Having grown up in Chicago, I've seen Democrat voting fraud first hand. The night BEFORE the 1960 presidential election, my father took me on a "field trip" to show me the realities of the fabled "Daley Machine." Although my father was a Republican, due to his occupation he was well connected in both party circles, so he was welcome at even the most confidential of gatherings. I was just 14 years old.

We entered a Greek restaurant on Chicago's North side, then went upstairs. The large room was set up with those cheesy folding banquet tables in the shape of a horseshoe. Around the table sat perhaps a dozen men, mostly middle-aged, and mostly out of shape. They looked like the seedy political types you see in old movies. Coffee cups, pens and pencils, and boxes of donuts were strewn about the tables, and the men looked quite busy.

And busy they were.

In front of each man were two stacks of paper, which my father later explained to me were ballots. I still remember the men grabbing a ballot from one stack, filling it out hurriedly, then laying it on the other stack.

Ballots. Being filled out by Democrat party hacks. Hundreds, no, thousands of them, in just one room. In just one restaurant. I can't help but wonder even now how many more such scenes were taking place that night, across the Chicago metropolitan area? We'll never know for certain, of course.

But we do know one thing: Kennedy won that year by one of the thinnest margins ever. And the whispered word throughout the Chicago political scene was then, and still is today, that indeed "the Chicago Democratic Machine stole the election for JFK."

Does anyone seriously believe that the Democratic underground is any less active today? Oh, they are certainly more sophisticated. George Soros was strategic enough in his planning to fund the elections of carefully selected Democratic Attorney General candidates - those in key battleground states, such as Ohio.

Ohio? That's funny...isn't there something going on right now in Ohio, involving, oh, yes, a Democrat Attorney General who is, surprise, refusing to cooperate in the investigations of...voter fraud! Thanks for the check, Mr. Soros!

Oddly, no matter how many times Democrats get caught with their hands in the voters' cookie jar (stuffing if with phony ballots, no doubt) they wail and moan about how they were "framed" while their defenders try to minimize the seriousness of the crime by using the childish excuse that "both sides do it".

Rubbish. Any legitimate study of voter fraud in the 20th Century will show that, while there certainly have been instances of Republican shenanigans, Democrats are clearly the world champs. Whether engaging in it directly, or by winking and looking the other way, the Democratic party has all but made election cheating an official policy. "By Any Means Necessary" is the motto of one left-wing group, I believe.

And you thought they were engaging in hyperbole.

But don't look for anything like an investigative reporting piece by anyone in the mainstream media - 9 out of 10 of them are Democrats, and God forbid that something as inconsequential as the foundation of the Republic get in the way of electing their chosen candidate. They're still calling ACORN a "community organizer" group, even though that organization is under indictment for voter fraud in multiple states. Aaaaah, some things most clearly do not "change."

So, at the end of the day, the real question is: What are the rest of us going to do about it?

For inspiration, Patrick Henry's final words might be a good place to start.

Over and over the mantra is repeated: a bad economy is good for Democrats. But, in the name of reason, why? After all, with their abysmal record in State governments, why would any sane person trust Democrats to "fix" the National economy? A quick look at the States where Democrats control both the legislature and the Governor's office should warn us of what to expect. (Hint: think "Jimmy Carter")

Take Michigan - an unemployment rate near 10%, out of control government spending, massive deficits, and a tax structure that has already driven good businesses out of the State. And what does Democrat Governor Jennifer Granholm do? Raise taxes again. The result - revenues drop again, along with personal and business income. And despite extravagant spending, Detroit schools have a shockingly low graduation rate - only 27% of students get a diploma!

Illinois is little better. They have spent like drunken sailors, pillaged the State's pension fund, and taxed the populace to the breaking point - Chicago has an outrageous 10.25% sales tax! And the rampant violent crime in Chicago (600 murders a year), along with idiotic gun bans that leave innocent citizens defenseless, has pushed economic development out to the suburbs, or more often, completely out of the State.

Then there's Louisiana - contrary to the media created myth that the Federal Government "failed" the citizens of New Orleans during hurricane Katrina, the people of Louisiana knew that it was the city's bungling Democrat Mayor and ineffectual Democratic Governor who were responsible. Katrina was merely the last straw in a long line of incompetent and corrupt government policies. But unlike Michigan, Louisiana voters responded by electing a conservative Republican, Bobby Jindahl, in a landslide. He inherited a huge mess to deal with, but things are already looking up.

