AN EQUITABLE GLOBAL GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE ? Trick or Treat

"An equitable global governance structure" in yore future?

Ain't ya jes' delighted?







Does y'all know who jes' said that? Who laid out his organization's plan fer ya' in the good ole New Yawk Times? On Sunday, Oct 25th, in case ya missed the news last weekend.

Now, ain't that got a nice ring to it?



"An equitable global governance structure."


Say it a few times til ya git comfortable wif' it--cause they is so sure it's comin' --that they have the power and the compliance-- so they now say so right out loud in the Grey Hag.

Ain't y'all all been waitin' fer an equitable global government, cause, folks, "structure" means a sittin' government. An, ya know, to keep it equitable, thar' has to be a form of , ah, enforcement, right? only natural, ain't it? Wif' police and soldiers and the monitorin' of yore daily intake an' outputs.

Uh huh, Ban Ki-moon, the Secretary General of the United Nations invited ya to become a part of those whose vision of a peaceable eco-happy planet is an "equitable global governance structure."



The idea is decades old:

In their paper "The First Global Revolution" published by the Club of Rome, ya' can read their plan:

"In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.... All these dangers are caused by human intervention... The real enemy, then, is humanity itself."

Richard Haas, ( past pres of the Council on Foreign Relations) wrote:

"State sovereignty must be altered in globalized era," that a system of world government must be created and sovereignty eliminated in order to fight global warming, as well as terrorism. "Moreover, states must be prepared to cede some sovereignty to world bodies if the international system is to function," says Haass. "Globalization thus implies that sovereignty is not only becoming weaker in reality, but that it needs to become weaker. States would be wise to weaken sovereignty in order to protect themselves..."

Be afraid, be very afraid.

Of course, it is all over the news now wif' the climate change confab comin' in Copenhagen whar' the words global governMENT is actually in the draft--an' some of y'all might be tempted to dismiss it

Yore own Aunty was present a the UN meetin' on "global governance" fer the millennium ecstatic shudder as George Soros presented his own vision fer the "new world at the threshold of the third millennium." (member Soros? Yeah, the man tha gave AlGore 25 million fer his failed buyout of the White House...uh-huh, the same man who finances Moveon.org. The man who keeps the Obamatron on a diamond leash.


Aunty, pen poised, asked Soros an uncomfortable question and the microphone suddenly jerked upward an flew across the room to a Soros shill. The question he dodged?

"Sir, given your outline for a global governance system, how would the average citizen distinguish your plan from the one world government that some US Senators have described as a means to subordinate national sovereignty to the International Criminal Court and the World Trade Organization? "

Soros, who despises, an' seeks to destroy, the capitalist system that he done rode to multi-billion pinnacle, is a vicious anti-American thug. He masquerades as founder of the global "Open Society" brigade of financed/subsidized non-governmental organizations who all have top access at the UN.

(translation" the UN bows to Soros among other billionaires who detest freedom and free markets--like Maurice Strong, the architect of the UN's "Agenda 21 ":

"...current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class - involving high meat intake use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work-place air-conditioning, and suburban housing - are not sustainable. A shift is necessary. which will require a vast strengthening of the multilateral system, including the United Nations..." Maurice Strong , opening speech at the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development)

I make this point so y'all can see that the current comments of Ban Ki-moon in the NYT ain't nuthin' new--oh they's been workin' fer this for decades. Folks like TedTurner, also anti-American, have been a burrowin' away at the UN (Ted Turned financed the UN Foundation with a billion--yes with a B, billion) as the vehicle most likely to become the default global government structure.

Turner an' his band of global thugs pay off journalists to write glowing reports of the UN projects* --despite former Sec Gen Kofi Annan's admitted refusal to send military aid to prevent the Rwandan genocide, and his utter failure to prohibit rape by UN "peacekeepers." I ain't surprised--I meself was present at the Hague when the Blue Helmets beat the stuffin' out of a student journalist who wrote somethin' they din't like--so much fer free speech in the global government.

