The “controversy” over President Obama’s mandate that Catholic institutions provide contraceptive services to their employees would be laughable if it weren’t such a diabolically clever ploy. Because Obama knows that the minor backlash by Catholics will fade into distant memory by the time election day rolls around.

But what will not fade (thanks to Obama’s cooperative media toadies) is the utterly false, but soon-to-be indelible impression that “Republicans want to ban contraception” and that only President Obama will “stand for women” in this imaginary battle. You can already hear the water cooler conversations among the legions of politically illiterate Americans.

During the January debates in New Hampshire, ABC anchor (and steadfast Democrat shill) George Stephanopoulos was strangely attempting to get Mitt Romney to say that states had the right to ban contraception:

http://www.mrc.org/bias-alerts/during-nh-debate-abcs-stephanopoulos-presses-romney-contraception

During Saturday’s Republican presidential debate in New Hampshire, hosted by ABC, co-moderator George Stephanopoulos bizarrely repeatedly pressed candidate Mitt Romney on whether the former Massachusetts governor believes the U.S. Supreme Court should overturn a 1965 ruling that a constitutional right to privacy bars states from banning contraception.

Romney, befuddled by the off the wall nature of the question on such an issue that is not on any state’s legislative agenda, eventually observed that it was a “silly thing” for the ABC co-moderator to ask such an irrelevant question. Stephanopoulos’s odd persistence, which dragged on the discussion with Romney for more than three and a half minutes, inspired a number of boos from the audience before Ron Paul and Rick Santorum were then allowed to weigh in.

It is now clear what Stepanopoulos was doing – he was setting the stage to make contraception an “issue” in the presidential election. Since abortion is pretty much “settled law” and off the table, Democrats need something to shore up Obama’s falling support among women, and what better way than to paint Republicans as “anti-women” – a tried and true tactic of Democrats since the 1960s.

Yet no matter how many times Democrats make a crafty chess move, Republicans blindly bumble along playing checkers, and falling into one trap after another. They did it by first opposing, and then capitulating on the extension of unemployment insurance, when doing so was guaranteed to do nothing other than cement the impression that “Democrats care about the unemployed.” And they’re likely to do it again.

Then there is the debate over extending the “Payroll Tax Cuts.” Instead of fighting it right from the start, and sticking to their guns, by pointing out what it really is – a disastrous looting of the Social Security fund – Republicans will end up giving in anyway, yet gaining nothing, as they will be castigated for “not caring about the poor” if they don’t.

Meanwhile, Obama took another chess piece that previously belonged to the Republicans,  the “Bush Tax Cuts” – after demonizing them over and over as “tax cuts for the rich” Obama now cleverly warns that unless renewed, “millions of Americans will face a tax increase.” Brilliant – Obama is now the “tax cutter” and Republicans are those opposed to cuts. That’s more than great chess – it’s downright political jujitsu.

Republicans persist in denying that most of the public are not political junkies – they hear little more than smatterings of what’s going on, and most of it from overtly Obama-friendly news organizations. Ask your not-so-politically-involved friends a few simple questions:

Who is Van Jones, and what does he espouse?

What is “Fast and Furious” and who is involved in it?

Who is George Soros, and what does he support?

What is “Media Matters” and what do they actually do?

Who is Milton Friedman?

Who was Saul Alinsky, and whom did he influence?

I guarantee you that they will be unlikely to answer more than one, if any. Because while new media outlets like FOX News, talk radio, and other Internet based groups have grown dramatically, most Americans are locked into the same old habits. They sit down every night to watch their favorite mainstream media “news” program, then maybe watch “Meet the Press” on Sunday morning. And they actually think that they know what’s going on.

So, if Republicans want to have any hope of retaining their majority in the House, let alone taking the Senate and the Presidency, they had better learn to play chess, and quickly. Or the country will be facing a crisis that will make the riots in Greece seem like a schoolyard tiff.

The headline said it all:

TRIBE TO SUE BEER COMPANIES FOR ALCOHOL PROBLEMS

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57374043/tribe-to-sue-beer-companies-for-alcohol-problems/

That’s right. A Native American tribe is actually blaming their drinking on…yep, those evil beer companies:

The Oglala Sioux Tribe of South Dakota announced Thursday it will demand $500 million from five international beer manufacturers for the cost of health care, social services and child rehabilitation caused by chronic alcoholism on the reservation.

The lawsuit also targets four off-site beer stores in Whiteclay, Neb., a town with a population of about a dozen people on the South Dakota border that sells nearly 5 million cans of beer annually.

Now, the daughter of a friend of mine works at a bank up in Northern Minnesota, where tribal members come in to cash their huge casino dividend checks (tens of thousands of dollars each month). And she will testify that on a regular basis, even first thing in the morning, they will be reeking of booze, so much so that she has to back away from the teller’s window.

Interestingly, the problem existed long before the advent of the modern liquor industry:

The Connecticut-sized reservation has struggled with alcoholism and poverty for generations, despite an alcohol ban since 1832. Pine Ridge legalized alcohol in 1970, but restored the ban two months later.

So, the tribal members have been breaking their own tribal laws for centuries. But it’s the fault of the beer companies. I get it.

Then again, why would anyone be surprised by the endless stream of absurdities that the modern liberal “nanny state” has spawned? It pretty much started when they decided to blame bartenders for the actions of drunk drivers. Get sloshed and ram your car into a minivan full of kids? No problem – it was the tavern’s fault. You didn’t drink too much – the bartender “over-served” you.

