If you required any more proof that today's Liberal Democrats simply cannot be trusted to be in a majority, you need only look at California. The following was simply too good, and too true, not to share. The original posting by Steven Greenhut can be viewed at:

http://orangepunch.freedomblogging.com/2009/07/13/california-as-a-warning-for-america/10919/

California as a warning for America

Congressman Tom McClintock offered remarks in Washington, D.C., on Friday to the Competitive Enterprise Institute and Pacific Research Institute that clearly illustrate why California is facing such a large fiscal mess. His beginning joke is so funny because it is so true:

“I know that everybody likes to poke fun at California – but I can tell you right now that despite all of its problems, California remains one of the best places in the world to build a successful small business.

All you have to do is start with a successful LARGE business."

[Laughter and applause]

He continued:

Laugh if you will, but let me remind you that when these policies finish wrecking California, there are still 49 other states we can all move to, and yours is one of them. I should also warn you of the strange sense of déjà-vu that I have every day on the House floor as I watch the same folly and blunders that wrecked California now being passed with reckless abandon in this Congress.  

We [Congress] passed a “Cash-for-Clunkers” bill the other day – we did that years ago in California.  

Doubling the entire debt every five years?  Been there.

Increasing spending at unsustainable rates?  Done that.

Save-the-Planet-Carbon-Dioxide restrictions?  Got the T-Shirt.  

To understand how these policies can utterly destroy an economy and bankrupt a government, you have to remember the Golden State in its Golden Age.

A generation ago, California spent about half what it does today AFTER adjusting for both inflation and population growth.

And yet, we had the finest highway system in the world and the finest public school system in the country.   California offered a FREE university education to every Californian who wanted one.  We produced water and electricity so cheaply that many communities didn’t bother to measure the stuff.  Our unemployment rate consistently ran well below the national rate and its diversified economy was nearly recession-proof.

One thing – and one thing only – has changed in those years: public policy.  The political Left gradually gained dominance over California’s government and has imposed a disastrous agenda of radical and retrograde policies that have destroyed the quality of life that Californians once took for granted.

The Census Bureau reports that in the last two years 2/3 of a million more people have moved out of California than have moved it.  Many are leaving for the garden spots of Nevada, Arizona and Texas.

Think about that.  California is blessed with the most equitable climate in the entire Western Hemisphere; it has the most bountiful resources anywhere in the continental United States; it is poised on the Pacific Rim in a position to dominate world trade for the next century, and yet people are finding a better place to live and work and raise their families in the middle of the Nevada and Arizona and Texas deserts.

I submit to you that no conceivable act of God could wreak such devastation as to turn California into a less desirable place to live than the middle of the Nevada Nuclear Test Range.  Only Acts of Government can do that.  And they have.

You can trace the collapse of California’s economy to several critical events: the rise of environmental Ludditism beginning in 1974; the abandonment of constitutional checks and balances that once constrained spending and borrowing; and the rise of rule by public employee unions .  There are other factors as well: litigation, taxation, illegal immigration – but for the sake of time let me concentrate on the big three.

The first was the rise of environmental Ludditism with the election of a radical new-age leftist named Jerry Brown as governor of the state – an election that also produced overwhelming liberal majorities in both legislative houses.  

Like Obama today, Brown lost little time in pursuing his vision of California – an incoherent combination of pastoral simplicity, European socialism and centralized planning.  At the center of this world view was a backward ideology that he called his “era of limits” — the naïve notion that public works were growth inducing and polluting and that stopping the expansion of infrastructure somehow excused government from meeting the needs of an expanding population. 

Conservation replaced abundance as the chief aim of California’s public works, and public policy was redirected to developing irresistible incentives for the population to concentrate in dense urban cores rather than to settle in suburban communities.    

Brown infused his vision into every aspect of public policy, and it is a testament to his thoroughness and tenacity that its basic tenets have dominated the direction of California through both Republican and Democratic administrations.

He cancelled the state’s highway construction program, abandoning many routes in mid-construction.  He cancelled long-planned water projects, conveyance facilities and dams.  He established the California Energy Commission that blocked approval of any significant new generating capacity.  He enacted volumes of environmental regulations that created severe impediments to home and commercial construction, empowering an incipient no-growth movement that began on the most extreme fringe of the environmental cause and quickly spread.  

This movement reached its zenith with Arnold Schwarzenegger and the enactment of AB 32 and companion legislation in 2006.  This measure gives virtually unchecked authority to the California Air Resources Board to force Draconian reductions in carbon dioxide emissions by 2020.

This has dire implications to entire segments of California’s economy: agriculture, baking, distilling, cargo and passenger transportation, cement production, manufacturing, construction and energy production, to name a few.

We, too, were promised an explosion of “green jobs,” but exactly the opposite has happened.

Up until that bill took effect, California’s unemployment numbers tracked very closely with the national unemployment rate.  But since then, California’s unemployment rate began a steady upward divergence from the national jobless figures.  Today, California’s unemployment rate is more than two points above the national rate, and at its highest point since 1941.  

The second problem is structural: the collapse of the checks and balances and other constitutional and traditional constraints on government spending and borrowing.

Let me mention a few of them.

The State Supreme Court decision in Serrano v. Priest severed the use of local revenue for local schools and invited the state take-over of public education.  AB 8 of 1979 – the legislature’s response to Proposition 13 – essentially did the same thing to local governments generally.  

This means that vast bureaucracies have grown up over the service delivery level, wasting more and more resources while hamstringing teachers in their classrooms, wardens in their prisons and city councils in their towns.

