Monday, March 29, 2004

UNITED NATIONS CONTROL OF THE INTERNET?

Did you know that there was a little meeting last week at the UN?  The quasi-public corporation in the United States that handles the assignment of Internet domain names (ICANN) was meeting with UN Secretary General Kofi Annan.  It seems that some UN members and "activists" are saying that the Internet is too closely associated with the United States, and they want their beloved UN to take a greater role in regulating the 'net.  Last week about 200 diplomats and others met at the UN to discuss just such a plan. 

Danger, Will Robinson.

Look around the globe.  The more despotic the government, the more that government tries to control the dissemination of all information within its borders.  The United Nations is not an organization that is interested in freedom.  It is an organization that is interested in one-world government and the international redistribution of wealth. 

If you've listened to me for any time at all you've already heard my riff on the UN and freedom of speech.  Sure, freedom of speech is "guaranteed" in the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights; but if you read a bit further, to Article 29 (3) to be specific, you will read that "These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations."

If the international community succeeds is making the Internet a UN operation it will just be a matter of time before the UN starts regulating content.  It will all be done in the name of "world peace," of course, but it will be done.  Web sites will be scanned for material that might be "offensive" to various cultures .... calling Palestinians murderers, for instance ... and will censor those sites. 

The United Nations is no friend of freedom, and it is no friend of the United States.  The Internet is an American creation.  If people in other countries want to use it, fine.  But operational control should stay here.  We've had enough internationalism lately.

Neal On CNN Daybreak - Tuesday, March 30 6:40AM

RICHARD CLARKE: FOLLOW THE MONEY

Richard Clarke took the full hour on Meet the Press yesterday.  Throughout the week revelation after revelation highlighted Clarke's lack of voracity.  Day by day it became increasingly clear that Clarke's motivations were based more in partisan feelings and a desire for revenge, Oh ... and there's that more than one million dollars he's going to earn from his book.  So ... Tim Russert decides he's worthy of the entire hour on Sunday.

One thing should stand out here.  We're spending all of this time talking about what happened ... what Bush did or did not do ... before 9/11.  What's really important is what Bush did after 9/11.  The polls show that the  Democrats will have limited success attacking  Bush on his record of fighting terrorism after 9/11.  That leaves them with little to do but try to convince the voters that somehow they need to blame Bush for allowing 9/11 to happen in the first place.  Right now Richard Clarke is their point man in this effort. 

It's clear that Clarke is getting a huge pass in the press as to what his motivations for the book are.  For the most part, people are largely buying his story that he was some sort of tortured soul that knew the truth about 9/11, and had Bush only listened to him, the attacks might have been prevented.  Nice story, isn't it?  The only problem is this:  if Clarke felt so strongly about his views, then why didn't he just resign and hold a press conference?  Why wait all the way until now? Why wait until a few days ago to apologize to the families?  It all comes down to one thing and one thing only: money.  Richard Clarke waited until now to "tell" his story because he wanted to make money on his book.  The inconsistencies in his book and his prior testimony don't matter...he doesn't let the facts get in the way of his good story...it's all about the money.  Otherwise, why wait?

Secondly, did anybody else catch Clarke on TV yesterday admitting he voted for Al Gore in 2000?  This doesn't exactly square with what he told the 9/11 commission last week. He said "Last time I had to declare my party loyalty, it was to vote in the Virginia primary for president of the United States in the year 2000.  And I asked for a Republican ballot."  Of course, the only reason he would say that would be to leave the impression that he voted for President Bush, which some media outlets even reported. Now he admits on national television that he voted for Gore. 

Maybe he should go work for the Kerry campaign....he's already got the flip-flopping down pat.  

RICE WON'T TESTIFY -- AT LEAST NOT IN PUBLIC. GETS GRILLED ON '60 MINUTES'

It was interesting to watch just how much more intensely Condoleezza Rice was grilled by Ed Bradley last night on '60 Minutes' than was Richard Clarke a week earlier.  But bias aside, the media just can't stand that Rice will not testify publicly before the 9/11 commission.  She has met with them privately, she has given interviews, but apparently our lives will never be the same unless she testifies in those Senate chambers. Who cares.

