So we're told that the world faces a financial meltdown unless Congress spends over 700 billion dollars of our money right now to buy up bad debts from financial institutions that never should have made the loans in the first place. It's a terrible idea for several reasons. The taxpayers should not be forced to bail these companies out of loans they agreed to make. Will the taxpayers repay me if I gamble away my savings? The government should not take over the entire loan industry, which would be the effect of its bailing these companies out and then, as they put it, "increasing oversight." More regulations and restrictions and oversight committees equal a larger, more powerful government, with more control over who gets a mortgage and who does not. I don't want Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi to make the decision on whether I can buy a house any more than I want them deciding whether I can get an operation. Most important of all, free-market capitalism is already overly restricted, and nationalising an entire sector of the market would be a huge move towards Socialism that we cannot afford to make.

How did we get into this mess? The Democrats and other Socialists are blaming the problem on free markets and capitalism run amok, for which the answer is (of course) more government interference. But that makes no sense, if you know the history of the situation. The Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) was created in 1938 as part of the New Deal to help more people buy homes. It's not the free market at work. It was technically privatised by Lyndon Johnson in 1968 to remove it from the federal budget, and the Federal Home Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) created in 1970 to expand the business of reselling mortgages. Though they are run as private corporations, they are in fact funded and controlled by the federal government. They operate by buying loans from banks, bundling them together and selling them with the guarantee that they will be paid. They have a line of credit with the US Treasury. The banks are more likely to take risks when loaning money, as they know they can sell those loans to the government. When bundled with other loans, a bad one or two doesn't make that much difference. That works very well as long as the vast majority of loans are made to those who will definitely pay them back -- the only kind of loans banks would normally make, if left alone.

But they haven't been left alone. The Democrats have spent the last seventy years using Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to push banks into making increasingly risky loans to people who should never have been able to get them. In 1977 President Carter signed the Community Reinvestment Act, which required banks to make sub-prime loans to people in low-income areas, who couldn't afford to pay them back. The process drastically accelerated in 1999, with the appointment of Franklin Raines (Bill Clinton's White House budget director) as its CEO. Jamie Gorelick -- Deputy Attorney General under Clinton and author of the infamous "wall" that prevented the CIA and FBI from sharing information regarding terrorists loose in this country -- served as Vice Chairman of Fannie Mae from 1997 through 2002. The free market would never in a million years have led major banks to give low-interest loans with no money down to people who could not put up the collateral or prove they could pay the loan back. It's not just the poor -- plenty of people have been living way above their means for far too long, and now the proverbial piper must be paid. But in order to continue operating as though they were financially solvent, and in order to guarantee huge bonuses to their officers, those responsible for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac lied. And those appointed as watchdogs over the two mortgage companies also lied.

Fannie Mae, it turned out, overstated its earnings by $10.6 billion from 1998 through 2004. Franklin Raines was finally fired, and is now a "financial advisor" to Barack Obama. Freddie Mac was discovered to have understated its profit by nearly $5 billion from 2000 through 2002, after which it went through more high-level turnovers than the late Roman Empire. Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT), head of the Senate Banking Committee, received an incredibly sweet deal on his mortgage from Countrywide Financial, from which Fannie Mae buys more loans than any other single company. Coincidentally, former Fannie Mae head Jim Johnson received a similar deal from Countrywide, and decided to step down from his position as advisor to Barack Obama when that became public. Dodd, however, still chairs the committee which writes laws governing the operation of mortgage companies, which is exactly like hiring a fox to guard the henhouse. Dodd has also received $165,400 in campaign donations from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac over the years.

In 2003, the Bush administration recommended creating "a new agency ... within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac." The weak proposal was shot down by Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts, who said bluntly, "I do not think we are facing any kind of a crisis." In 2004, Alan Greenspan warned that the rapid growth of both companies, not based on a solid financial footing but on "cooked" books and falsified earnings statements, would cause a collapse of the financial market. After widespread reporting of the financial scandal in 2005, Sen. John McCain attempted to introduce a bill calling for oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but the bill never made it out of committee. So nothing was done, and now that the housing market has taken a downturn, the investors who bought those bundled loans suddenly found themselves holding either debts they can't collect, or overpriced property they can't resell. But then came the federal government, like a white knight, and re-absorbed both agencies. Now the government is promising to buy up all those bad loans and set everything right. And nearly everyone's acting as though that's a good thing.

