Neal Boortz
June 20, 2001

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground."

Oh, so true. Now as it happens, I like liberty more than I like government-provided security. No, I'm not an anarchist. But enough is enough … and when it comes to government we certainly have enough.

Can any of you cite one single instance from recent years where government has retreated to allow the cause of liberty to advance? Just one? And don't bring up the recent tax cut. That's not a retreat. Remember, the tax cut only lasts 10 years – then all rates return to present levels, including the death tax. This isn't a retreat, it's just a momentary cease-fire.

For those of you who love government – who want more – and who think security is a good trade-off for freedom, just continue to vote for and support your wonderful Democratic Party. Keep asking for the government to step in and solve every problem you face. Freedom, after all, can be chaotic. Security can be serene.

A Hopeful Sign

There was a hopeful sign out of Virginia yesterday. You've heard me talking about the special election. A Republican and a Democrat were vying for an open seat last held by a Democrat.

The Republican won.

The Democratic Party poured big bucks into this campaign. They attempted to make it a referendum on Social Security. Voters were buried under pamphlets telling them that the evil Republicans wanted to "gamble" away their Social Security money and that their benefits would be cut if they dared to allow that evil Republican to get to Washington.

Well, it didn't work. Good thing, too. If this tactic had carried the day for the amazingly inept Democratic Candidate, it might well have marked the end of any attempts at partial (let alone full) Social Security privatization.

Here Comes the Wal-Mart Shakedown!

Some class-action lawsuit hit squad in California has now chosen its next legal extortion target. Looks like it's gonna be Wal-Mart. A gender discrimination lawsuit is now on the books. Six women claim that they were denied promotions simply because of their plumbing.

Wal-Mart employs more women than any other business in the United States. What better place for the legal vultures to launch one of their class-action shakedowns!

Here's how this will play out:

1. Some leftist judge (the case was brought in San Francisco) will grant class-action status to the lawsuit.

2. The attorneys will bring hundreds, perhaps thousands of additional plaintiffs claiming gender discrimination.

3. As soon as the huge crowd of plaintiffs is assembled, the attorneys will start demanding that Wal-Mart settle the lawsuit IMMEDIATELY.

4. Activists will start organizing women's groups and Wal-Mart employees for demonstrations. These demonstrations will target Wal-Mart for its failure to "negotiate in good faith" and settle the lawsuit.

5. Wal-Mart will cut its losses and agree to some hundred-million-dollar-plus settlement.

6. Most of the settlement will go to the lawyers.

The goal here is to make sure this case doesn't go to court. My guess is that these lawyers and their carefully selected plaintiffs can't get into a court of law and prove any gender discrimination. They'll have to win their case in the court of public opinion – with demonstrations and threats of boycotts.

Shakedown time. Who's next?

Some More Zero-tolerance Nonsense

I thought you might like a few quick examples of some zero-tolerance nonsense from our wonderful world of government education.

From Great Britain: An 11-year-old boy is charged with racism. His racist act? He says "G'day, Sport" to a student from Australia.

From this side of the pond: A 6-year-old is suspended from school under an zero-tolerance drug policy. His crime? He shared a lemon drop with another student. The school actually called an ambulance for the kid who ate the lemon drop.

Un-freaking-believable.

Tom Daschle's Disinformation Campaign

Tom Daschle and his friends are lying to you again. Yeah, I know. Big surprise.

This time it's about judicial nominees. He recently claimed that the Republican Senate blocked more than 45 percent of Bill Clinton's appeals court nominees. And his assistant majority leader, Harry Reid, said on CNN that Republicans had blocked 55 percent of Clinton's appeals court nominees.

It's a lie, says Thomas Jipping of the Free Congress Foundation.

A February report from the Congressional Research Service shows what really happened from 1995 to 2000, when Republicans controlled the Senate. Bill Clinton nominated 71 people to the U.S. Court of Appeals. He withdrew three of them. The Senate confirmed all but 21 of the remaining 68 nominees. That means 31 percent of Clinton's nominees were not confirmed. That's hardly the 45 percent Daschle claims – and it's certainly not the 55 percent Harry Reid wants you to think.

What's the idea here? Are Tom Daschle and his henchmen just having a bad math day? Hardly. This isn't a math mistake. It's intentional. They pull a number out of their nether regions and plug it into their press releases. The leftist media then accepts those numbers as fact and passes them off to their myrmidon readers.

Not a bad deal – for Democrats.

Daschle, now the majority leader of a Democrat-controlled Senate, wants to make Americans feel good. He wants the American dumb masses to think the Democrats have just ushered in a new era of fairness. They promise to give "most" of George W. Bush's judicial nominees a fair shake!

The only "fair shake" the Social Democratic Party wants to give us is one designed to shake every piece of spare change out of our pockets.

Escape From L.A.

Those of you who live in north Fulton County, Georgia, will find this story all too familiar.

There's a growing movement in the San Fernando Valley in California. Residents of the Valley want to secede from Los Angeles. They say the city is being unresponsive to the needs of Valley residents and is too busy with politics as usual.

The secessionists got a boost in March from the Local Agency Formation Commission, which concluded that Valley secession would be economically bearable, and the new city formed by the secession would enjoy a surplus of $20 million to fund its government ... even after the Valley paid Los Angeles for the expense of seceding.

On the other hand, there's another study, just released, that says the cost and confusion caused by secession would be prohibitive. This study, by the way, was commissioned by the City of Los Angeles.

What's driving the anti-secession movement? Money! Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan said in March that if the Valley were to secede from Los Angeles, it would lead to hardship and loss of services to "the poor." Valley residents, meanwhile, say they've been shortchanged on services despite paying high taxes.

Get it? The San Fernando Valley is propping up the rest of the city's social programs. This is the same thing that's happening elsewhere in this country – and especially right here in Fulton County. The high-income households of North Fulton County support the vote-buying agenda of the politicians representing South Fulton. Not a bad deal for the politicians!

The City of Los Angeles is hopelessly addicted to the tax money coming from the San Fernando Valley. City politicians need that money to buy votes from the exalted poor in Los Angeles. They need that money to set up entitlement programs for the people they want to influence. They need that money to secure their grip on power.

Los Angeles isn't about to give up its big cash cow without a fight.

The VPC Trips Over Its Own Numbers

How is it that the anti-gun Violence Policy Center winds up on the side of Second Amendment defenders? Here's how.

It's called "Hispanics and Firearms Violence." It's a study the VPC released last month in a press conference studded with California Democrats and representatives of leading national Hispanic organizations.

The results of the study: