Gun Rights and the 2010 Elections

By: David Kopel
09/27/10

Will the 2011 Senate be friendlier to the Second Amendment than the current Senate? While the 2010 election will result in gains for Republicans, both parties contain pro-rights and anti-rights candidates. In 2006 and 2008, this meant that the anti-Republican deluge did little harm to the net numbers of Second Amendment supporters in Congress.

While some conservatives wish that the NRA would not support pro-gun Democrats, the long-term survival of the right to keep and bear arms depends on gun rights having friends in both major parties. We saw what happened during the George H.W. Bush administration, when the White House believed that gun owners had nowhere else to go, and so Republicans could triangulate to support some anti-gun laws.

This year, if N = the number of Republican Senate gains, then the pro-gun gain will probably be more than ½ N, but less than N. This gain could be significant, because it would produce enough pro-rights Senators to defeat a filibuster. On the other hand, if 2011 brings us a Democrat-controlled Senate with a Majority Leader other than Harry Reid, pro-Second Amendment bills will never get a vote.

So moving from East to West, let’s examine the races, taking into account the NRA grades that the candidates have received in present or past elections.

An important caveat: NRA grades are not based on a pure quantitative system—as when voting correctly a particular percentage of the time would always lead to a particular grade. Rather, the grades take into account the candidate’s whole career, with greater weight given to the more recent record. An A+ can only be earned with a record of leadership on the issue. If there is a “Q” after a grade, it means that the grade is based only on the candidate’s response to the NRA questionnaire, and the candidate has not previously held on office in which she acted on firearms policy.

Northeast

New Hampshire: Retiring Republican Judd Gregg was rated C in 2004. The Republican nominee for this open seat is former Attorney General Kelly Ayotte, who joined 22 other State AGs in 2009 to write to Attorney General Holder in opposing a new ban on so-called “assault weapons.” However, she also fought against proposed “Castle Doctrine” bill in the New Hampshire legislature to safeguard the right of people to use firearms against home invaders. The Democratic nominee is Paul Hodes, who got an A- when he ran for re-election to the House in 2008.

Vermont: Incumbent Democrat Pat Leahy looks unbeatable against businessman Len Britton. Leahy’s record on the issue has been mixed, with lots of bad votes in the early 1990s, a D rating in 2004, and a better performance in more recent years. In any case, gun owners are far better off with him as Judiciary Committee Chair than with Herb Kohl (Wisc.), who would take over if Leahy lost. In case of a Republican takeover, Jeff Sessions (Ala.) would be the chair, and he has been a strong leader on the issue.

Connecticut: Retiring Democrat Chris Dodd has been, like his father Senator Tom Dodd, both corrupt and adamantly anti-gun. Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, the Democratic nominee, has been a leader in abusing the rights of gun owners. Not only did he sue the firearms industry in 1999, he even threatened to bring criminal charges against gun companies for allegedly discussing among themselves whether they should refuse to join a surrender agreement that Smith & Wesson signed with Andrew Cuomo’s Department of Housing & Urban Development. (Happily, the agreement never went into effect, and S&W has since changed owners.)

Blumenthal, as an activist, would be even worse than Dodd. His Republican opponent is former professional wrestling promoter Linda McMahon. McMahon’s website has a terse statement: “America has a long history of gun ownership, and I fully support 2nd Amendment rights.”

New York: Charles Schumer appears set to win a third term. In the Senate and in the House, he has been a very effective anti-gun leader.

Kirsten Gillibrand is also up for election. While she was A-rated by the NRA in the House, she has proven that Schumer was canny in convincing N.Y. Governor David Patterson to appoint her to Hillary Clinton’s seat. Gillibrand has completely switched sides on the issue, and on guns, as on everything, amounts to nothing more than an echo of Schumer.

Republican nominee Joe DioGuardi served in the U.S. House so long ago that his NRA ratings are not online. DioGuardi is cross-endorsed on the Conservative Party line, which usually indicates strong support for Second Amendment rights. To almost everyone’s surprise, he has made the race competitive.

Pennsylvania: A clear choice here. Republican Pat Toomey has a solid record on guns. Democrat Joe Sestak had an F in this 2008 House race. Defeated party-switcher Arlen Specter had an erratic record during his five terms.

Delaware: Appointed Sen. Ted Kaufman (D) is retiring. Establishment Republican Mike Castle was rated F, and this grade actually understates how bad he was on the Second Amendment. There is probably no Republican in the current Congress who has taken more of a leadership role in promoting gun control than Castle. His record was arguably worse than Joe Biden’s. In the current Congress, he is the lead House sponsor of Michael Bloomberg’s bill which would create the structure for federal registration of most retail gun sales.

Democratic nominee Chris Coons so far appears to have nothing to say on firearms policy, although given his self-description (while in college) as a Marxist, one might infer that he is an enthusiast for a government  monopoly on the means of force.

Christine O’Donnell received an AQ and the NRA endorsement, which may have put her over the top in the primary. Even if presume that Coons will wins the seat, keeping Castle out of the Senate is still progress for gun owners.

Maryland: Anti-gun Democrat Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D) is running for a 5th term. She appears to face no serious challenge.

Net result from the Northeast: Let’s say that New Hampshire’s Gregg was a .5 (on a scale of 0 to 1), and any of his replacements is a .9, which we’ll round up to 1.0; so we get a net gain of .5 pro-rights vote from New Hampshire. If we give Specter a .5, then the Toomey-Sestak result would lead to a gain or loss of .5. A win in Connecticut or New York, would be an unexpected bonus. So let’s estimate a net +1 from the Northeast, with potential for a net 0 (if Sestak wins) or a +3 (if Toomey and DioGuardi win and Blumenthal loses).

Southeast

West Virginia: To replace Robert Byrd, Democratic Gov. Joe Manchin (A) is facing an unexpectedly tough race with Republican businessman John Raese (AQ). Byrd had a terrible record on the constitutional right to arms, particularly considering the state he represented. Whichever party wins in November, West Virginia is a guaranteed pick-up for gun rights.

North Carolina: Republican incumbent Richard Burr (A in 2004) vs. Democratic Secretary of State Elaine Marshall. Burr appears to be secure.

Alabama: Alabama’s Richard Shelby (R) is running for a fifth term, while South Carolina’s Jim DeMint (R) and Georgia’s Johnny Isakson (R) is running for a second terms. All of them had an A in 2004, and none appears to face a serious challenge.

Florida: Pro-Second Amendment Mel Martinez retired, and his appointed replacement George LeMieux is not running. Governor Charlie Crist, who had an A+ in the 2006 gubernatorial race, is campaigning as an independent. The Republican nominee is State House Speaker Marco Rubio (A in 2006 Fla. State House re-election). Democrat Kendrick Meek received a D+ during his 2008 U.S. House re-election race. The Crist/Rubio polls have been very volatile, but as long as Meek doesn’t pull an upset, the seat stays in pro-gun hands.

Louisiana: Republican incumbent David Vitter (A) faces Blue Dog Democrat Charlie Melancon (A in 2008 House re-election).

Kentucky: Republican nominee Rand Paul is solid on the Second Amendment issue. The Democratic nominee is Attorney General Jack Conway, who joined the amicus brief in McDonald v. Chicago, arguing that state and local governments should have to obey the Second Amendment. Retiring Republican Sen. Jim Bunning had a fine record on gun rights, so this is a seat that will stay pro-gun.

Arkansas: Democratic incumbent Blanche Lincoln has improved her voting record during her time in the Senate, but she looks nearly hopeless against U.S. Rep. John Boozman (A in 2008).

