You have to hand it to the "Teleprompter-in-Chief" - he uses misdirection as skillfully as David Copperfield. Focusing the attention of the masses on some "bonuses" (they weren't even actually bonuses, but that's another story) paid to AIG personnel, Obama has the whining class (all of those Democrats who hate anyone who makes more money than they do) missing the larger issue. Unfortunately, so have many others who should know better.

Naturally, more than a few gutless Republicans are jumping on the bandwagon, expressing oh-so-indignant offense at a private company daring to send out some bonuses to, you know, "rich" guys. Think about that - the same people who let out nary a peep over the $170 BILLION of taxpayer money given to AIG, suddenly get outraged over an amount that is less than 0.1% of that amount (you read that right - 1/10th of 1 percent!).

Hey, I'm an AIG stockholder, and thus have more standing to complain than anyone, but I did not support the bailout. If AIG was going to fail, I'd rather see that (and lose my shirt on the stock), than see the new Commisars running the company. But the fact is that AIG's revenues and profits were growing steadily - they peaked at $113.3 Billion in 2006, then began falling in 2007 - the year the Democrats took over Congress.

More to the point, where is the outrage over Obama and the Taxacrats writing a TRILLION dollars worth of checks to every conceivable Democrat constituency, from the 40% of Americans who pay NO income tax, to ACORN, a radical socialist front group?

This entire issue is nothing less than an artfully orchestrated attempt by Obama and his ilk to promote a lynch-mob mentality against free enterprise and our capitalist system, and to gin up support for the largest increase in repressive governmental regulation in U.S. history. And if you think the "lynch-mob" metaphor is hyperbole, then you haven't heard about some of the vicious hate-mail from the loser-class, advocating the torture and murder of executives who received bonuses (hey, I thought liberals were against torture - oh, I forgot, it's OK against Americans who WORK for a living).

So now we are treated to the bombast of the imperialist idiots in the House and Senate, who are making McCarthyism seem benign by comparison. After all, at least McCarthy was after Communists - today, the inquisitors ARE the Communists, because make no mistake, their ultimate goal is to destroy the very foundations of free-market Capitalism.

Meanwhile, like the audience at a magic show, Americans willingly go along with the deception.

We warned you that Barak Obama would publicly deny his radical anti-gun agenda, while engaging in "stealth" attacks on private gun ownership. The most recent example is a directive from the Department of Defense that will severely aggravate the current ammunition shortage.

For those who either don't own guns (or have been living in a cave) supplies of ammunition are getting alarmingly low. Many retailers report shelves virtually empty of popular pistol and rifle ammo.

Most ammunition manufacturers depend on reclaiming used brass cartridge cases from the military, that are then recycled to make new ammunition. It is a system that has benefited both the military and the private sector, not to mention saving the taxpayer's money.

So it is beyond comprehension at a time of serious ammunition shortages, as well as budget shortfalls, that ammunition manufacturers would receive a letter stating the following:

"Effective immediately DOD Surplus, LLC, will be implementing new requirements for mutilation of fired shell casings. The new DRMS requirement calls for DOD Surplus personnel to witness the mutilation of the property and sign the Certificate of Destruction.

Mutilation of the property can be done at the DRMO, if permitted by the Government, or it may be mutilated at a site chosen by the buyer. Mutilation means that the property will be destroyed to the extent prevents its reuse or reconstruction. DOD Surplus personnel will determine when property has been sufficiently mutilated to meet the requirements of the Government."

Now, one has to be curious about WHO suddenly decided to mandate a new policy that makes a bad situation worse, has no benefit to the military, and will result in an increase in costs to the American taxpayer, precisely when the government is running a gigantic deficit.

But of course we know the real reason behind such actions - after losing a number of elections both locally and nationally, the anti-gun radicals have learned that the way to succeed is to avoid highly public confrontations like wholesale gun bans.

Instead they have adopted "incrementalism" - under-the-radar campaigns that slowly rob legitimate gun owners of their ability to exercise their rights. They know that they don't need to take your guns away if they can simply make it more and more complex, expensive, and difficult to own and use your guns.

So, obviously, something like an ammo shortage is a dream come true for the gun haters. Why bother with their guns when simply denying them ammunition makes their firearms useless?

One wonders when those gun owners who were stupid enough to vote for Obama (and his like minded Democrats in the Congress) will finally stop denying the obvious.

Those paying most of America's bills are getting sick of hearing about "middle class tax cuts" - and they're really fed up with free-loaders who pay no income taxes whatsoever. It's time for tax policy that actually does make everyone pay their "fair share" instead of forcing our most productive citizens to shoulder an ever more repressive tax burden.

Contrary to the myth perpetrated by liberal propagandists, the so-called "rich" actually pay an outrageously excessive share of the nation's taxes.  Even ultra-liberal New York Mayor Bloomberg finally admitted that more than 50% of New York City tax revenue comes from less than 1% of the city's population!

The best solution would of course be to eliminate the income tax altogether, and replace it with a national sales tax. But, with a Democrat Congress and a Democrat President, the chances for any kind of sanity in tax policy are virtually nil - because for Democrats, tax policy has never been about economic reality, let alone fiscal responsibility. For them, tax policy has always been a means of taking from those who achieve so they can give to society's losers (otherwise known as the Democrat base).

