Now that the Bush Administration has finally lifted the idiotic ban on guns in national parks, the ball will be squarely in Obama's court - will he let it stand, or will he kow-tow to the anti-gun contingent of the Democratic Party, many of whom helped elect him?

The issue is relatively simple - should normal law abiding citizens, who are legally able to carry a firearm for protection everywhere else, be forced to become defenseless as soon as they set foot in a national park? The answer is obvious - of course not.

After all, setting aside the dangers of wild animal attacks, which are on the rise, we have seen numerous cases of people (more often women) who have been robbed, raped and murdered in these supposedly "safe" parks. Bedsides, since any rational person knows that those intent on doing harm will hardly be the ones to abide by such a prohibition, it should be seen as ludicrous on its face.

A President Obama will doubtless be pressured to reinstate the ban. No sooner had the ban been lifted than Senator Feinstein howled, "The Bush administration changes will make our national parks more dangerous and will upset the delicate balance that exists between park visitors and wildlife."

Predictably, Feinstein exhibits the elitist liberal attitude toward the public (meaning YOU and me)  - we are not to be trusted. You see, in Feinstein's world, thugs and sociopaths prowling our parks are fine, but you and I carrying guns will make them "more dangerous." Naturally, the Senator cannot supply us with any hard data proving her fears to be legitimate. Of course she can't. Because the exact opposite is true - good people with guns are still, well, good people. In fact, the record clearly shows that carrying a gun actually makes people LESS likely to be involved in conflicts, not more.

And excuse me for laughing out loud at the second part of her statement - precisely what "delicate balance" vis a vis "wildlife" will be "upset" by a park patron carrying a handgun? Will it cause mental anguish to the bears? Erectile dysfunction in a rutting moose? What nonsense - complete and utter nonsense.

Then there is Bill Wade, president of the Coalition of National Park Service retirees, who complained: "Once again, political leaders in the Bush administration have ignored the preferences of the American public by succumbing to political pressure, in this case generated by the National Rifle Association."

"Preferences of the American public?" Who is he talking about? Forget the NRA - across the country the American public has resoundingly endorsed the right of people to carry guns for self-defense. In FACT, There are now only two states left that do not allow the carrying of firearms by law-abiding citizens: Wisconsin, and of course, Illinois, Obama's home state, where gun control has reached a level of repression previously seen only in Stalinist dictatorships.

All to no avail, by the way - because in spite of (or more likely, BECAUSE of) their Draconian measures, Chicago is always in the running as Murder Capitol of the nation, competing each year with Washington, D.C., Detroit and New Orleans, all of which, coincidentally, have equally harsh (and equally ineffective) gun control policies.

Yet no matter how many times the anti-gun hysterics are proved wrong, they persist in their crusade to deny you and me our basic human right of self-protection. Their opposition to you being able to defend yourself in national parks is merely the latest example.

Oh, sure, many of the anti-gun contingent will claim to support your right of self-defense "in your own home." But this is a canard. As Hamline University Law Professor Joe Olson rightly observed years ago, "You should not lose your fundamental right to protect yourself the moment you walk out your front door." (Or drive into a national park, we would add.)

President-elect Obama has already shown signs of a more moderate and thoughtful approach to governance than many of us expected - I pray that he continues on that path and let's this latest ruling stand.

The Mumbai, India terrorist attacks should serve as a reminder that terrorism is real, tangible, and a threat everywhere...waiting only for the right opportunity to explode. And, try as we all do to engage in denial, the reality is that it is only a matter of time before a Mumbai-style event occurs on American soil.

Back in 1993, right after the first World Trade Center bombing, I was talking with a friend of mine who was raised in Israel. I opined that it would be a relatively simple matter for terrorists to stage simultaneous attacks on, say, a dozen shopping centers around the country. And not just in New York, Washington D.C. or L.A. For maximum "terror" they would include a mall in Omaha, a high-end store in suburban Atlanta, a Wal-Mart in Oklahoma, a shopping center in Memphis. In other words, the heart of Middle-America.

Why? Simple - to destroy our sense of security, our misguided belief that we are safe in Des Moines and Fargo because "terrorists only attack places like New York." The message of these attacks on the country's hitherto untouched hinterlands would be this:

"We can get to you...anywhere."

The body count from the attacks themselves could range from bad to truly horrific, but the economic devastation created would be even more far reaching. If only 5% of the people who normally go to the malls to shop decided to stay home, the impact would be enormous.

Sure, there might actually be an increase in Internet shopping, but the fallout from all those "brick and mortar" stores suddenly faced with decreasing revenues would reach far beyond the stores themselves. The affects would roar through our already weakened economy like a financial tsunami.

