Obama's ability to pilot a nation is being seriously called into question. Arguably the least experienced man ever to hold the office, only weeks into his administration, he has already been beset by failure.

His "stimulus" package has been nose-diving in the polls, as more and more voters discover that it is nothing but a huge, budget-busting increase in government give-aways, much of it ear-marked for truly questionable activities.

His first cabinet appointments have been a disaster - several, like Tom Daschle, have withdrawn after being caught as major tax cheats. Others have suddenly "dropped out" without any explanation, leading to serious concerns about the so-called vetting process - did they do ANY serious investigations at all?

Iran has seen fit to throw down the gauntlet - they have basically told Obama "we're going nuclear, and there's nothing you can do about it." Obviously, they have little fear of the young President, and they are not shy about saying so.

Obama's latest announcement simply validated the view that he is a closet socialist - he proposed a salary cap for executives receiving government "bailout" money, but then made frightening references to extending such controls to ALL businesses.

All of this has lead to Obama's own approval ratings plummeting 20 points in just days. And his latest speeches have done nothing to reverse the trend - they are little more than a collection of the same bland bromides repeated endlessly during the campaign.

Perhaps more telling is the fact that the first time he felt the heat, the new President reacted by running out of the kitchen - after a hasty "I screwed up" comment, he ran to join his wife talking to a bunch of 2nd graders rather than face the press about his cabinet debacle.

We are in tough times - we need a tough, rational, and savvy leader. As the veil of "hope and change" is pulled away, it shows a man disturbingly lacking in these qualities. Just a week or so ago, Obama embarrassingly couldn't even find his way out of the oval office - this may turn out to be a metaphor for his entire administration...time will tell.

Remember what your job is: ELECTING and PROTECTING LIBERAL DEMOCRATS!

I know, I know, many of you at MSM, Inc. used to be called "reporters" because, well, that was what you were supposed to do: report the news. And it was a great cover - by manipulating what stories got on the front page (hint: think "Abu Ghraib" - we were able to milk that one for 44 straight days), and which ones did not get reported at all, you could covertly advance the cause of liberalism.

But times have changed. You no longer have to pretend that you are "objective" reporters - you are now JOURNALISTS. True, most of you are frustrated would-be novelists without enough talent to actually write a best seller, but be of good cheer! Your position here at MainStreamMedia, Inc. will allow you to have an even greater role in "reshaping" America into the "progressive" (read "socialist") utopia that we all know is best for the country.

So, let's cover the basics.

When Democrats are in charge, NOTHING is their fault.

Whether Republicans are in charge or not, EVERYTHING is their fault.

Coverage:

ANY remark by a Republican, (whether a state or Congressional legislator) that could even remotely be construed as "insensitive" or "off color" is FRONT PAGE news. Note: even if it is a completely and obviously innocent remark, talk about it as if it is "serious" and be sure to include the always dependable "will this spell trouble for the GOP?" question (which of course guarantees that it will be).

Conversely, remarks made by Democrats, no matter how vulgar, hostile, or even criminal in nature, are NEVER news, let alone front page news. Treat any negative reaction to Democrat gaffes as minor, or, better yet, asking "is this just another example of Republican attack politics?" This has the effect of turning the offending Democrat into the victim! Now, sometimes it's darn near impossible to avoid reporting the actions of a Democrat miscreant (after all, there are so many of them), but we have that covered, too. If you absolutely must report on one, remember to:

A) Keep the coverage at a minimum, and preferably on page 28 of the "Lifestyle" section. (TV anchors, just make sure you reduce the coverage to a 2 second sound-byte just before breaking for a commercial)

2) Under NO circumstances do you EVER refer to a Democrat crook as, well, a DEMOCRAT. Example, it should be "Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich" who is being impeached, NOT "Democrat Governor....." Now, in order to maintain "plausible deniability, it is usually a good idea to have one tiny reference to party affiliation way, way down in the article (better yet, at the end of the article on page 28 - see rule A above). Obviously, if a Republican governor should find themselves in trouble, each and every mention would be "REPUBLICAN governor ...." (preferably on page 1, of course, and as often as possible).

Interviews:

When interviewing Democrats, smile, pat their hands when they sit down, ask cutesy questions about their families - you know the drill. This will give the subliminal message that Democrats are "nice" and "trustworthy." If they do happen to be involved in some sort of scandal that you must bring up, do everything possible to paint them as the "victim" in the affair (pun intended). Ask them silly soft-ball questions, and always nod approvingly as they answer, indicating to the viewers that YOU don't believe the accusations either.

When interviewing Republicans (especially conservatives) always take a visibly skeptical approach. Lean back in your chair, look over the top of your glasses so you look like an inquisitor. Ask them totally off the wall questions that have nothing to do with the original reason for the interview, then, no matter how they answer, act as if you don't believe them - rubbing your chin or tilting the head works well. Try to catch them in a mistake, then shake your head to emphasize the point. Use the "some say" method of  attacking them - this way you can bring up the most vile propaganda from Left-wing bloggers, without taking responsibility for it.

When describing Democrat policies or positions on ANY issue, always use positive, declarative language and statements that imply what is being said or proposed by Democrats is a FACT:  "Democrats WARN that..." or "Democrats POINT OUT..." or "A Democrat plan to HELP THE POOR..."

When describing Republican or conservative policies, do the opposite. Always insert subliminally negative words, such as "Republicans CLAIM that...." or "A Republican plan that 'some say' will DESTROY Social Security..."  Hey, you get the picture.