But if we are going to continue to tax income, the only (genuinely) fair way to do it is to make sure that EVERYONE pays. Under the current system, an ever shrinking percentage of people are paying more and more, while a growing segment of the population is paying less and less, with almost 40% paying NO income taxes at all.

Worse, these same dead-beats are actually getting what amounts to welfare checks FROM the government under misleading labels like the "earned income tax credit." This is not only obscenely unfair, it is fiscally untenable in the long term. With ever more people riding IN the cart, at some point, those pulling the cart will eventually decide that enough is enough, and either throttle back in their businesses, or just "cash out" altogether.

Mayor Bloomberg expressed fear that if even a small percentage of the high achievers now paying the tab were to leave New York for greener (lower tax) pastures, the city could be facing a financial crisis. Imagine if just a fraction of the nation's top talent decide to just throw in the towel - we could be looking at virtual bankruptcy on a national scale.

Sadly, Obama has already put us on that path - his so-called "stimulus" package is nothing but a huge run-up of spending, using the equivalent of the nation's credit card (to be paid for by your children and grandchildren), while including yet more "tax credits" to those who don't pay any taxes in the first place.

Instead, if we really want to bring the country out of recession, we should be CUTTING government spending, and reducing, not increasing, the tax burden on our most productive citizens. We should be cutting the capital gains tax to near-zero, cutting the corporate tax rate to 10%, and cutting the top marginal individual tax rate to 25%.

Oh, and one more thing. We should RAISE the bottom tax rate to 15% - starting FROM THE FIRST DOLLAR earned. I know, the current thinking has always been to tax those at the bottom less and less, but look where that strategy has gotten us. Besides, it's time that everyone has "skin in the game." After all, we want to be "fair" now, don't we?

And we need to make all of these changes PERMANENT. There is no "quick fix" for a market economy, but time and again, both here and around the world, the surest way to promote growth is to cut taxes on those who provide the jobs. And short term tax breaks aren't the answer - the private sector responds to long term certainty, and the resulting economic growth from predicable and permanent tax cuts would provide a real "stimulus" to the people who actually make this country work.

Real jobs come from private sector entrepreneurs, not government. As hard as it is for liberals to swallow, the undeniable truth is that the best thing we can do for "the poor" is to cut taxes on "the rich."

The eerie coincidence of two mass public shootings in both Germany and America has oddly undermined the position of gun control advocates. After all, for decades we've heard the claim about how much "safer it is in Europe, where they have strict regulations on guns."

Ooops.

But there's more. It turns out that Wednesday's school shooting in Germany is just one in a series of shootings at German schools, including an incident in 2002 in which a 19 year old student killed 15 people before turning the gun on himself. Here again, haven't we been given the impression that "school shootings" are unique to "gun crazy" America?

Naturally, after the 2002 shooting rampage, German officials overreacted by...you guessed it, passing more gun control laws, including raising the minimum legal age for owning a gun from 18 to 21. But the shooter in yesterday's massacre was only 17 - thus he was too young to legally possess a gun even under the old laws!

Ooops, again.

Obviously, their new restrictions were no more effective than the previous laws. But don't hold your breath waiting for reality (or even common sense) to sink into the craniums of those who hate guns and fear private gun ownership. They will persist in blaming the actions of every psychotic killer on "guns."

Even worse, they will likely miss (or simply ignore) the obvious lesson - that gun control doesn't really work any better in Europe than it does here. Instead, I wouldn't be surprised if they attempt to use these occurrences to "prove" that what we really need is - you guessed it! More gun control! And not just more - but WORLD-WIDE gun control!

Such international rules on guns have already been proposed by numerous anti-gun groups both here and in Europe, with oversight and "enforcement" provided by...the U.N. Now there's a thought that should send chills down the spine of any thinking human being - let's give our rights over to the U.N. - an organization whose officials can't find their shoes in the morning (those who even wear shoes, that is).

So, take heed, gun owners - these most recent shooting incidents will be unlikely to result in a change in the "thinking" of the anti-gun contingent. But even those who don't own guns should view these most recent incidents as opportunities to question the current knee-jerk reaction of responding to every sensational shooting by passing yet more laws.

But the harsh reality is that no matter what ridiculous new gun control schemes are implemented, whether here or in Europe, none of them will save a single human life. They will only "succeed" in placing the innocent at greater risk, and violating the rights of the 99.997% of gun owners who never harm anyone.

Using the canard (that's "lie" for you public school students) that he is "motivated by science, not ideology" Barak Obama has signed an executive order allowing funding for "stem cell research." Wow, a triumph of reason over religion, right? After all,  isn't it those right-wing Christians who want to keep Michael J. Fox from being cured of Parkinson's disease?

In a word, NO. Obama's "stem-cell" order is a perfect example of how, like most liberals, Obama is more than willing to ignore science for the sake of politics - not to mention once again misleading the American public. How so?

First of all, the debate is NOT about "stem-cell research" - it is about what kinds of stem-cell research should be funded. Often lost (or hidden?) in the debate is the fact that there are essentially TWO kinds of stem cells: adult stem cells, and embryonic stem-cells.

Setting all ideology aside, let's look at the science. Since there is already extensive research data on both types of stem cells, funding should be based on which protocols work, and which don't. And in this area the science is clear.