Listen, the fact that the government wants to buy up those bad debts does not mean they will go away. Those people still owe that money, only it's the government that's going to own everything when they lose their homes, businesses and properties. The companies from which the government will buy those debts, the banks that made those risky loans in the first place, and Fannie/Freddie executives which bought them up and then sold them as assets, are the only beneficiaries of this buyout deal. If the government bails them out, they will continue to make the exact same mistakes. If we do not allow them to fail now and face the recession that would likely follow, they will inevitably fail a few years from now anyway and cause a worldwide full-blown depression.

On the other hand, the government will have plenty of homes available for tens of millions of new immigrants to buy after amnesty is enacted, with no money down and at low, low interest rates.

30 Sept 08 UPDATE: Read an editorial by Jeffrey A. Miron, a senior lecturer in Economics at Harvard who opposes the idea of the government bailing out mortgage companies.

Ever since John McCain announced that Alaska Governor Sarah Palin would be his Vice President, Conservatives and Republicans alike have been beside themselves with joy. Republican party faithful practically fainting in ecstasy over Palin I can understand, since it almost guarantees McCain a win in November. However, McCain himself has not changed just because he added Sarah Palin to his ticket. He's the same person, with the same attitudes and agenda, that he was the day before -- when the odds were good that he was going to pick Joe Lieberman as his running mate. Nothing is different now. Adding Palin to the ticket has done nothing to change him or his policies, and I, for one, don't think she's going to be setting the White House's agenda if McCain wins. She'll be doing the political equivalent of cutting the opening ribbons at shopping malls. Without altering his own political policies one iota, McCain has tricked a lot of Conservatives into supporting him based on his picking as his running mate a person whose entire job will consist of breaking ties in the Senate... of which there will be damned few, with President "Reach Across the Aisle" setting the agenda.

And yet, Conservatives are flocking to the McCain-Palin banner in droves, sending in those all-important campaign donations. That makes me sad, it really does. Because I can't imagine how anyone could really believe that John "Screw the Conservatives" McCain is doing anything but using Palin as a stalking horse. She's not going to be running the White House. She's not going to be setting policy. She's going to sit in the Senate just in case there happens to be a tie someday, and that's it -- aside from a lot of photo ops. Don't get me wrong -- I like what I know of Sarah Palin so far, aside from the fact that no one seems to know her position on granting amnesty to illegal immigrants. If she runs in 2012 I might even support her. It's just that Palin has only one purpose as part of McCain's campaign: to trick Conservatives into voting for the guy who has spent his entire career stabbing them in the back. And so far, it's working. I guess the McCain-Palin campaign can be summed up as "Change You're Desperate to Believe In."

The melodramatic flair of Barack Hussein Obama and his cultish followers is almost too much to stomach. According to ABC News, Obama's address before the DNC will be a stage show to remember.

Well, I don't think I can stand watching it, myself -- my tolerance for platitudes having long since been exceeded by the Obamessiah and his glassy-eyed, chanting minions -- but I imagine it will look something like this:

Hat tip: RightWingNews.com

Like most people, I get a lot of email offering me solutions to problems (some of which I may not even have.) Not too long ago, I received an email promising me an answer to high gas prices. Instead of the usual "let's scare the oil companies by not buying gas on a certain day," this one contained a plan to scare oil companies by not buying gas from one particular company for the rest of the year. Despite the fact that emails like this have been circling the internet for a decade or more, they just keep getting forwarded from one person to another with the best of intentions. This time -- somewhat uncharacteristically -- I hit "reply all" and wrote the following response:

Oil companies make less than a dime's worth of profit per gallon of gas, considering that the money you pay at the pump goes to a) state taxes (averaging 28.6 cents per gallon), b) federal taxes (18.4 cents per gallon), then c) exploration by oil companies and d) research and development by oil companies. Not buying gas would only slow research, development and exploration for new energy sources... and that won't lower the price of gas by a single penny. Most companies, contrary to the common Liberal portrayal, are not evil entities bent on sucking out your last cent... they provide goods you demand, and charge a price for their service. If they don't profit, they go out of business, and then who will sell you the products you want? There are, however, more pragmatic ways to go about lowering gas and oil prices. There are no "magic bullets;" no cheap and easy solutions -- only realistic alternatives to attacking those eeevil oil companies.

