It's the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us Freedom of the Press.   It's the soldier, not the poet, who has given us Freedom of Speech. It's the soldier, not the campus organizer, who has given us the Freedom to Demonstrate. It's the soldier, not the lawyer, who has given us the Right to a Fair Trial. It's the soldier who salutes the flag, serves under the flag and whose coffin is draped by the flag, Who gives the protester the right to burn the flag. ~Father Dennis Edward O'Brien, USMC

An oil company suffers a highly unusual event on one of their deep sea rigs, leading to serious environmental damage, and potentially causing a serious reduction in our oil supply, with a likely spike in prices at the gas pump when the affects are eventually felt at refineries around the country.

And President Obama's response? 

He makes the situation even worse by suspending exploration and blocking the drilling for oil in Alaska, offshore, and darn near everywhere - just as the summer driving season is about to begin.

Had Obama and today's Democrats been in power when the Titanic sank, they would have immediately called for a moratorium on all ship-building.

But we don't react to the crash of an airliner by grounding the entire fleet. We investigate the event to determine the cause, and, where appropriate, change designs, training, or procedures to make such an occurrence less likely in the future.

Obama's hysterical overreaction to the BP oil disaster is nothing new. It is the approach Democrats invariably take in responding to any occurrence, no matter how rare or unusual. Something horrible happens, and rather than deal with causes of the event itself, Democrats use the anomaly to justify a wholesale attack on an entire industry or group of people.

Especially if it's a group they already dislike.

Look at Democrats' relentless attacks on American gun owners. They do nothing to go after the gang-bangers and drug dealers who are responsible for the overwhelming majority of violent crime in America. But when some mentally disturbed individual goes berserk, such as the young man who went on a shooting rampage at Virginia Tech, Democrats immediately demand more and more regulations on the 99.6% of gun owners who never bother anyone.

Democrats also use tragedies to advance their political agenda. When the I-35 bridge in Minneapolis collapsed, we heard all sorts of scapegoating and outrage -  one Democrat made the rather ludicrous statement that "bridges shouldn't fall down." Gosh, really? But perhaps the most idiotic (and self-serving) remark came from a Democrat legislator who said the bridge collapse was proof that we "need higher taxes."

Then there is Democrats' frequent use of "pity politics" to gain more governmental power. In Chicago many years ago, on one of the city's elevated trains, a teenage music student who realized she was about to miss her stop, forced the door open as the train was leaving the station. As she squeezed through the door, her cello became pinched in the door. She was dragged off the platform, fell under the train, and lost her leg.

A terrible tragedy? Of course. But, beside the fact that she herself was to blame for her own injuries, it was (literally) a one-in-a-million occurrence. Yet not only did she get almost $9 million in a lawsuit against the city, the Democrat controlled Illinois legislature set about demanding all sorts of ridiculous new regulations and expensive equipment to "make sure this never happens again."

Some may remember the heartbreaking story of a young Minnesota girl who sat on a drain at the bottom of a swimming pool. She had most of her insides sucked out, and later died from the massive injuries. A horrible story to be sure. But, once again, this was a one-in-a-million freak event - one that is unlikely to be repeated in most of our lifetimes.

Yet Minnesota Democrat Senator Amy Klobuchar demanded new FEDERAL regulations on ALL swimming pools across the nation, once again, to "make sure that such a tragedy can never happen again."

But  NOTHING can guarantee that any particular tragedy "will never happen again." Planes crash. Bridges collapse. Power plants catch fire. Phone systems go down. Cars crash. Children, especially teenagers, do stupid things.

And guess what? Sometimes we find that there wasn't any technical malfunction or defect, or any malfeasance by any particular individual or organization - it was merely a freak occurrence, a confluence of factors unlikely to ever happen again. Or, as in the case of the girl with the cello, it was the fault of the "victim" themselves - "operator error" engineers correctly call it.

There is likely much more behind Obama's attack on our oil supply than his stupendous ignorance of economic realities.  Democrats have long made it clear that they would actually love to see skyrocketing energy prices - some have publicly proclaimed that $7 a gallon gasoline would be "a good thing."

But a good thing for whom?

Good for the power hungry socialists currently at the helm of the Democratic Party, that's for sure. Because it would then justify their economically unsustainable "green" initiatives, by forcing Americans to move to "renewable energy" sources, which have no chance of competing with coal, oil, and natural gas in a truly free market.

There are only two approaches to America's energy needs: Production or Rationing.