Adult stem cells have already been used to develop cures for dozens of ailments, and have successfully been used to cure real people, thousands of them. Additionally, treatments utilizing adult stem cells have extremely low incidences of negative side affects. In other words, SCIENCE has shown efficacious treatments with little downside risk using ADULT stem cells.

But what about those embryonic stem cells, the ones that liberals always seem so obsessed with finding a use for (they never want to pass up a chance to kill a human embryo)? Well, embryonic stem cells have been the subject of research for over 25 years, both here and around the world. Hundreds of millions of dollars has been put into embryonic stem cell research. And how many people have been successfully treated using embryonic stem cells?

Zero.

That's right. Not a single viable treatment has been developed using embryonic stem cells, and not a single patient has been cured. And there's more. The few attempts at embryonic stem cell treatments have shown a high rate of negative side affects, including malignant tumors. One of the few human trials involved a man in China who was treated with embryonic stem cell therapy - he developed so many tumors that he died.

OK. So we have two types of stem cell treatments: Adult stem cells, that have a demonstrated record of success, with minimal side affects. And then we have embryonic stem cells, with an abysmal record of failure, along with numerous side affects. Now, which treatment would be the one that SCIENCE indicates is the one where we should put our money? Obviously, adult stem cells are the way to go.

Their continuing support of government scams like ethanol subsidies to reduce "human induced global warming" (in the face of ever more scientific evidence that the earth is actually cooling) has already shown that Obama and his liberal cohorts will ignore science whenever it conflicts with their socialist ideology.

That Obama now supports dumping billions of dollars into embryonic stem cell research when the science to date clearly argues against it, simply proves once again that it is politics, not science, that will continue to drive his presidency.

For the price of a box of ammo you can buy a dozen shares of Citigroup, now less than $1 a share. But given the choice, more and more people are opting for bullets over banks, selling their plummeting stocks and buying guns and ammunition. Guns, especially handguns and military style rifles, are flying off the shelves - an AR-15 put up on the rack will be gone in "about an hour" a local dealer reported.

And ammunition prices have nearly doubled as demand has soared - many sporting goods stores have nearly empty shelves. Even Wal-Mart, who buys huge quantities at a crack, report that popular handgun and 223 rifle ammo is "put on the shelves in the morning and is gone by the end of the day."

More intriguing is that, while existing firearms owners are doing much of the buying (especially ammunition), many of the customers are first time gun owners, including a rapidly growing percentage of women. And far from the media-induced stereotype of gun owners as "Larry the Cable Guy" - today's purchaser is more likely to be a middle-class man or woman with a family.

And they don't stop there. Both men and women are signing up for firearm training classes, and scrambling to get permits to carry handguns for self defense. In many states where training classes are required in order to obtain a carry permit, instructors report a dramatic rise in student applications. Here again, many more women are signing up than in years past.

All of these developments are significant, because what real people do with their own money is a far better indicator of the actual mood of the country than some slanted "survey" conducted by a Democrat-worshiping media. And where people are putting their money today shows how little faith they have in the policies of the Obama administration and his minions in the Congress.

But what are these people worried about? Gun control by an administration with a clear anti-gun bias? Certainly that is a driving force for many, made even more believable by Obama's own Attorney General, who recently blurted out his desire to bring back the ridiculous "assault weapons" ban - a failed policy of demonizing certain types of rifles because they were "scary-looking" to liberals.

But there is more. The nose dive that the economy is taking after Obama's massive spending spree is fueling fears of an increase in crime - a very legitimate concern, as historical crime data show that crime typically does increase as economic conditions worsen.

Another concern is that a confluence of events could cause a serious threat to civil liberties. Everyone remembers the L.A. riots where rampaging mobs were only kept at bay by store-owners, many of them Korean immigrants, who were smart enough to have firearms on hand to protect themselves. But people also remember that many of the guns used by these merchants were later labeled "assault weapons" and declared illegal by the California legislature - owners had to relinquish them or face prosecution.

And we all remember the crime and violence in post-Katrina New Orleans, where residents had their firearms confiscated by police - leaving Louisiana citizens defenseless. Subsequent legal action found the actions of the New Orleans police unconstitutional, and some legal safeguards have been put in place as a result. But gun owners quite legitimately remain dubious.

After all, it is easy to see how a serious economic crisis combined with increased crime would need only a spark to turn the whole situation into full-scale civil unrest, even riots. And under such conditions, the administration would have a strong temptation to use it as an excuse to introduce sweeping and repressive gun control - some even fear that Obama might actually institute marshal law.

Coincidentally, at this very moment HR 45 is being quietly pushed through the Congress. This Democrat-authored bill is nothing but an insidious scheme that would require ALL legal gun owners to register like sex-offenders, including providing government bureaucrats with a list of EVERY GUN YOU OWN, making confiscation during a time of "national crisis" frighteningly easy.

Many people must see the same handwriting on the wall - they look at Obama's hysterically misguided response to an economic downturn, and don't see it as much of a stretch to imagine what Draconian measures he might consider in the event of violent civil strife.

So many Americans are "voting with their dollars" -  by selling their stocks...

...and "stocking up" on guns and ammunition.

When the safety of the public is sacrificed on the altar of Political Correctness, it's time to speak out. Time and again, in reporting violent crime, mainstream media "journalists" bend over backwards to avoid accurately describing the perpetrators.