The UN's Millennium Goals were paraded on tablets through the concourses of the UN in an eerie parody of the ten commandments. Then copies were added to the ark that houses the Earth Charter--yep, an ark on poles jes' like on the Old Testament. (see photo to left)

“The real goal of the Earth Charter is that it will in fact become like the Ten Commandments.”

— Maurice Strong )

An' part of the "Earth Charter" ideology is returning much of the globe to its "natural" state, whar' animals ain't bothered by pesky humans. This is the public reason behind the "Wildlands Project" that will shoot to kill any human that violates a buffer zone between human habitats an the reclaimed animal habitats. Note that the red is the human" no-go" go zones--see them itty bitty green splotches? Thas' all thar'll be allocated fer humans.

Only problem is, to accomplish this American farm and ranchlands are to be confiscated, an' the US Forestry Dept tuned into bounty hunters. In the name of animal habitats, Americans will effectively be herded into urban and suburban "corridors"--all the better to monitor ya' ya see? Already the law requiring every DOMESTIC animal to have a RF chip has been proposed--meanin' no chicken or pig can be owned fer food wif' out gubmint say so.


Why would humans go along wif' such enslavement?

Because the UN promises universal sexual license. When the "authorities" unleash libidos people think they are "liberated," an' turn a blind eye to the erosion of true freedom. The UN, under the auspices of their Commission on the Status of Women (CSW), defends prostitution as legitimate "sex work" and proposes state/ global control of bordellos so that "workers" are medically examined for STDs an' have insurance an' pension benefits. Ain't that jes' ducky? Current estimates are that up to 4 million women worldwide are ensnared in prostitution.

Former pimps is now called "sextrepaneurs" an several countries rely on "sex tourism" to keep the state coffers filled--Australia done legalized its brothels in New South Wales, Australian Capital Territory, Queensland and Victoria. The rate of abuse and child prostituion has grown alarmingly, an' yet folks is told that the young girls is happy at this "profession." Mebbe yore daughter can be next, cause the UN is good wif' such "values" as worthy of global immitation. **

Already the UN has moved to lower the age of consent for children--meaning the UN has proposed that children as young as 13 be made bait for perverted predators. At the same time it decries "human trafficking" with a straight face. The distinction is "choice"--if youse kidnapped fer traffickin' it's a crime, but if a 50 year ole man offers a 14 year ole chile a pair of $200 nikes it is the child's "choice." Get it?

Wif' mah own eyes I seen at a major UN conference a giant painting of an African woman, bare knees drawn up, giving birth to a baby an' medical workers standin' at the ready with razors to decapitate the baby as it emerges--this is presented as " gender liberation" since pregnancy an birth is the doorway to poverty to third world women. The painting was part of a push for the universal "right" to abort at will. But the real goal is population control, as the UN estimates that the animals and plants of the earth would be better off is 5 billion people could be misted wif' DDT like human vermin...oh wait, DDT is denied to Africa in the name of the environment--how cleveah, since it insures that millions of Africans will die from malaria and other mosquito borne diseases.

But Peru doan have so many mosquitoes, an' fer that nation the UN "workers" shot women full of time released norplant so they cain't have no more Indian babies. The UN admits to this genocide, folks--it ain't anti-UN speech, it is an admission. Yep, an admission jes' like the Food fer Oil Scandal, whar' former Sec Gen of the UN Kofi Annan made a million bucks personally, his son another million--an nobody goes to jail--

these are the folks that Soros, and Strong and yep, Obama want to give control of the world. Obama favors all UN treaties. He want Americans tried in the International Criminal Court--and the ICC doan acknowledge yore Bill of Rights. Obama an his puppeteers think .07% of the wolrd's GDP must be paid to the UN so that they can maitain a vast army (yeah, like the ones that raped the Rwandan women an chillen's) .

A recap: The UN will have an multi-ethnic army, a world court, a world trade regulation board, has asked for control of the WWW, insists on population control, an will corral you in "urban zones", put radio chips in the ears of yore animals, an force nations to use only GMO seeds...in short, they will control every imaginable move you make, but what they will grant ya' is a "universal right to sexual pleasure."

Huh?