Four "easy" steps to lower gas and oil prices:

1. Build more refineries. We have plenty of oil, but have not been allowed to build a new refinery since the 70's. The ones we do have are operating at full capacity. We can't make gas fast enough to meet the demand, hence the high gas prices. At least get rid of the ridiculous "blend" requirements that prevent us from moving gas supplies from one state to another, or buying it cheap from countries that refine a surplus.

2. Drill for oil offshore and in ANWR. Cuba is drilling off the Florida coast with China's help; why can't we? And drilling in the tiny northernmost patch of the frozen wasteland of ANWR is not going to affect any cute and fuzzy animals. The pictures the "news" stories show you when ANWR drilling comes up for discussion were all taken in other parts of Alaska.

3. Build more nuclear power plants. If you're really concerned over the price of oil and gas, the best solution is to use another, more efficient power source.

4. Stop enabling China. One of the main reasons for high oil prices is China's stockpiling every drop they can get their hands on, using the money they make by selling us products manufactured by virtual slave labor in work camps. If you really want to help lower oil prices, you'll have to pay a little more for other things.

With Mitt Romney pulling out of the Presidential race, 2008 will be the Year of the Liberal no matter who wins. Whether the next President is McCain, Clinton or Obama, we're getting amnesty and citizenship for criminal trespassers, global warming alarmism, punitive tax hikes labeled "no tax cuts for the rich," anti-business legislation aimed strictly at American corporations and judges who will have to be vetted by Pat Leahy and Harry Reid (or they won't get a vote). I'd rather we get those things forced down our throats under the Democratic imprimatur than the Republican. Moreover, Conservatives on Capitol Hill have a better chance of getting the more Liberal Republicans to stand with them to block legislation under a Democratic President than under a Liberal Republican President, whom most of the Republicans would support. If McCain is in fact the Republican nominee, it looks as though I will -- however reluctantly -- be rooting for a Democrat to win the White House, though I could never bring myself to vote for him or her. The only hope to stop the Liberal agenda is to let the Democrats take the White House, but put as many Republicans in Congress as possible. It only takes forty Senators to filibuster any bill.

UPDATE: Some Conservatives have said that they will reluctantly vote for McCain because the Democrats would pull out of Iraq. But with the Iraqis taking responsibility for more of their country every day, and the terrorists reduced to begging for help and using retarded women as unwitting suicide bombers, another year or so will almost certainly see Iraq in a place where we can officially turn everything over to the Iraqi government. And since the next President won't take office for another year, and there's no way on Earth to pull the troops out before at least another six to nine months after that, there's no need to sacrifice the future of our own country and the Republican party for Iraq. And that's what a vote for McCain would do -- surrender our own country to amnesty, tax hikes, anti-business legislation and all the rest of the agenda that Republicans in Congress could not fight under McCain, but may fight under a Democrat.

With most of the primary elections still to come, the media has annointed John McCain the inevitable Republican candidate. That's understandable -- McCain has been in the pocket of the mainstream media for years. Especially since 2000, he's been the Republican they could always count on -- along with Senators Chuck Hagel (NE) and Dick Lugar (IN) -- to say something negative about President Bush's policies. But McCain has done more than simply bash President Bush. He's spent years stabbing Conservatives in the back, working against Conservative principles in exchange for fawning press from the New York Times -- which has now endorsed him along with Hillary Clinton. I guess the editors couldn't make up their minds. It's alright -- I can't tell the difference between McCain and most Democrats, either. And if he becomes President, he will do so without my vote. I won't vote for McCain, even if the race is between him and Hillary Clinton. To paraphrase an old joke: one of them is an amnesty-granting, rights-limiting, global warming-believing, terrorist-coddling, industry-destroying Democrat. The other is Hillary Clinton.

