As the recent school shootings have reignited the debate about gun control, I want to correct some (what I believe are) common misconceptions about the purpose of the 2nd and 3rd amendments to the US Constitution, as well as explain a fundamental principle of our government, one that can be traced back to the philosopher John Locke, and can be seen clearly in the Declaration of Independence, as well as the Bill of Rights.

People in our country have forgotten why we HAVE a second amendment. The third amendment (which most people do not know, and the rest could not tell you why the founders included it in the bill of rights) is also highly relevant to this issue.

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
   - Declaration of Independence

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
   - Declaration of Independence

Amendment II
A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

These four passages set out a principle that is unique to American society. OUR COUNTRY WAS FOUNDED ON THE PRINCIPLE OF LEGAL REVOLUTION.

This is something people forget. The founding fathers believed - as I do, that if your government is oppressive and unwilling to listen to your complaints, and to act as best it can on those grievances, the citizens have the right, and a DUTY to revolt, and formulate a new government.

The second amendment was included in our constitution, not because the founders wanted to ensure that everybody could hunt without trouble, though that may have been a part of it.

The second amendment, establishes the principle of legal revolution within our governing document. The easiest way for a government to be oppressive of the people, is take away the right of the people to bear arms against them. Our government must live in constant fear of its people - knowing that we can and will revolt if it becomes oppressive.

Because governments are by nature oppressive, the only way to keep government in check is to make it fear the governed - the people. The second amendment, which allows the people the right to bear arms unconditionally, was included in the Bill of Rights, because it was meant to protect the citizens from tyranny, and it was meant to force the government to bow to the will of the people.

The third amendment also has this purpose. It forbids the quartering of troops in a person’s house without their consent, and this in context, forbids the arbitrary declaration of martial law. The US army could not send five divisions into New York City (or any other city), because it would not have enough places to house the soldiers for a continued occupation, unless it was consented to by the people. Thus, the arbitrary declaration of martial law is forbidden by our constitution, which relates directly to the principle of legal revolution.

Even such anti-gun-control advocates as the NRA (of which I am a card-holding member and donor), do not fully understand (in general) the reason for the second amendment. It was NOT to ensure the ability of every person to hunt. It was not even to ensure the ability of every person to protect themselves from other people - though it has this effect as well (and if it were not included in the second, would be included in another amendment, presumably - the founders killed two birds with one stone here).

The most important principle of the second amendment, and why I believe it is the MOST important of all the 10 amendments, is because it establishes the principle of both legal revolution, and ensures the citizens of the US against the oppression of government.

Think of the 2nd and 3rd amendment as the final escape clause of the Constitution. If everything goes to hell in a hen basket, we still have a way out, a way guaranteed to us by our founders. That's always something I've found fascinating about the founding of our government - ours is the only government with a legally justifiable escape clause for the citizens (not the states however - this question was settled during the Civil War, when the Union won).

Our Declaration of Independence recognizes the necessity of government. There are some tasks that citizens themselves cannot perform, and it is up to government to prevent anarchy, confusion, and establish a kind of order to life, which is necessary for continuing (or beginning) prosperity. Thus, our declaration of independence (and if you have not read the unedited copy, Thomas Jefferson's original draft, I HIGHLY recommend you do so) allows for the formulation of a government (as does our Constitution). However, our Constitution implements a series of checks and balances.

Everybody has heard of the "normal" checks and balances. The Legislative branch makes the laws, but cannot enforce them. The Executive branch enforces the laws, but cannot make them. The judiciary can review the laws to determine their constitutional validity, but ONLY when challenges to laws arise.

Yet there is a greater, far more wide-ranging, and FAR more important set of checks and balances in our Constitution. These principles come straight out of Thomas Jefferson's declaration, and John Locke's Second Treatise on Civil Government (another read I HIGHLY recommend).

That is the check of the PEOPLE on the government. Again (it bears repeating), government by necessity encroaches on peoples liberties. If unrestrained, those in power will quickly become tyrannical. Government cannot be trusted, and the people in power cannot be trusted. Thus, they must be held in check by the citizenry.

This is why the first, but most importantly, the second and third amendments to the Constitution are included within the Bill of Rights. These three together are the primary checks against arbitrary and hence tyrannical government. There are other checks along this line - senators and presidents are up for periodical re-election, but at different times to mix things up, protections against arbitrary imprisonment, etc.

However, nothing in our Constitution is as important as the principle that the people have the right to start a revolution if there is too great an infringement on human liberty by government. If government becomes too powerful, too corrupt, too tyrannical, too arbitrary, or too oppressive, it is not our right but our DUTY to revolt and establish a new government that will better realize our human rights and liberties.