Just remember, reporting the news is no longer your mission - building a better society is. And that means doing everything in your power to persuade Americans that Liberal Socialism is the answer and that Democrats, especially liberal Democrats, are always right, and that Republicans and conservatives are not just wrong, but downright evil.

Now, get going! Make Karl Marx proud!

To understand how clueless liberals really are about economics, you need only listen to Barney Frank. His most recent comment was that, are you ready for this, we don't have ENOUGH government involvement in the economy!

Continuing his embarrassing habit of saying things that are self-evidently untrue, the inimitable quasi-socialist also pompously asserted that he's "never seen a tax cut build a bridge or a road."

Uuuh, news flash, Barney, cuts in tax rates have ALWAYS spurred economic growth, leading to INCREASED tax revenues, which are then used to...build bridges and roads (that is, IF the money is actually used to build inrastructure, and not diverted to yet another social welfare boondoggle).

Additionally, reducing taxes on businesses (like, say, construction contractors) make it possible for them to build those bridges and roads at even LESS COST to the taxpayers (provided, that is, that the contracts are awarded on the basis of competitive bids, and NOT on the basis of some race-based "set-aside" program).

None of this idiocy should surprise any veteran observer of the American political scene. With few exceptions, Liberals, from elected representatives to the guy sitting in the cube next to you, are utterly and completely ignorant of even the most basic realities of economics.

Something as simple as the concept of the profit motive is totally foreign to liberals - to them, someone who works for a "non-profit" is somehow more noble than someone who works to make (shudder) money.

But EVERYONE does what they do for profit, because "profit" is not limited to money - in economic terms, profit is ANY reward or gain that you achieve as a result of a choice you make. The truth is that even the social worker does what he or she does because if "profits" them - it makes them feel good about themselves.

Oddly, it is often the "selfless" actions of the social-welfare types that cause the most damage to the very poor and working class they profess to care about (look at the devastation wrought by the modern welfare state since it's inception in the 1960's). Meanwhile, the "selfish" actions of businesses create jobs, provide the products and services that we all want, and genuinely contribute far more to the social welfare than any government interference ever has.

Walmart is a perfect example. They do more good for the poor and working class than all the government run social welfare programs combined.

Naturally, all of this is lost on the social worker types, who think businesses have some obligation to "give people jobs" (they're not, of course - they employ people in order to produce the goods or services they provide). But not only does Walmart hire people from every walk of life (many of whom would likely not be able to find employment anywhere else), Walmart uses the power of the free market to negotiate terms from their suppliers that allow them to offer goods at prices affordable even to the poor - why do you think so many ot them shop there?

These types also believe that the government should force businesses to pay a "living wage" (or whatever socialist term of choice is in vogue at the moment). This is not only wrong; it's stupid policy. Businesses pay a wage based on what the worker can provide in terms of talent, skills, and knowledge - and the scarcity of those qualities in the market, not on what some "caring" liberal thinks they "deserve" to earn.

But beyond that, suppose you decide to punish, for example,  pharmaceutical companies (you know, those "evil" capitalists who invest BILLIONS to produce the very miracle cures liberals want for free) by taking away their ability to profit from their investment. Well, eventually you will have fewer and fewer of them willing to take the risks to create the very drugs that, in many cases, actually save our lives.

At the end of the day, the private sector always has, and always will, yield better, faster, and higher quality solutions to the needs and wants of the American people than any amount of government meddling by obtuse idiots like Barney Frank and friends.

Finally, Republicans actually DO say "no" - and it's long overdue. Contrary to the lament of mushy moderates that "we can't just say no," for too long Republicans have said "yes" to every Democrat spend-fest from "free" prescription drugs to  billions more dollars for our failed public education system.

And when George Bush and other Republicans reacted to the late 2008 financial problems with outrageous "bailouts" and other doomed-to-fail measures, I was ready to write off the Republican party.

But when I read that EVERY Republican in the House of Representatives voted against the pork-laden "stimulus" package put forth by Obama and the Democrats, I was ecstatic.

Hoooyah!

And it couldn't come at better time. As more and more workers lose their jobs, they are likely to become just a bit angry at the enormous sums of money (their money) being doled out with reckless abandon - sometimes to the same company that just laid them off. And even workers who still have a job are not going to react kindly when they finally realize that Obama's "tax refund" is actually a welfare check going to millions of people who don't even pay income taxes, including illegal aliens!

Now, if Senate Republicans can show the same resolve, Americans may once again be able to differentiate between the parties. Genuine conservatives have tried in vain to make the party "leadership" understand that being "just like Democrats" is not just bad policy - it's bad politics.

The Democrat party has been veering dangerously to the left over many years, but when Republicans follow along, it simply makes Democrats look less radical than they actually are. Worse, when Republicans gravitate toward Democrat positions, it has the affect of validating the very socialist policies that most of us fear.

And when voters (ALL voters, not just "the base") begin to see less and less substantive difference between the parties, the party promising the most "free stuff" will get their vote. And remember, you will never be able to out-promise Democrats. Going along with global warming, ethanol subsidies, and mammoth education spending will not pry moderates away from Democrats.

But Republicans can beat the Democrats, and win back many of those centrist voters, IF they continue to draw clear distinctions in policy, and IF they learn to sell their policies with CONVICTION and PASSION.

In tough times, people look for tough leaders, able to make the hard decisions. Note that after 9/11, George Bush had approval ratings near 90%. Even hard-core Democrats expressed relief that we had a "cowboy" in the Whitehouse, and not an effete snob like Al Gore.

So if Republicans continue to have the courage to say NO to dangerous, and ultimately disastrous policies, they may very well save the party from permanent minority status, if not outright extinction.