Production advocates simply support using the most efficient, least costly alternatives to provide as much energy as possible to American individuals and businesses.

Rationing, which is favored by Democrats, requires using the power of government to limit your access to efficient, affordable energy, and by doing so, force you into the myriad "alternative energy" schemes. That's the strategy behind taxpayer funded subsidies for ethanol, windmills, and solar power.

So when, sometime soon, you are paying through the nose to heat your home, light your office, or fill up your car, remember who was responsible...

It was a typical Summer Sunday at the park on Lake Harriet in South Minneapolis. Families with picnic baskets on the grass, strolling around the lake, fishing, drinking sodas and eating cream cones. In the gazebo just next to the concession stand, a number of folks, myself included, had barbecue grills, cooking brats, burgers, and even steaks.

A downright serene afternoon.

Then, sometime just after lunch, a Minneapolis Police cruiser stopped in the parking lot next to the gazebo. A young officer, a Sergeant, approached the group that was grilling the food and, in a rather more stern approach than was necessary under the circumstances, asked to see their permits to carry a handgun.

The reason that he asked was that many of the group, (again, including me) were carrying handguns openly, most in holsters on their hips or in the small of the back. But why was the officer there in the first place?

Well, while hundreds of park visitors passed by the group of obviously armed men and women with barely a raised eyebrow, it seems that at least one patron was "alarmed" by the sight of otherwise everyday Minnesota citizens openly carrying (horrors!) guns, even though a number of us were wearing t-shirts that clearly said "FIREARM INSTRUCTOR" on the back. So naturally, they called the cops.

Nothing untoward happened. After checking everyone's permits, the Officer agreed that they most certainly had every right to carry openly - contrary to a common mistaken belief, Minnesota's carry permit law does not require that firearms be "concealed." The Officer did, however, opine that open carry had some downside to it, including causing some consternation on the part of those who had a fear of guns.

While I personally took no offense at the Officer's comments, a couple of those in our group considered his remarks unnecessary - one instructor even told him that "we don't need a lecture." I admit that while my approach with Police has always been to be as non-confrontational as possible, I do understand the instructor's annoyance.

For too long, those of us who own firearms for self-defense have been treated as though somehow we should have to "justify" our being armed. Even worse, we are expected to be "sensitive" to the "feelings" of those who choose not to protect themselves.

More than a few times I have heard the comment, often from genuinely "nice" people, that no one should be allowed to carry guns in this or that specific place, because they "have a right to feel safe" when they go to the park (or the mall, or church, etc.). Now, while we agree that everyone does indeed have a fundamental right to be safe from harm (why do they think we carry guns in the first place), absolutely NO ONE has a right to "feel" safe.

And in any event, it is most certainly not our responsibility to worry about someone being frightened or "offended" by the mere sight of a firearm. After all, it wasn't all that long ago in America that it was unusual to see a man without a gun on his hip. Now, had any member of our group been exhibiting threatening or reckless behavior - waving guns around, for example - that would be another matter. But that was not the case - if anything, our group was quieter and more sedate than most.

Thankfully, now that the carry permit law has been in effect for more than 7 years, and there are now 75,000 lawful permit holders, most Minnesotans have come to learn that we are, with few exceptions, simply "regular folks" who just happen to carry guns to protect ourselves - they no longer panic simply because they see someone with a gun.

And as more and more Minnesotans obtain permits to carry a firearm (about a 1000 new applicants a month) we can only hope that this trend continues...

When Mexican President Felipe Calderon had the audacity to criticize Arizona's anti-illegal alien law, most reasonable Americans were rightly incensed. Filled with left-wing references to "racial profiling" and other language right out of the "progressive" playbook, Calderon's speech sounded as though it had been written by one of Obama's staffers.

So when the entire Democrat caucus came to their feet to applaud Calderon's insulting remarks, I wasn't surprised, but I was most certainly angry. It was bad enough having to listen to this snotty little man from a Third World hell hole bash the one country that has done more for human freedom than any other nation on earth. But how dare elected representatives of the American people cheer him on.

Laughably, Calderon then went on CNN and proceeded to admit to Wolf Blitzer that, in Mexico, they in fact do every one of the things (and more) that he had falsely criticized the United States for doing - when Mexico finds people in their country illegally, for example, they don't give them welfare, they actually deport them!

With the way the Democrat controlled media has been spinning the immigration debate, one would think that the illegal alien "issue" is entirely the fault of the United States. But Mexico's problems are far deeper than a few "undocumented workers" looking to clean tables for minimum wage.