Net result from the Southeast: A +1 from West Virginia. Boozman is more likely than Lincoln to consistently vote pro-gun even if political winds shift in favor of gun control.

Midwest

Ohio: Retiring Republican George Voinovich (D in 2004) almost always voted wrong. Polls show Republican Rob Portman, who compiled a solid record in the U.S. House (A in 2004 House re-election) opening up a lead on Democrat Lee Fisher (F in 2006 Lt. Gov. win).  Fisher has previously served as a Board member of Handgun Control, Inc., which at the time was the nation’s leading gun control lobby. (Now supplanted by Michael Bloomberg’s organization “Mayors Against Illegal Guns.”)

Indiana: Retiring Democrat Evan Bayh had a good record when he was Governor, and a terrible one as Senator. Democratic nominee Brad Ellsworth has a perfect record (A in 2008 House re-election). Republican nominee Dan Coats voted right more often than not, during his olden days in the Senate, but he provided the crucial vote for the “assault weapon” ban; he also voted for the Brady Bill. Coats appears to be running away with this one.

Illinois: Appointed Sen. Roland Burris is retiring. So Barack Obama’s old seat will go either to Republican Mark Kirk (F in 2008 House re-election) or to Democrat Alexi Giannoulias. Both are strongly anti-gun.

Wisconsin: When Democrat Russ Feingold was elected in 1988, he started off consistently voting for gun control. In the twenty-first century, he has improved significantly. His race against businessman Ron Johnson is a toss-up, and NRA has not yet graded this race. Feingold has been running radio ads criticizing Johnson’s endorsement (later retracted) of licensing gun owners.

Iowa: Republican incumbent Charles Grassley (A in 2004) looks safe against lawyer Roxeanne Conlin.

Missouri: Sen. Kit Bond (R) is retiring. Republican Representative Roy Rlunt (A in 2008) vies with Democratic Secretary of State Robin Carnahan. In 1999, Carnahan ran the campaign opposing Proposition B, which would have enacted a law to allow for the licensed carry of concealed handguns by persons who passed a background check and a safety class. Carnahan’s campaign asserted that licensed carry was “too dangerous for Missouri families.” The Missouri legislature enacted licensed carry in 2003, and experience since then has proven that Carnahan was quite wrong.

Blunt’s lead is not large, and so Missouri represents this year’s best chance that anti-gun forces to gain a Senate seat.

Oklahoma: Sen. Tom Coburn (R) (A in 2004) is will easily win re-election. He has been a very active leader on gun rights.

Kansas: For this open seat, Republican Jerry Moran (A in 2008 House reelection) has a gigantic lead over Democrat Lisa Johnston.

South Dakota: Pro-gun Republican incumbent John Thune is unopposed.

North Dakota: Retiring Democrat Byron Dorgan (D+ in 2004 Senate re-election) had an especially bad record in light of the state that he represented. Republican Governor John Hoeven (A+ in 2008 gubernatorial reelection) has a wide lead over Democrat Tracy Potter. Count this is a certain pickup for gun owners.

Net results from the Midwest: Start off with +2, thanks to Indiana and North Dakota, with an additional potential +1 from Ohio, balanced by a possible -1 from Missouri.

West

Colorado: Democrat Michael Bennet was appointed to fill the vacancy created by Ken Salazar ascending to Secretary of Interior. In Bennet’s brief tenure, he has voted right every time on legislation, but voted wrong on the confirmation of Justices Sotomayor and Kagan. Notably, the Washington Post reported that he voted for national reciprocity of handgun carry licenses only after Charles Schumer gave him permission, because Bennett’s vote was not needed to sustain a filibuster. Bennet is also a co-sponsor of the Michael Bloomberg bill, S. 843, which would impose harsh restrictions on firearms stores, facilitate national gun registration, and allow the Attorney General to shut down gun shows.

In the polls, Bennet is not far behind Weld County District Attorney Ken Buck, who is strongly pro-Second Amendment.

Arizona: John McCain got a C for his 2004 Senate reelection, but has a much better record since then. He seems ready to coast to a general election victory.

Utah: Defeated incumbent Robert Bennett never voted wrong but, unlike Orin Hatch, rarely exercised leadership on gun rights. Republican nominee Mike Lee is a former Supreme Court clerk, an almost certain winner in the general election, and likely to be a pro-Second Amendment leader.

Idaho: Republican incumbent Mike Crapo represents his state well by always voting right, and he faces no serious challenge.

Washington: Democratic incumbent Patty Murray (F in 2004 reelection) is in a close race with former Republican gubernatorial candidate Dino Rossi (A in 2008 gubernatorial bid). A Rossi win would be a significant pickup for gun owners.

Oregon: Incumbent Democrat Ron Wyden (F in 2004) has a comfortable lead over Republican John Huffman (A in 2008 state house reelection). Wyden has almost always been on the wrong side; but to his credit, in 2009 he took a leading role in enacting a statute which stopped the Customs Service from implementing a regulatory interpretation which would have banned the import of most folding knives.

California: To her credit, incumbent Democrat Barbara Boxer (F in 2004) led the fight on the armed pilots issue. Other than that, her performance has been terrible. Republican businesswoman Carly Fiorina has no record, but was good enough on the Second Amendment to earn Sarah Palin’s endorsement.

Alaska: Defeated incumbent Republican Lisa Murkowski voted right but did not lead. Republican nominee Joe Miller, like Murkowski, received an A in the primary. Democrat Scott McAdams’ website includes a sentence in which he says he strongly supports the Second Amendment.

Hawaii: Democratic Sen. Daniel Inouye (F in 2004) is running for a 9th term, and appears nearly sure to win.

Net results: Let’s guess that Buck wins in Colorado, and that the Republican wins one of the two close races in California and Washington. Net result would be an overall +1.5.

National net: The middle-of-the-road estimate would be a total of +5.5, and a plausible best-case scenario of +10. The middle estimate would provide enough votes to defeat filibusters, and the +10 could be enough to defeat vetoes.

Now for the unique case of Nevada: Ay, there’s the rub. Senate Maj. Leader Harry Reid (D) is running for a 5th term. Reid (B in 2004, and improvement since then) has been a good friend of gun owners during the twenty-first century—as he was during most his time in the Senate, except for the Clinton presidency. He was a sine qua non for passage of the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which ended the abusive anti-gun lawsuits brought by Blumenthal, Bloomberg, et al. As Majority Leader, he has worked with the NRA on numerous issues behind the scenes, to keep anti-gun measures from being snuck into appropriations bills or inserted in conference reports. He is the reason that the Organization of American States’ anti-gun CIFTA treaty has never been brought to floor for a ratification vote.

When Reid gets behind a pro-gun bill, he does not merely vote for it; he also works the Senate floor effectively.

Republican opponent Sharon Angle earned an A in 2004 and 2002 for her state assembly reelection campaigns.

If Reid is defeated, but the Republicans gain fewer than ten seats, the new Majority Leader will be Charles Schumer or Richard Durbin. There have been anti-gun Majority Leaders before—such as Tom Daschle. But never has there been a Majority Leader who was a strongly committed and well-informed anti-gun activist. Such a Leader can help sneak anti-gun provisions into other bills. Unfortunately, since Senators these days do not read bills before voting on them, the potential for mischief is tremendous.

In contrast, Majority Leader Reid’s staff has been very helpful in warning Second Amendment supporters about all attempts of anti-gun legislators to use backroom maneuvers to harm the Second Amendment.

