The Democrats have been attempting to find a speech pattern which will resonate with their supporters. For example they've recently trotted out House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD) trying out: "It's a fairness question," but they keep running right into a brick wall of the REAL West Wing as the President counters that with:
"Oh, you'll hear the talk about how this plan only helps the rich people. That's just typical Washington, D.C., political rhetoric, is what that is. That's just empty rhetoric."

Who do you think wins THAT argument? That's correct, President Bush. As proof, a recent poll shows public support for the President's approach has jumped a full ten percentage points since the White House has turned its focus from the War in Iraq to the Battle for Jobs.
In the Sunday Show Wars, the Administration brought out Treasury Secretary John Snow who said tax relief was needed for small businesses to have the cash to hire more people: "One of the really important features of the president's bill is that it lowers tax rates on so many small businesses. 23 million small businesses pay their taxes ... as individuals."
So, the Administration made the point that the stimulus package will be good for teachers, policemen, and 23 million small businesses.
The Democrats, eager to get into the debate, pushed John Breaux of Louisiana who is their "Moderate Democrat of Record" onto the Sunday shows. Senator Breaux is a favorite of the Washington Press Corps when it comes to things like this because, in their minds, he is soooo reasonable.
But the Senator in sheep's clothing was briefly exposed as a typical Democratic tax wolf when he said on Fox News Sunday, "Tax cuts are not free ... You can pay for them in two ways: by increasing taxes on some other people, or by increasing the already record size of the deficit."
Host Tony Snow said, "Senator, you left out option C, which is by putting a lid on spending," which caused Senator Breaux to wriggle and writhe a good bit in his chair as he struggled to look like the good moderate sheep again.
There is no question that the Democrats want to transfer higher amounts of your income to spend on more government programs. The President wants YOU to spend more of your money to generate economic growth.
The White House is winning this message war.

To aldermen who might object, the mayor had a curt rebuke: If you don't like it, go ahead and deprive your wards of schools and parks the gambling revenue would produce. Critics were silenced. In Springfield, a package of gambling bills now awaits his majesty's pleasure. One bill would expand casino licenses to 11 and set up one for Chicago, with up to 4,000 gambling positions--more than any other enterprise. Another bill, the Video Gambling Act, would create thousands of tiny casinos throughout the state, allowing all licensed retail establishments that serve alcohol to sponsor betting. A third bill would install slot machines at racetracks, creating 3,200 gambling positions.

Some lawmakers will vote against the package but be quiet about it so as not to offend. Only one has responded with a courageous rejoinder. He is state Rep. Jack Franks, a moderate Democrat from Woodstock and a rising star in his party. ''Proponents of this legislation will consistently tell half the story,'' he declared, ''namely that it will bring jobs, development and revenue to the state. . . . While that is true, [the bills] also bring social and economic costs that have been extensively documented and far outweigh the benefits of an immediate budgetary stimulus. The untold misery factor this legislation carries is significant and cannot be ignored. Many gamblers will fall into problem or addictive gambling during their lifetime. The result of addiction is divorce, debt, isolation, depression and occasionally suicide. These are not the kind of statistics I want to see for the people of this state. Nor do we need further increases in bankruptcy, tax fraud, loan and credit card fraud, payments default or higher investigatory, judiciary and penal costs. Gambling is not good for the fabric of society because it can cause personal tragedy. The message these bills send is that people are expendable if the price is right. No child going hungry, no family torn apart, no destruction of life is worth this kind of revenue increase.''

Franks' gutsy words are backed up by bleak findings. The National Opinion Research Center reported in 1996 that the number of problem and pathological gamblers is doubled when a gambling facility is within 50 miles of a community. The Better Government Association (on whose board I serve) has determined that casinos do not attract tourists but siphon from residents who have wagered at other state facilities. The Illinois Gaming Board fined the Grand Victoria casino in Elgin $3.2 million for allegedly giving a contract to a mob-linked firm. U.S. News & World Report in 1996 reported a leap in crime in casino areas: 1,092 incidents per 10,000 population vs. 592 per 10,000 in non-casino communities.

Ordinarily, it should be impossible to defeat a Daley legislative steamroller in a Democratic Legislature, particularly if the governor is the co-pilot, but the overriding human costs make it well worth trying. Add a hard-headed business viewpoint. With Moody's Investors Service dropping Illinois' credit rating to AA-minus, two steps below a perfect rating, how smart is it to peg revenue proceeds to games of chance? This could become a ''road map to bankruptcy,'' says activist Paul Caprio. Ultimately, deep-sixing the casino bills could be the luckiest thing to happen to Blagojevich, Daley and Illinois.

The most overturned Federal circuit court in the country, the People’s Republic of California 9th (“We ain’t under God here”) court of appeals issued a novel ruling upholding California’s “assault weapon” ban. In December a panel of three judges upheld the California ban, and a request for a hearing on the matter before the full 9 judge panel was rejected.