McCain was part of the Keating Five scandal, which no one now seems to remember. Five Senators -- four Democrats and McCain -- tried to use their influence to make FHLBB chief Edwin Gray cease his investigation of Charles Keating, who was responsible for the 1989 collapse of the Lincoln Savings and Loan Association. Keating, it turned out, was a huge campaign contributor to all five. McCain was exonerated after claiming that he only attended the meetings because Keating was a constituent and McCain wanted to be sure he was getting fair treatment. It's no coincidence that McCain spent the next ten years conducting a vindictive crusade to "reform" campaign financing by contributors, which resulted in the largest assault on the First Amendment in nearly a hundred years: the McCain-Feingold Act.

The First Amendment's not the only one McCain has tried to hamper. He sponsored yet another bill with Senator Joe Liberman that would have required all attendees at gun shows to be registered, and all show sales (including books and clothing) be filed with the BATF.  He also said he was "open" to voting in favor of the assault weapons ban, though he did, in the end, vote against it.

McCain led the Gang of 14, a prime example of how he often "reaches across the aisle" in a spirit of "bipartisan cooperation" to stick it to the Republican party and especially Conservatives. When Democrats threatened to filibuster President Bush's judicial nominations, using a Senate rule (never meant to be used in that way) to prevent a vote being taken, Republicans were poised to amend the rule so it could not be so abused. McCain and his little group derailed the process, thus preserving the ability of Democrats to filibuster the President's judicial nominees -- a process most Conservatives believe to be a violation of the Constitution, which mandates that the Senate vote on judicial appointments. As in the case of the McCain-Feingold Act, McCain seems to care less about the Constitution than about his "maverick" status. If he were a Democrat, he'd just be one of the pack. But as a Republican who sides with Democrats, he's lauded by the New York Times.

McCain has also been responsible for the McCain-Lieberman bill, which attempted to levy Kyoto Treaty-like penalties on American industry. If it had passed, it would have crippled the US economy. McCain has also attacked the tobacco industry and the pharmaceutical industry, all for applause from the media and his fellow Democrats. Although he now claims he voted against the Bush tax cuts twice because they did not include spending cuts, that's not the truth. In 2000, McCain said of Bush's proposed tax cuts, "Sixty percent of the benefits from his tax cuts go to the wealthiest 10% of Americans -- and that's not the kind of tax relief that Americans need. ... I'm not giving tax cuts for the rich." In McCain's recent capaign speeches, he refers to "greedy people on Wall Street who need to go to jail." Is this the right man to lead the US economy? I can't tell the difference between John McCain, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

Mccain touts himself as the best person to lead us in the War on Terror, but that's not true, either. McCain has been trying to force us to close Guantanamo Bay, which would mean letting captured terrorists go or housing them on American soil, granting them Constitutional rights they do not and should not have. He has tried to hamper our interrogation efforts by redefining anything that causes the subject minor discomfort as "torture." Our success in the War on Terror hinges on information, and McCain would severely limit our information-gathering capabilities.

McCain has fought building a fence on our southern border, though it is now mandated by law. Her preferred to leave us open to infiltration by terrorists who can cross from Mexico at will, bringing who-knows-what with them. He claims he will build the fence now, of course, after the Capitol Hill phone lines were shut down by an influx of angry calls over his McCain-Kennedy amnesty-that's-not-amnesty bill. McCain's bill -- the "comprehensive immigration reform" --  did not provide for building the fence before offering what amounts to amnesty to millions of illegal aliens. If McCain's bill had passed, those who have violated our borders and multiple laws against fraud would have been eligible for "Z-Visas" with almost no delay for background checks. Somewhere between 12 and 20 million of them would have been eligible for permanent residence and eventual citizenship. According to studies by the Heritage Foundation among others, those "sudden citizens" would have been able to bring in between 60 and 100 million others over the next couple of decades, forever altering our entire culture and placing a humongous burden on government and social services at all levels. Most of those new residents -- uneducated, illiterate, unskilled -- would become loyal Democrats. If McCain gets into office, McCain's amnesty will become reality.

