Look at the state of the nation today. We have stratospheric debt. We have out of control spending. We have a Federal government that has gotten so huge and overbearing that the Feds now control what kind of toilet you are "allowed" to use in your bathroom (and what light bulbs you MUST use in every room).

We have lost over 3 million private sector jobs - unemployment is at 17% (the real number), while we have ADDED over 500,000 government jobs (unemployment among government workers is barely over 5%). Even worse, we now find out that the average Federal employee makes TWICE as much as you and I do. While millions of Americans deal with smaller paychecks (or no paycheck at all) government employees at every level are getting RAISES.

Industry after industry has been strangled by ever more ridiculous regulations, and now we have the Federal government actually controlling whole sections of the private economy, from the auto industry to the mortgage market, from health care to student loans.

And now Obama and the Democrats have decided to spend yet another $26 BILLION (money taken from fiscally responsible states who balance their budgets) in order to bail out fiscally irresponsible state governments - to keep all of those union government employees (a.k.a. the Democrat voting base) employed and happy.

Now, it is easy to get mad at Obama and his comrades in the Congress - liberal Democrats have been responsible for just about everything that is wrong with the country today - but the real question is: who put these socialist lunatics in charge?

You can't really lay the blame at the feet of the 20% of Americans who call themselves "liberal" - they are always going to vote Democrat. And the 40% of Americans who describe themselves as "conservative" vote mostly (but not exclusively) for Republicans.

The real responsibility for the horrible state of affairs rests with those who are variously described (by themselves as well as the pundits) as "Moderates" or "in the Middle" or "Independents" - because it is they who swing elections, as anyone who follows politics knows. It is they who gave us Obama. It is they who gave us Nancy Pellosi.

To be fair, they also gave us Ronald Reagan, and, like it or not, George W. Bush. So what is it that makes these voters so fickle? After all, the same people who gave George Bush a 90% approval rating just after 9/11 then turned around 6 years later and elected a Democrat majority in the House of Representatives, in spite of the fact that at the time of the 2006 election, the Dow was at 14,000 and unemployment was only 5%.

But why? Why do these so-called "Independents" seem to have no predictable pattern to their voting? The answer is not as deep or profound as one might think. Because far from being the "independent thinkers" they like to see themselves, with a few exceptions, the "Mushy Middle" is just that - mushy, and prone to going with whatever is the current zeitgeist.

A recent conversation I had with just such a self-described "independent thinker" will illustrate what I'm talking about. "Harry" as I will call him was talking with another friend of mine - the first red flag (pun intended) was when my friend made a remark about how biased the media has become in favor of Democrats, especially MSNBC, and Harry responded that "Yeah, but FOX news is right-wing."

Yet when I asked him which FOX News programs he regularly watched, he "couldn't remember." At this point, I offered some help - was it "Britt Hume? Shepard Smith? Chris Wallace? Brett Bair?" Not surprisingly, he didn't seem to recognize any of their names, but by God, he was sure FOX News was "just as biased as MSNBC" but "on the other side." Harry is one of those "both sides do it" types.

I won't bore you with the details, but he then went on to regurgitate (with utter certainty, of course) just about every mainstream-media driven platitude currently flooding the airwaves - that Sarah Palin was "stupid." That (conservative Minnesota Congresswoman) Michelle Bachmann was "scary" because she was so "extreme." When I asked him precisely which policies Ms. Bachmann supported that he considered "extreme" he became incensed and protested that he "can't remember anything specific" and besides, he "didn't have time to dig into all that detailed stuff." He then went on about how the Tea Party people were "racist," and on...and on. You get the picture.

Now, I admit that a lot of genuinely independent voters really do look at each issue and make up their minds based on a candidate's stance on it. And I applaud anyone who has the common sense to actually find out the facts before rendering an opinion...or more importantly, a vote. These are the people who question things like ethanol subsidies and global warming, rather than blindly signing on to every media myth.

But sadly, there are far too many of those who, like our clueless friend, end up making their decisions in the voting booth based on little more than the accumulated "conventional wisdom" that they absorb, almost unconsciously, from the relentless flood of propaganda disguised as "news" from a mainstream media that has become little more than a mouthpiece for the Democratic Party.

Which makes them easy prey for the predictable onslaught of Democrat attack ads that will inevitably portray Republicans as anti-poor-people, "for the rich," want to "cut your Social Security" and all the other mindless propaganda that Democrats throw at Republicans every election.

More and more real independents have come to realize that it is the Democrats who are in bed with Wall Street executives, and that "taxing the rich" only hurts the job prospects of all those "poor" people. This is why their approval of Obama has fallen so sharply in the last year.

Unfortunately, my fear is that there are still enough "Harrys" out there to guarantee that our ever more precipitous slide into socialism and economic disaster will continue.

The media driven hysteria over "unintended acceleration" is part of a larger issue: the relentless attempts by the American Left to find an excuse for just about every human act of negligence, recklessness, or downright stupidity. Even violent criminals are presented as "victims" who are only "products of an unjust society."

But in order to exonerate those who would normally (and rightly) be called idiots, these devotees of "social engineering" must find a suitable scapegoat, and "corporations" are tailor made for the role. After all, liberals have been demonizing the private sector since the 1960's, blaming free market capitalism for every conceivable cultural malady, real or imagined. So when some dimwitted driver stomps on the wrong pedal, or doesn't have the presence of mind to simply turn off the ignition, voila! - it's the car's (and the car maker's) fault!

