TURNING POINT --- AT LEAST FOR ME

OK ... all bets are off.

Don't get me wrong ... I still have this deep felt desire to see the Republican's get punished by the electorate in next week's midterm election ... but suddenly the stakes seem to be too high.

What turned the tide for me?  John Kerry, that's what.  That insipid, haughty, pretentious jerk uttered another one of his absurd statements about our men and women in uniform ... and in a flash my fear of Democrats and their disdain for our military services overcame any desire I had to put Republicans over my knee.

You did hear what Kerry said, didn't you?  Come on now .. surely you have. [refresher]  For the few of you who might have been in a 48-hour coma, The Poodle was talking to a group of college students in Pasadena, California (where else?) on Monday when he said:  "You know, education--if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."

So there you have it.  There's your choice.  According to Mr. Band-Aid Purple Heart, you either become smart, or end up serving in our armed forces. 

John Kerry seems to have a deep-seated disdain (bordering on hatred) for those in uniform.  Remember, please, that it was John Kerry who, many years ago, talked about our troops in Vietnam regularly committing atrocities against innocent women and children.  It was also John Kerry who remarked earlier this year about American troops in Iraq "terrorizing" women and children.  How dare that pompous ass suggest that it is our troops who are doing the terrorizing over there? 

For the record, Kerry is dead wrong.  Not that he cares.  Just four days ago The Heritage Foundation issued a report by Tim Kane entitled "Who Are the Recruits?  The Demographic Characteristics of U.S. Military Enlistment, 2003-2005."  You have the link, go and read the report for yourself.  If you do you will find that a higher percentage of military recruits have graduated from high school than the general population.  In  2004 82.7% of recruits were high school graduates while another 7.03% had their GEDs.    The national high school graduation rate that year was 79.8%.  Even today, in 2006, the high school graduation rate for recruits is still higher than the high school graduation rate for the civilian population.  Looks to me like the recruits are doing pretty well.  You'll also find that "the Department of Defense reported that the mean reading level of 2004 recruits is a full grade level higher than that of the comparable youth population." 

Clearly John Kerry had no idea what in the hell he was talking about .. the arrogant putz.

So .. the firestorm erupts, and here comes Kerry to the microphones to set the record straight.  Did he apologize for his insult against our troops?  Are you kidding?  Not only did he not apologize, but he actually had the stones to try to tell us he wasn't talking about our troops, he was talking about Bush!  I would ask just how stupid Kerry thinks Americans are --- but the very fact that he thinks we should have made him president indicates what his answer, were he to be truthful, would be.

These men and women are on the front lines, giving up their lives, to defend us from Islamic fascism -- and Kerry is back here talking about what intellectual failures they are.  Intellectual failures that terrorize women and children in the night. 

Do we hang the sins of John Kerry around the necks of all Democrats?  Well, let me ask you.  Did you hear of one single Democrat .. just one .. anywhere .. stepping forward to repudiate what Kerry said?  Maybe some Democrat did, but I sure as hell haven't heard anything about it.  Have you?  A Democrat congressional candidate in Iowa has gone so far as to say Kerry's words were "inappropriate."  Hardly an apology .. but he did ask Kerry to cancel a planned campaign visit to his district.

In other words ... these gutless wonders who just love to tell us how much they truly do support our troops won't even stand up to be heard when our soldiers are slandered by this rich woman's boy toy. 

On Neal's decision to vote Republican... 'bout time you came around! Why aren't you supporting Libertarians? Georgia is a pretty safe state for Republicans. Dude, you sold out!

This is such a gift to the Republicans.  It's as if Karl Rove himself paid John Kerry a large amount of money to read from a script.  It couldn't be better.  Here we are, on the even of the 2006 mid-term elections...in which the Democrats are poised to take over the House and maybe the Senate.  Now here comes John Kerry, standard-bearer of his party in the last presidential election...to slander our troops.  Bad move....even the most anti-war politician never blames the troops.  It's political suicide.

So .. that's it.  We're six days out, and I've come unglued.  Sure, the Republicans have become just another party of big government and pork barrel spending ... but at least they don't slander the very men and women who are shedding blood every single day to defend our country. 

