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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Do I feel lucky?"

Well do ya...punk?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's the least we can do.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yet Gun Ban Lobby Focuses on the Law Abiding

by Chad D. Baus - 02/06/2009

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Zero.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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...