Now please do not take this the wrong way. I am not encouraging revolt. Our Constitution is superbly designed, and makes this possibility exceedingly unlikely. If we do not like our government, we only have to wait 2 years and we can change a good portion of it. By the end of a 6-year period, we could completely overhaul government (and have on numerous occasions throughout history - in fact, I postulate we are due sometime soon).

This also, in my opinion does not justify the Civil War (the topic of which I am an expert on - and I don't say this lightly - this is the area of expertise within my major (American History), and is something I have read on, written on, and studied extensively).

The southern leaders believed that the circumstances were so bad that they could (and should) honor that principle of legal revolt, and turn against the central government. However, we must analyze that southern belief in its totality, and we can then come to a different conclusion.

In order for the legal revolution principle to have any weight, the people must be fleeing oppression. The southerners FELT oppressed, but were they? Their sense of feeling oppressed, was because slavery was slowly but surely dying. They did not want to change their way of life, and felt that the North, which was quickly industrializing, was trying to attack and destroy their way of life. It was not true - the south was just extremely reluctant to enter the industrial era.

Then there is the slavery question. Slavery is by its very nature unequal. It was included in the Constitution, because the founders believed, it was both on its way out, and because the Southern states would not ratify the Constitution unless it allowed for the continuation of slavery, (you can make whatever assumptions off this you wish. My point is, that is why it is there). Because slavery is unequal and oppressive (to the slave), any revolution based on this principle is ALSO inherently unequal.

The principle of legal revolt, I would argue (and I suspect the founders would - and did - as well) only applies to people fleeing oppression for liberty. Our original revolution (in 1776) was the American people fleeing from British tyranny. Yes, there were slaves, but the slavery question was not the cause, nor the justification for the war.

During the Civil War, slavery was both the cause and the justification (by the South). Thus, the southern revolution was founded on an unequal principle, and therefore does not withstand legitimacy as a legal revolution. Furthermore, the government was not being tyrannical towards the south, and was not infringing on the rights of southerners.

My point is, we as a society need to remember what exactly the second and third amendments to the Constitution are for. To recap, they are the final and most important check on government - that check imposed by the people. The second and third amendments prevent the arbitrary exercise of government power, and allow for the principle of revolt if the government becomes too oppressive (which has never happened yet in our history, thanks to a very well designed Constitution).

That's why I'm so adamant in my stance against gun control. If you take away our freedom to dissolve this government should it become oppressive and tyrannical, you have made the entire bill of rights null and void.

What is the only thing forcing the government to stick to the bill of rights? Checks and balances within government to some extent, but largely, it is us the people. The bill of rights is, at the end of the day, words on a sheet of paper, that the government could simply ignore if it wanted to.

They don't, because they have to answer to the people. If they no longer have to answer to the people, they no longer have any obligation to ensure our rights.

The fact is, the bill of rights doesn't allow GOVERNMENT to ensure our rights.

It allows the PEOPLE to ensure our rights for ourselves, and to protect them from government interference.

I'm not going to make this long. I'm sure you have all heard what happened at Virginia Tech - the deadliest mass shooting in US history. A 23 year old male from South Korea, Cho Seung-Hui, killed 32 people and himself, in two separate crime scenes at the university.

He initially killed 2 people in the dorm where he lived, and then killed 30 additional people and himself, two hours later in a classroom building in another part of the campus. Since then, arguments have been made that school officials should have locked down the building, that security measures should have taken place, or that the US should have stricter gun control laws.

Leaving aside the second-amendment issues for the moment, information has now been released that Cho left a long and "disturbing" note back in his dorm room, explaining his actions. He apparently wrote "You caused me to do this," among other things. Apparently, Cho killed two people in the dormitory, then went back to his own dorm to reload and write the note, before setting off two hours later to kill 30 people and himself in the Norris classroom building.

I'm actually not going to postulate an opinion in this post. There are wider issues here - school security, immigration, and gun control among others - however, this should be a time to remember those who have fallen. 32 innocent people lost their lives yesterday, and there will be plenty of time to argue and debate about the relevant issues in the future. For now, let us simply try to remember those who have fallen, pray for their families, and wish them the best through this difficult time.

Nancy Pelosi's first 100 days in office as Speaker of the House are now complete. Hard to believe it's only been that long, because it feels like an eternity. Anyway, I figured I'd take the time to honor the great accomplishments the woman has achieved during her tenure, and suggest where our noble speaker may go from here.

Syria - Peace

If it weren't for Nancy Pelosi, we never would have been able to curb one member of the Axis of Evil, and get them on our side. Now that Syria is our greatest ally against Al Qaeda, Shia Insurgents in Iraq, and the Iranian jihadist regime, we have nothing to worry about. And, because Israel and Syria are now at peace, Hezbollah is left out of funds and arms, and we can get rid of multiple terrorist groups with one stone. The United States, as well as the western world owes a deep debt of gratitude to the speaker-in-chief, because she gained us a most valuable ally in the war against terrorism.

