THE NEW WIRETAP LAW

The president signed a new electronic surveillance bill into law yesterday. This morning the New York Times carried the story, and I think that it is safe to say that the Times treatment of this story will become the standard.

First ... why was the law needed? Let's say you have an Islamic terrorist suspect in London, perhaps a doctor, making a phone call to a like-minded Muslim inside the United States. I think that most people would agree that our intelligence agencies might have a passing interest in what is being said during that conversation. The best way to intercept and monitor that conversation would be through the communications switching facilities in the United States. But there's a small problem there. The FISA intelligence court ruled earlier this year that the government needed to seek court-approved warrants to monitor those international calls coming through American switching centers. So, the Bush Administration asked for a new surveillance law permitting just that type of monitoring, and the Democrat congress gave him just such a bill to sign.

There's a few interesting facets to the Times reporting of this story. First ... not once in the entire article do you find the words "Muslin", "Islamic", or "terrorist." Islamic terrorism is the reason this eavesdropping is needed. There are estimates of thousands of Al Qaeda and Islamic terrorist sympathizers already in this country. For some odd reason our intelligence people think that it might be a good idea if we could monitor their communications with their buddies overseas. You would think that somewhere in the Times story they might make some sort of a mention as to why this new law is so essential to the safety of the American people. But noooooo.

Secondly, maybe it's just me, but if I were writing the story I would have found a way to make it clear that the people inside the United States who would end up being monitored are not just Americans – not just citizens. I would suspect that most of the people in this country who end up on the U.S. side of a monitored conversation would not be "Americans." They would be foreign nationals living in this country.

At any rate, the left will have to shut up for a few days about the evils of "warrentless wiretapping." This has been such a big deal for the Bush-haters, now he has signed a bill presented to him by a Democrat congress! We'll just have to sit back and wait for a bit to see how long it takes for the left to forget their all-important role in this new law.

OHHHH! OBAMA IS SO MUSCULAR! --- WHAT A STUD!

Tony Harris of CNN, Jake Tapper of ABC, Mara Liasson from NPR, and CNN's Candy Crowley all used exactly the same word in referring to Obama's shallow foreign policy address. The same word ... and it's probably a word you've never heard before in your entire life used to describe a speech.

Now think back a bit ... think back to the Gettysburg Address if you wish. What the hell, let's go all the way back to the Sermon on the Mount. We can call that a speech, can't we? Are you working on this? Are you conjuring up each and every speech you've ever heard or read about? Fine ... now tell me; how many times have you ever heard of a speech being called "muscular." That's right ... muscular.

Well if you were listening to Liasson, Tapper, Harris and Crowley last week, you heard each one of them refer to Obama's foreign policy address as "muscular." In the case of ABC's Tapper it was "obviously very muscular." Not only that, but Tapper also told us it was "strikingly bold." So ... there's the "bold" word also. The same word used by the Associated Press in their coverage.

But let's stick with "muscular." We've all hear speeches referred to as "bold" before, but never "muscular."

Try this. Google "muscular speech." You'll get about 7 hits (as of Sunday morning). Every one of those hits point right to Obama. Your Google News search will reveal that not only do we have the four TV news reporters using the word, but you'll also find it in a story written by Dan Balz of the Washington Post, and it appears in coverage in U.S. News & World Report.

Take it a step further. Google for any news story or other resource using the words "muscular" and "speech" in the same item. No ... I didn't go through all two million hits. It soon became clear that most of the hits were concerned speeches about Muscular Dystrophy or body building. I did not, however, find one single reference to any actual speech being described as "muscular," other, that is, than Obama's.

OK ... so what is going on here?

Suddenly, out of the blue clear sky, we learn that Barack Hussein Obama is the master of "muscular speech." Tell me .. how in the wide, wide world of sports do ABC, NPR, The Washington Post, CNN, U.S. News & World Repot and other media outlets suddenly begin using the very same exact word to define a speech ... a word that has never before been used in that manner?