A lot of Republicans argue that we must all stand behind the Republican nominee no matter who he is. Some say we must get a Republican -- any Republican -- into office to ensure that only Originalist or Constructivist judges are appointed. But McCain has stated that Justice Alito -- one of President Bush's two Supreme Court nominees -- was "too Conservative" for him. When picking judges, McCain will vet them through his partners on the Democratic side of the aisle, to make sure they will go through without a fight, and the media will applaud his bipartisanship. In fact, President Hillary or President Obama wouldn't pick any worse judges than President McCain. Some say that we need a Republican -- any Republican -- in the White House to veto Liberal bills that make it through Congress. I sincerely doubt that McCain would veto any bills that propose the very policies for which he has fought against the Republicans to enact all these years. Some say that we need a Republican -- any Republican -- in the White House to ensure the Democrats don't control that as well as both Houses of Congress. However, I think even most of the Liberal Republicans in Congress will band together with the Conservatives to fight against a Democratic President, out of party loyalty if nothing else (as they stood together against Bill Clinton). Against a Liberal Republican President, the Conservatives in Congress will stand alone. How can that be better?

Many Republicans are ready to abandon their Conservative principles and vote for whomever the Republican party nominates. But I can not vote for McCain with a clean conscience. I do not support him for his amnesty, his Kyoto-lite plans, his attacks on the tobacco and pharmaceutical industries, his opposition to "tax cuts for the rich," his restrictions on the First Amendment, his eagerness to backstab Conservatives and fight against Conservative ideals for media acclaim at every opportunity, or his enabling the Democratic party to filibuster judicial nominations, which I believe is a violation of the Constitution. A McCain Presidency would drag the Republican party even further to the Left than it has already gone. I will not enable that. Hillary or Obama may damage the country, but so would McCain -- and he would destroy the GOP, the only party that even halfway espouses Conservative principles, in the process.

I will not sell my soul or my vote to keep the GOP in the White House if that party is going to abandon me in exchange. Besides being a bad bargain, my vote means something; it's the only voice I really have. I will only cast it for someone, the candidate who best represents me; I will not vote against someone or out of fear. I have said from the beginning of this campaign season (about five minutes after the last election, it seems), that my first choice was Congressman Duncan Hunter, but that I could also support Senator Fred Thompson, or even Governor Mitt Romney. Now, only one of those men is left in the race. Mitt Romney is the last Conservative standing, or the nearest thing to it, and he will have my vote in the primary election.

It seems a lot of Republicans these days are urging Conservatives to "be pragmatic" and vote for Rudy Giuliani next November if he's the Republican nominee. "We have to stop Hillary!" we are told, and that's true. However, if the Republican party puts Giuliani forward as their candidate, election day will find me going straight home after work, instead of to the polls. And I'm not alone in that decision.

I'm not particularly religious. I don't care what James Dobson or his ilk have to say. They don't speak for me. However, I do hold myself to certain principles, one of which is that I won't cast my vote for a person who holds the wrong position on so many key issues. Some disagreement is one thing -- I voted for Bush despite his unwillingness to control Congressional spending and our borders -- but why would I vote for someone who hardly agrees with me at all?

Rudy Giuliani was tough on criminals during his stint as New York City's mayor, which -- imagine that! -- led to a drop in the crime rate. His response to 9/11 was sterling, and his reply to the Saudi prince who donated money for the families of those killed on 9/11 but blamed America for that atrocity was especially praiseworthy. Not many people get the chance -- or would dare take it if they did -- to tell a member of the Saudi royal family where to stick his money. Long before 9/11, Giuliani had terrorist leader Yasir Arafat ejected from a Lincoln Center event for world leaders. As President, Giuliani would probably be fairly tough on terrorists and would-be terrorists, and would likely continue Bush's policies of tapping our enemies' phone conversations and aggressively interrogating them when captured. Also, Giuliani is unlikely to let Congress raise taxes on businesses and punish individuals for making "too much" money.

But that's about as far as my admiration for Rudy Giuliani goes. Because, to paraphrase an old book I read once, what's the point in winning against the global jihad if America loses it soul? It's an important issue, perhaps the most important issue, but not the only issue. It's not enough just to beat the enemy. What are we fighting for, at that point?

Rudy Giuliani believes Americans have a "right" to abortion. He does not, however, believe in our right to "keep and bear arms," at least not without government oversight and control (which pretty much removes the purpose of that right altogether). He also believes non-Americans have the "right" to sneak into our country, violate our laws, and get rewarded by permission to stay... a glaring exception to his "tough on crime" stance, in my opinion.

