the government "run the auto companies."

Then again, liberal double-speak is nothing new - we've been listening to it for years. They're not spending taxpayers money to give union teachers more goodies, they're "investing in education."

It's not a tax increase, it's "an infusion of revenue."

It's not a welfare payment to people who pay no income tax at all, it's "an earned income tax credit."

It's not the largest increase in deficit spending in the history of the nation, it's "an economic stimulus package."

The truly scary part about Obama's Socialist Coup is that so many ordinary Americans simply don't understand the enormity of what he is doing. Then again, we shouldn't be surprised - thanks to the last forty years of "investing in public education," not one in ten Americans even understands the simple basic elements of free-enterprise capitalism, let alone why it is infinitely superior to any other system.

Capitalism has produced prosperity on a scale unimagined in ancient times, when wealth was controlled by kings and nobles, and before that tribal chieftains, and eons before that, the strongest man in the cave. Capitalism has allowed tinkerers working in their garages, basements, or tool sheds to become the Wright brothers, a Steve Jobs, or a Bill Gates.

However, capitalism also allows for something that most people would rather avoid: pain. Because an essential element in a robust system of free enterprise is that those who succeed are rewarded, while those who fail are not. This is a good thing, because pain and failure cause rational people to change, adapt, rework their plan, and ultimately, have a better chance at success.

But Socialism is all about avoiding pain, even at the expense of success and excellence. To the high-priests of the modern liberal nanny-state, ALL pain is inherently bad, and thus something to be prevented, no matter what the cost. In the Utopian worldview of the modern liberal, NOBODY should be allowed to fail.

And as long as we have more people who would choose avoiding pain, rather than courageously risking failure in the pursuit of success, then the cancer of socialism will continue to spread.

But time is short - liberal socialism has already spread deep into every aspect of our lives, and unless we "operate" soon, it will be too late, and just like cancer, it will ultimately destroy us.

If there was any doubt that the Obama-Pelosi-Reid Democratic party has gone off the deep end, it was removed when they announced that the government would now tell you what color your car can be. California legislators are actually considering making black cars illegal.

You see, black cars absorb sunlight and get hotter than white cars, and heavens, you might actually dare to run your air conditioner more often, and then, oh-my-gosh, you'll burn more gasoline, and that will mean more carbon dioxide, resulting in more "global warming" and, and, and...

I'm sorry, but at some point, even the most died-in-the-wool Democrat voters have to face the uncomfortable reality that their party has been hijacked by people who, quite frankly, have lost their minds.

In less than fifty years, the once proud "party of the working man" has become the party of the welfare state - the only "workers" that today's Democrats  seem to care about are GOVERNMENT employees. With millions of private sector employees being laid off, note how few, if any, of those armies of government "social workers" are losing THEIR jobs.

The party of the down to earth Harry Truman (who actually took the bus to the White House) has become the party of an empty suit elitist snob, Barak Obama.

The party of civil liberties has become the party of the fascist nanny state - from "speech codes" on university campuses to smoking bans in private businesses (and soon to come: smoking bans in your car, and eventually, your own home).

My great grandfather was a big time Democrat power broker at the beginning of the 20th century. John F. McGuire smoked cigars, drank Irish whiskey, ate bloody rare steaks, and owned a cabinet full of guns (including his favorite, one of the first Colt Government Model 1911 pistols). If he were to arise from his grave, he would be appalled at what he saw.

He would also likely NOT be welcome in the Democrat Party.

And think about this - today, the two biggest campaign contributors to the Democrat Party are trial lawyers and government employee unions, followed closely by...Wall Street financial interests. Yes, Virginia, whether you are talking about Fannie May and Freddie Mac or the folks at the big brokerage firms, it is Democrats, not Republicans, who receive the biggest party donations from "those rich guys."

Certainly, today's Republicans have drifted toward the mushy middle, but today's Democrats have fallen off the far left side of the universe - they have become unabashed Socialists.

A friend of mine summed it up this way: "Today's Republicans have become 1950's Democrats, and today's Democrats have become 1950's Communists."

It was bad enough when liberal Democrats mandated the monstrously expensive and ineffective ethanol scam, forcing taxpayers to subsidize a fuel that lowers their gas mileage and decreases the life of their engines.

It was worse when the same liberal fascists announced that we would all have "Big Brother" devices in our cars to tax us on every mile we drive.

But when these modern day Stalinists actually consider legislating what color of car you can drive, is should be a wake-up call to even the most loyal Democrats that their party is being run by the clinically insane.

Americans seem to be acting more and more like trained monkeys, jumping onto every idiotic bandwagon that comes down the pike. From "global warming" madness, with its endless variations of "green" worship, to the hostility toward "the rich," people seem willing, if not downright eager, to adopt whatever view seems to be the one that "most people" have.