Finally, if you really want to see what a Democrat controlled country would look like, spend some time in California. Yes, I know, they have a putatively Republican Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, but despite his occasional attempts to cut spending, the Democrat dominated legislature continues to offer more and more "free" government goodies to everyone in sight (including millions of illegal aliens), while running up multi-BILLION dollar deficits. And every week, dozens of businesses move out.

Time and again Democrats prove that they simply don't "get it" when it comes to taxes, business, and the economy - they don't even understand that American oil companies don't sell oil, they have to buy it. Heck, they still can't figure out why raising tax rates doesn't raise tax revenues - it often lowers them, something even a college economic student understands.

Why then do a significant number of people look to Democrats in troubled times? The answer isn't that complicated. After decades of left-leaning news media, movies, and TV shows demonizing "big business" (the very businesses that provide jobs and income to millions), Democrats have an advantage.

Average Americans, busy with their lives, and not understanding the complexities of tax and economic policy, simply find it easier to fall for the "Republicans are for Business - Democrats are for the little guy" canard. How else to explain Michigan, where as noted, Democrat policies have wreaked havoc on the local economy, yet astonishingly, Barak Obama is ahead in the polls!

Unfortunately, when one looks into the policies that will certainly be implemented under an Obama administration allied with a Democratically dominated Congress, the result will likely be an economic disaster.

Ironically, the people harmed most by Obama's politically motivated policies will be the very people who put him in office.

The roots of the "credit crisis" are in government mandated bad lending practices - forcing banks to lend money to "sub-prime" borrowers - people unlikely to pay it back. Then, when they fail to do so, having the government (i.e. taxpayers) cover the losses.

But another crisis is looming on the horizon, in many ways far more worrisome than the people who are bad credit risks. I'm talking about what I would call "sub-prime" voters, those who, much like sub-prime borrowers, are the direct result of bad government policy, in this case, taxes.

Contrary to the drumbeat of the Democrats (and, admittedly, some Republicans) who claim that the so-called "rich" aren't paying their "fair share," the opposite is true - they are carrying a hugely disproportionate, and arguably UNFAIR share of the tax burden.  The top 5% alone (you know, the one's Obama thinks aren't paying enough?) already pay 55% of ALL income taxes!

More broadly, we are now at the point where the top 50% of workers (anyone making over approximately $32,000 - hardly "rich") are paying 97% of all income taxes, while the bottom half pays a paltry 3%. Worse, an astonishing 30% of these WORKING Americans now pay NO Federal income tax at all!

And forget the lie that they "pay Social Security" taxes - many of them not only pay no income taxes, they instead receive a CHECK that more than wipes out their modest FICA and Medicare contributions. This is the mislabeled "Earned Income Tax Credit" (how can you get a "tax credit" when you haven't paid any tax to begin with? Call it what it is: welfare).

And it's getting worse - estimates are that in 10 years or less the number of "free loaders" (and that is exactly what they are) is likely to be at 40%. More to the point, there are those in the political classes (read: Democrats) who are doing everything possible to make this a reality.

But why? Simple. Forget the disingenuous rhetoric about "compassion" for the poor - that's the line they feed to their liberal supporters to get them on board with more and more government give-away programs. The truth is that Democrats are building a voting constituency: sub-prime voters.

Sub-prime? Yes. Sub-prime borrowers are those with little to lose in a lending process that gives them something they don't deserve - a loan. And even if they default, it has become clear that someone else (you and I) will foot the bill.

Sub-prime voters are in a similar situation - they are the ones with little to lose, and everything to gain. Thus they vote more and more for those who will give them all sorts of government "goodies," while the rest of us pay for it.

A new government welfare program? Why not? They'll likely be the beneficiaries, not you. A huge tax increase? Sure, they'll be all for it - after all, THEY won't be paying any of it, YOU will.

Now, we've all heard the absurd justifications for such confiscatory policies - "How can you expect the poor to pay? They have no income to spare?" Well, setting aside the obvious - that they certainly do have "income to spare" for color TV's (with cable of course), cigarettes, soda pop, nail salons, and on and on, the real question is why ANYONE in America should be getting a free ride on the backs of their neighbors.

I for one oppose the idea of an income tax at all. But if we are going to have one, then the only truly "fair" application of it is a flat-rate tax on EVERY dollar of income, starting at dollar one. That way, whenever a politician talks about "raising taxes" ALL of us would be affected (which would still have "the rich" paying proportionately more, by the way).

A side benefit would be the clear understanding that every working voter, regardless of income,  has an obligation to pay for their government - an attitude that has been all but destroyed by the modern welfare state with its mentality of "entitlement."