In sum: Whatever the size of the pro-gun gains in the Senate, the Second Amendment may be worse off in the 2011-12 Senate if Charles Schumer or Durbin are in charge. Anti-rights legislation would be assigned to committees where it will get favorable and highly-publicized hearings, and be ready for floor action if circumstances gave it a chance of passage.

Thus, a Republican gain of less than 10 seats, coupled with the defeat of Harry Reid, could leave Second Amendment rights in the Senate in a worse position than today. The good news is that, unless the President decides to invest significant political capital, there would be little chance for passage of anti-gun legislation.

Dave Kopel is Research Director of the Independence Institute, a think tank in Golden, Colorado.

Originally published at the New Ledger

Whenever tax-paying Americans demand that government tighten it's belt, the big-government-loving liberals (both Democrats and Republicans) immediately respond with threats that "Police, Firefighters, and Education" will be the first to be cut.

Never mind for a moment that laying off a bunch of union public school teachers would likely improve education - that's a debate for another day. The larger question is why they invariably go right for the throat of truly vital services like Fire and Police, while ignoring the cornucopia of social welfare services that, while they certainly have plenty of free-loaders taking advantage of them, are hardly "essential government services" - most should never have been the business of government in the first place.

At this point, the hand-wringing socialists usually huff and puff, demanding that you tell them "what programs YOU would cut."  Well, purely as an educational exercise, take a gander at just ONE government site:

http://www.usa.gov/Citizen/Topics/Benefits.shtml

Titled "USA.gov - Government Made Easy" it lists an unbelievable array of programs. Yes, yes, I know, some of these government services are merely informational, and some, like benefits for veterans, are justifiable as government responsibilities, but note how many are nothing more than various "easy" ways that society's parasites can get something for nothing. Oh, FYI, the word "assistance" is almost always gov-speak for "money" - which of course comes from those of us who actually pay taxes.

Take a deep breath, then take a gander:

Government Benefits, Grants, and Financial Aid

Need government help? Get official information on grants, loans, financial aid, and other benefits from the U.S. government:

A

• Adoption Assistance
• Adoption Tax Credit

C

• Child Care Locator and Information
• Child Care Tax Credit
• Children's Health Insurance
• Child Support Enforcement in Your State
• College Student Loans and Grants
• Crop and Livestock Insurance

D

• Disability Resources
• Disaster Assistance for Victims
• Dislocated and Laid-Off Worker Assistance

E

• Earned Income Tax Credit
• Employment and Training Assistance

F

• Farm Ownership and Operating Loans
• Federal Retiree Benefits
• Food Stamps and Other Nutrition Assistance Programs

G

• Government Benefits – Check Your Eligibility
• Government Jobs
• Government May Owe You Money
• Government Online Services
• Government Sales and Auctions
• GovLoans.gov - Find the Right Loan for You
• Grants.gov – Find and Apply for Government Grants

H

• Head Start Program Locator
• Home Mortgage and Housing Assistance
• Home Rental Assistance
• Human Trafficking – Assistance Available to Victims of Human Trafficking

L

• Legal Assistance
• Loans for Agriculture, Business, Disaster Relief, Education, Housing, and Veterans through GovLoans.gov
• Locators – Find In-Person Services Near You
• Low Income Home Energy (Heating and Cooling) Assistance

M

• Medicaid Consumer Information
• Medicare
• Medicare Card Replacement
• Medicare Prescription Drug Plan Finder
• Mortgage Assistance Programs

N

• Native American Benefits

O

• Online Services – Save Time, Do It Online!

P

• Pension Insurance and Benefit Guaranties

R

• Railroad Retirement, Disability, and Unemployment Benefits
• Recovery.gov
• Refugee Resettlement Programs
• Renter's Assistance
• Runaway Youth National Switchboard to Call for Help
• Rural Assistance Center for Health and Human Services

S

• School Lunch and Breakfast
• Senior Citizen Community Service Employment Program
• Small Business Financial Assistance
• Social Security
• Student Financial Aid and Scholarships
• Student Grants for Study Overseas
• Student Loan Consolidation
• Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (Food Stamps)
• Supplemental Security Income

T

• Tax Counseling for the Elderly
• Telephone Assistance Programs for Low-Income Households
• Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (Welfare)

U

• Unemployment Insurance
• USASpending.gov – Where Americans Can See Where Their Money Goes

V

• Vaccines for Children
• Veterans' Benefits

W

• Weatherization Assistance
• Welfare (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families)

Y

          Youth Education and Training Assistance

So, the next time some bureaucrat whines that they can't find ANYTHING to cut, give them some suggestions.

Releasing the "great news" that the "recession is over" just weeks before the 2010 mid-term elections does not come as a surprise to veteran political observers - we knew Obama and the Democrats were bound to try something, ANYTHING, to hold back the anti-incumbent tide that is sweeping the country.

But wait, we have unemployment at 10% (with the real number closer to 17%), the Stock Market is down 40% from its peak in 2007, housing foreclosures are at record levels, and millions more Americans are "under water" with their home loans. So how is it that the "experts" can claim with a straight face that "the recession ended in April of 2009"- let alone expect any sane American to believe them?

The reason is that the basic definition of a recession is 2 consecutive quarters of "negative growth" - declining GDP. And conversely, when the GDP shows an increase, one can technically claim that the economy is "growing" again. Simple, right?

The problem is that most folks don't realize what constitutes GDP - it is calculated as C+I+G  (Consumer Spending plus Investment plus Government Spending).  Ideally, a healthy economy would be composed mostly of Investment and Consumer Spending, with Government Spending being the smallest portion (because remember that ALL government spending is ultimately paid for by the private sector).

Thus, by ignoring the private sector and instead increasing Government Spending (especially drastically increasing it as Obama and the Democrats have), they can get the GNP to actually show an increase, allowing Obama to claim, at least technically, that the "recession is over" - even if the more important elements of Consumer Spending and Investment are actually declining!

What we should have been doing all along is to cut government spending (and taxes) drastically, because even though we might see a temporary drop in the "official" GDP, at the same time we would encourage real growth in business investment and private sector jobs, along with increases in personal and business income, leading of course, to more consumer spending, all of which would, ironically, also provide more tax revenue to the government than would have been obtained by raising taxes.

And permanently extending the so-called "Bush tax cuts" would help enormously. But naturally, Obama and the ever more socialist leaning Democrats in Congress want to do so only if they can exclude the top 2% of tax-payers - most of whom are small business owners, the very people who are most responsible for creating the majority of new jobs!

Rather than taking such proven methods of stimulating the economy, Obama and the Democrats continue to focus on massive Federal spending, creating more government jobs (unemployment among government workers is only 5%), and taxing the hell out of the most successful Americans in order to redistribute their hard-earned income to those whom they hope will continue to be Democrat voters.

And now they try to tell us that their socialist insanity is actually working?

Thankfully, Americans don't seem to be buying this economic sleight-of-hand - polls show that most people trust their own day to day experience more than they do the bogus numbers coming out of Washington. Let's hope that this latest propaganda campaign from the Democrats is no more successful than their disastrous "stimulus" has been.

No one who has closely followed the American media will be surprised by the ever-increasing use of the word "extreme" in what are ostensibly "news" stories. But don't look for that label to ever be attached to Democrats, or to any left-leaning group for that matter.

You see, in the world of today's ever more left-wing mainstream media, the term "extreme" is almost exclusively applied to those who oppose turning the United States into a socialist nightmare. Note how often the word "extreme" is followed invariably with the words "right" or "right wing" - yet almost never do you see the phrases "extreme left" or "extreme left wing" in any major news venue.

The Tea Party movement, which is the latest victim of the "extreme" label, ironically includes a large contingent of Democrats. But no matter, if you simply don't like the government takeover of the health care system, or you are frustrated with high taxes and the growth of the nanny-state, then you are "extreme."

