There has been a lot of lament by the far left in America that the Tea Party has somehow driven the Republican Party to conservative extremes. This, however, is untrue. The truth is, the American public has been trending toward conservative views for more than a decade before the Tea Party even came about.

According to Gallup, for the last three years more Americans have self-proclaimed themselves as conservatives than have claimed the moniker of moderate.

Political ideology in the U.S. held steady in 2011, with 40% of Americans continuing to describe their views as conservative, 35% as moderate, and 21% as liberal. This marks the third straight year that conservatives have outnumbered moderates, after more than a decade in which moderates mainly tied or outnumbered conservatives.

But think about this for a minute. This means that fully 75% of America is more conservative than the Democrat Party, a party that decades ago stopped being a party of centrism becoming instead a European-like, liberal party.

Gallup’s several decades of polling finds that “moderates” have been in slow decline since 1992 with Americans calling themselves “liberal” now only measuring at 21 percent. With this we see a nation that is not just center-right as many political pundits have for years claimed, but is actually trending conservative.

As to the Republican Party, it is dominated by conservatives by 71 percent, a number that has grown by nine percent since the year 2000. So it is no wonder that Republican politics has edged toward conservative ideas, its base is getting more conservative.

This all seems to bode ill for the sort of far left policies that President Obama and his comrades dearly love. In fact, one can see the progression of conservatism in America in many areas. Twenty years ago, for instance, liberals were full-throated in their criticism of the Second Amendment and aimed to ban not just handguns but all firearms. Today, with every state but one now offering some iteration of law authorizing concealed carry, anti-gun ideas are the last things Democrat politicians talk about openly. Abortion is also an issue that has trended toward the conservative point of view, though not nearly so quickly as gun issues.

Spending is also an issue that is trending toward conservative ideals. For the first time in well over 100 years the discussion in Congress is how to actually cut spending instead of merely how much to limit the growth of spending and voters are quite high on fiscal responsibility. Look at Wisconsin, for instance. 100 years ago, Wisconsin led the country in left-wing progressivism yet last year Wisconsin was among the first states in the union to vote in a Governor one of whose main promises was to scale back the undue power of government employee unions.

Certainly the country hasn’t gone far enough to the right to suit conservatives — just as the country was not far enough left in the 60s and 70s to suit liberals — but without question the United States has been drifting to the right for several decades.

So, conservatives, don’t feel self-conscious about being a conservative. After all, you are in the majority.

Sarah McKinley has a three month old baby. Her husband died of cancer on Christmas day. Two intruders broke into her house armed with a hunting knife. She called 911 and grabbed her 12 gauge shotgun. She shot and killed one. The other turned himself into authorities. Hero.

[edited]

Posted by John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.). For a daily critique of Leftist activities, see DISSECTING LEFTISM. To keep up with attacks on free speech see TONGUE-TIED. Also, don’t forget your daily roundup of pro-environment but anti-Greenie news and commentary at GREENIE WATCH . Email me here

Like nearly every conservative in America today I am unimpressed by the current crop of GOP nominees for president and feel they all have major flaws — especially the two frontrunners Newt and Romney, both of whom have major deficits as far as staunch conservatives are concerned. But at this point I’ve come to realize that I don’t think I care which one of them is nominated. In fact, I think the White House is not where we should be focusing our intensity in 2012.

Now, don’t get me wrong, I am not saying we shouldn’t vote for whichever GOP nominee wins the game show plaudits. We should absolutely pick one of them and then we all, conservatives and Republicans alike, should vote for him (or her).

So, what am I saying? I am saying that the White House is less important than people are saying it is. Instead, we need a two-point focus for 2012 that doesn’t include the White House. We don’t need 999 points. Just two. 1). Gaining control of Congress and 2). turning Obama out. The identity and purity of our presidential nominee is the last thing we should be worried about at this point. It is a bit late for that anyway.