Blaming "the car" for what invariably turns out to be driver error is not new - the most egregious example of engineering reality taking a back seat to media myth and trial lawyer corruption was the Audi case. For those unfamiliar with it, Audi suffered the same false charges that Toyota has been experiencing - that its cars just magically "ran away from the driver."

But few people know what precipitated the uproar. It all started when a woman walked out to her garage, got into her Audi 5000, put the car in what she thought was Reverse, and stepped on the gas. In fact, she had actually put the car in Drive, so the car lurched forward, slamming into her then 6-year old son who was waving goodbye, pinning him to the back of the garage - he died later.

To be fair, it is perfectly understandable that this poor woman would have had more than a little difficulty dealing with the fact that she killed her own child. What could possibly be more traumatic? But rather than facing up to the harsh reality, she sought to find someone (or some thing) to blame. Not surprisingly, she had no trouble finding drooling trial attorneys only too eager to take her case.

And once the case received national attention, lo and behold, as if by magic, out of the woodwork came hundreds of people, all claiming that, by gosh, the same thing happened to them! The fact that most of those jumping on the "sudden acceleration" bandwagon were also defendants in various criminal prosecutions, from negligence to vehicular homicide, was surely just coincidental.

In the end, after exhaustive investigation by transportation officials and independent automotive engineers in both America and Europe, not to mention costing Audi more than 100 million dollars, the truth came out - not a single case could be found that would duplicate the claims made by the plaintiffs. In every case, driver error had been the culprit. Yet even today, you will hear people reference the "Audi problem" as if it were fact. Facts may be stubborn things, but in today's media-driven world, falsehoods are even more persistent.

Here in Minnesota, we have a similar situation involving a Toyota. In 2006, Koa Fong Lee, a recent Hmong immigrant from a Thai refugee camp with only about a year of driving experience, was exiting a freeway ramp in St. Paul when his 1996 Camry plowed into the back of an Oldsmobile stopped at a red light, killing three people and severely injuring two more. Lee's car was calculated to be traveling at somewhere between 70 and 90 mph. He insisted at trial that he was trying to brake before the collision, but was convicted of charges including criminal vehicular homicide in the 2006 crash.

Then along came the current Toyota controversy, and, you guessed it, his attorney saw a way to piggy-back onto the media feeding frenzy. Never mind that the Toyota that Lee was driving was built 14 years ago, and has nothing in common with the Toyota models that are being maligned today (Lee's car had a traditional mechanical throttle mechanism - not an electronic throttle that is at the heart of the current controversy). Based solely on the fact that Lee's attorneys did not have testimony from Toyota owners available during his original trial, the judge in the case declared that Lee deserved a new trial. But since the prosecutor in the case did not see fit to try Lee again, he walked.

Now, I will be the first to agree that Lee's original charge (criminal vehicular homicide) was perhaps a bit too harsh - Lee was not drunk, on drugs, or engaging in any behavior that might have indicated what prosecutors call "reckless disregard for life" - he simply got involved in a horrible vehicle crash. But should he still have been held accountable? Absolutely. And a retrial would have been the way to do that.

What concerns me about the legal aspects of this case are two things. First, the judge completely ignored the fact that Lee's attorneys were unable to prove ANY malfunctions in Lee's vehicle - instead the Judge apparently accepted what was nothing more than anecdotal testimony from a parade of Toyota owners who claimed to have experienced the same difficulties.

Second, the prosecutor abdicated her responsibility to follow though on the law, and instead basically gave Lee a "get out of jail free" card, which merely sets up a whole new set of civil law suits, by both the family of those killed, and Lee himself, against Toyota, in spite of the fact that there is not one shred of credible EVIDENCE that ANY Toyota vehicle has a problem, much less that Lee's 14 year old model did.

But what really bothers me is the reaction from the public - almost universally, the knee-jerk reaction about the court decision is to immediately let Lee completely off the hook, and instead, blame Toyota. Naturally, when you ask people how much they actually know about the case, you find that they are virtually clueless - they "just know that Toyota is at fault" and of course, "Toyota should pay."

Perhaps even more disturbing were the people who thought Lee shouldn't have any responsibility, because he didn't intend to hurt anyone. But we are all responsible for the results of our actions - what we actually do - regardless of what we intended to do. And when fact, science, and reason no longer count in our legal system, and are instead replaced with hysteria, misinformation, and anti-business bigotry, we are all at greater peril...

The latest decision by a California judge overturning the will of the People regarding the definition of marriage is not a surprise. Declaring every desire a "right" has become a standard tactic of the Left. Can't persuade a majority of your fellow citizens to support your view in the legislature? Simple - run to the courts and try to get your way via the judiciary.

For too long, "gay marriage" proponents have disingenuously attempted to equate their desires with the Civil Rights movement. But this is a canard. Civil Rights refer to the inherent rights people have by virtue of simply being human - life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness come to mind.

Slavery and segregation were manifestly violations of true civil rights. Oh sure, someone will attempt to argue that refusing to redefine marriage to include same-sex unions is violating their right to "pursue happiness" - but remember that the word is "pursue" not "guarantee."

Now, everyone (whether gay or straight) has the right to mate with, and/or co-habit with, whomever they choose, and even to make their partner responsible for their medical and other legal decisions. And note that even those rights have limitations imposed on them by society - you can't have sex with a 12-year old, in spite of the protestations of the American Man Boy Love Association.