It's so diabolically simple that I'm amazed they haven't done it so far. After all, I'm no rocket scientist, and if I can come up with the idea, the terrorists most certainly could as well. And the odds are, they already have. Does anyone seriously believe that Minnesota's monstrously huge "Mall of America" does not appear scribbled on some terrorist's notepad under the heading "potential targets."

Beyond the bloodshed and the economic damage, the threat to our civil liberties would also be drastically increased. With a Congress under Democratic control, and a President Obama, with his documented anti-gun and anti-self defense views, odds are that one of their first responses to a Mumbai type of assault would be, you guessed it, gun control. And lots of it.

The anti-gun establishment news media would jump on board in a New York minute.  And no amount of reasoning would likely prevail against the onslaught of the media blitz that would surely follow.They will be salivating.

Talking heads will ask the idiotic "Where did they get their guns" question. And endlessly repeated video of a sobbing mother, holding her dead child in a blood soaked blanket, will roll over cooler-headed arguments with ease.

And they won't care that you're a Democrat (even if you have an Obama sticker on your car) - if you're a gun owner, you'll be on "the list."

So for the sake of our people, and our liberties, this is one time I pray to God that I will not have to say "I told you so."

Just when you thought the action hero was dead, the hit show "24"  is back with a vengeance. If you're looking for Starbucks loving, politically correct, metro-sexual "girly-men" - forget it. Tough guy Jack Bauer is ready, willing, and able to dispatch the bad guys with speed, skill, and yes, violence - good, old fashioned, righteous violence.

More importantly, unlike so many of the gutless wimps who inhabit our culture today, Jack does not suffer from paralyzing ambivalence. He recognizes the difference between right and wrong, and he has no hesitation in doing what's right.

While "24" has always remained politically aloof (one never knows which political party the various presidents portrayed in the show belong to), the writers do take delight in skewering the politically correct - people and institutions that represent the kind of ineptness and cowardice that Jack despises are all fair game.

The UN naturally comes to mind. With its history of bumbling failure in combating terrorist regimes and their often genocidal policies, UN types are an obvious target. In the opening hour, vicious rebels in a strife torn African country are rounding up young children to use as cannon fodder in their ongoing civil war.

Jack is friends with the principal of a small rural school, and when he learns that rebels are on their way, he asks the local UN representative for help. The UN guy (conspicuously holding the now infamous UN "Blue Helmet") claims that "the UN is neutral in this conflict." With undisguised disdain, Jack suggests that, if he won't fight, he should "hide in the shelter with the rest of the children."

When the rebels arrive at the school looking for conscripts, Jack, though hopelessly outnumbered, becomes a one-man army - using guns, knives, and even explosives, he dispatches dozens of the rebels with wild abandon. But despite his best efforts, Jack is wounded and captured.

However, the school principal, having retrieved some weapons from a secret compartment in his office, comes to his rescue, shooting several rebels and setting Jack free. Together, they pile the young boys into a bus and head off for the American embassy.

Meanwhile, the sniveling UN bureaucrat has jumped in his Land Rover and taken off on his own, leaving Jack, the principal, and the children to fend for themselves. But later, the UN employee is himself captured by the rebels. Predictably, he not only tells them where the children are headed, he attempts to buy his freedom by ratting out Jack as the man who killed the brother of the rebel captain.

When Jack arrives at the American Embassy, he is then confronted with yet on more agonizing dilemma - the embassy official will allow the children sanctuary only if Jack turns himself in on an old charge of "torturing terrorist suspects." Displaying a level of integrity that is becoming increasingly rare, Jack finally accepts the deal - he is willing to sacrifice his own freedom for the sake of the kids.

Now, "24" also has numerous sub-plots involving intrigue in the White House and various shady characters and their covert agendas, not to mention the impending inauguration of the first women president.

But the real allure of the show is, and always has been, the sheer joy of watching a 21st Century version of the classic warrior, a man who refuses to adopt the nauseating political correctness of those around him. A man who recognizes the reality of evil in the world - and will do WHATEVER IT TAKES to defeat it. A man willing to give up everything to protect the innocent.

And we love him for it.

The uncertainty over the direction of the impending Obama administration is causing some interesting market responses. Some indicators, like gun and ammunition sales, are showing big up-ticks, while others like housing starts, are way down. And the stock markets have been nothing short of a roller coaster ride.

But rightly or wrongly, the one thing that all of these occurrences have in common is the FOO factor - Fear Of Obama.

Now, I'm not one of those who is going to blame Barak Obama for the housing crisis - that debacle was begun in the Carter Administration, and exacerbated by a whole series of bad policy decisions by both Democrat and Republican politicians. But when builders don't know what is going to happen to capital gains, as well as other taxes, they are not going to commit to new construction.