Let me assure you that I don’t have a favorite in this GOP race. And I have three real dislikes: Romney, Huntsman, and Ron Paul. This article is no stealth shilling for any particular candidate. I really do have big problems with all of them. But, again, I don’t think it matters which of them we pick if we focus on the two points I note above.

First of all, any of the GOP candidates (yes even the cranky uncle of the GOP, Ron Paul) would be better than Obama. But that goes without saying because I am a conservative that votes Republican. No surprise there, really.

But there are reasons besides blind partisanship that any of the GOP nominees is better than Obama. In fact, it can really be boiled down to but one issue that makes getting rid of Obama imperative: the courts. He has been thoroughly destructive to this country with his judicial picks.

Aside from the courts, of course, Obama has been a very destructive president in many ways — another reason to be rid of him. He’s presided over the continued destruction of our business sector and our economy, we all understand. But there’s more.

Obama has already turned his power to regulate into a tool of Big Labor and United Nations-styled socialism. He’s unleashed his extremist appointees and given them the freedom to push every anti-business, anti-worker, anti-American idea they can possibly get through.

There’s more.

Obama has also created all sorts of extra-constitutional czars and “advisory” committees, the President has issued a slew of dangerous executive orders, and he’s made all sorts of horrible moves in foreign policy. But all this can be quickly negated by a new president — quickly in terms relative to how Washington works, anyway. An active new president could make headway to reverse these Obamanations almost immediately. None of these changes, as bad as they are, have the misfortune of being irrevocably permanent.

But there is great danger that another four years of Obama will create, one that cannot be easily reversed. Obama has been steadily placing radical judges on benches throughout this land. His nominees tend to be abortion activists (not just abortion supporters, but out-and-out activists), Big Labor dupes, anti-Second Amendment activists, and the like. Many are so radical that even Democrats haven’t been able to convince themselves to vote them in.

Let’s just take his latest nominee for the DC Court of Appeals for example. Caitlin Halligan, a close associate of the disgraced Eliot Spitzer in New York, is an extremist anti-Second Amendment activist. If she gets on the bench she will take every opportunity she can to damage the Constitution.

A past example is his attempt to put a radical racemongering ACLU member on the bench in California. Obama’s attempt to place Edward Chen on the bench succeeded, unfortunately.

Let us not forget that the Supreme Court of the United States is already in a delicate balance tipped only barely in favor of conservatives. It is easy to see that with the ages of the current oldest members of the court, the next presidential term will see perhaps as many as three chances to replace retiring justices.

As conservatives we must put our desire for a pure conservative president in second place to the pursuit for the next nominees for the US Supreme Court. The fact is, if Obama gets a chance to put more judges on the bench, especially on the SCOTUS, he will be able to damage this country for decades to come.

I can hear just what you are saying at this point. But Warner, you are saying, if we don’t get a pure conservative president we will still get bad judicial picks, won’t we? If we get an abortion lover like Romney (Or is he? Do you believe his miraculous conversion? I don’t) we’ll still get squishes as judges, won’t we?

I’m hearin’ ya, friends, I’m hearin’ ya.

That is why we desperately need to focus on point two: taking the entire Congress under GOP control. And not just GOP control but conservative GOP control. We have the House now, certainly, but we need to make that control stronger. But more importantly we need to take control of the Senate. Both houses of Congress need to be under GOP control and we need to put conservatives in there to do the controlling.

This is the thing, folks. We need to have the most conservative Congress that we can get. A conservative Congress, you see, will drag the squishy Romney, the unpredictable Newt, the isolationist Paul, or any of the others along behind them whether those folks want to go or not. You see, if we have a more conservative Senate, a president will understand that soft, moderate or leans-left judicial nominees will not be acceptable. A conservative Congress — if we as voters force them to toe the line and get active — will force a president to be more conservative despite his inclinations.

