Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto by Mark Levin

Mark Levin is something of an aberration amongst conservative pundits. He's no opinionated blowhard like Sean Hannity or Bill O'Reilly. He's smart - really smart.

Which makes Levin's new book, Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto, fascinating to read - even if you're liberally-inclined.

The concept of Liberty and Tyranny is a simple one. Written last year - when the lack of cohesive leadership within the conservative movement was at its most obvious - Liberty and Tyranny is essentially a call to arms for conservatives.

Styled after Karl Marx's 'Communist Manifesto,' it explores what conservatism really is, where the movement's origins lie and what its goals are. He challenges what it means to call yourself 'a conservative' - and Levin even finishes his 'manifesto' on the same note as Marx - a conservative version of the call to action: 'Workers of the World Unite!'

The book demonstrates what a multifaceted concept 'conservatism' has become - and how competing conservative voices often clash as they stand up for opposing values.

What Levin accomplishes is stripping down the values of competing voices, peeling away each prejudice until all that's left are the essential ingredients that make up a 'true' conservative.

It's in recognizing shared values that libertarians, social conservatives and other self-styled conservatives can find a common purpose, even if they disagree on other important issues.

It's in achieving this that Levin's manifesto becomes frighteningly effective.

In attacking liberalism, Levin resorts to crude, but effective techniques. His first step is in refusing to call the left-wing 'liberals' at all. He prefers the more chilling: 'statist.'

As the word "liberal" is, in its classical meaning, the opposite of authoritarian, it is more accurate, therefore, to characterize the Modern Liberal as a Statist.

But Levin uses more than name-calling to skewer the left wing - identifying key hypocrisies within the liberal agenda and nailing them with aplomb.

For example, Levin identifies how liberal government bypasses the 1st Amendment 'Right to Free Speech' by encouraging political correctness - the muzzling of free expression through accusations of racism, sexism or bigotry.

The Statist veils his pursuits in moral indignation, intoning in high dudgeon the injustices and inequities of liberty.

He similarly highlights how the left-wing use the U.S. Supreme Court to undermine popular law - 'legislating from the bench' to bypass the democratic process.

This is what he calls a 'soft tyranny' - a concept he lifted from Alexis de Tocqueville's book Democracy in America. Levin argues that America has been heading down this path of 'tyranny' ever since Roosevelt's 'New Deal' - and his manifesto warns conservatives that they share a common duty: Opposing the growth of a 'conglomerate' federal government.

Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto is quite unlike any conservative book I've read before, because it has gravitas. Most conservative authors (like the clownish Glenn Beck) produce lightweight literature that's easy to dismiss. Mark Levin, on the other hand, makes a credible case that resonates even with die-hard liberals like myself.

It's not light reading - Levin has a doctorate in law and writes like it. But Liberty and Tyranny is nevertheless an energizing read for conservatives and a thought-provoking one for the rest of us. He might not win any new recruits, but anybody brave enough to read this book will certainly have a new perspective on the ideology of the right wing.

Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto by Mark R. Levin is available now for $15.00

Men in Black: How the Supreme Court Is Destroying America

With Justice David Souter's decision to step down from the United State's Supreme Court, speculation is rife as to whom Obama will pick as a replacement.

But, more importantly, it's an opportunity to reexamine the role of one of America's most venerable, yet controversial institutions.

The Supreme Court is exactly that - the ultimate court in the nation. Their role is in interpreting the Constitution - deciding whether laws or rulings violate the fundamental freedoms set down by the nation's founding fathers.

In recent years, however, the Supreme Court has been the target of sustained criticism - most notably from conservatives, who complain that liberal judges have used their positions to 'legislate from the bench' on notable issues.

This is actually a valid criticism - although accusations of bias go both ways. Conservative justices like Samuel Alito and John Roberts can just as easily be accused of making decisions based on their right-wing proclivities rather than the law.

Men in Black: How the Supreme Court Is Destroying America is an in-depth analysis of the criticisms leveled at the Supreme Court, written by Reagan-administration staffer (and conservative talk-show host) Mark Levin.

While Mark Levin is an insufferable blowhard when he's behind a microphone, he does possess two things that other right-wing hacks, like Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly, don't - a law degree and a brain.

In 'Men in Black,' Levin accurately points out the Supreme Court's fatal flaw - that a seat on the bench has become a political position, rather than a legal one.