You knew it was coming - after the crew of US Air flight 1549 miraculously saved the lives of every single person on board, some of these morons are actually contemplating suing the airline. (I hear John Edwards isn't very busy these days...)

Instead of running to some ambulance chasing attorney, the passengers of Flight 1549 should be kissing the feet of the US Air crew. Hell, I'd send the them a Thank You card on the anniversary of the event every year for the rest of my life.

In the first place, from a purely cold-blooded legal standpoint, the crash was not due to some malfeasance on the part of the airline, aircraft maintenance workers, or the flight crew - the plane hit a flight of birds.

Even in crashes where there is some culpability on the carrier's part, it is disturbing that so many people seem to think that simply walking onto an airplane suddenly makes someone worth millions if they die. The sight of these money-grubbing people (seemingly more than able to ignore there grief long enough to scramble over each another like locusts to cash in on the death of a relative) is more than a little disgusting.

And I've always felt a particular level of disdain for people who were lucky enough to survive a crash who then attempt to get rich over things like "mental distress." My god, you SURVIVED. Thank God. Thank Fate. Thank whomever.

But for anyone on board US Air flight 1549 to contemplate a lawsuit is simply beyond the pale. The airline did nothing to cause the crash. More to the point, due to the skill, courage, and training of the flight crew that day, everyone survived. EVERYONE. And they are now going to use such a remarkable event as a way to get rich?

Despicable.

Chicago's extreme gun control continues to fail, while L.A.'s aggressive targeting of gangs scores a big victory. There are lessons here that every major metropolitan area in the country should consider.

From the L.A. Times:

Homicides over the past three months in Los Angeles have fallen to their lowest levels since the Summer of Love more than 40 years ago despite a struggling economy that historically has meant more crime.

Police Chief William Bratton attributed the recent drop to collaboration with other police agencies, and intense focus on gang crime and a crackdown on illegal immigrants with criminal records.

"Unemployment is up, the economy is not good. A lot of the things that so-called experts predict make crime go up are not happening here," he said. "We have been building momentum over the last six years. I think it will continue to get better."

Heavens! Police daring to target...criminals? One can hear the politically correct professional victim groups crying "profiling!" and "racism!" - while ignoring the harsh reality that such good policing works.

Now compare the above story with this one from Chicago, covering the same three months:

CHICAGO (CBS) - An estimated 123 people were shot and killed over the summer. That's nearly double the number of soldiers killed in Iraq over the same time period. [More than 120 additional victims were shot and wounded.]

In May, cbs2chicago.com began tracking city shootings and posting them on Google maps. Information compiled from our reporters, wire service reports and the Chicago Police Major Incidents log indicated that 123 people were shot and killed throughout the city between the start of the Memorial Day weekend on May 26th, and the end of Labor Day on Sept. 1st.

The difference? Unlike the L.A. approach of focusing on the real sources of violent crime, Chicago opts for some of the nation's most repressive gun control. Not only is Illinois one of only two states that still prohibit a citizen from carrying a gun for personal protection, it is illegal for residents of the city to even possess handguns in their own homes!

For decades, self-defense advocates have pointed out that the worst crime is almost always found in the cities and states with the strictest gun laws. They rightly point out that such laws never affect the element that actually commits the violence (the latest FBI studies confirm that thugs obtain 99% of their guns through theft and the black market). Instead, so-called gun control only prevent the innocent from defending themselves.

The L.A. and Chicago stories should serve as a notice to city officials everywhere - gun control doesn't work, but focused policing does.

It is no coincidence that Barak Obama hails from Chicago, has wholeheartedly endorsed (and voted for) its repressive policies, and has publicly proclaimed that he would work to see that such measures would be forced upon the entire nation.

Whether a President Obama actually does implement such disastrous gun control policies, or instead listens to the more sensible Democrats in the party, only time will tell...

No one is more racist than a liberal, but they have gotten away with it because in recent years they've cloaked their racism in "caring" terminology. Their racism has been the condescending kind, the "soft bigotry" that views minorities as being helpless victims, incapable of making it without some big government program.

It was not always so. At one time, liberals were quite outspoken in their disdain for anyone whom we would call today "minorities" - Daniel Flynn gives an excellent synopsis of the historical racism of the American Left at:

 http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OTc0NDgzOTlkY2MyNzJhNDgyNGNkY2JkMWQ0NGJkOWI=&w=MA==

For the most part, liberals since the 1960's have tended to focus their racial hatred on white Americans - a quick glance at an of the liberal hate sites like the Daily Kos will invariably find some vile comment directed at anything "Eurocentric," but rarely did high profile public figures dare to voice their bigotry openly and publically.

Until now.

Barely had Obama taken his oath of office when the comments began.

Reverend Lowery delivered a "prayer" at the inauguration that was about nothing BUT race, speaking in humorous, and overtly positive, rhyme about each and every racial group - except one. He ended his little ditty with the backhanded jibe "when white will embrace what is right."

In the reverend's world, only "white people" need to be told to change their ways -  "people of color" are always paragons of virtue,  immune from criticism, or even scrutiny.

Tom Brokaw opines that Obama's victory will "stick it to those Southern white guys." Gee, Tom, nice bit of stereotyping there. I'm surprised you didn't figure out a way to work the word NASCAR in there.

But perhaps the most blatant expression of the liberal view was uttered by Robert Reich, who manages to combine elitism, sexism AND racism in one sentence, stating his opposition to stimulus funds going to "skilled" workers and "white male" contractors. He actually admitted out loud that, in his view,  RACE should be the primary criterion for passing out government goodies.