Since then, we have found a scapegoat for just about every bad decision a human being can make:

Smoke two packs a day for 40 years and get lung cancer? It’s all the fault of “Big Tobacco.”

Eat junk food until you’re as big as a house and on your way to diabetes?  Just put the blame on McDonalds and Burger King.

They’ve even tried to blame gun manufacturers for the murderous rampages of gang bangers and drug dealers, not to mention the Mexican boarder chaos. By that twisted logic, I guess that graffiti is the fault of spray paint manufacturers.

And on and on it goes. Even the preposterous “housing crisis” (which was the inevitable result of government sticking its nose into private transactions, forcing banks to lend money to people who could not possibly pay it back) has been used to let what we used to rightly call “deadbeats” off the hook.

Deadbeats? Oh, heavens, no! They were merely the “victims” of “predatory lending” practices. Now, if that isn’t an oxymoron, nothing is. The last time I checked, there is no record of gangs of guys with briefcases full of money, grabbing people off the street and telling them,”here’s $200,000 – you’re going to take it and buy a house, or else.”

These poor people were “duped” – they didn’t realize what they were signing. Hogwash. Anyone in the real estate business can tell you that NO ONE with an IQ above a plant can honestly say that they “didn’t know” the amount, terms, requirements, and legal ramifications of any mortgage backed home loan. From the first application to signing of papers at closing, the details are clearly spelled out.

Yet now that the bubble has burst, and their homes are worth less than the amount they borrowed, they want to have their loans “forgiven” – try that with a Chicago loan shark. But no worries, President Obama will come to the rescue (by confiscating $26 Billion from the same banks he forced to give out the loans in the first place):

http://www.obama-loanmodifications.com/

And guess who will get hit with all those new bank fees that will be required to make up the difference – their customers (that would be you). But once again, Obama knows that you’ll blame the banks.

Ditto the “mortgage backed securities” – I didn’t buy into them when I first heard about them, and I’m no real estate wizard. So, if people with post-graduate degrees in finance were stupid enough to take the risk, why should the banks and the taxpayers have to foot the bill?

But on and on it goes, because in 21st Century America, no one is responsible for their own bad decisions anymore. And even when the problem is caused by too much government, the liberal solution is always…more government.

John Caile – HAVEGUNWILLVOTE

It’s already starting. When I opened Yahoo’s main page this morning, here was the top story:

Unemployment rate hits 8.3 pct. after hiring burst

“In the most impressive surge for the job market since the middle of last decade, the United States added 243,000 jobs in January, far more than economists expected. The unemployment rate dropped to 8.3 percent, the lowest in three years.”

Note carefully  the language used – “impressive surge” – “hiring burst” – “far more than economists predicted.” You can almost see the (overwhelmingly liberal) writers dancing with glee over the news.

Then there was ABC:

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/january-unemployment-rate-falls-83-percent/story?id=15499579#.Tyv4gsW0zZc

“The Labor Department said Friday that January unemployment fell to 8.3 percent as employers added 243,000 jobs, a sign that the economy is at long last settling into a stronger recovery.”  [emphasis ours]

And CNN:

http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/03/news/economy/jobs_report_unemployment/index.htm?hpt=hp_t1

Hiring was much stronger than expected, and once it was apparent the job gains were broad based across several sectors, economists and investors called it a “nice surprise” - “fantastic,” and even “a touchdown!” 

“This is an optimistic jobs report, especially in light of very poor jobs reports for almost three years,” said Brian Hamilton, CEO of Sageworks, a financial information company. 

Now, it is true that CNN gave a counterpoint to the rosy outlook:

The economy still needs to add about 5.6 million jobs to get back to 2008 employment levels, and it’s unclear if stronger job growth lately can continue.

But the above bit of very important information only appears way down near the bottom of the piece. This is a common tactic the media employs which allows them to claim that they are giving you “the whole” story, while knowing full well that 90% of people  will not read the entire article, but they will  remember the headline.

“So what?” you might say, “the numbers are the numbers.” Well, not exactly. The so-called official employment statistics have come under fire for being “manipulated” to make the number of unemployed seem less that it really is, tactics such as no longer counting those who have stopped receiving unemployment compensation, or ignoring those who have simply given up looking.

But that misses the point – whether in print media or television, it is the subtle (sometimes blatant) bias of the commentary surrounding the statistics that slants the story in a particular direction. And the effect on the perceptions of the reader or viewer is dramatic.

For example, when almost identical job growth numbers (around 200,000) were announced during the Bush administration, they were invariably preceded with the adjective “only” and the media reports were infused with words like “disappointing” and “less than expected” along with warnings that “experts caution against unwarranted optimism.”

In the visual medium of TV, the tone of voice and the expressions on the faces of the talking heads add even more bias. When announcing the job numbers during the Bush years, you could count on a furrowed brow, a somber tone, giving the unmistakable (and intentional) message that there was nothing to get excited about.

Fast forward to today, when if you watch the CNN, ABC, or NBC anchors reporting job numbers under Obama, even the slightest up-tick in employment will show them all grins and nodding heads – they can barely contain themselves. They are almost as giddy as they. were reporting Obama’s 2008 election win.