Next, constitutional constraints on fiscal excesses began to fall.  In 1983, Gov. George Deukmejian approved legislation to remove the governor’s ability to make mid-year budget corrections without having to return to the legislature. The loss of this provision exposed the state to chronic deficit spending by removing any ability of the governor to rapidly respond to changing economic conditions.  

In 1989, Deukmejian sponsored Proposition 111 that destroyed the Gann Spending Limit that had held increases in state spending to inflation and population growth.  If that limit had remained intact, California would be enjoying a budget surplus today.

The disastrous tax increases by Pete Wilson in 1991 and Arnold Schwarzenegger this year were made possible by this tragic blunder.

Finally, we’ve watched the constitutional budget process that had produced relatively punctual and relatively balanced budgets for nearly 150 years collapse in favor of an extra-constitutional abomination called the big five.  

That new process, that began under Pete Wilson and has culminated under Arnold Schwarzenegger  bypasses the entire legislative deliberative process in favor of an annual deal struck between the governor and legislative leaders behind closed doors and handed to the legislature as a fait accompli.

This short-circuits the separation of powers that is designed to discipline fiscal excess and it literally bargains away the line-item veto authority of the governor.  It is a process that allows legislative leaders to extract concessions from the executive that would not be possible if the separation of powers were maintained.

With the checks against excessive spending broken down, borrowing became the preferred method of public finance.  The Constitutional requirement that all taxpayer-supported debt be approved by voters began to erode in the 1930’s, when a depression-era Supreme Court decision allowed the state to run a temporary deficit in the event of an economic down-turn — as long as the shortfall was addressed in the following fiscal year.  This practice was narrowly construed until the Wilson administration began using it to justify spreading out a single year’s budget deficit over several years.  

During the 1980’s, Gov. Deukmejian began employing a legal fiction called a “lease revenue bond,” to circumvent constitutionally required voter approval.

Although Proposition 13 still protects property owners from unsustainable increases in their property taxes, most of the other fiscal constraints are now gone, and California has entered a period of unprecedented public debt to finance an unprecedented expansion of state government. 

The third factor that also can be traced back to the 1970’s was the radical transformation that took place in the nature and power of the state’s public employee unions.  Until that time, state law prohibited public employee strikes against the public and prohibited collective bargaining or closed shops. 

During the Jerry Brown era, a series of collective bargaining acts handed to public sector unions all the rights and powers of private sector unions – but without any of the natural constraints on private sector unions.  The unions soon brought these newly-won powers to bear to elect hand-picked officials to state and local office.  

Today, political expenditures by public employee unions exceed all other special interest groups, while they hold compliant majorities in the state legislature and most local agencies.  

The result has been radically escalating personnel costs and radically deteriorating performance.

The impact on governmental services has been devastating.  Despite exploding budgets, service delivery is collapsing.  Firing incompetent teachers has become a virtual impossibility, adding to the deterioration of educational quality.  Essential services can no longer be performed because labor costs have made it impossible to sustain those services.

Today, California is like the shopkeeper who leased out too much space, ordered too much inventory, hired too many people and paid them too much.  Every month the shopkeeper covers his shortfalls with borrowing and bookkeeping tricks.  Ultimately, he will reach a tipping point where anything he does makes his situation worse.  Borrowing costs are eating him alive and he’s running out of credit.  Raising prices causes his sales to decline.  And there’s only so much discretionary spending he can cut.  

That’s the state’s predicament in a nutshell.  California’s borrowing costs now exceed the budget of the entire University of California and it is increasingly likely that it will fail to find lenders when it must borrow billions to pay its bills at the end of this month.

Ignoring dire warnings, Gov. Schwarzenegger and legislators from both parties earlier this year imposed the biggest state tax increase in American history.  

And I can assure you that the Laffer curve is alive and well.  In the first two months after the tax increase took effect, state revenues have plunged 33 percent. 

Although there are many obsolete, duplicative or low priority programs and expenditures that the state can – and should – do without, there aren’t enough of them to come anywhere close to closing California’s deficit.

Sadly, California has reached the terminal stage of a bureaucratic state, where government has become so large and so tangled that it can no longer perform even basic functions.  

Fortunately, we have a model that we know works.  A generation ago, it produced a high quality of public service at a much lower cost.  It maximized management flexibility and it required accountability at the service delivery level.  It recognized that only when commerce and enterprise flourish can we finance the basic responsibilities of government.  

Restoring this efficiency will require a governor and a legislature with the political will to wrestle control from the public employee unions, dismantle the enormous bureaucracies that have grown up over the service delivery level, decentralize administration and decision making, contract out services that the private sector can provide more efficiently, rescind the recent tax increases that are costing the state money and roll back the regulatory obstacles to productive enterprise.

Alas, we don’t have such leaders and even if we did, the systemic reorganization of the state government can’t be accomplished overnight.  Restructuring the public schools would take at least a year; prisons at least two; and health and welfare three to five years before serious savings could be realized.

This brings us to the fine point of the matter.  What Churchill called history’s “terrible, chilling words” are about to be pronounced on California’s failed leadership: “too late.”  

A federal loan guarantee or bailout may be the only way to buy time for the restructuring of California’s bureaucracies to take effect, but the discussion remains academic until and unless the state actually adopts the replacement structures, unburdens its shrinking productive sector and presents a credible plan to redeem the state’s crushing debt and looming obligations. 

Without these actions, federal intervention will only make California’s problems worse by postponing reform, continuing unsustainable spending and piling up still more debt.

In short, if California won’t help itself, the federal government cannot, should not and must not.   

And before anyone gets too smug at California’s agony, remember this: Congress is now enacting the same policies at the national level that have caused the collapse of California.  So whistle past this cemetery if you must, but remember the medieval epitaph:  “Remember man as you walk by, as you are now so once was I; as I am now so you will be.”