It seems obvious, doesn't it? Barack makes an embarrassing speech on foreign policy. He gets roundly ridiculed. Obama then re-states some of his positions in that speech in an effort to stem the ridicule and to show the voters that he really means business when it comes to fighting terrorism and dealing with America's enemies. Then some Obama operative figures out that Obama can be positioned to the voters as a man of strength and resolve by throwing the word "muscular" into the mix when describing his speech.

When I joined a group of fellow talk show hosts for a meeting with the president in the Oval Office last week, the left suggested that we were merely there to get our talking points in person, rather than by our super-secret daily faxes from the White House. We were referred to in more than a few articles and blogs as the president's "propagandists."

What, then, do you call all of these reporters who are parroting the "muscular speech" line? And don't give me that coincidence nonsense. You know what happened as well as I do. Someone sent the word out. Someone got the word to their like-thinking friends in the press that they would like to see Obama's foreign policy speech referred to as "muscular," and the press fell right in line. The suggestion was made, and then eagerly acted upon. That's the "objective" mainstream media for you.

Think about it. There's simply no other explanation.

DEMOCRATS CLAIM MORAL 'VICTORY'

Last week the Congress passed the ethics and lobbying "reform" bill. Democrats declared it a "great victory," "historic," and "landmark."

But what did the bill actually do? Not much, according to Senator Tom Coburn and Townhall columnist Paul Jacob. Coburn labels the bill a betrayal of the American people. Take a look at some of the points and let me know what you think:

• The bill was changed to make earmark disclosure voluntary rather than mandatory.
   
• The requirement of 67 Senate votes to suspend the earmark disclosure rule was changed to 40 votes — less than a majority.
   
• The language prohibiting a member or staff from promoting earmarks they would personally benefit from was completely eviscerated.
   
• So was the language prohibiting a member from trading votes for earmarks.
   
• The requirement that earmarks be put on the Internet 48 hours after their inclusion in legislation was changed to "as soon as practical."
   
• The non-partisan Senate parliamentarian was replaced by the majority leader as the referee who would determine whether earmark disclosure requirements are met.
   
• The bill also weakened other elements of disclosure and transparency.

The real problem with Congressmen is not how they disclose earmarks but the fact that they cannot be fiscally responsible to begin with. Legislation is not what is going to stop it. It's going to take action from the people. Sadly, the people want to do something about every free-spending congressman in DC but their own.

At some point you have to start wondering if our Republic can survive this Washington gamesmanship much longer.

HILLARY'S LATEST PROBLEM WITH BUSH

Hillary complained this past weekend that President Bush doesn't spend enough money on law enforcement. She said that police are "invisible" to Bush.

Her solution? No mystery here ... spend more money! Oh, and let's focus much of that money on anti-drug initiatives. Oh goody. Our war on drugs! As if we weren't already pouring enough money down that rat hole.

Let's see if this makes any sense. Hillary got upset because the 2008 budget cuts funding to the Community Oriented Police Service program. Of course, the program was created by her husband Bill. And even though the program expired seven years ago, Congress has continued to fund it.

So ... Big Government Hillary is upset because the president has cut funding for a program that her husband said would cease to exist seven years ago. Makes perfect sense to me!

Why, though, would congress keep funding this program? For the same reason the government funds most other programs; CONTROL. When the federal government spends money in local police programs, the federal government then gets to exercise a great deal of control over a function that should be strictly local ... local law enforcement. It's all about growing the size and power of the federal government. Nothing less.

LIBERAL HYPOCRISY

Liberals had their annual YearlyKos convention in Chicago last week. Not surprisingly, they tried to silence any contrary voices in the crowd.

In particular, a uniformed man tried to ask a question at the end of a panel called "The Military and Progressives." What did the uniformed man have to say? That the surge in Iraq was actually working ... contrary to what the panel had just concluded. The moderator wouldn't allow the panelists to address the statement but rather demanded that the man give his name, the name of his commander and the name of his unit.