As far as judicial nominees go, even if we do get soft nominees that lean conservative only 70% of the time we will have justices that at least act like Americans! If Obama gets another four years he’ll continue to put people on the bench that despise this country. And these people serve for life, don’t forget, so they will be there to continue destroying this country for decades.

This is something we must work hard to prevent. It is imperative that we deny Obama and his extremist, under-the-table agenda from continuing.

It isn’t a happy predicament to be forced to settle for a less conservative president, to be sure. But that is where we are whether we like it or not. Better than we start to realize where the important matters are located and it ain’t in the presidential election as far as GOP nominees is concerned.

(CBS’s Sharyl Attkisson)ATF officials didn’t intend to publicly disclose their own role in letting Mexican cartels obtain the weapons, but emails show they discussed using the sales, including sales encouraged by ATF, to justify a new gun regulation called “Demand Letter 3?. That would require some U.S. gun shops to report the sale of multiple rifles or “long guns.” Demand Letter 3 was so named because it would be the third ATF program demanding gun dealers report tracing information.

On July 14, 2010 after ATF headquarters in Washington D.C. received an update on Fast and Furious, ATF Field Ops Assistant Director Mark Chait emailed Bill Newell, ATF’s Phoenix Special Agent in Charge of Fast and Furious:

“Bill – can you see if these guns were all purchased from the same (licensed gun dealer) and at one time. We are looking at anecdotal cases to support a demand letter on long gun multiple sales. Thanks.”

On Jan. 4, 2011, as ATF prepared a press conference to announce arrests in Fast and Furious, Newell saw it as “(A)nother time to address Multiple Sale on Long Guns issue.” And a day after the press conference, Chait emailed Newell: “Bill–well done yesterday… (I)n light of our request for Demand letter 3, this case could be a strong supporting factor if we can determine how many multiple sales of long guns occurred during the course of this case.”

One thing to note, the gun control being pushed here was not about the typical Liberal bugaboos, assault rifles (which are any rifle that looks scary) and handguns. That said, this is really the first confirmation that Los Federales wanted to use the operation to enact some controls on long gun sales because they and the other federal agencies were forcing gun shop owners to sell them multiple long guns which they then let walk across the Mexican border without alerting the Mexican government, and then said guns were used to kill lots of people, including a US Border Agent, Brian Terry.

Every day we seem to get more revelations about Fast and Furious and Operation Gunwalker. Eric Holder gets to talk to Congress again today. Just think back to the Bush years: the Democrats and their MSM supporters would be calling for Bush’s impeachment by this point.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

Apparently Politico does not like the new concealed-carry reciprocity law recently passed in Congress. They must not like it. After all, aside from covering it in a negative light, the newser so badly misstated the law that it could easily turn its readers against the whole idea. But perhaps that’s the idea?

The law, the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011, would allow gun owners that have a concealed-carry license in their home state to carry their firearm in another state if that state also has a carry law in place. The law, however, does not allow someone to carry a firearm in a state that does not currently allow its own citizens to enjoy concealed-carry rights.

All this law does is standardize the lawful status of interstate gun carriers so that law-abiding citizens are not confused by and in fear of violating the many different state statutes concerning their firearms when traveling.

But that isn’t what Politco said on Nov. 15 in its overwrought and badly fact-checked piece. Not only is Politico spectacularly wrong, but it leads with a false reading of what the bill does. (My bold for emphasis)

If congressional gun-rights stalwarts get their way, a firearms owner with a concealed-weapons permit issued in Utah could be allowed to carry that gun in New York — regardless of the gun laws in the Empire State.

Politico is simply wrong that the bill would allow concealed-carry regardless of the gun laws in any state.

Politico goes on to report how critics of the bill are trying to use states’ rights claims against the bill to prevent its passage. One would think that this is not a very reliable tactic in this case. After all, the Second Amendment is a Constitutional issue so it’s a bit harder to claim that all gun laws are local issues. If it’s a guaranteed right in the Constitution, that makes it a bit hard to claim that it shouldn’t at all be a federal issue!