The good news is there is still time for the nation to avoid California’s fate.  If anything, the collapse of California can at least serve as a morality play for the rest of the nation – unfortunately in the form of a Greek tragedy.

Finally! After an endless parade of gutless business executives behaving like serfs before royalty, a savvy black business leader teaches all of them how to talk to an arrogant, self-absorbed PUBLIC SERVANT like Barbara Boxer.

If you have not seen the video of the exchange between Ms. Boxer and Harry C. Alford, who is CEO of the BCC, I urge you to do so as soon as you can. And take the time to watch the subsequent interview of Mr. Alford. (Both videos are available at www.breitbart.tv)

Ms. Boxer was attempting to convince Mr. Alford that the latest "climate change" legislation would create "green jobs" in California, and therefore should be supported by his group. She made the arrogantly racist assumption that, since he was a black man, the mere fact that "the NAACP supported this legislation" should persuade him to fall in line. 

Big mistake.

God bless Mr. Alford, he came right back at her, giving her the verbal equivalent of a vicious counter-punch to the chops. And he didn't let up - he continued to pummel her, fending off her weak attempts at recovering with elegantly delivered body blows, jabs, and finally, a devastating uppercut (when he called her entire approach racist) - I swear I heard the voice of Howard Cosell shouting "and (s)he's DOWN!"

Coming just weeks after Ms. Boxer's shameless treatment of a Brigadier General for daring to call her "ma'am" (a term of respect that ALL military people are taught to use with superiors, even civilians), this most recent incident clearly exposes the inherent contempt that today's liberal elites have for the African American community. One hopes that every black man and woman in America gets a chance to see it - and think long and hard about what it says.

It was, well, a thing of beauty.

For nearly 40 years, Democrats have been shafting the poor - yet low and moderate income people continue to vote for them. But why? Simple - most of these voters do not make the connection between the policies of Democrats and the affect such laws have on their own lives.

Take jobs. When Democrats heap repressive taxes and ridiculous regulations on American companies, until they finally have to pack up and move their operation to Ireland or Singapore, do the workers blame the Democrats? Of course not. They fall for the phony Democrat mantra about those "evil corporations" who are "outsourcing American jobs."

Or tax policy. It is astonishing how successful Democrats have been at brainwashing the public.  Democrats have long used jealousy and envy to dupe the poor into hating successful people ("tax the rich") the very entrepreneurs who create most of the jobs. Yer in spite of the fact that the top half of workers now pay 97% of all the income taxes, just talk to any lower income workers and you will find that most of them actually believe that "those rich guys" don't pay any taxes at all.

Then there is the whole "Green" movement - while government subsidies for boondoggles like Ethanol and wind power enrich big companies like ConAgra and General Electric, the result is an increase in corn prices (which drives up food prices - corn is in darn near everything) and skyrocketing energy costs, both of which hit the poor the hardest.

In the name of being "green" Democrats have prevented drilling in Alaska, the Gulf, and off the California coast, and stonewalled exploring for shale oil in the Rockies - all of which keep gasoline prices higher. Democrat's have stubbornly refused to recognize that nuclear power is the cleanest, safest source of power on earth - and the only proven viable alternative to fossil fuels. As a result, we have not built a new reactor in more than 30 years - making electricity more expensive for everyone, especially those at the bottom of the economic ladder.

Now we have the Cap and Trade bill. This obscene scam will make Al Gore a billionaire, but it will also do more to raise the costs of everything you buy than any legislative initiative in history. Gas prices, heating bills, food costs - all will soar. And, once again, who is hurt the most by things like rising food and gasoline prices? The poor, for whom such commodities consume a huge part of their already limited budget.

Even worse, Obama and friends are engaged in a spending frenzy that they cannot possibly pay for. So instead of raising taxes (which would not be too popular in a recession), they will use the dirtiest trick on the poor ever - they will just have the Treasury print more money, which will ignite inflation and drive up prices even further.

But when Carl the carpenter or Sara the Single Mom has to pay $4 a gallon (or more) for gas, or find that their favorite food items are now 40% higher in cost, do they connect those increased prices (nothing more than a hidden "tax") to the policies of Barak Obama and Nancy Pelosi?

Nope.

They shrug their shoulders...and blame those "corporate fat cats." And unless and until the "average Joe and Jane" come to their senses, they will be doomed to a lifetime of wondering why they just can't get ahead - while continuing to vote for the very Democrats who keep them poor.

Instead of fighting tooth and nail against a racist, sexist, anti-gun judicial pirate like Sonia Sotomayor (and that is exactly what she is), you can pretty much count on the usual suspects in the Republican party to chicken out, in a futile attempt to curry favor with the Hispanic community. And they will do this in spite of the fact that Democrats can be counted on to do everything possible to sabotage ANY court appointment by a Republican president, starting with their vicious attack on Robert Bork.

Ironically, Republicans, or more accurately, Conservative Republicans, have a marvelous opportunity to make inroads into what should be a natural constituency - new immigrants. Wait a minute! Aren't all "people of color" presumed to be helpless sheep who will blindly vote for any Democrat who promises them a feeding spot at the government trough?

Well, not exactly. The truth is, many immigrant groups, Hispanics included, have far more in common with Conservatives than they do with Liberals. Unlike the 2nd and 3rd generation of American born welfare-dependent families that have become virtual captives of the welfare state, most immigrants still come here for opportunity, not hand-outs. They are willing to work.

Even on the so-called social issues, Mexican-Americans in particular hold far more conservative views than is generally appreciated. Note that in ultra-liberal California, Hispanics voted overwhelmingly (77%) in support of traditional marriage. Ditto on abortion - Hispanics are predominantly Catholic, and fundamentally very pro-life, by a wide margin.