Ditto the Dow, which peaked just a year ago at 14,000 and was declining before the specter of an Obama presidency. Rising oil prices were at least partially to blame. But markets trade on the future - prices reflect what traders  believe is GOING to happen. And markets like CERTAINTY, or at least as much of it as they can get.

And on that score, Obama has some work to do - with the talk of raising taxes being all over the board, investors and business owners are nervous. Just today, the Dow dipped below 8000 for the first time in more than 5 years.

Gun owners, and would-be gun owners, are also concerned about the future of their rights in a country with a Democrat controlled Congress and a Democrat president. With rumors of various gun control schemes being floated by Democrats even before the inauguration, they can't help wondering.

So they are hedging their bets, buying firearms and ammunition at a furious pace - certain guns and types of ammunition are already on back order. I personally received 48 phone calls from people wanting to sign up for Handgun Carry Permit classes - most remarked that they wanted to "get it while I still can."

The legitimacy of these fears is open to discussion -  I personally hope that a President Obama adopts a sensible, centrist approach to governance. Some of his cabinet choices may in fact give some credence to this view. Others might not.

But until President-Elect Obama alleviates the fears of many Americans that he intends to pursue a destructively radical agenda, the FOO factor is likely to continue.

Last week a good friend of mine who lives in Washington State was almost killed - not by a teenager with a gun, but by a teenager with a car...and a cellphone. A 16 year old girl ran a stop sign and slammed into the driver's side door of my friend's car. The teenager was talking on her cell phone. My friend is still in the hospital with multiple fractures and internal organ damage.

And this teenage girl is not an anomaly - while 16 and 17 year-olds represent only 11% of the driving population, they are involved in an astonishing 40% of all fatal crashes.

Yet, in spite of this fact, and in spite of estimates that at least 4000 lives would likely be saved by simply raising the driving age to 18, such measures never even make it out of committee. And while Washington State does have a "no-talking-on-a-cell-phone-while-driving" law, there is little real enforcement, and you certainly don't hear cries for banning them.

Note also, that nobody asked "where she got the cell-phone" or "what kind of car" she was driving. Yet, had the very same teenage girl been recklessly handling a gun when she injured my friend, oh, the wailing and gnashing of teeth that would have ensued. And none of the outrage would have been directed toward the girl - oh, no. Suddenly, "where she got the gun" would be a major focus.

But isn't "gun control" a dead issue? Didn't Democrats learn their lesson when they lost numerous races in the past dozen years over the "gun" issue? Well, not exactly. Just when you thought the dinosaur known as "gun control" was extinct, anti-gun rumblings are starting up again, this time from those in the incoming Obama administration.

They're talking about resurrecting the failed "assault weapons" ban (and yes, it was a failure - even supporters now admit it had NO impact on violent crime at any level). But, hey, what chance does reason and logic have against images of "scary looking guns."

They are also proposing absurdly complex technical requirements for firearms  - "for the children" of course. Things like magic fingerprint readers and other nonsense that borders on science-fiction, if not outright fantasy. At least to anyone who knows a thing about firearms.

Note that Law Enforcement organizations have already stated clearly that they will NOT accept such firearms for duty use - they know that such needlessly complex mechanisms could easily cost officers their lives. So police will likely be exempt from such requirements. YOUR life, however, will not be the concern of gun control advocates.

Now, this should not even be a liberal vs. conservative issue: I have very liberal friends who own guns. I have students in my carry permit classes who are die-hard liberals. So, reason SHOULD prevail.

But it doesn't.

No matter how persistent the failure of gun control, the answer is always "more gun control." Whether violent crime goes up, down, or stays the same, the drumbeat for more restrictive laws continues.

Predictably, these latest doomed-to-fail policies will be dressed up in the usual emotional rhetoric about "keeping guns out of the wrong hands" but the result will be the same - thugs, rapists, robbers, drug dealers and murderers WILL continue to obtain firearms. We already know this to be true.

Right here in Minnesota, the Force Science Research Institute at Mankato State recently completed a 5-year study with the FBI on the most violent and dangerous offenders of all: 17 - 25 year old, mostly inner city males, who get in shoot-outs with Police Officers. They looked at 800 incidents and zeroed in on 40 cases for in-depth study. Among their findings:

Unlike the high tech hardware carried by thugs on TV shows, the "gun of choice" of these real-life killers is based on whatever is "cheap" and "available" - almost half of them chose inexpensive revolvers.

Where do they get their guns? Contrary to the myth of the "gun show loophole" not a single firearm was bought at a gun show - NOT ONE. One gun was bought legally - every one of the others was stolen, or bought stolen on the street.