But this is only the beginning – the warm-up to the main event. As we approach election day, the media message of rising optimism will increase dramatically, and this will happen no matter what the real numbers say. Because even if unemployment begins to creep back up, it will be be minimized as a “merely a temporary blip” or downplayed as a “modest” increase – nothing to worry about.

Note how effective the media has been in completely ignoring the dramatic increase in food prices – something affects every household in America, the poor worst of all. We now have 14 MILLION more people on food stamps since Obama took office – nearly 1 in 4 working Americans. Outrageous.

But now that a Democrat is President, soaring food costs are suddenly “not newsworthy” in the world of the Obama-friendly media. Had John McCain been elected in 2008, we would be hearing non-stop about the “frightening rise in the cost of food.”

Then there are those pesky gas prices. The cost at the pump affects every American very personally and directly – it is right in front of their face. Here again, if gas prices decline, it will become front page news, and words like “dramatic drop” will be used to describe a decrease of even a few pennies.

But what if gas prices take a big jump just before the election? Here again, the media will run cover for Obama, minimizing the spike as “a minor increase” or a “temporary anomaly” and then changing the discussion to how gas prices “bolster President Obama’s position on alternative energy.”

The closer we get to the election, the more positive the economic reporting will be. The mainstream media will provide Barak Obama with millions (if not Billions) of dollars in what are nothing more than political ads for his re-election disguised as “news” articles.

And remember that, by hook or by crook, by election day the “official” unemployment rate WILL be 7.9% or less.

So whowever the Republican candidate turns out to be, they had better be prepared for the coming media tsunami.

John Caile – HAVEGUNWILLVOTE

Facing an incumbent president with Barak Obama’s abysmal economic record, it should be a cake-walk for whichever Republican candidate runs against him. But thanks to the GOP’s penchant for self-destruction, the prospects for unseating Obama are diminishing by the day, if not the hour.

The current round of Republican debates has done little more than provide Obama’s campaign staff with magnificent material for their upcoming ad blitz. Because instead of staying on message as Bill Clinton did (“It’s the economy, stupid!”) Republicans let themselves get sucked into fighting with each other like school children. “You’re a poo-poo face!” – “Yeah? Well, YOU’RE a dumb-head!”

Meanwhile, Obama is likely grinning with delight at the spectacle. And breathing a sigh of relief that so little attention is being paid to the genuinely important issues confronting the nation, like soaring food and energy prices, persistent unemployment, lackluster growth, and the real sleeping giant, gargantuan debt.

The truly frustrating part of this debacle is that all Republicans would have to do is focus. Keep the message simple, emotional, and clear. Every candidate should be constantly hammering on the profligate spending that is causing the deficit and debt to skyrocket. They should be highlighting, over and over again, personal stories from job-seekers about the lack of employment opportunities – as well as collateral stories from small business owners about how endless regulation and government interference prevent job creation.

They should also be attacking Obama’s growing list of “czars” at every opportunity, pointing out that unelected bureaucrats are controlling more and more of our private lives. Again, make it simple and personal – “Do you want some snotty little government dweeb telling you how much salt you are ‘allowed’ to have in your food?”

Hit Obama on energy policy. Talk about  high fuel prices – “Gas is nearing $4 a gallon because this President continues to give Billions to failed boondoggles like Solyndra , while stubbornly refusing to give the go-ahead on the Keystone pipeline, which would provide real energy and real jobs.” Then tie the rising cost of energy to the average person’s life – “Ethanol subsidies and a lack of drilling are driving up the price of every item on your grocer’s shelf!”

Then there is the “class warfare” that Democrats have used successfully for decades. But here too, the Dems get away with it only because Republicans don’t seem to know how to frame their position. Look how they sat back and let Democrats use the bogus phrase “tax-cuts for the rich” until it became part of the social lexicon.

When Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan dramatically cut taxes, they did not apologize for slashing the TOP marginal tax rates – they did it with relish, and the results were the greatest economic boom in the 20th Century. Yet which of the Republican candidates has referenced either Thatcher or Reagan’s success? Not one.

When Mitt Romney was attacked for paying “only” 15% in Federal income tax, he hemmed and hawed, and stammered like a kid called into the principal’s office. Instead, when confronted with the question, Romney should have gone on the offensive, stating emphatically how much he paid in dollars ($3 MILLION) and then add how much he gave to charity (another $3 MILLION) while pointing out that Barak Obama and V.P Joe Biden, neither of whom is in poverty, gave barely pocket change to charity.

Politics is a street fight (see: Rahm Emmanuel) but Republicans insist on sticking to Marquis of Queensbury rules.

The bottom line is that unless and until the Republican nominees stop bickering with each other and concentrate on attacking the disastrous policies and socialist ideology of Barak Obama, they will only succeed in guaranteeing that America will be stuck with four more years of economic stagnation.

Finally, there is the “Fast and Furious” scandal, which would normally have the potential for a real political disaster for a sitting president – and a windfall for his challengers. The President’s own hand-picked Attorney General, embroiled in a fiasco that used tax-payer money to send guns to Mexico, in a failed attempt to justify more gun control on U.S. gun owners:

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/furious_mess_has_justice_in_full_WYXAPQoFlBaBVer5Q47oiO

Even more outrageous is that “Fast and Furious” resulted in the death of a U.S. Customs agent when the botched program put military style weapons in the hands of Mexican drug cartels. Yet not one of the Republican candidates has even mentioned “Fast and Furious” – either in the debates, or in any of their public statements on the campaign trail. Once again, they have been tossed a hanging curve ball…and let it go right on by.