Mexico is in shambles. With a corrupt government controlling huge sectors of the economy (their state-owned oil industry being the largest) Mexico embodies all of the worst aspects of a modern socialist state. As a result, the Mexican unemployed are forced to look for employment elsewhere. Many Mexican families will even have a formal sit-down meeting to decide which of them will make the journey to "El Norte" to become the primary provider (much of what Mexican illegals earn goes to their families back home).

Few Americans realize the scope of this income transfer - the billions of dollars that illegals working in the U.S. send back to Mexico makes up a significant portion of Mexico's gross domestic product. So crossing the boarder is seen by many as the solution to their troubles. But it can also bring them into contact with the vicious and sadistic "coyotes" - the thugs who, for a fee, will offer to bring them across the border, often packed inside of steaming hot windowless steel trucks.

Once inside the U.S. their troubles are far from over. Some will be held hostage, with the coyotes demanding yet further payment from the "customer's" friends and family before finally releasing them. Others, including women and children, have been left locked inside trucks abandoned in the desert, to die horrible deaths from heat and dehydration.

Then there are the violent drug cartels who rule over vast areas of the Mexican countryside. The brutal killings along the Mexican/American border have reached epidemic proportions. Kidnappings of officials are almost routine. And much of the violence has spilled over into towns on the American side of the boarder. And with so many Mexican law enforcement officials on the payroll of the drug lords, the chances for any serious change in that situation are slim.

American policies on immigration are deeply flawed. We never should have misinterpreted the 14th Amendment to mean that any child who simply happened to have been born on American soil is automatically a citizen.

We should never have allowed any non-citizen access to the cornucopia of welfare and other social services meant for legitimate Americans. The drain on our resources has been staggering.

Both our Northern and our Southern boarder should have long ago been fortified, not just to stem the tide of illegals from Mexico and other South American countries, but to prevent terrorists from entering the country disguised as "undocumented workers."

But the real responsibility for the immigration problem rests with Mexico itself. Until the Mexican government gets control of their economy, their drug problem, and their corruption, the "boarder war" will continue.

First there was the unutterably idiotic head of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, who commented on the (thankfully) failed attack on Flight 253, saying with a straight face that "the system worked" - she even said that the "Underwear Bomber" was "properly screened" in spite of the fact that he was able to get on an airplane with his explosive device:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6V_Godcyq-s

Recall that Ms. Napolitano was also the one who made waves by refusing to call terrorist attacks, well, terrorist attacks - she suggested that the ludicrous expression "man-caused disasters" be used instead.

But is was Napolitano's slander of Veterans, Tea Party members, and others who simply disagree with the Administration as a "serious threat" that really showed what a clueless nitwit she really is.

Then there was Eric Holder, perhaps the most intellectually lightweight Attorney General in U.S. History - embarrassing himself by criticizing the Arizona illegal immigrant law, then admitting that he hadn't even read it. He had based his reaction on what other people told him about the law, and "from news reports" - incredible. But not surprising.

Mr. Holder further added to his lack of credibility when, in testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, he couldn't bring himself to use the phrase "radical Islam" in connection with several of the more recent attacks in the USA by men who were clearly connected to...radical Islam:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOQt_mP6Pgg

And now we have Obama's Assistant Secretary of State, Michael Posner, unbelievably apologizing to, of all people, the Chinese, for America's "human rights violations"  (he was referring to the Arizona anti-illegal alien law).

Is he kidding? An American diplomat is apologizing to China, one of the most violent, repressive regimes in world history? Surely there must be some mistake. Surely Mr. Posner had merely "slipped up" in making such a comment, that he was just another inept boob in an administration filled with inept boobs.

But Posner himself clarified that his comment was not in response to an inquiry by the Chinese - it was he who volunteered the topic, and indeed, discussed it "early and often" during his meeting. Obviously, there is more to the story. And lo and behold, a quick check of Mr. Posner's background finds that he is yet one more ultra-left-wing radical recruited by the Obama Administration.

As conservative author and commentator Michelle Malkin reveals, Michael Posner was the executive director of Human Rights First since its founding in 1978. Like most leftist groups, its name sounds "nice" but in practice, HRF is a radical open borders group that opposes all government efforts to control illegal immigration and strengthen American national security.

Obama himself has made a habit of apologizing for America to every nation on the planet, so we shouldn't be all that surprised that his minions would follow suit. But Posner's comments are simply beyond the pale.