We have gone from an axis of evil, to a triumvirate of justice. Syria, Iran, and the United States are now working hand in hand, together, to solve the problems of the world. These problems of course, originate in and around the United States, so it is essential for us to have outside world powers on our side if we are to fix our broken country.

An end to corruption

Now that there is no more pork-barrel spending, under-the-table deals, bribes, or backdoor handshakes, Washington is a much nicer, finer, and safer place to do business. Nancy Pelosi, by exercising her profound and powerful leadership skills have managed to get such porksters as Robert Byrd to cut all pork. Our government is now running far more efficiently than before, and all thanks to Nancy Pelosi. Our budget deficit has been cut, government spending has been controlled, and all without raising taxes on the middle class.

But thankfully, we got our $400 billion tax increase for those nasty, nasty rich folk. They are the demonsbane of our society, and we are much better off by making them pay. After all, why should they have the wealth when it's much easier to share? Our new alliance with Syria - also brokered quite thankfully by Ms. Pelosi - has shown us the benefit of sharing with people less fortunate then us.

And because the rich are so mean and nasty, our perfect and just government can take away their money without another thought, because they don't need it after all! They've got plenty.

An end to this terrible war

Thanks in large part to our new alliance with Syria, the Iraq conflict has been completely stopped. All sectarian violence has been cleaned up, and Iraqi's are widely seen shaking hands and hugging each other in the streets. "This is the best year of my life," Ahmed Abdul Abububi Aziz said, a Sunni Muslim who recently married his youngest daughter to a Shiite cleric, "Everybody is getting along, our nation is moving forward. This is a great time to be alive. Nobody is dying, nobody is being killed. The evil United States has finally learned that they don't have to interfere when they are in danger. Things will work themselves out."

Our withdrawal from Iraq is not yet complete, since 5,000 marines still have to come home. But this is just a small dent in Ms. Pelosi's side, and she will have completed this remarkable change by the end of the next month. Ms Pelosi has expressed disappointment that the withdrawal couldn't be finished in time for the first 100 days, but promises that during the next 100, we will have much to look forward to.

A(nother) New Friend

After seeing how successful speaking with Syria was, Nancy Pelosi has thankfully reopened negotiations with Iran. Not only have they dropped their entire nuclear program, promising to focus on oil refinement instead, they have begun to work with the United States to fix our own internal problems.

Thanks to Iran, the vicious profiling by police of Muslims getting in and out of airplanes has been abandoned. This practice caused the delay of an uncountable amount of Muslim-Americans, but Ms. Pelosi, with the help of Ahmadinejad have put an end to this terrible practice.

Finally and most importantly, thanks to Iran, Al Qaeda has come to the negotiating table. Through reasonable talks in which Nancy Pelosi was lead negotiator, the US and Al Qaeda have come to a truce. Al Qaeda will stop trying to kill Americans now, because they realize they are not all fascists like the Bush administration. Thanks to Nancy Pelosi, Al Qaeda has realized we're not so bad, and has stopped trying to "blow up the white house."

Abu Kamal Tutu Abubu, lead spokesperson for the Al Qaeda delegation - which met in San Francisco, hometown of Nancy Pelosi two weeks ago - said, "We hope we can put all our past differences behind us. Now that our brothers have been released from those concentration camps, we hope we can enter a new era of peace between our nations."

The Impeachment is under way

After calls from the public, originating from angry people who were upset with Pelosi because she wasn't living up to the mandate they gave her in November, Pelosi finally announced she would pursue the impeachment of our tyrant-in-chief. She has brokered deals with other House members - showing us once again how skilled a negotiator this woman is - and the decision to begin impeachment proceedings went off without a hitch, 430 to 5, with only 5 fascists who have now been imprisoned voting against the measure.

Pelosi again expressed her disappointment that the impeachment has not been concluded yet, but takes solace knowing that Vice President Dick Cheney resigned amidst allegations of mind control, and that a new Democrat, Harry Reid has taken his place.

"Reid will help to control this administration, until we can make him president." Nancy Pelosi said in an interview with Al Jazeera TV last week, from her home in Tehran.

All Americans are now equal

The racial injustices, demonstrated by certified KKK members like Don Imus and Rush Limbaugh, has been brought to an end, and African Americans make up 60% of all college entering classes each year.

On the economic side of things, the minimum wage has been raised to a powerful $35.00 an hour. Now even the lowest skilled Americans have the opportunity to earn a decent living, and raise their family in an environment only the richest people dreamed about before. This new era of prosperity for our country will likely continue for a long time, and its chief architect Nancy Pelosi will live on as it's chief proponent and backer.

Our border problems have been fixed

Since we are entering a new era of peace with Al Qaeda, and other former terrorist groups who wanted (formerly) to destroy us, there is no longer any need to secure the border. A blanket amnesty bill has been passed that helps these poorest members of society get their feet firmly on the ground, and start making a living for themselves and their families.