Another hallmark of the Mexican culture is an admirable pride in being self-sufficient, and taking care of their families - this is especially true of Mexican men, who are willing to bus tables in a restaurant for minimum wage rather than accept welfare. As a conservative, I fully admit that even when I suspect that the young man mopping the diner floor might be an illegal alien, I have a genuine respect for his willingness to work.

But Republicans have been woefully negligent in not actively and vigorously communicating with these communities the benefits of free markets, low taxes, and other conservative approaches to government. Instead, they have played the "me too" game, which is always doomed to failure - you'll never outdo Democrats when it comes to handing out checks.

Which brings us to Sotomayor. Instead of knuckling under, Republicans should use this opportunity to expose the Democrats for the shameless race hustlers that they are. Point out to Hispanic voters that it was a Republican President who appointed the first Hispanic Attorney General, and emphasize that he was selected based on his qualifications, not his ethnic heritage.

And remind them of Democrats' long history of opposing civil rights for American blacks. Both the 1954 and 1964 Civil Rights acts were passed when a majority of Republicans supported them - while most Democrats voted against them.  Most of the original gun control laws were written by Democrats desperate to keep former slaves from owning guns - while it was Republicans who tirelessly worked to guarantee that freedmen could defend themselves against Klan "Night Riders" and other racist groups. Even today, it is liberal Democrats who want to disarm the inner city poor.

And don't forget to mention the Democrat's shameful treatment of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Today's Democrats are more than willing to eviscerate any "person of color" who dares to stray from the liberal plantation of big government and welfare.

But to have any success at attracting the wider Hispanic vote, Republicans will simply have to mount a serious, high profile, and very passionate campaign to reach out with the reasons that ALL Americans are better served by conservative principles, rather than being seduced by the promise of ever more "free" stuff.

Unfortunately, having watched Republicans over the last couple of election cycles lose election after election by caving in to the Democrats,  I'm not very confident that they will reverse course any time soon...

The bizarre adulation being heaped upon the recently deceased Michael Jackson is an eerie reflection of the equally cult-like adoration of Barak Obama - not only do the Jackson fans speak of him as if he were virtually a deity, they talk as if he were someone with whom they had been personally acquainted. Yet few of the millions of his sobbing fans have ever had a private conversation with Jackson, or know anything about him beyond his music.

Likewise, interviews of Obama supporters reveal the same adoring worship, but an almost frightening ignorance of his actual policies - they know his "music" (i.e. his public performances) but little more. Now, while it may be mildly amusing to observe the legions of Jackson fans gushing over their "hero," it is just a tad bit more significant that so many Americans apparently used less thought in electing an American President than they did in buying their last CD.

But that is the culture we have created, where "celebrity" matters more than policy, and style trumps substance - would anyone be surprised to find that most of the attendees at the Jackson "memorial" event also voted for Obama? Thanks in part to millions of mindless "fans," Obama has been able to mount some of the most radical attacks on the the very principles that make America the economic powerhouse that it is, and about all his supporters can say is that "he sure talks good."

So, while we are shaking our heads in bewilderment at the fawning fans of a dead rock star, we should remember that Barak Obama is very much alive and well, and has inflicted far more damage on the American economy and way of life in just six months than any entertainment personality could do in a lifetime.

At what point will the "average American" finally realize that today's Democratic Party is being run by adolescents who are utterly clueless about economics? Face it - just about everything wrong with America today can be attributed to liberal Democrats and their insane policies.

Democrats have destroyed the housing industry. Starting with the naive and utterly incompetent Jimmy Carter, and continuing with the rest of the ersatz Socialists like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, the Democrats somehow concluded that every American has a "right" to own a home - even if they could not possibly pay for it. But hey, it's a great way to buy votes from the poor (who cares if they eventually lose the house).

So they instituted the "Community Reinvestment Act" and other such intrusive government meddling in the private sector, all of which measures were designed to force lenders to give loans to people with little or no credit. They then got Fannie May and Freddie Mac to back these substandard loans - the inevitable result was the housing crash, when more and more of those loans defaulted (Gee, who woulda thought?).

Now we have the sudden and massive spending by the Obama administration, who ran up a $2 TRILLION tab on the nation's credit card in less than three months - a bill that your grandchildren will be paying off into their old age. Worse, this so-called "stimulus" package is being used to fund every conceivable project EXCEPT those that are the real business of government (you know, those mundane little items like military defense, roads and bridges, police and fire protection, that sort of thing).


But today, more than TWO-THIRDS of the Federal budget (and a similar majority of most state budgets) is for social welfare and "entitlement" programs, including that gigantic financial black hole, the public "education" system. The one that in many cities can barely graduate half of it's students (and the same union-dominated education system that Democrats protect from any real competition).

Which brings us to the entire "Green Movement" - a fraud of epic proportions that so far has resulted in:

The ethanol scam that enriches Big Agribusiness (while driving up the food bills of the average American family).

The hamstringing of American oil companies that prevents domestic drilling and forces them to buy oil from the likes of Hugo Chavez.

The complex maze of fuel regulations that require gasoline producers to blend dozens of different (and expensive) "recipes" to satisfy the whims of bureaucrats in 50 different states.

The idiotic policy of NOT using our own vast storehouse of coal (America is the Saudi Arabia of coal - we have over 40% of the worlds reserves). Meanwhile, the Chinese are cranking up new coal-fired generators every WEEK.

The stubborn refusal of liberal Democrats to allow the development of nuclear power (even the French get 80% of their power from the atom, for Pete's sake - how embarrassing). Instead, they want acres of "windmills" that are grossly inefficient in generating power, but VERY efficient at generating profits for Democrat-friendly companies like General Electric, who make the wind turbines (and just coincidentally seem to show up at Obama administration energy policy forums).