All this coming from a man so insecure about his diminutive stature (he's barely visible talking over a lectern) that he once complained that he got beat up as a kid for being short by people who he is certain grew up to be "right-wing Republicans" - talk about stereotyping.

Liberals are obsessed with race. It is the prism through which they view EVERY human being who crosses their path. And it isn't just high profile politicians and media people who are afflicted with this race fixation.

We are friends with a black women who lives in Madison, Wisconsin. She has often commented that, when out with her infant in a stroller,  it is liberal women who cannot comment about her baby without reference to race: "black babies are soooo cute." She notes that women who turn out to be conservatives say simply "what a cute baby."

Speaking of NASCAR, if a team owner was approached by a black 28 year old driver, the only, and I mean ONLY, thing that "good ol' boy" owner would care about was this: can he drive. Trust me, if that young man took a car out on the track and shaved a 10th of a second off the track record, he'd have a contract in his hand in less time than a pit stop (around 17 seconds for you elitists who know nothing about NASCAR). In the real world, performance trumps everything - and in NASCAR the only "race" that matters is the one you win.

For those who thought that the election of Barak Obama would be the death knell for racial politics, I have bad news. The race hustlers like Al Sharpton and friends will not be out looking for real jobs anytime soon. If anything, they will be more intent than ever to make sure that race is always the focus of every issue in America.

Nanny - State legislators in Minnesota are running amok. First we had the ridiculous smoking ban in PRIVATE businesses, and now we have the government-knows-better-than-you mob (and they ARE a mob) clamoring for... a trans-fat ban in restaurants!

I don't know about you, but I have just about had it with these cultural fascists running around telling you and me how to live our lives. Now, other than an occasional cigar (just to annoy the anti-smoking nazis) I've never smoked in my life, and I certainly dislike the smell of cigarettes, but I dislike the idea of intrusive government even more.

And please, enough of the bogus hysteria about "second-hand smoke" - even if it were true (which it's not) if I don't like a bar, restaurant, or any other venue because it is, in my estimation, too smoke-filled, then, voila! I can go somewhere else.

Ditto if I work there - if I don't like the atmosphere, I am free to find a job somewhere else. I know, I know, those who think that both patrons and workers are helpless victims, unable to take care of themselves will say that such people "don't have a choice."

BULL!

Whether a patron or an employee, I am perfectly capable of making that decision for myself, thank you very much. And when it comes to food, I am just as capable of choosing what I will or will not eat - I don't need some snotty little bureaucrat deciding for me.

It's bad enough that many restaurant managers are so intimidated by potential lawsuits and other harassment, that I sometimes have trouble getting someone to serve me a bloody rare cheeseburger. Now they want "the government" to decide what kinds of fat are "acceptable" for me to eat?

And spare me the canard that private eating habits are a "public health issue." If I want to eat "trans-fats" then I will eat trans-fats. If some Gen-Xer wants to eat four hot-dogs and a liter of Mountain Dew for lunch, I say, let him. If I want to have my cheeseburger barely cooked, that's my business.

So, unless and until I do something that does DIRECT, VERIFIABLE, and PROVABLE HARM TO SOMEONE ELSE...

LEAVE ME ALONE!

From a friend who remembers when...

Those really were the good ol' days. Pilots all knew who Jimmy Doolittle was. They chased women, drank coffee and whiskey, and smoked cigars. They carried their own suitcases like the real men that they were.

Pilots didn't bend over into the crash position multiple times each day in front of the passengers at security so that some Government slug could probe for tweezers or fingernail clippers or too much toothpaste.

Pilots did not go through the terminal impersonating a caddy pulling a bunch of golf clubs, computers, guitars, and feed bags full of tofu and granola on a sissy-trailer with no hat and granny glasses hanging on a pink string around their pencil neck while talking to their personal trainer on the cell phone!

Back then, being an Airline Captain was as good as being the King in a Mel Brooks movie.

All the Stewardesses (aka - Flight Attendants) were young, attractive, single women who were proud to be combatants in the sexual revolution. They didn't have to turn sideways, grease up and suck it in to get through the cockpit door. They would blush and say thank you when told that they looked good, instead of filing a sexual harassment claim. Junior Stewardesses shared a room and talked about men.... with no thoughts of substitution.

Passengers wore nice clothes and were polite - they could speak and understand English. They didn't speak gibberish or listen to loud annoying rap on their Ipods. They actually bathed so they didn't smell like a rotting pile of garbage in a jogging suit and flip-flops.

Children didn't travel alone, commuting between trailer parks.

There were no foul-mouthed "gangsta's" asking for a "mu-fuggin" seat belt extension or a Scotch and grapefruit juice cocktail with a twist.

If the Captain wanted to throw some offensive, ranting jerk off the airplane, it was done without any worries of a law suit or getting fired.

Axial flow engines crackled with the sound of freedom and left an impressive black smoke trail like a locomotive burning soft coal. Jet fuel was cheap and once the throttles were pushed up they were left there, after all it was the jet age and the idea was to go fast (run like a lizard on a hardwood floor).

"Economy cruise" was something in the performance book, but no one knew why or where it was. When the "clacker" went off no one got all tight and scared because Boeing built 'em out of iron back then, so nothing was going to fall off, and that sound had a satisfying affect on real pilots then.

There was very little plastic and no composites on the airplanes (or the Stewardesses' pectoral regions). Airplanes and women had eye pleasing symmetrical curves, not a bunch of ugly vortex generators, ventral fins, winglets, and flow diverters.