The Berlin-wall like fence has been torn down, in favor of watering stands and Taco shops, which sell authentic Mexican food to the weary traveler.

Every person in the Universe now has health care.

Thanks to Nancy Pelosi, huge amounts of taxpayer dollars have been shifted from funding unjust and unnecessary wars, into providing universal health care. While it was only her goal to pay for the health care of all Americans, Nancy Pelosi figured, "why stop there." In a statement released in late March, Pelosi said "We were so happy about the success of the program here in America, we figured, why stop? There are billions of people all over the world without adequate medical care, and hey! we've got the funds now to help them. That's why I'm announcing our Chinese Health Care initiative, which will bring health care to every Chinese person in China."

This last program has been so successful, it has followed by announcements for Zimbabwe, Pakistan, India, Russia, Mexico, South America, and Sudan. A new era of truly "universal" health care has been adopted, creating the healthiest society the world has ever seen.

We suspect that Nancy Pelosi will be announcing plans for health care on PGNXPTGH 599-44-2498444, an extra-terrestrial planet that has lifeforms. "Why should other races be deprived of health care," Pelosi is credited as saying after the Chinese campaign was announced.

Conclusion?

The reign of Nancy Pelosi has just begun. Though only elected for the next two years, at which time she will face re-election at the hands of the voters of San Francisco, it is likely that the legacy of Ms. Pelosi's first 100 days will live in history, as the greatest time of American advancement and achievement since the Revolutionary war. America has gone from being the byproduct of neo-Nazi's like Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and George W. Bush, to being a state crafted truly out of the ideals of the founding fathers. If Thomas Jefferson could see our country today, a tear would develop in his eye, and he would let out a sniffle. "What a great place this has become - a true city on a hill" he would say.

To which Nancy Pelosi would respond "There are no cities. There are only citizens."

Such eloquence would not be lost on the author of the Declaration of Independence, and another tear would form.

The first 100 days in office of Nancy Pelosi, have been the greatest time America has seen in the last 200 years. Never have we been such a peaceful nation. Never have we not faced any threats. Never has crime been so low. Never have we been in such harmony with nature and the world. Now that everybody rides horses instead of driving those awful, awful cars, our environment too has been changed for the better.

There is unlikely to be a figure like Nancy Pelosi for some time to come. We should enjoy and make the most of the limited time we have with her, and revel in the accomplishments of our legislator-in-chief. Now that those crazy portions of the constitution - like those creating a presidency - have been abolished, Ms. Pelosi can finally get down to the real business of running a state. The real job of course, goes to Kofi Annan, who has been appointed - on recommendation by Ms Pelosi, Executive of the New World Order, and has become chief of the next world government. Ms Pelosi will merely head our delegation to this body. All the real decisions about our country will be made by Mr Annan, but it is believed that Pelosi and Annan have very similar visions.

The best way I've heard Al Sharpton described, is as a "racial arsonist." While perhaps a bit blunt, the argument was that he looks for little racial fires, and throws racial gasoline at them - somebody made this point earlier today on Fox News (though I can't remember who it was to give proper credit. Just know that it wasn't me).

It is because of this that Don Imus will come out of this situation looking like the good guy. Yes, it was he who screwed up. His "nappy-headed hoes" comment was the source of all this public outrage. Yet Don Imus did the stand-up right thing. He did not attempt to make excuses for his comments. He said it was stupid, he said "I did a bad thing," and he apologized publicly, and privately to the Rutgers University team whom he insulted.

He also took being fired like a man. He didn't complain and say it shouldn't have happened. He didn't try to fight CBS and MSNBC to remain on the job. He took his two week suspension, and eventually his firing standing up, and did not let it phase him. This doesn't justify what he said, but it does show him to be a more stand-up public figure then others in the past (Sharpton and Jackson included).

Al Sharpton wanted a fight. Al Sharpton gets fame and publicity by fighting with people. If Don Imus had taken the fight back to Al Sharpton - which he did not, rightfully - Sharpton would have come out ahead, because Don Imus would have looked like a racist, old, southern white man. The fact is, he is likely not a racist, and because of his refusal to challenge Sharpton, looks better for it.

Not that Sharpton shouldn't be challenged. Sharpton deserves to be challenged about Tawana Brawley, about his stance on the Duke University case, about his stance on many other issues, as well as comments he has given in the past that are very racist in their own ways. However, after insulting a generally black team publicly, Imus was certainly not in the favors of black people. So for Imus himself to take Sharpton on would have been a foolish PR move.

Instead, Imus said his apologies, and then dropped the issue - as the Rutgers team asked. Imus did not complain when he was fired from both his jobs, and did not try to fight his bosses, or Sharpton. Certainly he is upset - seething even - inside, but because he didn't publicly start to fight back, he looks like the winner.