The Federal government decreeing what kind of light bulbs you are "allowed" to have in your own home - making the poor even poorer, while enriching the companies who just happen to make those over-priced bulbs .

The Obama administration's quasi-socialist takeover of banks, insurance companies, and even automobile companies (got to keep those union sheep voting Democrat you know, regardless of the damage to the country), a barely disguised attack on the very capitalist system that has produced the wealth that Democrats want to redistribute to their primary constituency: those who suck at the government teat.

But the last and most potentially disastrous piece of "green" thuggery is the "Cap and Trade" bill. This monstrously dangerous piece of legislative chicanery is nothing more than a gigantic tax on every business, household, and individual in America. It will, quite literally, drive up the cost of every single product or service you buy, igniting inflation and destroying the U.S. economy. On the other hand, it will make Al Gore a billionaire - his company will act as a broker for the "carbon credits" that will be traded like stocks.

And for what (alleged) purpose will this bureaucratic nightmare be implemented?

To deal with a problem that doesn't even exist: mythical "global warming" supposedly caused by man-made "carbon emissions."

For those who get their "news" from ABC, CBS, NBC, the New York times (or worse, from John Stewart) Carbon Dioxide is not, as declared by the brainless drones at the EPA, a "pollutant" - it is vitally necessary for the survival of plants, who take in CO2 in order to convert sunlight into energy, and in the process release - Oxygen, (a substance most of us find rather convenient for...er, well...living).

Besides, scientists (REAL scientists, not the fake one's you see hawking the "green" propaganda) know that CO2 isn't even a major greenhouse gas at all (water vapor is the earth's primary greenhouse gas). More importantly, they have recently discovered that an increase in CO2 comes as much as 400 to 800 years AFTER a period of a global increase in temperature, not before. Thus CO2 cannot possibly have a causal relationship to "global warming" (which, when it does occur, is primarily the result of solar output, not SUV's).

But more to the point, the earth is not warming at all anyway - it is now clear that the earth has been COOLING for at least the last 10 years. Now, since the last decade has seen the greatest increase in industrial output in history, led by dramatic surges in energy use by China and India, if the "greenies" were indeed correct, then the increase in so-called "greenhouse" gases should by now have us all cooking in our own sweat. But, as it turns out, the entire "man-made global warming" scare has gradually been exposed as bogus.  But, hey, why let genuine science get in the way of taking over every aspect of the average American's life?

Then of course, there's the  mad rush by the Democrats to have the Federal government take over health care. That's right, after decades of increasing government interference in the health care market (over half of the money in health care already comes from Medicare, Medicaid, and numerous state programs) that have driven medical costs sky-high, these economically illiterate nitwits propose as the solution...MORE government!

And yes, Republicans over the last few years have been little better, often going along with many of these insane policies. But by this point, most people, including sensible Democrats, should begin to notice what these liberal lunatics are doing to the economy, not to mention to the American way of life.

Contrary to the false claims that he "inherited" a recession, the truth is that less than a year before Obama took office, the Dow was at 13,000 and unemployment was at less than 5% - the real crash came when investors (and employers) saw what Obama and the Democrat Congress (which became a majority in 2006) were actually going to do. And less than six months into his own administration, Obama's radical policies have lost over 2 Million jobs (unemployment is about to hit 10% - the worst it's been in over 25 years) and the Dow has fallen to below 8300, wiping out more than a Trillion dollars in portfolio values, forcing millions of older Americans to postpone their retirement.

It makes you wonder how high the deficit (not to mention the unemployment rate) has to get before even the most politically illiterate citizen begins to realize the obvious - that today's Democratic Party simply can't be trusted to be in the majority, let alone a veto-proof one.

Liberal journalists were worried - how would they avoid reporting on disgraced Congressman William Jefferson. The New Orleans Democrat was found with $100,000 in his freezer, and is right this moment on trial, after being indicted on 16 counts of bribery, racketeering, conspiracy, and other charges. Even more importantly (and more newsworthy) is that testimony by key witnesses has revealed that Jefferson's malfeasance was far deeper than was initially known.

Not only was the $100,000 in Jefferson's freezer meant to be used to bribe a Nigerian official, but two executives of Nigerian Digital Television have testified that Jefferson received an ADDITIONAL $100,000 in cash. But that wasn't enough for Jefferson, who apparently demanded even more: a share in the corporation in exchange for brokering a deal between NDTV and an American technology company. He could have raked in as much as $5 Million over the course of the contract.

Now, in a time of lay-offs and recession, this sort of blatant corruption and arrogant flaunting of governmental power by an elected Representative should be front page news. And, with Jefferson's trial in full swing, the press would certainly have to (grudgingly) report this very uncomfortable (for them) story. At least you would think so.

But try to find any prominent mention of Jefferson anywhere - there is virtually NO coverage. Not on TV or radio, and barely a mention in any of the major newspapers. Other than in the local New Orleans press, Congressman William Jefferson has pretty much gotten a pass. But why?

Thank Governor Mark Sanford, who came to Jefferson's rescue in the nick of time, and whose name just about EVERYONE in America now knows. From coast to coast, in every newsroom and newspaper across the land, we have now heard about the South Carolina Governor and his troubles. And what was his transgression that warrants such voluminous coverage?

After sneaking away for a week in Argentina, Governor Sanford announced at a news conference that he had an affair.