Each of the nine justices on the Supreme Court have their own ideas - which influence how they interpret the law.

Recently, important issues (surrounding gun control and the war on terror, for example) have been decided on 5/4 splits - with almost all of the judges ruling along 'party lines', rather than legality.

This, Mark Levin sneers, makes them guilty of deciding what the law should be, instead of what it is. It effectively takes the power of the people, as represented by their senators and congressmen, and usurps it in favor of nine unelected, unaccountable individuals each with their own political axe to grind.

The failing of Mark Levin's book, however, is that he ends up being just as subjective in his rulings as the judges he's dismissed as 'radicals in robes.'

For instance, Levin attacks the 1944 Supreme Court ruling which upheld the detainment of Japanese detainees (Korematsu v. United States) during World War II - arguing that the ruling was unconstitutional and wrong (which it was - President H. W. Bush ended up paying $1.2 billion in reparations to those Japanese detainees.)

However, he later argued against the 2008 ruling in Boumediene v. Bush (which gave Guantanamo Bay detainees habeus corpus.) Surely that's nothing short of hypocritical - denying one prisoner liberty, while defending that of another.

In the end, it's this enthusiasm for contradictory arguments which undermine the effectiveness of Levin's case. While he nails several Supreme Court rulings (like how affirmative action violates the 14th amendment's promise of 'equal protection') he's less convincing on other topics - delivering somewhat blithe arguments that he emboldens with colorful allusions to 'tyranny' and 'judicial activism.'

At the end of the day, though, Mark Levin makes a convincing point, even if he doesn't offer a viable solution. The Supreme Court has violated its mandate on several occasions and looks like it'll continue to do so in the future.

With Obama's strength in the congress and senate, whoever he picks to replace Souter will no doubt lean similarly towards the left (ironic, as Souter was originally given his position by Bush Snr.)

And while a liberal new justice might mean more Supreme Court decisions I agree with, it doesn't necessarily mean they'll be the right ones.

I'm not entirely sure Mark Levin would agree with me, but I wish we lived in an America in which Aristotle's legal mandate was strictly adhered to:

The Law is Reason, Free from Passion.

Men in Black: How the Supreme Court Is Destroying America by Mark Levin is available from Amazon for $16.95.

256 pages, ISBN-13: 978-1596980099

The Five Fatal Mistakes of American Conservatism

Rush Limbaugh by Ian Marsden

Is this the end of American Conservatism?

At a time when American conservatives should be regrouping and re-recruiting, they've circled their wagons; embracing a siege mentality that suggests their period of political relevancy is at an end.

What contributed to the collapse of this once-powerful political movement?

The Five Fatal Mistakes of American Conservatism:

Country Club Conservatism: During the movement's birth, in the lead up to the 1980 Presidential Election, conservatism triumphed because of its accessibility. Evangelical leaders like Robert Grant and Jerry Falwell gave America's disenfranchised conservatives a unity of purpose - allowing conservatives the opportunity to overlook their differences and work together to achieve a common goal.

Today, the opposite situation exists. The title of 'conservative' is no longer one that voters can adopt for themselves - instead of a unity of purpose, there's a doctrine of dogma; and failure to live up to the standards set by so-called 'leaders' like Rush Limbaugh leave many more moderate conservatives out in the cold.

As long as conservatives pick and choose their supporters, like members of a country club committee, their ranks will dwindle.

Failure to Evolve: Many conservatives don't believe in Evolution, which explains why their movement is still stuck in the seventies.

The success of the 'moral majority' during the election of Ronald Reagan came down to conservative Christians uniting together to support timely, relevant and effective political positions. Times have changed dramatically since then - but, in most cases, those political positions haven't.

Unless the conservative movement is willing to address the issues of our time - environmentalism, war and economic uncertainty - they will continue to represent an era and an outlook whose time has passed.

A Dying Breed: It's a documented fact that each new generation is progressively more liberal than the last. Nowhere is this more apparent than America, where the grandchildren of segregationists just elected the nation's first African American president.

However, in its failure to address the changing beliefs and values of young Americans, the conservative movement excludes those who could offer conservatism its future.

The Democrats have successfully courted the under-30 vote in every presidential election for the past fifteen years. This trend shows no sign of changing. Until the aging core demographic of the conservative movement grows up and accepts that young Americans aren't so militant about issues like homosexuality and explicit sex education, they will always be marketing an agenda that alienates the very people it's essential they win over.

