Once again, MSNBC talking head (i.e. Democrat partisan hack) Chris Mathews betrayed his hysterical liberal bent. He practically blew a gasket over the fact that a protester at a New Hampshire townhall meeting was a legal handgun carry permit holder, and that he was...legally carrying a handgun.

Of course he would be fearful of a normal citizen being armed - Chris Mathews, like most liberals, sees the mere presence of "the gun" as a threat (unless they are guns carried by paid bodyguards protecting "important" people like, well, Chris Mathews).

Laughably, Mathews asked him if it was loaded - the New Hampshire man pointed out the stupidity of the question when he asked Chris what kind of idiot would carry an UN-loaded gun.

But Mathews would not be calmed - or deterred. Railing on about the "history of America and people who bring guns to presidential forums" (the permit holder did not enter the forum - he stayed outside the entire time) Mathews could barely contain himself. What was even more revealing was that the more calmly and rationally the permit holder fielded the attacks, the more apoplectic Mathews became.

Mathews desperately tried to corner him over the poster the man brought, which was a partial quote from Thomas Jefferson regarding his famous statement that "from time to time the Tree of Liberty must be watered with the blood of both patriots and tyrants" - coming close to accusing the man of being a potential presidential assassin, simply because he carried a gun...and a sign. Talk about profiling!

The best thing about the current meltdown of the Left in full view of the public is that more and more people, especially those mushy moderates, are seeing who modern liberals really are. And the picture isn't flattering.

It has become increasingly clear that these neo-fascists want to control virtually every aspect of your life - what you eat, what you drink, what kind of car you drive, what kind of light bulbs you use, where you live, how you live, you name it. And more than anything else you do, they want to control your ownership of firearms - the Left absolutely HATES that you own guns.

So, I have a warning for my gun-owning Democrat friends - your party is bound and determined to do everything in their power to restrict, restrain, inconvenience, tax, and otherwise infringe on your ability to defend yourself.

They cannot take away your right of self-defense - the right to protect yourself, your family, and your neighbor existed long before there was a Constitution, or even before there was a Magna Carta. Nearly every culture, from the most modern to the most primitive, recognizes self-preservation as a fundamental human right.

But what they can do is make it virtually impossible for you to EXERCISE that right - by denying you legal access to the most effective tool available for that task, a firearm. Not directly, mind you, as in outright bans, but by ever more insidious regulations and restrictions - they are doing it right now, behind closed doors.

And when you wake up one day and wonder where your freedoms went, just don't say we didn't warn you...

In a desperate attempt to demonize anyone who opposes Obama's takeover of the nations health care system, one of the "useful idiots" (Carlos Watson) at MSNBC suggested that the mere use of the word "socialist" is "code" for racial hatred of Obama.

Oh, please.

I hate to break the news to you, but the only thing the term "socialist" is code for is...SOCIALIST. Now, we understand that in the world of the SOCIALIST staff at MSNBC, it is impossible to accept that real, normal Americans do not share their goal of turning America into a Marxist nightmare. But instead of dealing with the substance of the opponents' objections, the Obama faithful try to portray disagreement with ANYTHING put forth by the President as occurring because he is black (OK, half-black).

Sorry, but real Americans oppose the SOCIALIST ideas of Nancy Pelosi, the SOCIALIST ideas of Barney Frank, and yes, the SOCIALIST ideas of Barak Obama because SOCIALISM is a vile, despicable, and failed ideology, and one which would destroy the very free-enterprise system that has made America the most successful nation in the history of the planet.  The race, religion, or sex of the SOCIALIST is utterly irrelevant.

But then, they know that - they simply hope that repeating the accusation of racism over and over again will eventually intimidate enough people to the point that many of you would rather keep quiet than risk being labeled a racist.

And they have good reason to believe in the strategy - after all, they are well aware of the fact that a fair number of people voted for Omama for no other reason than that they didn't want think of themselves as not "embracing diversity."

Aaaah, "diversity" - now THERE is a code word if ever there was one....

