At some point, even the most naive Americans must realize what a mistake they made in voting for Barak Obama, the least qualified President in modern history, perhaps even all time. But his incompetence is now exceeded by his divisive rhetoric. Obama is now engaging in the same outrageous race-baiting that we expect from poverty pimps like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.

Only last week Obama played the race card yet again, when he pointedly begged only "blacks, Latinos, and women" to vote for Democrats - apparently he is uninterested in voters of Asian, Native American, or Middle Eastern backgrounds, not to mention Caucasian men.

Then the President outright lied in commenting on Arizona's recent effort to deal with the violence and economic havoc wrought by illegal aliens. With the kind of theatrical absurdity he employs so frequently, Obama falsely claimed that the law would mean that if you looked a certain way, and "if you took your kid out to get ice cream, you might be harassed" by the police.

What nonsense. The Arizona law simply allows police to verify the citizenship of suspected offenders, and pointedly prohibits the police from stopping someone simply because of what they look like. Besides, given the fact that just about every third person in Arizona is, or looks, Hispanic, how exactly would police "target" such a huge segment of the population?

Then there was the obviously orchestrated chorus of Left-wing journalists, wailing and whining that a mere request by a police officer for identification is somehow akin to Soviet KGB agents asking to "see your papers."  Naturally, they completely ignored the fact that every adult American has to show proof of their identity (and more) every day.

When stopped by police you will be asked to produce a driver's license, vehicle registration, and proof of insurance. When boarding an airplane you must show a government approved photo ID. And when using a credit card, opening a bank account, or just cashing a check, you will need to show at least a driver's license. About the only place you don't have to show any identification whatsoever is when you vote - a situation Democrats love, and want to maintain at all costs. For without voter fraud, Democrats might never again win another election, let alone be in a majority.

But the most ludicrous statement Obama made was when he stated that the Arizona law was somehow "unfair" - Unfair? To whom? A bunch of people who chose to sneak into our country?

I'll tell you what is unfair.

Forcing American citizens to risk being hit and killed by legions of illegal aliens with no driver's licenses, frequently drunk, and often driving uninsured cars - that is unfair.

Driving hospitals and schools into bankruptcy because of the mobs of illegal aliens who have overloaded the system, while forcing American citizens to pay the skyrocketing costs - that is unfair.

Ignoring the scourge of drugs, kidnappings, rapes, car thefts, and mayhem that illegal aliens have brought to more and more American cities - that is unfair.

American construction workers, hospitality workers, and many others seeing their jobs taken by people who aren't even citizens - that is unfair.

But the larger issue, and far more disturbing than Obama's inflammatory and divisive rhetoric, is the fact that when faced with a problem that pits illegal aliens against American citizens, the President of the United States has decided to come down on the side of the illegals..and against the American people, the very citizens that he is supposed to represent and serve.

We can only hope that Americans, who wholeheartedly support the Arizona law across all demographic groups, "remember in November" just whose side Obama and the Democrats are on...

Uganda offers a 'gun control' paradise

by David Codrea for Examiner.com

"When I became a man, I put away my toy gun," writes Charles Onyango-Obbo in The East African. He's commenting on a picture worth a thousand words:

A picture of Uganda’s President Yoweri Museveni visiting mudslide victims in military uniform and an AK-47 strapped across his chest has created quite a buzz in the blogsphere.

The thing is, Musevni offers a good representation of what much of the world has experienced when it practices the goals of those who would ban private ownership of guns, and limit their keeping and bearing to the state and its representatives. You know, the "Only Ones."

We saw how that worked out during Idi Amin's reign of terror. How's it working in more recent history?

David B. Kopel, Paul Gallant and Joanne D. Eisen offer us some clues:

[I]n its effort to "disarm," the Ugandan army, supported by tanks and helicopter gunships, is burning down villages, sexually torturing men, raping women, and plundering what few possessions the tribespeople own. Tens of thousands of victims have been turned into refugees. Human rights scholar Ben Knighton has used the term “ethnocide” to describe the army's campaign.

But there's scant mention of such methods if we rely on the United Nations for information on the "programme":

Some 3,500 pieces of small arms and light weapons were destroyed on October 5, 2009, part of activities marking the tenth anniversary of the East African Community held in Speke Resort in Kampala. The destruction was carried out by the National Focal Point on Small Arms and Light Weapons (SALW), the Ministry of Internal Affairs, Uganda Peoples Defence Forces (UPDF), Uganda Police Force (UPF), and the Ministry for East African Affairs, with support from UNDP.

The destruction of the weapons, mainly AK-47 machine guns and semi-automatic rifles, was initiated by President Yoweri Museveni of Uganda and witnessed by the prime minister of Rwanda and dignitaries including ministers from the East African community and the UNDP Resident Representative.

Quite a success story, eh, these fruits of the United Nations Programs of Action, the Bamako Declaration and the Nairobi Declaration and Nairobi Protocol on SALW (small arms and light weapons)? Hey, I'll bet all those refugees who survived feel a lot safer now that "cattle rustlers" and other "non state actors" have been disarmed. Not that it has stopped those pesky rebels.

One group that shouldn't feel safer, though, is Ugandan gays:

Same-sex relationships are already illegal in the country under sections 140, 141 and 143, with sentences running from five years to life imprisonment...[T]he Anti-Homosexuality Bill increases in scope both the definition of 'homosexual acts' and the punishment with the death penalty for repeated offenses, those who are HIV-positive and for same-sex acts with anyone under 18 years.

So, what do the "human rights progressives" who demand total citizen disarmament offer in the way of choice for those who might not want to be imprisoned or killed? Somehow, I don't see a Ugandan chapter of Pink Pistols being one of the options.

IANSA's Rebecca Peters will no doubt tell them to "get another hobby."

David Codrea is an Examiner from the National Edition. You can see David's articles at: http://www.Examiner.com/x-1417-Gun-Rights-Examiner

[For those who think our own leaders would be any different, in cities like Chicago which already have Uganda-like prohibitions on the private ownership of handguns, local politicians routinely exempt themselves, owning (and carrying) handguns regularly - and in the corrupt Chicago system, there is hell to pay for any local cops who dare to arrest the politically connected - Ed.]

When I heard a liberal young man recently remark that the reason for the housing debacle was that "greedy banks preyed on unsuspecting people" I realized just how out of touch those on the American left actually are. Aside from the obvious point that the young man was factually wrong - the mortgage crisis was the result of government meddling in the private sector (see "Community Reinvestment Act"), in one phrase this young man pointedly illustrated the fundamental problem with those who claim a liberal leaning - their ability to twist reality to suit their distorted view of the world.

Take the concept of "greed" - liberals misuse it by labeling just about anyone who dares to aspire to a higher level of financial success as "greedy." They truly abhor, no, hate, "the rich" - that's why they always want to tax them into bankruptcy. But seeking to improve one's lot in life is not "greed" - it is ambition, which is the hallmark of every successful human being, and especially entrepreneurs.