But whether or not such a partnership should be included in the definition of marriage is a matter for society to decide. Because marriage, is not a right at all, let alone a civil right. It is a construct of society, and therefore the structure of such an institution is rightly determined by the will of the people. And society has decided on certain parameters, such as age (you can't marry the previously referenced 12-year old), mental competency, relationship of the parties (you can't marry your sister or brother), and limiting a marriage to only two parties.

And whether through their elected representatives or, by direct referendum as they did in California, the People have clearly and overwhelmingly expressed their support for continuing to define the institution of marriage as being between a man and a woman.
 
Thus, if gay marriage proponents want society to rewrite the marriage laws to legally sanction a same-sex relationship, they are free to work to make that happen. All they have to do is convince a majority of their fellow citizens to go along with them.

But not by using the courts to override the legitimate, and Constitutional, will of the People.

It is impossible to ignore the significance of the fact that the Ford Motor Company, the one major car company that said "No Thanks" to Obama's bailout of the auto industry, is now #1 - surpassing both Chrysler and GM, who did accept a "deal with the devil" and are still under the thumb of the Washington bureaucrats. Then again, Ford's success should come as no surprise - the heavy hand of government has never resulted in the kind of innovation and drive that energizes free markets.

For example, after a BILLION dollars of R&D, including untold infusions of taxpayer money, GM has finally produced the Chevy Volt - an electric car that costs over $40,000 and goes only 40 miles on a charge, at which point it either has to be plugged into an outlet again, or rely on good old-fashioned petroleum energy to power it. Not exactly a "major breakthrough" in transportation history.

Note that these nitwits in the "environmental movement" always ignore the fact that the electricity that powers these vehicles comes from sources that they themselves hate - coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear. Oh, I forgot - windmills and solar panels will magically replace all those "icky" fossil fuels. Right. But no matter, such a "green" car is naturally being touted by President Obama as the wave of the future.

And the reaction from car buyers? Despite all the hoopla from the Whitehouse, the Volt has produced so little demand that it is now offered with a $7,500 tax credit - presumably because only those making enough money to benefit from such a credit can even afford the car in the first place.

Meanwhile, over at Ford, they are going gang-busters. And while anger at GM and Chrysler for taking the Obama bailout has indeed resulted in many of their former customers now opting to buy a Ford, the real driving force (pun intended) behind Ford's success is that they are ignoring "politically correct" but economically untenable boondoggles like electric cars. They are instead responding to the market by producing the kinds of vehicles that people actually want to buy.

Take Ford's F-150 pickup truck, for decades it has been one of the most successful vehicles in automotive history. And when "green" zealots spouted their propaganda that such big, powerful trucks are "socially irresponsible," Ford responded by equipping the F-150 with even bigger, more powerful models, like the supercharged Lightning and the soon to be released 500 horsepower Raptor. Even in naming their vehicles Ford thumbs their nose at the P/C crowd.

Speaking of all-time great names for a car, there is the Ford Mustang - the 2011 model now sports an all new, super high-tech 5.0 liter V-8 motor that cranks out 412 rip-roaring horsepower, does 0-60 in less than 5 seconds, and basically shouts to the rest of the world: "Eat my dust!"

I drove one the other day, a 2011 Mustang convertible with the 6-speed manual transmission,  and after a lifetime of owning high-performance cars from '60's muscle cars to a Turbo Porsche, I can tell you, this is one amazing vehicle. Docile and smooth around town, you have no idea what is lurking under the hood...until you stomp on the gas. Then all hell breaks loose (as do the rear tires). The V-8 howls, 7000 rpm comes up in the blink of an eye, and you are at triple-digit speeds in only a few seconds more. And for those who view 400 horsepower as merely "adequate" - the Mustang GT-500 model comes with a 5.4 liter, Supercharged motor pumping out a whopping 550 horsepower.

In other words, the Mustang is a real car-lover's car - one that is actually FUN to drive. Not some tepid, mundane, and ultimately boring piece of environmentalist nonsense. Ask yourself, how many real, red-blooded Americans would actually want to drive a Prius? After all, it is probably no coincidence that there are a rather disproportionate number of Priuses, Honda Insights, and Smart Cars adorned with "Obama '08" bumper stickers.

Even Ford's minor concessions to the "green" movement are done with a wink and a nod to their customers. The Ford Taurus, a big, comfortable luxury sedan, can be had with an Eco-Boost motor. Now, while the "greenies" will swoon over the "Eco" part of the logo, those in the know understand that it is that deliciously enticing second word that tells the tale - "boost" in this case means twin-turbochargers making 365 horsepower (soon to be upped to an even more politically incorrect 415 horsepower). And it produces performance that is nothing short of astonishing in such a large and relatively heavy car.

And after buyers told Ford they wanted a bit more power in the Fusion, a mid-size sedan that competes with the Chevy Malibu, Toyota Camry, and Honda Accord, Ford responded by announcing that a version of the Taurus "Eco-Boost" motor will now be available in the new Fusion GT. It will pump out 340 horsepower, likely making it one of the fastest mid-size sedans on the market, yet at a price far below the likes of a BMW or an Audi.

Oh, sure, Ford cleverly offers a "Hybrid" version of the Fusion - it got Motor Trend Car of the Year for 2010 - but they know that the majority of buyers will choose power and performance over political correctness every time. Why do you think cars with speed and power never go out of style in America?

