Disney Petitions To Become Independent Nation!

Mickey Mouse is petitioning the U.N. for Disney to be declared an independent nation.

The basis for the complaint is there is a heavy Jewish population in Florida and when they take their families to Disney they do not spend enough, treat Disney employees disrespectfully and, more importantly, Jewish children, allegedly, do not respect the rights of animals like Goofy, Minnie Mouse etc.

The U.N. members have turned Mickey's grievance over to the Human Rights Commission which is chaired by Iran's prime minister. Ahmadinejad has promised to render an opinion once his nation has completed its nuclear program which he claims, with help from Russia, China, N Korea and Pakistan, should be in less than two months.

The U.N. Secretary General, mooned protesters, because he considers Disney's grievance to be of such a serious nature he has called a special session and barred FOX News.

The governor of Florida has appealed to President Obama to veto Disney's petition should it come before the General Assembly for a vote. The President, who is running for re-election, is sympathetic to the Governor's request because Florida is a key state but Obama is also torn between his love of animals - particularly mice.

Obama recalls how mice befriended him when he was growing up in Kenya and Hawaii and how their American relatives continued friends when he attended Columbia and Harvard. In fact there are rumors Obama once dated a mouse. After graduation, when he became a community organizer, it was the mice vote in Chicago that voted in block that helped elect him to the Illinois Senate from which he launched his successful bid the presidency.

Obama suspects the former governor of Florida, Jeb Bush, encouraged Mickey to petition the U.N. in order to alienate Florida's Jewish vote. When asked about this, Obama stated that ever since he became president George Bush, Jeb's brother, had been creating problems for his administration. When asked to give a more definitive clue to support his allegation, Obama said it was because he was black. Obama reminded the reporter that Mickey was also black. The reporter, too was black, and immediately wrote an article citing the Bush family's long standing prejudice against black Americans. His report became a lead editorial in the New York Times. Two days later the reporter was offered jobs by MSNBC and Public Radio.
Chris Matthews was reported to have a tingling in his crotch.

GW, as has been his fashion, chose not to respond to the scurrilous attack but his feisty mother, Barbara, is holding a press conference from their summer home in Maine to refute the charges. She will be surrounded by many black officials who served in GW's Cabinet and Administration. Colin Powell, however, chose not to appear because he has sided with Mickey.

Dick Cheney, GW's vice president, was so enraged that he was sighted heading to Florida, double barrel and all.

As we all know, Rush Limbaugh lives in Florida, having fled the high taxes in New York. Rush believes the entire move on the part of Mickey and Disney, is anti-American and has invited Sarah Palin to come down with some Tea Party friends to express their view. Obama has called upon his union friends to attack Tea Partyers should they engage in peaceful protest.

While all of this has been happening, President Obama has submitted legislation to sell Mount Rushmore to the Chinese in order to cover the imbalances created by his egregious spending and also to cover the cost of his wife's staff and their many travels. It has also been reported Michelle has sided with Disney and is engaged in helping the mice with a healthier diet. Cheese is bad, not only for the breath but also for the arteries, noted Michelle.

The Republicans have been taken aback by all of these fast developing events and though they tried to point out how foolish Mickey and Disney are acting, Obama has called them down for being obstructionists and racists.

To make matters more confused, one of America's largest employers, WalMart, has been cited by Obama's Justice Department for charging too little for the goods they sell and are being indicted for fraudulent behaviour and in violation of the Ricco Act. WalMart officials were unavailable for comment. It is reported they were on a buying trip to China. WalMart is thinking about selling a new line of appliances made by G.E.

Finally, all our troops are coming home next week from Iraq, Afghanistan, all of Europe and Asia and will be dismissed in order to narrow the budget deficit. When told this would add to the unemployment problem and might put our nation at risk, Obama said that it was time for America to focus on more important matters like taxing the rich and signalling terrorists we are their friends.

However, to lessen the impact of military unemployment, Obama's "Wasteful Spending
Czar "proposed establishing a government operated "Save the World Company" funded by a government subsidy of $2 trillion. The new government plant would hire ex military personnel first and, in order to whip up national support, Obama's Czar proposed a $1million prize for naming the entity to be awarded only to a citizen who paid no taxes.

Obama was elated because that was only fair he said.

So far, the best entries are :"Blowin Smoke," "Green With Envy," "Filthy Rich" and "Gory."