Yep, sportsfans, the UN akshully entertained a "right" to sexual pleasure as one of their enforced "universal rights" until a doctor at the negotiated session pointed out that there was no known means to measure what was pleasure for one vs. pain to another...so the measure was tabled until science of pleasure can be perfected.

These goons openly acknowledge that the opiate of post modern man is sex. Give the world sex an' the world will follow ya anywhar', even into global serfdom.

The "developed " world is divided into two main camps--the remains of the Judeo-Christian worldview, an' the dominate tribe of the new age -gnostics who use totalitarian means to being about their vision of an earthly utopia. Whatever yore religious belief--or none--be afraid of the new gnostics who control world events--they are convinced the "age of aquarius" favors their efforts to re-create the world in their image..even if they have to exterminate 5 billion people and enslave 950 million others to serve the remaining 50 million( as mimions or fer farmed body parts) who will enjoy the utopia they are building.

These folks honestly think that homo sapien can be "improved" if properly weeded out. Some are self professed Theosophists, others are part of the "transformational" movement. They say plainly (in meetings official, an' off record) that when a "citizen" has sufficient personal pleasure, food, shelter an' entertainment, then the word will be "peaceful." Thus the goal is to insure that "citizens" (not drones and serfs) have all that they need to be "peaceful."

Those who move nations and organizations, armies and multinational conglomerates to serve this agenda will earn their citizenship. But thousands more work to bring this agenda to fruition, thinkin' only that they's doin' good fer humanity. They's poor dupes, but they is very very dangerous cause' they's emotionally wedded to the idea of "the environment" .

Be afraid, be very afraid. The December Climate Change confab is comin' up in Copenhagen whar' the Obamatron done promised to sign over another chunk of yore sovereignty.