The latest examples occurred this past weekend in the Twin Cities. In one case, a man who was walking his dog Friday evening was confronted by 4 thugs who asked him for "change for the phone" - then promptly beat him unconscious and left him in the freezing alley. Luckily, police on a routine patrol found him before he froze to death. Yet in spite of the fact that the man saw the assailants face-to-face, and even spoke to them, neither the on-air video report or the website write-up gave any description other than "four young men."

Then on Sunday, a pair of thugs committed a string of 7 armed robberies in less than two hours. In this case, we had multiple witnesses who saw these guys "up close and personal" and we know that a clear description of the suspects was given - the police even remarked that "there is a similarity in suspect descriptions" given by the victims. With the suspects still at large, you would think that police would want people to be on the lookout for them, and citizens certainly have a right to know whom to look for.

Given all this, you would expect the press to do everything possible to inform the public, wouldn't you? Think again - the only description of the suspects mentioned in the media was "two males in their 20s."

Boy, that really narrows it down. Uh, folks, when people are attacked on our streets, how about you tell us about height, weight, clothing, and, most importantly, physical characteristics? Were they black? Hispanic-looking? Caucasian? Asian?

Hint: the suspects in these cases were almost certainly NOT Caucasian. How do we know? Because if they had been, a very lengthy and precise description would have been given.

Unknown to most of the public is that the official policy of the mainstream media is to avoid giving descriptions of criminal suspects whenever they have characteristics that would link them to any identified minority group. You see, if they tell people what criminals actually looked like, it might "offend" some minority activists. Caucasian looking suspects, on the other hand, are fair game.

This goes beyond ineptness, or even bias - putting people's lives at risk for the sake of a political agenda borders on the criminal.

In barely a month, Barak Obama has done more to destroy the American way of life than any president in history, and in the process illustrating perfectly why liberals should NEVER be allowed to gain positions of power.

Not that you couldn't have predicted the mess he would make of things - just look at California, where liberals have run rampant for decades, and where virtually every looney liberal policy ever conceived has been implemented.

Soaring taxes continue to drive businesses (and jobs) out of the state, and thanks to profligate spending of money they don't have, the state is worse than bankrupt - they have a deficit larger than most states' entire budgets!

Hysterical "global warming" initiatives and numerous "green" regulations constrain energy production and drive costs ever higher. The California school system is a complete disaster. And crime is out of control - due in part to their "tolerance" for illegal aliens, gangs like MS-13 have taken over entire sections of major cities.

But hey, it isn't "fair" that Californians should be the only ones to suffer the catastrophic results of unchecked liberalism. So, in the spirit of "shared sacrifice" (Liberal-speak for "spreading the misery") Obama and the Democrats have decided to take the idiotic policies that have failed in California and spread them across the nation.

Perhaps most alarming of all, Democrats-gone-wild now want to use the heavy hand of government to take over private businesses, strangle conservative talk radio, force legitimate gun owners to register like sex-offenders, and use electronic surveillance to tax drivers by every mile they drive.

And of course, Obama wants to take more and more from the most productive achievers in our society so he can give welfare checks (disguised as "tax-cuts") to an ever expanding bunch of government-dependent losers (i.e. Democrat voters).

Yet, in spite of all these major threats to American freedoms, note that since the election, the Democrat-boot-licking mainstream media hacks have stopped conducting those polls asking if you think the country is "going in the right direction." But now that your guy is in charge, a better question you might want to ask yourself is:

"Do I feel lucky?"

Well do ya...punk?

It is time to show compassion to those who suffer from a phobia about guns. Attempting to use rational arguments with people whose fears are irrational is ultimately futile. Note that explaining to someone who has a fear of flying that they are far safer in an airplane than in their own automobile has little affect.

The National Institute of Mental Health classifies phobias as a subset of Anxiety Disorders. A "specific phobia" is defined as "an intense fear of something [a situation or an object]" that, while it poses no actual threat in and of itself, "has become associated with danger in the mind of the person afflicted." This definition describes anti-gun hysterics almost too well.

NIMH further states that "by definition, phobias are irrational, meaning that they interfere with one's everyday life" and that "while adults may even realize that their fears are irrational, they often find that facing, or even thinking about facing, the feared object or situation, brings on (sic) severe anxiety."

In spite of the fact that NIMH reports that "specific phobias respond very well to targeted psychotherapy" those who hate and fear guns not only resist treatment, they vehemently refuse to even admit their affliction. In fact, they often angrily attack anyone who dares suggest that their fears are anything but "rational."

Note also that the favorite phrase of gun control proponents is "guns kill"  - as if a gun is capable of independent action. Now, fearing pit-bulls, or rattlesnakes, or any other creature that can choose to attack you may very well be rational. But assigning the ability to "kill" to an inanimate object is evidence of a severe disconnection from reality. The pro-gun people had it right when they said that "guns don't kill people - people do." Even MAADD does not blame cars (or even alcohol, for that matter) for traffic deaths - they correctly target drunk drivers.

More from NIMH: "Specific [object] phobias affect an estimated 19 million Americans, and are twice as common in women as men." Given that so much of the anti-gun rhetoric comes from female activists and legislators, along with organizations representing women, the (high-heeled?) shoe certainly does seem to fit.