LATE BREAKING NEWS: It has been reported the Kurds also want to establish a separate nation but Sec. Moon told them to go awhey!(See 1 below.)
---
Bret Stephens writes an op ed asking what comes after Europe?
---
Dick
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)The Legal Case Against Palestinian Statehood
First among the U.N.'s purposes is maintaining international peace and security. Efforts to force recognition of a Palestinian state undercut this goal.
By DAVID B. RIVKIN JR. AND LEE A. CASEY

Later this week Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas is expected to seek recognition of a Palestinian state from the United Nations. The move is opposed by the Obama administration, which has rightly called it a "distraction." Nevertheless, the PA's effort has wide support among the U.N. membership, including Security Council members Russia, China and Britain, as well as other important regional states such as Turkey. These powers should think again because putting the U.N.—and particularly the General Assembly—in the business of state recognition is inconsistent with international law and the U.N. Charter, and it is manifestly not in their interests.

The U.N.—General Assembly or Security Council—has no power to create states or to grant all-important formal "recognition" to state aspirants. The right to recognize statehood is a fundamental attribute of sovereignty and the United Nations is not a sovereign. Those who cite as precedent the General Assembly's 1947 resolution providing for the partition of Palestine misread that instrument and its legal significance.


Resolution 181 outlined a detailed (and rigorous) process whereby the British Mandate in Palestine was to end and two new states, one Jewish and one Arab, were to be established. It recommended that process to Great Britain (as the mandate-holder) and to other U.N. members. It did not create or recognize these states, nor were the proposed states granted automatic admission to the United Nations. Rather, once the two states were established as states, the resolution provided that "sympathetic consideration" should be given to their membership applications.

In the event, the Arab countries rejected partition and Israel declared (and successfully defended) its independence. Israel's statehood was recognized, in accordance with international law, by other states—including the United States and the Soviet Union.

The Palestinian Authority, by contrast, does not meet the basic characteristics of a state necessary for such recognition. These requirements have been refined through centuries of custom and practice, and were authoritatively articulated in the 1933 Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States. As that treaty provides, to be a state an entity must have (1) a permanent population, (2) a defined territory, (3) a government, and (4) the capacity to enter into relations with other states.

As of today, the PA has neither a permanent population nor defined territory (both being the subject of ongoing if currently desultory negotiations), nor does it have a government with the capacity to enter into relations with other states. This pivotal requirement involves the ability to enter and keep international accords, which in turn posits that the "government" actually controls—exclusive of other sovereigns—at least some part of its population and territory. The PA does not control any part of the West Bank to the exclusion of Israeli authority, and it exercises no control at all in the Gaza Strip.


The PA does not, therefore, qualify for recognition as a state and, concomitantly, it does not qualify for U.N. membership, which is open only to states. All of this is surely understood by the PA and its backers, and is also why the administration has correctly labeled this effort as a distraction—"stunt" being a less diplomatic but even more accurate term in these circumstances. What is unfortunate is that the Obama administration has failed to present the case against a Palestinian statehood resolution in legal rather than tactical terms, even though these arguments are obvious and would greatly reinforce the U.S. position, also providing a thoroughly neutral basis for many of our allies, particularly in Europe, to oppose Mr. Abbas's statehood bid.

The stakes in this battle are high. The PA's effort to achieve recognition by the U.N., even if legally meaningless, is not without serious consequences. To the extent that state supporters of that measure may themselves have irredentist populations or active border disputes with their neighbors—as do Russia, China, Britain and Turkey—they will certainly store up future trouble for themselves.

Traditionally, states rarely recognize (even if they may materially support) independence movements in other states. This is because granting such recognition may have very serious consequences, up to and including war. (The classic example here being France's recognition of the infant United States in 1778 and its immediate and inevitable entry into the War for Independence against Britain).

With respect to Israel, although it does not actually claim all of the territory on which the "State of Palestine" would be established, it is and has been engaged in difficult negotiations over that territory—and the PA's status—for many years. Support for U.N. recognition might not rise to the level of an act of aggression against Israel, but the U.N. Charter also forbids members to act in a "manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations." First among those purposes is maintaining international peace and security, and efforts prematurely to force recognition of a Palestinian state clearly undercut this goal. This is, in fact, a rare instance in which a measure is bad policy, bad law, and has the real potential to damage the interests of its opponents and its supporters.