Nancy Pelosi and others in the Democrat Politburo are now slandering voters who belong to their own party, likening them to Nazi's and calling them "un-American" - simply because these ordinary citizens showed up at townhall meetings and dared to question the "Commissars" about a monstrously expensive and bureaucratic government takeover of the health care industry.

Meanwhile, Rahm Emanuel and his political thugs are working feverishly to counteract the growing backlash, setting up bogus townhall meetings for Barak Obama where he can field soft-ball questions from hand-picked audiences, including a pre-teenish girl whose "question" was as scripted as it was silly (oh, who, by the way, just HAPPENS to be the daughter of a major Obama contributor).

Perhaps the most illuminating was the exchange between turncoat Republican-turned-Democrat Arlen Specter and, ironically, a roomful of angry Democrats and Republicans. Not surprisingly, Specter displayed the hopeless disconnect with the American people which has become the hallmark of too many career politicians of both parties.

The American people are slow to anger, but when they see not merely incompetence, but unbelievable stupidity combined with outright deception and lies, they react the way you would expect them to - they are outraged.

Then again, maybe this is exactly "what the Doctor ordered" to jerk the uninvolved off their couches...and into the streets, the meeting halls, and the offices of their elected officials. And it's about time. But hey, better late than never. So to Barak, Nan, Rahm, Arlen, and the rest of you neo-socialists, I say:

Keep it up...PLEASE keep it up.

Because 2010 is coming faster than you think...

Well, the gloves are off. Obama's Brown Shirts are now attempting to bust up townhall meetings across the country. In Florida, Missouri, Detroit, and elsewhere, the party of "peace" and "sensitivity" is showing their true (red?) colors.

You thought we were exaggerating when we told you that Obama and his radical Democrat comrades were nothing more than fascists in "progressive" clothing. But the events of the last few days leave little doubt that the Democratic party is currently being run by nothing more than political thugs.

I know something about thugs - I grew up in Chicago, the home of the most infamous mobster of all time, Al Capone. My father played cards with George "Bugs" Moran. But Chicago is also the adopted home of Barak Obama, soon to become the most infamous President of all time, not only for destroying the Democratic party, but for attempting to turn America into nothing less than a socialist gulag.

Think "gulag" is too strong a word? Tell me, when in your lifetime have you seen union goons attacking American citizens, not for attempting to cross a picket line, but for simply demanding answers from their elected representatives?

Liberals are fond of throwing out the term "Nazi" at every turn - then again, as Shakespeare observed, "methinks he doth protest too much." Because it has become abundantly clear that the real Nazi's today are almost invariably on the Left - "speech codes" on campuses, smoking bans, trans-fat bans, onerous regulations on everything and everyone. And of course, it is the Left who has relentlessly pushed for more and more Gun Control - yet another favorite of the original Nazis (ask the Jews how that worked out).

And now we have the final straw - open warfare on the American democratic process, at the very time that our own "Prince Harry" dares to accuse the folks who show up at townhall meetings of (are you ready?) "interfering with the democratic process." Apparently, in the world of Obama and Bill Ayers, only leftists are allowed to express disagreement with their government's policies.

We have commented before on the overbearing, arrogant, elitist liberals who think they know what's best for you. Now they are showing you what they are prepared to DO to you. And at this point, even "mushy" moderates who thought it would be "cool" to have a black president are beginning to recognize who the real "nazis" are.

And they will not go quietly to the "ovens" - why do you think so many of them are buying guns?

The veil has been lifted on the Liberal Fascists - their disdain for all of you serfs who don't seem to "know your place" is now on display. For nearly a decade we've watched Democrats excusing, if not openly supporting, the legions of filthy, foul-smelling, feces-throwing, window-breaking, paid Left-Wing protesters. Hilary Clinton even had the audacity to suggest that such anarchy was "the highest form of patriotism."