Give me the big-spenders who support our troops over the big-spenders who slander them any day.

I'm voting Republican.

We'll just have to figure out another way to take these Republicans miscreants to the woodshed.

OH .. THIS IS ALL TALK RADIO'S FAULT

You need to know that some Democrats and liberal journalists are starting to blame the blow-up over Kerry's comments on (what else?) talk radio!  Or ... as the left loves to call it ... hate radio!  I guess they have a point.  I just hate it when Democrats, or anyone for that matter, slams and insults our troops.

For whatever role I played in this (and it had to be small!) .... may I say that I'm proud to have been of service!

WHAT THE DEMOCRATS HAVE IN STORE FOR YOU.  TODAY'S INSTALLMENT

Again .. do I think that the Republicans have earned our continued permission to control both the House and the Senate in Washington?  Not only no, but hell no.  The best that can be said of the Republicans now is that they're not Democrats, though they seem to be trying to erase any differences as fast as they can.  Republicans in control for two more years --- spending and increasing the size of government --- is an acceptable outcome next week only because the alternative is so much worse.  

This week I'm detailing some of the plans that the Democrats have for you and your bank accounts if and when they get the control that they think is their birthright.

Today I want to share with you another delicious little morsel the Democrats have waiting for you if they ever gain the political power they so ardently desire.  It's called "imputed income."  If you are a home owner, pay attention.  This concerns your wallet and your bank account. 

Let me start this off with a few points that I don't think you will dispute.  Democrats are the party of big government.  Democrats are the party of the social welfare state. Democrats want to make more and more Americans dependent on government because they know that the higher the degree of dependency the weaker the people and the stronger the government.  It goes without saying that the stronger and more powerful government becomes, the stronger and more powerful the politicians who control that government become.  This isn't rocket surgery here.

Money in the hands of the people who earned it contributes to their personal independence.  Independent people don't need politicians.  Money taken from those who earn it and then used to build the government social welfare state robs people of their independence.  Democrats love this scenario.  They want you to be dependent on government.  To do that they need to take your money and use it to grow the federal welfare state.  This is why Democrats just love the idea of tax increases. 

To be sure, Democrats know that all of their rhetoric about raising taxes on the rich and the rich "paying their fair share" resonates well with their voter base.  Playing to wealth envy will always earn votes ... but nothing earns votes quite like dependence on government.  Creating that dependence, though, is an expensive proposition.  To cover the tab the Democrats have to drain every penny from your pocket that they can -- right up to the point that you decide it's time to revolt.

Democrats will tell you that they only want to raise taxes on the so-called "rich."  Nancy Pelosi will probably come up with some figure in the $200,000 or $250,000 range to describe "rich" when she and her Democrat pals start to work on their tax increase plans.  But here's a warning.  If you happen to fall below that "rich" category, you're in their crosshairs as well.  They have various schemes in the works to put you smack in the middle of the "rich" category, and thus set you up for some pretty substantial tax increases.

One such scheme targets homeowners.  It's called "imputed income," and its a brilliant and devious idea on how to tax your home ownership.

Here's how it works.

Let's say that you've owned your home for about 20 years.  For 20 years your home has been appreciating in value ... big time.  Your monthly payments on that home are about $550 a month.  Remember, it's a 20-year-old loan made when the cost of your home was much, much less.  There isn't much of a home mortgage tax deduction left at this point since you almost have the home paid off, and the bulk of your payments go to principal instead of interest. 

The very fact that you're living in such a nice home, and paying so little, attracts the interest of Democrats.  They know that there are a lot of people in your neighborhood that paid a lot more for their homes than you did, and their mortgage payments are a lot higher.  Not only that, but there are other people renting homes in your neighborhood and they're paying much more than you are every month.  It's obvious that you're enjoying some great economic benefit due to the fact that you've owned your home for so long and your payments are so low.  Well, where there's an economic benefit, there must be a tax!

Enter the concept of imputed income!

Under this wonderful plan, first floated by Clinton Democrats before the voter revolution of 1994, the government would figure out how much your home would rent for every month.  To do this they would use all of that census data they've gathered, plus any information that they can develop on current sale and rental prices up and down your street. 