But unless Republicans get their act together, we will be looking at “more of the same” from Barak Obama – and that is something that the country simply cannot afford.

Historically, whenever guns and gun control are even mentioned, it bodes ill for Democrats. Even the most hardcore union Democrats have shown that they will jump across party lines whenever there is but a hint of a threat to their 2nd Amendment rights:

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=18194

“The past four federal election cycles have shown the awesome voting power of America’s sportsmen, hunters and gun owners. Bill Clinton admitted in his memoirs that the gun issue cost Al Gore the White House in 2000 and Sen. John Kerry’s pathetically staged “goose hunt” in Ohio just days before the 2004 presidential election cooked his. During the 2006 midterm elections, no candidates, save a few historically anti-gun politicians, ran on anti-gun platforms. The Democrats recruited candidates based, at least in part, on their pro-hunting, pro-2nd Amendment positions.“

As a result, the Democrats have done everything possible to hide their party’s affinity for gun control. Even Barak Obama has been profoundly mum on the topic of guns (much to the chagrin of the “Brady Bunch” and their ilk). Yet despite the dearth of anti-gun rhetoric, gun sales took off immediately after the Democrats took control of Congress in 2006, and soared into the stratosphere during the first year of Obama’s presidency:

http://www.redstate.com/cmndr45/2011/12/02/soaring-gun-sales-an-indicator-of-the-real-state-of-the-union/

More recently, in the middle of downright moribund economic times, gun sales posted another all-time record – this past “Black Friday” was the biggest single day for gun purchases in history:

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2011/12/black-friday-best-seller-guns/

And note that these are not just current gun owners, buying yet one more gun. On the contrary, new gun owners are fueling the buying binge, and a growing percentage of them are women, particularly younger women:

http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/video/more-women-buying-guns/6kzoj38?cpkey=189a129f-adb2-4dd6-89ec-66a7031c8524||||

Almost half of all adult women now own guns. More interesting is that the surge in women purchasing firearms is happening nationwide, even in geographic areas not typically associated with high rates of gun ownership. Do a search for “More women buying guns” and you will get pages of news stories from every corner of the nation.

Given this undeniably provocative trend in the middle of an election cycle, you would think that Republicans would be jumping all over it, especially since it has the potential to attract the very key groups Republicans need to win in 2012 – independents, women, and all those “Reagan” Democrats.

Yet guns are given little more than passing mention in the Republican debates. Even when questioned on the topic, there is almost no substantive discussion. Now, I certainly do understand why Mitt Romney would be loathe to bring up the subject – his record includes support for banning certain military-style rifles and other equally unpopular measures like “waiting periods” for handgun purchasers.

But more puzzling is the fact that the “Fast and Furious” gun-running scandal, currently embroiling Obama’s Attorney General Eric Holder, hasn’t been brought up by a single Republican candidate. This was, and is, a huge embarrassment for the Obama administration:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/atf-fast-furious-sg,0,3828090.storygallery

“A federal operation dubbed Fast and Furious allowed weapons from the U.S. to pass into the hands of suspected gun smugglers so the arms could be traced to the higher echelons of Mexican drug cartels. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, which ran the operation, has lost track of hundreds of firearms, many of which have been linked to crimes, including the fatal shooting of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry in December 2010.”

So why are Republicans so “gun shy” this time around? When one considers the potential for using “Fast and Furious” to highlight the covert anti-gun agenda of the Obama administration, and gain a huge political advantage, the apparent reluctance of any of the Republican candidates to use it is truly baffling.

“Fast and Furious” is a big topic on pro-gun-rights forums across the nation, and as mentioned, activist gun owners have made the crucial difference in close elections in the past. The reason is that they not only vote at a much higher rate than the general population – they mobilize others to vote, too.

The buzz on virtually all of these same forums is that gun rights activists are clearly disappointed by the lack of leadership shown by the Republican candidates. Many are suggesting that it might be better to “stay home” as a protest, thereby almost ensuring that Obama would have a second term.

Are Republicans simply out of touch? Or is this merely the latest example of the GOP candidates finding a way to shoot themselves in the foot – this time with their own guns.

John Caile – HAVEGUNWILLVOTE

Scott Peck, psychiatric professional and widely read author (“The Road Less Traveled”), once remarked that “Neurosis is the avoidance of legitimate pain.”  By that definition, half of all Americans, if not more, could easily be considered neurotic. After all, most of our economic problems are the result of a stubborn unwillingness to “bite the bullet” and face what needs to be done to reduce the deficit and national debt.

The Federal government now spends 40% more than it takes in, attempting to cover the overage by borrowing and printing money at a staggering rate – we are now at the point that our national debt is exceeding the entire Gross Domestic Product of the country. Such profligate spending simply cannot be sustained.

Yet instead of reducing deficit spending as he promised, President Obama has increased Federal expenditures faster than any president in history. Indeed, he has spent more in his first three years in office than all of the nation’s previous presidents combined.

And for what? Things like roads, bridges, the armed forces, and other legitimate responsibilities of government  such as the courts and law enforcement?

Nope.

Today, more than 80% of all the money spent by the government is on “entitlements” – Social Security, Medicare, food stamps, welfare, housing subsidies, and on and on. All of these massively expensive programs are so-called “non-discretionary” items. Translation: the recipients of all this largesse (which includes the army of government workers who administer these programs) are unlikely to vote for anyone who would dare cut them.