Now, any normal American might see a rather stark difference between the "newsworthyness" of a story about a governor who had an affair (and which, so far, appears to have involved NO official misconduct) and the story of a U.S. Congressman who was not only found with a $100,000 in cash in his refrigerator, but is currently on trial for a whole host of criminal actions directly related to, and arising out of, his conduct in elected office. So, why the glaring disparity in news coverage? Simple, actually.

Governor Mark Sanford is a Republican.

Congressman William Jefferson is a Democrat.

If you haven't noticed it until now, in today's overwhelmingly liberal newsrooms, nothing, and I mean NOTHING, is as important in determining whether a politically charged story gets covered as the party affiliation of the person involved in the issue. Thus every story that involves a Republican in any sort of trouble will be shouted from the rooftops, while coverage of a Democrat in similar (and let's fact it, even far worse) circumstances, will be reduced to a small paragraph on Page 28 in the print media, and given barely a 3 second sound-byte on the evening news, if at all.

Because today's "journalists" understand all too well what one of TV's most insightful pioneers said back in the late 1950's - "We may not tell you WHAT to think, but we most certainly control what you think ABOUT." And they use that power to skew, massage, and edit everything you read, watch, or hear, based on one primary criterion: how will this story help or hurt the cause of liberalism (and by extension, Democrats).

Get ready for the endless "panel discussions" (made up of Democrats, of course), somber speculation on Governor Sanford's future, and most of all, the usual annoying red herring about whether or not the governor is a "hypocrite" for having an affair, what with him being a Conservative and all, you see.

Now, aside from the obvious double standard - why it is never "hypocritical" for a Democrat to cheat on his wife - is there anyone more hypocritical than William Jefferson, who took a solemn oath to protect and defend the Constitution, and then arrogantly violated his position of public trust in order to enrich himself? But none of that matters. Because the press have all decided that "the BIG STORY" is a governor's affair (did we mention he's a Republican?)

So, don't hold your breath waiting for any meaningful coverage of the far more egregious exploits of Congressman William Jefferson - that's just, you know...."old news"...and he's, well, a Democrat.

No matter what happens in Iran, Obama will be able to defend his "non-involved" approach by claiming he "did the right thing." And why not? Obama learned from his time in Chicago politics that voting "present" on potentially contentious issues is the way to go - politically, that is.

So, taking neither side is the smart play for Obama - whatever the outcome, he will be able to claim a foreign policy victory. And, naturally, his worshipful minions in the media will coo and fawn over his "brilliant handling" of the situation, regardless of the cost to the Iranian people.

If the Mullahs crack down ruthlessly on the protesters and crush the rebellion, he will have "shrewdly kept America out of yet another Middle East entanglement." Oh, sure, he will make some bland statement lamenting the failure of the Democracy movement as "a temporary setback" - then immediately cozy up to Ahmandinajad to show that "diplomacy" is the answer.

And if the protesters win? Why then, Obama "played it just the right way" - and he may even attempt to take some credit for the success of the revolution. But in any event, the press will almost certainly laud Obama for his role in promoting the "change" in Iran, by "preventing the U.S. from muddying up the waters."

But leadership in the world of international power politics is about making a stand. And, no, I'm not suggesting military intervention by the United States - a straw man argument used by the Left in defending Obama's timidity. I'm talking about simply expressing a much stronger condemnation of blatantly obvious voting fraud (something with which Obama should be intimately familiar from his Chicago days), while announcing clear and unambiguous support of "the efforts of the Iranian people to achieve freedom and democracy."

Instead, Obama continues to straddle the fence, proving once again that he either doesn't really have what it takes to be a true world leader, or, and perhaps even worse, he simply values his own political career more than he values the lives and freedoms of the Iranian people.

Nothing illustrates the extent of out of control Liberal Fascism as well as the recent obnoxious comment made by California's Barbara Boxer in an exchange with Brigadier General Michael Walsh.

Displaying her complete lack of understanding of all things military, the current holder of the "Dumbest Female in the Senate" title expressed annoyance that the general addressed her as "Ma'am" - apparently Ms. Boxer was not aware that all military personnel are trained to use this honorific, and that it is a gesture of genuine deference.

Now, when Ms. Boxer rudely interrupted the General to proclaim her majesty's annoyance at not being addressed as "Senator" (because she "had worked very hard to earn that title" you see), I wished the General would have said something like:

"Senator, you are obviously unaware that a member of the U.S. military addressing a woman as 'Ma'am' is a sign of respect, and furthermore, as a Brigadier General in the United States military, I would strongly suggest that I have worked far harder, and risked far more, to earn my title than you could possibly have done in obtaining yours."

The General, of course, behaved as the gentleman he is, and simply complied with her juvenile demand - like most members of the U.S. military, he has more class in his little finger than Ms. Boxer could ever hope to have under any circumstances.

This kind of temper-tantrum throwing is indicative of a much larger problem - the growing arrogance of the political class. These people suddenly seem to act as if they are royalty, and the rest of us peasants had damn well better get used to it.  Just look at video of oil company executives testifying before these preening peacocks - you'd have thought that the CEO's were the employees of the Senators.

And it is visible at all levels. Most of us are familiar with the haughty personnel at any government office (the driver's license bureau in any state is a good example), but now, even the staff of elected representatives are acting like martinets. Across the nation, constituents report of administrators who act annoyed that anyone should even dare to interrupt their (government mandated) coffee breaks.

Newsflash, Senators (and all the rest of you in government), you work for US - not the other way around. You are government PUBLIC SERVANTS, whose (excessive) salaries are paid by those of us who actually work for a living.

As for Ms. Boxer, I have nothing but contempt. That a sitting legislator should be so self-absorbed, so petty, and so consumed with narcissistic anxiety as to behave like some insecure adolescent is bad enough, but showing disrespect toward a man who has given his life in service to our country is simply inexcusable - it truly is time for a change.