More importantly, the desire to profit from one's endeavors is not only human nature, it is also the driving force behind every great advancement in human history. It is no coincidence that those with a higher than normal desire for financial success are the very people most likely to produce the next great improvement in the lives of everyone. Without the possibility of personal reward, there would have been no steam engines, no radio, no automobile, no television, no jet airplanes, no miracle drugs, no MRI machines, no telephone, no personal computer...and no i-Pod (OK, maybe that last one we could do without).

And spare me the canard about "non-profits" - their executives are among the highest paid in the nation, and they couldn't survive without the lavishly generous donations from all those hard working capitalists who fund them. Yet liberals seem to be possessed of an almost uncontrollable envy of those who achieve more than they do (except for left-wing Hollywood actors whose only contribution to society is "entertainment").

Oddly, liberals never seem to see anything "greedy" about the public school teachers unions, the welfare "rights" mobs, and all the other government dependent parasites storming their state capitols, demanding ever more pay and benefits - all of which are paid for with money extorted from the already stretched-to-the-breaking-point taxpayers. Yet, what is more truly greedy than to want someone else's money, and to use the power of government to take it from those who have earned it?

Then there is the young man's view that banks "prey on unsuspecting people" - a view shared by most liberals, who see just about every private sector business as a cabal of evil ogres seeking to take advantage of the unsuspecting consumer. On every mainstream news organization, and in just about every TV program or movie, this line is repeated and reinforced -  every "big business" is out to get you. Because liberals do not ever see you as a customer - to them you are a helpless "victim" at the mercy of "Big Oil" or "Big Pharmaceuticals" or "Big Tobacco" (you know, those cigarette manufacturers that roam the countryside, forcing people at gunpoint to take up smoking).

Sadly, even putative "independents" like Bill O'Reilly have fallen for this line of thinking. He recently talked about how people "have to be protected from 'high risk' practices" by financial institutions. But the fact is that the ability and willingness to take risks, and accept the consequences that result, is a fundamental and essential element of free market capitalism. So why do liberals believe that it is the government's job to protect you from the results of your own decisions to invest in, buy, or sell anything?

Because, whether deciding where to send your children to school, or what kind of home loan you want, or even what kind of light bulb you put in your home, liberals believe that you cannot be trusted to make such decisions for yourself. In the view of the liberal, you are too stupid  - you need "the Government" to watch over you. Look at just about every liberal government program instituted over the last 50 years, and you will see two overriding premises behind their drive to exert ever-increasing governmental control over your life: the private sector is "greedy," and you are too stupid to make your own decisions.

Naturally, you will never hear a liberal use the phrase "Big Government" as a pejorative - in spite of the fact that only government can, literally, reach into your bank account and take your hard-earned money by force. No, for them, an all powerful Nanny-State controlling every aspect of your life is just fine with them, thank you very much.

But more and more Americans, even more than a few who used to call themselves liberals, are waking up to this reality. The only question is whether or not they will make their voices heard in sufficient numbers in the 2010 election to push back the tide of socialism that has been inexorably inundating America.

One has to wonder what bubble gun control advocates are living under. While state after state has recognized the right of their citizens to carry handguns in public for protection, the anti-gun (and anti-self-defense) groups like the Brady Campaign continue to spout the same tired old Chicken Little rhetoric that has long ago been proved wrong.

But as usual, the basic argument of the gun-phobic is not what actually does happen, but what might happen. Just this week,  after Starbucks announced that they would welcome gun carrying customers in their stores, anti-gun Democrat Carolyn McCarthy hysterically asked in a U.S. News opinion piece:

"Are people going to have a shoot-out at their local coffee shop if their grande latte order is incorrect?"

What nonsense. Ms. McCarthy then goes on to make a rather odd claim:

"Everyone should be able to sit in a coffee shop or a local diner with their families without being confronted with the threatening presence of openly displayed handguns."

"Threatening" presence? What "threat" can she document? With residents of 48 of the 50 states now having the ability to carry handguns for protection, the actual data show that permit holders are remarkably good citizens - you are more than 8 times less likely to be harmed, let alone shot, by any of the nation's 6 million legal permit holders than you are by a random citizen.

Another intriguing claim by the anti-gun types is that they have some sort of "right" to a "gun-free" fantasyland. As the New York Times article about a case before the Supreme Court recently put it:

"The Supreme Court’s conservative majority has made clear that it is very concerned about the right to bear arms. There is another right, however, that should not get lost: the right of people, through their elected representatives, to adopt carefully drawn laws that protect them against other people’s guns."

The Times writer shows a remarkable misunderstanding of the concept of "rights" - while we all have the right to be protected from the criminal actions of others, no one has the right to demand that everyone in their immediate vicinity be disarmed, just because they "feel" threatened.

We all have a right to be protected from arson - but people do not have a right "to adopt carefully drawn laws that protect them from other people's matches."

We all have a right to be protected from drunk drivers - but people do not have a right "to adopt carefully drawn laws that protect them from other people's cars."

The Times article inadvertently exposes another major flaw in the anti-gun crowd's viewpoint. Instead of (rightly) fearing the criminal - gun control worshipers instead fear the gun itself. They seem obsessed with the "lethality" of this or that gun - it's not a just a rifle with a black plastic stock. Oh, no, it's an "Assault Weapon."

They even elevate certain guns to mystical, dare I say almost "superhuman" status - the AK-47 being the "Darth Vader" of all "evil" weapons. And oh, how they love it when some nut case just happens to use one in some psychotic rampage - it "proves" the need for more gun control, you see. (Note also that when the deranged shooter turns out to have used an ordinary 12-gauge shotgun - far more powerful than any so-called "assault weapon" - the story quickly disappears from the front page.)

Oddly, while the gun control zealots like Ms. McCarthy accuse gun rights activists of trying to "turn the country back into the Wild West" - precisely the opposite is true. It is the gun control activists who are being left behind.

Americans have been buying more and more guns, and sales of both guns and ammunition have skyrocketed over the last 18 months.

More and more Americans have been signing up to get permits to carry handguns - young and old, black and white, men and women, gay and straight.

Meanwhile, violent crime, including violent crime involving firearms,  has declined. But no matter - facts be damned, the shrinking minority of gun control "true believers" persist in their vain quest.

One day it's attempting to ban gun shows - in spite of the fact that all research shows that 99% of violent criminals have never even been to a gun show.

The next it's railing about some average Joe having the temerity to actually carry a gun in public - oh, the humanity!

But the tide continues to turn against The Brady Bunch and their ilk. Public support for gun control has been plummeting for more than two decades. Surveys indicate that more than 90% of Americans now agree that the right to own firearms is an individual right - not a collective one as claimed the anti-gun cabal.

Even the notoriously left wing Daily Show with John Stewart recently featured a hilarious parody of the "open carry issue" that pretty much made the anti-gun crowd look like 1950's segregationists:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-april-12-2010/open-carrier-discrimination

And soon, perhaps even in my lifetime, the doors to gun control "Fantasyland" will finally be boarded up for good.