Liberals love to see themselves as "caring" people - but luring poor people into loans they can't afford is cruelty, not compassion. And legislating the same people into a lifelong dependence on the pocketbooks of others is nothing less than immoral.

It is not hyperbole to say that once the increasingly lopsided tax burden reaches the tipping point (and we may already be there) we will be well on our way to moving America from capitalism to nothing less than outright socialism.

George Soros and the American Left must be rubbing their hands with glee at the thought...

I was pleasantly surprised by the civility and respect that Joe Biden and Sarah Palin showed each other during Thursday's debate. This is not to say there were no disagreements - there most certainly were. But absent was the crass and nasty tone of the negative ads that have flooded the airwaves for months. Though I disagree with his views, I actually found myself liking Joe Biden.

That being said, what struck me was the clear difference in philosophical views held by the two candidates. Contrary to the commonly heard sentiment that "all politicians are the same," Joe Biden and Sarah Palin express very different ways of looking at the world.

Biden, like so many on the Left, believes that government is the solution to just about every ill facing society. He, like Obama, also sees government as the arbiter of "fairness" - a concept that should send shivers down the spine of any freedom loving American.

Take taxes. Rather than viewing tax policy as a vehicle for funding government, Biden, like most liberals, sees it as a means of implementing a kind of forced economic equality. Thus he defends the policy of taking a huge chunk out of the paychecks of successful people (that evil "top 5%") as somehow being "fair." Worse, both he and Obama say that it's OK because "they can afford it" - this is not merely immoral, it is classic Marxism.

Sarah Palin on the other hand, believes in free market capitalism, and she understands that demonizing the people who create the jobs and drive economic prosperity is not only bad policy, it is simply wrong. She also knows that punishing success is a formula for fiscal disaster, especially in unstable economic times.

So whether one likes or dislikes Joe Biden or Sarah Palin, the debate did at least illuminate the real, substantive differences between the two candidates, and their visions for America.

Joe Biden represents the past - the Washington career politician who exemplifies the failed liberal polices that have produced so many of the problems we face today: higher taxes, more big government, and less liberty.

Sarah Palin represents the future - the newcomer who advocates lower taxes, smaller government,and expanded personal and economic freedom.

Let's see - Liberal Democrats buy votes from poor minorities with false promises of "affordable housing" (to be achieved, of course, using thinly veiled fascist government mandates like the Community Reinvestment Act).

The CRA, along with other such meddling in the private financial markets, essentially blackmailed private financial institutions into giving loans to people who couldn't afford them.

The resulting artificial influx of new buyers into the market drove up housing prices, making them more expensive for everyone, not just "the poor." To deal with the escalating costs, lenders began offering Adjustable Rate Mortages (ARM's) and other instruments designed to allow lower initial monthly payments.

To be fair, it wasn't just "sub-prime" borrowers who jumped into these risky instruments - many regular folks refinanced their homes, too. But too many of these people didn't just try to lower their payments - they took out extra equity to buy SUV's, boats, or other such items.

Meanwhile, Fannie May and Freddie Mac, quasi-government entities staffed and managed primarily by liberal Democrats, engaged in shady accounting practices to hide the growing problem - and continue to pay themselves multimillion dollar bonuses. They also gave their biggest financial donations to highly placed Democrats like Chris Dodd, and more disturbingly, Barak Obama.

So finally, when a significant percentage of these "sub-prime" (i.e. high risk) borrowers predictably defaulted, it caused a drop in housing prices and a financial meltdown. There is no disagreement on the results. But the astonishing part of all this is that, now that the "waste has hit the rotating airfoil" the same Democrats responsible for the whole mess are on TV, claiming that it's suddenly the fault of the Bush Administration and Republicans!

Dodging blame for mistakes while taking credit they don't deserve is nothing new for Democrats. They like to brag about the "Clinton Economy" - but they forget that in 1994, just two years into the Clinton Presidency, Republicans swept the House, and that it was the Republican majority who lowered taxes, passed welfare reform, and were responsible for a whole host of legislation that led to the economic growth of the Clinton years. Even the skyrocketing gas and food prices of recent years are obviously the result of idiotic Democrat policies like ethanol subsidies and "green" mandates - yet as usual, they never get the blame. ("It's 'Big Oil' you know.")

Even more outlandish is that while this whole mess is manifestly the result of too much government interference in private business, the financially inept Nancy Pelosi had the audacity to say that it was the result of too little government!

Not surprisingly, the Democrat's Ministry of Propaganda (otherwise know as ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, the New York Times, ad nauseum) immediately went to work, carefully shaping the public perception to coincide with the Democrat mantra.