Why is it so important that Rice testify publicly?  This 9/11 Commission is charged with gathering evidence and presenting findings.  It's clear that Rice would feel more free to testify on sensitive matters if the testimony was secret.  Why, then, insist on a public hearing?  Oh come on now.  That one's easy.  Because it is only in the spectacle of a public hearing that various members of the Commission can grandstand for the cameras.  The quality of the information would suffer, but the opportunity for partisan showcasing would increase.

I am not aware of one single instance where a presidential national security advisor has ever testified under oath in public.  Why now?  You know the answer.  The goal is to embarrass Bush, not to gather information.

And by the way, anybody else notice that the Bush-haters are giving the administration no credit for what they did after 9/11?  Everybody just assumes that if Al Gore were president, he also would have invaded Afghanistan and overthrown the Taliban.  But is that such a foregone conclusion?  I doubt it.  A Democratic administration would have probably gone to the UN instead.  Also, what about the war on terrorism?  Would that be going on?  Probably not.

Yet, with all of the action the Bush administration has taken in the last 2 1/2 years, and all of the success they have had in the war on Islamic terrorism, all the Richard Clarke-obsessed media can talk about is those 7 1/2 months before 9/11.  Hardly ever do you hear about the success in Afghanistan, the success in Iraq, the success in there not being another attack on American soil.

But if Condi Rice doesn't testify publicly...well, that could mean the end of civilization as we know it.   

HERE'S MORE BAD NEWS FOR DEMOCRATS

It would seem that March was a pretty good month for job creation.  Preliminary figures show that there were more new jobs created in March than in any month since 2000.  How many?  About 120,000.  There are predictions that as many as one million jobs or more may be created before the election. 

Kerry knows the numbers look good, and he needs a way to overshadow the latest statistics. So ... he has now come up with some sort of a grand plan to create 10 million new jobs. 

sKerry says he will put forward a comprehensive economic plan in the coming weeks to create these 10 million new jobs. What a load of nonsense.  First of all, the government does not create jobs.  Jobs are created in the private sector.  All John Kerry would do would be to propose legislation that would kill jobs.  But that is not what gets reported.  And what about the 10 million figure? Where does that come from? 

Do you want to know how sKerry would "create" these jobs?  Government spending, that's how.  Take money out of the private sector, where jobs are created based on the free interaction of a free people in an arena of economic liberty, and use that money to create massive public works projects to put these people to work for government instead of the private sector.  Kerry will also come up with plans to seize money from the private sector by way of taxes, and then redistribute that money back to the private sector to create government subsidized jobs.

Bottom line ... jobs aren't a problem. The economy is growing, and the private sector is creating jobs at a swift pace.  Here's a little quiz:  Just what was the unemployment rate at the end of the third year of Clinton's presidency?  Why, since you asked, it was 5.6%.  And what was the unemployment rate at the end of the third year of Bush's presidency?  Sure!  Happy to tell you!  It was 5.6%.

Do you want some facts on Bush's economic record?  Click here, sit back and enjoy.

UNIVERSAL BROADBAND?

I read the Constitution again last night.  I was looking for that article and section where it said that it was the function of the federal government to make sure that high-speed Internet connections were available to all Americans.  Do you know what?  I couldn't find it!  It's just not there!

But George Bush is there.  He's now proposing some sort of a government program to guarantee universal Internet access in the United States. Not just dial-up, mind you ... but high-speed service.

The only way to "guarantee" this universal access is to use government force to take property (money) away from people who have worked for and earned it and use that property to pay for Internet service for people who, for whatever reason, have achieved the status of economic loser.

What's next?  Guaranteed cell phone service?

CARRYING PROTEST A BIT TOO FAR?