Al Sharpton was deprived of his fight, and looks like an idiot (which he is). Al Sharpton cannot make a bigger issue out of this, because Imus was fired, taken off the air, and that's the end of it. There is nothing more Sharpton can do. This is bad for Sharpton, who makes his living off of "racial arson."

While I don't applaud Imus for what he said, and think it was despicable, I have to applaud Imus for how he handled the aftermath. He took it standing up, like a man (or woman - I'm no sexist) should, and did not try to fight back the bigots and racists who were after his scalp. He issued his apology publicly and privately, and has done all that should be expected of him.

It is Imus therefore, that will come out of this as the stand-up, winner (except of course, to Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, to whom nobody non-black can EVER be a winner). Sharpton and Jackson look stupid, and will continue to look stupid until they finally drop this issue. Imus looks good because of how he handled himself after all hell broke loose.

The Iraqi parliament meet today, in what has been termed by some attendees as an act of  "defiance," after the recent suicide attacks against the Iraqi parliament building, attacks that Al Qaeda has claimed responsibility for. Meeting on Friday is generally against precedent, because Friday is a Muslim holy day of prayer, like Saturday in other religions.

This is an extremely powerful story, especially for those of us that believe this war is right and just, as well as necessary for our national security. A bouquet of flowers sat in the place of Mohammed Awad, the member of parliament who was killed in the recent attacks. Parliament speaker Mahmoud al-Mashhadani, called Awad a "hero."

He also said that the meeting was called with the intention to send "a clear message to all the terrorists and all those who dare try to stop this (political) process, that we will sacrifice in order for it to continue." We should keep in mind that Mashhadani is a Sunni Muslim (as are Al Qaeda leaders and members.)

He continued: "We feel today that we are stronger than yesterday. The parliament, government and the people are all the same — they are all in the same ship which, if it sinks, will make everyone sink."

That last sentence should be repeated endlessly in the face of any of these anti-war lunatics who say that pulling out is the best thing for the US to do. Mr. Mashhadani is exactly right. If the ship (Iraq) sinks, everyone will sink with it. Everyone in Iraq, and everyone in the United States. Meanwhile, the only people on lifeboats will be Al Qaeda and Iran. If we pull out of Iraq, Al Qaeda, and even more importantly, Iran, will have one overwhelming victories in the region, which is something we can absolutely not afford during this war against islamofascists.

"The Parliament, government, and the people are all the same - they are all in the same ship which, if it sinks, will make everyone sink."

This is true, and will remain so until Iraq can be secured. We cannot pull out for this reason alone - doing so would abandon millions of people to the likes of Al Qaeda and Iran, both of which plan on implementing tyrannical regimes in Iraq with puppet governments loyal only to one of the two groups of jihadists.

There are many, many reasons not to pull out of Iraq. But, since liberals rely on the touchy-feely, and can understand "sadness" more than any other feeling, they should realize the sheer horror that would be faced by the US pulling out of Iraq. The Iraqi parliament is able to display feats of strength like this. Meeting in defiance, on a Muslim holy day, Sunni leaders speaking out against Sunni jihadists (Al Qaeda), and vowing to fight against terrorism is an important first step.

Yet the Iraqi government does not yet have enough centralized authority to be able to effectively combat these terrorists and jihadists who blow up their government buildings. Without the US presence, Iraq would turn into a civil war, and into a cesspool from which only Al Qaeda or Iran could emerge victorious. The fact is, pulling out now would be suicidal to the Iraqi government, more importantly to the Iraqi people, and most importantly to US national security (and by connection, OUR people.)

Some 2008 Democratic presidential candidates are signed up for meetings with retired army generals and other high-ranking officials from the other branches, with the intent on being given lectures about human rights, and how the war on terror does not require the US to infringe on these rights.

Here's my issue. These talks are all well and good I suppose, except that they are advocating not for human rights, but for terrorist rights, which do not exist. Even overlooking this fact though, there are some things we must first realize.

The US doesn't violate human rights. It's that simple. We just don't do it. So, why are these lectures necessary? What point do they have? Reinforcing a conclusion that the US has had since our creation (all men are created equal)? Just reminding us of a 250 year old precedent in our country? I'm still puzzled about the purpose for these lectures.

It is kind of like the Amnesty International pamphlets that proclaim in bold letters "THE AMERICA I BELIEVE IN DOESN'T TORTURE PEOPLE."

Since we don't torture people, I'm not particularly sure what the relevance of this pamphlet is... It's just wasting paper, and killing trees. It's the same issue with these talks. Yet there are some statements coming out of the democratic candidates who are meeting with the generals.

"The scandals of Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, and secret prisons have tarnished our moral standing and set a dangerous precedent for repressive regimes around the world," he said Friday. "The true tragedy is that - as these military leaders make clear - these steps have made us less safe, not safer." says John Edwards.