DSM-IV, the handbook of the psychiatric profession, suggests some of the causes of phobias. While some phobias are the result of a bad personal experience in connection with the object feared, "Research (Ost & Hugdahl, 1981) suggests that half of all people with phobias have never had a painful experience with the object they fear" but have heard, or read about, "someone who has been injured" and thus "become afraid, too." Yet, they point out, "almost no one is afraid of cars, even though almost everyone has experienced or witnessed a car accident in which someone got injured," and in spite of the fact that more than 45,000 people die each year in traffic mishaps.

Meanwhile, the vast majority of people who are afraid of guns have had no negative personal experience with firearms at all, nor do they even know someone who has. So why then do we have a larger number of people who fear guns than fear cars?  Well, given the incredibly distorted view of guns and violence presented in both news and entertainment media, it is hardly any wonder that some people might develop a fear of guns out of all proportion to reality.

Other intriguing research on phobias (Mineka, 1985 and Mineka, Cook, & Miller, 1984) found that "people generally develop phobias for objects they cannot predict or control." Now, given that those who hate and fear guns are invariably obsessed with "gun control" it certainly does seem to indicate that their viewpoint is shaped more by a kind of repressed anxiety, rather than any rational concern for their own safety.

So what to do? Well, not surprisingly, since the majority of the Psychiatric profession, especially in America, is made up of those with a very liberal life-view, some mental health professionals are even reluctant to admit that fear of guns is, indeed, an anxiety disorder. Some go to great lengths to dance around the obvious, engaging in the same denial they have to treat in their patients. But thankfully, not all.

Sarah Tompson, MD, has produced some profound insights into the irrational fears that some people have about guns, and how to deal with them. Her excellent piece "Raging Against Self Defense - A Psychiatrist Examines the Anti-Gun Mentality" has been published widely, and is easily found online. She also gives some sound advice for how to deal with those who fear guns.

There are organizations, like the CTRN Phobic Clinic, that specialize in helping people get over their fear of guns. They have clients in 67 countries, and claim a very high success rate in treating firearm anxiety disorders.

Yes, it's time for those of us who do not suffer from anger, depression, or anxiety over guns to be a little more understanding of those who are in the grip of irrational fear. Rather than ridicule them, let's offer them a helping hand. Let them know that there are resources to help them treat their mental disorder. And try to be a little more understanding.

It's the least we can do.

Amazing. A little over a month into the Obama presidency and we are suddenly facing a"catastrophe" of biblical proportions. But how can this be? The Democrats just steamrolled a massive, big government spending bill through the Congress that was SOOOOOO urgent, it just had to be done RIGHT NOW!

And the result? More jobs lost. More and more people applying for unemployment assistance. The Stock Market falling faster than Bill Clinton's pants in a motel room. Oh, for those who still want to try to blame George Bush, less than a year ago the Dow was at 13,000 - it is now at 7600, and down a staggering 2000 points just since the election.

And why? Remember, markets are a LEADING indicator - investors react based on what they believe WILL happen, not what happened last year. And the markets see only more chaos and bad policy decisions coming from Obama and the "economically-challenged" Democrats.

But wait! There's more. After pushing through the most massive increase in out-of-control government spending in history (even most of the so-called "tax cuts" are nothing but thinly disguised welfare payments to people who don't pay any taxes anyway) Obama and his liberal crew are now going to bail out the very people who are responsible for the whole housing debacle.

Instead of figuring out ways to help those who actually PAY their home loans, they are falling over each other trying to figure out how to reward all the dead-beats who DON'T pay their bills. When you remember that these are the very same people who shouldn't have gotten loans in the first place, it is even more enraging. Oh, and who was it that blackmailed banks into giving these unqualified people loans? Democrats.

So, as we slip deeper and deeper into recession, exascerbated by precisely the wrong response from the Obama administration and the Democrat Congress, just be sure you remember who promised you "Hope" and "Change" - and who warned you what was REALLY coming.

With everyone distracted by economic issues, Democrats are secretly escalating their long running war on gun owners. They carefully avoided discussing guns just long enough to get Barak Obama elected. But now that the Far Left has taken control of both Congress and the White House, the anti-gun radicals are chomping at the bit.

Across the nation, states under the thumb of Democrat majorities are in the process of sneaking through some of the most onerous (and ultimately useless) gun control measures to be attempted in decades.

One of the most common tactics is to attempt to control and register the heretofore private transfer of firearms by individuals, under the rubric of closing the mythical "gun show loophole."

First of all, decades of research have shown that the whole "loophole" issue is nothing but a myth. The ATF themselves admit that a tiny 0.7% of guns used in crime ever came from a gun show. And an in-depth study by the University of Maryland and the University of Michigan stated the following:

"We find no evidence that gun shows lead to substantial increases in either gun homicides or suicides. In addition, tighter regulation of gun shows does not appear to reduce the number of firearms-related deaths." - The Effects of Gun Shows on Gun Related Deaths - September, 2008

Most of these pending bills will also force every single person who buys, sells, trades, or even gives as a gift, ANY firearm, to go through a bureaucratic morass of forms, background checks, and, worst of all, registration of their guns - even if they never set foot in a gun show!

On a national level, there is a frighteningly totalitarian bill (HF 045) that would create a massive, expensive, and dangerously intrusive program that will require every gun owner in America to pay a fee to REGISTER themselves (to get a Federal ID) and then REGISTER each and every gun they own with the Federal government...and you will have to re-register them every 5 years - even if you haven't bought any new guns during that period!

