When Arizona Governor Jan Brewer decided to give her state law enforcement officers the power to enforce federal immigration laws, liberals began concocting hysterical scenarios, as if the concept of enforcing the law could only lurk within the dark chambers of a totalitarian police state. As usual, when the Left’s statist agenda is exposed, they go on an unhinged offensive against any and all who dare to challenge them.

In a collective fit of outrage, liberals everywhere have been calling for boycotts of all things Arizonan. They’ve reduced a serious issue to a pseudo-racial political PR campaign. Playing the familiar race card, mayors, governors, and media pundits across the country have gone on the warpath in an attempt to intimidate Arizona into backing off. In their eyes, Arizona is now a racist rogue state—an enemy to be subdued into submission.

Another one of their tactics is also a familiar one. When liberals lack a sound argument, they just paint the opposition with over-the-top Nazi imagery. Phoenix Suns General Manager Steve Kerr’s comment was fairly typical of the sort of dysfunctional rhetoric coming from the Left. You might have thought he was talking about Vichy France 1940 rather than Arizona 2010 when he said, “It’s hard to imagine in this country that we have to produce papers. It rings up images of Nazi Germany.”

Melodramatic paranoia aside, here on Planet Earth, most Americans can’t go a week without having to produce some form of papers. If you write a check or use a credit card, a personal ID is often required. If you go to the movies, proper authorization documentation must be presented, or you won’t get in. At sporting events, you’re even required to proceed to a specific location determined by your access papers. If you loiter, an official will escort you to your pre-registered destination. They know who you are, and they know where you sit.

If you drive a car, you need three different official papers, and if you refuse to surrender any of them to a police officer, you’ll be headed for jail. At Disneyland they’ve taken it a step further. A Disney agent will ask that you wear a bright red wrist band that publicly reveals your access authorization for all to see.

Meanwhile, the Left puts on phony displays of sympathy for Latinos who they insist are the primary target of immigration laws. Maybe so. But any rational person who desires to show solidarity with the Latino community would be shouting from the rooftops about putting an end to illegal immigration. Even Latino labor leader Cesar Chavez understood the simple and obvious truth. As an ardent supporter of enforced immigration laws he knew that illegals siphoned off government funds as well as jobs. Yet the Left refuses to confront this simple reality. Their negligence is something that should be considered criminal and anti-American.

I’m not alone in my view. Two days after that Sunday of infamy, author and radio host Dennis Prager stated, “I write the words ‘civil war’ with an ache in my heart. But we are in one.” About a week later, economist and political commentator Walter Williams implied the same when he wrote, “I believe we are nearing a point where there are enough irreconcilable differences between those Americans who want to control other Americans and those Americans who want to be left alone that separation is the only peaceable alternative.” Conservative author David Horowitz was way ahead of the curve when he said in 1996, “The Left is permanently at war with America.”

As for my own analysis, I begin by defining war this way: When two or more groups reach a point where they’re unable to resolve their disagreements, a “state of war” exists. This is the political state of affairs in which we now find ourselves. It’s been an ongoing conflict based on a fundamental difference in values. On one side you have those who favor a large proactive government that has the power to arbitrate the affairs of its citizens. On the other side you have those who believe the American citizen should arbitrate his own affairs with little or no government interference.

That this is a non-violent war—a sort of “cold war,” so to speak—is our only consolation. Further debate will not resolve it. Our irreconcilable differences have given us gridlock and partisan politics, but no end to the conflict. That’s unlikely to change.

How we managed to get to this point of strong-armed government excess is no longer relevant. Where we go from here must be our new focus. How we choose to fight this battle should be our paramount consideration. Beyond that, we must assess the current situation in the context of this New American Civil War in which we are now faced.

This video was purportedly made by some unidentified Earth First environmentalists. Apparently they’re mourning the death of some trees. From all accounts this video is for real, although I’d feel better if someone could prove to be that it’s a joke. Watch it and judge for yourself. Frankly I’d be more comfortable knowing this was some kind of Christopher Guest/Buck Henry mock-verite parody. Otherwise this is just sad in a sick sort of way. I’d rather not have to confront the reality that mentally and emotionally deficient people like this walk among us.

(Sung to the tune of “Springtime for Hitler”)

Harry Reid was having trouble
What a sad, sad story
So then Nancy Pelosi changed the rules
And rigged the voting
The public was aghast
The health care bill that passed
Was something no one wanted
But now the die is cast

And now it’s Springtime for health care and tyranny
(doot-da do-doot)
Obama is happy and gay
Congress now runs the show, their plans are laid
Look out, they’re sticking you with
Cap and trade!

Springtime for health care and tyranny
(doot-da do-doot)
Freedom and liberty, no more
Springtime for health care and tyranny
Look out, Congress
Now you’re history

If you go by Joeseph Stack’s lengthy and meandering suicide manifesto, he didn’t like Catholics, George Bush, big business, or capitalism. He didn’t even like the city where he was living. In fact, if his angry and bitter 3,000 word coup de plume is any indication, Stack didn’t like much of anything. Is this what the Left is using to make their case for a Tea Party connection? Sort of, but in a weak and unconvincing way. Stack was angry and frustrated, supposedly like the Tea Party followers. But the clincher is that he also hated the IRS. Ah ha! There’s your classic radical right wing wacko: An angry white guy who doesn’t like paying taxes.