But that was then - today, we have neo-Marxists like Barbara Boxer taking umbrage at the mere fact that some of you regular (unpaid) citizens dare, DARE, to show up at a (contrived) town hall meeting, and...demand answers from your elected representatives. And in what was perhaps the most laughable example of liberal elitism, Ms. Boxer complained that "you people" (unlike her unwashed left-wing constituents) were TOO WELL DRESSED!

Ms. Boxer seems to forget that when loony leftists "protest" they do not merely ask questions in an angry voice - they do everything possible to "shout down" speakers, they break things, they vandalize the offices of ANY institution they find offensive to their liberal sensibilities, they riot. Remember the "protests" over the WTO? Millions of dollars worth of damage.

Even worse, Ms. Boxer and friends immediately flooded the airways with slickly produced propaganda commercials claiming that these groups of citizens were "manufactured" by "right wing talk shows." Talk about the pot calling the kettle black - just about EVERY left-wing group that shows up anywhere is either paid by an uber- liberal "foundation" or is hooked up with some Marxist agitation group like ACORN.

Even here in the land of "Minnesota Nice," during the Republican Convention we were subjected to Che-Guevera wannabes obstructing traffic, throwing bags of urine, and otherwise making a nuisance of themselves. And where did many of these trouble-makers come from? California, Washington State, and other liberal enclaves - free transportation included, of course.

Meanwhile, can you cite a single incident of "angry right wing" protesters committing acts of violence at the Democratic Convention? Of course not. Where are the "right wing" counterparts of the eco-terrorists and animal rights whackos, who perform acts of arson to "express" their views? There aren't any.

But, as usual, the Obamamedia jumped at the chance to portray all of you as illegitimate - furrowed brows prevailed as the various talking heads fed Democrat "spokespersons" soft-ball questions about where all this anger is "really" coming from. And they obviously all got the same directive from their bosses at the Democratic Party - within minutes of each other, a dozen "journalists" all obediently mouthed the phrase "Brooks-Brothers activists" to describe you.

But perhaps the most chilling comment came from Obama himself. In what was frighteningly like Orwell's world of "1984" (or any modern Marxist state like Cuba) the President of the United States asked that American citizens "inform the government" if any of you express opinions and views that sound "fishy" - he wants your neighbor to snitch on you. If THAT comment doesn't cause you to rethink your support for an Administration and a party that are racing to plunge us headlong into dictatorial socialism, then I don't know what will.

No, not car dealers - we're talking about GUN dealers. And they don't need a bogus "Cash for Clunkers" program to "stimulate" sales, either. That's because the one area of the economy that has continued to go gang-busters is the market for guns and ammunition.

As we've reported before, since the '08 election, millions of Americans, many of whom never owned guns before, have been flocking to local dealers to buy handguns, shotguns, rifles - you name it. Certain firearms, such as AR-15s and other military style rifles, are flying off the shelves so fast that dealers often have to put people on a waiting list. And the boom has continued.

Contrary to the media portrayal of gun owners as "rural" types, gun owners come in all ages, sexes and colors - and these new gun buyers are no different. There appear to be several reasons for the uptick in sales. Naturally, part of the demand, especially when it comes to ammunition, is from existing gun owners, many of whom keep close tabs on the political situation, and were quick to see the threat that a Democratic majority would pose. So they're stocking up on ammo.

Then there are the new gun owners, people who didn't have anything against guns, but never actually got around to buying one - they, too, looked at the anti-gun bias of the incoming administration, and realized that if they were going to buy a gun, now would be the time.

One segment of the market that has seen especially strong growth is younger women - they are buying handguns, signing up for training, and often getting permits to carry handguns for self-defense. It is no longer unusual to find women in gun stores, perusing the merchandise and asking about the comparative merits of a 9MM Glock versus a 357 Smith and Wesson.

Another thing that may be driving some of the demand is fear - gun dealers tell us that as the economy worsens, some folks have expressed a genuine concern about social unrest, or even riots, should things get as bad as they were during the Great Depression.

Regardless of the reasons, the fact is that in the middle of some of the worst economic times in more than thirty years, one industry is booming. Now, this should be quite a story - and were such dynamic growth taking place in any other segment of the economy, it would be.

