Today's Nuze: November 08, 2004 

WHY ARE LEFTISTS SO DEATHLY AFRAID OF SOCIAL SECURITY PRIVATIZATION?

Of all the reforms proposed by George Bush during his second term, nothing seems to cause Democrats to hyperventilate quite so much as his plans for Social Security. If you truly understand the collectivist and anti-individualistic mentality of the left this will come as no surprise.

Just what is Bush proposing?  Is it truly as hideous and ugly as the Democrats portray it?  Will it be the end of our country; the end of life as we know it in America.  Hardly.  Bush simply plans to allow "younger workers" (however that may be defined) to take some of the money that the government confiscates as Social Security payroll taxes and put that money in a private account.  This account would be owned by the individual.  Government can't take it away.  If the individual dies before retirement the account goes to his family, not to the government.  He earned that money.  It's his.  It remains his.  What, pray tell, is so horrible about this idea?

For Democrats, the issue is control.  There is a huge segment of our society that is or will be almost totally dependent on Social Security benefits when they reach retirement age.  These people would be shocked to learn that they have absolutely no irrevocable right to any benefits at all.  You get those benefits if the politicians want you to get those benefits.  Politicians can, without any legal recourse on your part, decide to delay your retirement age.   This idea is floated often as a solution to the coming Social Security economic crunch.  The motive here is to delay the retirement age so that more old Americans will actually die before they can get any of their money back, or so that they'll collect benefits for a shorter period of time before they go Tango Uniform.  That money, you see, isn't yours.  Oh yeah ... you worked for it.  But before you could even get your hands on it the government snatched it away.  And, no again.  That money is not resting safely in any Social Security account or trust fund.  

When the politicians got their hands on that money they call a Social Security "contribution" they used a part of it to cover the checks there were writing that particular month to Social Security recipients.  The rest of it?  Gone.  Spent.   Every single penny of it has been spent.  Not invested as a private pension plan would do.  They spent it all.  Squandered might be a better word.  

You will hear Democrats say that we can't partially privatize Social Security because it would be too expensive.  What they mean is that if the person who paid the money is actually allowed to put that money into a private account, that money won't be there for the government to spend on its various vote-buying programs.  If our politicians had been doing what basic decency mandated all along .... taking Social Security tax and actually setting them aside in the names of future recipients ... there would be no problem with partial privatization today.  But nooooooo.  That money had to be spent. There were votes to buy and citizens to be made dependent on government handouts!  You can't invest in the future of our retirees when there are elections to be won.

Here's an interesting little factoid you might enjoy.  Virtually every State has some sort of law that regulates insurance companies.  If some private entrepreneur moved to any State in the union and started marketing a retirement and disability plan modeled after Social Security he would be arrested and jailed.  No state government would allow such a scheme to exist.  It does exist though.  It exists as Social Security and it exists because the Imperial Federal Government exercises a monopoly on the use of force.  The money is seized from the working man by force, and benefits will be granted, increased, decreased, denied or delayed as the federal government -- or as the politicians see fit.  

What in the world can possibly be wrong with allowing a person to actually own a part of their Social Security account?  How does this hurt Democrats so badly?  In general, Democrats and liberals are hurt whenever a citizen becomes financially independent.  Democratic political power is built on a foundation of dependency on government.  This dependency is then used as a weapon when elections roll around.  Think back as far as you like, and you won't be able to remember one presidential election where Democrats didn't tell the voters that their opponents, the evil Republicans, were going to "destroy" Social Security.  Now just how in the world are the Democrats going to be able to convince voters that the evil Republicans are going to take away their private accounts?   Truth is, they can't.  No more than they could convince voters that Republicans were going to take their checking accounts.

Individuality and independence are poison to collectivist politics.  The Democrats must do all they can to prevent those who will depend on Social Security from ever enjoying a sense of independence.

NOW I WONDER WHY THIS HAPPENED

The DOW was up 360 points last week.  Can anyone out there think of one reason why this may have happened?  You don't think it could have had anything to do with the fact that John Kerry is once again nothing more than an ineffective, do-nothing U.S. Senator, do you?

BARBECUING THE INSURGENCY

After months of endless negotiating, fighting and being too nice, the United States Military is about to unleash an all-out assault on Fallujah. It's about time we crack some heads and deliver a message these Islamic terrorists understand: surrender and live; fight and die.

Already, Iraqi soldiers and US Marines have seized the main hospital, air strikes have begun and troops are massing in the desert . They are prepared for all-out urban warfare, including whatever it takes to re-take the city. The only question is this: what took so long?  The election, maybe?

Up until this point, we were being too nice. The United States and its allies invaded Iraq and overthrew the regime. When the Islamic terrorists (or as the AP calls them, 'insurgents') didn't surrender, we should have simply started dropping well-targeted bombs until they did surrender. No mercy, because this is war and in war you fight to win. But for some reason, either because of politics or because we didn't want to offend somebody, we tried to negotiate. Negotiating with terrorists never works, they always see it as a sign of weakness.  Showing weakness gets Americans and innocent civilians killed.  

