CRASH

Of the five movies nominated for the Oscar, I had only seen one.  Crash.  Crash won.  It is now officially the best motion picture of the year.  Bareback Mountain will have to be satisfied with it's other awards. 

Last week some so-called family oriented group slammed Crash because the obscenity-laced dialogue.  The F-word was heard in Crash more than any other nominated picture, and more than most other 2005 releases (usually combined with a maternal reference).  Big deal.  You can't do a genuine movie featuring the dark and bright sides of urban culture in the United States with your characters saying "Good golly.  Did you see that?" 

I'm not going to go into a long description here about this movie.  Suffice it to say that if I had teenaged sons or daughters I would make sure they saw this movie.  There's a message in this movie for every American, and the Oscar is richly deserved.

REPUBLICANS --- HEADING FOR THE MINORITY

Around this time next year things could be very interesting indeed in Washington.  We'll be one year away from the New Hampshire primary, and the news may very well be focusing on an impending vote in the House of Representatives .... an impeachment vote.

That's right .. an impeachment vote.  Thanks in part to a heretofore obscure government-owned enterprise called Dubai Ports World and a tone-deaf White House,  this year's mid-term elections may well result in the Democrats regaining the majority in the House.  If, or when that happens one of the first orders of business will be to go about the process of impeaching the hated George Bush.  Democrats have never considered Bush's presidency to be valid in the first place.  They remain convinced to this day that Al Gore won Florida in 2000 in spite of the results from repeated counts, recounts and recounts of recounts.  Their hatred was only intensified by Bush's victory over John Kerry in 2004, where Ohio became the designated situs for leftist fictions of massive Republican voter fraud. 

Trust me on this one ... Democrats are finally dreaming of relief from their six years of agony, courtesy of an ill-advised deal for the operational control of many of our important ports facilities, and a Democratic Party willingness to set aside politically correct concerns over the evil of racial and ethnic profiling to demagogue a plan to put the operation of these facilities in the hands of (gasp!) ARABS!  It's interesting to note that the very same liberal Democrats who have been telling us that it would be pure, unadulterated evil to even consider singling out people of Middle Eastern descent for extra attention at our airports, have no trouble doing so at our ports.   Whatever works.

What is now being called "The Ports Deal" has so inflamed both red and blue state Americans that there truly is concern in Republican ranks over whether not control of the House can be maintained this November.  Leftist organizations like Moveon.org are busily at work in districts deemed ripe for voter revolt.  Moveon.org is pummeling voters in these districts with 20-second phone calls extolling the insidious evil behind the ports deal, and surveys are showing the tactic is working.  Republicans targeted by Moveon.org are frightened, and well they should be.

The real problem here isn't so much the ports deal as it is the lack of an imaginative Republican agenda.  Republicans gained control of the house in 1994 on the strength of the Contract With America.  Democrats were left embittered and bewildered as their 40 years of control was tossed aside because the promises of the Republican party actually resonated with the desires of the American voters.  The Contract With America was, for the most part, a success.  The new Republican House leadership did, in fact, introduce the legislation necessary to achieve every promise made.  The Senate, however, stood in the way of such things as budget reform, and President Clinton vetoed other portions, thus proving that he was still, as he said, "relevant." 

But what have we seen since 1994?  The Republicans promised then to get rid of the hideous Department of Education.   Instead we have seen appropriations to this department double, federal control over education was solidified, and our educational ranking in the industrialized west fell even further.  Good job, Republicans.  In the 1994 election the Republicans decried the ever-increasing levels of government spending, only to increase that spending at unprecedented rates over the next twelve years.  The 1994 Republican voter revolution so frightened the president that Bill Clinton actually uttered the words "the era of big government is over" in his 1995 State of the Union Speech.  Today we have what many refer to as a "big government conservative" in the White House and a Republican Party that pays not even the slightest degree of lip service to reducing the size of a government that has grown exponentially since they took power.

So, tell me.  Just what have the Republicans really done to ignite the passion of the voters?  Only two things stand out for me.  One is tax cuts, the other is support for the president's war against Islamic terror.  Both of these are somewhat old news and rather meaningless in the context of this mid-term election.  Few people believe that Iraq would suddenly be handed over to Al Qaeda if the house were to change hands, nor would Democrats be able to raise taxes on the evil rich if the Republican House fell. 

So ... hard line Democrats are energized by dreams of impeachment; validation at last for their obsession over Florida 2000.  Voters on the edge receive their 20-second sound bites from Moveon.org and polls show shifts away from Republican incumbents.  Republicans in Washington sweat --- and do nothing. 