You see, Ford's success is not that difficult to explain - unlike Obama and the liberal Democrats in Congress, Ford actually listens to its customers and gives them what they want, and the American people show their approval by voting with their dollars. Meanwhile, as they continue to ignore the will of the American people, the approvals of Obama and the Democrat dominated Congress continue to plummet.

There's a lesson in all this, Mr. President...if you and your band of mirthless "progressives" care to listen.

It is us

We're the ones who allowed anti-Americans to take over America

by Ted Nugent for the Washington Times

If you happened to catch CNN Tuesday night, you would have seen why your friends who watch only "old media" continue to be utterly clueless about the truth behind the illegal immigration problem.

It was painfully obvious that the CNN anchors were all on the side of the illegals. The "reporting" consisted of little more than an endless parade of open-boarder activists (why do they all have heavy Spanish accents?) with whom the CNN reporters expressed undisguised support. Typical question: "Why do you think gun-toting, bigoted Arizona white guys want to shoot Mexican workers who only want a better life for their families?" OK, a slight exaggeration...but not much.

CNN even saw fit to ask a bunch of people in East Africa what they thought about the Arizona law! That's right, rather than talking to actual residents of Arizona and Texas about the kidnappings, rapes, torture, murders, and out of control violence along our Southern boarders, CNN instead wanted to hear what people an ocean away think about an American law!

Perhaps the worst segment occurred when CNN's Rick Sanchez, long known for his pro-illegal bias, came almost unglued when he interviewed a Congressman who expressed concern about the negative impacts of the flood of illegals. Sanchez could barely contain himself - instead of simply asking questions, he practically attacked his guest at every turn, at one point angrily declaring that illegals "all pay taxes!"

Sanchez's bias was so blatant that it was almost embarrassing. One cannot help wondering whether Sanchez, like Geraldo Rivera, is so prejudiced by his own ethnic heritage that he is allowing it to blind him to reason.

Sanchez is not unique. Don't hold your breath waiting for the Today Show or Good Morning America to interview any Arizona or Texas residents who day after day have to deal with the violence and crime at the hands of illegals. Phoenix continues to be the kidnapping capitol of America, and many of those who live close to the Mexican boarder admit that they cannot answer their doors without having a gun in their hand.

But instead of holding to their ethical obligation to neutrally report the news, ABC, NBC, CNN, and especially MSNBC, have all decided to take the side of the illegals, and to use their considerable power to mount a propaganda campaign to mislead the American people.

Holder puts felons over soldiers

A man who came to the aid of a woman being beaten on a St. Paul bus was himself savagely beaten and left unconscious:

SAINT PAUL, Minn. - A man trying to help a girl from getting assaulted and beaten at a St. Paul bus stop spoke out about the night of the attack. Eric Skripka, 33, was battered and bruised but he says he had to do something when he saw Brian Harper assaulting a girl while getting off the 16 bus on University Avenue in St. Paul.

Full story at:

http://www.myfoxtwincities.com/dpp/news/good-samaritan-beaten-at-bus-stop-speaks-out-july-26-2010

The Minnesota case comes on the heels of a series of attacks in Florida, where, perhaps even more disturbingly, "Good Samaritans" were actually targeted. In at least four cases, a woman acted as a decoy, asking for help with her car. In the latest ambush, when the citizen came to her aid, a man with a gun suddenly appeared and pistol whipped him, then took his wallet.

http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/dpp/news/local/pinellas/good-samaritans-targeted-in-cwater-robberies-062510?obref=obnetwork

What these two incidents, occurring more than a thousand miles apart, have in common is an increasing level of vicious violence, something law enforcement authorities have been documenting over the last decade. The thugs are getting more and more brutal, and they are getting younger. Police report that arresting 10 year olds carrying guns is no longer a rarity.

Here in Minnesota, we now have over 75,000 people with permits to carry handguns. While people who use guns in self defense rarely have to actually fire them, every once in a while some scumbag winds up getting shot (as occurred earlier this month at a popular bar in Minneapolis). When this does happen, most normal human beings have little sympathy for the thug.

But, unfortunately, the "news" reports often portray the attacker as the victim, complete with tearful proclamations by his mother about how the vicious little thug was "a good boy" - meanwhile, the citizen who is the real victim will be painted as a "vigilante" for simply protecting themselves.

And while protecting yourself is not without a whole host of potential legal entanglements, attempting to come to the aid of someone else can be even riskier. The result is that many people who do have the ability to intervene will often choose not to - rather than face the onslaught of the American "justice" system.

A 100 years ago, NOT coming to the aid of a person being attacked would have brought shame and condemnation - as a young man in New York city, General George Patten once used his handgun to chase down a robber and retrieve a woman's purse. Today, he would  likely be portrayed as a "cowboy" and could even be charged with assault.

Which begs the question: what have we come to when our culture, not to mention our legal system, seems to be more interested in protecting thugs and scumbags than we are in keeping the innocent safe?

And when will we realize that without having the ability, and willingness, to protect ourselves and our fellow citizens, our culture will continue to disintegrate?

Emergence of unintended consequences

Sold as affordable, health reform is already hurting consumers

The most frustrating thing about talking to a liberal is their apparent inability to grasp even the most basic elements of economics. Take taxes. No matter how many times cutting tax rates stimulates economic activity, both here and in the rest of the developed world, and no matter how many times it results in INCREASED revenues to government coffers, Democrats persist in talking about "paying" for tax cuts.