Messrs. Rivkin and Casey are Washington, D.C., lawyers who served in the Justice Department during the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations. Mr. Rivkin is also a senior adviser to the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)What Comes After 'Europe'? The riots of Athens will become those of Milan, Madrid and Marseilles. Border checkpoints will return. Currencies will be resurrected, then devalued.
By BRET STEPHENS

When the history of the rise and fall of postwar Western Europe is someday written, it will come in three volumes. Title them "Hard Facts," "Convenient Fictions" and—the volume still being written—"Fraud."

The hardest fact on which postwar Europe was founded was military necessity, crisply summed up by Lord Ismay's famous line that NATO's mission was "to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down." The next hard fact was hard money, the gift of Ludwig Erhard, author of the economic reforms that created the Deutsche mark, abolished price controls, and put inflation in check for generations. The third hard fact was the creation of Jean Monnet's common market that gave Europe a shared economic—not political—identity.

The result was the Wirtschaftswunder in Germany, Les Trente Glorieuses in France and il miracolo economico in Italy. It could have lasted into the present day. It didn't.

In 1965, government spending as a percentage of GDP averaged 28% in Western Europe. Today it hovers just under 50%. In 1965, the fertility rate in Germany was a healthy 2.5 children per mother. Today it is a catastrophic 1.35. During the postwar years, annual GDP growth in Europe averaged 5.5%. After 1973, it rarely exceeded 2.3%. In 1973, Europeans worked 102 hours for every 100 worked by an American. By 2004 they worked just 82 hours for every 100 American ones.

It was during this general slowdown that Europe entered the convenient fiction phase.

There was, for starters, the convenient fiction that if you just added up the GDP of the European Union's expanding list of member states, you had an economy whose size exceeded that of the United States. Didn't this make "Europe" an economic superpower? There was the convenient fiction that Europe didn't need robust military capabilities when it could exert global influence through diplomacy and soft power. There was the convenient fiction that Europeans shared identical values and could thus be subject to uniform regulations governing crime and punishment. There was the convenient fiction that Continentals weren't lagging in productivity but were simply making an enlightened choice of leisure over labor.

And there was, finally, the whopping fiction that Europe had its own "model," distinct and superior to the American one, that immunized it from broader international currents: globalization, Islamism, demography. Europeans love their holidays and thought they were entitled to a long holiday from history as well.

All this did wonders, for a while, to mask European failures and puff up European pride. But there is always a danger in substituting grandiosity for achievement, mistaking pronouncements for facts, or, more generally, believing in your own nonsense.

Here is where Europe slipped from convenient fiction to outright fraud.

There was the fraud of Greece's entry into the euro, a double-edged affair since Athens lied about its budgetary figures and Brussels chose to accept the lie. There was the fraud of the so-called Maastricht criteria—the fiscal rules that were supposed to govern the euro only to be quickly flouted by France and Germany and then junked altogether in the current crisis. There was the fraud of the European Constitution, overwhelmingly rejected wherever a vote on it was permitted, only to be revised and imposed by parliamentary fiat.

What is now happening in Europe isn't so much a crisis as it is an exposure: a Madoff-type event rather than a Lehman one. The shock is that it's a shock. Greece was never going to be bailed out and will, sooner or later, default. The banks holding Greek debt will, sooner or later, be recapitalized. The recapitalization will be borne by German taxpayers, and it will bring them—sooner rather than later—to the outer limit of their forbearance. The Chinese will not ride to the rescue: They know not to throw good money after bad.

And then Italy will go Greek. Europe's crisis will lap on U.S. shores, and America's economic woes will lap on Europe's—a two-way tsunami.

America will survive this because America is a state. But as Bismarck once remarked, "Whoever speaks of Europe is wrong. Europe is a geographical expression." The "fiscal union" that's being mooted will never come to pass: German voters won't stand for it, and neither will any other country that wants to retain fiscal independence—which is to say, the core attribute of democratic sovereignty.

What comes next is the explosion of the European project. Given what European leaders have made of that project over the past 30-odd years, it's not an altogether bad thing. But it will come at a massive cost. The riots of Athens will become those of Milan, Madrid and Marseilles. Parties of the fringe will gain greater sway. Border checkpoints will return. Currencies will be resurrected, then devalued. Countries will choose decay over reform. It's a long, likely parade of horribles.

Where is the Europe of Ismay, Erhard and Monnet? It's there in memory, if anyone cares to recover it. Give it another 50 years, and maybe someone will.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------