With former President Bill Clinton disgustingly attempting to totally mis-label the peaceful Tea Party attendees as somehow akin to "Timothy McVeigh" wannabes, it is instructive to try and imagine the uproar if a movie about the fictional assassination of Barak Obama were to be produced and released today.

The New York Times editorial staff would likely appropriate the entire front page for a diatribe against "right wing rage" - everyone from FOX news to Talk Radio to Tea Party participants would be in the Times' cross-hairs (pun intended).

MSNBC's sexually transposed anchors, Rachael Maddow and Keith Olbermann (Keith is the one in the woman's underwear) would surely be apoplectic with hysterical calls for boycotts, lawsuits - perhaps even demands for criminal prosecution of the films producers for "inciting violence" against the President.

CNN's anchors would be aghast at the very thought than anyone would even consider such a topic - complete with the most serious of expressions, along with the now mandatory somber head-shaking when "reporting" even imaginary threats to any Democrat, let alone the President.

Hollywood types (who make millions from movies depicting egregiously violent acts) would appear on late night shows like David Letterman, and express their outrage at such an "over the top" and "totally indefensible" topic.

But wait a minute! In 2006, a movie called "Death of a President" actually was produced - with one minor difference. The "President" killed in that film was, you guessed it, George W. Bush. It was released on September 11, 2006 - that's right, the 5-year anniversary of the Islamo-Fascist attack on the World Trade Center. So much for respectful timing.

And the reaction to that tasteless (and rather amateurish) piece of left-wing propaganda? Well, it is a testament to the American public that it bombed at the box office. In it's (mercifully) short run, the attendance figures showed that many theaters had fewer than a dozen people in the audience. The film never even recovered its production expenses, let alone turn a profit.

But the reaction of the overwhelmingly left-leaning news and entertainment media was another matter altogether. Less than 5 days after it's release, "Death of President" received an award at the Toronto Film Festival. OK, that was Canada. But vitriolic hatred against George Bush, and even outright exhortations to violence, are nothing new.

On the ultra-left-wing Air America, talk show host Randi Rhodes once recommended doing to Bush what Michael Corleone, in "The Godfather, Part II," does to his brother. "Like Fredo," she said, "somebody ought to take him out fishing and phuw!" -- then imitated the sound of a gunshot.

In the British daily, the Guardian, columnist Charlie Brooker issued a plea: "John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr. -- where are you now that we need you?"

The Washington Post yawningly reported that "Death of a President" was perhaps controversial, but still couldn't keep from reporting that "Rod Liddle, a newspaper and magazine columnist who also makes documentaries for Channel 4, said he thought the Bush film gave voice to a common sentiment in Britain. You will never, ever be able to overestimate the degree to which the British people loathe George Bush," Liddle said. "It will be a free round of drinks in every pub for the person who plays the assassin."

At least one columnist, Jeff Jacoby of the Boston Globe, did have the integrity to ask in his review of the movie, "Six years into the Bush administration, are there any new lows to which the Bush-haters can sink?"

But he was the exception. On the whole, the reaction was, if not outright support for the movie, a kind of "wink-and-a-nod" to the film's premise. There were no "panel discussions" to discuss "the larger ramifications" of such an inflammatory piece. No "concern" over its potential for "promoting violence."

So, Mr. Clinton, rather than spouting your phony "concerns" over violence from everyday Americans, if might be better if you were to keep an eye on your own house - after all, from the Weather Underground to the WTO protesters, it is those on "your side" who have a much longer and darker record of violence than any of the Tea Party folks. 

Because, Mr. Clinton, unless you and the rest of the Democrats cease and desist from unfairly demonizing those who simply disagree with your socialist policies, then you and your cronies may very well be sowing the seeds of violence yourselves. And it won't come from our side - history shows that it will come from yours.

And that would be a terrible thing...for all Americans.

Good Riddance!

By Thomas Sowell

When Supreme Court Justices retire, there is usually some pious talk about their "service," especially when it has been a long "service." But the careers of all too many of these retiring jurists, including currently retiring Justice John Paul Stevens, have been an enormous disservice to this country.

Justice Stevens was on the High Court for 35 years-- more's the pity, or the disgrace. Justice Stevens voted to sustain racial quotas, created "rights" out of thin air for terrorists, and took away American citizens' rights to their own homes in the infamous "Kelo" decision of 2005. The Constitution of the United States says that the government must pay "just compensation" for seizing a citizen's private property for "public use." In other words, if the government has to build a reservoir or bridge, and your property is in the way, they can take that property, provided that they pay you its value.

What has happened over the years, however, is that judges have eroded this protection and expanded the government's power-- as they have in other issues. This trend reached its logical extreme in the Supreme Court case of Kelo v. City of New London. This case involved local government officials seizing homes and businesses-- not for "public use" as the Constitution specified, but to turn this private property over to other private parties, to build more upscale facilities that would bring in more tax revenues.

Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the Supreme Court opinion that expanded the Constitution's authorization of seizing private property for "public use" to seizing private property for a "public purpose." And who would define what a "public purpose" is? Basically, those who were doing the seizing. As Justice Stevens put it, the government authorities' assessment of a proper "public purpose" was entitled to "great respect" by the courts.

Let's go back to square one. Just who was this provision of the Constitution supposed to restrict? Answer: government officials. And to whom would Justice Stevens defer: government officials. Why would those who wrote the Constitution waste good ink putting that protection in there, if not to protect citizens from the very government officials to whom Justice Stevens deferred?

John Paul Stevens is a classic example of what has been wrong with too many Republicans' appointments to the Supreme Court. The biggest argument in favor of nominating him was that he could be confirmed by the Senate without a fight.

Democratic presidents appoint judges who will push their political agenda from the federal bench, even if that requires stretching and twisting the Constitution to reach their goals.

Republicans too often appoint judges whose confirmation will not require a big fight with the Democrats. You can always avoid a fight by surrendering, and a whole wing of the Republican party has long ago mastered the art of preemptive surrender.

The net result has been a whole string of Republican Justices of the Supreme Court carrying out the Democrats' agenda, in disregard of the Constitution. John Paul Stevens has been just one.

There may have been some excuse for President Ford's picking such a man, in order to avoid a fight, at a time when he was an unelected President who came into office in the wake of Richard Nixon's resignation in disgrace after Watergate, creating lasting damage to the public's support of the Republicans.

But there was no such excuse for the elder President Bush to appoint David Souter, much less for President Eisenhower, with back-to-back landslide victories at the polls, to inflict William J. Brennan on the country.

In light of these justices' records, and in view of how long justices remain on the court, nominating such people was close to criminal negligence.

If and when the Republicans return to power in Washington, we can only hope that they remember what got them suddenly and unceremoniously dumped out of power the last time. Basically, it was running as Republicans and then governing as if they were Democrats, running up big deficits, with lots of earmarks and interfering with the market.

But their most lasting damage to the country has been putting people like John Paul Stevens on the Supreme Court.