But there was at least a glimmer of understanding in Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, who admitted that extending at least some of the tax cuts set to expire this year would help strengthen a U.S. economy still in need of stimulus. Unfortunately, he then urged "offsetting the move" with increased revenue - newsflash, Ben, reducing tax rates WILL increase revenues! And as if to underscore the point, having Bernanke just talking about tax cuts caused the struggling stock market to rebound dramatically.

Not surprisingly, rather than making all of the Bush tax cuts permanent, Democrats want to keep them only for the folks at the bottom who pay almost nothing as it is, while letting them expire for families earning over $250,000. Meanwhile, Republicans want to continue the cuts for high-income people as well, which would be the smart move - this group includes the millions of small businesses that are responsible for creating the majority of new jobs, an even bigger priority in the middle of a recession.

Ireland is an excellent example of what happens to a country that goes down the high tax road - and how it can be reversed. In the late '80s, the Irish were in a virtual depression, with crushing taxation and and a massive welfare state with millions on the government dole. Even motion pictures that were filmed in Ireland had poverty and unemployment as a recurring background theme.

But unlike American Democrats, the Irish got smart. They realized that businesses are not the enemy - on the contrary, they are the foundation of any economy. They slashed taxes at every level, and just as important, cut spending, especially on social programs. The result? Ireland experienced a veritable boom in new business investment, with the result that millions got off the welfare roles and went back to work. And miracle of miracles, the government revenues went UP, not down. As they always do.

Yet time and time again, if you attempt to persuade a liberal Democrat that cutting tax rates (especially for those who are paying the most) is the way to increase economic activity and raise revenues, all you get are charges of "tax cuts for the rich." What they fail (or refuse) to grasp is that the very best thing you could do for the poor is indeed to CUT TAXES ON THE RICH.

Because when taxes become too burdensome, those "rich" folks pack up their businesses and move them, either to another state, or even another country, costing yet more jobs. Just last year I ran into an old neighbor at the airport who was on his way to visit his U.S. company's new plant...in Ireland. And when you remember that all those jobs should have been American jobs, thank the tax-obsessed, anti-business Democrats.

But Democrats will never accept responsibility for creating the very repressive tax and regulatory policies that result in companies "shipping jobs overseas" - they simply blame "greedy" corporations, Republicans, or both. And don't look for any sanity from the current Congress - if they decide to retain any of the Bush tax cuts at all, it will only be for the lower income brackets, those who are already paying the least (including those who not only pay no income tax at all, but instead actually get a check from the government).

Because for liberal Democrats, it has never been about economic reality, or even doing what's best for the country - it is about using the tax codes to redistribute wealth (and creating a permanent government-dependent underclass in the process), by stealing from those who produce and giving it to those who don't.

Thus Obama's Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner pretty much reflected the Administration's socialist mindset when he opined that the middle class "needs" a tax cut more than "wealthy" Americans. "Need" should have nothing to do with tax policy, and besides, those so-called "rich" already pay vastly more of their income in taxes than the "poor" and the "middle class" combined - the top half of taxpayers pays 97% of all income taxes, while the bottom half pays only 3%.

Then again, like many liberal elites, Mr. Geithner has a history of not paying his own taxes, so his lack of concern for those of us who do should come as no surprise.

It's just what Democrats do.

It has become a predictable election year ploy - Democrats trotting out their usual litany of bogus issues and emotion-laden personal attacks on conservatives. And especially this year, after they have created staggering deficits, debt, and unemployment, Democrats have little left other than to instigate racial discord and class envy.

From falsely accusing the Tea Party movement of racism (while ignoring the genuine racism of the New Black Panther Party), to using a mammoth increase in Unemployment Benefits to paint Republicans as "heartless" and "uncaring," the Democrat propaganda machine is revved up and running on all 8 (ethanol burning?) cylinders.

There is, of course, no truth to either of the charges, but in their quest to turn Americans into government-dependent socialists, the truth is viewed by today's Democrats as little more than "acceptable collateral damage."

Thus we have President Obama, whose reckless spending policies have put millions out of work, now blaming Republicans for not passing yet another extension of unemployment benefits. And naturally, he is spouting the same tired old rhetoric about how Republicans "only want to give tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans" - while only he and his fellow Democrats will "save" you, the "little guy," from the wolf at the door.

Never mind that it is those "rich guys" who not only create the lion's share of the jobs you need, they also pay an outrageously disproportionate share of the nation's taxes. Meanwhile, most of the people who pay only a tiny pittance by comparison are the very same people who fall prey to the class envy propaganda. Because for decades now, Democrats have sold them on the idea that they are "entitled" to a certain standard of living. And it is those "rich guys" who owe it to you.

But getting Americans, who are by nature fair minded and hard working, to go along with financially raping and pillaging the people who actually produce most of the wealth that makes America the richest nation on earth, poses a problem. More and more Americans realize that "the rich" pay 10 times more than the average taxpayer (and far more than the bottom half of wage earners, who pay virtually no taxes at all).

So Democrats had to come up with an ingenious distortion of language to hoodwink the public into seeing the successful as those "rich" guys who get all the "breaks" - thus, instead of calling a tax cut a...well, tax cut, they now call it, voila! - a tax "expenditure."

Wait a minute. We all understand the difference between "revenue" and "expenditure" - government takes the money it collects from taxpayers (revenues) and then turns around and spends it (expenditures) on everything from the military, to Social Security and Education, to a million (literally) other government programs.