Another false claim of those that oppose this law is that state laws are nullified and replaced by some national concealed-carry law. This is also bunk.

Politico gives space to a New York State Attorney who claims that his state’s stricter laws on who can and cannot carry would be nullified by forcing New York to accept the concealed-carry rights of other states. But this is not a true statement.

The law only pertains to travelers, not residents. The law clearly says that the new concealed-carry reciprocity only affects a traveler who is in any State “other than the State of residence of the person.”

Therefore, New York’s laws still pertain to New Yorkers and the new reciprocity law only pertains to someone from another state when he is traveling through New York, not if he becomes a resident.

Amusingly, lefty gun-banners have in the past insisted that there be a nationalized gun law, a sort of national license to have a gun. But, all of a sudden, now they are against it. Naturally, Politico doesn’t mention that fact.

Another fact that Politico doesn’t seem to mention is that we currently have over 7 million Americans with licenses to carry a firearm yet there is little evidence of “blood in the streets” — as the fearmongering of lefty gun-haters is stated — due to these many lawful gun carriers.

Politico also cites four supporters of the new law in four paragraphs, yet gives 8 paragraphs to five opponents of the bill, including a representative of the extremist Brady Campaign. The National Rifle Association is not quoted, curiously enough.

It should be a no-brainer this law. After all, every state but one (the anti-Constitution state of Illinois) has one kind of carry permit allowance or another. And we have reciprocity laws already in most states as it is. Pennsylvania, for instance, already allows the citizens of 25 other states to concealed-carry and there has been no widespread problems doing so in Pennsylvania or any other state.

In any case, the Politico coverage is decidedly more negative than positive on the law not to mention characterizing it incorrectly. It is obvious that Politico’s reportage was meant to dissuade not inform.

–Also see Al American Blogger

(Politico) If congressional gun-rights stalwarts get their way, a firearms owner with a concealed-weapons permit issued in Utah could be allowed to carry that gun in New York — regardless of the gun laws in the Empire State.

But as the House prepares to vote on a bill Wednesday that would allow that and please a core GOP constituency, critics are throwing another core Republican belief back at the party: states’ rights.

GOP backers of the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act — which would allow those with a concealed-weapons permit in one state to carry their firearms elsewhere as long as that state also allows concealed carrying — say they don’t see that as an issue.

“It’s kind of like having a driver’s license,” said Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), a vocal supporter of the bill who penned an op-ed in USA Today this week on the measure. “There are some states that have stricter driving laws than others.”

But their opponents — including one prominent Republican — are crying foul over the measure, arguing that the bill goes against the Republican Party’s core belief in states’ rights.

Rep Dan Lungren is the only Republican who was against the measure, and it’s weird that anyone on the left would all of a sudden start discussing states’ rights, what with their huge mega giant central politboro government ideas.

The legislation, which Stearns introduced with Rep. Heath Shuler (D-N.C.), appears on track for swift passage. It has 245 co-sponsors, including several moderate Democrats, and the rule for the bill passed Tuesday 271-153, indicating that it should pass easily when it comes up for a final vote Wednesday. Thirty-five Democrats voted in favor of the rule.

So, it is more bipartisan than just about everything passed while the Democrats had control of Congress. Good to know. But, is it legal? Is it Constitutional? Does it violate the Bill of Rights and States’ Rights? Obviously, we all know what the Second Amendment states, but, what of the 10th?

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

States have long had different laws on guns, and, in particular, concealed carry. The Politico has a handy dandy reference graphic on the subject. And, certainly, Conservatives do not appreciate Los Federales gaining more power and passing laws which takes States’ powers unto themselves. Yet, consider, Article IV, Sections 1 and 2

(1)Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

(2)The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

This is what makes your drivers license valid when traveling to another state. So, if you are from, say, North Carolina, and posses a concealed permit, you should be allowed to travel to New York and carry said weapon as a visitor already, without need of a new law from Congress. This does not affect states rights, because said “reciprocity” was already encoded in the Constitution. The federal government would not be taking on any powers not already delegated to them. The law would simply be upholding the language of the Constitution.