Psychologists call it the "cascade affect" - once a belief, or a viewpoint, reaches a critical mass, where more than half of people seem to share it, then it becomes more and more uncomfortable for anyone to hold an opposing view - you feel like an outsider. So, rather than question, or even think critically about the issue, most people just go along.

Take the almost lynch mob hysteria directed at "big business" these days. No sooner did the mainstream media instruct people on how "angry" they were supposed to be at the fact that some executives got relatively big checks, then folks stopped watching "American Idol" long enough to start talking about how "angry" they were. Never mind that these same people simply yawned when Obama and the Democrats initiated more spending in 60 days than all previous American Presidents combined.

But where did this animus toward business in general, and the wealthy in particular, come from? After all, for two centuries, America has admired those who achieve - being the biggest, the fastest, the strongest, the most successful, was what being an American was always about. But today, even the word "rich" has become almost a pejorative. But why?

The answer, it turns out, is no further away than your nearest TV or movie theater screen. Because the way propaganda works is this - subtle themes are repeated over and over again, slowly but inexorably causing a change in the views, attitudes, and yes, even tastes, of the viewers. Most of the time, we aren't even aware of it - we just keep absorbing the messages until one day, we wake up and find ourselves thinking "like everyone else."

And over the last 40 years or so there has been a clear shift in the messages contained in entertainment media, particularly in the way people in the business world are portrayed. Before the age of television, we used to have films like "The Fountainhead" in which Gary Cooper brings to life Ayn Rand's genius architect, struggling to make his sweeping visions of mile-high skyscrapers a reality.

But not anymore.

Today, just about anyone in business is portrayed as a pariah. From crime shows like "CSI" and "Law and Order" to a comedy like "Boston Legal" - it is almost impossible to watch any TV show that doesn't have numerous derogatory references to anyone in the business world. More to the point, the characters in these shows who are corporate types are almost universally portrayed as mean, arrogant, cold, harsh, unfeeling, dishonest, and of course, "indifferent to the suffering of the little guy."

If you landed from Mars and watched American TV, you'd think that there wasn't an "executive" anywhere in America who earned an honest dollar, much less one who went home at the end of the day and kissed his children good night.

Be honest, when was the last time you saw anyone in a mainstream TV show or Hollywood movie who was a vaguely sympathetic character, let alone heroic? In fact, the only "business people" who might actually be shown in a positive light on mainstream television tend to be "whistle-blowers" - like Russel Crowe's character in "The Insider" who was working to "expose" the horrors of "Big Tobacco."

Come to think about it, even the very word "big" - which used to have a positive connotation, is now used to demonize. We have BIG tobacco, BIG Oil, BIG Pharmaceuticals, as if just being BIG is in and of itself evidence of being BAD. Note, however, that Hollywood has never done a movie or a TV show that shows the (genuine) dangers of BIG GOVERNMENT.

But, hey, if Barak Obama's "plan" does half the damage to the economy and the American free enterprise system that we fear it will, it should make one hell of a Mini-series...if there is any money left to produce it, that is.

The utter failure of gun control was on display in Oakland this past weekend, where a worthless piece of human trash who had an "extensive criminal history" shot and killed two police officers during a traffic stop, then killed two more during a standoff at an apartment complex.

Now, no one who is the least bit familiar with the facts of urban violence will be surprised that yet one more multiple offender, already out on parole for assault with a deadly weapon, was able to obtain firearms, even in California, a state buried in gun control regulations.

Of course he could. Every legitimate research effort has confirmed that thugs, drug dealers, and psychotic killers are not prevented from getting their hands on guns by ANY law, whether Federal, State, or local.

Even interviews with gang members (who are responsible for more than 80% of violent crime) bear this out - they refer to gun control efforts as "a joke" and interviewers frequently report that "they just laugh at gun laws" supposedly created to prevent them from obtaining guns.

Yet you can bet that the Brady Bunch and their kindred spirits in legislatures across the country will be expressing their usual outrage. Not against the killer, of course - but against his gun. They will be obsessed with what kind of gun he used, and their useful idiots in the media will chime in on cue, wondering (with furrowed brow) "where he got the gun."

And once again the gun control fanatics will attempt to convince Americans that if we pass just one more law, then this kind of thing "will never happen again." But we know that the laws they come up with will not be directed at those who perpetrate these monstrous crimes.

No, the gun control lobby will doubtless propose yet more foolish, ineffective, and ultimately destructive restrictions on legitimate gun owners, desperately hoping to somehow "control" what is nothing more than a tool made of metal and plastic. And no matter how many times gun control fails, for them the answer is always (surprise, surprise!) - more gun control!

But at some point, I have to believe that even the most jaded, uninvolved, clueless citizen must finally come to the realization that it is the CRIMINALS, PSYCHOTICS, and the GANGS that need to be "controlled" - not guns.

There is no magic solution to violence, but unless and until we get serious about putting the predators in prison, and keeping them there, incidents like the one in Oakland will continue to happen more than they otherwise would.