When asked "Has any law designed to prevent your owning firearms - federal, state, or local - been effective?" the most frequent answer, according to the study team was "they just laughed out loud at us, and told us 'you must be kidding'" (or something a bit more "colorful").

And how old were these perpetrators when they first carried a gun? Shockingly, they were only 9 to 12 years of age. By age 17, they were carrying a gun "just about every day." So much for laws that decree age restrictions and background checks. Worse, many of these "street combat veterans" had been in multiple gun fights prior to shooting it out with police. One in ten had been wounded, some more than once!

But perhaps the most disturbing finding was the ruthlessness of today's young killers. To quote the report: "Davis said the study team did not realize how cold blooded the younger generation of offender is. They have been exposed to killing after killing, they fully expect to get killed and they don't hesitate to shoot anybody, including a police officer. They can go from riding down the street saying what a beautiful day it is to killing in the next instant."

[Note: for a truly eye-opening look at today's inner city youth, be sure to see the History Channel series "Gangland" - it will help you understand the utter foolishness of gun control efforts.]

Sadly, no matter what the reality on today's streets, whether idiot teenage drivers who talk and text message while driving, or the vicious teenage killers who roam our cities, reason continues to take a "back seat" to emotional hysteria.

And emotion invariably leads to bad policy.

Declaring every desire a "right" has become a standard tactic of the Left. Can't persuade a majority of your fellow citizens to support your view in the legislature? No problem - run to the courts and try to get your way via the judiciary.

Let me be clear - I am neither supporting nor opposing the idea of allowing two men or two women to marry. I am merely pointing out that in fact, no one, not even a "straight" couple, has a "right" to be married. Because marriage is a creation of society, the structure of such an institution is determined by the will of the people.

Currently, the people, via their legislatures, have decided that marriage shall have certain characteristics and parameters - age, mental competency, restrictions based on relationship of the parties, limiting a marriage to only two parties, and yes defining the union as  between a man and a woman.

Now, my close liberal friends know that, while I don't believe it would be a good idea, I have no problem with the principle of redefining marriage to include same-sex couples - so long as they do it legislatively. Because if we as a culture wish to make those changes, we are empowered by the Constitution to do so.

Since it appears that, at least for the time being, the overwhelming majority of Americans do not wish to alter the terms of the institution known as marriage, then that should be respected as the law of the land.

But if the time should come that the majority of Americans agree to change the rules governing marriage, then I would most certainly respect the will of the people just as strongly.

Some "gay marriage" proponents have attempted to equate their desires with the Civil Rights movement. But this is a canard. Marriage is not a right at all, let alone a civil right. While everyone (whether gay or straight) has the right to mate with, and/or co-habit with, whomever they choose, they do not have a "right" to demand that society change the structure and definitions of a social instrument just to accommodate their views.

Civil Rights refer to the inherent rights people have by virtue of simply being human - life, liberty, and the freedom to pursue their desires. Thus slavery and segregation were manifestly violations of true civil rights. But same sex couples are free to live and work where, and with whom, they wish. And neither I nor anyone I know would ever allow that freedom to be circumscribed.

But if they do wish society to rewrite the marriage laws to legally sanction a same-sex relationship, they are free to work to make that happen. Just do it via the proper course: getting the majority of your fellow citizens to go along with you, and not by attempting to get some court to override their will.

Your freedom to read this, and my freedom to write it, we owe to my Dad and my Uncle Joe, both of whom served in World War II,  and to the millions of military veterans who came before and after them. Dad and Uncle Joe were as different as it was possible for two people to be, yet when war came to the world, they both responded with the same commitment - and without hesitation.

My Dad was a 1st Sergent in the Army Air Corps, before it became the Air Force. He came from a small town in Indiana, where he grew up playing poker and shooting pool for money when he and his identical twin brother were as young as 10. He later played poker with everyone from gangsters like George "Bugs" Moran to football legends Vince Lombardi and George Halas.

He also played football for a traveling semi-pro team that went from town to town on a bus - for which they earned $11 a game. And in those days "a game" meant just that - the WHOLE game. The team had a total of 12 players. Other than a single backfield substitute, every player was in for the entire 60 minutes - when the ball changed hands, an offensive guard became a defensive guard, the quarterback became a middle linebacker. Can you imagine if the 320 lb behemoths of today's NFL were put in the same situation? Call the ambulance.

My Dad was 35 when Pearl Harbor was hit - a bit too old for combat by military standards even then. But he had a knack for electronics and communications, so he enlisted in the Army Air Corps and eventually wound up training bomber crews. Some of these guys were naive enough to play cards with him - to their everlasting regret, by the way.