Now I'll be the first to agree that there certainly are Republicans involved, but the undeniable fact remains that this debacle is overwhelmingly a Democrat inspired, Democrat initiated, and Democrat run disaster.

Yet it continues to be the "donkey in the living room" that the media, and as a result, most Americans, simply refuse to see.

You need only hear the ridiculous term "predatory lending" to realize that many Americans don't truly understand what credit is, or how it functions. People will often talk about "needing" credit. But need has nothing to do with how credit is granted. In fact, quite the opposite.

Credit, whether a car loan, a mortgage loan, or a credit card, is simply an agreement whereby someone gives you their money and you agree to pay it back within a certain period of time. The lender charges interest for providing the service, and to make a profit for putting their capital at risk by investing in you (hint: that's why we call it "capitalism").

Now, here's the part most people don't understand - the RATE of interest is based on the PROBABILITY THAT THE BORROWER WILL REPAY THE LOAN ON TIME. The higher the risk, the higher the rate.

The reason that Warren Buffet can borrow money at a lower rate than you or I could is not that he has an "in" with the banker - it is because he is simply far more likely to repay the loan than you or I are. He's a lower risk. And risk is what credit is all about.

Managing this risk is done in a variety of ways. "Secured" credit (such as a car or house loan) uses the value of some tangible asset (collateral) to increase the probability that the borrower will repay, by allowing the lender to "foreclose" on the asset if they don't. This results in a lower rate of interest.

Note also that the greater the value of the collateral, the lower the rate - thus a home loan where you make a down payment of 20% or more will have a much more attractive rate than one where you put down 10% or even less. Again, the more collateral the lender has as security, the less risk, and the lower the interest rate.

An unsecured line of credit (like a credit card) will always have a far higher interest rate than a secured loan. The lender has no assets to recover, and the borrower, who has no assets to lose, is far more likely to walk away from the debt (and the historical record proves this to be true).

Another aspect of managing risk is the historical data on the borrower. If you earn an income that would give you the means to pay back the amount of money you've borrowed, and you have a solid history of making your payments on time, then your interest rate will be lower than someone with a past filled with late payments, foreclosures, or bankruptcy. Such people may not even be able to obtain any credit at all.

Thus a person (or business) borrowing money with a high amount of collateral, a verifiable income, and an excellent record of repaying debt, will always get better terms than someone with little or no collateral, no verifiable income, and a bad credit history.

The current "credit crisis" is due to numerous violations of these simple rules, some of them actually mandated by well-meaning but financially illiterate members of Congress. The "anti-redlining" laws come to mind - the government in essence forced lenders to abandon their risk management strategies in order to increase "affordable housing" (another oxymoron). Worse, much of this legislation was the result of special interest pressure groups (a.k.a. "community organizers") in poor neighborhoods who view home ownership as a "right."

Now, I'm not letting the Federal Reserve off the hook either- interest rates down in the 4% range may have made mortgage loans more "affordable" but they also made it harder for lenders to earn enough to make an adequate return on their money. The response was to make more risky loans (like Adjustable Rate Mortgage loans, "balloon" loans, and others) which allowed a lower initial payment, but yielded a somewhat higher return over the long term (by raising rates later).

The results should have been predictable - more people with marginal credit borrowing more than they could afford, with a huge increase in risk. And it didn't take that long for the inevitable to happen - a dip in housing prices (which would have little impact on a market where most homes were bought with substantial down payments) suddenly wiped out the equity in many of the homes bought with little or no down payment.

Oh, and about that term "predatory lending" - it is an oxymoron, unless you believe that we have lenders skulking around street corners, whispering "Pssst! Hey buddy, I've got $200,000 in this briefcase, and you'd better take it, or else!"

Predatory lending is a term invented by elitist liberals who, as usual, see everyone but themselves as victims, too stupid to know what's best for them, and thus being "taken advantage of" by Snydly Whiplash and his cohorts (and needing, naturally, more big government "oversight" to protect them).

Now, government regulation has a role - if a lender charges a higher rate than was agreed to in the contract, or otherwise violates the agreement, then that's fraud, and dealing with fraud is indeed a proper use of government power. But we have gone long past that, to the point that we are attempting to protect people from their own stupidity.

I'm sorry, but if you are too lazy to read the fine print on a contract to borrow hundreds of thousands of dollars, I have no sympathy for you. If you really are, as liberals believe, too stupid to figure out that running a $7000 balance on your credit card is a bad idea, then don't look to the rest of us to bail you out.