Giuliani has stated he will only appoint originalist Justices to the Supreme Court -- those who believe the Constitution must be followed as written, not that its words can be "interpreted" to fit the reader's agenda of the moment. But the role of a President is much larger than that in any debate. The President of the United States has the biggest voice in the country -- arguably, in the world. How can anyone make the case for the protection of innocent life, the preservation of our most sacred rights, and the prosecution of anyone who violates our immigration laws when he doesn't really believe in those things himself? At best, Giuliani's speeches on those subjects would seem forced and weak -- full of caveats, backtracking and wavering. Sensing his lack of direction and determination on those issues, Congress would fail to follow his lead. President Giuliani would never get a truly originalist Justice through the Senate, despite his promises to nominate them.

If I'm faced with the choice between a pro-abortion, anti-gun, pro-illegal immigrant candidate with an "R," or a pro-abortion, anti-gun, pro-illegal immigrant candidate with a "D" after his or her name, I don't really see the point in choosing one over the other. That letter doesn't mean as much to me as the person in front of it, and the principles for which he or she stands. Sure, one of them might fight terrorists more aggressively and keep the economy strong by not raising taxes. But for what purpose?

If Rudy Giuliani is the Republican nominee, we Conservatives have already lost the fight for America. The choice between Left and more Left is no choice at all.

In some ways, six years can be a very long time. In others... well, not so much. Six years ago, shocked out of our complacency by the world's violent truth, Americans came together as a people for the first time in half a century. We swore to stand together against our common enemies. We vowed we would Never Forget. I still see those stickers on cars from time to time, faded and peeling. To so many people, that's all 9/11 means anymore -- a faded, tattered bumper sticker.

Just six years on, Democratic leaders spent two days -- including the anniversary of 9/11 -- in an all-out effort to see the US disgraced and our military retreat from the fight against terrorists in Iraq. Democratic Senators and Representatives alike flatly accused General David Petraeus, a career military man with an unblemished, honorable three-decade record of service -- of "cherry-picking" and manipulating data in exchange for... well, no one has indicated just what Petraeus might gain from lying. They're just certain that he is, because his report (eagerly anticipated by the same Democrats when they thought he might report failure) differs from their preconceived opinions... opinions basically hand-written for them by groups like MoveOn.org, which took out a full-page ad in the NY Times smearing Petraeus us "General Betray Us." Winning can only be considered "betrayal" if one actually sides with the enemy. Oh, but don't question their patriotism or their support for the troops!

One Democrat Presidential hopeful, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), recently went on Syrian television to attack President Bush, undermine our troops, give heart to our enemies and praise the dictator Bashar Assad -- who is allowing terrorists to funnel through his country into Iraq -- as a humanitarian who is helping bring about stability in the region! Suppose a politician (let alone a possible Presidential candidate) went on German radio during the WWII to denounce President Roosevelt's "illegal" and "immoral" war against Italy, demanding that he work with Germany to bring stability to Europe. The only debate in this country would have been whether to commit him to an insane asylum or execute him for treason.

Who knew, in the days and weeks that followed 9/11, that the Democratic party would have become so deeply invested in a US defeat at the hands of terrorists like those who attacked us that they would say anything, do anything to ensure victory for the kind of people who murdered nearly 3,000 people that day? Who would have believed that more than 40% of Democrats would think the US government actively planned 9/11, or at least allowed it to happen?

Our enemies know how divided the far Left has made this country. Osama bin Laden recently resurfaced spouting what sound suspiciously like Left-wing talking points -- railing against "neocons," issuing dire warnings about global warming, blaming the assassination of President Kennedy on evil corporations who wanted to keep the Vietnam War going, chiding Democrats for not getting US troops out of Iraq by now, bashing America for killing all but "a few specimens of Red Indians" and for using nuclear weapons against Japan in WWII. If it wasn't for his frequent references to religion and the fact that he's not a native-born American, he might be running for President.

Perhaps MoveOn.org mailed him the wrong talking points, and we'll start seeing Democratic politicians referring to the US as "the Great Satan" while demanding submission to Islamic law. To be honest, I wouldn't be all that surprised. To Democrats, there's nothing more important than being loved by the rest of the world, especially Europe... which is rapidly becoming Islamicised itself.