Are you eager to work for continued Republican control of the House?  Can you tell me why?  What do you expect from the Republicans that you aren't getting now?  Is there something magic about the election of 2006 that will cause Republicans, if they actually maintain their control, to work toward smaller government and greater individual responsibility?  What is the Republican agenda for 2006?  What is their campaign theme?  Can you name one?  They may, in fact, have one ... but can you tell me what it is? 

Republicans are, in fact, looking for a winning agenda for this year's mid-terms.  A few weeks ago they had a weekend retreat to discuss the matter, and came away with glowing words about an agenda of fighting terror and trying to make the tax cuts permanent.  Not good enough.  As I outlined above, those issues aren't going to float voter's boats come November.  They're going to have to do better.

Which issue do you think Republicans should focus on to keep control of the House? War on terrorism Tax cuts Constitutional ban on same sex marriage Legal reform FairTax No Child Left Behind Criminalization of illegal immigration Something else

You know where I'm going with this, don't you?  If the Republicans want an agenda that will excite the voters for this November, look to the FairTax. It's been about five months since The FairTax Book topped the New York Times bestseller list, and over three months since we came off the book tour.  Even though the book's debut is long past, not a week goes buy that articles and columns are written across the country about the FairTax proposal.  Websites such as FairTaxGroups.com are popping up everywhere.  Americans for Fair Taxation are adding new volunteers every day.  The idea of replacing our present tax code with a consumption tax is gaining a foothold, especially among those who recognize that, in reality, all taxes eventually work their way into the price of goods and services anyway. 

While Americans remain excited about the FairTax idea, politicians are running scared.  Over the past five months I've amassed quite a collection of responses from representatives and senators to constituents seeking their stance on the FairTax.  Those responses have shown something I never anticipated --- politicians who are afraid of the loss of power that would come from a repeal of the current tax code are unable to criticize the FairTax plan without either changing its terms or just outright lying about it.  Policy groups who are wedded to the idea of a progressive tax system that will all but cripple high achievers are likewise unable to criticize the FairTax without adopting the same tactic. 

In about two months The FairTax Book will be released in a soft cover edition.  There will be edits and changes to clarify some points and update some relevant numbers.  There will also be an additional 5000 words specifically addressing the critiques, criticisms and outright lies about the FairTax.  On April 11th, four days before the dreaded tax filing deadline, I'll travel to New York City to participate in a one-on-one debate under the auspices of The Donald and Paula Smith Family Foundation.  My opponent will be Yale Law School professor Michael J. Graetz.  The topic?  The FairTax.  We're hoping that C-SPAN will  televise the debate.  With a little luck the idea of the FairTax will once again take center stage for another round of public discussion and debate. 

When properly and honestly presented and understood, the FairTax captures the imagination of Americans sick and &^%#@ tired of this annual agony of preparing tax returns, and of a tax system that punishes what we want out of Americans -- hard work -- and rewards what we don't want -- laziness.  I truly believe that a Republican campaign based on a promise to fully debate H.R. 25, The FairTax Bill, and to put it to a vote of the entire House of Representatives; and then to make the FairTax a primary issue in the 2008 presidential election should it fail to pass, would be a winning hand. 

Passage of the FairTax would be the largest transfer of power from the political class to the people in the history of this country.  A political party that would pledge to do what it can to bring this transfer of power to reality; to completely lift the federal tax burden from the backs of the poor; to make America the world's premier tax haven and to bring American businesses who have fled our onerous tax system back home --- that party and that campaign will capture the hearts and minds of the voters. 

Democratic control of the House is just around the corner -- soon to be followed by the impeachment debacle.  Democrats are licking their chops.  Do the Republicans have the political guts to take bold moves to turn back the tide? 

MUSLIMS URGED TO ATTACK WEST

Part of the reason that riots and terrorism break out in the Middle East at the drop of a turban is because Muslims in the Middle East have this unmistakable tendency to do what they're told.  A cleric issues a fatwa....a ruling, for those hobbled by a government school education...and people line up to do just exactly what that cleric tells them to do.  Sheep.  

So it is with great interest that we learn of a recently released message from Osama Bin Laden's chief deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri.  On this audiotape, Zawahiri makes the following requests and observations:

• He urges Muslims to
attack the economic infrastructure of the West


• He urges Muslims to stop Western countries from "stealing oil from Middle Eastern countries.  (Hmm..we've been paying for oil for so long...perhaps we should start stealing it.)



• He calls on his followers to launch attacks on the Western countries and make them "bleed for years."