When liberal pundit Bob Beckel angrily told conservative talk show host Sean Hannity that he was simply "outraged" that anyone would dare to call Barak Obama a socialist, I almost spilled my coffee - I thought "he's kidding, right?" But Beckel is not alone - on just about every "news" show and political forum you hear liberals expressing utter disbelief that anyone would dare refer to the most radically socialist president in U.S. history as...well, a socialist.

What is most disingenuous about such denials is the fact that just about everyone in Obama's entourage of advisers and confidants have, at one time or another, openly called themselves socialists, or worse. They aren't even hiding it any longer.

SEIU union boss Andy Stern went so far as to proudly mouth the official communist motto "workers of the world, unite" - and this from the man who has Obama's ear perhaps more than anyone outside the President's cabinet.

Vice-President Biden finally admitted publicly what we all knew, that much of the so-called Health Care bill was in fact nothing more than a thinly disguised "redistribution of wealth" - echoing Obama's own famous "spreading the wealth" blooper to Joe the Plumber. So it is especially comical to listen to the braying and bleating of the liberal elites, feigning indignation at being accurately described as what they are - socialists to the core.

Using misleading labels to hide their true agenda is nothing new for liberals - nobody knows how to put "lipstick on a pig" the way a liberal can. Tell the truth about a liberal is labeled a "smear" - and likely a "racist" one at that. A "rose by any other name" may still be a rose to any thinking person, but to a liberal, the label becomes the reality.

A perfect example of is the latest liberal rallying cry, "social justice" -  a noble sounding (and focus-group tested) name for what is basically, "using the power of government to extort money from those who earn it, and give it to people who didn't ear it." In other words, socialism.

Notice that liberals have also stopped using the word "welfare" completely - every entitlement program is now a "safety net." Want to sell a reckless Trillion dollar government spending bill? Why, let's call it a "stimulus" plan! Never mind that the only thing it has stimulated is the national debt. Oh, and unemployment rates. And housing foreclosures.

Liberals even keep changing what they call themselves - when "progressive" became a dirty word, voila, they became "liberals." But now that most people have discovered that "liberal" is just another word for "socialist," they have gone back to calling themselves "progressives" once again.

Apparently they hope that no one alive today is old enough to remember that early 20th Century progressives were virtually all socialists (not to mention utterly enthralled with the likes of Mussolini).

So spare us the phony outrage and just admit who, and what, you are - socialists.

Because you aren't fooling us anymore.

For years, the Democrat majority in the state of Michigan have been overtaxing, over-regulating, and overspending their state into a full blown catastrophe. Houses that once sold for $130,000 can be had for $7000 - last week a home was sold for $100. You read that right - $100 for a house. Whole neighborhoods are being targeted for the bulldozer.

The Michigan "education" system, already one of the nation's worst, with the city of Detroit graduating an abysmal 27% of their students, has been closing schools left and right. The city has lost almost a million people.

Thus it is nothing short of astonishing that  in the face of a virtual implosion of the state's economy, the Democrats who caused the crisis have decided on a cure. You guessed it - more taxes.

That's right. With Michigan unemployment at a staggering 14.5% (and the more accurate U-6 rate at over 20%) the state's Democratic "leadership" has decided that even more onerous taxation will somehow magically cure the problem.

When Democrat Governor Jennifer Granholm had originally announced that an actual tax cut was in the offing, business-savvy economists were pleasantly surprised - they thought that she had finally come to her senses. But the hope was short-lived - as it turns out, after proposing a tiny cut in the state income tax from 6.0% to 5.5% Granholm announced a whole laundry list of new businesses that would be added to the roles of those having to pay the state sales tax.

From auto repair shops to beauty salons, and even dog groomers, almost a hundred business categories, many of them already barely hanging on, will now have to deal with yet another tax that will drive up their costs in a recession, not to mention forcing them to consider laying off staff in a job market that is already flooded with the unemployed.

Not surprisingly, business owners were appalled, and worried - yet another new tax would surely hurt their already shaky financial status. More than a few of them have stated that this will be the last straw - they will simply pack up and move to a state where the economic prospects are better. Many businesses already have.

And Democrats at the Federal level are no better.

Barak Obama and the Democrat majority in Congress have just run up the nation's credit card to an unmanageable and unsustainable level - spending TRILLIONS of dollars that the nation does not have. And what is their answer to suffocating debt?

More taxes.

Which begs the question - what is it about Democrats, especially liberal Democrats, that they seem absolutely unable to grasp even the most basic economic principles regarding business and taxation?

How many times can they see the disastrous results of their insane policies before they realize how they are destroying the economy of their states, and ultimately, the nation?

The answer is, they won't. No Democrat, whether a school board member or a U.S. Senator, ever even considers cutting government spending - their response is always the same: raise taxes. It is in their DNA.

So, it is becoming increasingly clear that the only hope of saving the country from suffering the fate of Michigan is for Americans to show up in November and throw as many of these economically illiterate socialists (a.k.a. Democrats) out of office as possible.

Ironically, Michigan may offer a ray of hope. After decades of voting mindlessly for Democrats, even they are "waking up and smelling the coffee" - Democrat Representative Bart Stupak has already announced that he will not even run for re-election. Apparently, after deciding at the last minute to vote for Obama's onerous "health care" bill, the Michigan voters have made it clear that he has no hope of retaining his seat.

Let's hope that many more tax-and-spend Democrats are shown the door in November - before they can destroy America the way they have destroyed Michigan.

To Keep and Bear Arms

http://www.doczero.org/2010/03/to-keep-and-bear-arms/

Twenty-five years ago, a little after sunrise on a Monday morning, the front door of my house was kicked in by a man who had blown his mind with crack cocaine. He marched my family upstairs at gunpoint. When I reached the top of the stairs and turned around, he put the gun in my forehead and pulled the trigger.

I’ve always heard it was good to begin a composition with an arresting opening paragraph. That’s the catchiest one I can offer from an otherwise modest biography. I hope the rest of this essay lives up to the opening. I’ll do my best.

I don’t mind admitting this incident gave me a lifelong aversion to guns. I don’t have any objection to other law-abiding citizens bearing arms – in fact, I’m strongly in favor of it. It’s just not a right I have chosen to exercise, although I’m working on getting over it. I’m fascinated by the beauty and science of firearms. I rarely pass a gun magazine on the stands without flipping it open, and I love attending gun shows.

My first close encounter with a gun was rather… intense, so I’m understandably nervous around them. I recently discovered I’m a remarkably good shot with a target rifle, after some friends invited me to shoot with them. I’ve decided twenty-five years is long enough to be uncomfortable around the reality of something I’ve always supported in theory.

The Second Amendment is once again in the news, as the Supreme Court considers a case that would invoke the Fourteenth Amendment to apply it to the states, striking down restrictive state and local gun-control laws… oh, wait. You’re probably wondering why I’m still here, having been shot in the head and all.

Well, I got lucky. I was able to knock the gun out of the way just in time, and the bullet wound up in the wall, instead of my brain. I had managed to make a hasty call to the police as the door was being kicked in, and they arrived to find the perp and I wrestling for control of the weapon at the bottom of the stairs. No one died in my house that day.