I don't know to what extent this event will make the national news ... but on Sunday afternoon several hundred protestors stormed the home of presidential advisor Karl Rove.  They were pounding on doors and windows and screaming for Rove to either come out or invite them in to discuss some legislation.   What legislation?  Something they're calling the "Dream Act."  This bill would permit illegal aliens who have lived in the US for at least five years to apply for legal status. There is something in the bill about having to graduate from high school first .. but in this day and age what sort of a qualification is that?

Will this form of protest spread?  What do you think about hundreds of demonstrators ... or even two for that matter ... descending on a person's private home to wave signs and chant slogans?  Would a municipal ordinance prohibiting demonstrations in residential neighborhoods pass Constitutional muster?  Clearly these people trespassed when they went on to Rove's property and starting pounding on windows?  How about a few arrests?

SADDAM'S DEFENSE ATTORNEY ...

.... will be a French attorney.  Just try to imagine how surprised I am by this.  Well ... that brings us to this; a column from James Taranto of The Wall Street Journal.  In this column you will see what some Americans think of our cheese-eating surrender monkey "friends" on the other side of the pond. 

READING ASSIGNMENTS

Have you heard of the slippery slope?  Now a federal appeals court has ruled that police officers in Louisiana can search a home without a search warrant. 

John Fund says that sKerry's antiwar activities deserve a bit more scrutiny from the press.

Three Libertarian candidates are making a pitch for the Libertarian nomination.

Newt Gingrich is warning Republicans of a backlash over the cost of Bush's Medicare prescription benefit plan.

The Democrats think that the report from the 9/11 Commission is going to be favorable to them.  Remember, Democrats aren't looking at this commission as a way to find out what happened, and how to prevent it in the future.  They look at it only in terms of how it can be used to hurt George Bush.

Political correctness and multiculturalism have created government school textbooks that are, in a word, disgraceful.

Clarence Page writes of a study of the "hip-hop" culture.  Read this and tell me how much this hideous hip-hop crap is doing for our young blacks.

In 'No Thanks, Mr. Clarke,' family members of 9/11 victims condemn Richard Clarke for profiting from tragedy.  Not everybody is accepting Clarke's "apology."

Mark Steyn writes that George Bush has nothing to fear from Richard Clarke's hilarious work of fiction. He says Clarke's legacy is the Clinton legacy: treating terrorism like a law enforcement problem.

Joel Mowbray talks about terror and tyranny, by the numbers. If the Clinton administration had done something about Al-Qaeda in the 90's, would 3,000 people be alive today?

John Leo reports on a little tiff going on at the Sierra Club over illegal immigration.  Seems they want to tear down anyone who believes illegal aliens are bad for the environment.

Diana West wonders: which Clarke should you believe? The one that praised President Bush in 2002, or the one that is ripping him a new one in his book?

Robert Novak looks at the transformation of Richard Clarke...from a frustrated bureaucrat to a political partisan selling a book.

Fox News' Neil Cavuto writes that he's already tired of the 9/11 Commission, and says the terrorists are laughing at us. Nothing can bring back those lives lost, so it's time to move on.

Congressman Ron Paul writes that the market, not the U.S. government should regulate the airwaves. He says government control of the airwaves is incompatible with a free society.

In 1971, John Kerry said that "200,000 Vietnamese a year were murdered by the United States of America."  Kerry has flip-flopped, saying he didn't mean it.  This editorial wonders just exactly what he meant.

It turns out Spanish police let the Madrid bombers go.  The car and its Arab driver were pulled over and fined for a minor infringement and allowed to go on.  Oops.

U.S. gas prices have hit a supposed "record high," rising to a record average of $1.80 a gallon. However, a survey released yesterday shows people are not scared by the price. By the way, adjusted for inflation, gas is still cheaper than it was in the early 80's.  So stop whining and fill the tank.

GOLF THE BAHAMAS WITH NEAL!
Golf, beach parties, casinos, all to benefit charity--and Boortz listeners are invited. Find out more here!

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.

NEAL'S FANS GET TOGETHER
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
• Meet Boortz fans in your area
• alt.fan.neal.boortz newsgroup (note, you're going to have to figure out newsgroups all on your own)

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