The court found that the (oops, their) Constitution did indeed provide for the maintenance of a militia. But they said that “their” Constitution was “unclear” on the individual ownership of guns. They also implied that the 2nd was an outdated relic that did not apply to modern society where guns and shootings are rampant in some areas.

A dissenting justice, Alex Kozinski, sounded a bright note in this constitutional dimness. Judge Kozinski issued a sharply worded dissent to the decision not to rehear the ban before the full court. He eloquently stated his case in language reminiscent of Thomas Jefferson. “It is wrong to use some constitutional provisions as springboards for major social change while treating others like senile relatives to be cooped up in a nursing home until they quit annoying us. As guardians of the Constitution, we must be consistent in interpreting its provisions.”

Kozinski also opined that the 2nd Amendment was a “Doomsday” provision, which serves as a final bulwark against the tyrannical usurpations of despots. He referenced the 1857 Dred Scott decision holding that the recognition of slaves as full citizens would necessitate availing them their 2nd Amendment rights. He wrapped it all up with this disturbing observation, “The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crimes routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed…. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once’.

This issue was forever settled for me in the aftermath of the Rodney King riots that occurred in the 9th circuit's very own People's Republic of California. I am still haunted by the specter of an embattled LAPD, barely able to secure their own district stations, either unwilling or unable to respond to frantically pleading 911 calls. The California National Guard spending three days looking for their ammunition further aggravated the situation!!! AS I watched the disturbing video feeds, I remember saying to my wife, "I hope those law abiding folks have firearms to protect themselves until the cavalry arrives".

It turned out that some of those folks, the Korean Americans, many of whom were tough Korean Army vets, did indeed have guns (gasp, including “evil assault weapons”) and formed themselves into impromptu militias to prevent their being lynched and their property destroyed. It would seem that the 9th circuit court is hell-bent on insuring that they will be slaughtered the next time. These bastards are actually saying that we know the amendment is there but we will unilaterally repeal it!!!!

I shall now take a page from the cultural Marxists playbook and view this through the subjective lens of racial identity rather than the enduring truth of constitutional constructionist interpretation. I am a black man who spent 25 years in as a police officer in Chicago aware of the Dred Scott decision and the post-bellum Jim Crow laws enacted to ensure that Southern blacks would be unarmed and vulnerable to the depredations of marauding night riding whites. It used to be a mystery to me as to WHY the fools in the NAALCP, the black mayors in the big cities, and other black liberals were susceptible to this gun grab foolishness, given that history of which most of them were no doubt aware and trumpeted regularly. It then hit me that they were the types of folks who support the failed policies of a social welfare state that enables a 70% illegitimacy rate which is largely responsible for gangs of young barbarians giving rise to the 9th court's rationalization of a "modern society where gangs and shootings are rampant in some areas".

The worst thing about the assault weapon ban, other than it’s sheer unconstitutionality, is that it deprives the average citizen of the closest thing to military pattern weapons available. A similar situation is the McCain -Feingold campaign finance reform law. This law cuts to the heart of the 1st amendment by denying certain aspects of POLITICAL speech, the very type of communication that the 1st amendment should most specifically protect. This measure bans the very type of firearm that should be protected for militia use, in the manner of the Swiss militia who are equipped with select-fire, true assault rifles. Maybe a generic name change of "homeland defense rifles" would enable the gun grabbers too see this point more clearly. (Sorry folks, that’s just my whimsical side coming out here)

The “assault weapon” ban is quite literally about what a gun LOOKS like, whether or not it has a bayonet lug, or a protruding pistol grip, or synthetic composition accoutrements. It is nonsensical, arbitrary, and speaks to an irrational fear of a tool that is morally neutral, until a contextual usage is established. As my example of the King riots, they are capable of SAVING lives and those of us who believe in the inalienable enumerated rights in the Constitution should not shrink from saying so.

The historically illiterate or historically deceptive (take your pick) love to tell us how the founders could not have foreseen rapid fire arms in the hands of drug dealers and gang bangers. Well the founders certainly could envision the British Army, equipped with the Brown Bess musket, which they had just defeated. They were certainly aware that the colonial militia was frequently equipped with the technologically superior Pennsylvania Rifle or equivalent, used to such telling effect at the Battle of Saratoga. They certainly would never have tolerated a Sharpshooter Rifle Ban.

If you ask me, the firepower gap between the citizenry and officialdom has become too great to serve the purpose of an effective bulwark against state imposed tyranny. This unconstitutional provision amplifies that gap. The assault weapon ban, both federal and state; is the harbinger of the notion that the word "militia" in the second amendment is just a meaningless construct.

I hope that some brave congressmen will dust off and read the impeachment manuals. I don't hold out much hope for that though.

Frank Penn for the Illinois Republican Assembly

==>Barry Goldwater