But don't expect MSNBC or any of the other Obamamedia outlets to give it any serious coverage of this rather interesting phenomenon. They can't - for to do so would require them to also report the primary reason for the dramatic surge in gun and ammunition sales: Obama himself.

In the la-la world of the economically illiterate socialist, any government program is a "success" for no other reason than that lots of people sign up for it. Never mind that the Cash for Clunkers program is a classic "rob Peter (taxpayers) to pay Paul (auto buyers)" scheme - all that matters is that a certain number of people get in line for their government check. Gee, Martha, what did you expect - "free" money!

Now, if the Obama administration, and Democrats in general, had ANY understanding of economic realities, they would have offered an income tax CREDIT to everyone who bought a new car. THAT would have been a genuine stimulus. Right now, we are simply taking money from one tax payer and writing a check to another (the car buyer) with a net increase in private capitol of...zero.

With a tax credit, on the other hand, you would have allowed the purchasers to keep more of their OWN money, increasing the amount of private capital in the economy. The $8000 housing credit for new home buyers is a good example, and the only thing Obama and friends got right - don't tell them, though, or they'll likely repeal it!

But you see, there's a (political) problem with such economically sensible policies - tax credits don't help the 40% of American workers who already don't pay any income tax, because they have nothing to apply a credit to anyway (and since most of these free-loaders voted for Obama...).

Which is precisely why today's Democrats resist tax cuts - real, substantive tax cuts don't normally visibly benefit their primary constituency, the lower income voter (I know, I know, cutting taxes on "the rich" and corporations DOES benefit the poor immensely in terms of job creation, but most Democrat voters don't get that - if they did, they wouldn't BE Democrats).

And in any event, no government give-away program put forth by Democrats has anything to do with promoting growth and prosperity - it has to do with buying votes from the poor. The sooner you realize this, the better you will understand the long term strategy of the neo-socialists who currently control both the White House and the U.S. Congress - creating a permanent majority of non-tax-paying Democrat voters, by TAKING from those who achieve and giving to those who don't.

As usual, the far Left has used carefully crafted language to obfuscate the entire debate about...oops, I almost fell for it - using the misleading term "healthcare." Because the issue is not, and never has been "healthcare" - the medical treatment of patients. Nor is it about that old stand-by "access to medical care." EVERYBODY in America has access to ANY medical care that they desire - the real issue is:

WHO IS GOING TO PAY THE BILL.

Talk to anyone who has a complaint about American medicine and you will find that it always comes down to something like: "well, yes, we have excellent medical care in America...BUT it's so expensive." Unlike any other service or product in life, when it comes to their medical bills, a huge percentage of people now seem to think that someone else should pay. Which of course makes them easy dupes of the neo-socialists that make up the majority of today's Democratic Party, and who are more than willing to "prescribe" BIG GOVERNMENT as the cure for whatever ails you.

The problem is that whenever the cost of ANY product or service is paid by someone other than the "end user" (i.e., the patient), then demand (and price) inevitably increase. And, thanks in great part to the mandate that Doctors treat everyone who walks through the door, whether they pay or not, the cost of all this "free" medical service is passed on to...you and me. Or to our insurance company - same difference.

Imagine if every car repair business was required BY LAW to "treat" the automobile of every person who came in, whether or not they had the ability, or even the intention, of ever paying. Obviously, before too long the price of an oil change would go to $100, a new transmission would be $9000, and ANY repair would be double or triple what it is today. They would have no choice - they have to make up the losses somewhere, and those of us who pay cash or have a warranty (i.e. your car's "medical insurance") would see our costs soar.

Now imagine that in addition to having the "fix it or else" policy for car shops, we insituted Medi-CAR - government reimbursement to the shops for auto repairs made on cars owned by people "too poor" to afford warranties (insurance), or to pay for them out-of-pocket. The government would (just as in Medicare) control the amount of payment that the car repair shop would receive for each service provided. And, just as in the case of Medicare, the Medi-CAR payment would likely never come close to the amount the repairs would normally be worth.The result? When you and I go in to have the same or similar repairs, we will be charged far MORE than we were when everyone paid their own bills.