But that's the real world. Here's how it works in the world of the Marxist ideologue. If last year I stole 40% of your income and this year I only steal 30%, I did not simply take less of your money - oh, no, I had an increased "expenditure" of 10% that was "paid" to you (one of those "rich guys"). Because in the insane mind of the socialist, your money isn't yours at all, it belongs to the government - therefore, if I cut your taxes, I didn't simply take less of your money, I "gave" you more of the government's money.

You would think that this should send most sane people into fits of rage, but when repeated (as it is) over and over again, it begins to take on a life of its own, just as all "big lies" do. And predictably, you now hear the phrase "tax expenditure" uttered by the Democrat-friendly media in interviews and on Left leaning "news" shows like "Meet the Press."

Besides, the cold hard truth often has little emotional appeal - who wants to face the fact that they have no one to blame for their state in life other than themselves? So much easier to have a villain to demonize. And Democrats are only too happy to supply you with one - people more successful than you.

So when Obama announces that it is Republicans who are keeping the downtrodden and unemployed from getting the "help" that they "desperately need" the average person is primed to accept it. The truth is, with a Democrat majority in Congress, Obama could ram through any such measure without a single Republican vote.

But all this is beside the point. The reality is that the solution to unemployment is not another government check - the answer is to create more JOBS, and that means private sector jobs, not more government bureaucrats.  And you create private sector jobs by CUTTING TAX RATES, on businesses and individuals (and yes, that especially includes "the rich") not by borrowing yet more money to pass out a stack of government checks. And we're not talking about a few months here - the current proposal extends payments out to 99 weeks. But what happens when that runs out? Up it to 120 weeks? 200 weeks? Forever?

Unfortunately, while their policies have LOST over 2.5 million private sector jobs, Obama and the Democrats have succeeded in one area - they have added 500,000 GOVERNMENT jobs. In other words, Obama and Democrats put millions of private sector employees out of work, and now want to put these same people on the government dole. Funny how this fundamental fact gets lost in the coverage by the mainstream media.

But hey, take your check (courtesy of your fellow taxpayers who are actually working), sit back in the Lazy-Boy, pop open a beer, and enjoy! And don't forget to vote for your favorite Democrat - gotta keep those checks coming, ya know...

For almost a century, liberals have been attempting to use the qualifying language of the 2nd Amendment to argue that it restricts, rather than expands, the fundamental right of the People to "keep and bear arms" - supposedly limiting gun ownership to only those serving in "a well regulated militia..." But they may have set a Constitutional trap that could soon snap shut on their own ankles.

While any serious reading of the speeches, notes, letters, or comments of the Founding Fathers would dispel the silly notion that the 2nd Amendment was meant to limit the basic human right to defend oneself, let's just for a moment consider what might happen if States decide to call the Left on their own view and establish actual state ordered militias.

As Ray Hartwell points out in the Washington Times:

Obama lawsuit Invites Fortified State Militia

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jul/16/obama-lawsuit-invites-fortified-state-militia/

"Arizona has enacted a law that enables state and local police to support federal immigration enforcement, in a carefully circumscribed manner. This moderate statute is under vicious attack by the Obama administration and assorted amnesty advocates. Yet Arizona and her sister states in the Southwest could take dramatically stronger actions to bring order to the border. And they would have both history and the Constitution on their side."

And what action could that be? He goes on:

"Arizona can form and expand its own state militia. Such forces were common when our nation was founded, and the Second Amendment recognizes that a "well-regulated Militia" is "necessary to the security of a free State." In short, Arizona and other states can raise and arm their own military forces."

And yes, Virginia, this would clearly be legal under the Constitution:

"...militias organized and armed by a state may go to war when the state has been invaded or is in imminent danger. This is clear under Article I, and plainly justified when the federal government has deliberately failed to protect against invasion as required by Article IV. As Joseph Story explains in his treatise on the Constitution, the prohibition against states engaging in war is "wisely" limited by "exceptions sufficient for the safety of the states, and not justly open to the objection of being dangerous to the Union."

Few would try to deny that Arizona is facing a threat to the safety of its state, and taking such action to protect its boarders would hardly be "dangerous to the Union." And many other states are facing similar problems wrought by unfettered illegal immigration.

Which brings us back to my original thought - can you imagine the anti-gun American Left, who for so long have tried to claim that the "real" purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to arm state sponsored militias, now opposing dozens of governors for doing precisely that - forming state sponsored militias?

Oh, the delicious irony of it all!

If you had any doubt that Democrats are in a panic about the November mid-term election, you need only look at how they are now trying to paint themselves as pro-gun. As the Boston Globe reports:

MANCHESTER, N.H. July 14, 2010 - Democratic candidates in key states are embracing gun owners’ rights, winning favor from the National Rifle Association, a lobby that has long been the target of disdain from the party faithful.

In New Hampshire, Representative Paul Hodes, a Democratic Senate candidate, has an “A minus’’ NRA rating, potentially insulating him from progun rights attacks in a state that’s big on hunting and personal liberties.

Senate majority leader Harry Reid, in a bruising campaign for reelection in Nevada, has conservative activists buzzing because the NRA is considering endorsing his reelection.

Indiana’s Democratic Senate candidate Brad Ellsworth, who has an “A’’ rating from the NRA, may get the group’s endorsement this fall over GOP candidate Dan Coats, whom the NRA criticized in mailings to Hoosiers as being weak on gun rights.