Of course, if you move to New York, then your concealed carry, much like a drivers license, would be null within a specified time period, and you would have to apply for a new one. If you moved to Illinois, well, they have no concealed carry. That’s their choice. Your NC permit would not carry over, as their laws would have to be respected for Illinois citizens.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach. Please sign the drill now petition.

Before Barack Obama swore to uphold the Constitution and to protect Americans from enemies foreign and domestic, early warnings were pinging about like signals off a cell tower. Predictions: 1.) The economy would nosedive and 2.) America would have a renewed military presence in Africa before the end of Obama’s first term. What was not foreseen was the Obama administration’s fixation on “snitching.” They are for it. Obama brazenly initiated his report-on-your-neighbor, big brother initiative via a White House run “snitch website” called “flag.”

Detecting the distinctively foul objective of creating an Obama enemies list, Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) took to the Senate floor to accuse Obama of attempting to shut down political opposition. Cornyn also sent Obama a letter demanding to know the intent of the White House’s snitch site where Obamatrons could routinely rat-out their neighbors who disagreed with Obama’s policies. Main targets were those in opposition to Obamacare, the socialist medical overhaul that will wreck the American economy for decades if implemented. In the face of fascist-laden, unspoken threats of reprisal, red-blooded patriots from across the nation emailed the snitch site and turned themselves in as overt acts of defiance.

Yet, Obama tried it again. With sliding ratings and talk from neighborhoods to water coolers about his failed policies and socialist agendas eroding his base, “snitching” was resurrected. Snitches are now directed to “Attack Watch.” The Obama campaign essentially put Americans on notice: Written criticism or verbally attacking Obama under your 1st Amendment right of freedom of speech is an affront to the regime and could get you reported. Again, patriots across the land mocked the site by reporting “themselves” in further defiance of the site’s intended intimidation and implied retribution.

Attempts to snuff out political dissent have a long history. Obama’s propensity for it puts him in an unsavory club of notorious politicians turned tyrants who cast fear into their opposition and ran their nation by edict or currently, in Obama’s case, by executive order. Politician-turned-tyrant occurs when the people allow the usurpation of power to go unchecked. Obama’s radical abuse of the U.S. Constitution and overriding of the legislative authority of Congress would have our founding fathers boldly decrying a tyranny in the making. Snitching coupled with President Obama wanting his own militia, as well-funded and as powerful as the U.S. military, must give all Americans pause. Weakening America’s military is a standing Socialist goal. The coup d’état is that the Obama militia and U.S. military would report to the same Commander-in-Chief. Prediction #3: Action to establish a presidential/civilian militia will be fast-tracked — should Obama and a majority of his Progressive Democrat Party be reelected in 2012.

In tandem with #3, is Prediction #4 for 2012. Informed minds know that John Kennedy entered the Vietnam War with advisors, a pattern Obama now repeats in Africa. The U.S. military can be weakened or bled-out of funding and personnel in areas of the world such as Africa, where no security threat to the U.S. currently exists. If reelected, Obama’s expansion into Africa is imminent. Having American troops in the region makes Africa a magnet for America’s enemies.

Political leaders turned tyrants, that are armed with civilian militias and legions of snitches used to subdue dissent from the people, fill the history books with names like Stalin, Mao, Hitler and others who began as benign Socialist or Marxist politicians. It is history that exposes or demands comparisons with Obama’s policies. Those tyrants started with civilian militias loyal to them and not the citizenry. Snitching or informing was first encouraged and then government mandated. For some, snitching on their neighbor meant survival for themselves and their families — for a while. In the book, Darwin’s Racists – Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow, pages 54-56, there is a telling account by Russian Nobel Laureate Alexander Solzhenitsyn of the brutal results of “snitching” that denied the Soviet citizenry’s’ right to criticize its government.