The Lowest Common Denominator: Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin may have bemoaned the 'liberal elite media,' but in the arena of Talk Radio, conservatism is king. Political pundits like Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin rule the airwaves with their angry rants about the state of the country.

But it's that anger which is so damaging to the conservative movement. While it does resonate strongly with the conservative core, it was proven in the last election that America is looking for a message of hope and change, not anger and frustration.

As long as the public face of conservatism continues to be bitter, angry little men like Levin and Limbaugh, that's going to be the only demographic it appeals to.

Eating Themselves Alive: The final mistake of the conservative movement is the one that will hasten their ignominious demise - a self-destructive urge to tear their party asunder from the inside out.

Nowhere is this more obvious than in the public arena - where the GOP leader, Michael Steele, was recently eviscerated by Rush Limbaugh for 'daring' to imply that abortion is a woman's choice, not merely cold-blood fetal murder. When we see the de jure head of the Republican party skewered by the de facto head of the conservative movement, we witness a party and a movement that's in no position to govern itself - let alone the country.

McCain - a Republican to be proud of...

Conservative talk radio hosts hate John McCain.

Nobody can remember which outspoken pundit coined the term 'McLame' (my bet is Mark Levin) but they're all using it. Rush Limbaugh. Sean Hannity. Even foxy fascist Ann Coulter is getting on the Hate McClain Train with her angry article here.

Ironically, the more the right wing rail against their leading presidential candidate, the more I approve of him. The conservatives hate the fact that he's not 'conservative enough.' I celebrate that fact - because it means he's a politician who's capable of making his own mind up, instead of sticking to tired and flawed political dogma.

Take, for example, the criticisms Ann Coulter levels against him.

Ann complains: He excoriated Samuel Alito as too "conservative."

Liberals disliked George Bush's decision to appoint Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court in 2006 - pointing out that the 'checks and balances' protecting the democratic process were null-and-void when you've got a conservative President backed by a conservative Congress with a conservative Supreme Court keeping them 'in check.' Or, rather. not.

McCain's criticism of Alito says more about his commitment to democracy than anything else.

After all, Alito has hardly eased the Liberal's concerns by his rulings. In United States v. Rybar he defended the constitutional right to own submachine guns, in Chittister v. D. of C & E D he helped the state government wriggle out of their responsibilities when they fired an employee in blatant violation of the 1993 Family and Medical Leave Act.

Ann whines: He promoted amnesty for 20 million illegal immigrants.

McCain's policies towards the issue of Illegal Immigration are utterly transparent. Since 2005, he has been one of the leading campaigners for 'orderly immigration' and penned the McCain-Kennedy Bill which offered a practical and fair solution to the problem of illegal immigration.

I don't agree with his policies - as a legal immigrant to the United States, I expect illegal aliens to be subject to the same strict rules and regulations I was. Any form of 'amnesty' is grossly unfair to the people who respect America's immigration rules - and reward those who break them.

However, one way or another, illegal immigrants in American need to be identified and held accountable. McCain's policies are a sensible way to do this. Although offering the 'carrot' of residency doesn't sit well with me, I am intelligent enough to see that it's a solution that would work - and do so in a much cheaper, more efficient and more humanitarian way than anything loud-mouths like Coulter suggest.

Ann cries: He abridged citizens' free speech (in favor of the media) with McCain-Feingold.

McCain-Feingold was a tricky bit of legislation to get passed - since it dealt with some clearly corrupt elements within the field of political fundraising. Elements who have clout in congress.

The law itself prevents certain lobbying groups from enjoying tax-exemption as "political organizations" under Section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. § 527) - while at the same time, remaining independent of lobbying rules and regulations by not registering themselves as 'political organizations' with the Federal Election Commission.

A very clear conflict and one that's been abused for far too long. McCain was absolutely right to stomp this abuse of the rules out.

Ann Coulter's lying when she says McCain-Feingold restricts citizens' rights to free speech. In fact, it merely prevents cynical political groups from bending funding laws - and the only voices they tend to represent are corporations and lobbying organizations.

Ann whines: He denounced the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

One of the organizations that fell foul of the McCain-Feingold bill were the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. I think I'll have to post more extensively about this group of Vietnam vets and former prisoners of war. Their story is an ugly one.