From the corrupt government officials like Chris Dodd and Barney Frank to the flagrantly unethical (and perhaps illegal) bureaucrats at Fannie May and Freddie Mac, there is plenty of bad behavior to decry.

But at the end of the day, you and I are responsible for our debts. We either pay them, or suffer the consequences - we have no right to demand that our fellow taxpayers foot the bill.
 

Turning to Barak Obama and the Democrats to "fix" the economy is like asking Al Capone and his friends to clean up crime. In either case, you'd be looking for a solution from the very people who helped create the problem.

True, there are some "moderate" go-along Republicans who certainly share some of the blame, but there is simply no denying that Democrats are overwhelmingly at the center of the current mortgage mess.

Democrat Senator Chris Dodd is Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, and he is at the top of the list of recipients of "donations" from Freddie Mac and Fannie May. Democrat John Kerry is number two. And who is number three?
 
Barak Obama.

In fact, the top five money grabbers are ALL Democrats.

And this isn't just a case of guilt by association, or the unethical behaviors of financial executives - and there are plenty of them (most of whom just happen to be highly-connected Democrats, by the way).

No, it's more than that. When you dig into the root causes of the financial crisis, you find a mountain of bad policies - almost all of them put into place by Democrats going back to Franklin Roosevelt. Contrary to the absurd statement by Obama that the problem is too little "control" or "government oversight," the reality is that American financial markets are among the most highly regulated industries in existence. If anything, we have had far too much government interference in what should be matters of private sector commerce.

Take the Community Reinvestment Act, one of the chief culprits in the increase in foreclosures. This ridiculous piece of governmental meddling basically forced lenders to give loans to people whose credit ratings did not measure up. All in the name of "compassion" or "fairness" of course. The result? We have millions of people buying homes because they obtained loans they could not legitimately qualify for, and then, lo and behold, they can't make their payments. And we're supposed to be surprised?

Democrats are notoriously ignorant of basic economics, let alone the intricate workings of the real estate financial business. That's because they have always viewed economic policy, just as they do the tax code, not as as an instrument of fiscal policy, but as a way to implement liberal SOCIAL policy - a vehicle for taking money from successful people and give it to, well, losers. In this case, people who are clearly potential deadbeats.

Yet despite Democrats' miserable track record on all things economic, the polls indicate that the financial meltdown has caused a slight shift toward Democrats in the upcoming election. Since not a single pollster has bothered to ask these people WHY they would expect Democrats to do a better job than Republicans, I conducted a very unscientific survey of my own. I asked dozens of people about the current situation and who or what they thought was the cause.

You probably won't be surprised to find that most of them, while nice people, sounded disturbingly like Jay Leno's "man on the street" interviews - they were clueless. Most had no idea who Fannie May and Freddie Mac are, or what they do. Their comments as to who was to blame ranged from "big business" to "greedy lenders" to "the government." Thankfully, there was one woman who said "people borrowing more than they could afford" - but alas, she was the only one.

Another very disturbing fact that came out of my little survey was this: more than a third of the people I questioned thought that Republicans "controlled Congress" - they had no idea that Democrats were in the majority.

But then, with a mainstream media falling all over themselves to void telling the truth to the American people about Democrat hanky-panky, this should not come as a shock. After all, they are much too busy to be doing any real investigative reporting, such as looking into the top Democrats and their cozy relationships both inside and outside of these financial institutions.

However, these same overworked media types have somehow found enough spare time to seek out a friend of an employee of a firm who once worked for someone who maybe knew John McCain and might have gotten a few thousand dollars ten years ago for something but we're not sure what...but hey, THAT's a story! Welcome to 21st Century "journalism."

My concern is that the media just might get their wish. And if they do, the policies likely enacted under a Democratic President with a Democratic legislative majority would almost certainly bring about an economic debacle the likes of which we have not seen since the Jimmy Carter days.

Or worse...

You knew it was coming. Now that Barak the Beloved is lagging in the polls, his supporters are scrambling to blame "racial bias" for the change. Now, excuse me for pointing out the obvious, but didn't we all notice he was black (half black to be precise) from the moment he stepped onto the political stage?

So, if he's just as black now as he was then, are we supposed to believe that some sort of extended contemplation about his "blackness" has only now resulted in a downturn in the polls?

Of course not. What has actually happened is that the majority of regular folks have been learning more and more about Barak Obama himself, including his very questionable stable of "friends" - both past and present.

More importantly, as Obama makes more off-the-cuff remarks (versus carefully scripted speeches), people are learning more about his real views. On policy. On America. On life.

And they are disturbed by what they see.