Any attempt to put the brakes on our out-of-control spending runs into a hurricane of opposition from all those feeding at the government trough – nobody wants their check cut. Just as in Scott Peck’s observation, few today want to face the “legitimate pain” that is simply unavoidable if we truly want to get our fiscal house in order.

Instead, we get a chorus of “Tax the rich!” and “Tax Big Business!” or “Cut the military!” – none of which actions will come close to slowing the growth of government, much less actually reducing it. And Obama is about to ask Congress to raise the debt limit even further. Which is like a family whose debt load is already more than their entire annual income deciding that the solution is to just raise the limits on all their credit cards.

Once again, the reason is obvious – neither Obama nor the Congress (Democrats and Republicans alike) want to tell the “patient” that there is no way out of this mess without experiencing some “legitimate pain.” We are in desperate need of “root canal” but too many Americans want Novocaine instead. And politicians are only too happy to prescribe it. Note that neither Obama nor any of the Republican challengers dares propose cutting the top marginal tax rates the way Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan did (and with outstanding success in both cases).

But unless and until we “ranger up” and face the harsh realities of our situation, the eventual pain will be far worse, perhaps even fatal.

John Caile – HAVEGUNWILLVOTE

The new action movie “Haywire” stars the beautiful mixed-martial-arts star, Gina Carano, as a covert operative who is even more formidable than Matt Damon’s character in the highly successful “Bourne” series. Trailer for the film can be viewed at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFV0Uvzpz0o

Carano is the latest in a trend toward woman who are just as competent or assertive as men – in Carano’s case, she is also more than equal to most men in purely physical terms. And without giving up her femininity. Even more impressive, Carano is down-to-earth, funny, and genuinely likable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F73B_HY7L2k

Now, when it comes to male role models, the liberal ideologues who took over Hollywood in the 1960s have done everything possible to feminize the image of the “perfect” American man. Prior to that, the big male roles were played by actors who were indisputably men – Burt Lancaster, Humphrey Bogart, John Wayne, William Holden, Clark Gable, James Cagney. The list goes on. Many of them were also tough guys in real life. Robert Mitchum once beat the hell out of four drunken thugs who intended to prove that he was a paper tiger.

Up through the 1970s, many of the most prominent male actors were also World War II military combat veterans. Charles Bronson was a ball-turret gunner on a B-17. Lee Marvin (who played a tough-as-nails sergeant in “The Dirty Dozen”) killed his first enemy soldier with a 45 caliber handgun at point blank range – when he was only 17 years old. Small wonder that Marvin’s often roughneck characters had an authentic “edge” to them.

Today, we still have a few real men around. Bruce Willis and Tom Selleck come to mind, and perhaps Daniel Craig (the “new” James Bond). But for the most part, we are inundated with an endless parade of “metro-sexual” wimps. Take the cast of “Friends” – not only is there not a real man in the bunch, the one exception (Joey) is portrayed as a sexist slob. And is there any more pathetic example of Hollywood’s idea of American manhood than Ashton Kutcher?

Even in TV commercials, real men are virtually non-existent, with the typical male depicted as a clueless, poorly dressed, football-obsessed dimwit, incapable of programming a microwave or doing a load of laundry. Meanwhile, the “wife” in the same ad is portrayed as smart, savvy, and more often than not, downright condescending toward her “husband.”

Because while Hollywood was doing everything possible to change the image of American men, they were also hard at work remaking the definition of the ideal woman. And while the types of roles might vary in terms of professions (doctor, lawyer, teacher, cop), with few exceptions they share one fundamental characteristic: they are liberals.

And they make sure that you know it. From their unhesitating belief in “global warming” and “the environment” to their predictably negative attitudes toward guns, religion, and “the rich,” just about every female character on TV can be counted on to spout liberal dogma in every episode. Based on the number of female character who will sanctimoniously declare that they “don’t eat meat” you’d think every other woman in America is a vegetarian, even though surveys indicate that a barely 1% of Americans denote themselves as such.

Some writers even go so far as to have them mouthing overtly partisan political comments, often linked to real-life current events. And whether some “evil corporation” or “religious extremist” group, rest assured that the target of the female character’s ire will be labeled as “right wing” or “conservative.” The message is clear: if you are a hip, modern woman, you are (or should be) a liberal.

But things have started to change. Sure, many of the newer “cop shows” still feature relatively passive male characters paired with strong females. In shows like “The Mentalist” and “Castle” the female lead is the one carrying the gun, while the male “consultant” is not only unarmed, he is more than likely a borderline pacifist.

But the women are now less likely to be so unswervingly liberal. They might express support for the death penalty. They are more likely to view violent criminals as “thugs” and “scumbags” rather than see them as the “unfortunate victims” as liberals typically do.

They also like guns. A lot. The series “Prime Suspect” features a truly tough female lead – played by Maria Bello – who not only talks like a typical male New York detective, she spends more time at the gun range than her masculine colleagues because, as her character says, “I like it here.” She also owns a whole closet full of guns, and in a recent episode hinted to her live-in boyfriend that “I have my eye on a pre-64 Winchester Model 70 – Christmas is coming, you know.”