One of the crews he trained flew a plane called the Enola Gay - that's right, the one that dropped the first atomic bomb. Until the day he died, Dad spoke with admiration of Col. Paul Tibbets, the commander and pilot on that day in August, 1945 that changed the world.

Uncle Joe, my Mother's baby brother, had an entirely different background. He was one of nine children of a Chicago Judge. He went to college and earned a degree in civil engineering. When World War II broke out he was 22 years old, barely six months after graduation. He enlisted in the Army Air Corps, where he was trained to fly.

Uncle Joe wound up in the Pacific theater, where he put his knowledge of flight and engineering to work building airfields, some of which were even used to launch the first attacks against the Japanese mainland.  Flying at an altitude of 50 feet to scout potential building sites, Joe and his co-pilot joked about how often they were hit by Japanese rifle fire as they snaked down rivers and over jungle forests.

But even in the midst of war, they displayed a kind of  bravado that is almost uniquely American. One time, Joe and a buddy somehow wrangled a date with a couple of nurses on a nearby island. Naturally, they had to figure out a way to get there. Being typical GI's of the time, they found a simple solution - they stole a B-25 light bomber just after dark, and went on their date.

The story of them returning at dawn the next day became a family staple -  as they rolled up to the hangar they were met by a none-to-happy base commander and several Military Police. Uncle Joe and his friend of course showed the proper remorse and contrition, but, alas, as the only two civil engineers in 500 miles, they knew they were practically indispensable, and thus reasonably safe from any serious recriminations.  They were right - after a major tongue-lashing, they went back to work.

After the war, my Dad and Uncle Joe, having become related by marriage, spent considerable time together, and they became deep and fast friends. Their love and respect for each other was obvious, even to strangers.

My Dad died in 1980. As this is written, my Uncle Joe lies partially deaf and nearly blind on a bed in a military hospital in the San Francisco Bay area.

But I know they can both hear me when I say "Thank You."

So, thank you, Dad. And thank you, Uncle Joe.

I will remember you both, and what you did.

Always.

November 4th, 2008 may well go down in history as the year that Americans chose between Freedom, with all it's possibilities for success (and of course, failure) and the "soft" Slavery of the nanny-state, with it's false promise of "security."

Sadly, even if John McCain pulls a Harry Truman-like last minute win from the fire, he will be hard pressed to fight the insidious tentacles of Socialism that already extend well beyond the so-called "poor" to include a huge segment of the middle class.

More than two-thirds of the Federal Budget is devoted to social service "entitlements" - add in State spending for everything from education to food stamps, and you will be hard pressed to find ANY citizen who isn't getting a "taste" from the government teat.

Worse, Obama and his co-conspirators in the Congress plan to take even more income from the hardest working producers in our society, and hand it over (in the form of a check) to the 40% of Americans who already pay NO income taxes - guaranteeing a whole new generation of ready made Democrat voters.

No matter who becomes President, the expansion of intrusive government will need to be fought. But make no mistake - there IS a difference between the two candidates. Despite the flaws that John McCain has (and there are many), he at least believes fundamentally in the American system of freedom, entrepreneurship, and personal responsibility.

Barak Obama, on the other hand, envisions a radically different America - a Socialist Utopia that rewards mediocraty and dependency, while punishing success and stifling intiative.

Choose wisely, America...

Should Obama be the first unapologetic socialist to indeed become President, we already have a window into the fascist tactics that will be used to manage the news and suppress dissent of any kind. Several recent incidents illustrate this.

By now everyone knows about "Joe the Plumber" and how, after daring to ask a perfectly legitimate question of Barak Obama, had his life subjected to the journalistic equivalent of a colonoscopy.

But it didn't end there. It has now been revealed that a Democrat public official (who coincidentally also just happened to donate the maximum allowed to Obama's campaign) used her official capacity to initiate an investigation into every minute detail of Joe's life, including child support payment records.

The fact that this woman is unlikely to suffer any recriminations (the Governor to whom she ultimately reports is also a Democrat hack) only adds to the emerging image of a method of governance that can only be described as totalitarian.

Then there was the Joe Biden interview, in which (for once) a journalist actually broached the subject of Obama's ever more socialist leanings. Quoting from Karl Marx's famous statement "from each according to his ability - to each according to his need" she quite reasonably asked Senator Biden if this didn't mirror Obama's numerous "spread the wealth" statements.

Not only did Biden refuse to answer the question, attempting to dismiss it as "a joke" -  minutes after the interview he and his staff went on the warpath, declaring the station that employed the woman as "persona non grata" for the remainder of the campaign.