Let's say that the government --- the IRS, if you will --- determines that your home would rent for $3,250 a month.  That would add up to $39,000 a year.  But the IRS discovers that you're only paying $550 a month, or $6,600 a year in rent.  Well, there's that economic benefit you're enjoying by virtue of your long-term home ownership.  The economic benefit of your home ownership is the difference between the $39,000 you should be paying to live there, and the $6,600 you're actually paying.  Do the math.  You're getting away with $32,400 every year in non-taxed economic benefits! 

The Democrat plan is simple.  Just take that $32,400 and add it to your taxable income on your next tax return.  Then you get the privilege of paying income taxes to the federal government on the economic benefit you derive from your long-term home ownership.  The IRS has "evened the playing field" in your neighborhood ... so to speak.  Your neighbors had to pay taxes on the full $39,000 they're paying to live down the street ... now you're having to do the same.  After all ... it's only fair, right! 

Just remember this.  Democrats actually believe that the best use for every single penny you earn is for it to be spent by government for what they love to call the "common good."  They will grudgingly allow you to keep enough of your earnings to avoid your participation in a full-scale tax revolt.  A good Democrat knows that only Democrats and the government know what is good for you, and that you will be so much better off and your life oh so much better if you will just succumb to the power of government and it's ability to care for you much better than you can care for yourself. 

In tomorrow's Nuze ... what would you think about a proposal to limit where you can invest your retirement funds ... a limit based on political correctness.

ELECTION MONITORS GEARING UP

The Justice Department has announced that it is sending 800 observers to polling places in 65 cities in counties in 20 states next Tuesday.  Their mission:  to protect voting rights in troubled polling places.  Huh?  What on Earth are they talking about?  This is the United States of America and this is 2006.  What do they think this is...the third world?

What's really going on here is a cave-in to political correctness by the DOJ.  The idea that anyone's right to vote might be taken away next Tuesday in this country is an anti-Bush fantasy dreamed up by some left-wing blogger somewhere.  It just doesn't happen.  Evidently these monitors will be on the lookout for ballot stuffing or voter fraud.  Right.

Remember 2000?  Some blacks in Florida said that the very presence of police officers on the street was an attempt to suppress black votes. 

Voter fraud can be eliminated overnight...and you don't even need election monitors to do it.  Simply require 1.) a photo ID in order to vote and 2.) that someone be registered in advance to vote, no exceptions.  That would stamp out about 99% of the fraud.  But politicians, and in particular Democrats, don't want that.  They've been relying on the votes of dead people to propel them into office for decades.

Besides, isn't this what Jimmy Carter is for?  He's supposed to be the one to monitor elections.

THE HILDABEAST'S FOREIGN POLICY

Hillary Clinton gave a speech to the Council On Foreign Relations in which she blasted the Bush Administration's foreign policy and called for a more internationalist approach.  The proper translation of that word means "hand things over to the United Nations."  Boy, that always works, doesn't it?  The U.N. has been such a roaring success...let's give them more power!

She said dividing the world up into good and evil and refusing to talk to the evil side is dangerously unrealistic.  What she means is Iran and North Korea, two nations Democrats want to appease.  But here's the thing....for 30 years, we tried it their way.  We tried appeasing Islamic extremists...and we got 9/11.  We tried it their way with North Korea.  Her husband sent the secretary of state to visit Kim Jong-Il.  All he did was break the agreement he made promising not to make nuclear weapons.

This is why Hillary Clinton is dangerous.  As president, she would turn our foreign policy over to the United Nations and go back to the policy of appeasing and coddling dictators and thugs around the world, in an attempt to get them to like us.  As a result, they would walk all over the United States...threatening our security.

This would be a good one for GOP campaign commercials.  I'm sure the footage of her speech is available.

REDNECK SCRAP BOOK

Seriously, someone call child protective services, because this isn't even funny. More in the Redneck Scrap Book.

Have you heard about Proposition on the Michigan ballot?  It's called the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative.  Well, one person's civil rights isn't necessarily another person's cup of tea.  (he he).  Read on.

You've heard Herman Cain fill in for Neal Boortz. Read his latest online column.

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!