But who today is truly "extreme" in their views? The Democratic Party has clearly been hijacked by some of the most outrageously left-wing radicals in American history. They even admit it - many of Obama's closest associates, even cabinet level appointees, have openly bragged about being socialists, or outright Communists. Many of these radicals have publicly called for the abolition of capitalism.

Yet nobody in the "Old Media" lets out a peep. To them, advocating the total destruction of the American free enterprise system is "mainstream" thinking. But simply wanting to preserve the most successful economic and political system in the history of the world is an "extreme" position.

Bill Ayers. Jeremiah Wright. Van Jones. And the list goes on and on. Every time we turn around, another far-left loon is uncovered as being closely associated with either Obama specifically or the Democrat party in general. Even Obaba's picks for the Supreme Court are as radical a pair of justices as have ever been seen on the bench.

Environmentalist crazies burn luxury homes in California, and vandalize  SUVs at car dealers. Socialist protesters riot and damage stores in opposition to the WTO every time there is a conference. The New Black Panthers attempt to intimidate voters at a polling place, brandishing weapons.

Yet when was the last time you heard or read anything in the mainstream media that included the label "extreme" or "radical" applied to any of these far-left loons? In fact, while a search of mainstream media news stories for the phrases "the extreme right" or "far right wing" will yield thousands of hits, an identical search for "the extreme left" or "far left wing" will come up nearly empty.

And with the impending debacle facing Democrats in the upcoming mid-term elections, expect the liberal media types to ratchet up the "extreme" label to nearly ear-splitting levels.

Republicans who are already contemplating what sort of drapes they will hang in their new offices should be forewarned - Democrats will not go quietly into the night. But in the face of an almost tsunami-like wave of anger and disgust at the Obama administration and Congress, what can Democrats possibly do to turn the tide?

They will do what Democrats have always done - lie, demonize, and cheat.

Lies, and I do mean flat out lies (not "mis-statements" or "errors"), have been a key ingredient in the Democrat strategy for as long as there have been Democrats. From the "global warming" fraud to "free healthcare" to the "stimulus" bill, whenever Democrats want to pass yet one more government takeover of your life, facts take a back seat to fake "studies" and testimony by disingenuous sources.

At election time, the lies come fast and furious. Obama claims that the economic mess we are in was "inherited" from the Bush Administration. False - while George Bush was hardly frugal with the taxpayers' money, the reckless spending binge began when Democrats took over Congress in 2007, and Obaba's "stimulus" debacle QUADRUPLED the deficit in one stroke.

Even the housing crisis, which Democrats try to blame on Republicans, is the result of Democrat policies over 30 years that forced banks to make loans to people who could never pay them back. Today, millions of homeowners, even those who do make their payments on time, are facing foreclosure because they owe more than their houses are worth. But that won't stop Democrats from lying about it.

Another lie is that the Obama "stimulus" is working. False - unemployment (which, by the way, was only 4.9% the day before the Democrats became the majority in 2007) has stagnated at nearly 10%, and not in spite of the stimulus, but BECAUSE OF IT. Unlike Democrats, business owners actually understand economics - they can see the handwriting on the wall. And they are terrified of what Democrats are going to do next. But facts will not stop Democrats from repeating these lies over and over again - and they will be dutifully echoed by their oh-so-willing co-conspirators in the media.

Next, they will demonize, demonize, demonize. They will demonize Republicans as "not caring about the poor" - in spite of the fact that it has been the failed policies of the Democrat party that have resulted in 2nd and 3rd generations of people still being on welfare. After more than a TRILLION dollars of social entitlement spending, we have the same percentage of people in poverty as we did in the 1960's. Black families have been especially hard-hit by Democrat policies, yet every election season these same Democrats try to buy the votes of African-Americans by falsely accusing Republicans and conservatives of racism and bigotry.

Democrats love to demonize "business" - an interesting concept considering that just about every private sector job is produced by business, NOT government. Note that pejorative terms like "Big Oil" and "Big Insurance" were inventions of Democrats, but you will never hear Obama talk about "Big Labor Unions" or the (genuine) evils of "Big Government."

And they are really hell-bent on demonizing the "Tea Party" people, whom the try to paint as "radical" or "extreme" or even "crazy." Seems that Democrats see any American who believes in fiscal sanity, Constitutional fidelity, and maximum personal liberty as "extreme" and therefore "scary" to the electorate. Unfortunately, this is yet another area where the Democrat-controlled media is only too eager to jump on the bandwagon.

Watch for the press to dig into every corner of the lives of any Tea Party backed candidates, no matter how far back they have to go, in order to smear and destroy them. Delaware's Republican Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell will be first on their hit list. Meanwhile, the fact that her Democrat opponent, Chris Coons, is a self-described Marxist will be dutifully ignored.

But perhaps most insidious of all, Democrats relentlessly demonize "the rich" - as if being successful were something shameful. Democrats have had an ongoing policy of financially raping those who do well in life. And now they want to raise taxes even more on those already paying a huge chunk of their income - by extending the "Bush Tax Cuts" only for those making less than $250,000 a year. Sadly, after decades of this malicious propaganda, there are a significant number of Americans who actually fall for the myth that "the rich" are somehow "getting tax breaks" that the "middle class" do not.

Here in Minnesota, the Democrat candidate for governor, former Senator Mark Dayton, has essentially founded his campaign on a single promise - to "make the rich pay their 'fair share' of taxes." Apparently, the fact that the top half of taxpayers already pay 97% of ALL the income taxes collected (while those in the bottom half pay only 3%) is not "fair" enough for Mr. Dayton. Perhaps a 100% tax on "the rich" will be enough. But we doubt it.

Such pitting of one group of Americans against another should be roundly denounced. But a rather disturbing percentage of Americans have been so brainwashed by the endless repetition of the "tax the rich" mantra, that the Democrat "Class Warfare" rhetoric has had an affect - too many Americans actually believe it.

Lastly, and especially when a particular political race is too close to call, you can almost bank on the fact that the Democrats will do the one thing they have done better than anyone - CHEAT. From the massive Chicago ballot-box stuffing in the 1960 election that insiders pretty much knew put John F. Kennedy into the White House, to the 2008 Minnesota contest that eventually resulted in the embarrassing Al Franken ending up in the United States Senate, Democrat voter fraud can be counted on to "save the day" for their candidates.

Having initially lost to Republican Norm Coleman, Franken's willing allies in the Democrat controlled Secretary of State's office, were somehow able to keep "finding" votes (in boxes, file cabinets, and in one case, the trunk of a car). Naturally, no one thought it odd that virtually ALL of the newly found votes were for...Al Franken. And as if to underscore the point, it was just recently discovered that over 3000 convicted felons illegally voted for Franken - 3 times more than the eventual number of votes that put Franken over the top.

So as some of the the really close races around the country get down to the wire, be ready for an army of former ACORN workers and others to do what they do so well - cheat.

Because, as we used to say in Chicago, "Democrats believe so strongly in the right to vote, that many of them have been known to continue voting for years after their own deaths."

The discussion surrounding both the building of a mosque in the vicinity of Ground Zero and the announcement by an obscure preacher of his intent to burn a number of Qur'ans has illuminated the huge double standard that exists in how the media portrays various reactions to supposedly "offensive" acts.

This is nothing new - for decades the American Left has told us how we need to be "tolerant" of those who burn the American flag. That we must accept those whose idea of "art" is a crucifix immersed in urine, or a picture of the Madonna covered in dung. We are told that "freedom of speech" requires such restraint.