The more one looks closely at Obama and the people with whom he surrounds himself, the more it becomes clear that this is the most radical, Left-Wing, and yes, anti-American administration in our history.

The only question is how long the American people will continue to tolerate it.

As time passes, it is getting harder and harder for the Obama faithful to blame George Bush for the nation's economic woes. The polls clearly show that a majority of the moderates and independents who gave Obama the edge in the 2008 election would not even vote for him today.

But assigning blame (or credit) for the state of the nation's economy to any president misses a key point: it is Congress, not the President, who makes law. A president's only input into legislation is his veto. This misreading of the process is what causes people to incorrectly attribute the economic situation (good or bad) to whichever President happens to be in charge at the time.

Thus Liberals constantly refer to the "Clinton Economy" - they ignore the fact that just two years into his first term, Republicans took control of the House of Representatives for the first time in decades, and remained in the majority for the remainder of his Presidency. And it was the Republican Congress who instituted welfare reform and kept the liberal wing of the Democrat Party in check.

And today,  liberals seem to have forgotten that the current economic downturn did not exactly happen "under George Bush" - even after the horrendous impact to the economy due to the 9/11 attacks, by the middle of 2007 the Dow had soared to 14,000 (http://www.google.com/finance?q=INDEXDJX:.DJI) and unemployment was a mere 5%. Today it is hovering around 10%.

The real slide began immediately after Democrats took control of the Congress in 2007, when the first of many profligate spending programs began. Now, to be fair, more than a few Republicans were only too willing to go along with the Democrats, especially when the pork would end up in their own districts.

But Obama and the Democrats' quadrupling of the deficit in just one year, and the concurrent increase in the national debt to an unconscionable $14 TRILLION, make Republicans seem like fiscal tightwads by comparison.  And Republicans have at least shown that they are getting the message from their constituents - not one Republican voted for the budget-busting "healthcare reform" bill.

Meanwhile, the Democrats continue to ignore the will of the people, and seek out every possible way to spend yet more money that the nation doesn't have. Just this week, Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced that musicians and other "artistic" people should not have to work for a living - "job locked" she called it - for fear of losing their health care. According to Ms. Pelosi, such people should be free to pursue their art without having to worry about such mundane things as paying their bills. After all, they contribute so much more to society than normal, hard working people like you.

One can only shudder at what their next neo-Marxist scheme will entail.

It's time to recognize that the only hope America has is to do everything possible to ensure that Democrats are returned to permanent minority status in the Congress. The alternative is to doom America to the same disastrous fate that has befallen Greece and the rest of the socialist gulags otherwise known as Europe.

By now you've likely seen the videos of Attorney General Eric Holder making an utter fool of himself, admitting that after demonizing Arizona's tough new law on investigating possible illegal aliens, he hadn't even read the bill!

Then, in what was a disturbing display of Political Correctness run amok, in testimony at the House Judiciary Committee, Holder not only refused to admit any connection between the three most recent terrorist attacks, he could not even bring himself to utter the phrase "radical Islam" - despite repeated requests:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOQt_mP6Pgg

Moreover, in the same exchange, the Attorney General blurted out something that is perhaps even more disturbing - commenting on the New York car bomber, Holder stated that he wasn't sure "what it is that drove him to take the actions he took."

What "drove" him to it? Interesting choice of words. But you see, like most liberals, Holder sees terrorists in the same light as he views common criminals - as "victims" who were "driven" to commit their heinous acts. It is no coincidence that his Department of Justice staff includes a number of attorneys who have defended terrorists held at Gitmo:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jzoq4UWNaBY&feature=related

It has become painfully clear that, just like Obama's embarrassingly inept Homeland Security head Janet Napolitano, Eric Holder has neither the intelligence nor the character to be a school crossing guard, let alone the chief Law Enforcement officer of the entire nation.

Civil rights and double standards: Gun owners are forced to "show papers," but media say illegal aliens shouldn't have to

By Tim Inwood

I've been watching with some interest the fallout over the new Arizona law dealing with illegal aliens. I hear the news media moaning that the new law "makes it a crime to be an illegal alien." I'm not joking, that is exactly how they phrased it on several networks and cable news shows. Wow, that is what I always thought illegal meant. I really wish the media would think about what they utter.

I hear President Obama, the ACLU and liberals in general say that to ask someone to show identification to prove they are an American citizen is a violation of their civil rights. These same folks, as I recall, told us that asking someone to show ID when voting is a violation of their civil rights as well.