Before 9/11, bin Laden referred to America as the "weak horse" and a "paper tiger." He told his followers that Americans could not stand the sight of their own blood, and would crumble if his followers could only hold out long enough. With half the country desperate to forget about war and get back to American Idol, it's painful -- but necessary -- to admit that he may have been half right.

Gun owners are often asked: "Why do you own guns?" as though doing so were some kind of oddity or aberration. In fact, responsible gun ownership has been a part of this country from its inception, and the fact that every law-abiding citizen can own guns is an integral part of our heritage. Some countries may grudgingly allow certain people to own guns (under very restrictive conditions, of course); in America, it is our indisputable right to do so. It's the reason we never need fear tyranny. It's odd that the people who worry about America becoming a dictatorship are the same ones clamoring to remove our best way to prevent it.

Especially in today's world, the illusion of permanent safety having been ripped away by the events of 9/11, gun ownership is a right more people ought to practice. We now see that violent conflict is really the norm in the world, and only fools would pretend that the same bad things happening elsewhere can't happen here. We must face the fact that we cannot always depend on the government to defend our lives and property. The authorities can't always be there to protect us from harm, nor should they be. So how do we ensure our safety? There are only two possible answers. One is a pervasive police presence -- cops on every corner, guards in every building, monitors in every home. I don't think the remedy to a tough world is a police state. The other answer is a little of the old self-reliance for which America was once famous.

Unfortunately, the tendency of government is to become more invasive and stifling, encroaching on our rights and relieving us of our responsibilities. The response to any perceived problem is to create more laws -- along with more government agencies to oversee them, and more government bureaucrats to enforce them. Naturally, some criminal will always find a way around the new laws, even if it's something as simple as carrying a hidden gun into a "gun-free zone." The response? More laws, more bureaucracy, and more restrictions on the rights of law-abiding citizens, making them more dependent on the government. And just when you need help the most, the government is least likely to be there to hold your hand.

One never knows when local order might break down due to a natural or man-made disaster such as a terrorist attack, earthquake, flood, riot, mass blackout, disease outbreak, or the dead rising from their graves to seek the flesh of the living. As test after test of our emergency response systems (including actual emergencies, with the exception of a zombie apocalypse) has shown, emergency personnel will be overwhelmed by a real disaster. Rapid transportation is often impossible. Fire, police and ambulance services will likely be unable to get immediate help to all who need it. Criminals will sieze every opportunity to rob, rape, murder and terrorise innocent people. Don't say such things can't happen. They have happened, they are happening somewhere right now, and they will continue to happen in the future. So who's going to protect you, your family and your home until order is restored, however long that might take?

Well, you, of course. It's your responsibility, your duty, your right. Don't let anyone take it away from you.

Declaration of Independence by John Trumbull, 1817

When the signers of the Declaration of Independence affixed their names to that document, those words meant exactly that. If their rebellion failed, they would indeed have lost all those things they pledged and more. How could they imagine that a squabbling group of semi-autonomous colonies could ever take on the full might of the British Empire? And how did they think they could convince their fellow colonists to commit what would amount to treason should they lose... an outcome which seemed all too likely, given the disparity between the two sides?

Simple. They knew it was the right thing to do. Therefore, they found a way, or made one where none could be found. And that is the difference between men and great men.

A mere two hundred and thirty-one years later, too many of us find it too difficult to do what's right, in the small things as well as large. If we had to fight the Revolutionary War today, how many of our fellow Americans would compromise with, appease and surrender to such a superior force? For that matter, how many people today want to give in to a band of fanatical 7th-century thugs because the task of standing up to them seems too hard to bear? Thomas Jefferson certainly refused to back down in the face of Islamic terrorism in the early 19th century... so why should we?

The United States was not created in a single day. The Fourth of July merely marks its beginning. If the rebellion had failed, if the separate states had been unable to reach a compromise after winning, or if the fledgling country had not established itself as a serious naval power in our earliest battles against Muslim piracy, we would not be celebrating the birth of this nation today.

And if we weaken and waver now, if we surrender at this point after fighting and winning against so many enemies over the years, how long will we be able to keep "our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor?"