Prediction #5: The mainstream media will continue to ignore such threats until they realize that their rights to freedom of the press have also been overrun by government edict. Historically, it is the fate of all journalists in Socialist countries worldwide. Snitching is an equal opportunity offender. Though the Black community faces ostracizing by other Blacks if they speak negatively about the destructive policies of the first Black President, many have rejected what they call un-American activities and an assault on freedom and have also turned themselves in to “Attack Watch” in defiance and defense of their Constitutional freedoms.

A government that asks its citizens to snitch on one another cannot itself be trusted. Snitching is about controlling the opposition and eventually the entire populace. The end result is that a penalty is levied whether through suppression of speech or oppression of a people. It is divisive and ultimately dangerous, especially in the hands of leaders with delusions of grandeur or narcissistic personality disorders. Snitching is the worm that decays and weakens a society in preparation for the rot of Socialism and tyranny. Why is it again, that Obama wants Americans to snitch?

Herman Cain has moved into a tie with Mitt Romney atop the field of Republican presidential candidates, according to a new CBS News poll, while Rick Perry has fallen 11 percentage points in just two weeks.

The poll shows Cain, who stood at just five percent support two weeks ago, now holding 17 percent support among Republican primary voters. That puts the former Godfather’s Pizza CEO into a tie with Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, whose support has essentially held steady over the past two weeks. Perry, meanwhile, has dropped from 23 percent support to just 12 percent support over the past two weeks, a sign that the Texas governor’s shaky debate performances – in which he has alienated portions of both the Republican base and the party establishment – have taken their toll.

And check out this PPP Poll that has him in the lead in three states. He’s on a roll for sure.

Here are the numbers:
North Carolina: Cain 27, Romney/Gingrich 17, Perry 15, Paul/Bachmann 6, Santorum/Huntsman 2
Nebraska: Cain 30, Gingrich 16, Romney 13, Bachmann/Perry 10, Paul 5, Santorum 4, Huntsman 2
West Virginia: Cain 24, Gingrich 18, Romney 16, Perry 15, Bachmann 8, Paul 6, Santorum 3, Huntsman 1
The thing fueling Cain’s lead in all of these states is strong support from the furthest right segment of the Republican electorate. Cain is at 35% with ‘very conservative’ voters and has a 14 point lead over Perry with them in North Carolina. In Nebraska he’s at 36% with them, putting him up 22 points over Gingrich and Perry. And in West Virginia he gets 25% with them, giving him a 9 point edge on Gingrich and Perry.

We already know he leads in Florida, now these three states, and his home state of Georgia. He also leads in “positive intensity” in Gallups new poll.
Just a roundup to show what standing on principles with a well articulated plan can do for you. Will this trend continue? I gave up predicting politics, but personally I hope so. This candidate shares more in common with my principles than any other viable option right now. And….now Herman Cain rises up to tie for second in the a Washington Post National Poll while Perry falls in support.

After a quick rise in the race for the Republican presidential nomination, Texas Gov. Rick Perry has experienced an almost equally dramatic decline, losing about half of his support over the past month, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.
Perry’s slide, which comes after several uneven performances in candidate debates, has allowed former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney to resurface atop the GOP field. But the most direct beneficiary of the disenchantment with Perry is businessman Herman Cain, who is now tied for second place.

Ed Morrissey:

The big news here is Herman Cain, especially among those to whom he is news. He easily gets the best score among the contestants on the question “the more you hear about X, do you like him/her more or less?” Cain gets at 47/12 on that question, while Romney gets a 38/35 and Perry gets a red-flag 30/44. Christie comes close to Cain in this category at 43/23, but Palin’s closer to Perry at 35/49.
Cain appears to have caught fire, but as we saw with Perry, all that means is that the scrutiny of the media — and the other candidates — will now turn to Cain. We’ll see how well he handles the heat, but another good debate performance might push him into the leading Not-Romney slot in the race.