No sooner had the Holocaust Museum shooting hit the news, than the media talking heads began speculating (dare I say, salivating?) over the possibility that "this incident might re-ignite the gun debate." But it didn't happen - and here's why.

When initial reports indicated that the shooter used a "long gun" (i.e. a rifle of shotgun), you could sense the excitement. Would the shooter's "weapon of choice" turn out to be one of those "scary guns," such as an AR15? Or an SKS? Oh, please, PLEASE let it be that Holy Grail of anti-gun news reporting, the AK-47! The press corps was giddy with anticipation.

Until they found out that the gun used was a weenie little 22 rifle - the same kind of gun that many of us learned to shoot at summer camp when we were 8 or 9 years old.

"Damn!" you could almost hear them grumble, "how are we going to demonize THAT?" Because, to the gun control true believers (of which there are many in the liberal press), "the gun" is to be feared more than the shooter himself, and a plain old 22 rifle just doesn't have the same "scare quotient" as one of those "military looking" guns.

But those of us familiar with firearms know that any gun can be used to kill - there is no such thing as a "good" or a "bad" gun. As a friend of mine who is a former member of the Israeli Defense Force put it, rational people "fear the terrorist, not the tool." Even the Marines rightly point out that "this is a rifle - the weapon is the Marine."

In any event, talking about "more gun control" for Washington D.C. is like advocating "more liberalism on NPR" - they already have the most repressive gun laws in the nation. Not only are NO residents allowed to carry a firearm for personal protection, but until the U.S. Supreme Court struck down their overreaching "safe storage" law in the Heller Case, citizens of our Nation's  Capitol could not even possess a working firearm in their own homes!

Additionally, regardless of any local laws, accused shooter James Von Brun was already a convicted felon, and thus prohibited by Federal Law from owning any gun. Not that such laws ever stop anyone from obtaining firearms, especially criminals. D.C. gang members routinely carry guns - D.C. has some of the highest violent crime rates in the nation. Even anti-gun Mayor Adrian Fenty admitted as much when he stated that "in these days and times you never know when anyone is going to grab a gun and use it in an inappropriate way."

Now, putting aside Mayor Fenty's obscenely Politically Correct choice of words in describing the senseless murder of a security guard as the "inappropriate" use of a gun, any reasonable person would respond to his comment with an astonished "Well, duh! Ya think?"

The recent upsurge in gun sales, spurred by many first time gun owners (including a growing percentage of women), is a clear indication that, unlike the mostly liberal media, when it comes to guns and crime, the American people get it.

The real issue is when, if ever, the anti-gun political and media classes are going to "get it."

When the attack on the Holocaust Museum was first reported, you could almost feel the fear in every reporter's voice. Since the target was a Jewish memorial, the culprit might logically be expected to be some sort of Muslim extremist, or even worse (for them) a "person of color."

But then the shooter turned out to be an old white guy, and better yet, a "white supremacist." Well, Hallelujah! It was a left-wing journalist's dream come true. And the propaganda floodgates opened.

On every network, those annoying panels of "experts" popped up like mushrooms (consisting almost exclusively of left-leaning pundits, of course). Furrowed brows required. Predictable at these hand-wringing sessions was the term "white supremacist" - repeated over and over with undisguised relish. Another buzz-phrase, "right-wing extremists" popped up almost as often.

But the big talking point was how this attack supposedly legitimized the recent Homeland Security memo warning of the "rise of right wing extremism" - the same report that basically accused every military combat veteran, pro-life advocate, and gun owner of being a potential domestic terrorist.

Following closely on the heels of the shooting of Dr. Tiller, a despicable late-term abortion doctor in Kansas, the Holocaust Museum shooting seemed like a gift from the (media) gods. Here, finally, was the "proof" validating the liberal paranoia about hordes of gun-toting "right-wing" (hint: Caucasian) males massing for an all out assault on the commonwealth.

Note that, like the press, the HS report did not see fit to even mention truly radical left-wing groups like ELF (the "Earth Liberation Front"), who have actually committed violent acts of domestic terrorism.

Now compare today's reporting with the coverage of the "Beltway Sniper" shootings in 2002. It was by any measure a far more deadly rampage, with more than a dozen people murdered. For weeks, the entire tri-state area around Washington D.C. was paralyzed with fear.

You may also remember that prior to the capture of the two men who carried out the attacks, all of the media "experts" predicted with complete confidence that the killer would surely turn out to be a "young, white, likely Christian male."

When the actual shooters turned out to be a pair of black men, a teenager and his older "mentor," well, damn, that presented a conundrum to more than a few in the press, who simply hate to publish stories in which the villains are "minorities" under any circumstances.  Note how often the press avoids giving physical descriptions of at-large suspects in rape cases (unless the rapists are white - in which case the description will be circulated with near hysterical abandon).

More to the point, in the Beltway Sniper case, the press did everything possible to downplay what was a very significant fact - that both men were recent converts to Islam. Now, in a world rife with Muslim extremists, such a discovery should elicit at least a modicum of curiosity from anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty.

But not our illustrious press. No discussion panels. No endless surmising as to the "larger significance" of the perpetrator's "Muslim connection." On the contrary, the press bent over backwards to dismiss the very idea that their religious affiliation had ANYTHING to do with their actions. Oh, no. Simply not possible. The result is that even today, few people remember that the killers were indeed Muslims.

This sort of selective reporting is not new. Most people recall the Unibomber as one of America's most famous home-grown terrorists, but very few know that he was a militant environmentalist, and that his targets were selected precisely because they offended his radical left-wing sensibilities.