Brilliant.

The decision by the Democratic National Committee to have their selection for president take place in Denver, in August, 2008, has upset some of the labor unions that form the traditional base of their support. Colorado is generally seen by unions as a state unfriendly to labor unions (all the more reason to live there I'd think). In a statement released today, AFL-CIO (the largest and most annoying labor union) president John Sweeney said "Unless we can be assured that the governor will support our values and priorities, we will strongly urge the Democratic Party to relocate the convention."

Colorado's Democratic (gasp) governor vetoed a bill that would make it much easier to establish all-union workplaces, out of concerns for business. The AFL-CIO has even gone so far as to claim they could force Democrats to abandon Denver, if the labor issues aren't worked out.

Teamsters head, James Hoffa (!) inserted himself into the conversation, claiming that they would "blow up" Denver with protests if the convention were held there without working out the labor and union issues.

Labor unions are some of the most tyrannical, money-grabbing, anti-capitalist organizations in our country. That their influence is so huge with one of our major parties is a good example of the kind of politics we can expect from a Democratic president. Even more importantly, Democrats have their eye on the white house in 2008, and need their convention to go off without a hitch.

This puts them in quite a pickle. If they move from Denver to pacify the labor concerns, they will strongly anger the good people of Colorado. Furthermore, this move itself will be seen as a problem by voters, which may turn people off of Democrats due to their lack of forethought and poor organization (whoa.. revolutionary).

If however, they choose to remain in Denver, and are rocked by picketing and protests by union and labor leaders, this can only help Republicans. Voters will see the Democrats as aggravating, and will see that they can't even rally their own base of support around their cause. If you cannot rally your base, how are you going to be able to swing moderate voters your direction? This is the question many voters will be asking should these labor problems erupt at the DNC in Denver.

I don't know whether this will have any effect, but it raises two interesting issues. First, the strength of labor unions amongst the Democratic party. This is deeply troubling to me. The second issue, is how little the Democrats can afford problems, and yet how easily they create problems for themselves...

It will be an interesting election cycle.

Liberals are becoming increasingly angry with Nancy Pelosi, as they accuse her of drifting to the right, and becoming more moderate. "People are saying, 'When will it be our turn?'" said liberal Rep. Raul M. Grijalva (D-Ariz.). "I just hope the pendulum starts to swing where there's more attention, consultation, respect and understanding around our issues."

Nancy Pelosi did give a campaign promise to "govern from the center" (if her version of the "center" is to be believed as the real "center" of American politics). Yet liberals in the house are worrying that she has overplayed this promise, and has rejected long-standing liberal issues that were supposed to be brought up in the House after Democrats finally took power in January after a 12 year hiatus.

The best example is liberal opposition to the Iraq spending bill, which funds the war but imposes a timetable for withdrawal (wrongly) on the Bush administration. They blocked its passage for an entire day, but eventually agreed to let it pass because it was better than a GOP victory (god forbid).

If Nancy Pelosi is governing from the center, then the moderates have totally lost all support I ever had for them. They haven't of course, I'm being facetious. However, for the congressional progressive caucus, being anything less than an ardent Marxist makes you an "authoritarian right wing hack."

If a belief in smaller government, more economic freedom, and that the US should defend itself in the utmost is radically right wing, I'd take that over Marxism any day.... And the congressional progressive caucus scares me. Anybody who thinks Nancy Pelosi is too conservative scares the beejeezus out of me.

According to recent reports, there is growing pressure in the white house, congress, and the intelligence community to appoint a person to oversee the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. This war-czar, would be responsible for coordinating resources between the conflicts, and would likely be a retired general of stature.

While this may sound like a good idea, I'm not so sure it is. Isn't that what the Commander-in-chief is for? I mean, isn't that the president's job as CoC? To oversee conflicts? I'm not sure, but this has the sniffings of being unconstitutional, and something I cannot support. Frankly, I'd like to stop appointing people to do things, and just get things done. Win the Iraq war and call it a day.

This story has me angry. I'm no fan of Don Imus - I've never listened to his show, and I never plan(ned) to listen, but the outrage over his comment I believe is far more then what is necessary. I understand that calling the Rutgers basketball team "nappy-headed hoes" is not the nicest thing to say. I understand why this would be deeply offensive to the Rutgers team.

And I understand that Imus runs a comedy program, did not say this with malicious intent (he said it in a lame attempt at humor), and I think the supposed outrage over this is unwarranted. Imus apologized to the Rutgers team, and asked to meet with them to apologize in person - and he was going to do so, when MSNBC and CBS Radio dropped his show entirely.

Now, I'm not sure how many people listen to Imus. I'm not sure how decent his show is - as I said, I've never listened. Yet firing a man for a comment to me seems both extreme, and callous. Businesses have the right to make decisions about who they hire and who they fire, don't get me wrong. Yet Imus going on the Al Sharpton show to apologize (and don't forget Sharpton could be seen as a business competitor of Imus), and these public calls for his removal are a bit much.