But all of the latest research shows that thugs and gang-bangers, who account for more than 80% of violent crime, do not obtain their guns legally in the first place. A study by the FBI and Mankato State University revealed that many inner city gang members begin carrying guns between the ages of 9 and 12! By age 17, most are carrying a gun EVERY DAY! Now, since they can't even legally buy a handgun in most states until they are 21 years of age, exactly how are these various measures supposed to prevent these little thugs from getting a gun?

Well, sorry to break the news, but the answer is: YOU CAN'T. The study even asked these young offenders if they "were hindered by any law, Federal, State, or local, that had ever been established to prevent  prevented gun ownership" - their answer? According to the study authors, "they just laughed at us."

In most cases (97% in this study), they don't actually buy their guns at all - they steal them. The rest they obtain as "currency" in drug deals, or they recruit a person with no criminal record (most often a girlfriend) to make a "straw purchase" - pretending to buy the gun for herself, then turning it over to her gangster boyfriend, which is already a FELONY. And, since straw purchasers have no criminal records, no legislation will stop them - only vigorous prosecution and severe penalties will make any difference.

Thus, NONE of the laws that target lawful American gun owners will do anything to save a single life, or make any of us safer. But, then again, protecting you, or your kids, has never been their goal, anyway.

The anti-gun extremist groups always masquerade under "nice" sounding names like "Citizens for a Safer Minnesota" or "Americans for Gun Safety" - but make no mistake, they were all founded, funded, and exist, for one reason, and one reason only: to eventually all but eliminate private gun ownership in the United States.

But as much as they would like to, the anti-gun hysterics have learned that a wholesale ban on firerarms would never be tolerated by Americans, even by most of those who don't own guns themselves. So they have selected a strategy of attrition - make LEGAL gun ownership more and more expensive, more difficult, and more time-consuming, until many gun owners just throw in the towel.

Now, if these gun-phobic types actually did care about making the nation a safer place to live, they would focus on the REAL threat - gangs, drugs, and inner city violence...instead of using the rare (but headline-grabbing) lunatic shooter incident as an excuse to attack the rights of legitimate gun owners.

Here in Minnesota, more than half of the homicides in the entire state occur in just TWO zip codes in the city of Minneapolis! Meanwhile, several of the wealthier suburban communities own 5 TIMES as many guns per capita as the city of Minneapolis, yet have almost no violent crime whatsoever. Inner city violence is a societal problem, a cultural problem, a drugs and gangs problem - but it is most certainly NOT a "gun" problem.

If the anti-gun fanatics actually did want to reduce violent crime, they would focus on attacking the gangs, drugs, and social issues that cultivate violence,  instead of attempting to harass and criminalize the 99.6% of American gun owners who are NOT the problem.

If I hear one more person use the word "stimulus" to describe the out-of-control Democrat spending plan, I think I'll scream. This massive expansion of government is the biggest push for outright socialism since FDR's disastrous New Deal. And yes, those of you who worship at the shrine of the first socialist "messiah," it WAS a disaster, turning an economic recession into the Great Depression.

Unfortunately, since most people are graduates of our government run school system, they have no clue as to what Roosevelt really did in the 1930's, let alone what Obama and friends are doing today.

The "stimulus plan" will stimulate little in the way of PRIVATE SECTOR economic growth - but it WILL stimulate the growth of government, the growth of far-left socialist intrusion into the private sector, and the growth of the Democratic party, courtesy of suitcases full of "stimulus" money going to the likes of ACORN, the sleazy voter fraud mob masquerading as "community organizers."

Also tucked away in this "stimulus" bill is a huge expansion of government "social programs" and subsidies, including rewarding states that INCREASE the number of people on welfare! Now, this will merely encourage those out of work to stay unemployed, and about the only thing that increasing welfare benefits will "stimulate" is the demand for crack cocaine.

If you actually want to stimulate the economy, you do it by getting government OUT of the equation as much as possible. Cutting tax rates on businesses would do more for the economy than all the government spending programs put together.

Oh, sure, these government spending programs will result in some private sector activity - if you build a road, you need to hire road builders. But only 17% of the spending in this bill goes to things like roads. The rest goes to all sorts of "pork barrel" projects, and even worse, to a plethora of social welfare programs designed to get as many Americans as possible sucking at the government teat.

But the problem with ALL government spending is this: THE MONEY HAS TO COME FROM SOMEWHERE - IT HAS TO BE EITHER TAKEN OUT OF THE PRIVATE SECTOR IN THE FORM OF TAXES, BORROWED (WHICH WILL PUT YOUR CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN IN DEBT), OR PRINTED BY THE TREASURY, WHICH IS NOTHING BUT A "STEALTH" TAX, SINCE THE RESULT WILL BE INFLATION, WHICH INCREASES THE PRICE OF EVERYTHING WE BUY.

Reducing taxes, on the other hand, spurs investment and spending in the PRIVATE SECTOR, which is the ultimate source of ALL actual growth and productivity. Whenever more money is left in the private sector, it not only allows individuals to buy TV's or clothes, it increases the amount of AVAILABLE CAPITAL, which keeps interest rates lower, making things like cars and housing more affordable. More importantly, it also allows people to invest in their companies, hire more workers, and grow their businesses - all of which contribute to REAL economic growth.