Sociologically, the affects of this trend are beginning to be seen, and quite clearly. Women, especially younger women, are getting trained in self-defense in ever larger numbers. More and more of them are buying guns, and many are applying for permits to carry them. As a firearm instructor who teaches carry permit classes, I can verify that the percentage of my students who are female has increased dramatically over the last several years.

This is trend is doubtless at least partially connected to the increasingly prevalent images of attractive women on televisions and in the movies who are seen carrying, and perhaps more importantly, enjoying their guns. It is once again becoming cool, hip, and even sexy for women to own guns.

I say “once again” because contrary to liberal mythology, fearing and hating guns was not always some sort of innate female trait. Up until the 1950s, more women participated in shooting (whether hunting, target shooting, or trap and skeet) than engaged in golf! Back then, every little girl knew who Annie Oakley was – Halloween costumes of “Little Sure Shot” were among the most popular, complete with “six-guns” and holsters.

The current phenomenon – “The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo” – is the first episode of the popular Swedish trilogy, and features a tough, take-no-prisoners female character, who can ride a motorcycle, shoot a gun, and is more than willing to duke it out with bad guys. Both the books and the movies have been so wildly popular with women of all ages, that the original Swedish language film  has already been remade with an all English speaking cast, presumably to expand the audience even further.

Gina Carano’s character in “Haywire” is every bit as feisty as The Girl With The Dragon Tatoo” but she also has the looks, persona, and star power to take the “tough chick” character to an even higher level.  She does all of her own stunts. She choreographs the fight scenes, making them much more realistic than those found in, say, the “Mission Impossible” films. Because unlike most fake female movie heroines, Carano really is capable of kicking the snot out of 99% of the men in America. Or anywhere else, for that matter. While looking glamorous doing it. And it is her authenticity which shines through.

Bruce Lee combined athletic ability with a tremendous screen charisma and was more than a little responsible for the explosion of interest in martial arts that marked the 1970′s and ’80s. Only time will tell just how much of an influence Gina Carano will have, but given the right vehicles, my guess is that her affect could be substantial.

The irony is that ultra-liberal Hollywood may unwittingly be sowing the seeds of a new, and very un-liberal, generation of women.

John Caile – HAVEGUNWILLVOTE

Among the chattering classes of the Left-wing media, it is almost an article of faith that the terms “right wing” and “religious radicals” are inextricably linked.  Moreover, from “comedian” Bill Maher’s vile attacks on religion in general, to the totally off-the-chart vilification of NFL quarterback Tim Tebow, the Left has consistently reviled anyone of religious conviction. Religion, and openly religious people, make their skin crawl.

Which is ironic, since today, the really irrational groups are found almost exclusively on the political Left. And while their choice of “deity” may vary, like any religious zealots, liberal fanatics all have their dogma – their sacred beliefs – and their intransigent defense of those beliefs is eerily reminiscent of the more fundamentalist Islamist factions.

Take the radical environmentalists.  Their “dogma” is that “global warming is real, and mankind is causing it” and thus no amount of scientific evidence will convince them otherwise. Even after real scientists (as opposed to Left-wing social engineers) have exposed the bogus climate data (and even intentional fraud) behind the claims of “man-made climate change” they, like zealots everywhere, wage a relentless “religious war” – only this time the “demon” is American prosperity.

Then there are the “animal rights” activists. Just to set the record straight, neither I, nor anyone I know,  believes in torturing a helpless animal. But these people go way beyond the “ethical” treatment of animals. They commit acts of vandalism. They destroy private property. They break into laboratories and release animals into the populace. Talk about almost “religious” fanaticism – these people even want dogs and cats to have the same legal standing and protections as human beings.

Like all religions, the animal rights “true believers” have their different sects – vegetarians, and the even more radical vegans, are good examples. Vegans are committed beyond all reason to preventing the eating of ANY animal products, not just by themselves, but by anyone. And they are not shy about saying so. If they could, they would make eating meat, eggs, or butter a capital crime. Tell me that isn’t a “radical” view predicated on nothing more than a philosophical belief.

Next on the list is the “Church of Anti-Smoking” – perhaps nowhere else can you find more fanatical devotion to a belief. More importantly, like any “state religion” they have enlisted the power of the government to force everyone to worship at their shrine. By employing the same time-tested tactic of religions throughout history – inventing a mythical “devil” in the form of  “second hand smoke” – the anti-smoking faithful have been able to convince many states to completely ban smoking in any public building, including private businesses like bars and restaurants.

Atheists claim to want “freedom from religion” but atheism is itself a religion – atheists just have a negative belief in God (i.e. there isn’t a supreme being). Ironically, real atheists (and I know a couple) are not threatened at all by any religion – they couldn’t care less. But the irrational fears that many putative atheists have of any expression of religion is almost comical. As someone once said, “You have to wonder why it is that atheists are so terrified of something they claim doesn’t even exist.” Indeed, when militant anti-religious “crusaders” are so adamant about taking down a cross on a hillside, it does make one wonder what, exactly, they fear so deeply.

And let’s not forget that most Holy Sacrament of Liberalism – abortion. Just as in many primitive religions, this particularly gruesome ritual requires the sacrifice of innocents…and in a manner disturbingly similar to the way that the Mayans violently gouged out the hearts of their (equally unwilling) victims. And with the same result. Yet the liberal congregation will rise up with torches and pitchforks if any “heretic” dares to question the practice.