So now I am a bit confused. With such a broad definition of what a civil right is, and the slightest inconvenience in enforcing the law an outrage, will someone please explain something to me? Why, when using the above logic, that when exercising your civil right to buy and own a gun you have to show identification and undergo a background check to purchase that gun? After all, the U.S. Supreme Court told us in the 2008 Heller decision that gun ownership is a constitutionally protected civil right.

Also, tell me why when it comes to bearing those arms, a specifically enumerated constitutionally protected right, we must take concealed carry classes, pay high fees and again undergo additional background checks, fingerprinting and submit a specific size photograph to the state to do something specifically protected by the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article 1 section 4 of Ohio's Constitution. Was not turning a right into a state-issued privilege a violation of our rights?

As I am writing this I am watching politicians and media talking heads saying this new law in Arizona is pure fascism and Nazi-like demands to "show their papers." Oh really!

As a concealed handgun license-holder in Ohio, in any encounter with a police officer I am required under penalty of law to disclose I am a CHL-holder (if I am carrying), and then show identification. Funny how I don't see my fellow CHL holders protesting or rioting over that.

Prior to 1968 in the United States, citizens in most states could buy firearms via mail order with no identification. You just clipped out the ad, told the dealer what you wanted, sent in your check and your postal carrier delivered the gun to your door, with ammo if you ordered that too. I am old enough to remember those days. However, all that ended with the Gun Control Act of 1968, a law largely written by Democrat Senator Thomas Dodd, father of current Senator Chris Dodd.

The 1968 U.S. law was largely based on a gun control law written in 1938 that Dodd Sr. learned about while serving on the staff of those prosecuting war criminals in Nuremberg following World War II. That law forced firearm purchasers to show identification "papers" and registry of those arms. Who wrote this law? The National Socialist German government! That is where we got the U.S. 1968 Gun Control Act! That is inarguably a Nazi piece of legislation where you do have to show "papers." So I have to ask, where is the screaming and gnashing of teeth about that Nazi law?

Where is the media's and President Obama's outrage over this truly NAZI violation of civil rights? I'd love to hear the tortured logic. After all, the crime rate among American gun owners is far lower than that of illegal aliens.

Meanwhile, let's enforce the laws and protect our borders.

[Tim Inwood is the current Legislative Liaison and Past President of the Clinton County Farmers and Sportsmen Association, an Endowment Member of the NRA and Life Member of the OGCA, Republican Central Committeeman for Chester Township A, in Clinton County, Ohio, and a volunteer for Buckeye Firearms Association.]

You know who you are.

You "moderate" voters who fell for the Obama snake oil sales pitch - and are now desperately trying to convince yourselves that you weren't the fools the Democrats knew you to be.

You "independents" who sometimes vote for a Democrat just to convince yourselves that you are "not like the extremists on either side."

You oh-so-politically correct types who voted for Obama because you were afraid NOT to vote for a black (OK, half-black) candidate who "talked good" - worried more about what your liberal friends would say than what you might be doing to the country.

And most of all, you uninformed, uninvolved sheep who get their "news" exclusively from Democrat Party controlled media outlets like CNN and the Big Three networks (or even worse, from John Stewart) - and who are still unable to take responsibility for the fact that YOU helped put these Marxist thugs in office...and let them quietly insinuate themselves into every aspect of your (and OUR) lives.

Well, take heart, because you will soon get one last chance to make things right.

This coming November, you will have the opportunity to stop the insane group of goose-stepping liberal fascists who have saddled us with smoking bans, salt bans, trans-fat bans, leaf-burning bans, logging bans, coal mining bans, oil drilling bans, gasoline refinery bans, nuclear power bans, incandescent light bulb bans, and of course, gun bans.

You will be able to put an end to the out of control government spending on "green" nonsense like ethanol subsidies and "wind power" schemes, TRILLION dollar bailouts of companies that deserve to fail, and now, the job-killing "Cap and Trade" fraud that will destroy the economy while making Al Gore rich. 

Finally, you can halt the ever increasing government intrusion into Americans' private lives, which has gotten so pervasive that Democrats have not only proposed that the government should be able to regulate the thermostat in your own homes - they are now talking about controlling what kinds of food products that the government will "allow" to be advertised (it's "for the children" of course).

And all you have to do is to go to the polls in November...

...and vote for anyone, ANYONE, who is not a Democrat.