All this is movin' closer, ya see...so it warn't no risk fer Ban Ki-moon to make it plain in te NYT that an "equitable global governance structure" is comin' soon to a street corner near ya own house.

~~~~~


*IN A MAJOR VICTORY, NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO HAS REPRIMANDED ITS U.N. REPORTER, LINDA Fasulo, for taking money from the pro-U.N. lobby, including Ted Turner's U.N. Foundation.

** Prostitution is ontologically a form of violence. It feeds on violence and in turn amplifies it. Abduction, rape, submission - there are submission camps in a number of European countries, not only in the Balkans and in Central Europe, but also in Italy, where submission is called "schooling" - terror and murder are still the midwives and outriders of this industry ; they are essentially not only for market development, but also for the "manufacture" of the "goods" as they contribute to making prostituted people "functional" - this industry demands total availability of the body. A study of street prostituted people in England established that 87% of them had been victims of violence during the past 12 months ; 43% were suffering the consequences of serious physical abuse. (4) A research study in Chicago showed that 21.4% of women working as escorts and exotic dancers had been raped more than 10 times. An American study in Minneapolis showed that 78% of prostituted people had been victims of rape by pimps and customers, on average, 49 times a year. 49% had been the victims of abduction and had been transported from one state to another and 27% had been mutilated. (5) I could multiply the data generated by field studies.

What I want to emphasize here is that the women and children who are the objects of trafficking for the purpose of prostitution as well as the vast majority of prostituted people, have very often been subjected to violence. A large number of them are supplied to the market on a "turnkey" basis : "Any woman can be broken in 10 days and turned into a prostitute", in the words of the Bulgarian manager of a rehabilitation centre (6). Their abduction by traffickers of all kinds, who become their owners, their "commodification" - human beings metamorphosed into "goods" that are sold on the sex market -, their depersonalization, and then their consumption demand the rape of their humanity and require violence. The violence to which prostituted people are subjected is multiple and often unspeakable, indescribable. Violence is intrinsic to prostitution : the commodification and merchandising are aimed at forcing the sexes to submit to the satisfaction of the sexual pleasure of others. The second is also inherent : a person becomes prostituted as a result of sexual, physical, psychic (in 90% of cases, according to a range of studies), social and economic violence. The third is linked to the expansion of prostitution and to the ensuing deterioration of the conditions to which prostituted people are subjected : "The customer has no further hesitation about being increasingly violent towards the prostitute and today she must be extremely vigilant", claims Chant, of the Bus des Femmes, an association established in Paris over a decade ago by former prostituted people. (7)

Obamatrons vs. Patriotism

IF ya was revolted by them poor wee kids in school bein' made to chant in worship of Obama, heah's a reminder of what we do owe our loyalty to:

Summer Sex Wars (or why gender matters)

I hate this topic. De-test it.


Ain't shure why I'se gonna post on it, but tangential to assignments, I'se havin' to revisit the obvious that has eluded most of the modern public. By which I mean the educational establishment and pollyticks. Since I'se stuck wif' it, so's the Back Porch.

Sex is so natural ya'd think folks wouldn't have to think too long on the whys and wherefores--but modern life and false assumptions has ruined it such that today very few folks is reporting "happy" love life.

Take the summer sex wars as jes' one example.



TIME and NEWSWEEK battled it out, the former wif' a piece, "Is there hope for the American marriage?" by Caitlan Flanagan-- the NEWSWEEK piece is a silly flip page on polyamory. The venerable Atlantic featured a post-feminst whine, "Let's Call the Whole Thing Off," a marriage therapy diary by tongue an' tell journalist Sandra Tsing Loh, whose personal journey mimics the dull misery of most liberal metrosexuals.

Mebbe ya heard how arch-feminist Naomi Wolf an' nemesis Phyllis Chesler sparred over when/ why women should or should not wear the Chador.

I tell ya' it is a tempest jes' barely less than health care reform--an in the long run, may be more important.

Ain't no wonder I has a three week headache.

First, folks, the research is long, voluminous, an' jives wif' known human experience fer 10,000 years: people are happiest when they grow up bein' a natural male or natural female, git hitched, have babies who grow up male or female an' git hitched an' has babies who grow up....

But post moderns in luhve wif' trendy genderologies have railed now fer over a decade; they ain't happy now that they got it all: the career, liberated morals, the *domesticated house-husband*, the designer baby, and the house at the Hamptons. Somebody had better pay. The post-feminist acid ire is corrodin' the inner sanctums of the girlz -in-the-know.

The historical purpose fer feminism was to git the vote for other half of humanity (though they ain't done so good wif' it), insure that women-folks git edoocated as they wanted, would be paid fairly fer similar work when said work was done by menfolks ( a bookkeeper is a bookkeeper, not more accurate accordin' to their genetic plumbing).

The purpose fer feminism as ideology ain't to pretend that gender doan matter. Oh it matters, all right.


Why would anyone think the moon and the sun was interchangeable?

The attempt to domesticate the boy/ man has made life a livin' hell for many of its victims, male or female. Genders ain't interchangeable. It doan matter how ya try to spin it, socialize it, twist, push or pull it, it still matters. Nature made men and women fer sex, an' messin' up the men wif' femininizin' agendas ain't wrought nuthin' but angst at best, monsters at worst.

Men should be men, not "male kitchen bitches" as one disgruntled "power-sharing" modern metrosexual wifey wrote. De-sexed roles negate actual gender differences an' then we's surprised when team members is injured in that very significant way?

The menfolks is watchin' the Wrathful Wimmen Show.

James Rainey in the L.A. Times criticized Loh fer her view of married men as "domesticated sexless drones." Over at MensNewsDaily.com the froth was dismissed as Loh's "mewling" about modern married men as sexless competitor wives--a problem unique to the liberal rich. Not a few have noted the rise ( heh) of male enhancement ads at the very time that women, even women as old as 60, act like teen teases, an' digital footsie is universally available. Clearly somethin' ain't workin' right. Easy virtue ain't an aphrodisiac after all? Who knew?