Reducing regulations that government has no business imposing is yet another way to unleash the power of the American private sector. While some regulations do indeed fall under the heading of protecting the "general welfare" (i.e. preventing the dumping of toxic waste into our rivers and lakes, for example), the idea that government should be deciding what wages a company "should" pay, or what kind of health insurance a private business "must" provide is ridiculous.

But the worst part of this so-called "stimulus" bill is that it is, at the end of the day, not just a massive spending bill, but a DEFICIT SPENDING bill, because they DON'T HAVE THE MONEY, and no one has asked the key question: Where will they get it? (Hint: see above)

Sadly, in spite of the many sources of information that the technological revolution has provided, far too many people still seem to be under the delusion that "the government" has some sort of unlimited supply of money. They seem unable to grasp that, at the end of the day, ALL government money comes, one way or another, out of their pockets.

Perhaps most ironically, even those "Democrat faithful" who are at the bottom of the income ladder, will be hit, because even if they pay no income taxes at all, they will be "taxed" in the form of higher prices for everything they buy, and, in the worst case, by losing their jobs.

At which point, their "stimulus checks" will provide little solace...

In this time of economic uncertainty, it is a good idea to examine who you are.

Do you work for a living? Or do you suck at the government teat?

Do you pay your own way? Or do you expect your fellow taxpayers to support your lazy butt?

Are you self-employed? Or are you (chronically) unemployed?

Do you get a check from a private business? Or do you get a check from "government?"

Note: If you get a check from government because you are a police officer or county sheriff's deputy, a firefighter or first responder, a bus or train operator, or a member of any of the armed forces, or if you are one of the 10% of teachers who actually love teaching and put extra time and your own money into doing the best job you possibly can to educate children, we salute you, for you "produce" much of our quality of life.

But if you're one of 90% of government workers whose biggest concerns are "step" raises, Rolls Royce health care plans, and days off, then do us all a favor and get a real job.

If you are one of the few college professors who seeks the truth with an open mind and without political bias, you are a producer.

But if you are the typical college professor, a pampered, pedantic little Leftist, brainwashing innocent students with neo-Marxist propaganda while living off of people with REAL jobs, you are a parasite. I have more respect for a guy who runs a shoe-shine stand than the average college professor.

If you are a judge, a criminal prosecutor, or criminal defense attorney, you are the legal gladiators that lawyers were meant to be - ensuring that every accused has a fair trial, and a vigorous defense.

But if you are a "personal injury" or "class action" chasing plaintiff's attorney, you are the most insidious of parasites - you suck the life out of the very society that makes you rich. You paint yourselves as "defenders of the little guy" while filling your pockets at the expense of us all. And if you are among the legions of vultures who HIRE personal injury lawyers in order to turn some tragedy into "winning the lottery" then you are a parasite of the lowest order - for as bad as the ambulance-chasers are, they can only file a lawsuit when YOU sign on.

If you are a minimum wage worker in a fast-food restaurant, you are to be honored and respected - you are a producer.

But if you are on welfare, live in public housing, use food stamps, get "free" medical care (i.e. paid for by the rest of us), then, regardless of how you got there, you ARE a parasite - and will be as long as you choose to do nothing about it.

If you are a college student, working part time and paying your tuition with student loans YOU will repay, then you are a producer.

But if you are a college student, whose parents are paying for your education, then you are (for the time being) a parasite - own it, then vow to become a contributing member of society when you graduate.

If you graduate high school or college and go into any career that contributes to society in a meaningful way, you are a producer.

But if you become a "community organizer" in an organization like ACORN, figuring out ways to extort hard earned money from real businesses (and use it to fund voter fraud) you are the worst sort of parasite.

If you are in the upper half of taxpayers who pay 97% of all income taxes, you are a producer.

But if you are among the bottom 40% of workers who pay NO income tax, you are a parasite - you live off the blood, sweat and tears of people who pay for all the services you use. (And spare me the whining canard that you pay "sales taxes" - we ALL pay sales taxes, and successful people pay many times more than you do. Many pay more in sales taxes than your annual income.)

If you believe that your medical bills are your responsibility, you are a producer.

But if you believe that you have a right to demand that your fellow taxpayers pay your medical bills, you are a parasite.

If you believe that every American should have the opportunity to earn as much money as their talents, drive, and ingenuity can achieve, you are a producer.

But if you believe that "government" should limit the earnings of people who earn "too much' (i.e. more than you earn), then you are a parasite.

If the only thing you want government to do is to leave you alone to sink or swim on your own, you are a producer.

But if you believe government should interfere in private business to make life "fair" then you are a parasite.

If you own a business, and deal with economic hardship by improving you organization's ability to compete, you are a producer.

But if you run a bank, insurance company, brokerage, or auto company that accepts a "bailout" from the taxpayers, you, too are a parasite.

And finally, if you admire those who achieve more than you do, you are more than a producer, you are a winner.

But if you are filled with hatred and envy for "the rich" because they are smarter than you, more talented than you, and with more drive than you, then you are, and will always be, not just a parasite, but a loser.

In which case, you will always find a home at CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, the New York Times, or any of their numerous counterparts in every corner of America.

Gangs Behind Up to 80% of U.S. Crime,

Yet Gun Ban Lobby Focuses on the Law Abiding

by Chad D. Baus - 02/06/2009

Recently, USA Today reported that a gang threat assessment compiled by federal officials estimates that criminal gangs in the United States have swelled to an estimated 1 million gang members responsible for up to 80% of crimes in communities across the nation.