Notice, please, the coverage of this story.  Here you have a prominent Islamic terrorist calling on his fellow Muslims to do unspeakable things.  All of his rantings are made in the name of Islam, with the implied approval of Allah.  Where are the peaceful Muslims responding to this?  Have you heard one single statement from one leader of one American Mosque or Islamic interest group condemn or even mildly criticize al-Zawahiri's remarks?  If it's such a peaceful, harmless religion, then how come nobody ever publicly denounces these statements?

The silence is deafening.

STAND YOUR GROUND LAW

This past week Greg Stone, the Vice President and General Manager of Atlanta's WSB-TV retired.  WSB-TV is the sister station to my flagship radio station, News/Talk 750 WSB.  I had fully intended to say some nice things about Greg Stone upon his retirement, and so I shall.  He is a fine gentlemen who managed a television station that was virtually untouchable in the Atlanta ratings wars. Greg Stone has never been anything but gracious to me, in spite of the sometimes nasty things I've had to say about his news operation and his once-in-a-while broadcast editorials.  A true gentlemen.   His retirement is well-earned, and we wish him many many years of doing whatever it is that rings his chimes. 

Now --- let's drop the other shoe.  Greg Stone really went out with a bang last night with another one of his hard-hitting WSB-TV editorials.  This particular piece was a rant against a law working its way through the Georgia General Assembly, SB 396, the "Castle Doctrine" law; sometimes called the "stand your ground" law.

First ... a bit of history.  Many years ago; I believe it was in the 1970's, Senator Ted Kennedy introduced a new federal criminal code.  A section of that Kennedy bill required every American citizen to turn and run from any threat or attacker.  More specifically, Kennedy's SB-1 stated that if an intruder broke into your home while you were there, you would have a legal duty to run from your own home, leaving it to the intruder, rather than remaining to protect your property or your own life. 

Georgia's Castle Doctrine law does the opposite.  It states that if if a criminal breaks into your home, your occupied vehicle, or your place of business, you may presume he is there to do bodily harm and you may use any force against him, thereby removing your "duty to retreat." Furthermore, this law would provide protection from criminal prosecution and civil litigation for those who defend themselves from criminal attack.

The bill also provides that if you are threatened or assaulted in a public place, you have the right to use deadly force to defend yourself.  You don't have to run.  What we have here is the right to self defense codified into law.

It is sad that Greg Stone had to go out on such a base and low note.  His editorial on WSB-TV was reminiscent of the hysterical rantings of that woman years ago in the Tampa Bay area who, upon seeing another woman with a permit to carry a concealed weapon pull her gun to save the life of a retail employee who was being stabbed by a shoplifter, screamed "I can't believe they let someone go around with a gun in her purse like that!"  Never mind the guy with the knife.  Stones editorial, which I suspect was actually written by Sara Brady, claimed that a homeowner could shoot children who were cutting through a backyard on the way to or from school.  He said the law could be used by a motorist to shoot and kill someone who was trying to clean his windshield or some jerk who flipped him off in traffic.  Stone called it a "license to murder bill" and suggested that people would be free to kill pretty much at will without any fear of facing the legal consequences.

These types of hysterics seem to always accompany any legislation that makes it easier for a citizen to defend themselves against attack.  Several years ago Georgia liberalized its process for issuing permits to carry concealed weapons.  Atlanta Journal-Constitution editorial page editor Cynthia Tucker opined that the new law would mean that it would be open season on police officers in Georgia.  The fact was that at that time there had not been one instance in any state where a person with a concealed weapons permit had shot a police officer.  Not one.  Tucker's opinions were the stuff of a deeply felt anti-gun obsession.  These Castle Doctrine laws have been passed in other states, including Florida, with no resulting carnage. 

The fact is that most of the people you will find in opposition to Castle Doctrine laws are people you will generally find on the wrong side of the 2nd Amendment ... people who, if given the opportunity, would ban the ownership of handguns in the first place.

So ... congratulations to Greg Stone on a stellar career.  It's too bad you had to cap that career with two minutes of absurd hysteria.

HAROLD FORD -- DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE FOR SENATE

Harold Ford is running for the Senate in Tennessee.  He is a Democrat; something of a lightweight Barak Obama.  Ford went to Maryland to film a commercial for his senate race.  He stood there in the Baltimore port and said:  "The president wants to sell this port and five others to the United Arab Emirates."

Well, I guess that gives us a little insight into this particular Democrat's senate campaign.  The truth won't matter to Harold Ford if there's a political point to be made.  The Port of Baltimore is not being "sold" to the UAE, and Harold Ford knows it.  Under the deal the UAE would only have the contractual right to operate certain facilities at the port for a specified period of time. 