It’s liberal deductive reasoning that’s more Clouseau than Columbo. And leftwing pundits and bloggers have since been feverously at work trying to make their contrived conclusions stick, by connecting random dots into a confusing diagram of liberal aberration. Joseph Stack has become the Left’s latest right-wing booger bear: a paranoid construct of biases and misperceptions designed to satisfy their bigotry against conservatives. But that’s their story and they’re sticking to it.

It seems these days that everyone is demanding an apology for something. You can’t open your mouth without offending someone somewhere. But if you mean what you say to begin with, there’s no reason to apologize, is there?. That works the other other way too. If someone insults you, why demand an apology when you know they meant it?

Although this video has a strictly historical perspective, I couldn’t help but see the parallels to today’s liberal elites–those overly-sensitive politically correct sob sisters on the Left. It’s a righteous video.

Enter Scott Brown, a virtual nobody who had the upstart temerity to challenge a political establishment that until now, was as immovable as the northern star. How did this happen? That depends largely on whose explanation you’re buying into.

The White House is blaming Democrat candidate Martha Coakley for running a weak campaign, while the Coakley people are blaming the White House for their lukewarm support. And Democrats in general are all over the map blaming anyone they think will put some distance between themselves and what they claim was a flawed campaign.

There are plenty of valid reasons why Coakley lost, and the specifics will certainly be the subject of discussion among media pundits and politicians alike. But looking at the bigger picture will give political strategists a map of the political landscape for the coming elections in November 2010 and 2012.

Democrats did an incredibly inept job of assessing the strength of Scott Brown and his supporters. Along with their liberal media pundits, they did little more than mischaracterize, ridicule and vilify Brown, Republicans, conservatives, the Tea Party movement, Sarah Palin—anything to minimize the opposition. Their over-the-top attacks showed such arrogance and gross negligence of sound political tactics that purposeful self-denial may be the only logical explanation.

As any true strategist knows, victory over an opponent is usually the result of a thorough understanding of your own strengths and weaknesses, as well as those of the opposition. How the Democrats respond to this defeat will show us whether or not they’re prepared to face political reality. GOP strategists better be paying attention.

So what are we talking about here? Incredible as it may seem, not even Harry Reid knows for sure. But he insists that whatever it is, it won’t cost much. With a sales pitch like that, it’s no wonder that so many people are concerned about what we might get stuck with in the end. And I do mean, in the end.

No one in their right mind would buy a car the way Congress is trying to sell their health care legislation. It would be like buying an automobile sight unseen, not knowing the model, the year, or the price tag. And if you don’t like those terms, tough luck; you have to buy one anyway. And by the way, even though you’re going to love driving it, there’s no warranty.

I don’t think I have adequate words to describe our current administration’s approach to health care. Phrases like “Feeble-minded,” “insanely warped,” “autocratic power grab”—all words that fall a bit short of the reality of this tyrannical lunacy. And the lunacy may have only just begun.

Now that the House and the Senate have each approved their own version of health care reform, Congress has to come to an agreement as to what bill they’re going to submit to the President to sign. Whichever version prevails, or even if it becomes a hybrid of the two, the final result will be a little like being given a mysterious venereal disease. Even if you don’t know what you have, you know you’ve been screwed.

Fortunately the explosion was a dud. According to one report, the detonator hidden in the suspect’s underpants was too small, resulting in a fizzled explosion that merely scorched the man’s own little detonator.

In fairness to Napolitano, our airport security system is not her creation. It was established in 2001 by politically correct liberals and skittish conservatives who thought it would be unfair to profile those most likely to blow up airplanes. As a result, we’ve been fighting a terrorist group for nearly a decade, yet we still dare not speak their name: Muslim religious fanatics. Meanwhile, the random search method has remained virtually the same since 9/11 and remains a misguided policy that’s more public relations than public security.

Profiling potential terrorist suspects based on what we already know is going to get a better result than any system that uses random factors. That’s a mathematical fact. But isn’t it unfair? Yes–that’s why it’s effective. The more unfair, the better the results. In sports it’s called gaining an edge over your opponent. In Las Vegas it’s called playing the odds. In warfare it’s called military strategy. Random searches might be more foolish than trying to draw an inside straight. It’s certainly more deadly.

Being nice to radical Muslims may rate us points at U.N. cocktail parties, but it’s no way to confront the very real and very dangerous situation in which we find ourselves. We know our enemy, their ideology, and their intentions. The time is way overdue for a more realistic approach. Profiling won’t be the end all to the war against Islamo-fascism, but it’s the right place to start.

If you’ve got money, the government will find you no matter where you go. Last week House Speaker Nancy Pelosi endorsed the idea of a global tax on stock trades and other financial transactions. It’s not enough that American taxpayers have to deal with the IRS. In order for this new plan to work, all major financial centers – Asia, the EU, U.S., and U.K. – would all have to pass a similar transaction tax to avoid disadvantaging one country’s stock exchange. In effect, a global tax bureaucracy. I doubt they surveyed any investors on this.

The idea came about from the financial transactions tax (HR4191) currently before Congress which Pelosi believes would need to have global jurisdiction in order to keep U.S. investors from taking their business overseas and out of taxable reach. This is the absurd game that our government plays: We figure out ways to circumvent the arbitrary dictates of an out of control bureaucracy, and they come up with new laws and regulations in an effort to foil our ingenuity.

Meanwhile, the Democrats continue to look for new ways to fleece taxpaying wage earners whose only crime is trying to make a buck. The real crime is being perpetrated by an administration obsessed with controlling its citizens means of income. And if Pelosi has her way, we’ll be seeing government interference on a worldwide scale. It’s a crime scene only a tyrant could love.

view original story