Plainly, Obama is simply another big government Socialist, only this time dressed up in populist clothing. He sees a role for government in virtually every aspect of our lives, literally from cradle to grave. And contrary to the views of MoveOn.org, MSNBC and other bastions of far-left radical chic, that is not what most normal Americans truly want.

Even the current mortgage debacle has focused attention on Obama - he was the second biggest recipient of "donations" from Fannie May and Freddie Mac, the quasi-government agencies at the center of the storm.

Obama also seems to not like America very much. Time and again he speaks of America's "failings" while giving scant recognition of his country's extensive list of successes, including a record of responding to humanitarian crises unequaled in the history of the planet.

Meanwhile, Sarah Palin's obvious appreciation of American exceptionalism has won the hearts of middle-America to an extent that even former President Bill Clinton noticed. He praised her political instincts, and even warned Democrats not to underestimate her.

Now, I am not denying that racism still exists. Of course it does. But not at all to the extent that the race-obsessed believe. They see "discrimination" in every raised eyebrow, every slight by a surly waiter, every act of rudeness that all of us experience every day.

Oddly, these are the same people who seem to believe that if 98% of African-Americans vote for a black candidate, it is never a "race-based" vote, but if just 51% of white voters DON'T vote for a black candidate, it is "obviously racially motivated?"

No, my friends on the Left, Obama's continual decline in the polls is simply the result of the gradual clearing of the political fog surrounding the views of the candidate himself - not the color of his skin.

For some time now I have tried to ignore a disturbing trend. Americans are becoming more and more strident in political discourse, to the point that even friends are refusing to talk to each other. True, there were vile comments made by political opponents going back to the time of the American Revolution, and Abe Lincoln was described in terms that would do Keith Olbermann proud.

But those were public discussions between rivals in the political sphere, just as a site such as this is, where we expect a certain amount of emotion. I'm talking about the emergence of something new. What used to be friendly debates at the local bar, or even over dinner at family gatherings, are now suffused with the same sort of nasty tone.

And like it or not, as I look at my very broad range of friends from across the political spectrum, I find that the increasingly vicious language is overwhelmingly from those whose views come from the Left. Whatever the topic, they are invariably the first to become angry, and the first to personally attack those who disagree with them.

I know as I write this that some liberal reader will...well, become angry. Not merely disagree, but get angry - really, really ANGRY.

Just as I know that someone else will proffer the tired cliche that "both sides do it" - but the fact is, they don't. Or at least they didn't.  Look at the extreme violence exhibited on the public political stage today - it is almost exclusively the province of militant leftists. When has any group of conservatives trashed city streets, broken windows, thrown bags of urine, or participated in the kind of violence we saw in St. Paul last week?

This has been going on roughly since the 2000 election, beginning with the sour grapes of those on the Left who simply couldn't accept that their guy lost. Never mind how many recounts proved it, they weren't going to accept the outcome, and anyone who didn't go along was a "fascist" - or worse.

But my greater concern is that I see conservative friends starting to become frustrated with attempting to have a civil conversation - they are starting to "fight fire with fire." Before, they tended to stick to reason and logic in their debates with my more liberal friends. Now they, too are saying things in these conversations that truly disturb me, and the level of hostility keeps rising.

Perhaps the most telling anecdotal evidence of this shift in the state of the political landscape was a recent conversation I had with a guy I know. I hadn't seen him since last year and while having a light dinner at a local fast food joint, he dropped a comment about his car's "emergency kit" - which, when I inquired, turned out to include a 12-gauge shotgun, a handgun, and a whole lot of ammunition.

This is no "survivalist" or other such wing-nut.  Just a regular guy with a wife and a couple of grown kids, one of the kindest, most mild-mannered people you'd ever want to meet.

When I asked why he was taking such a step, he replied with a surprised look and asked me "you're kidding, right? You have any idea what the loony lefties will do if Obama loses, especially in a close election?" He's so concerned about the political environment that he has a mini-arsenal in his car.

The scariest thing about this exchange was that, after we parted, try as I might, I could no longer assure myself that his fears were completely groundless.

The outrage over Barak Obama's veiled reference to Governor Palin regarding putting "lipstick on a pig" is understandable. But falling into this cleverly constructed  trap (by overreacting to Obama's remarks) would indeed give his campaign what they want.
 
Obama's comment was NOT a gaff - it was planned, and written with the express intent of allowing Obama to slime Sarah Palin indirectly (the crowd knew exactly whom, not what, he was talking about) but then claim he "was only talking about policy, not people" - thus once again casting himself in the victim role, while painting Republicans and conservatives as "thin-skinned."
 