But the most dangerous aspect of the American Left is their unmitigated commitment to the “religion” of Socialism – modern American liberals quite literally worship at the alter of Big Government. And no matter how disastrously socialist policies have failed time and again throughout history, these Marxist “true believers” persist in their religious war to “convert” America from a nation of free-market capitalists into a European style socialist “utopia” where government controls every aspect of our lives.

From the housing crisis to the out-of-control welfare state, and our staggering (and growing) $15 Trillion in debt, almost everything wrong with America today is due to the “good intentions” of the Church of Liberalism. Even those obnoxious “occupy” protesters are the natural result of decades of liberal “entitlement” programs that have created an entire generation of government-dependent parasites.

In reality, everyone has a “religion” – a philosophy of life, ethics, right and wrong – but the various “religions” of the American Left are often far more radical in their mission, and more dangerous to the American way of life, than any traditional religion, even radical Islam. Because, like militant Islam, the American Left is not content to merely maintain their beliefs – they want to impose their “Liberal Sharia” on the rest of us.

The news that gun sales on Black Friday set an all-time record for a single day went largely ignored by the mainstream press. But the flood of gun buyers over the Thanksgiving retail blitz was only the most recent example of a phenomenon that has been growing over the last five years. A bit of history will help.

According to the FBI’s NICS records, from 2000 through most of 2006 the number of firearms purchases remained remarkably stable, averaging around 8.5 million transactions per year. But toward the close of 2006, gun sales began to rise dramatically, ending the year at over 10 million. The following year, 2007, sales again rose to over 11 million. [http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/reports]

To those in the gun rights community, the reason was obvious – Democrats had just taken over the House of Representatives, and even Democrat gun owners have learned to distrust Democrats when it comes to guns (ask Al Gore about that – he lost his own home state in 2000, in large part as a result of his support for gun control).

But it was the election of Barak Obama that really ignited the current sales frenzy. With Obama’s election, over 3 million guns were purchased in the last two months of 2008 alone, ending the year at 12.7 million. Then, in 2009, the very first year of the Obama administration, Americans bought a record 14 million guns, a whopping 40% increase over the first year of George Bush’s presidency.

Now, admittedly a few Republicans (Mitt Romney comes to mind) have jumped on the gun control bandwagon from time to time, but since the 1960′s the majority of restrictive gun legislation has come from Democrats. And both national and local elections have proven that gun owners will cross party lines to protect their rights.

Perhaps even more important than the raw sales numbers is the fact that a large number of these gun purchasers are first time buyers, with a growing percentage being women, both young and old. And contrary to the media spin that the increase in gun sales is due to more people participating in  “sporting” activities, the fact is that the primary reason most people give when asked why they are buying a gun is “for protection.”

Now, if any other area of the economy were experiencing such dramatic growth during bad economic times, it would be the headline on all of the cable business channels. Talking heads would be breathlessly discussing the amazing performance, endeavoring to discover the underlying drivers. But don’t hold your breath waiting for the CNN or MSNBC business gurus to even mention the roaring gun sales.

Because to do so would inexorably lead to the reasons for the buying binge – Obama and his cabal of anti-gun comrades like Attorney General Eric Holder. The ongoing “Fast and Furious” scandal is merely the latest chapter in the Democrats’ stealth war against legitimate gun owners. As a result, many people who never even considered owning a gun before have come to the conclusion that “now is the time.”

Besides purchasing guns, more and more Americans are also getting permits to carry a handgun for personal protection, and signing up in droves for training in shooting for self defense. They are Democrats and Republicans, male and female, young and old, gay and straight. As a certified firearm instructor who teaches carry permit classes and defensive handgun tactics, I often ask my students what their motivation was for seeking training.

The answers invariably involve concerns about violent crime, the fear of social unrest, or both. They see the videos of vicious “flash mobs” attacking innocent bystanders, or the screaming “occupy” protestors threatening violence if they don’t get their “share” of other people’s money. And it worries them.

It is often said that what people actually do, especially with their money, is a far better indicator of what they are thinking than what they say. If that is true, then the growing number of Americans who are buying guns for the first time are showing quite clearly that they are increasingly distrustful of their government’s ability to protect them.

John Caile – HAVEGUNWILLVOTE

What is most infuriating to business owners (or anyone with an understanding of basic economics) is the lack of forceful, outspoken leadership from our government officials in dealing with the economic malaise. But we shouldn’t be having such a difficult time finding leaders who will fight for the policies that will cure our economic woes. After all, the solution isn’t that complicated: we simply need an iron clad commitment to less government spending, lower taxes, and fewer regulations.

The success of free market capitalism has been well documented over hundreds of years. The United States is the premiere example, especially during the century between 1785 and 1885. During that period, America had low taxes, minimal regulation and a tiny federal government, and we went from an infant nation to a world power. No other nation or culture in all of human history ever experienced so much growth in so little time.

Also well proven are the failures of big-government interference in the private sector. From Hitler’s Germany and Mussolini’s Italy in the 1930′s to the imminent collapse of Greece, Spain, and much of Europe today, the legacy of socialism is one of ever expanding entitlements, declining productivity, massive debt, and looming economic collapse. And the handwriting is clearly on the wall for America as well. But only if one is willing to read it.

Here at home, the “Occupy Wall Street” brats currently throwing their infantile tantrums are whining about the results of the very kind of socialist government control of the economy that they support. They complain that their college loans are saddling them with crushing debt, but ignore the fact that it was precisely because of government subsidizing college education that tuition rates have soared – growing at twice the rate of inflation. And their solution? Why, more government subsidies, of course.