This group lobbied during the 2004 elections to 'expose' the 'truth' of Democrat John Kerry's war record. Instead, they just exposed themselves as liars and political puppets.

McCain, as a former Vietnam Veteran and prisoner of war, quite rightly finds the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth to be a disgusting, cynical organization comprised of proven liars who turned on their former brother-in-arms for political gain.

Fortunately, some of those gains were mitigated by McCain-Feingold. The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth were fined $299,500 for abusing the funding loophole exposed by Senator McCain's bill.

Ann squeals: He hysterically opposes waterboarding terrorists and wants to shut down Guantanamo.

I've already written about how admirable John McCain's opposition to 'enhanced interrogation techniques' is. As the only man in the Republican presidential race to have actually experienced torture, he is the only one who knows first hand what a cowardly and unAmerican act it is.

And while defending America is clearly an important issue for the Senator, he has never minced words when it comes to his condemnation of Guantanamo Bay.

People being held without charge, without trial and without accountability is totally incompatible with the spirit of American society. As long as prisoners are held in Guantanamo Bay, the United States have lost the moral footing which once made us the leader of the free world.

Perhaps we are handicapping ourselves in 'The War on Terror' by refusing to lay down old-fashioned ideas like due process, habeus corpus and the presumption of innocence. But Senator McCain feels that the moment we lay down those things, we become more like the evil that we're fighting. I happen to totally agree with him.

Ann dribbles: He supports the global warming cult, even posturing with fellow mountebank Arnold Schwarzenegger in front of solar panels.

If anybody still clings onto the cynical conservative dogma that Global Warming is not real, I suggest they read this article on Wikipedia.

Wikipedia, being written by the very people who read it, tends to offer a more balanced view of issues than the media. Even their articles on hot-button topics like pedophilia offer mitigating opinions from those in support of such disgusting child abuse - as well as those condemning it.

Yet there is no beating around the bush when it comes to Global Warming. It's here. It's real and the people behind Global Warming Denial are exposed as spreading 'disinformation.' There are no attempts to disprove this fact.

If Ann Coulter and the rest of the conservative right want to continue spreading their Climate Change lies, that's their prerogative. However, in recognizing Global Warming and making a commitment to combating it, Senator John McCain proves that he's far more enlightened than the more extreme elements of his party.

McCain 2008?

John McCain is one of the finest presidential nominees the Republicans have fielded in many years. I have great respect for this man and his commitment to old-fashioned American ideals like truth, justice and freedom.

It's ironic that cackling hags like Ann Coulter expend so much energy trying to turn people against 'McLame.' In actual fact, all that hot air helps lift him head and shoulders above his rivals.

I think John McCain's facing an uphill struggle if he goes face to face with Obama or Clinton in the presidential elections this November. However, if he did miraculously take the White House, I don't think it would be a bad thing for America at all.

Lies our pundits tell us...

Mark Levin - Thought talk is cheap? See his advertising rates!

Last night, as I drove home, I inexplicably tuned into SIRIUS Patriot - the right wing talk channel. I ended up listening to conservative New York chat-show host Mark Levin for as long as I could stand him.

His 'radio persona' is a vile, nasal little man with a short fuse and an enormous chip on his shoulder. It makes for compelling listening, due to the disgusting way he handles people who stupidly call into his show:

"It's says here you're a Liberal, Caller. Answer me this... Why do you hate America?"

It's also a bit like listening to fingernails down a blackboard, since Levin's a remarkably inept radio host.

He lines up 'cuts' from various speeches (last night it was Fred Thompson during the Republican debate in Iowa) and when he wants them played, he yells furiously as his producer: 'Cut four! Now!'

It's clear from his tone of voice that he expects the entire radio station to come crumbling down around his ears unless he yells instructions like a German U-Boat commander.

Listening to Mark Levin - whose show is inexplicably highest-rated for the time slot in New York, Chicago, Detroit and Dallas - prompted me to write about my views on the American political spectrum.

Tight Spectrum

When I was young, there was a real political spectrum to enjoy in Britain. On the left, there was the Labour Party - who believed in socialism. On the right, there were the Conservatives, who believed in capitalism. It was as simple as that.

Then Tony Blair came along and convinced the Labour Party to abandon socialism, so we ended up with two political parties trying to occupy the same space on the political spectrum. Even now, over a decade later, the Conservatives are still struggling to work out what their party is and what it stands for these days.