And in Kentucky, Democratic Senate candidate Jack Conway has not only heralded gun rights but also signed friend-of-the court briefs supporting gun owners before two landmark Supreme Court rulings backing their rights in District of Columbia and Chicago cases.

“I think there’s been a change in the country as a whole,’’ said Jon Delano, an independent political analyst associated with Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh.

“Unless you’re from an urban area, where gun violence is so intense that there’s a feeling you need to control these weapons, the vast majority across the country do not support gun control.’’

That's putting it mildly - since the day after Obama's inauguration gun sales in the U.S. have soared, up 40%, in spite of a recession. And it has not been the result of existing gun owners adding to their collections - a big part of the run on guns has been attributed to first time buyers.

Ammunition sales have been equally robust - from small local shops to mega-stores like Wal-Mart, gun owners have been clearing the shelves of popular rifle and pistol ammo as fast as the staff could put them out. Only recently have ammunition supplies begun to return to pre-Obama levels. Apparently, the likely massacre of Democrats in the upcoming election has alleviated some of the concerns.

But the real question is whether gun owners will be naive enough to believe that Democrats have genuinely changed their ways, or will they see though what is more likely just the latest attempt by Democrats to pull the wool over the eyes of gun owners until they can get back in power.

Having seen the abysmal record of Democrats on gun rights over the last four decades, forgive me if I subscribe to the latter view.

In Judaism, "Second Amendment" states' rights would never be up for debate

By Rabbi Yonason Goldson

Is there any way for words to retain their clarity despite the persistent evolution of cultural references and values? Is there any method for protecting ideas from the ravages of changing times and sensitivities? Indeed there is. And it predates the United States Constitution...

...by 3000 years.

Last month's Supreme Court ruling affirming Second Amendment states' rights (and coinciding with the predictable Republican grilling of Supreme Court nominee Elana Kagan over the same issue) has brought back into the spotlight the constitutional ambiguity regarding gun ownership in the U.S. of A.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

So states the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. At first glance, the stipulation seems clear enough. American citizens may own guns, plain and simple.

Or maybe not.

The qualifying phrase that introduces the amendment appears to restrict constitutional protection to dependence upon a militia, or citizen army, to defend the nation. Accordingly, in times such as ours, when a standing army has assumed responsibility for the common defense, there may be no constitutional guarantee at all. And so, on second thought, the amendment seems to clearly limit the extent of private gun ownership.

Or, again, maybe not.

Perhaps the Founding Fathers meant that, since every citizen ultimately owns an equal share of the responsibility to defend his country, the right to bear arms is part and parcel of each person's national duty to fight for the public welfare should the need ever arise. This would explain why the authors of the amendment might have mentioned a militia even if they never meant to restrict said right.

So what was the original intent of the Framers? If they were here, we could ask them. Since they are not, each side seems to have a fair and reasoned claim to support its respective position.

Is there any way to resolve the question of what was intended by men who passed away long before our grandfathers were born?

In fact, there may be.

THE REST OF THE STORY
Imagine that, as you pass by a window, you see a man wearing a mask raise a knife and plunge it into the chest of another man lying prone beneath him. You scream for the police, certain that you have just witnessed a murder.

Or, yet again, maybe not.

Now imagine that you were unfamiliar with the concept of open-heart surgery. Only after the police arrive and explain that the man in the mask is a surgeon working to repair the heart of the man on the table beside him will you understand that he is in fact saving a life and not taking one.

Context is everything. It orients us in time, space, and circumstance, transforms isolated acts into links in a chain of connected events, none of which can be understood in isolation. And so, if the words of our forebears sometimes appear to us muddled or imprecise, the surest way to achieve clarity is to examine comments and opinions from the same thinkers and the same era.

Here are a few examples to provide historical context:

James Madison, on the principle of individual rights: [A bill of rights] should more especially comprise a doctrine in favour of the equality of human rights; of the liberty of conscience in matters of religious faith, of speech and of the press; of the trial by jury… of the writ of habeas corpus; of the right to keep and bear arms.

Massachusetts Representative Fisher Ames: The rights of conscience, of bearing arms, of changing the government, are declared to be inherent in the people.

Supreme Court Justice James Wilson, contributor to the drafting of the Constitution: The defense of one's self, justly called the primary law of nature, is not, nor can it be abrogated by any regulation of municipal law.

Vice President Elbridge Gerry, signatory to the Declaration of Independence, on national defense: What, sir, is the use of militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.

In the context of the times, the intention of the Framers becomes difficult to debate. Only in relatively recent times, when the concept of a militia has become an anachronism, has it become possible to question the true meaning of the Second Amendment.

[Unfortunately, the mis-reading of the 2nd Amendment, and it's ultimate purpose (self defense - regardless of the threat), has resulted in the multitude of encroachments that we are only now beginning to roll back. - Ed.]

The relentless media war against the private ownership of firearms has become so obvious as to be almost laughable. The latest example occurred over the weekend.

The story was relatively straightforward - an unruly customer at Grumpy's, a well-known neighborhood bar in Minneapolis, was ejected by the staff. As he left, 24 year old Tirso Gomez was seen and heard by multiple witnesses to have yelled threats at one of the bouncers, telling him he was "coming back to cut" him.