The “gimme” generation of professional parasites also wants someone else to pay their medical bills – they demand that “the government” provide them with “free” healthcare. But once again, the real culprits in rising healthcare costs are rooted in government subsidies, which drive up demand, and thus prices. And regulation at every level, including state mandates on what insurers must cover, and laws that prohibit people from buying insurance across state lines, further stifle competition and drive up costs.

The result? Federal and state subsidizing of health care has driven up demand, forcing up prices – the more “free” anything becomes, the higher the actual cost. When anyone, even an illegal immigrant, can walk into any clinic in America and get “free” healthcare, who do you think ends up paying the bills? The rest of us.

And even the best run medical facilities in the nation will admit that a massive 40% of their costs are to pay for compliance with mountains of government regulatory paperwork, none of which has anything to do with caring for patients. Most organizations now have people on staff whose sole job is “compliance monitoring.”

Health insurance companies are likewise affected – they have no choice but to pass the cost of state imposed mandates onto all of their policy holders. And when a resident is limited to “state approved” insurers, a government instituted monopoly results, with concurrent increases in premiums – crony capitalism at it’s worst.

Small business expansion has almost stagnated. Today, if you want to start a business, you are confronted by a mountain of obstacles – taxes, zoning rules, city and county ordinances, state mandates, Federal regulations from the out of control EPA to the Endangered Species Act. And the affects are felt everywhere.

I know a builder who could not build on a whole section of his development because it contained a tiny pond filled with weeds. It was declared a “wetland” you see, and a “waterfowl habitat” – in spite of the fact that the only creatures that inhabit it during the summer are millions of mosquitoes. Apparently, exposing the families who live in the development to West Nile Virus is a necessary cost of protecting a swamp. By the way, the result of his being unable to maximize his land use was that each unit cost had to be priced approximately $20,000 more than it would have, just to cover the loss.

Naturally, there are those who will argue that without nanny-state government bureaucrats looking over the shoulder of every business owner, mayhem will most certainly ensue, in spite of the fact that this view is contradicted by history. Politicians, especially liberal Democrats like Barak Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and their “ground troops” in the “Occupy Wall Street” mob, hysterically proclaim that without a massive Federal government bureaucracy we will have “dirty air, dirty water, starving children,” yada, yada, yada.

But perhaps more disturbing is the number of people, many of whom claim to be supporters of free markets, who actually trust a government bureaucracy more than they trust a private business. In view of the historical record, from the impending bankruptcy of Social Security and Medicare to the frighteningly dictatorial power of the EPA, such blind faith in “the government” is simply baffling.

Then there is the matter of government “investing” in private business. The SOLYNDRA scandal, in which the tax payers are now on the hook for over half a BILLION DOLLARS, is not surprising – it is the entirely predictable result of government intrusion in areas where it manifestly does not belong. It’s called “malinvestment” – funneling money into projects that the private sector already recognizes as a bad bet.

The problem is that government always “invests” for a political return (i.e. votes and campaign contributions), unlike the private sector, which invests for an economic one. In the case of SOLYNDRA, the false promise was “green” technology, and the “return” was intended to be support from the militant environmental lobby. But then the manufacturer of solar panels went down the tubes.

Even the “housing crisis” was the inevitable result of government interference in what should have been a completely private transaction. But in their relentless quest to buy votes from the “poor,” Democrats instituted the “Community Reinvestment Act” and numerous other schemes designed to force financial institutions to loan money to people who represented an inordinately high risk of default. Then, when the inevitable happened, and the bubble burst, who got blamed? The banks! And who got elected? The same Democrats (and let’s be honest, more than a few Republicans) who went along to get along.

And that is the biggest problem with government “investment” schemes – corruption. SOLYNDRA is not unique – it is just the latest example of businesses that are big political donors to Obama and Democrats getting a huge check, then, when they go bankrupt, leaving the tax payer’s holding the bag. Then there is General Electric, the poster child for crony capitalism – G.E has been in bed with government on everything from Federal mandates on light bulbs to wind turbines, both of which (surprise, surprise) G.E. just happens to make.

Sadly, few Republicans, even those who claim to be conservatives, have shown the leadership and integrity to forthrightly argue for real, substantive cuts in entitlements, or for the long overdue dismantling of most of the regulatory behemoths that are strangling our economy. Even when it comes to taxes, no one seems to have the courage to face what we all know, that almost half of all Americans are dependent on the government, while paying NO income tax whatsoever.  The time has come to cut drastically cut entitlements, lower taxes on those paying the most, and yes, raising taxes on those currently paying nothing.

Leadership matters. Margaret Thatcher made sweeping changes to England’s socialist government structure in the 1980′s and ushered in decades of prosperity and growth. Ronald Reagan did the same – the so-called “Clinton Economy” that Democrats love to take credit for was primarily the result of Reagan’s policies.

Unfortunately, today we are beset with politicians of both parties who want to merely tinker around the edges of the current system. But today, with our national debt reaching a staggering $15 TRILLION, bold and far reaching changes are the only way to reverse decades of big-government entitlements, nanny-state regulations, and a tax system that rewards slackers and punishes achievers.

We are at a critical moment in history, and we need more than just “the next Ronald Reagan” – we need a 21st Century version of George Washington.