I wish the Supreme Court would do more than rule the Second Amendment applies to the states. It’s long past time the last, ridiculous cobwebs of ambiguity were cleared away from the right to keep and bear arms. Gun control has been simmering on low heat for a while, after boiling over in the Nineties. We should clear it off the Constitutional stove altogether. We have better things to do than slip into another bitter, tedious argument about whether the government can interfere with our right, and duty, to defend ourselves.

The notion that citizens have no good reason to be armed, because the State can protect them from violent crime, is one of the most dangerous lies Big Government has fed its subjects. The government reduces crime through the police and court systems, but no matter how tirelessly the police work, there is very little chance they can actively defend you from assault. There aren’t enough of them, and there never could be. The very areas of privacy that allow us to relax with our friends and families will always be soft targets for criminals… unless we fortify them ourselves.

The police arrived at my house several minutes too late to play a role in my attempted execution. They made excellent time – there happened to be a unit in the area. If things had gone a little different, they might have arrived just in time to avenge me.

Citizen access to firearms has reduced crime rates time and again, but this is more than a matter of practicality. It’s a question of principle. The people of an orderly nation surrender the business of vengeance to the government, replacing it with the rule of law. They cannot be expected to surrender the right of defense.

The right to protect yourself, and your family, from injury and death is an essential part of your dignity as a free man or woman. Without the First Amendment, you are a slave. Without the Second, you are a child.

The Western nations which have abandoned this essential understanding of an individual’s right to self-defense have become rotting orphanages filled with dependent children. They’re not dealing very well with the invasion of a determined ideology that has complete confidence in its own righteousness, and few reservations about using violence to assert itself.

Losing the dignity of self-defense is part of the degeneration from master of the State to its client. As this dignity fades, the people and their government speak less of responsibilities, and more of entitlements.

The Second Amendment is a concrete expression of the American birthright of independence. With the right of self-defense bargained away, our rights to speak and vote give us modest influence in a collective. The Founders wanted more, and better, for us.

Sometimes liberals sneer at the idea we might keep arms against government tyranny, because a bunch of pistol-packing Tea Party types have no chance of repeating the success of the Revolution against a modern military force. This completely misses the point. A disarmed populace has little choice but to obey orders. If the population is armed, a tyrant’s forces have to do more than just brandish their weapons… they’d have to start pulling triggers. Victory for a righteous populace would come in the military’s refusal to pull those triggers.

Tyranny should never be easy. Of course, it should never come to that again, in the United States. As long as the population is armed, this is an understanding, and a duty…not an assumption.

The right to keep and bear arms is a crucial intersection of liberty and obligation. A gun owner is entrusted with the solemn duty to tend his weapons carefully and securely. In accepting this duty, we remove the destiny of our loved ones from the hands of madmen, and it is no longer measured by the distance of a friendly police car from our homes. It would be a mark of our maturity as a nation if we stopped telling ourselves that freedom can exist in the absence of responsibility… or danger. The shards of those illusions carry sharp edges, when they shatter.

The New York Times article about the case before the Supreme Court ends this way:

"The Supreme Court’s conservative majority has made clear that it is very concerned about the right to bear arms. There is another right, however, that should not get lost: the right of people, through their elected representatives, to adopt carefully drawn laws that protect them against other people’s guns."

Carefully drawn laws will not protect you from other people’s guns.  Believe me.  None of the people carefully drawing those laws will rely upon them for their protection.

[Note: The Times writer makes an especially egregious error in asserting some sort of "right" to be protected from "guns." Nothing could be further from the truth. Because, while every citizen has a right to be protected from criminal acts, no one has a "right" to "feel" safe. And they certainly don't have the right to demand that others disarm in order to cater to their own irrational phobias. We prosecute people for committing arson, NOT for carrying matches - Ed.]

We've reported before on the effort to manufacture and overstate the "threat" of "white, Christian" militias:

http://havegunwillvote.blogtownhall.com/2010/02/26/the_new_imaginary_threat_-_right_wing_militias!.thtml

The extremely influential movie and TV media have joined the effort - cleverly inserting plot lines into films and TV drama shows that feature "white supremacists" and of course, militant "Christians" bent on all sorts of mayhem. Priming the public to begin accepting the idea without hesitation.

There is also little doubt that the Obama Administration has been scouring the countryside, trying to find some sort of group that just might serve as "proof" of the threat - and no Muslims or Black Power advocates, please - only white (better yet, Christian) groups will suffice. And lo and behold, they were finally able to come up with a handful of trailer-park nitwits.

And, naturally, the predominantly left-leaning "dinosaur" media fell all over themselves, eagerly (dare I say, "gleefully") repeating the phrase "Christian militia" over and over again for days on end. They were in 7th heaven.

But how much of an actual threat do such groups really pose, especially when you compare them to all the other groups that are much larger, and far more dangerous to Americans than 9 guys who run around the woods playing soldier.

And I'm not talking about Al-Qaeda.

I'm referring to the violent street gangs now infesting our cities. Their numbers are staggering - just ONE gang, the Latin Kings, has more than 25,000 members in Chicago alone, and over 50,000 nationwide.

There is MS-13, the viciously violent former Salvadoran gang that can now be found in every major city in America. Then there are the Bloods. The Crips. BP-218. And the list goes on...and on.

And these well-armed and ruthless thugs are not "potential" threats - they have racked up body counts that make the Iraq and Afghanistan wars look like minor skirmishes.

Chicago celebrates when they have "only" 600 murders in a year. Shootings are so common that they often barely take up 10 seconds on the evening news.

South Central Los Angeles has been besieged by a gang war that has local police afraid to go into certain neighborhoods without a SWAT team. "It's a race war" said one cop "and it's getting worse every day."

Here in Minnesota, just last year four MS-13 members got into a shoot-out in a parking lot at an upscale shopping mall - the primary shooter was only 14 years old.

Then there is the increasing violence on our Southern border - where Mexican drug gangs have killed thousands on both sides of the border. They are becoming so bold as to kidnap people off the streets of American towns.

Yet none of this carnage gets so much as a glance from the Obama Administration's top advisers - not even from Attorney General Eric Holder. No, these supposed guardians of public safety are far more worried about "anti-abortion groups, patriot groups ("patriot" is now a threatening word to Democrats), tax-protesters (how dare they)" and of course "returning combat veterans" (thank you for your service - now shut up).

Now, if you do not understand what is behind the Obama Administration's preoccupation with "white, Christian" groups, then you probably don't play chess. What you are witnessing are the opening moves in a carefully orchestrated strategy to finally implement the one policy that has so far eluded the Democrats, the one issue that remains near and dear to the hearts of Leftists - gun control.

But gun control has proven to be a loser at the voting booth - time after time, Democrats who come out in favor of increasing restrictions on guns have seen their political fortunes turn for the worse.

So what to do?