But when the "offended" party is a member of some ethnic or religious minority, the rules change. Remember the riots over the Rodney King verdict? Liberals, in concert with their like-minded comrades in the mainstream media, predictably sought to "understand" the outrage - as if there were any legitimate reason for burning and looting.

And today, when Muslims react to so-called "attacks on Islam" with rioting, burning cars, and even murder, the Left once again "empathizes with their feelings" and instead of condemning those who would kill and maim over a silly cartoon in a Danish newspaper, they will lament the "racism" or "bigotry" that "provoked" the violence.

Even individual acts of violence, when committed by a minority, are subject to the same "nuanced" reporting. Take the case of Omar Thornton, the 34 year old man who was fired from a Connecticut beer distributor for stealing. Last month, Thornton entered Hartford Distributors and shot 10 employees with a hand gun, killing 8 before turning the gun on himself, according to Manchester Police.

End of story, right? Well, not quite. Because Mr. Thornton happened to be black. So, despite his being a thief (caught red-handed on video) and in spite of his work history showing a clear pattern of poor performance, as well as being a "disciplinary problem" for quite some time, the media practically fell all over themselves trying to portray his rampage as a "reaction" to his (supposedly) being "racially harassed" on the job. Never mind that no proof for such allegations exists.

Now, whether intentional or not, by focusing on the motivation of the killer, the press sends the underlying message that his actions are somehow "understandable." The result is that we see him as just a little bit less responsible, perhaps even considering that there might be some "justification" for his killing spree. And that is a dangerous state of affairs.

In the case of the Qur'an burning, the fact that some previously unknown pastor of a tiny church (perhaps 50 parishioners) decides to have a bonfire shouldn't even be a news "event" at all. Yet no sooner had the story broken than the talking heads on mainstream news programs were agonizing over the "backlash" that would most certainly come. No less a figure than General David Petraeus warned of grave danger to American troops should the book-burning occur.

But this creates a serious problem, because the insidious result of all this wailing and gnashing of teeth over the pastor is in essence to absolve violent perpetrators of their responsibility. The violence perpetrated by angry Muslims isn't their fault - they were "provoked."  But had the pastor decided to burn a Jewish Torah, a Christian bible, or some sacred Buddhist texts, would there be rampant fear of a "violent reaction" to his stunt?

Of course not. Because when Jews, Christians, or most other religious groups are "offended" they express their outrage without resorting to violence. They write letters to the editor. They appear on TV. They may even protest - but when they do, they do so peacefully. When the anti-Catholic "art" exhibits previously mentioned were given center stage at New York museums, did we see riots in the streets? When a synagogues is vandalized, do Jews retaliate by bombing Mosques?

But it is simply a fact of modern life that Muslims can be counted on to react to what is nothing more than an insult with rioting, smashing store windows, setting fire to cars, and yes, murder. When the famous "Danish cartoons" were published, depicting the Prophet Muhammad as a bomb-toting terrorist, Muslims took to the streets, rioting, looting and attacking innocent bystanders - as many as 100 people were killed. Theo Van Gogh, a relative of the famous Dutch painter, was assassinated by a radical Muslim, for the "crime" of...making a movie critical of Islam.

Yet even now, if you read about these incidents, the accounts will be filled with references to the "controversial" nature of the Danish cartoons or the "provocative" activities of Theo Van Gogh. The online reference site Wikipedia, known for a leftward tilt, goes to great lengths to paint Van Gogh in an unflattering light, saying that he had an "aggressive tone" and that he "delighted in provocation." In other words, it's the victim's fault - no different than excusing a rapist because, after all, "she asked for it" by dressing "provocatively."

But the bottom line is that the responsibility for violent acts rests solely with those who commit the violence - no one else. Even in self-defense law, something with which I have considerable experience, you don't get to use force, let alone deadly force, simply because someone says or does something that you find offensive or insulting.

You may get angry. You may be outraged. And you may certainly express your feelings to anyone who will listen. But what you may not do is riot, destroy property, or attack people. And you most certainly should not get a free pass just because you happen to be black, or Hispanic.

Or a Muslim.

One of the most frustrating things that Americans have to endure is the seeming inability of the average legislator to grasp the obvious solutions to our economic woes. The issues are well known, the root causes are clearly understood - or at least they should be. But our elected officials seem unable, or unwilling, to take the steps that will fix the problem.

One is reminded of the wickedly funny YouTube video "Democrats on an Escalator" - it features a well-dressed man and a woman on an escalator in what is apparently a very posh office building. When the escalator inexplicably stops, they just stand there, completely perplexed - calling out for help, and finally deciding to "wait for someone" to come to their aid. Naturally, anyone with an ounce of common sense would simply...walk off the escalator.

And so it is with our professional ruling class of professional politicians. The problems are right in front of their eyes:

We have way too much taxation, especially on those who create jobs - and taxing "the rich" even more is the quickest way to put the working class they employ out of their jobs.

We have too many regulations, most of which have nothing to do with "protecting the public" but instead protect special interests, pushing up prices and locking out competition.

And we have way too many government workers making way too much money. Whether Federal, State, or local government, these workers do not produce a single product or service that contributes to the growth of the country - yet they are paid, on average, almost double what private sector workers earn.

So it's time to get moving and do what everyone with any economic literacy knows needs to be done - Cut. Cut. Cut. And then cut some more.

Cut the budget of the EPA by at least 50%  - These unelected bureaucrats  do nothing to make your life better, and they are responsible for some of the most onerous and destructive policies in our history. The EPA's recent move to declare CO2 a "pollutant" (it's not) in order to help push the economically disastrous "cap and trade" bill is but one example.

And no, we do NOT need the EPA to ensure that our air and water are clean and safe - we already have enough laws and the legal processes to enforce reasonable restrictions against things like dumping toxic waste into our streams or spewing (genuine) poison gases into the atmosphere.

Cut the Federal Department of Education by 90% - leave only enough staff to monitor and compare the relative performance (and expenditures) of local schools districts around the country. We do NOT need them be involved in policy, curriculum, or silly "diversity" initiatives - those are all matters best left to parents in the local school districts. Frankly, we would be better off if we completely eliminated this Federal entity altogether.

Cut local education spending - The biggest budget item in almost every state is "public education" - and in spite of graduating fewer than 50% of their students (or worse) every year the teachers' unions want more. Actually, the entire problem of skyrocketing education spending would largely be solved if we would finally pass legislation that allows PARENTS to decide which school their children attend. Private schools do a much better job of educating children - and they do it for less money. The typical private K-12 school graduates over 90% of their students, yet costs less than HALF of what a typical public school costs per student.

Cut ALL Federal, State, and local government employee salaries by 10% - and renegotiate every government union contract at the earliest possible date. No more "Rolls-Royce" health insurance plans. No more multi-million dollar pensions. When the entire country is going through difficult economic times, it is simply unreasonable if not downright arrogant for government workers to think that THEY alone should be immune to hardship.

Cut ALL regulations that prevent competition - the most obvious example is the restriction imposed by most State governments that prevent their citizens from buying the health insurance that they want across state lines. All these restrictions have done is to create artificial monopolies for each state's "pet" insurance companies - with predictable increases in cost. Besides, I am perfectly capable of making such decisions without the the "help" of some government nerd.

Look at all the ridiculous new restrictions on food - salt bans, sugar bans, trans-fat bans. Every time you turn around, some over zealous group of "food nazis" is trying to tell you what you should be ALLOWED to eat. The latest example of this nanny-state-run-amok is an attempt to require a "warning label" on hot dogs, even at venues like baseball games. Excuse me, but anyone with an I.Q. above that of a carrot is completely aware of the nutritional value of a hot dog. So take your government approved menus and BUTT OUT!