The ole folks knew.


Enter Ms. Wolf in her newly found Chador. It's liberatin,' says the curvy iconic feminist--why, daon ya know it shields her "mystery." Ah.

We used to call it modest suggestiveness. Ya know, soft dress that clung whar' it oughta, but covered enough fer the poor fella to desire to uncover. I'se wif' those who say Wolf has lost it on this point--to a degree-what she is discoverin' is that some modesty ENHANCEs the mystery between men and wimenfolks. (But ain't no need to abuse wimmen by lockin' 'em up in 16 yards of shroud.)

In short, marriage as lived in the post-feminist model is makin' men an' women jes' plain miserable. The menfolks flee to the cyber siren, the liberated an' the desperate housewives "calls the whole thing off" as Loh did. But on her way out Loh threw a "retrograde!" jab at Flanagan who simply (despite bein' a liberal) said the obvious: traditional marriage and traditional roles are the recipe fer marital satisfaction. This is not to preclude a woman having a career, or Dad changin' junior onc't in awhile-- but it does mean that said wife's career necessarily steals time and energy from legitimate wifely roles--an the attempt to shift those roles permanently onto men eventually backfires-he woan do it the way a woman would, then the woman gits aggravated, an' the unravelin' begins between the "competitor wives."

A pop novel tells it all: I'd rather Eat Chocolate reviewed in The Atlantic recounts some of the raw pain of modern couples whar' the husband prefers porn an' the wife prefers chocolate. This is what feminist ideology has done fer us?

Which brings me to our fellow (ahem! She's a her) blogger, Foamy. She has one (Sept. 8 ) hilarious post up on some freak idea of threadin' a wire up yore spine, it's attached to a remote control--jes give yore ownself a jolt of libidinous excitement whenever ya please. Well well...narcissism reaches new heights. The Tomorrow File arrives.

Feminism has indeed given us Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture. Which takes us back to Ms. Wolf who at least got one thang right when she wrote about Feminism and the Male Brain

What the world now is women, not feminists.
*
*
*

What else needs to be known?

This would be so hilarious iffin' it warn't too true--the idjit doan even know what a fool he is.

BTW, please see last comment, on previous post, written by Malinda--it is very important info.

Hotel California

Congressman Tom McClintock from California explains how California went from a fantastic state to the basket case it is now, and cautions the Federal Government that is doing the same things.
Congressman Tom McClintock offered remarks in Washington, D.C., on Friday to the Competitive Enterprise Institute and Pacific Research Institute that clearly illustrates why California is facing such a large fiscal mess. His beginning joke is so funny because it is so true:

Said Congressman Tom McClintock of California:

"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."

( audience laughs)

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 deja-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 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 populatio n 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 into 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 canceled the state's highway construction program, abandoning many routes in mid-construction. He canceled 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 segm ents 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 th e state to run a temporary deficit in the event of an economic downturn - 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 handpicked 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 sho pkeeper, 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 re venues 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=2 0public 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 s tate 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 was20I; 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.

Gov snatched your computer--did ya know?

hope none of y'all fell fer the clunker thang--cause mebbe youse now a victim of the government snoopin' in yore life---unbelievable.




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAOBlqUqUZ8

HOW LONG DO WE HAVE?

From a lawyer friend:

How Long Do We Have?

About the time our original thirteen states adopted their new constitution in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh , had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years earlier:

'A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government.'

'A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.'

'From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury,

with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.'

'The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years'

'During those 200 years, those nations always progressed through the following sequence:

1. From bondage to spiritual faith;

2. From spiritual faith to great courage;

3. From courage to liberty;

4. From liberty to abundance;

5. From abundance to complacency;

6. From complacency to apathy;

7. From apathy to dependence;

8. From dependence back into bondage'

Professor Joseph Olson of Hemline University School of Law, St. Paul , Minnesota , points out some interesting facts concerning the 2000 Presidential election:

Number of States won by: Democrats: 19 Republicans: 29

Square miles of land won by: Democrats: 580,000 Republicans: 2,427,000

Population of counties won by: Democrats: 127 million Republicans: 143 million

Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Democrats: 13.2 Republicans: 2.1

Professor Olson adds:

'In aggregate, the map of the territory Republican won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of this great country. Democrat territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off variousforms of government welfare...'

Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the 'complacency and apathy' phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population already having reached the 'governmental dependency' phase.

If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal invaders called illegals and they vote, then we can say goodbye to the USA in fewer than five years.

If you are in favor of this, then by all means, delete this message. If you are not, then pass this along to help everyone realize just how much is at stake, knowing that apathy is the greatest danger to our freedom.

PASS THIS MESSAGE ON

*

*