Because unless Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and the rest of Obama's "comrades" in the Congress are ignominiously thrown out, the cancer of socialism will spread.

So do it for your fellow Americans. You will earn their undying gratitude - and perhaps be able to look at yourself in the mirror once again without having to wince in shame.

Is the Kettle Black Enough?

By Ted Nugent

If ever there was a case of the proverbial pot calling the kettle black, it is the cluster of new financial "reform" regulations Washington politicians are trying to foist on the back of Wall Street.

In a typical political smoke-and-mirrors misdirection, President Obama wants us to believe greedy Wall Street bankers are to blame for our economy sinking in financial quicksand and that more government regulations and controls are the answer. Don't believe it.

The truth is that the federal government, as always, has overtly wasted, lost and blown far more of our hard-earned tax dollars than Wall Street crooks could have ripped off in their wildest Bernie Madoff imaginations. Our politicians are the real bandits and culprits of our economic calamity.

What our elected idiots willfully and with malicious forethought did not do - even when warned to do so by Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan in 2005 - was rein in the out-of-control, government-managed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Regarding Fannie and Freddie, Mr. Greenspan told Congress in 2005, "We are placing the total financial system of the future at substantial risk."

A significant Fannie and Freddie reform bill was passed by the Senate Banking Committee in 2005, but the Democrats prevented the bill from becoming law and thus set in motion the events that would steer our economy straight off the cliff. While this economic storm was brewing, then-Sen. Barack Obama collected more than $125,000 from Fannie and Freddie in political contributions.

The Democrats' pathetic, unethical and arguably criminal lack of control of Fannie and Freddie, coupled with their own pressure on banks to make high-risk home loans to people who couldn't afford them, is the reason for our economic meltdown. Believe it and blame the Democrats - and the Republicans who failed to do a thing.

Now those very same Democrats want to control Wall Street. Unbelievable. Welcome to the Planet of the Apes.

America is going bankrupt not because of crooked and unethical Wall Street investment bankers. We are in this financial morass because of a bloated, ineffective, unaccountable and wasteful Fedzilla.

Poll after poll finds Americans have little faith in our professional political windbags, who, in addition to causing our current economic meltdown, have robbed and plundered the Social Security Trust Fund and Medicare over the years to the point that both these entities are not only broke, but massively in debt. President Obama's solution: more government borrowing, taxing and spending. Anti-social insecurity anyone?

No one in Washington ever accepts any blame or fault. There is always someone or something else to blame. This time, it's Wall Street's fault, but anyone with an ounce of common sense and a modicum of desire to know the truth understands that the underlying fault for all - yes, all - of our economic, social and cultural problems is Fedzilla and the political punks who feed it for their own political profit. To hell with America; they need votes.

How dare these political frauds shake their own corrupt finger at Wall Street. Where are the journalists who should be shouting daily questions at these political frauds and pouring buckets of hot ink on the editorial pages of newspapers and blogs across the country, exposing these elected frauds who are financially raping and plundering America? Our forefathers would encourage us to get a bucket of hot tar and some feathers and run these crooks out of town.

If we continue down this economically suicidal, massive-deficit-spending and higher-tax path that President Obama is intent on, our economy will continue to grind to a halt, unemployment will remain high, investments will dry up, and entrepreneurs will fade away. I'm just a guitar player, and I figured that out decades ago.

The Tea Party gets it. Its members understand that out-of-control and unsustainable government spending has put America on the path to financial ruin. And what does our lapdog media do? Castigate the Tea Party as being a bunch of illiterate racists. What a joke. I heard the circus is looking for some new clowns.

I'll bet the president a backyard beer at the White House that many more Americans would entrust their future to Wall Street bankers than to the elected frauds and idiots who have plundered the national treasury and put America's future on thin ice.

November is hunting season. No bag limit.

No sooner had New York City's car bomber been apprehended than Mayor Michael Bloomberg absurdly attempted to use the incident to justify his ongoing jihad against America's gun owners:

http://www.securitymanagement.com/news/close-terror-gun-gap-says-nyc-mayor-bloomberg-and-police-chief-kelly-007120#stop

Let's see if we can follow his convoluted logic -  a guy shows up with a car loaded with a fertilizer and petroleum explosive device, and the good mayor sees it as "proof" that we need more gun control. Oh, yeah - that makes perfect sense.

Now don't get me wrong - I have long warned that terrorists are likely at some point to stage multiple attacks on "soft" targets like shopping centers, using nothing more complicated than rifles, shotguns and handguns. Because even if the human casualties are modest - compared to something like 9/11 - the damage to the nations economy would be catastrophic.