Cut EVERY government entitlement program - From welfare and "Section 8" housing to food stamps (now cleverly renamed "SNAP" and using debit cards instead of actual stamps), we need to make serious cuts. And real CUTS, not "slowing the growth" of increases. Especially in times of economic hardship, the idea that those who are getting a tax-payer funded government check should somehow be immune from belt-tightening is simply economically untenable, not to mention immoral.

Cut Taxes - a LOT. And cut them for the people who are paying the most, not those who are paying the least. Start by making the so-called "Bush Tax Cuts" permanent. Then go further. Cut the taxes on those ABOVE $200,000 until NOBODY is paying more than 25% of their income. Eliminate the capital gains tax, completely. Eliminate the "death tax" - taxing every penny that someone earns throughout their life and then taxing it AGAIN is not merely bad economic policy, it is immoral.

Finally, we need to cut government spending at every level. And, no, we are NOT going to start with Police, Firefighters, or truly essential services like the Military - these are the LAST groups that we should touch, not the first. Which is precisely why big government loving politicians always threaten to cut cops and firefighters (or even scarier - garbage pickup). And again, "cut" means "less than last year" not "a reduction in the rate of growth" - in other words, real, substantive CUTS.

In less than two years Obama and the Democrats have pushed the deficit and national debt into stratospheric levels by engaging in a spending binge unequaled in American history - and it will take equally dramatic and decisive action to get things back under control. The tea leaves seem to suggest that Republicans are likely to take over the House, and perhaps even the Senate. If they do, we will likely soon find out whether they have any more courage to deal with economic reality than the Democrats they replace...

Here we go again. James J. Lee, a militant, environmentalist lunatic, steeped in Left-Wing dogma, goes berserk, taking hostages at the offices of the Discovery Channel. After a four hour standoff, he was shot and killed by a police sniper. Thankfully, all of the hostages escaped unharmed.

And the mainstream media coverage? Almost completely sanitized to hide his political agenda. Even FOX News scrambled to find a psychiatrist who warned against calling Lee a "terrorist" - though it's hard to imagine what else you would call a man who was essentially a suicide bomber.

But the "progressive" leanings of James J. Lee are hard to ignore. On his own website,  savetheplanetprotest.com, he admits to being influenced by Al Gore"s (now discredited) movie, along with other radical environmentalist propaganda. Lee said that "focus must be given on how people can live WITHOUT giving birth to more filthy human children since those new additions continue pollution and are pollution." 

According to Special Agent Gary Noesher, an FBI profiler for more than 30 years, Lee's website demanded an end to all programs promoting war and the "technology behind those," as well solutions to global warming, unemployment and housing.

Lee's writing also called for the end of "all human procreation and farming," characterizing population growth a crisis. "For every human born, ACRES of wildlife forests must be turned into farmland in order to feed that new addition over the course of 60 to 100 YEARS of that new human's lifespan!" the website read. "THIS IS AT THE EXPENSE OF THE FOREST CREATURES!!!!"

In other words, this guy's views are pretty well documented - he's clearly a disturbed individual who has been influenced by the propaganda of the far-Left. But don't hold your breath waiting for the truth about Mr. Lee, because in the halls of the mainstream media, the First Commandment is:

Thou Shalt Not Speak Ill of Any Liberal.

This is nothing new. Most people remember the story of Ted Kaczynski - the infamous "Unabomber" - who used letter-bombs to kill and maim scores of people. But many of these same people are unaware that Kaczynski was a raging anti-business, anti-technology, environmentalist.  Because the media, then as now, studiously avoided highlighting his radical Left-wing political views.

So when it comes to the Discovery Channel bomber, you will not likely see an in-depth investigation into his motives, nor any "expert panel" discussions about his political views - he will be off the front page as quickly as today's weather report.

Now, imagine the coverage had Mr. Lee turned out to be the third cousin of a guy whose sister-in-law once went to a "Tea Party"....

From the soaring cost of health care to out-of-control illegal immigration, the actual sources of our nation's problems are persistently ignored - making real solutions all but impossible. Because unless we deal with the underlying causes of our fiscal problems, we will never be able to effectively make the changes we so desperately need.

Take the hoards of illegals streaming across our Southern border. While everyone offers after-the-fact band-aids, nobody wants to deal with the two fundamental reasons that we have the problem in the first place: jobs and welfare. Illegals come here because they can simply earn more money than they can in their home country, especially if they work "off book" - for cash. If we actually made it impossible for illegal aliens to work in the United States, the invasion would all but dry up.

But on this issue, Republicans are just as guilty as Democrats - neither party wants to alienate their corporate supporters by genuinely enforcing the law with fines and criminal charges, nor angering the Hispanic community by prosecuting the illegals who use falsified documents to obtain jobs.

The other problem with illegals is that once they are here, they are allowed to avail themselves of a cornucopia of "social services" - at tax payer's expense, of course. But why do we tolerate this? True, this problem is partly the result of the "anchor baby" issue, which some have tried to claim would only be solved with a Constitutional amendment to redefine the 14th Amendment.

But we don't need to rewrite the Constitution - just enforce it. If a Mexican woman waddles across the border just in time to pop out a baby, we can recognize the child as a U.S. citizen, but we do not have to cave in and let his/her parents stay here illegally, living in subsidized housing, cashing in on food stamps and a whole host of  federal and state government welfare programs, not to mention bankrupting our health care system.

Because while the CHILD arguably has a right to stay here - the parents do NOT. Now, of course, the hand-wringing crowd will say that such enforcement is "unfair" - but who created this mess in the first place? The parents did, by sneaking across the border. And we are not, as the left falsely contends, "breaking up families" - the parents are more than welcome to take their child with them when they return to their home country.

Speaking of health care, the single biggest culprit behind the rising cost of medical care is government interference. Whether forcing doctors and hospitals to treat patients who cannot (or will not) pay their bills - including all those illegals mentioned above - or enacting laws that prevent people from buying insurance across state lines, the ever-increasing intrusion by "Big Brother" in what should be a private contract between customer and insurer, is truly the "elephant in the room."

And it's about to get worse, much worse. Companies across the nation are already giving their employees the bad news: as a direct result of the looming threat that 'Obamacare" poses, they are being forced to pass on increasing premium costs to their employees - in some cases, even dropping health insurance altogether.

But whether we are discussing illegal immigration, health care, or both, no matter how economically workable and sensible that the real solutions are, they are simply too politically incorrect for our current legislators to confront.

We can only hope that November, 2010 will bring us at least a few genuine leaders, people with integrity who are unafraid to make the tough decisions - because if we don't deal with these issues soon, it may very well be too late.

The recent announcement that the EPA will not go through with their outrageous plan to ban lead bullets has been inaccurately portrayed in the media as an example of the agency "surrendering" to the NRA. More likely, the EPA's decision was the result of a frantic call from the Whitehouse. Because the reality is that the American people have made it clear that they do not support such stealth attacks on gun ownership. And such a move by the EPA would likely have turned the already impending debacle in November into a virtual slaughter of Democrats.

Before the 2006 election, 47% of American homes owned at least one gun. Since Obama and the Democrats took over the country, gun ownership in America has soared - and a huge percentage of the purchasers are new buyers. They rightly feared the underlying hatred of individual liberty that infects today's Democrat Party.

The EPA, like many bureaucratic behemoths in the Federal government, has gotten completely out of control, intruding on every aspect of our lives. Declaring CO2 a "pollutant" was absurd enough. But banning lead bullets will do nothing to "protect" the environment, nor save a single human life. It's sole purpose is to attack legitimate gun owners.

And blaming the NRA is disingenuous - most gun owners, whether or not they contribute to the NRA, vehemently oppose more idiotic restrictions on their rights, and the gun control zealots have learned that frontal assaults on guns is a huge loser at the ballot box. The result is that the anti-gun fanatics (and they ARE fanatics), have changed to guerrilla tactics, doing everything they can to make owning a gun ever more expensive, ever more complicated, and ever more financially and legally risky.

The anti-lead initiative, pushed by environmentalist extremists, is just one more case of Democrats using unelected bureaucrats (this time at the EPA) to accomplish what liberals have failed to do in the legislative process. And it won't be the last. Today's Democratic Party is run by a group of "progressive" fascists who simply hate liberty - they abhor the idea that you should be able to make your own decisions, from what food you eat, to what car you drive, what light bulb you have in your home, or whether or not you own a gun to protect yourself and your family.

And unless these Stalinists are given a serious defeat in November, 2010, they will keep attacking your liberty, again and again. Because whether or not you think YOUR Democrat is "good on guns" is irrelevant - the problem is that unless and until the Democrat Party is returned to permanent minority status, the attacks on your freedoms will continue.

Black or White, rich or poor, gay or straight, white collar or union guy - if you are a gun owner (or you simply love liberty) and you actually consider voting for ANY Democrat, you should seek professional help.

Because to do so would be to shoot yourself in the head...metaphorically, of course...

Since a clear majority of Americans seem to finally comprehend the perilous economic situation confronting our country, a number of people have asked me, why is it that no one seems to have the guts to actually talk about real solutions?

My response was simple: "because any politician who tells the American people the cold, hard truth will never get elected."  Contrary to the claims that we want "honest" leaders, the exact opposite is true. We say we want someone who will tell us the truth about unpleasant reality - but we invariably vote for those who instead tell us what we want to hear.

Nowhere is this more obvious than in the issue of "entitlements" - everyone rants about expanding deficits, but no one wants to give up THEIR pet subsidy. And it isn't just the government union employees and welfare recipients who don't want to face the music. When it comes to not wanting to give up feeding at the government trough, Liberals and Conservatives, and yes, those so-called Moderates, are all equally guilty.

Take Social Security - regardless of political affiliation, the AARP crowd will jump out of their seats in near hysteria should anyone dare to even discuss trying to deal with what any high school economics student can see is a fiscally unsustainable, and ultimately doomed system. I recall the interview of one greedy old geezer who admitted that he simply didn't care if his children and grandchildren would wind up broke, just as long as he got his check, including his beloved COLAs ("cost of living adjustments").

Then there are those "farm subsidies" - any politician who even suggests reducing what are nothing more than welfare payments to farmers, will find him or herself on the losing end. Throw that black single mother off the welfare rolls, but by God, don't you dare touch MY government check!

Even suburban "soccer moms" - who range from die-hard Democrats to hard-core Republicans - suddenly come together when it comes to any attempt to curtail out-of-control spending on Public Education.  Never mind that funding has been proven to have nothing to do with the quality of education, or that public schools typically overspend and underperform compared to their private school counterparts. No sir, no amount of money is too much for MY child's school district.

And nothing will bring about a truce between Liberals and Conservatives faster than when the taxpayers are asked to fund a $300 Million sports stadium - seems that fans suddenly have no problem with government subsidies when the money is going to be used to subsidize their favorite team.

It is estimated that an unsustainable 83% of the Federal Budget goes to "entitlements" - so unless and until every American faces the uncomfortable reality that we are ALL going to have to bite the bullet and make the hard choices to cut government spending, even on those programs that benefit us personally, we will continue to spiral downward toward financial disaster.

We have become accustomed to seeing greedy plaintiffs attempting to cash in on even the most trivial inconvenience, let alone genuine tragedies. But if you had any doubt that America's lawsuit lunacy has gotten completely out of control, you need only read the headline in Monday's Minneapolis StarTribune:

"Minneapolis Will Pay $165,000 to Zombies"

This utterly ridiculous state of affairs grew out of a stunt by seven young people who, on July 22nd, 2006 decided to protest "mindless consumerism" - by dressing up in white-face makeup and ragged clothes, and carrying amplifiers to blast their iPod genereated "music" as they rambled around a downtown neighborhood.

They were subsequently arrested, detained for two days, then ultimately released without charges. No harm, no foul, right? After all, any reasonable person would (or should) expect that some sort of reaction from the police just might be a possibility.

Of course, in today's America where ANY unpleasant incident is invariably followed by a mad rush to the courtroom, the "zombies" filed a lawsuit, alleging violations of their "civil rights." Thankfully, the suit was initially dismissed. But in February of this year, a three-judge panel of the Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals resurrected the suit - and, predictably, the wimps at City Hall decided to settle.

But it was reason that the City gave in that is most disturbing.  According to Minneapolis City Attorney Susan Segal, "We believe the police acted reasonably, but you never know what a jury is going to do with a case." She explained, "If a jury had concluded that the seven plaintiffs' constitutional rights had been violated and awarded $50,000 to each, plus defense attorney's fees, it could have been quite substantial."

In other words, she admits to caving in to what was nothing more than legal blackmail by a group of annoying little twits. Pay 'em $20,000 today or risk that some jury of 12 unemployed, welfare dependent losers (and too stupid to get out of jury duty) will award them even more.

Naturally, the "zombies" were delighted: "I feel great that the city is being held accountable for the actions of their police," said Raphi Rechitsky, 27, of Minneapolis, one of the seven zombies, who said he and his friends were performing "street theater" when they were arrested.

The interesting thing is that while Mr. Rechitsky, who is (no surprise) a Ph.D. candidate in Sociology at the University of Minnesota, was supposedly protesting American capitalism, neither he nor any of his merry band of socialists had any conflict of conscience when it came to using the American legal system to extort a hefty check.

Such is the state of the Nation today...

Here in Minnesota, militant gay activists are attacking Target Corporation for (horrors!) donating to the Republican party. Seems that one of the candidates who received some of the money was Tom Emmer, who is now running for governor. Emmer's unpardonable sin? He thinks "gay marriage" should be left up to the voters, not unelected judges.

As a result, our local liberal fascists are attempting to institute a boycott of Target stores - apparently, while taxing the hell out of corporations like Target is just fine with Democrats, allowing them to make their voices heard via the political system is simply intolerable.

Needless to say, liberal Democrats have no problem with big labor unions donating as much as they want to the party of their choice. Of course not -  because unions, especially powerful government unions, donate almost exclusively to Democrats.

But the larger issue is the irrational, almost hysterical hatred of corporations that seems to completely consume most liberals. No matter what the problem, "big business" is the villain.

Take the illegal alien mess. Talk to any liberal and they will invariably start ranting about how we "need to go after those businesses that hire illegals" - the fact that the fundamental problem is that we are awash in people who shouldn't even be here is never even considered.

Then there are taxes. Democrats constantly lobby for higher and higher taxes on corporations. Naturally, when a company can take it no longer, and moves their operation to Singapore, Ireland or some other country with a far less punitive tax structure, liberals throw a hissy-fit. And then disingenuously shift the blame to Republicans for the company's "shipping jobs overseas."

More to the point, liberals seem unable to grasp the simple fact that every penny of the taxes levied on a corporation winds up being paid by the consumer, often the very lower income worker who votes Democrat. After all, if you increase the taxes on "Big Oil" the price of gas goes up. And who is affected most by high gasoline prices? The poor.