Airlines were run by men like C. E. Woolman, C. R. Smith and Juan Trippe who had built their companies virtually from scratch, knew many of their employees by name, and were lifetime airline employees themselves...not "financial" types and bean counters who flit from one occupation to another for a few bucks, a better "golden" parachute, or a fancier title - while fervently believing that they are a class of beings unto themselves.

And so it was, back then....

Every where you look, the affects of the economic downturn are obvious - layoffs, cuts in wages and benefits, store and factory closings, families reevaluating their budgets to determine where they can make cuts. But, hey, in such hard times everyone has to "cut back" -  don't they?

Well, not exactly everyone.

If you are a State or Federal Government worker, not only can you be relatively certain that you won't lose your job, you probably won't even be denied your "guaranteed" raises.

But why? If private sector workers at every level are having to do with less, why should government (and by extension, government workers) be exempt from the pain?

The obvious answer is that they shouldn't. After all, every penny of a government worker's paycheck comes from those of us who work in the private sector - it only makes sense that during a downturn the burden be shared equally. But it's not.

The problem is rooted in two areas. First, the bureaucratic mindset that permeates the halls of government - NOTHING must interfere with MAINTAINING and GROWING the bureaucracy. They put on elaborate charades that make it APPEAR they are "cutting back" - but it's usually little more than that.

Bureaucratic chicanery works like this - suppose you are a high-level manager at a Government agency here in Minnesota. Faced with demands to reduce "headcount" you lay off a small number of people...only to immediately rehire them as "temporary" workers the very next day!

You get away with it because, thanks to the rather weird rules and regulations common to most governmental bodies, such workers are not included in the "permanent" head count, and voila! - a "staff reduction" is magically achieved - with no real reduction in staff! They never even have to clean out their desks! Worse - a year later these "temporary" workers' contracts get renewed - with a raise!

The second problem is simply this: every government program has a whole army of workers administering it. And the vast majority of government workers are union members who vote for Democrats, and whose union contracts are negotiated by union officials who donate heavily to Democrats.  Note that the heavily Democratic metropolitan areas around the country also have the highest concentrations of social welfare programs - and the government workers who run them. Thus no elected Democrat wants to anger a built-in voting bloc by voting to eliminate their jobs.

Sad to say, especially in the past 10 years, Republicans have become nearly as bad - attempting to buy votes from the public sector union members by throwing as much money at them as Democrats do, sometimes even more. Not surprisingly, all they succeeded in doing was to increase the number of government workers - who promptly turned around and voted Democrat.

This is why, whenever government tax revenues fall (as they inevitably do in an economic downturn), their solution is NEVER to do as the rest of us do: reduce expenditures. Oh, no. Almost invariably, some official will imperiously announce that they will be "forced" to - you guessed it - raise taxes.

And when they DO actually talk about "cutting back" have you noticed the reductions NEVER target the enormous "entitlement" programs that make up the biggest portion of both State and Federal budgets? Ditto the countless (and generally useless) social programs, and numerous public services and projects that no one really NEEDS (i.e. that new "community center" that will be used to show "global warming" movies to your kids).

No, whenever actual cuts are announced, you can be sure they will start with:

Police. Firefighters. Emergency Responders. Well, you get the picture.

So, you feel guilty, you suck it up, roll over, and agree to...yet another tax increase. And the cycle begins all over again.

And it will continue until those of us who are paying all of the bills DEMAND that government do what every one of US has to do: make the hard choices and CUT spending. And by that I do not mean a "reduction in the rate of growth" - I mean genuine CUTS.

Because there is simply no reason to continue giving government workers a free pass during tough economic times.

OK, all you naive "sportsmen" who voted for Obama (along with a whole flock of anti-gun Democrats), get ready. Because you're about to get just what you deserve. Trouble is, the rest of us who own guns are going to become your "collateral damage."

Now, this goes beyond Democrats and Republicans - a heck of a lot of my gun owning friends are Democrats. It just so happens that at this point in history, the once gun-friendly Democratic Party of my youth is now controlled by the anti-gun, anti-self-defense types like Nancy Pelosi and Charles Schumer. That's just the reality.

And YOU made it possible.

Yes, you, the "I'm just a hunter - I don't have to worry about them taking MY guns" types who vote for candidates who pass "assault weapons" bans. Oh, I forgot, YOU don't own an AR-15 or an FN-FAL, so you're willing to throw your fellow gun owners overboard for...what? False promises of "free" health care? A "stimulus" check? Or (my personal favorite) "I'm a union member, so I have to vote Democrat - the union says so."

And you, the "country club" gun owners, who proudly announce to your liberal cocktail party friends that you "don't belong to the NRA or anything" and that oh heavens, no, you don't hunt - you just shoot for "sport."

But perhaps the worst of all are the rest of you apathetic gun owners who never join a gun rights group, never call, never write, never even e-mail your representatives or senators to protect your gun rights. Because YOU are the reason we will now have an overwhelmingly anti-gun Senate and Congress, along with by far the most anti-gun President in U.S. history.

And the attacks have already begun. In 17 states so far, Democrat-led legislatures are proposing the, ahem, "Ammunition Accountability Act" - nothing short of an outrageous demand that ammunition manufacturers engrave a SERIAL NUMBER on EVERY SINGLE bullet they sell!

Such a measure will obviously do NOTHING to prevent crime or save a single life. But from a purely practical perspective, do you people have any idea what such a mandate will do to ammo prices? They will skyrocket. Ammunition prices have already gone up 70% in the past 5 years (due to the increased demand for copper and lead by China and India). Oh, sure, they've tried to say that it will cost "only" $2.50 extra per box - but the reality will surely be far worse.