Following Saul Alinsky's playbook, they know that they must first create a "crisis" that "must be dealt with" - and ideally one that just might lend itself to being associated with their political opposition, thus demonizing them. Enter the "threat" of "white, Christian" militias, which are already being wrongly tied to the Tea Party movement, and those who oppose big government and excessive taxation.

But wait, even if Democrats succeed in convincing enough of the electorate that such a threat exists, won't new gun control legislation put Democrats in peril at election time, just as it has so many times before?

Indeed it would.

Which is why they have no intention of bothering with legislation - the Obama Administration will simply circumvent the entire process by signing on to an insidious U.N. initiated "treaty" which will control "the import, export and transfer of conventional weapons" [emphasis ours].  See full story at:

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE59E0Q920091015

Going the "treaty" route accomplishes two things. First,  it allows regulation of private American citizens who own guns without having to go through the a long and ugly fight to pass a gun control law in the American Congress. Second, and more importantly to Obama and the Democrats, they can avoid any responsibility for the the ever more stringent controls on the private sale of firearms in America that will surely result. Because they will simply blame the U.N.

Treaties are matters of "international relations" you see, and "we must hold up our end" by going along with the "consensus" of the other treaty signers, many of whom would just love to see the American people be subjected to the same repressive gun controls already in effect in their own countries.

Rather crafty chess, I must say. And perhaps 20 years ago, it may have worked without anyone noticing. But with the toppling of the "dinosaur" media, and the rise of alternative information sources, the only question is:

Will you let them get away with it?

Admit it - when you saw the words "Looter Party" you immediately thought of Democrats. For most of the 20th Century, from the "New Deal" to the "Great Society," the party that was once touted as "the party of the working man" has gradually deteriorated into little more than a group of thieving socialists bent on getting as many Americans as possible permanently suckling at the teat of government.

They do it by pillaging the bank accounts of all those who make America the economic powerhouse that it is, and then using the money they took by force to buy the votes of all those who do little or nothing to contribute to the financial health of the nation. They of course claim that they are simply helping "the poor" as they call them, but many of the genuinely poor are working, and sometimes two or three jobs, while those in the "looter class" - who have no interest in a real job - are increasingly responsible for dragging the American economy down.

But Democrats realized that they could not maintain power only on the backs of the chronically unemployed - they had to expand the number of people who depend on government to include the working poor, the middle class, and even the upper middle class.

The so-called "sub-prime" loan debacle is a perfect example. Democrats decided that everyone who wanted to own their own home had a "right" to do so - whether they could afford it or not. They then set about forcing lending institutions to give loans to people that any sane financial analyst would know were highly likely to default.

And they did, with disastrous results - a collapse of home values that affected everyone, including all those hard working homeowners who actually made their house payments on time. But the Democrats don't care, because got what they wanted: votes.

Now the "Looter in Chief" wants to force a majority of Americans into a government run scheme that will dramatically increase the involvement of government in the health care industry. Apparently, in spite of the fact that Medicare, Medicaid, and the numerous state versions of these programs are all going bankrupt, the ever more socialist leaning Democrats think that (surprise, surprise) even more government involvement is the answer.

For decades, the "Lootercrats" had couched their Marxist ideology in "caring" terms like "fairness" and "safety nets" - never admitting who it is they intend to rob to pay for these nice-sounding government giveaways. But since the 2008 election, they have become emboldened - from Howard Dean to Vice President Joe Biden, one Democrat leader after another now admits that the health care plan is just another method of achieving the "redistribution of wealth." Even the word "socialism" - a term that once was rightly viewed as fundamentally un-American - has come more easily to their lips.

Naturally,  government has no ability to create wealth - they have to get it from somewhere, or rather, someone. And the "golden goose" that Democrats choose to squeeze are the country's top producers, oops, I mean, those "greedy rich guys" - after all, if we admit that our nation's most productive people got where they are by being smart, ambitious, and hard working, it makes it more difficult to justify raping them financially.

Which is why Democrats constantly stoke the fires of envy - convincing the "Looter Class" that they are "owed" something by those who are far more successful than they are. Why do you think the words "the rich" has been made to sound almost like a pejorative? We used to admire those who succeeded - now we are encouraged to demonize them. Because it makes it easy to rationalize robbing them.

Make no mistake, getting a voting majority of Americans addicted to government goodies paid for by those who produce was no accident - it is part and parcel of their long term strategy. Because once they have a sufficient number of people dependent on the government, they have created the potential for permanent control of the Congress - people getting the goodies want to keep getting them.

So the only question is: Are you an independent, freedom loving American who does not want or need a "Nanny State" taking care of you from cradle to grave?

Or are you  a Looter?

And no, you can't be both.

With the official unemployment figure hovering around 10% - and the real number closer to a staggering 17% - those of you in the private sector know full well how desperately most people are working to keep their heads above water. Last month, real wages declined in 42 of the 50 states. Foreclosures are at an all-time high.

So you might be surprised to find out that while private sector employees are worrying about keeping their jobs and your homes, government workers have been downright rolling in the dough (courtesy of you, the taxpayer, by the way).

From the Wall Street Journal:

THE GOVERNMENT PAY BOOM.

“It turns out there really is growing inequality in America. It’s the 45% premium in pay and benefits that government workers receive over the poor saps who create wealth in the private economy.

And the gap is growing. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), from 1998 to 2008 public employee compensation grew by 28.6%, compared with 19.3% for private workers. In the recession year of 2009, with almost no inflation and record budget deficits, more than half the states awarded pay raises to their employees. Even as deficits in state capitals widen and are forcing cuts in services, few politicians are willing to eliminate these pay inequities.”

There’s more: “What if government workers earned the average of what private workers earn? States and localities would save $339 billion a year from their more than $2.1 trillion budgets. These savings are larger than the combined estimated deficits for 2010 and 2011 of every state in America. In a separate survey, the federal Bureau of Economic Analysis compares the compensation of public versus private workers in each of the 50 states.

Perhaps not coincidentally, the pay gap is widest in states that have the biggest budget deficits, such as New Jersey, Nevada and Hawaii. Of the 40 states that have a budget deficit so far this year, 28 would have a balanced budget were it not for the windfall to government workers.”

You may also have noted that the cities and states that represent the biggest financial disasters are...run by Democrats. California is out of control. Michigan is bankrupt - the city of Detroit is about to implode.

Yet government employees continue to rake in the cash.

No wonder the biggest contributors to Democrats are government unions...

Health Care and Detroit: Killed by Government
by Gary North, M.D.
  
To understand what is going to happen to America's health care delivery system, we must first understand what has happened to Detroit.

Detroit is dying. Yes, I know that there are lots of books on "The Death of. . . ." That word sells books. But Detroit really is dying. It is the first metropolis in the United States to be facing extinction. We have never seen anything like this in American history. It is happening under our noses, but the media refuse to discuss it. To do so would be politically incorrect. Two factors tell us that Detroit is dying. The first is the departure of 900,000 people – over half the city's population – since 1950. It peaked at 1.8 million in 1950. It is down to about 900,000 today.