Shortly thereafter, Gomez came back to the bar armed with what witnesses described as a "really big" knife. Gomez approached the bouncer on the sidewalk in front of the bar, then attacked, slashing at him wildly. The bouncer backed away from the attacker, and attempted to use his telescoping baton to defend himself. When that failed (the bouncer has multiple wounds from the attack), he pulled a 9 MM Glock 26 pistol and fired twice, stopping the attack.

Police were called, and when they arrived, they listened to the numerous witnesses who backed up the bouncer's story. The bouncer was taken into custody (as is normal procedure - it does NOT mean you are charged with a crime), and, after talking with homicide detectives, was released - with no recommendation for filing charges.

Several of the cops even called the incident a "good shoot" (meaning that, in their view, it looked like legitimate self defense).

Now that you know the facts, you would probably see this as a relatively simple case, at least so far. Right?

Yet in spite of the fact that all of the above information was available to ANYONE who cared to spend 10 minutes interviewing witnesses, let's look at how this incident was  portrayed by the ultra-liberal Minnespolis StarTribune:

ID released of man slain outside NE. Mpls. bar

Tirso Cruz Gomez, 24, or Minneapolis, was gunned down early Sunday outside Grumpy's, a popular neighborhood bar

By PAUL WALSH, Star Tribune - July 12, 2010 - 7:46 AM

A man who was fatally shot outside a northeast Minneapolis bar was identified early Monday.

Tirso Cruz Gomez, 24, of Minneapolis, was gunned down early Sunday outside Grumpy’s, a popular neighborhood bar in the 2200 block of 4th St., according to the Hennepin County medical examiner’s office.

Police found Gomez dead in the street when they arrived about 1 a.m. One person was arrested in that case but later released. Police spokesman Sgt. Bill Palmer said the county attorney could file charges this week.

 http://www.startribune.com/local/98231399.html

Note that, from the start, using the words "slain" and "gunned down" (twice) is a bit premature at least - and given that the man was actually an assailant trying to kill someone, as attested by any number of eye witnesses, it makes the Tribune's mis-reporting even more egregious. Why is there nothing about the attack on the bouncer? Why did the StarTribune not even mention the word "knife" in the story?

The "other" Twin Cities paper, the Pioneer Press, was arguably even worse:

2 dead in unrelated Minneapolis shootings

24-year-old shot at Northeast bar; witness says bouncer confessed on scene

By Nick Ferraro - 07/11/2010 10:56:34 PM CDT

Marna Gomez pleaded with her son not to leave their Columbia Heights home and return to a Northeast Minneapolis bar that earlier had refused to serve him.

Tirso Gomez Jr. left anyway, and early Sunday the 24-year-old was shot dead outside Grumpy's Bar and Grill, his mother said.

"I just asked him to please don't go," his mother said. "I screamed down the street, 'Don't go!' "

A woman who witnessed the aftermath of the shooting said she saw a bouncer tell police he was the shooter.

The fatal shooting was the second of the night in Minneapolis, which has had a spate of homicides this year.

Minneapolis police spokesman Sgt. William Palmer offered few details about either shooting or what led to them. They are not related, he said.

Palmer said a man, whom he declined to identify, was "detained for questioning" outside Grumpy's — a block east of University Avenue at 2200 Fourth St. N.E. The man, who is considered a suspect, has been released, Palmer said.

The case will be forwarded to the Hennepin County attorney's office for possible charges, Palmer said.

The witness, who lives near Grumpy's, said she heard two gunshots just before 1 a.m., peered from her back yard and saw a man she believes is a bouncer at the bar standing over the victim. She said the man was wearing a black T-shirt with "Security" written in white letters on the back.

How is it that the Pioneer Press decided to interview Gomez's mother, and then failed to mention the fact that when he left their home to return to the bar, he was carrying a knife? Surely his mother mentioned that little fact to the "reporter" who talked to her. Why else would she plead with her son not to return to the bar? And once again, NOT ONE MENTION OF THE ATTACK ON THE BOUNCER.

Then there is the the report that the "bouncer confessed" - well, not exactly. The bar's security employee simply told the truth that it was he who shot the attacker. But but by using the word "confessed" the reporter gives the (intentionally) misleading impression that a crime was committed. The Pioneer Press article then went on with even more sappy sentiment, talking to acquaintances of the attacker about what a good boy he was, and how "he's been an all-around helper for his uncle" - in other words, trying to turn the knife-wielding assailant into a saint.

Now, a reasonable person might be tempted to ask, if the "reporters" at the Pioneer Press had the time and energy to find every friend, relative, and excuse-maker for the attacker, doesn't it seem just a bit odd that these same reporters could not find ONE ACTUAL WITNESS to the actual attack, rather than some woman who looked over her fence only after she heard shots?

And if you think FOX News is any better, take a gander at how their local affiliate, FOX 9 TV, reported the attack at Grumpy's:

http://www.myfoxtwincities.com/dpp/news/metro/shooting-outside-minneapolis-bar-leaves-one-dead-july-11-2010

But sadly, and disgustingly, this is the state of the media when a story has anything at all to do with guns - nothing, but NOTHING, must be printed or broadcast that goes counter to the predominant media view that "guns are bad" - ALL guns. And a case like this one, where a gun was actually used to save a man's life, is especially threatening to their world view - so it must be either ignored or, failing that, marginalized by making sure that the facts are buried under anti-gun propaganda.

And making doubly sure that, when it comes to guns used in self-defense, the Truth will never see the light of day.