Oh, and you reloaders? Well, since you will have no economical way to inscribe a unique serial number on each and every round you load, YOU will become a criminal. Yeah, yeah, I know "they'll never come after me..." Tell that to Randy Weaver...

Ah, I know what some of you hunter types are thinking - "Oh, well, I only fire a couple rounds to sight in my gun and then a few more during deer season, so I guess that isn't so bad."

Think again. Because that's only the beginning.

For example, another tactic that is gaining momentum is the banning of ALL lead bullets for hunting - just such a measure has already been proposed for deer hunting in Minnesota by (you guessed it) a suburban, female, Democrat legislator. And why? Well, it seems that after almost a century of Minnesota hunters eating deer meat (without a single case of "lead poisining" ever recorded), suddenly a few tiny grains of lead that MAY have fragmented from the bullet are a "serious threat" to public health.

The "lead phobia" is so out of control that community "food shelf" groups are turning down perfectly good deer meat! Apparently it is better to let the homeless starve than risk their ingesting a few grains of lead (which is almost always removed during processing anyway).

Oh, one other reason for banning lead - apparently someone, somewhere found a sick eagle and was oh-so-certain that it became ill by feasting on...deer guts. Ipso facto, it MUST have been due to...lead fragments!

Now, those of you who have priced solid copper bullets lately will understand what passage of such mandates will mean. If solid copper ammunition costs around $50 a box now, imagine what it will cost when they are MANDATED. But if Minnesota's 500,000 deer hunters sit silently on their lazy apathetic butts, it WILL happen.

But there's more. Taxes. In an economic downturn, state governments are looking for every opportunity to expand their tax base - and gun owners are right in their cross-hairs. Even as I write this, proposals are already being floated to:

* Add a huge tax on each new firearm purchased - some states even want to apply a tax to private sales of USED guns.

* Require registration of all existing firearms - with a big fee attached of course.

* Additional taxes on ammunition (on top of all the other mandates mentioned).

* Raising "concealed carry" permit fees to $500 or more - Obama himself has stated he would like to see ALL carry laws repealed (heavily armed personal bodyguards are OK for him and his fellow legislators, but allowing YOU to carry a handgun....oh no...too risky). Some savvy Democrats realize such a drastic measure would cost them in the mid-term elections, but, hey, if they can't repeal them, no problem - just make permits so expensive that most folks won't be able to afford them.

* Raising hunting license fees dramatically - remember that the anti-gun types hate ALL hunting, so anything that discourages it is fine with them.

* Creating outrageous "special fees" for "military style" firearms (AKA "assault weapons") - Oh, and the definition of "assault weapon" will be expanded to include just about every auto-loading firearm in the nation (another Obama proposal).

* Require "state approved" training for all gun owners - at YOUR expense, of course.

* Continued attacks on Gun Shows - either outlawing them completely, or slapping huge taxes on both exhibitors and patrons. This obsession with gun shows continues, despite years of studies, by the FBI and others, that prove what gun owners knew all along: thugs, drug dealers, and gangbangers do NOT get their guns from gun shows (or any other legal source, for that matter) - they steal them or buy them from the black market.

* Expanding the definition of "unlicensed dealer" to mean ANYONE who transfers a gun, thus requiring a background check and a "transfer tax" - even from a father who gives his own son a gun for Christmas! (We're not making this up).

And I haven't even touched on the "Star Trek" proposals that seek to require some sort of magic fingerprint recognition before the gun can be fired. The "thinking" that goes into these proposals goes beyond a lack of engineering realities - it is downright insane.

Note that the anti-gun contingent will have all sorts of "nice" sounding language ("keeping guns out of the wrong hands...protecting the children...'common sense regulation'...blah, blah, blah.") to describe these covert assaults on your privacy and your rights, but their real goal has never changed - slowly but surely eliminating the private ownership of firearms, by gradually making it ever more expensive, more complicated, and more time consuming, so that eventually, you just throw in the towel. Don't believe it? Ask yourself this: If Feinstein, Schumer, Pelosi and friends could get away with it, would they ban virtually every gun you own?

Unless you're in total psychological denial, you know the answer.

Ironically, the same people who wail and wring their hands over the "intrusiveness" of anti-terrorism measures such as the Patriot Act have no problem using the power of government to target innocent gun owners. But then, to these people, an American gun owner is a far greater threat than an Al Qaida terrorist.

So, thank you, all you guys (and girls) who made this possible. And when you wake up a year or two from now, and wonder where your rights went, just don't say we didn't warn you.

Or...you can join the fight now - better late than never. And your fellow gun owners will welcome you back with open (albeit locked and loaded) arms.

Every winter it happens - SUV drivers careening across medians, sliding into ditches, slamming into stopped cars, you name it. And why? After endless commercials showing SUV's blasting down snow covered mountain roads, these poor souls actually believe their SUV's have "more traction" than other vehicles.

Even here in Minnesota, where you'd think people would have figured it out by now, my cop friends marvel at the number of reckless SUV drivers they encounter in their winter patrols - as one of them recently quipped, "Geez, how many stupid people ARE there, anyway?"

But don't SUV's and other "all-wheel drive" vehicles have more traction? The short answer is NO. The problem comes from a lack of understanding about what "traction" actually is. Traction is simply the TOTAL coefficient of friction between the tire and the road, and is the result of two major factors.

The first is pressure - the amount of WEIGHT each tire supports. This is the reason front drive vehicles can "get going" on a slippery road - there is nothing magical about front wheel drive, it just puts a bigger percentage of the car's total weight (primarily the engine) over the drive wheels, thus exerting more pressure on those tires. This is the same reason that a rear drive car like a Porsche 911, which has a REAR mounted engine, has a remarkable ability to accelerate on a slippery road surface.