You've heard the tired old myth that "conservatives are anti-science."  From an ignorant boob like Ashley Judd to President Obama himself, liberals attempt to cast themselves as "pro-science" - while simultaneously ignoring real science at every turn, especially when it conflicts with their socialist political agenda.

Two of the most obvious examples are global warming and stem-cell research.

Let's start with "man-made global warming" (a.k.a. "climate change" - a term coined to make EVERY change in temperature the fault of humans, after it was discovered that, oops, the Earth had actually been cooling for the past 10 years). In what can only be described as an absolute assault on science, the Left (both here and around the world) declares the issue "settled science." Uuuuuuh, news flash: "settled science" is an oxymoron - science is never "settled."

Now, it is usually at this point that some twit uses the silly "flat earth" argument - after all, isn't it "settled" that the earth is round? But the shape of the earth is not a theory - it is something that we can see, touch, and most importantly, measure TODAY.

Man-made global warming, on the other hand, is a theory about what MIGHT happen, not today, not even next year, but PERHAPS sometime in the next 30, 50, or 100 years. Besides, since the Earth has warmed and cooled over millions of years, long before SUV's, suddenly blaming puny little humans for a tiny bump in temperature over a hundred years is ludicrous on its face.

Worse, most people don't realize that the entire man-made global warming hysteria is based on computer models, many of which have now been exposed as using outright false data, as well as, shall we say, suspiciously slanted assumptions that conveniently guarantee the result the pro-global warming "researchers" want.

Meanwhile, even ignoring the rather "inconvenient" fact that the Earth has been cooling (the last 10 years have been among the coldest on record), the whole structure of man-made global warming has been crumbling, as more and more of its premises come into question.

Take CO2, the foundation of man-made global warming claims. The true believers continue to inundate every corner of our culture, even our kids in school, with propaganda that describes Carbon Dioxide as the villain. One commercial by a company attempting to cast itself as "green" even called CO2 a "pollutant."

Pollutant? CO2 is what plants use to turn sunlight into energy, also producing oxygen in the process. Far from being a pollutant, CO2 is an essential element of all life on Earth.

And besides, recent breakthroughs have shown that increases in CO2 do NOT "cause" a warming of the atmosphere - quite the opposite. Historical increases in temperature actually come BEFORE a rise in CO2, often 200 years before! As a result, more and more people are becoming skeptical - a recent poll shows that for the first time, a majority of Americans no longer believe in "man-made global warming."

But alas, such scientific facts interfere with the real goal of the global warming extremists - forcing Americans into a government controlled socialist world by limiting our ability to produce and use energy. And energy is the engine of prosperity, so naturally liberals hate it (unless of course, it comes from grossly inefficient and impractical methods like windmills or solar panels).

But what about "stem-cell research" - isn't it those right-wing Christians who want to keep Michael J. Fox from being cured of Parkinsons disease? In a word, NO. The "stem-cell" debate is a perfect example of where conservatives' position is the one that just happens to coincide with science, while liberals are once again ignoring it.

How so? First of all, the debate is NOT about "stem-cell research" - it is about WHICH stem-cell protocols work, and which don't. Often lost (or hidden?) in the debate is the fact that there are essentially TWO kinds of stem cells: adult stem cells, and embryonic stem-cells. And there is extensive scientific research on both.

Adult stem cells have actually been used to develop cures for dozens of ailments, and have successfully been used to cure real people, thousands of them. Additionally, treatments utilizing adult stem cells have extremely low incidences of negative side affects. In other words, SCIENCE has shown efficacious treatments with little downside from ADULT stem cells. Great news, yes?

Embryonic stem cells, on the other hand, have been the subject of research for over 25 years, both here and around the world. Hundreds of millions of dollars has been dumped into embryonic stem cell research. And how many people have been successfully treated using embryonic stem cells?

Zero.

That's right. Not a single viable treatment has been developed using embryonic stem cells, and not a single patient has been cured. And there's more. The few attempts at embryonic stem cell treatments have shown a high rate of negative side affects, including malignant tumors. One of the few human trials involved a man in China who was treated with embryonic stem cell therapy - he developed so many tumors that he died.

OK. So we have two types of stem cell treatments: Adult stem cells, that have a demonstrated record of success, with minimal side affects. And then we have embryonic stem cells, with an abysmal record of failure, along with numerous side affects. Now, which treatment would be the one that SCIENCE indicates is the one where we should put our money? Obviously, adult stem cells are the way to go.

And who supports more ADULT stem cell research, the one that science shows actually works? Conservatives.

And who supports dumping millions, if not billions, into embryonic stem cell research, the one that SCIENCE clearly shows does NOT work? Liberals. California even mandated that $6 Billion be used EXCLUSIVELY for embryonic stem cell research.

Yet even with all the evidence in support of adult stem cell research over embryonic stem cells, you will not hear me, or any other conservative, claim that the science on stem cells is "settled" - because tomorrow might bring a breakthrough that changes everything. But for now, SCIENCE compels us to give the nod to adult stem cells.

Now, I will not go into all of the bizarre reasons that liberals seem to have an obsession with destroying human embryos. That isn't relevant, just as it isn't relevant that many conservatives oppose the destruction of human embryos for religious reasons.

What IS relevant, and a fact, is that conservatives are on the side of science, while liberals are on the side of...well, liberalism.