But to actually believe that yet one more piece of legislative nonsense regulating the legal purchase of firearms will somehow prevent suicidal Islamic jihadists from obtaining guns is about as ludicrous as it gets.

No Federal, State, or City ordinance in America has been able to keep our own "home-grown" violent gang members from obtaining as many weapons as they want. For one simple reason - they almost never buy them legally - they steal them or buy them off the street (contrary to media myth, they do not get them from gun shows). Which is why cities like Chicago and Washington D.C. - that have the most stringent gun control laws in the nation - also have the highest levels of violence.

So while it may make for good politics to talk about "keeping guns out of the hands of terrorists" it would be utterly naive to believe that the kinds of measures proposed by Mayor Bloomberg will have any chance of stopping a group of committed jihadists from getting guns.

But, alas, anti-gun zealots like Mr. Bloomberg will never allow facts or reality to intrude on their Quixotic crusade.

It's been a bad week for the Left. First, bombastic New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg put his foot in his (increasingly large) mouth once again, being a bit too quick to pronounce that the attempted car bombing in New York was likely the work of someone "homegrown, maybe a mentally deranged person or someone with a political agenda that doesn’t like the health care bill or something."

But then the real suspected culprit, Faisal Shahzad, got apprehended at JFK airport, trying to flee the country. And surprise, surprise, he turns out to be (drum roll, please)...a Pakistani-born MUSLIM. Who'da thought?

You could almost hear the Lame-Stream media mouthing Jack Bauer's signature tag line: "Damn it!" They were oh-so-hoping to find that the perpetrator would be the next Timothy McVeigh, and when the bomber turned out to be yet another militant Muslim jihadist, they were visibly upset. Meanwhile, most normal, sane Americans probably greeted the revelation with a nod and a shrug - they weren't surprised at all.

Then there were the rallies against Arizona's latest attempt to deal with their illegal alien invasion. Thousands of protesters, apparently upset that they would have to produce some form of identification (like you  and I have to do every day) chanted (mostly in Spanish, of course) that the Arizona law was "unfair" and, of course, "racist."

One clueless Democrat legislator even lamented that the law turns "undocumented workers" into "second class citizens."  Yes, she actually said that. News flash - these people aren't CITIZENS at all - that's what this is all about!

Oh, the "gimme-grants" also attacked stores, breaking windows, damaging and defacing property - in other words, all the things that we are used to seeing from Left-wing groups, whenever they don't get their way.

But the history of violence by those on the Left sits in sharp contrast with the amazingly civil behavior exhibited by the millions of Tea Party participants. Yet the mainstream media, and just about everyone on the Left, continue to ominously warn us of the "potential" for violence by anyone who dares to disagree with Barak Obama and the Democrats.

The oft-repeated canard that "both sides do it" is beginning to grow tedious - especially when time and again the facts prove otherwise. Violence may not come exclusively from those with a certain political view, but with monotonous regularity it is far more the hallmark of those on the Left than those on the Right.

If you are one of the last people in America still denying that Obama is an outright Marxist, take note of his latest off-the-teleprompter comment, in which he declared to a Quincy, Illinois audience that "I do think that at a certain point, you've made enough money."

Let me get this straight, Barak Obama is going to be the one to tell an American when he (or she) has made "enough" money? If this inadvertent glimpse into the very heart of his socialist mindset doesn't send a chill down your spine, nothing will. That such a statement would come out of the mouth of an American President would have seemed incomprehensible just a few short years ago.

But we should be thankful every time that Obama attempts to ad lib in any speech, for in doing so he has unintentionally given us insights into his true self. Like his "Joe the Plumber" moment, when he blurted out that he thought that "spreading the wealth" was a great idea. The fact that it was other people's wealth that he would be spreading seemed not to matter to him at all.

But why should we be surprised? On a panel discussion just the other day, a leftist "financial analyst" actually referred to tax cuts as a "tax expenditure" - and one that had to be "paid for." Now, you're probably wondering how it could be that taking less of someone's money could be viewed as an "expense" - but that is because you think like a normal human being.

You understand that all wealth is created, and earned, in the private sector, and that the only money that government has is the result of taxes that are collected from working individuals. Taking less of your money is not an "expense" - it is simply, well, taking less of your money.

But to a socialist, if the government used to collect 40% of your income, and now only collect 30% then you should be grateful for having been "given" an extra 10% - as if every dime they decide NOT collect from you is somehow a gift from the government!