Second, the friction between tires and the road. Friction is affected by the size, tread pattern, and tread compound of the tire itself, AND of course, the CONDITION of the ROAD SURFACE.

Now, you shouldn't have to be a rocket scientist to understand that a wet road will be more "slippery" than a dry road, and that a snowy, slushy, or worse, icy road, will be even worse. At least one would think so. So, why then, do these folks continue to barrel along at 50 or 60 miles per hour on roads that are the equivalent of skating rinks?

Because owners of front wheel drive and 4 wheel drive vehicles (incorrectly) attribute their ability to ACCELERATE more quickly on a slippery surface with having more "traction." But as stated, ANY vehicle with a certain set of tires and a certain weight will have the same actual TRACTION per tire, REGARDLESS of whether it is front drive, rear drive or all wheel drive.

What gives these vehicles the ability to "get going" is that they have the ability to distribute POWER more effectively, and thus USE the available traction of more tires more effectively. In the case of front drive, power is going to the tires with more traction (the fronts) and in an all-wheel drive vehicle, power can be distributed to all four tires.

This gets more complicated when you start introducing things like limited-slip differentials, which allows even a rear drive vehicle to double the number of tires available to accelerate - instead of having one wheel spinning, power can be divided between the two drive wheels. Drag racers learned this a long time ago.

But here's the problem: No matter what kind of drive-train your vehicle has, ONCE YOU ARE MOVING, ALL BETS ARE OFF. Because, as pointed out, the only thing keeping your car on the road is the friction between your TIRES and the road.

Car and Driver magazine did a wonderfully informative demonstration of this years ago - they compared 2 pairs of identical vehicles, an Audi (one with front wheel drive and one with 4-wheel drive) and a Mercedes (one with REAR drive and one with all wheel drive). They compared acceleration, cornering and braking on a snow and ice covered test track. Oh, and they compared the vehicles first with standard, all-season radial tires, and then they they ran the same tests with winter-only snow and ice tires.

Not surprisingly, the front drive and 4-wheel drive cars out-accelerated the rear drive car, but when it came to CORNERING or STOPPING, the front drive and the 4-wheel drive cars had NO advantage at all. As a matter of fact, the REAR DRIVE car with snow and ice tires out-cornered and out-stopped BOTH 4-wheel drive vehicles when they were running on the all-season radials.

So, at the end of the day, the only real way to increase your car's TRACTION, is to install the best snow and ice tires available for your vehicle. However, while I recommend winter tires for anyone who lives in a place like Minnesota (even on your SUV) they will only give you a slight increase in traction, and even that improvement can be wiped out (pun intended) if you simply use them as an excuse to drive faster than you should.

The bottom line? Once your vehicle is moving, your front drive or 4-wheel drive BUYS YOU NOTHING.  So, if you let the improved ability of your SUV to pull away from a stoplight deceive you into thinking you can blast along without a care in the world, be forewarned - you may very well find yourself in that snowy ditch, dazed and confused (if you're lucky, that is).

In an age when life expectancy has soared to levels undreamed of just a century ago, it is rather amazing how many people find an endless stream of things to fear.

I suppose it shouldn't be surprising - almost daily, we hear about some automotive recall, invariably described as a "potentially dangerous" condition (even if not a single person has yet been harmed, nor is likely to be).

Every Christmas season, we are guaranteed to be treated to some news talking head, ominously going over the list of "most dangerous" toys. We have "Warning" labels on virtually every product sold in America. And a staple on morning TV talks shows is the oh-so-concerned member of this or that "consumer advocacy" group, wringing their hands over the latest threat to life and limb.

This phenomenon is not new - when microwave ovens first came out, we heard all sorts of dire warnings about how children in the womb would be genetically damaged, and men who stood too close could become sterile. And we are still being warned of "brain cancer" from cell phones, even though decades of science has shown little correlation with cancer, let alone any causal relationship.

Such groundless fear is the very reason that we still do not have widely available the most effective means of keeping meat and other foods bacteria-free: Irradiation. Never mind that irradiation has been used safely for more than 50 years (the waves pass harmlessly through the food, affecting only the bacteria, and leaving no residual radiation - zero, zip, nada). Ignoring science is bad enough, but what makes this situation so laughably ironic is that while the populace today is terrified of "food-borne illness" they are even more afraid of the most effective preventive measure to fight it!

Of course, there certainly are real threats in the world, but the most interesting aspect of our cultural paranoia is how many of the things people fear today are NOT real, or at least not to the extent they seem to believe. And even more disturbingly, the very people who refuse to recognize threats that actually do exist (international Islamic terrorism), are the same folks who will accept without question a "threat" that is either exaggerated to outlandish proportions (second-hand smoke) or virtually created out of whole cloth (global warming).

As a matter of fact, the entire "Green" movement is predicated on acceptance of a whole series of groundless fears. One recent commercial referred to carbon dioxide as a "pollutant."  Apparently they were asleep in science class when carbon dioxide was discussed - CO2 is the substance plants use to turn sunlight into energy...and in the process producing oxygen, a gas that most humans find somewhat useful. Far from being a pollutant, CO2 is a vital component of all animal life on Earth.

But fear is the greatest weapon in establishing and expanding a ruling bureaucracy's control over your life - therefore, in the absence of a real threat, it is necessary to create one.

Thus evolved the "Dragon in the Woods" - give up some of your freedoms (and your money, in the form of taxes), and the King and his knights will protect you from the dragon.