But the mostly liberal press couldn't stand the thought of having to point out that ANYONE associated with the environmentalist movement (which they overwhelmingly support) was a vicious, murdering terrorist. So they dutifully skewed the coverage to paint the Unibomber as "anti-business" - a view the press also shares - and buried Mr. Kaczynski's real motivation: his radical, and unarguably left-wing, views.

Then there was the term "hate" - which was (excuse the expression) liberally sprinkled throughout the reporting on the Holocaust Museum attack, usually in connection with accusing anyone (especially a conservative talk show host) who criticizes the policies of the Obama administration of "encouraging" acts of violence. And being a racist, of course.

What utter nonsense - their has never been as much genuinely hateful rhetoric as is found on the American Left today. From David Letterman's vile remarks about Sarah Palin's daughter, to the the vicious rantings of MSNBC's left-wing media brown shirts Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow, the hate-filled commentary from the Left is relentless.

And that's just the TV media. If you want REAL hate, just check out the Daily Kos or MoveOn.org. where they routinely wish ill of anyone with whom they disagree, including expressing hope that their opponents "die a long and painful death."

But don't hold your breath waiting for the American press to begin doing anything approaching real reporting on violence-promoting left-wing organizations. It simply doesn't fit with their ideology. And in the mainstream media today, ideology trumps truth.

Every time...

On June 7th, the temperature in Duluth, Minnesota was the lowest reading in more than 100 years - in International Falls it was a bitter 27 degrees, an all-time record low for a June 7th, breaking the previous one set back in 1958. Worldwide, records now indicate that the earth has actually been cooling for at least the last 10 years.

Elsewhere in the environmental wars, it has become clear that the entire Ethanol scam is...well, just that, a scam. In addition to driving corn (and therefore, food) prices sky-high, and spending Millions (if not Billions) of taxpayer dollars to build nearly 200 ethanol plants, they now tell us that (Oops!) it costs more energy to produce a gallon of ethanol than the ethanol itself contains!

Ethanol doesn't even "reduce oil consumption" - since adding ethanol to petroleum based gasoline reduces your mileage, you are burning more total fuel to go the same distance, thus you end up using the same (or more) net amount of gasoline you did before!

Even more ironically, after a massive campaign to portray ethanol as "good for the environment,"  it turns out that ethanol production is extremely destructive of...the environment! Ethanol production not only removes valuable farmland from food production, it's manufacturing processes consume enormous amounts of precious water, and produce substantial waste.

So, why is the public not challenging the global warming hysterics? Oh, I forgot,  not long ago they cleverly changed their mindless chant from "global warming" to "climate change" -  making it possible to blame absolutely EVERY weather-related occurrence on human activity. And Ethanol is still being relentlessly promoted as the "environmentally responsible" thing to do.

In fairness, the tide does seem to be changing, at least a little bit - recent polls show that fewer and fewer Americans believe the radical environmentalist propaganda. And more and more people are concerned about the influence of the "Green" lobby on their lives.

But what I am really wondering about is when will the tipping point be reached where the majority of Americans demand an end to ever more intrusive governmental controls, especially when it is now being revealed that so many of these economically disastrous policies are based on data that is scientifically inaccurate, if not downright fraudulent.

Time will tell...

The human ability to adapt to our social environment was once a survival mechanism - 40,000 years ago it allowed our ancestors to endure famine, drought, and even the Ice Age. "Going along" with the tribe ensured that you remained under the protection of the group.

This tendency persists even today - psychologists and anthropologists have christened it the "cascade affect." It's what happens when any idea or viewpoint reaches the point where "most people" seem to share it ("global warming" for example) and to disagree with it is to risk "ejection from the tribe."

But while "adapting" had its advantages, all human progress has come from those who refuse to adapt - the mavericks who would not accept things as they were, but instead were willing to challenge the conventional wisdom.

Today, in a world of large and complex societies, mindlessly following the group can easily lead to a disturbing erosion of something arguably more important than life itself - personal liberty. Look how many people "just go along" with each new restriction on their freedoms.

OSHA, EPA, FDA, EEOC - the number of Federal regulatory agencies that didn't even exist a scant few decades ago should be enough to give any libertarian nightmares. And that's just the Feds. When you start going down the list of State and local bureaucracies that exert control over our lives, it is even more frightening.

Permits for this, licenses for that, "impact studies" for everything. In most states, you can't even put a gold-fish pond in your backyard without jumping through at least a dozen hoops (each with an attendant fee, of course).

Then there are the explosion of laws governing what used to be private behavior - smoking bans, seat-belt laws, motorcycle helmet laws, laws against leaf-burning, even laws restricting what foods you are "allowed" to eat.

And what do most people do? They simply shrug their shoulders (if they even think about it at all, that is) and just "go along" with the incremental growth of government control over their lives. Many seem unconcerned about relinquishing their freedoms, even eagerly trading them for the promise of "security" - usually in the form of some "safety net" or other (i.e. "free" healthcare).

Perhaps even worse are those who jump on the bandwagon, actually embracing each new governmental restriction on personal freedom because it's what people "should be doing" anyway.

Astonishingly, not only have we gotten to the point where the Obama administration has cavalierly plunged the country into a $2 TRILLION deficit, but we now have the United States government literally taking over private corporations  - banks, insurance companies, and automobile manufacturers (to, ahem, "save" them, you see).

And the response from the average citizen to this outrageous expansion of government power (not to mention debt that your grandchildren will still be paying off)?

Not a peep.

Instead of mass demonstrations in the streets, we have...apathy. Most folks seem disturbingly content to just sit back and let "the government" take care of things.

But liberty is worth fighting for - or at least, it used to be. One can only imagine what Patrick Henry would think, were he to see what his country has become...