Name, commanding officer and unit! That, my friends, was just plain, unadulterated intimidation. It was like these liberal candy asses were telling this soldier "How dare you come into this meeting and tell us that you are actually doing a good job in Iraq? Don't you know that nobody wants to hear that? You, sir, will be punished for this transgression."

No more questions were taken. The moderator left the stage. End of debate. You just have to love these left-wing moonbats.

DEAD ... BUT STILL OBESE

Australia is having a big problem ... literally. More than two-thirds of Australians living outside major cities are overweight or obese.

Now it seems that these obese people are causing an unusual problem – the morgues can't handle extremely obese corpses.

Pathologists say they need "heavy-duty" autopsy facilities because the corpses are difficult to move and too heavy for standard-size trolleys and lifting hoists. I wonder how much new facilities are going to cost.

If things don't change, soon Australians will require larger storage and dissection rooms and bigger equipment. It's also creating a safety hazard for morgue workers, as the number of obese corpses has doubled in the past 20 years.

Perhaps the whaling industry could be of assistance here. How about some of those refrigerated ships they used to use to carve up whale carcasses?

Landed in our inbox from some random internet wanderer.

REDNECK SCRAP BOOK

Hey y'all, let's go on a road trip! More in the Redneck Scrap Book.

READING ASSIGNMENTS

First .. the treatment of the new law Bush signed yesterday allowing warrentless wiretapping of international phone calls. This from the New York Times, and this from The Washington Times. Note, please, that at least the Washington Times mentions terrorism.

A fun story from Creative Loafing. The Seven Deadly Sins of Kid Culture. Sure, this guy goes a bit overboard .. but it's well done.

And why the wiretapping? Well, here's a story from The New York Sun saying that there is some evidence that an Al Qaeda cell may be operating inside the United States.

Here's an excellent article by Mark Steyn about our war against radical Islam. Hopefully this will cause CAIR to get their turbans in a wad.

Did you miss the Republican debate on Sunday morning? Here are some of the highlights. By the way, what were these people doing debating when they were supposed to be in church?

President Bush visited the collapsed bridge in Minnesota this past weekend. Meanwhile, Congress is allocating $250 million to rebuild the bridge. Trust me .. that's just a start.

Here's a poll that you won't see in the mainstream media. A Zogby International poll shows that only 3% of Americans approve of Congress' handling of the war.

A highly respected UK economists says that Bush has every right to pan the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, calling it a "seriously flawed enterprise." When are people going to stop listening to the fantasies of OwlGore and pay attention to some facts for a change?

The House approved a $16 billion tax increase on oil companies, while giving billions of dollars in tax breaks for renewable energy and conservation efforts. This is the government telling you that politicians will do a better job of spending oil company profits than the oil companies will. Yeah ... right.

And the House finally passed a US spy bill as Bush wanted them to do before the recess. Nancy Pelosi is not too happy. Breaks my black little heart.

Here's an article from a former Special Forces soldier and writer saying, "Anyone who says Al Qaeda is not one of the primary problems in Iraq is simply ignorant of the facts."

Another diversity study for all of you multiculturalists. It looks like diversity isn't necessarily a new thing.

Obama takes up Genarlow Wilson's cause, talking to black leaders this past weekend in Atlanta.

Al Sharpton's latest case is a murder in a Louisiana town where he claims there's "one rule for white kids and one for black kids."

FOX's "24" is trying to film the last episode of the seventh season entirely carbon-neutral.

This for you global warming ... er ... climate change moonbats out there. Walking to your neighborhood grocery store damages the planet (gasp!) more than driving your car.

If you care, here's the Daily Kos version of what happened with the uniformed man at their Chicago convention. See, we're fair and balanced!

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, Cristina Gonzalez and Laura Nunemaker assist in the daily preparation of Nealz Nuze!