Now, even genuine threats can be used to encroach on freedoms - for instance, care must be taken in fighting terrorism that innocent citizens are not subjected to unreasonable constraints and/or harassment.

But the sad reality is that most of the things that people fear today border on the comical, if not downright silly.

Yet the cumulative affect of piling little fear upon little fear is a populace willing to let "the Government" take more and more control over their lives.

But, hey, at least we'll be safe from the latest "Dragon in the Woods" won't we?

In Minnesota, Al Franken, an utterly obnoxious failed comedian-turned-Democrat-Senatorial-candidate, aided and abetted by George Soros backed state officials, is calmly stealing an election, vote by fraudulent vote.

In New York, Caroline Kennedy, little more than Paris Hilton with a better education, believes she should be a United States Senator because...well, apparently, because she's a Kennedy.

And in my former home state of Illinois, Democrat Governor Blogojevitch, acting like some sleazy Maxwell Street vendor, puts Barak Obama's former Senate seat up for bidding (with the ever-so-complicit media denying ANY involvement by the Obama team, of course.)

And the response from the average American to these outrages?

Silence.

In fact, if you ask them about it, few Americans can tell you any details about any of the above-mentioned scandals - most don't even know that Blogoyevitch is a Democrat, which is understandable, since it is virtually impossible to find the word "Democrat" preceding "Governor Blogoyevitch" in any of the countless news reports of his ongoing tribulations (now, had he been a Republican...).

This should come as no surprise. After all, an astonishing 40% of American voters still don't know that Democrats have been in the Congressional majority since 2006 (not surprisingly, over 60% of Obama voters still wrongly believe that Republicans are in charge).

If you ever wondered how we got to the point of Government mandated light bulbs, Ethanol subsidies, "global warming" schemes, and a Federal budget that cannot possibly be sustained, the answer is that most Americans are clueless about the workings of government.

They don't seem to understand how politics affects their own daily lives, directly and indirectly. Most do not even understand something as simple as how taxing "big business" merely ends up costing all of us - in increased prices and, in many cases, lost jobs.

When asked about "politics" in general, their response is often to roll their eyes and claim that "I'm not political" or that "I don't pay attention to that political stuff." 

But even worse than a lack of understanding is that many people simply don't seem to care. And this growing apathy is not a partisan issue - too many Democrats and Republicans alike are guilty of not knowing or caring about the actions of their own government.

And once apathy becomes the norm, the unavoidable result is the loss of the most precious commodity of all - Liberty.

...but they're not from Mars. During the flying saucer craze of the 1950's, those "little green men" became a staple of horror films, and the phrase itself was used by stand-up comics to denigrate those who believed that "UFO's" were piloted by beings from afar.

Today, we actually are being overrun by "little green men" - but they are not visitors from another galaxy. No, the "greenies" of today are the storm troopers of the "Green Movement." And they are every bit as bent on taking over your life as any horde of interstellar invaders.

Yes, they're everywhere. From mainstream news media hacks who dutifully parrot the (Green) party line, to left-leaning late night talk show hosts like David Letterman and John Stewart, the onslaught continues. Even entertainment shows seem to find a way to include some sort of comment about "global warming" or "saving the planet."

And I'm not just talking about "Boston Legal" (a show that has set the standard for "liberal-propaganda-masquerading-as-entertainment" run amok). No, it is hard to find ANY prime time show, from drama to comedy, that doesn't get in a few licks about "climate change" or "the environment."

Oh, and if you think that the commercials will give you a break from the eco-nonsense, forget it. In one add, a store proudly proclaims that they carry "all the eco-friendly, 'green' brands you want." A trash removal company, of all things, touts it's "contribution to 'saving' the planet."

Food stores now have whole sections for those who prefer "natural" or "organic" foodstuffs. What exactly this marketing slogan really means is open to debate, since research shows that "organically grown" vegetables are not one bit more nutritious (nor any "safer") than their "artificially" raised counterparts, and "free-range" chickens have exactly the same probability of E-coli as farm raised birds.

But as I sit here in Minnesota, on the eve of record cold temperatures, I am reminded that it is the "global warming" fanatics who represent the greatest long-term threat to the American way of life. And the "greenies" ARE fanatics - what else do you call people who persist in believing in something long after it has been shown to be a colossal fraud?

After all, it is the "global warming" mob that gave us the multi-billion dollar ethanol scam, which has done nothing but cause food prices to skyrocket (and make giant "factory farms" like Archer Daniels Midland rich beyond their wildest dreams). It is the climate change true believers who wish to hamstring the American economy at the very time when it needs to be unleashed. It is they who wish to change the very way you live your life - from mandating ridiculously expensive light bulbs to telling American car companies that they must produce "green" vehicles. (And presumably, forcing YOU to then purchase them).

And spare me all the talk of "science" - REAL scientists, many of whom, until recently, have been intimidated into silence, are now speaking up. And what they're saying is what many of us have sensed all along - that most of the so-called "climate science" is not science at all. It is at best pseudo-science, and the real agenda is not (and never has been) about "saving the planet" - it's about controlling your life.

Hey, if people want to buy "organic" food, God bless 'em. If they feel some sense of moral superiority driving a "Smart Car" then go for it. And all of us want clean water and air.  But when the eco-terrorists want to "cure" the planet of an imaginary disease by telling the rest of us how to live (by LAW, no less) well, then that's where I draw the line.

Yes, the "little green men" are here, but unlike the bug-eyed demons portrayed in "War of the Worlds," we can't just wait for them to catch a disease - they already have. It's called "bacillus environmentalis extremis" - and it's spreading.

And it will continue to spread until we inoculate the populace with a (very) heavy dose of reason and sanity.