I considered myself a stuffy old Tory, on the right wing of British politics. So I was astounded to arrive in America and have it determined that I was actually a moderate (with a slightly liberal bias.)

While pundits like Mark Levin might accuse the Democratic Party of being 'Marxist' and 'Stalinist,' he's laughably unaware of what it's like to live in a country in which those views actually exist. It seems the entire American political spectrum exists on the right wing of what we're used to in England.

And - speaking as a stuffy old Tory again - that's no bad thing.

Lies our Pundits tell us

Despite the spectrum being tight, people get very passionate about politics in America. The country's divided into two halves, the Liberals and the Conservatives. And in my dispassionate study of these two sides (I'm a moderate, remember) I've decided that I don't really like either of them that much.

It seems a hard-core Liberal or Conservative is fueled by their belief that they are better than the other side. Liberals believe they are more intelligent than Conservatives. Conservatives believe that they are 'morally better' than the Liberals.

And then there are the pundits, like Mark Levin, who make careers out of attacking the other side and spoon feeding their own audience exactly what they want to hear.

Which is, in all essence, a pack of lies.

What astounds me about both the Liberals and the Conservatives are the lies the pundits tell - and how the lies have been repeated so many times, people have started to believe they're actually true.

In explaining this, it's worth pointing out that the term 'Conservative' is pretty synonymous with 'Republican' and Liberals support the Democrats.

Lies Conservatives Tell:

Conservatives represent the working man: This is one Mark Levin likes to spout time and again. Despite the fact that he's a nationally syndicated talk-show host and best-selling author, he still describes himself as a regular 'working man' to his listeners.

But the Conservatives and Republicans are not the party of the blue collar, working man. They may claim to be - and their core support comes from millions of 'red state' Americans who buy into the lies. But it is a lie.

Conservative governments have always supported the big business model, the tax-cuts for the super-rich and the reduction of social programming that leaves the job of 'keeping America truckin'' firmly on the shoulders of the middle and working class.

Take Ronald Reagan - he cut the top tax rate (for the super rich) from 70% to just 28% - but the tax rate on the average man's paycheck actually increased.

Conservatives are fiscally responsible: This is a whopper. Although the likes of political pundit Ann Coulter might claim: "Taxes are like abortion - both are grotesque procedures supported by Democrats" the truth is the absolute opposite.

The governments of famous Republicans, like Ronald Reagan, George Bush Snr. and his son, George Dubya, have all been times of enormous economic upheaval. Reagan increased the American deficit from $700 billion to a whopping $3 trillion. It was Bill Clinton - a Democrat - who demanded: 'it's about the economy, stupid,' and put the American checkbook back into the black.

Right now, George Bush Jnr is trying to leave a legacy as a 'fiscally conservative' President by vetoing endless programs like the Child Health Care bills.

However, after running America into massive global debt, tipping the country into a recession and bleating for hundreds of billions of dollars in expensive foreign loans to support an unpopular conflict aboard, he is very far from a conservative spender of tax payer's money.

Look at the facts: George Bush Jnr. turned an $86 billion surplus left by Clinton into a $434 billion deficit.

Liberals Hate America: Mark Levin loves this one. Somebody calls up and claims to be a Liberal? Mark yells down the phone line: 'Why do you hate America?'

But Liberals don't hate America. That's just a lie. Sadly, it's been yelled so many times, it's no almost become a truth.

It's like a playground cry. It's just utterly retarded and pathetic. The next time Mark Levin accuses somebody of 'hating America' merely for disagreeing with his right-wing opinions, he deserves a firm slap around the chops.

Liberals Hate the Troops: This is the other half of the Conservative war cry. If Liberals call for an end to the war in Iraq, or question any Republican foreign policy, they're hit with 'you hate the troops!'

In fact, it's the absolute opposite. It's the Conservatives who hate the troops. Or, rather, they don't give two hoots about them. Oh, sure, they might buy 'Support the Troops' ribbons for the back of their cars, but at the end of the day, you've got to be pretty callous to put American troops into harm's way in the first place.

Rightly or wrongly, Conservatives support the war in Iraq and aggressive foreign policy. That policy gets American soldiers killed. Liberals don't support the war in Iraq and want to troops brought home. That saves troop's lives. So at the end of the day, it's pretty clear who’s really on the side of the soldiers.