And the bands of "Obama Youth" are little different. Not only are they typically foul-mouthed and rude, they've taken to stealing McCain yard signs, vandalizing cars with McCain bumper stickers, damaging Republican campaign offices, and otherwise behaving not unlike the Hitler youth or Mussolini's Black Shirt militia.

What is most ironic about the ever more bellicose tone expressed by the Left (they threaten riots in the streets if Obama loses) is that these are the same people who have spent years wailing and wringing their hands over the "oppression" of the Patriot Act. Yet none of the "violations" of civil rights they claim has ever materialized (other than the urban myths that permeate the left-wing blogs and websites).

So the question remains:

Will the hostility of the Left become even more violent if Obama wins?

...or if he loses?

If you're still "undecided" less than a week before the election, I'm sorry, but you're too stupid to vote. After all, it's not like you haven't had time to check out the candidates. Barak Obama announced his candidacy almost TWO YEARS ago - John McCain somewhat later. You've had ample time to research their past and present public statements, look up what their friends and enemies alike say about them - in other words, you've had plenty of time to do the "due diligence" that we, as your fellow citizens, have a right to expect of you.

You've also had all the resources of the modern world available to you: the Internet, talk radio, newspapers, not to mention the major networks (OK, they're in the tank for Obama, but even that is useful information). So, what in the name of the Constitution are you waiting for? A lightning bolt from heaven a la St. Paul? A clue from tomorrow morning's horoscope?

Sorry, but if you are STILL not able to make up your mind at this stage of the game, you should do us all a favor and stay home. Not just for this election, but from now on.

Ditto the legions of utterly uninformed voters. Like moronic college students, those Obamamaniacs who thought that Roe v. Wade was an "Ultimate Fighting match-up" and who, when asked who Karl Marx was, replied "one of that Groucho guy's brothers?"

Basically, I've had it with the populist vomit about how "every vote should count." No, every vote should NOT count. Every vote by a legal, verified, INFORMED citizen should count.

If you don't know in what century the Civil War occurred, if you don't know who the governor of your own state is, if you don't understand that the role of the Supreme Court is to act as a neutral umpire and not to "help out the little guy" then NO, you should not be allowed to pollute the voting pool with what amounts to little more than your electoral feces.

I know, I know, some liberal nitwit will howl about "equal rights" yadda, yadda, yadda - but I've always found it interesting how liberals think everyone should have equal influence at the ballot box no matter how much they TAKE from society, yet they have no problem at all UNequally taxing those who produce the most FOR society. Seems I recall something about "taxation without representation" being at the root of our country's founding...

So, all you undecided, and/or uninformed voters, how about you just get it over with and flip a coin - it's likely to yield a more intelligent choice than the one YOU come up with...still agonizing while standing in the voting booth.

We've all heard the above phrase uttered by seemingly intelligent, (and supposedly "moderate") people, followed immediately by a statement in support of, you guessed it...socialism. A sampling:

"I'm not really a Socialist, but..."

"...something should be done to make health care more affordable."
(Translation: you believe that your fellow citizens should be forced to pay your medical bills - i.e. socialism)

"...something should be done about the price of gas (or medicine, or food, or insurance, or whatever)."
(Translation: you believe that "the government" should control the prices of privately produced goods and services - i.e. socialism)

"...people should be able to earn a decent wage."
(Translation: you believe that "the government" should somehow guarantee a certain standard of living, even to the lazy or incompetent - i.e. socialism)

"...it's not fair that CEO's make so much."
(Translation: you believe that "the government" should restrict the income of people more successful than you - i.e. socialism)

"...my husband lost his job and we need help."
(Translation: you believe that you are entitled to have "the government" protect you from risk - i.e. socialism)

"...I really think smoking bans are a good idea."
(Translation: you believe that "the government" should be able to force private businesses to cater to your personal wishes - i.e. socialism )

"...the rich should pay more because they can 'afford' it"
(This one is easy - "from each according to his ability" is straight out of classic Marxist doctrine - Face it; you ARE a Socialist)

It's not hard to explain why so many Americans have fallen prey to the lure of  the nanny-state - it's tempting to believe the seductive offer of "free stuff" combined with a promise to "protect" us, not merely from foreign invaders or domestic criminals, but from every conceivable difficulty that life might throw at us.  Especially when it's wrapped in cozy rhetoric about "compassion" and "fairness."

Unfortunately, starting with Franklin Roosevelt, incremental socialism has already created the exact situation the stealth Marxists have been seeking: a populace so inextricably bound to one government program or another, that each additional tiny step towards a socialist America seems, by itself, insignificant.

And they never stop, no matter how many times their policies prove to be wrong, and wrongheaded. We now know that Roosevelt, adored and worshiped by the Left, put into place policies that exacerbated an economic recession that would likely have been short and shallow, and instead produced the Great Depression. Yet they're commitment to socialism persists.