Remember, Obama is from Chicago, where this kind of political juijitsu is the rule, not the exception. Bait your opponents into reacting, then use it against them.

The main reason that Democrats get away with such tactics is that they have willing accomplices in the media who will bend the debate in their favor. The liberal talking barbie-dolls of CNN and NBC will roll their eyes and shake their heads at any accusation that Obama meant anything sinister or malicious by his remarks.

Ah, but should a similar off-hand remark be made about their Messiah, it would be the subject of "breaking news" spots, a "special report" segment, and endless panel discussions debating the "impact on the election."

Don't agree? Try this on for size. Imagine a Republican candidate talking about Obama's attempts to disguise his socialist tax policy as "tax cuts" and to underscore the fraud, made the remark "you can dress a monkey in a suit, but it's still a monkey."

Now, tell me what kind of coverage we would be seeing.

The broad appeal of Sarah Palin has highlighted the utter folly of Republican capitulations to liberalism. Those of us who have lamented the ever-leftward tilt by the party "leaders" have tried in vain to warn them that it was a losing strategy - it only alienated real conservatives, and didn't get one more vote from the middle-of-the-road swing voters who often determine the outcome of elections. Clearly, being "liberal light" hasn't worked for Republicans.

But why? Simple - the vast majority of regular folks don't vote on policy - they vote on character. Unlike the pundits and party "analysts" these people don't spend every waking moment immersed in politics. They have bills to pay, and families to raise. They often don't know or understand the details of complex economic and legal matters.

So they look at the person more than the party, or even policy. And time and again they have gravitated toward men or women who show strength and the courage of their convictions, even when a candidate's views are counter to their own. Remember that it was the "Reagan Democrats" and Independents who gave Reagan not just a victory, but a landslide - he won 49 States.

Many of these voters may have disagreed with him on this or that policy, but it was Reagan's boundless confidence and refusal to compromise that won their vote - he gave them a sense of real security.

Note that as John McCain's and Barak Obama's respective characters become more clearly revealed, more and more of these critical swing voters are leaning toward McCain.

Now comes Sarah Palin, as strong a woman as has ever run for political office. You may disagree with some of her positions, but if you have an ounce of honesty, you will admire her integrity. This is no wishy-washy politician - this is a woman who radiates strength, commitment to her ideals, and courage. In other words, character.

Even the polls are picking up the trend - the McCain/Palin ticket has gotten a tremendous boost in just one week.  Again, this is not the result of conservative support, but of a far broader appeal, cutting across all demographics.

Thus the more the pseudo-feminists who inhabit the mainstream media continue to viciously attack Sarah, the more that real women rally to her defense. They don't like it. And come election day, they will show it.

I can only hope that the hysterical harpies (male and female) on CNN, NBC, MSNBC and the rest continue to expose their true colors - it will merely give Sarah Palin more opportunities to show hers.

 

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.

First, 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:

123 Shot Dead in Chicago Over the Summer

Total is double the number of soldiers killed in Iraq

Sarah Palin will be the first woman President of the United States. The Alaska Governor's stunning political debut at the Republican Convention left every one of the major news organizations scrambling to comprehend the enormity of her performance. The "chattering class" were abuzz at her rhetorical skills - the woman is simply a natural.

And it wasn't just a couple of conservative pundits. Both Candy Crowley and Wolff Blitzer of CNN grudgingly admitted that this was a woman to be reckoned with, while the forlorn, almost defeated look on the face of MSNBC's Obama-worhshiper-in-residence Andrea Mitchell was proof positive that Governor Palin had just hit one out of the park.

The most surprising comment came from CNN's Campbell Brown, who, with uncharacteristic candor, admitted that "she really got to me on an emotional level" when Sarah told the audience that every parent of a special needs child would have an advocate in the White House. Ms. Brown appeared genuinely moved, so much so that I got the distinct impression she was actually contemplating voting Republican.

Oh, sure, there was the usual bile from the likes of Paul Begala, the vile weasle of the Far Left who could find something rotten to say about Mother Theresa, should he discover that she was a conservative.

But across the board, regardless of the caveats, the word was out - Sarah Palin is one tough cookie. Even after a week of vicious personal attacks at the hands of MoveOn.org and other Left-Wing character assassination specialists, Governor Palin came out swinging...and with a smile, no less.

And despite the attempts of Obama's cohorts in the mainstream media to cast Sarah as "appealing to the conservative base" it is clear that the reality is far more threatening to them - this woman's appeal is far broader than they want to admit. From male gun owners to union members in Midwestern towns to working women, Sarah connects.