Now to defend America against the threat of global terrorism, it’s necessary to send American soldiers abroad, into harm's way. But doing that out of anything other that real, vital necessity sends American soldiers to their deaths for no good reason.

And that's the work of people who really 'hate the troops.'

All the 'Support the Troops' bumper stickers in the world won't replace the life of one American soldier killed without a bloody good reason.

Conservatives are 'morally superior' to Liberals: Conservative America enjoys core support in the Christian heartland. Christianity and conservatism are so intertwined, it's often impossible to see the two as anything other than a single entity.

Essential Conservative beliefs, like being against abortion and the rights of gay people, stem from Christian doctrine. The idea of 'family values' and 'decency' and 'morality' are all shields hoisted high by the Conservatives.

Liberals believe in gay rights. Abortion. Sex before marriage. Pornography. All 'evil' and 'immoral' things.

But morality goes beyond Christianity. A system of 'right' and 'wrong' based purely on Christian doctrine is no better than the Sharia law of the Islamic Middle East. In the 21st century, humanity must decide what's right and wrong based on more than the teachings found in a two thousand year old book. After all, millions of Americans aren't Christians.

And, hypocritically, core Conservative beliefs - like supporting capital punishment - seem utterly at odds with what's considered morally 'right' in any case - whether by human terms or from what's found in the bible.

When you hear Conservative Pat Robertson demanding political assassinations in other countries, or Ann Coulter gleefully admit 'I'm not a big fan of the First Amendment' it's difficult not to start worrying that a slice of the political movement that claims 'morally superiority' is actually just morally bankrupt.

The Lie Liberals Tell:

But it's not just the Conservatives who lie. The Liberal agenda plugged by the pundits is also full of half-truths and political porkies. The biggest one is clearly:

Liberals support Free Speech: This isn't always the case. Time and time again, the Liberals have proven that they support free speech up to, but not including, anything deemed 'politically incorrect.'

There's a deep seated and almost fascist agenda for 'thought control' amongst polite Liberal society. Part of the reason it's always the Conservatives spouting the offensive stuff is that the Liberals have a clearly marked scale of what's acceptable and what's not.

And most of it's stuff that's not appropriate in polite company anyway. Attempts to ban use of the 'N-word' (that's the highly offensive racial slur 'nigger') seem kind of redundant since nobody uses that word anymore for the risk of becoming a social pariah.

What's slightly more worrying - and stands up in the face of free speech - is when certain ideas get stifled or censored under Liberal pressure - like city officials trying to stifle San Francisco talk show host Michael Savage when he attacked their scheme to get tax payers to sponsor green card applications for illegal immigrants.

Discussion about the conduct of Muslims, or criticism leveled against the millions of illegal immigrants - both very serious issues concerning American security - is quickly slapped down with the cry of 'racist!'

'Racist!' is the Liberal equivalent of 'You hate America!' It's a discussion ender - a firm indication that the opposing party isn't interested in acknowledging differing opinions.

Gun Control Prevents Gun Crime: It seems an entirely logical proposition - ban the private ownership of handguns and gun crime will fall. The Liberals have been bleating this as long as the Conservatives have been bleating: 'Guns don't kill people... People kill people."

But the sad, documented fact is that it's not true.

Now, I'm no fan of private gun ownership and certainly don't understand why anybody who believes in the Second Amendment needs to keep more than one rifle over the fireplace (which is surely what the founding fathers envisaged when they wrote it.)

However, the facts have shown that gun crime actually increases in places with stringent gun control. Like in New Jersey, in 1966, some of the most stringent handgun ownership laws were put in place and the murder rate shot up overnight by 46%.

In 1976, Washington D.C. adopted an incredibly strict handgun ban (pretty much banning them in the city.) Yet this led to a 136% rise in the murder rate, while nationally, the number of murders actually dropped by 2%.

There are two facts responsible for this truth.

Firstly, that 15% of all handguns in America are unlicensed and unregistered - banning handguns does not take these weapons out of circulation. Given that almost all gun crime is committed with illegally owned weapons, it's clear to see that banning private gun ownership does nothing to address the root cause of the gun crime problem.

Secondly, private gun ownership is a deterrent. Compared to the United Kingdom, the burglary rate in the United States is a drop in the ocean. People don't rob houses here the same way they do in countries with strict gun control. Why? Because residents own guns and the law is on their side if they shoot dead a trespasser on their property.