In 1994, the median sales price of a house in Detroit was about $41,000. The housing bubble pushed it up to about $98,000 in 2003. In March 2009, the price was $13,600. Today, the price is $7,000. Check the price chart.

There has never been a collapse of residential real estate values of this magnitude in peacetime history, anywhere. Detroit is dying.

We are unfamiliar with anything like this. The media are silent. The Powers That Be are not interested in reporting on this, because readers might ask the obvious question: "How did this happen?" Obvious questions tend to lead to obvious answers.

Detroit has been killed by flight out of the city. The 2008 Clint Eastwood movie, Gran Torino dealt with this problem. Eastwood plays an 80-something Korean War veteran who will not leave the neighborhood. His children keep bugging him to sell and move into a retirement home. He will not hear of it. He is alienated from them and from his immigrant neighbors: Hmong refugees from South Vietnam. The Hmong have trouble with the Blacks. Every group is essentially trapped in a neighborhood, with the gangs running the show.

There is no surge of buyers to take advantage of fabulously low prices in Detroit. Can you imagine buying a home for cash for $13,600 in 2009 – a house that had sold for $98,000 six years earlier – and losing half your money? It's incredible.

The Wall Street Journal recently ran one of the most creative stories I have seen in years. The journalist told the story of the history of a 5-bedroom home in Detroit, from the land purchase to its recent sale. It was built by one of the most influential man you have never heard of, Clarence Avery. Avery was on the Ford Motor Company team that conceived of implementing an assembly line for Ford's factory. He copied the idea from a hog-slaughtering operation.

His home was a very nice home for the time. The journalist located his daughter, now age 91. She said that she always thought the home was the best home she ever lived in.

As recently as 2005, the home sold for $250,000. It was purchased by a woman who was lent $200,000 to buy it. It was financed by a subprime loan. The asking price was $189,000. Where the other $61,000 went, the woman has no idea. She defaulted.

The deteriorating house was bought by a Christian organization that is renovating it. The house sold for $10,000.

This is simply inconceivable to anyone who is unfamiliar with Detroit since 2005. Nothing like this has ever happened. How can we conceive of a lender lending $200,000 to a woman to buy a $250,000 home offered at $189,000? How can we conceive of a fall in price from $250,000 to $10,000?

This is the sign of a dying city. This does not happen in a normal environment. Even with the mania created by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, in conjunction with Alan Greenspan's Federal Reserve, nothing like this has happened anywhere else.

If you had predicted anything like this in 2005, you would have been dismissed as a crackpot on crack. You would not have been taken seriously by anyone. Yet it has happened.

The city planners, the Federal government's subsidy defenders, and the welfare state aficionados are all discreetly silent about Detroit.

The city funds its schools with property taxes. Property taxes have collapsed as sources of revenue. An honest property tax system will generate less than ten cents on the 2003 dollar.

Last week, the school board announced the closing of one-quarter of Detroit's schools. The city is out of money. The central agency of propaganda by the government is in the process of closing up shop. This is not "anti-business as usual." This is collapse. The American public does not perceive what is happening in Detroit.

When a city simply shuts down from the effects of government mismanagement, the media say nothing. Detroit has become the poster child of government regulation, welfare systems, and a population that has given up hope.

The media say nothing because they are caught in a dilemma. If they say that the local government's welfare programs are not really to blame, what does that leave? The unmentionable issue: 82% of the city is Black. So, that means blaming white employers, who discriminate, despite 40 years of Federal anti-discrimination laws. But the main non-employers today are the region's auto companies, and two of the three are partially owned by the U.S. government. One – GM – is mainly owned by the retirement fund of the United Auto Workers. So, the media are not about to blame the auto companies – not now.

That leaves that other politically incorrect issue: the rate of illegitimacy, which is in the 80% range. That social phenomenon represents a moral collapse, but the participants were all educated by the tax-funded schools.

Who ya gonna blame?

The media pundits cannot decide, so they simply ignore the collapse. "Detroit? Never heard of it."

The lesson of Detroit is this: the experts do not see a collapse coming. They assume that next year will be like today, give or take 3%. They do not believe that anything as complex as a city can collapse. So, they believe that things will continue, as they always have. Taxes need not be cut. Spending need not be cut. Schools should be allowed to educate. Tax-funded welfare programs should be increased. When it comes to tax revenues, "there's always more where that came from."

And then, overnight, the system collapses. The assumptions were wrong. Real estate prices collapse, indicating an irreversible flight of capital from the city. The ability of the government to collect taxes collapses.

OBAMACARE

This brings me to the other subject: the health care law. It is not law yet, but it soon will be.

I know what is going to happen.

  1. Cost overruns
  2. Fraud
  3. Additional coverage extended to groups
  4. Rising deficits in the program
  5. Lower payments to physicians
  6. Lower payments to hospitals
  7. Delays in payments
  8. Rising taxes on the rich
  9. Rationing by doctors, hospitals, government
10. Delays in treatment
11. More HMO care: assembly line medicine
12. A search for scapegoats [hint: everyone except the real culprit - big government interference]

In 1977, I was involved in an early warning operation. Three teams of physicians and economists toured the country. We hit 30 cities in two weeks. We warned physicians in poorly attended meetings that something like Obamacare was coming. It has now arrived. The physicians we spoke to are mostly retired. They saw some of this happen on a minor scale, but they escaped.

I spoke about the percentage of the GDP (then GNP) devoted to heath care: about 7%. Today, it is 15%. Medicare and Medicaid have increased costs. The care is no better. Except for technology, it is arguably worse.

Obamacare will lead to an expansion of these forms of medicine:

1. Concierge
2. "Wal-Mart"
3. ER
4. HMO
5. "Mexican"

CONCIERGE. The rich and very rich hire their own physicians. They pay top dollar. The physicians do not take third-party payments, either from the government or insurance companies. They are independent practitioners. They make house calls. The houses they call on are very large.

For the upper middle class, there are fee-for-service physicians. They take no third-party payments. They do not make house calls.

WAL-MART. These are the walk-in clinics. They are price competitive. They treat minor ailments. They sell services on a one-time basis. They take credit cards. They may or may not cater to the Medicare crowd. They are assembly-line clinics. There are no major surgeries or other high-cost, high-risk services.

ER. Large hospital emergency rooms are mandated by law. The poor get treated there. In a life-and-death emergency, they work. People who would otherwise die in a couple of hours are saved. For walk-in patients, the ERs ration by time. Patients demonstrate their patience.

HMO. This style of medicine is efficient. It cuts costs by cutting services and cutting time. You see the physician on duty. You may not have seen him before. His job is to get you in and out as fast as possible. Time is monitored by the company. Computers make this easy.

MEXICAN. This is off-shore medicine. In Canada, when you can't get treated for months or years, you come to the United States and pay. This will not be possible for Canadians much longer, except for rich ones. Mexico will serve upper middle-class Americans as the USA has served Canadians.