Even lifelong Democrat women see a true heroine - a mother of 5 with the heart of a lioness. A woman who defied the odds, not just in "a man's world" but in THE man's world - Alaska. And, more importantly, she won. In a state where Independent voters outnumber Democrats and Republicans combined, she has an 80% approval rating, the highest of any governor in the nation.

Perhaps the most revealing moment during Sarah's speech was the one that was not in the script. Upon seeing some supporters holding up "Hockey Moms for Palin" signs, the hockey-mom Governor quipped: "Do you know the difference between a Hockey Mom and a Pit Bull?" After a slight pause, she answered her own rhetorical question: "Lipstick."

The crowd roared - they understood.

Conservatives have long been pining for "the next Reagan" - little did they know that their dream might be realized by a Pit Bull in a skirt and heels.

Underestimating Sarah Palin is a mistake that many on the American Left are likely to make. With her warm smile and natural ability to speak to a crowd, she appears anything but intimidating. However, I would warn her attackers that this is a woman with a depth of character that transcends politics - it is who she is.

I have friends in the Law Enforcement and Special Ops communities, including some Navy SEALs, and despite their very different personalities, the one overriding trait they all share is an absolute refusal to back down, no matter what the odds.

Sarah Palin has exhibited this kind of tenacity since she was a child. As a young girl she played sports with a ferocity that earned her the nickname "Sarah Barracuda."  She once finished a basketball game (scoring the winning point) with a fracture.

And she truly is "as tough as nails" in other ways as well. Remember that Sarah was moose hunting in Alaska with her father when Barak Obama was lounging around beaches in Hawaii. I have yet to hear if Obama has ever even fired a gun in his life, let alone while trekking in the wilderness.

This is not about Sarah Palin's executive abilities - that is a discussion for another day. What I am suggesting is that, like John McCain, she clearly has the incredible strength of character we ache to see in our leaders, but seldom do.

And I can't wait until she has her first real chance to show it in the upcoming campaign.

So, go ahead, make her day...

Gun owners, beware. Hidden in Barak Obama's MTV style acceptance speech was a message that should send chills up the spines of everyone who values, not just the right to own a gun, but the very right of self-defense.

Like most of Obama's carefully crafted statements, it sounds innocuous enough:

"The reality of gun ownership may be different for hunters in rural Ohio than for those plagued by gang-violence in Cleveland, but don't tell me we can't uphold the Second Amendment while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals."

Who could be against keeping guns away from criminals, right? The problem is, after 40 years of gun control experiments, the data show that no law, whether Federal, State, or local has ever done anything to keep thugs from getting guns. In a recent FBI study, the gang members interviewed reportedly "just laughed at the idea."

More to the point, remember that Obama publicly endorsed Chicago's total ban on handguns, which leaves innocent citizens helpless, while doing nothing to keep guns "out of the hands of criminals" - Chicago gang members continue to commit 600 murders a year, most of them with handguns.

Obama does however, believe in keeping guns out of YOUR hands. He has openly stated that he wants to eliminate the Right to Carry laws that now protect more than 80% of the nations citizens. Like Rosie O'Donnell, Obama sees nothing wrong in surrounding himself with a team of armed bodyguards to protect HIS life - but you shouldn't be allowed to carry a gun to protect yours.

But what about those "AK-47s" anyway? Aren't they "more dangerous" than other guns? Well, ignoring the obvious fact that such military-style rifles are used only in rare instances, the reality is that a gun is a gun. Any 12 guage pump shotgun is far more deadly (in the wrong hands) than ANY so-called "assault weapon," and after ten years of banning "scary-looking" guns, even the anti-gun types admitted it had "no discernible effect on violent crime."

Besides, exactly what difference does it make what kind of gun some gang-banger (or homicidal dingbat) uses? Virginia Tech shooter Seung-Hui Cho used an ordinary Glock pistol, and he killed more than 30 people, including himself. What allowed him to do that was not the kind of gun he had - it was that no one on the campus was allowed to have a gun to fight back.

But if he is elected, don't hope that such harsh realities will stop Obama from knuckling under to the heavily funded anti-gun lobbying groups that are pouring MILLIONS into his campaign. They are looking at your guns and licking their chops.

Oh, and you "hunterbators" (you know who you are, the "I'm just a hunter-they'll never bother MY guns" types), just keep telling yourself that, while throwing your fellow gun owners under the bus.

But remember that there is still the matter of Supreme Court Justices. Just what kind of justice do you trust Obama to nominate?

Be afraid. Be very afraid.