In a country with a 'wild west' mentality, private gun ownership actually protects people. Yet the Liberals do everything they can to distort the facts and bleat the same anti-gun mantra over and over again.

Illegal Immigrants are not a problem: This is a subject I feel very strongly about. Having worked and sacrificed for the chance to 'make my fortune' in America, I resent the millions of people who come here illegally.

I chose to come to America. I chose to abide by America's laws and live within the bounds of it's incredibly diverse culture. I chose to contribute to the workforce and the tax-pile. I chose to live as an American because I deeply respect the history and mentality of this great nation.

And illegal immigrants don't.

They don't abide by immigration laws - and therefore criminal and civil laws are equally meaningless to them. They can't get driving licenses, insurance or inspections - so they go without and leave the costs of injuries and accidents to the tax-paying American people.

In one county upstate, a whopping 25% of all criminals arrested turned out to be illegal immigrants. Across America, the entire nation is forced to become bilingual. Essential costs the average American has to shoulder - like healthcare, local taxes and schooling fees - creep ever upwards as undocumented workers use civil services without contributing to them.

Illegal immigration from 'south of the border' is the greatest threat to the cultural, financial and institutional stability of the United States of America. But just like an alcoholic's 'elephant in the living room,' no Liberal will dare address the issue.

Because calling it out is akin to racism. And racism - just like the Conservative cry of 'You Hate America' - is that blanket protest that stifles all free expression.

Liberals are more intelligent than Conservatives: Like it or not, there is bias in the Liberal media to pigeonhole Conservatives. They're either the big, greedy, corporate 'fat cats' or, more likely, they're the poor working-class folk who 'foolishly' vote for Conservative politicians.

And this bias is easy to see. Turn on a sitcom or political satire show and any footage of President Bush doing something dumb (of which there are countless clips) is usually followed by a Liberal rolling his eyes, considering which 'chumps' voted for the man.

A common Liberal cry is: 'We didn't vote for him!' which neatly opens up the fact that, in the 2004 election, 51% of the American population DID vote for George W. Bush.

Cue the map of the United States which shows the guilty party - the 'red' states.

Yes, Liberals consider themselves smarter than 'red staters.' And on the whole, just like Conservatives generally consider themselves the 'moral superiors' to Liberals, Liberals generally consider themselves the intellectual superiors to their Conservative cohorts - and not without some reason. 49% of self-confessed Liberals are college educated.

However, the average Conservative-voting 'red stater' isn't dumb. Not by any means. They're voters who care about having low taxes, a secure country, a job to go to and a politician who goes to church and seems to represent the same values as they do.

That's not dumb by any means. In fact, that's kind of smart.

Liberals can claim to be more intellectual that Conservatives - but it's just arrogant to pretend they're smarter.

In Conclusion

Remarkably, the people who decide elections and control the electoral process in the United States are neither the Liberals or the Conservatives.

It's actually the people like me - the 'undecided' moderates who support a side depending on circumstance, rather than ideology.

And the problem with the hard-line positions Liberals and Conservatives take is that they alienate more and more of the people they should be reaching out for.

If I visit a right-wing website and comment on the issue of gay rights, so something equally innocuous, I'm derided as a 'Libtard.' When I go to a Liberal site and point out the flaws in the gun-control issue, I'm labelled a 'neocon Repuke.'

Personally, I think 'bugger the both of them.'


Ann Coulter, that gorgeous but utterly hateful pundit, sums up the opinions of right and left best:

"The swing voters---I like to refer to them as the idiot voters because they don't have set philosophical principles. You're either a liberal or you're a conservative if you have an IQ above a toaster. "---Beyond the News, Fox News Channel, 6/4/00

Whereas, in reality, the swing voters are really the only ones who are capable of making their minds up for themselves. The Liberals and Conservatives are so blinded by their dreary dogma that they'd support ideas they oppose just to prevent an 'opposition' member getting the edge.

The next presidential election will be won by the man (or woman) who wins over the most swing voters. The likes of Ann Coulter have already disenfranchised themselves by refusing to be more open minded to other people's opinions.

And based on the lies spouted by pundits from both sides of the political spectrum, I know one of the most important values I'll need to see in a potential president will be honesty.