It is possible to get very good surgical care in Asia and Latin America. You have to know who the good practitioners are. Asian hospitals sell for 25% the same level of services. There is less regulation there. Plane fares are cheap. A stay in a hotel is cheap.

There will be entrepreneurs who set up Websites off-shore that direct Americans to practitioners abroad. The Web allows this sort of advertising.

Physicians who practice alone or in small limited liability corporations will find that they cannot compete under the new payment system. Assembly-line medicine will replace the traditional doctor-patient relationship.

TRAPPED

Most physicians are trapped. They cannot sell their practices. The price of practices has been dropping.

Foreign-trained physicians who can pass the U.S. tests are coming to America. They are competitive.

Technical Services that can be digitized are being outsourced to India and other Asian nations.

Young American physicians begin with a lot of debt. They need income fast. They will be hired by the HMOs and clinics. They will not reach the salary level of this generation of physicians. They will be upper-middle-class income-earners.

There will be specialists, of course. Plastic surgeons who specialize in making rich women better looking will not be part of the new system. They will be able to do well. But for the typical practitioner, his career options have been dramatically restricted by the new law.

I think most physicians will stick it out until they retire at age 67. They owe money. They need the income. The law's most restrictive provisions will not kick in until 2014. They will adjust.

Residents of Detroit also adjusted. Then, without warning, the economy changed. Those who were still living in the city saw their capital disappear.

People put up with the devils they know. They do not look for a lifeboat when they hear the ship scrape the iceberg. They assume that it will be business as usual.

Then, one fine day, it isn't.

CONCLUSION

You had better decide which kind of medical care you can live with. Then you had better locate a practitioner soon. This is especially true if you want a fee-for-service physician. People with money will go to them. They are already hard to find. They charge more. It's not easy to become a patient. They are booked up.

If you have an existing physician, do what you can to become an above-average patient.

You had better start getting into shape. You can no longer afford to be vulnerable to the diseases and afflictions of a flabby lifestyle. ObamaCare has changed the risk-reward ratio. Risk has just gone up. It will continue to go up.

There will be no roll-back of this law. It is going to be enforced for as long as the U.S. government has money.

That may not be as long as Obama thinks.

Now that the Marxists have rammed through yet another budget-busting spending bill - under the almost laughable misnomer, "Healthcare Reform" - the media-driven propaganda campaign to slander those who oppose it has begun.

Almost on queue, breathless media types ran to their cameras and word processors to hysterically report the torrent of "attacks" on the Healthcare bill's proponents:

"Georgia Congressman heckled and called the “N” word Saturday"

"Muslim Congressman Called 'N**ger' by Tea Party Protesters"

"Teabagger protester yells 'faggot' at gay Rep. Barney Frank in US House bldg"

Not too surprisingly, in spite of dozens of TV cameras, and an untold number of cell-phone cams, NOT ONE video clip can substantiate any of the above charges. But hey, when has the American Left (or their comrades in the press) ever worried about accuracy in reporting "hate" crimes.

Remember those "noose" incidents on college campuses that turned out to have been staged by left-wing zealots to gin up fears of "racism" by "angry" right-wing types? Then there were the neo-Marxists who infiltrated several of the Tea Party protests, for the express purpose of making the legitimate protesters look "scary" and "threatening."

But perhaps the most outrageous commentary came from a media hack who claimed that those opposing the Healthcare takeover are "mostly angry, white, Southern, Fundamentalist Christian males" who, according to the pundit, are really against the plan because "they see a black President, a woman Speaker of the House, and a gay head of the Finance Committee, and they don't like it." Talk about conserving resources - he was able to fit just about every Left-wing stereotype of conservatives into one sound-byte! And of course, he ended his insane rant by blaming (drum roll, please)...Rush Limbaugh and Talk Radio!

What all this phony fear-mongering does, however, is obscure the fact that almost all of the actual violence in the past 40 years has come from the American Left. From Lee Harvey Oswald, the committed Communist who murdered John F. Kennedy, to the WTO protesters who run wild in the streets smashing windows and hurling rocks and feces at police, it is the "progressives" who advocate, and use, violence.

Because the American Left cannot tolerate anyone who does not share their views - like the Third World dictators they admire, "progressives" today do not want to debate their opponents, they want to silence them. Just this week, a mob of rock and club-wielding college students threatened to attack Conservative author Ann Coulter for merely giving a speech.

It is liberal professors who institute "speech codes" on campuses - not conservatives. As vocal as they might be in expressing their views, the Tea Party people have never attempted to suppress their adversary's right to do the same. Conservatives love to debate - liberals want to shut it down. Hollywood liberal loon Sean Penn even went so far as to say that anyone who criticized Venezuela's dictator Hugo Chavez "should be put in jail." And don't think he is alone in his thinking - more than a few liberals would love to make it a criminal offense to criticize Obama's socialist policies.

Now, if anyone actually associated with the Tea Party movement said any of the things that were claimed, you will note that they will be clearly condemned by responsible conservatives. The same cannot be said of the America Left, who seem perpetually blind to the "mote in their own eye" - they are virtually silent when the moonbats at the DailyKos or the Huffington Post go off on their zany rants, wishing death (and a painful one) to someone as decent and gentlemanly as the late Tony Snow.

Ask yourself, when was the last time you heard "progressives" criticize one of their own for the most vile, nasty rhetoric - or even for outright violent acts? Heck, they never even repudiated the actions of the Unabomber - a Left-wing, anti-capitalism, militant environmentalist...and he actually killed people.

No, I'm not talking about the Marxist radicals in the Congress and the White House. I'm not even talking about the army of welfare parasites who voted for Obama and Pelosi - like the now famous woman who announced that she would never again have to "worry about paying my mortgage or buying gas. Obama's gonna take care of everything!"

I'm talking about all of you ignorant twits (otherwise known as "moderates") who fell for the vapid rhetoric and media enabled hype about "hope" and "change" and all the other liberal nonsense that Obama dispensed like so much Kool-Aid. Not to mention you politically correct types who thought it would be oh-so-tolerant of you to vote for a black guy.

I know, I know, you're going to tell me how you didn't vote for Pelosi, or even Obama - but you did vote for your Democrat Senator or Representative, who you thought wasn't nearly as radical as they are. Well, now you know better - when push comes to shove, with few exceptions they'll tow the Obama/Pelosi line.

Even if your Representative is one of the very few who voted against Obama's government takeover of the American health care and insurance industries, it's still your fault. Because by voting for ANY Democrat, YOU gave them the majority in the Congress that allowed the radical Left to push through the insane policies that are going to bankrupt the country and leave your children and grandchildren with crushing debt.

Social Security now represents approximately $400,000 in debt to EACH HOUSEHOLD. Medicare is even more in debt, it now stands at around $500,00 for each family in America. And now, thanks to you, they've added another TRILLION dollars in spending of money we don't have, along with a whole boatload of payoffs to unions and other Democrat faithful that have nothing even remotely to do with health care. Someday, your grandchildren will curse you for what you've done.

Way to go...