As bad as the socialism of the 1930's was, the changes that will occur under a Democrat legislative majority AND the first unabashedly Marxist president in American history will be even more catastrophic in the long term. An Obama presidency represents nothing less than a threat to the very existence of the world's most successful Constitutional Free Market Democratic Republic.

But Obama can only accomplish his Socialist dream with the aid of "useful idiots" - those willing enough (and arguably, STUPID enough) to go along with him. So, the next time you start a sentence with "I'm not really a socialist...but" you might want to take a moment to contemplate what you're saying.

And what you are actually doing to your country.

Tom Wolfe was right when he said "the East and West Coasts are nothing but parenthesis - and between them is the real America." This past week I spent several intentionally leisurely days driving from Minneapolis to San Antonio, stopping in places like Des Moines, Kansas City, and Dallas, as well as numerous towns so small they didn't have stop lights.

As I struck up conversations with many of the folks met, I was struck by the enormous difference between their view of life and the views expressed by the "talking heads" who inhabit the mainstream newsrooms of America. Unlike the journalist class, these people seemed to take joy in the simple reality of everyday life. I heard none of the pessimism and doom-and-gloom so prevalent in "coastal America." Except when it came to one subject:

Taxes.

Because these are people who work - hard. In town after town I began to count the amazing number of small businesses. Car repair shops and tire dealers. Small local restaurants and antique stores. Locksmiths and gun stores. Insurance agencies. Little motels and bed-and-breakfasts. Electrical contractors, roofing companies, and yes, plumbers.

I realized how most of us really haven't thought much about the immense impact of small businesses on our economy, not to mention on our daily lives. These people really are the backbone of America. They've put their savings, their time, and (literally) the sweat off their brows into building something useful and productive.

I saw no one who would fit the oft expressed liberal view of such people as merely "lucky" or "winning life's lottery." On the contrary, these were just ordinary folks, but with an extraordinary drive and ambition to build a better life for themselves and their families.

And they are worried. Unlike the average American who may be seduced by false political promises of "taxing only those rich guys" these people understand what it takes to run a business - and what it takes to destroy one. They fully comprehend the impact that even a modest tax increase will have on their livelihood, and their lives.

When I bring up Senator Obama's "Joe the Plumber" gaffe, they roll their eyes, shake their heads, and sometimes, just shift their feet and look at the ground. "How will Obama's tax plan affect you?" I ask.

The answers run from a simple "It'll hurt, no doubt about it" to a more specific "I just put on two apprentices - one will probably have to go. They're both nice kids, but I won't have a choice." A woman who owns a (very) small motel in Oklahoma just shook her head and asked me "Why do they always want to keep taking from folks like me who never ask anything from the government? Why can't they just leave us alone?"

I had an answer, of course, but I kept it to myself. Yet I couldn't help feeling a sense of anger at the mealy-mouthed politicos who have never actually talked to a small business owner in their lives.

Not that it would likely make any difference - they simply don't care about these entrepreneurs who truly do represent the best of the "real America." That's because, for Obama and his like-thinking liberal do-gooders, wealth is not something that individuals create - it is something for government to "hand out."  Never mind that in order to "spread the wealth around" they must first take it at gun-point from decent, hard working people who simply want to be left alone.

Sadly, if the neo-socialist thugs get their way, our grandchildren may only learn about the Real America from books - provided, that is, they can get permission from the "Fairness Bureau" to read them...

When Barack Obama confirmed his Socialist mindset in his now famous remark to Joe the Plumber, Joe missed a golden opportunity. When the Senator told Joe that he didn't wish to punish him, but merely wanted to "spread the wealth around" Joe could have scored a political knock-out had he simply responded "but, Senator, it's not YOUR wealth to spread around - it's OURS."

Not that this is a revelation. An inherent element of being a liberal today is to be extravagantly generous - with other people's money. And no matter how they try to deny it, this sort of taking from the successful and productive in order to give to the unsuccessful and unproductive is coincidentally a foundational principal of Marxist socialism.

Note also that liberals often have an almost visceral hatred of "the rich" - although their hostility is rather selectively applied. For example, Hollywood celebrities, thug Rap stars, and others who get paid outlandish amounts of money for arguably frivolous activities are A-OK with liberals.

But not Joe, who simply wants to build a business. Or someone in the corporate world who puts himself (or herself) through college, climbs the ladder by making endless personal and family sacrifices, and then finally gets "rewarded" with a 70 or 80 hour work week (average for senior executives). No, their accomplishment's will be minimized by describing them as "lucky" or "winners of life's lottery." Why? Because in order to justify having the government steal the very food out of someone's mouth (which the fruits of our labor genuinely are) it is helpful to portray them as not having earned it in the first place.