Obama sees the world in the same way - he looks at a wealthy, successful entrepreneur and sees a "lucky" individual who "receives" a "disproportionate" share of the pie, rather than someone who earned their wealth by their own drive, ambition, intelligence, and hard work.

So pay particular attention to Obama's unintentionally candid remarks - they illuminate his artfully hidden socialist agenda better than any of his contrived, teleprompter-driven speeches ever could. And have no doubt that Barak Obama really believes that he can, and should, be the one who decides when "you've made enough money."

Is there no aspect of your private life that the Liberal Fascists won't try to control? The short answer, of course, is no - the do-gooders who represent today's "progressive" Democrats see it as their responsibility to force you to make the "proper" choices, not just for yourselves, but for your children.

It should come as no surprise that the latest example of the insidious growth of the Nanny State comes from California, ground zero for insane governmental policy. This time, Santa Clara County officials have decided to ban..."Happy Meals" - and any other fast-food promotion that uses toy giveaways to promote their products. Story below:

http://cbs5.com/local/toy.giveaway.ban.2.1659853.html

Naturally, the activists who are pushing this nonsense are quick to use concern for "the children" to justify governmental intrusion into what should be a matter between parents and food outlets. They express anxiety over "childhood obesity" or the "lack of nutritional choice" at fast food restaurants.

As County Supervisor Ken Yeager, who pushed for the ban, puts it,  "Obviously, toys, in and of themselves, do not make children obese. But it is unfair to parents and children to use toys to capture the tastes of children when they are young to get them hooked on eating high-sugar, high-fat foods early in life." Note the language: it is "unfair" that those evil restaurant owners want to "capture" your children and get them "hooked on" foods that the Food Fascists don't like.

But what does all this mean, exactly? Well, to grasp the modern liberal's interpretation of the word "fair" you must first understand how they view you, the average American. Simply put, "progressives" believe that everyone (other than them, of course) is a "victim" - too stupid and incompetent to make decisions for your own life. You need Big Government to make the important choices for you.

This was illustrated clearly on Bill O'Reilly's TV show Wednesday evening, which had Juan Williams sitting in for Bill. One of the guests, Mike Gallagher, a conservative talk show host, challenged the perky blond "food activist" who supported the ban. Mike asked why parents need government to interfere, since as he noted, "parents have the say so on what kids eat - if they don't want to buy a 'Happy Meal' they can just not buy one." Mike added, "Do you have kids? Aren't you able to decide for yourself what they should or shouldn't eat?"

The woman's response was illuminating, because it exposed the unbelievable arrogance that characterizes the modern American Left. She stated, in the most irritatingly condescending tone, that "Yes, I have kids, and I have taught them proper nutritional habits, but while you and I might make the right choices, a lot of parents don't."

Get it? SHE and other "progressive" parents are more than capable of handling such decisions on their own, but the masses (that's you, by the way) are too stupid, or too weak, to make the same decisions for your children - you need government to step in and handle it for you. And this elitist mentality is nothing new - it has become a hallmark of the American Left.

When Mike Gallagher persisted that parents are adults who don't have to respond to any amount of promotional advertising, the woman lashed out, as is common with liberals when their views are challenged, telling Mike "oh, don't be an a--." She went on to say that parents would be exposed to the "nag factor" (children asking their parents to take them to a fast food outlet they saw on TV) - so government needs to step in to "protect" them. Like most liberals, this cute little Fascist thinks that it is "unfair" for parents to have to actually say "no" to their children's demands.

And when even Juan Williams, himself a solid liberal, questioned why the government had any right to exert such control on a private business, the woman claimed that "the community has a right to decide what they will or won't accept" in such matters. Now, while we can certainly prohibit obvious infringements on the rights of others (we don't allow burning of old tires in your back yard, or playing your stereo at outrageous levels in the middle of the night), "the community" has absolutely NO right to determine what kinds of promotional items are "acceptable" in a business transaction between a private business and its customers, whether it be fast food or "designer" sneakers.

Her statement betrays one of the most disturbing world view held by Progressives - that the rights of the individual are subservient to the will of the "collective" society, even in matters that are personal, and that have no affect on anyone else. They actually believe that they have the right to control every aspect of your lives, from what kind of car you drive, what kind of light bulbs you use, what your children are taught in school, and, obviously, even what you are "allowed" to eat.

But don't worry. After all, it's "for your own good"...