And thanks to the high taxes piled on "those evil tobacco companies" we now have smokers, most of whom are in the lower income brackets, paying outrageous prices for a pack of butts. Once again, those who are hit the hardest are the poor (who, as mentioned, keep voting for the same Democrats who relentlessly pillage their wallets).

I recently heard a liberal fellow say, with undisguised contempt, that "these corporations just want to save a buck" when commenting over some company not wanting to pay higher wages. Gosh, a corporate entity, whose sole purpose of existing is to make as much profit as possible, wants to save money on labor costs. Who'da thought?

But his comment illustrates a common misunderstanding among liberals of the real (and only) purpose and goal of a corporation - to make as much profit as possible, as long as it does so within the law. A corporation does not exist, as liberals seem to believe, to "provide jobs" - employees are an expense, and a business rightly wants to keep all expenses as low as possible.

In fact, the only reason a corporation would want to hire anyone is that they will contribute to the profitability of the company. And contrary to the belief of liberals that such "greed" will lead to lower wages, all business who are successful actually do benefit their workers enormously - a company wants the best, most skilled employees it can find, and will pay them what it takes to attract and keep them.

Another liberal misconception is that corporations have some sort of "moral obligation" to "the community" - but a business has no duty other than to avoid engaging in fraud, or malfeasance that directly affects society at large (dumping toxic waste, for example). Corporations are most certainly not "social justice" vehicles.

Thus howling that Target Corporation has some obligation to support a social issue like "gay marriage" is simply yet another example of liberal activists trying to force a private entity into conforming to their own personal social belief.

The inability to understand economics, business, and the operation of the free market has led to some of the most disastrous and destructive legislation in American history. From Prohibition and the New Deal to modern day "smoking bans" we have seen the negative impact of intrusive government on the free market.

It's long past the time for liberals to rethink how they approach what should be private dealings between businesses and consumers.

But I'm not holding my breath...

It should take no great genius to understand why most Americans, especially New Yorkers, strongly object to a radical Muslim Imam building a mosque just steps from the site of the former World Trade Center.

Yet if you listen to Democrats and their lap-dogs in the media, the outrage is either "anti-Muslim" bigotry or it has been "ginned up" by those who are "trying to make this a political issue." One media talking head after another dutifully parroted the Democrat talking points, framing the issue as "hatred of all Muslims" and/or a "manufactured" controversy about "freedom of religion," the implication being that the massive objection to the mosque cannot possibly be sincere - it must be the result of some conspiracy.

But Speaker Nancy Pelosi struck an even more sinister note. Sounding like a modern day version of Hitlers's propaganda minister Joseph Goebels, she menacingly threatened to "investigate who is funding" the opposition to the mosque - in other words, "we are the government and we can come after you." Note that Ms. Pelosi is completely uninterested in looking into the sources of the estimated $100 million that being funneled into the mosque itself.

This tactic is nothing new - Democrats, especially liberal Democrats, have a history of demonizing their opponents by miscasting their motives. If you object to millions of illegal aliens bankrupting our hospitals and prison facilities, why, you "hate immigrants."

Don't want the government to take over your health care? It simply MUST be because Obama is black (OK, half black) - never mind that "Hillary Care" was opposed just as strenuously.

Object to a Trillion dollar welfare state? Why, you hate poor people.

And on and on.

Obama, meanwhile, squandered an opportunity to show real leadership, and instead did what he has done most his life - he cowardly voted "present." After essentially endorsing the building of the mosque when he was talking to a mostly Muslim group on Friday, he came out the next day and back-peddled, saying that he "would not comment" on the issue.

This whole controversy has nothing to do with "freedom of religion" - nobody denies the legal right of Muslims to build the mosque. There have been dozens of mosques built in New York, and no one let out a peep. The opposition to this particular project is grounded in its location. It is utterly insulting to all of those who lost loved ones in what was undeniably an attack by radical Muslim terrorists. 

Besides, excuse me if I'm a bit suspicious of liberals suddenly interested in defending freedom of religion - for 40 years Democrats and their brown-shirts in the ACLU have been little more than a legal lynch mob, hysterically demanding the removal of any "offending" expression of religion they could find, from Nativity scenes to crosses on hillsides.

But, hey, why deal with the real issue when you can simply slander anyone who disagrees with you?

Or vote "present"....

If you need any more proof that the American electorate needs a collective enema, you need only look at the insanity that is Minnesota politics. In what should be a solidly conservative State, Minnesota voters have an almost schizophrenic voting history. Minnesota was one of only 5 states to vote for Jimmy Carter in 1980, and the ONLY state that did NOT vote for Ronald Reagan in his landslide 1984 reelection victory.

More recently, we elected Tim Pawlenty, a moderate Republican, twice. But prior to that, Minnesota inexplicably elected former pro wrestler Jesse Ventura, an Independence Party candidate. We are still the butt of jokes on late night television as a result of that debacle.

True, we elected Republican Rod Grams, a solidly conservative Senator, for two terms, but then turned around and replaced him with left-wing Democrat Mark Dayton - one of the most liberal Senators in history. He became famous for being the only Senator in Washington to hysterically abandon his office during a "terrorism" scare. Even the liberal Newsweek called his actions "erratic" and put his (wild-eyed) picture on the cover.

We also have the embarrassing task of trying to explain to the nation how we ended up with Al Franken, a failed far-left radio-host and washed up comedian, as our U.S. Senator. OK, in Franken's case, Republican Norm Coleman actually won, and mounting evidence points to extensive voter fraud by ACORN affiliated operatives who helped push the recount over to Franken's column. But still, Senator Al Franken? Merely uttering that phrase makes a sane person choke with disbelief.

And now, the Democrats have once again nominated the aforementioned Mark Dayton, this time to run for governor. Dayton, who, in addition to his reputation for bizarre, almost frightening behavioral "difficulties," is basically running on a one-plank platform - "making the 'rich' pay their 'fair' share of taxes." Naturally, this arrogant trust fund baby (Dayton is heir to the huge Dayton-Hudson fortune) hides his own wealth in numerous tax-sheltered instruments. But Dayton isn't satisfied that regular hard working Minnesota citizens are already paying one of the highest state income tax rates in the nation - 8% - he wants to rob the state's most productive people even more.

Because make no mistake, when liberals like Dayton talk about taxing "the rich" they aren't talking about the uber-rich like Mr. Dayton and his friends - their wealth is safely tucked away in the Cayman Islands. He is talking about gouging "Joe the Plumber" and all the other small business owners who create the majority of the new jobs. And taxing them costs every Minnesotan - in higher prices and lost jobs.

But how is it that a kook like Dayton, whose disturbing history Minnesota voters know all too well, even has a chance? The answer is that Minnesota, like most of America, is divided into two fundamental groups: Producers - private sector workers and the large and small businesses that employ them, and Parasites, a whole menagerie of government union members, welfare recipients, and everyone else who, directly or indirectly, have their snouts in the government trough.

Look at any map showing how counties across America voted in the last couple of presidential elections, and you will see that Democrat voters are heavily concentrated in urban areas - the very areas where we find the majority of those who are on the government dole, along with the army of government workers who get paid to administer the endless list of social welfare programs. And they invariably vote for those who promise to keep those checks coming - Democrats.

The Tea Party phenomenon is nothing more than a reflection of the growing irritation of the country's producers - the people who pay the bills - who want Congress and the President to listen to them for a change. Thus in every election, the only real question is whether more producers or more parasites will show up at the polls.

November 2010 will tell the tale - here in Minnesota, and in the Nation at large.