Now, there are a lot of other reasons that medical care costs a lot more today (in adjusted dollars) than it did 50 years ago, including the simple fact that we have developed wonderfully effective (and proportionately expensive) diagnostic tools like CAT scans and MRI's. There are the rampant lawsuits against Doctors, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, you name it - and when an anesthesiologist has to pay $300,000 a year just for malpractice insurance, who do you think ends up paying for it?

One of the biggest problems is the overbearing intrusive meddling by government in the health insurance industry.  Because when the government starts dictating what insurance companies must cover, whether the customer wants it or not, it forces insurers to raise premiums for everyone.

And we haven't even touched on the problem of 12 million illegal aliens and THEIR impact on the health care system...

All of these things drive up the cost, at least that is, for those of us who actually pay our own medical bills, whether out-of-pocket, or because we have purchased insurance to make sure we will be able to meet our obligations.

And that brings us to the real issue - paying for the services we use. Face it - the simple fact is that your medical bills are YOUR obligation. Not mine, not your neighbors down the street - but YOURS. Just imagine if we actually had a competitive system of delivering health care as we do in, say, LASIK eye surgery - since LASIK is not covered by most insurance plans, people have the incentive to comparison shop. And the result? Costs have plummeted - down from $6000 to less than a $1000, all thanks to competition.

A similar system for all health care services, including drugs, would see quality care at genuinely affordable pricing - because people would actually SHOP for the best care at the best price. Just last month, I needed a crown for one of my teeth. Since I do not have dental insurance, I did what any smart consumer does - I shopped around. And guess what? One clinic wanted over $1300 for the entire two-visit procedure, while another, staffed with just as many qualified dentists, and using all of the same equipment (I looked) agreed to do the entire procedure for $835 - with an unlimited free replacement guarantee. Sale made. And I'm not only happy with the work - I have $500 left in my bank account.

THAT is what a (truly) free market produces. Heck, is there the slightest doubt that WAL-MART could do an infinitely better job of delivering higher quality health care services at far more competitive prices that ANY government bureaucracy? (Hint: If you would actually trust the government more than you would a well-run American company like WAL-MART, you are already well on the road to becoming a socialist "useful idiot" anyway).

We have already seen that the more government gets involved in subsidizing (and regulating) anything, the more expensive it becomes. Now we have Medicare and Medicaid at the Federal level, and numerous taxpayer-funded subsidies for medical care at the state level, all of which dumps more money into the health services market. Yet no matter how much each new government program drives up costs and lowers the quality of care, today's liberal socialists always prescribe MORE government, not less.

And spare me the canard about healthcare being a "right" - you already have a right to any health care you can pay for. What you really mean is "I have a right to have my health care bills paid by my fellow Americans." We don't even talk about FOOD as a right, even though that while it is possible to go years, even decades, without ever seeing a doctor, you can't go more than a week without food.

True, we have a voucher system for the truly indigent (food stamps), but we do not for a moment believe that everyone has the "right" to lobster or filet mignon that is paid for by the tax payers. Yet when it comes to health care bills, that is exactly what the socialists demand - "filet mignon" health care for everyone, even the bottom 40% of people who pay NO INCOME TAXES AT ALL.

Come to think of it, a voucher system for the truly poor (not the millions of Americans who make over $50,000 a year but choose to not have insurance) could work remarkably well - they could shop for the best coverage at the best price, and insurance companies, having to compete for their dollars, would keep prices competitive. And, in a truly free market (not the quasi-government regulated mess we have now), insurance companies and patients would be able to keep doctors and hospital prices in check.

But none of this will work as long as people know they can waltz into any emergency room and walk out without paying, or sign up for Medicare (or the equivalent state program) and have you and me pay their bills.

When will we ever learn....

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.