I agree, the media will get their fangs out soon if Cain’s rise continues, and the heat will increase on Cain in next week’s debates. If he performs good again then the trend will increase as more people start paying attention. The heat will also increase for Romney:

All of this sets things up nicely for next week’s debate at Dartmouth. Perry was in the lead in the last few debates, making him target number one for all of the other candidates. He might get a breather this time around, as Romney is back to frontrunner status and Cain’s rise draws attention. Romney is carrying an awful lot of baggage that has not been explored in any of the previous debates — he’s questionable on gun rights, as governor was weak on sanctuary cities, RomneyCare, his general history of flip-flopping. A campaign of reminding voters that whatever Romney is saying now, he has probably said the exact opposite and it’s all on tape somewhere, could be effective. And, if Chris Christie is in the race, then Romney gets to fight off the nightmare of having another blue state Republican governor crowd his space, bringing his charisma into the battle.

There is also this from Florida:

Cain is now running in second place in Florida now that his support surged nearly 19 percentage points after last month’s Republican Party of Florida’s Presidency 5 debate and straw poll, according to a survey of likely Florida voters conducted by Gainesville-based War Room Logistics, which typically polls for Republicans.
Meantime, Perry’s support plummeted nearly 16 percentage points.
Perry had been tied as a Florida frontrunner with Mitt Romney at about 25 percent on Sept. 20, dropped to third/fourth place with 9 percent of the vote where he’s statistically tied with Newt Gingrich (10 percent).

A homeowner in Philly was attacked by a mob of racist black “youths” that broke into his home apparently looking to kill white people. This is exactly the situation that the Second Amendment was made for.

The Philly Inquirer reports that “dozens of youths” marauded into a sleepy Philly neighborhood to find white teens to beat up or kill reportedly because an African-American was attacked on a playground nearby.

Don’t you love how the newspaper reports the makeup of the crowd? It’s just “dozens of youths” instead of what it really was, an army of black criminals intent on mayhem and murder. Police even said that it wasn’t just “youths,” either, but people into the thirties at least.

Mark LaVelle was standing outside near his home when two 13 or 14-year-old white boys ran up to him fearful that the mob would come after them. Once the crowd saw LaVelle with the two boys, they did, indeed, turn their attention to the three.

LaVelle ran inside his home with the boys then stepped outside to try and calm the crowd, but to no avail. He retreated back into his house where his wife and twin 13-month-old boys ran to safety in the upper reaches of the house. Also in the home were LaVelle’s other sons and a nephew.

Screaming, “We got you, you white mother——-!,” the band of criminals then broke into LaVelle’s home and started beating him with pipes and bats. One criminal had a gun but LaVelle was able to wrestle the gunman’s arm so that he could not raise it to fire.

Police sirens caused the crowd to disperse and LaVelle’s descriptions helped police find and arrest three attackers, the gunman — 32-year-old Enrique Delgado — was one of those arrested.

Naturally, the mother of one of these scumbags immediately began a race-baiting attack on the LaVelle’s after her precious, gangbanging, little monster was arrested. She has threatened violence against the LaVelle family if her son ends up jailed for his criminal offense.

If this homeowner had his Second Amendment rights protected in Philadelphia he would have been perfectly justified in shooting at these criminal, racist, home invaders. He would have been 100% justified in killing every last one of these thugs.

But even that aside this is clearly a “hate crime” as defined by the left’s criteria of an event driven by racism. These inhuman monsters intended to find white people to maim or kill and the LaVelle family was unfortunate enough to have been in the path of this racist mob of murderer wannabes.

How much do you want to bet Philly authorities suddenly forget that “hate crimes” exist as they let these cretins go free, eh?

Of course the Philly police won’t charge these racists with a “hate crime.” After all, the victims were white.