It's 2006 election politics.  The truth doesn't matter.  Inciting the voters does.

HILLARY CLAIMS IGNORANCE

The Democrats haven't done a complete 180 on something this big in a very long time.  The political party that has been trying to convince us that there isn't really a need for the War On Terror...that there is no terrorist threat....has suddenly taken up the issue.  With their opposition to the  ports takeover, suddenly Democrats are worried about Islamic terrorism again.

This, by the way,  includes New York Senator Hillary Clinton.  The Hildabeast, who is running for re-election in the Senate this year and president in 2 years, hasn't let up on George Bush since the deal was announced.  But now there's a new twist!  New information!  A delicious new angle!

While Hillary was out on the Senate floor opposing the deal, her husband was on the phone trying to get it pushed through. Now THAT'S teamwork.   It seems 'ole Bill has quite a track record with the Dubai government and has been working with them on the ports deal for quite some time.  Naturally, we might be a bit curious as to what Hillary thinks of all this.  Well, the woman-who-would-be-president; the smartest woman in the world, America's greatest lawyer (before she moved from Arkansas to the Beltway) says that she was wholly unaware of her husband's lobbying.

Perhaps she was also unaware that her husband earned $450,000 giving speeches in Dubai in 2002.  How about that the UAE donated $500,000 and $1 million to her husband's presidential library?  I'm sure she didn't notice any of that.  Once again, Hillary Clinton is exposed as a political opportunist....and a liar.

REDNECK SCRAP BOOK

Wow, do you think this guy is a powerful executive with a fortune 500 company? Probably not. More in the Redneck Scrap Book.

READING ASSIGNMENTS

Neal's guest today, Edwin J. Feulner, co-author of Getting America Right : The True Conservative Values Our Nation Needs Today a conservative manifesto on what's wrong with America and how we can fix it.

Awwwwwww!

Hillary Clinton isn't fond of the Dubai ports scenario.  Somehow she just didn't know that her husband was actually working as an advisor to the Dubai leaders on the deal!  Now there's one in-touch, aware woman! 

The MOM Squad  Mothers Against Men

Ann Coulter delivers a great line in this column:  "Hollywood liberals want the government to release everything we know about al-Zarqawi, but refuse to release the number of people who have seen "Brokeback Mountain."  OUCH! This is one great Coulter column.  Don't miss it.

Bill Clinton, who was pushing the approval of the Dubai Ports deal, now says the Bush administration isn't doing enough for port security.  Make up your mind, Mr. President.  Now he wants us to check more shipping containers.

We've heard over and over again from numerous mainstream media outlets that Iraq is descending into a civil war.  Ralph Peters says the only problem with that is that it's a media myth.

Dick Morris isn't surprised Bill Clinton was in favor of the foreign takeover of our ports.  He says Clinton is a paid agent of the crown prince of Dubai. 

President Bush's handling of Hurricane Katrina is threatening to spell doom for Louisiana's Republican party.  Robert Novak talks to politicians who are already feeling the backlash.

Jack Kelly has an interesting question, given everything that's gone on the past 5 years.  He wonders if Islam is even compatible with a free society at all.

Do you ever wonder what happened to Goldilocks, The Poodle's running mate in the 2004 general election?  George Will catches up with former Senator John Edwards.

Is Iraq a quagmire?  Nope, not according to columnist Mark Steyn.  He says the problem isn't abroad....but rather at home.  He cites an interesting personal experience with the Patriot Act.

President Bush, in his State of the Union address this year, supports the idea of giving illegal aliens amnesty so they can come work here.  He says there are just some jobs Americans won't do.  Debra Saunders calls him on it, saying there's no such thing as cheap labor...only cheap wages.

If you oppose the Dubai takeover of our ports, are you an Islam-hating bigot, as some in the media would have us believe?  Diana West argues against the notion, and says 64% of people oppose the deal.

Why are some people so against the notion that there was a connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11?  Michael Barone says there's no question Saddam supported Al-Qaeda.

Teen going to juvie for pinching another boy's nipple.

BOORTZ BLAST NEWSLETTER
Everyone is talking about the Boortz Blast newsletter. Do you want yours? Sign up here and we'll deliver it directly to your inbox every 2 weeks. If you signed up but aren't receiving it, either your company or your spam filter could be keeping it from you. Try using a personal email address and check your spam filter's junk folder for wayward newsletters.

COMMUNITY
If you like Neal and are looking for like minded people to hang out with online or off, check out these places:

Talkmaster Yahoo Group

Belinda Skelton, Ken Rogers, Laura Nunemaker and Brian Ganey assist in the daily preparation of Nealz Nuze!