Posted on 10/17/2006 3:41:21 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
If we have lost anything in this country, it is our sense of what is important in a political election.
Recently, in California’s election race, Oakland Mayor [and former Governor], Jerry Brown, called Chuck Poochigian an extremist because State Senator Poochigian believes in the Constitution.
Mayor Brown is a very smart and experienced politician. Obviously, he thought his accusation would get him votes. That is very frightening. An electorate that doesn’t soundly reject any politician who advocates ignoring the Constitution, expanding government power, and diminishing freedom is in serious trouble. In so many ways, California is in serious trouble.
Quite frankly, there are just too few voters whose decision on issues and politicians are driven by protection of the fundamental American value of freedom.
Of course, a lot of politicians invoke that value in political discussions to justify their political positions. Unfortunately, in California, fewer and fewer politicians believe that they need to use their defense of freedom as a reason to vote for them. Like Brown, they just invoke some obscure fear as a reason for government expansion. The people then vote for him over someone, like Senator Poochigian, who will actually defend freedom and the Constitution.
There are bigger things to fear. Like an all powerful government.
In the last week, Secretary of State records revealed that the League of California Cities gave over $2.5 million to oppose Proposition 90. When the contributions from the California State Association of Counties ($400,000) and the California Redevelopment Association ($300,000) are added to the totals, the contributions to the No on 90 campaign from government supported organizations totals over $3.2 million. In addition, the list of donors includes a laundry list of private organizations who make money off of big government, either as government vendors (such as lawyers, trash collectors, and street improvement contractors) or beneficiaries of the use of government powers (such as the developers who use eminent domain to take your property so they can pay less money for their development projects).
Almost $5 million has been collected by the opposition.
The question is: how did they get that money? How are the League, CSAC, and the CRA able to raise $3.2 million to contribute to a political campaign, when they a consortium of local government entities? They say the money is “nonpublic” funds, but how can that be? Are there private individuals whose favorite charities are lobbying organizations for government? Or, are these just our taxes, laundered through some complicated scheme, into the campaign? Are those private organizations who are contributing to oppose property rights in California getting preferential treatment from these governments for helping to protect the power of these governments? Or are they being forced to pay the money under threat of being denied some government permit to do business? The whole thing stinks.
The former Soviet Union used to have elections, complete with campaigns. The people were told they were free because they had a Constitution and elections, but the courts ignored the Constitution and the government hijacked the elections. If anyone had the audacity to challenge the existing power structure, they were first vilified, and then jailed.
In California today, our courts routinely ignore our constitutionally guaranteed rights, such as property rights. And government uses our own tax dollars to vilify anyone who deigns to challenge the inappropriate assertion of government power, like those who support Proposition 90
Why should freedom be the overriding value in our political choices? Unless we vigilantly defend and preserve freedom, evil things like government trying to hijack elections, will continue to occur. The campaign against Proposition 90 has exposed this evil. The only question is whether we will heed the warnings, or succumb to an all powerful government.
Aren't journalists supposed to ask the questions?
Spending public money.
To defeat a proposition to limit government excess.
Paid to an increasingly failing MSM.
Thereby helping keep MSM afloat.
Which neverendingly promotes the spending public money.
Sounds like a perpetual cycle.
Antidisestablishmentarianism.
There is a great article on my bookmarks page about Red China documenting how much easier it is to start a business there than in the United States.
The Conservancy has established control over some relatively small parcels in the San Gabriels immediately above La Canada, adjacent to the Angeles National Forest, and in the Verdugos. They have been the prime movers behind the "Rim of the Valley Corridor", which, if implemented, would give them effective control of all undeveloped land in the Verdugs, the San Rafaels, and portions of La Tuna Canyon.
Prop. 90 would drive this particular group of proto-totalitarians nuts.
D1, see post #44.
Thanks for the note. I appreciate it.
How do you like this attempt to make it look like the Santa Monica Conservency is part of the government of the State of California?
http://smmc.ca.gov/
Check out the map on this site. In truth, I don't think the map shows all their land, but it's a good start.
http://www.lamountains.com/parks_search.asp
The federal and state lands angle is important here. I don't know what the actual status of these lands is. Is the federal government granting these lands to the consevancies? Is it granting them the funds to purchase these and or other land tracts? Is it merely using these NGOs to manage public lands?
It's amazing how many land conservancies there are out there.
I first became aware of them when they became owners of Solstice Canyon, one of my favorite places to hike, especially in May when the yucca are in bloom. It's a lovely, lovely place.
But, as I said, I tuned out since then -- @ 10 years ago -- as to their activities, although I believe they had something to do with Streisand's transfer of her Malibu lands.
Yes, it is not clear how much land they OWN and how much they "MANAGE." And who is the owner of the lands they manage?
I've known of The Nature Conservancy for 20 years. They have purview of a LOT of land in Arizona, and quite a bit in CA, including the Anza-Borrego wilderness.
Conservation groups protect bighorn sheep habitat near Anza-Borrego Desert State Park
The Anza-Borrego Foundation purchased the land from a private seller for $221,000 with The Nature Conservancy providing $100,000 in grant funds. The Foundation plans to convey the property to California State Parks for incorporation into the 600,000-acre park.
So, what does "convey" mean?
Thanks to my Assemblyman...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.