It was a lame attempt at humor that failed miserably. It was juvenile and pointless. Yet it doesn't warrant a man losing his job. On the radio today, Imus rightly asked when Sharpton will be apologizing to the Duke Lacrosse players, who were declared innocent by the NC Attorney General. When will Sharpton be apologizing? Never, because he doesn't have to apologize for the racist and bigoted things he says. It's justified because he calls for it in the name of civil rights.

True civil rights leaders would be appalled at people like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, who are nothing more then troublemakers.

... Am I going to get fired for that?

According to recent reports, Nancy Pelosi is considering a return trip to Syria. Basher Assad liked her so much the first time, that he decided to invite her and her delegation back (I wonder why. She looked and acted the fool, and Assad came out looking like a hero). Pelosi spokespeople have said the she will consider a return trip to Syria. This would be just as bad an idea as the first trip was.

Even worse however, is that some democrats are suggesting visits with Iran. This is outrageous and pathetic. That our own representatives could actively discuss things with our arch enemies is unheard of in the history of our nation - except by traitors.

I have maintained from the beginning of this conflict that we are at war with Iran as well as Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran is the world's greatest state sponsor of terrorism, and is responsible for countless attacks carried out against US troops, civilians, and diplomats.

That Democrats would even consider going to Iran is something that I cannot overlook. If there truly are plans in the works to go to Iran, this would be the greatest defeat the United States has seen in this war on islamic fascism. The United States has thus far maintained a series of victories (or at least stalemates), and have not suffered any real defeats. Allowing Democratic leaders to visit Iran would be the first in a long line of defeats for our nation if this were to be allowed.

If they absolutely MUST go, here is what I suggest. Bush should tell them "fine, you can go. But the US military will not serve as your security. If you go, you're on your own." That would stop the wimpy representatives from going over, and would stop the trip short, as it very well should.

Going to Syria is a mistake. Syria is a sponsor of terrorism, and is a nation our government has decided (rightly) that we do not deal with. They are an annoyance and a threat. Yet compared to Iran they are nothing. Iran is an entirely different threat to US national security, and is a far more important concern for our government. We cannot have senators and representatives (from either party) running around and trying to make "deals" with the world's reincarnation of Adolf Hitler.

Despicable.. purely, despicable.

 "The president is inviting us down to the White House with preconditions. That's not the way things should operate," he said at a press conference on Capitol Hill. The president is now having to deal with a Congress. He’s never had to do that before. The president in the past, he has just done whatever he wanted. He had a big rubberstamp here up on Capitol Hill, whatever he wanted, they stamped OK. That's not the way it is now."

This is a quote by Harry Reid, speaking about a Bush offer to invite him to the white house to discuss Iraq war funding. Harry Reid has said that if Bush vetoes this bill for funding, Reid will come back with a bill that cuts off funding for the troops as of March 1, 2008 (which will clearly never pass, or get around a veto). Harry Reid alleges that the offer to meet and compromise comes with "preconditions."

I haven't yet figured out what these "preconditions" are, but I assume they are a willingness to compromise, debate, and not abandon our troops and country.

...... No wonder Harry Reid isn't showing up.

A proposed Democratic primary debate by Democratic presidential candidates may have no turnouts if progress continues down the current path. First, John Edwards abandoned the debate, because it is being hosted by FOX news, which he says advances the right-wing agenda (and of course, we're smart, organized, and give enough of a damn to have a "conspiracy").

The problem with Mr. Edwards reasoning, is on two levels. First, America watches Fox. It is the most watched station in cable news, and its numbers get higher all the time. So, if you're running for president and you want people to listen to what you have to say, and discover your positions on issue, Fox is a good place to go - at the very least to get name recognition.

The moderators of the debates will not likely all be Fox news correspondents. CBS is co-partnering the debate, and so presumably, some of the moderators would also come from CBS news. Even if they did all come from Fox, what difference would it make? Moderators of debates ask questions, and the candidates answer them.

The fact is, John Edwards just does not want to face Conservative America, because he does not care. Unfortunately for Edwards, wacko-lefty support isn't going to be enough to win him the presidency - as evidenced by 2004 voters.

Now there is a report that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have also shunned the debate. By this point, I don't think any democratic presidential candidate is going to show up on Fox news, with is both stupid and sad. It also shows that these candidates are afraid to face the American people - particularly Republicans and conservatives - with their stances on the issues, because they know how flimsy, weak, and defeatist their stances are. They are afraid that the American people will see them for what they really are - yellow bellied cowards, who don't have enough of a pair to stand for anything.