And it doesn't end there. Both Joe and our corporate warrior will be demonized as somehow contributing to the plight of those less "fortunate" than they are. After all, if you can also blame the condition of "the poor" on the very same "rich guys" you intend to rob, so much the better. But contrary to the views of many on the Left, success is not a zero-sum game - Joe's success does not require that anyone else give up anything. On the contrary, his prosperity will produce jobs and income, not only for his employees, but for his suppliers and all of their employees as well.

But truth be damned, class warfare rhetoric supplies the excuse for "leveling the playing field." However, in America, it's always the players, not the field, who make the difference. And the fact is that the vast majority of successful people got where they are because of the choices they made. They are simply smarter, more ambitious, more hard working, and more willing to do what it takes to get what they want than most people.

And they take risks. The capacity for risk is a key element in achieving success. Those who are afraid to take chances will never be rich - they're more likely to take the "safe" route of collecting a paycheck from someone else.

It is equally true that most losers are where they are because of the choices they made. If you drop out of high school, do drugs, join a gang, get pregnant (or get someone else pregnant) at age 17, refuse to learn a skill or a trade, refuse to take a menial job because it's "beneath" you, and when you finally do get a job you have a lousy or non-existent work ethic, well, guess what? You're likely to have a tough time in life.

And if you also believe that in spite of making all of those bad choices, your fellow hard working citizens owe you a certain standard of living, then you're living in the wrong country. Because America is, at least for now, a Constitutional democratic republic, based on free-market capitalism, with equal OPPORTUNITY for all, but NOT guaranteed equal outcomes. But hey, if sucking at the government teat really does appeal to you, I hear Cuba has "free" healthcare AND education.

Then again, you may want to hang around America for just a while longer - with a whole cadre of Marxist/Socialist Democrats poised to take over Congress and perhaps the Presidency, it may not be long before they get their greedy little fingers on the paychecks of Joe the Plumber, and the millions like him who are the backbone of the American economy.

And losers will be sitting pretty...but only for a while.

Obama and his Democrat allies continue to scam the public, claiming to be for "middle class tax cuts" while attacking conservative Republicans for "giving" tax cuts to "the Rich." Obama has also repeatedly mouthed the canard that "95% of Americans will get a 'tax cut'" and that "only those making more than $250,000 will pay more." He further claims that "the vast majority" of small businesses are under that magic number.

Now setting aside for a moment the Democrat's longstanding hatred for those more successful than they are, what is the reality? Well, to be blunt, Senator Obama is lying, and lying about nearly every aspect of his "plan."

First, the 95% figure is false.  Since more than 30% of working Americans don't pay any income taxes now - many in fact get a welfare check - how can they get a "tax cut?" Well, when the good Senator refers to giving these people a "tax cut" he is actually talking about giving them...a BIGGER check!

Second, the claim that "the vast majority of small businesses earn less than $250,000" is also false. The opposite is true -  according to government figures, the majority of small businesses are well above that figure, not below it. And the first ones affected by a tax hike will not be the employers - it will be the employees, because companies will either have to cut back on salaries and benefits, or worse, lay off some workers.

Remember the most famous example of this kind of Democrat class-warfare-based economic stupidity? The "luxury tax" on boats - to "stick it to those rich guys" you know. Well, the wealthy simply stopped buying boats. And who got hurt? Not the "rich" - they simply had more money in the bank. No, the ones who paid the price for this absurd policy were the blue-collar boat builders. When sales tanked, the workers had to be laid off. Ironically, the majority of the boat builders voted for, you guessed it - Democrats. Way to go, guys.

But there is an even larger problem with all tax schemes that are based more on envy than sound policy. I actually am one of those small businesses with revenues under $250K, however, like most such businesses and sole proprietors, I purchase my materials and supplies from businesses that are well above that threshold, and they WILL be adversely hit by Obama's tax plan.

And what do you think will happen? What always happens - ALL small businesses will have to pay higher costs for the raw materials they need to run their companies. And they will then have to pass those increased costs on to their customers - you. But hey, we didn't technically get a "tax increase," so no problem, right?

This is the fundamental fallacy in the "tax the rich and business" approach: whenever you tax "the rich" (or "business"), the truth is we ALL pay - in the form of higher costs of everything we buy (and a slower economy to boot). Oddly, those hurt the most by these increasingly socialist policies are the very same "poor" and "middle class" voters who put left-wing Democrats in office.

So, all of you who are willing to trade your economic freedom for the false promise of "economic justice" (an oxymoron, by the way), you may get exactly what you asked for.

Just don't complain when I am able to say "I told you so."