This is a really interesting story. Cindy Sheehan, postergirl for the anti-war leftist movement in America, has been publicly proclaiming that Democrats have betrayed the "grassroots" movement that put them in power as opponents to the Iraq War, all the while encouraging Bush to "end this madness."

She opposes the Democratic-sponsored Defeat America Immediately act, which calls for a roughly 18 month withdrawal date for US troops in Iraq, and is vehemently opposed by the Bush administration and anybody with logic and common sense (too much to ask for in leftists though). "The timeline is now, not 18 months, not two years," Sheehan said, while leading a protest somewhere near Bush's ranch in Texas.

This leads me to the following startling (or perhaps not) conclusion: nobody likes the Democrats.

The Democrats are, quite simply the party of people that nobody likes. They are not liberal enough for the leftists. They are too liberal for the moderates and conservatives. They are worse to some. Nancy Pelosi is rebuked by that great Conservative thinktank the Washington Post for her trip to Syria, and the Democratic agenda has gotten nowhere quickly.

They are quickly angering the American people with their endless subpoenas of Bush administration officials, and relentless attacks against US soldiers and the Iraq war. Even traditionally Democratic strong-points, Education, health-care, Medicare, and others are taking a shellacking as the Democrats move increasingly to the left, and Americans move increasingly to the middle, or slightly right of middle.

This isn't a problem for those of us Republicans, but it does raise an interesting point. There was a time in American politics, when you had a difficult choice for President. Both parties sponsored candidates who were interested in bettering America, and making it a stronger, more powerful, and more prosperous nation for all its citizens. There was a time when you had to make an actual decision at the ballot box - for the general election, not just the primaries.

This isn't really the case any more, and I personally find it kind of upsetting. If you're a leftist, or a liberal-leaning-leftist, you're going to vote Democratic almost to a man. If you're conservative, you'll vote Republican almost to a man. If you're moderate, you'll vote both ways, but lean Republican because the Democrats act so damn stupid while in power.

I don't mind discharging Democrats from power. What worries me, is that the Republican party is ceasing to be the party of conservatives, and is moving increasingly to the left. More Republicans are coming out against the war, but additionally, many Republicans are simply RINO'S, who oppose conservative economic principles like the Fair Tax plan, as well as other conservative issues. The Republicans are doing this I believe, because they want to widen their voter base.

This is generally a good thing - a party (to be separated from a candidate) should try to appeal to as many people as is possible. Yet the Republican leadership must face the fact that people who support Cindy Sheehan, and people who vote for Nancy Pelosi will NOT vote for any kind of moderate or conservative platform. The only way the Republican party is going to court these voters (as it, unfortunately, seems to be trying to do), is by moving out of Conservatism all together, and becoming liberals. This will however, alienate ever single person who voted Republican in 2002, 2004, and especially 2006 when they really took a beating and only the staunch conservatives remained loyal to the party.

It is a mistake I hope the Republican leadership sees and is able to counter. If they are not, then I fear for the future of politics in this country.

According to a recent story, former speaker of the house, and possible Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich (R-Ga) and 2004 Democratic presidential nominee and Massachusetts senator John Kerry (D-Ma) have agreed to a debate about global warming.

...

Let me rephrase that introduction: AHEM.

According to a recent story, former speaker of the house, conservative spokesperson, and genius Newt Gingrich (R-Ga) and 2004 Democratic presidential nominee and incompetent liberal boob John Kerry have agreed to a debate about global warming.

John Kerry of course will be taking the side of Al Gore and the environazi's who wish to dictate to the rest of us how to live, in the name of  "public good." Newt will take the opposing side which believes that global warming is not caused by humans, but by cycles of the sun, or cycles of the Earth, or something else which isn't man-made and man-operated.

If I were one of John Kerry's political team members, I would strongly oppose this debate. John Kerry cannot stand in the same skyscraper intellectually as Newt Gingrich, even about the environment (a topic which neither person has had any formal study in I believe - Newt's a historian by profession, and John Kerry is... an incompetent liberal boob?). John Kerry will be demolished - just like during the election debates - and Newt will emerge the clear winner.

Additionally, if I were a radical, left-wing socialist environmentalist, I would also oppose this debate. John Kerry is the LEAST USEFUL intellectual candidate to argue for anything, especially something so controversial. John Kerry will no doubt make a fool of himself, which will be funny for Republicans and Conservatives to watch, but painful for the left wingers. It would be nice to see Al Gore himself do this debate.

As they guy filling in for Rush today, Paul Smith said, it is like the difference between Newt debating a tree, and Newt debating a bush.

Who Newt debates is of no consequence. It will be interesting to see how and in what ways Newt goes after John Kerry's... arguments? (if they can be justified academically as an ARGUMENT...)

I look forward to it. In the modern world it is harder to find humor in politics, specifically when leftists are involved. This is one of those rare circumstances that promises to be both informative and hilarious. I hope it's on C-Span or something.