In any event, this time the Military means business. One commander from the First Infantry Division had this to say: We're going to start at one end of the city, and we're not going to stop until we get to the other. If there's anybody left when that happens, we're going to turn around and we're going to go back and finish it." That sounds about right.

Watch for this.  This cult of murderers will kill some of their own women and children and then try to make it look like they were killed by American forces. The media, of course, will fall right in line with this anti-American game.

GAY MARRIAGE HAD LITTLE TO DO WITH IT

If you listen to the talking heads on TV and read the liberal columnists, the consensus on the left seems to be emerging that George Bush was reelected because everybody was afraid that gay marriage might become the law of the land. The election isn't even a week old, and they're already trying to revise history. Nice try.

You can see exactly what's going on here. Such is the left's hatred for George Bush, he couldn't possibly have been legitimately reelected. It must have been those hateful, mean-spirited, anti-gay evangelical voters! Since they believe The Poodle was the superior candidate, they have to delude themselves with some sort of explanation as to why Bush won. But the truth is it had nothing to do with gay marriage.  The last thing these people want to do is face the possibility that their own agenda, the message they delivered to America, was flawed.  Perhaps they would have been well-advised to understand that there are still quite a few people out there who don't believe that America is great because of its government.

Remember, Bush had softened his stance on gay marriage toward the end of his campaign, coming out in favor of civil unions. It wasn't really a campaign issue, because Bush and The Poodle had the same position. Yes, there were 11 states that added gay marriage bans to their constitutions. But of those 11 states, The Poodle carried two; Oregon and Michigan. But what about Florida? Florida had no gay marriage amendment on the ballot, and Bush trounced The Poodle by almost 400,000 votes.

No, the presidential election of 2004 was won because people believed that George Bush's policy of hunting down and killing Islamic terrorists was what was in their best interest. They also believed that John Kerry was a deeply flawed candidate with no record to run on.  A man that could not be trusted with the reigns of power.

Of course, the left will never admit it had anything to do with them. It had to be those religious whackos that were scared of the gays.

DESPONDENT LIBERAL CAN'T GO ON

MORE BASHING OF CHRISTIANITY

Despondent Democrats continue to blame Christians for the defeat of their precious show dog.  I can't remember a time when it was so socially acceptable to show such absolute contempt for the Christian faith and disdain for its followers.  Sometimes I bring you excerpts from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution's "Vent" feature in the Nuze.  This column features short comments phoned in to the AJC by readers.  Here are a few 'vents' that appeared over the weekend.

• I'm a Democrat because I want to use my mind instead of my preacher's.
• When will witch burnings be legalized?
• I am so mad at the religious right that I am going out this weekend and sin.
• Join me in singing the national anthem, "Onward Christian Soldiers."
• When Bush starts talking in tongues I'm moving to Canada.

I suppose that the liberal intelligentsia thinks that they appear to be quite sophisticated and worldly when they attack and make fun of people with deep religious beliefs.  Give me a nice weekend with a Red-State family with values over a weekend in New York in the world of the worldly anytime. 

LAWYERS GATHERING TO LAUNCH ASSAULT ON MERCK

Merck is the pharmaceutical company that manufactured Vioxx.  Vioxx is now off the market, blamed  for heart attacks and heart disease.  Lawyers are gathering to file their lawsuits.  Some experts are estimating that the damages assessed against Merck could approach $18 billion dollars.  If Merck knew ahead of time that this drug might cause heart problems, then Merck should pay.  But should they be run out of business?  Perhaps you take some of the other drugs manufactured by Merck.  There's Fosamax, Propecia, Zocor, Singular, and others.  Merck also makes many of the medications that are used to treat HIV.  Lives have been prolonged due to the work of Merck in this area.

Trial lawyers smell blood.  There are even lawsuits ready to be filed by people who took Vioxx and experienced no health problems at all.  Then want money because they might have health problems in the future.  Actual damages?  Fine.  But run this company out of business?  

READING ASSIGNMENTS

Does the name Jose Maria Aznar mean anything to you?  It should.  He's the Spanish Prime Minister who was run out of office by Al Qaeda.  Now Anzar weighs in on Bush's reelection.  He says that it gives the free world a second chance.

Those condescending Democrats ... they just don't get it.

Would you like to do something nice for our men and women serving in Afghanistan and Iraq?  Here's a website that can help you.  It's Anysoldier.com 

Bad news for Democrats.  Hispanics don't seem to be as firmly entrenched on the Democratic plantation as some other minorities.

Republican (In Name Only) Senator Arlen Specter is warning George Bush not to appoint any conservative judges to federal courts.  This is important because Specter is slated to become the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.  This link will take you to an on-line petition to Senators asking them to block Specter ascension to the Chairmanship.

This just in...Bush won Iowa, for a final total of 286 electoral votes. If he had won New Hampshire again, Ohio wouldn't have mattered.

A little reality check here.  Everything wasn't exactly all hunky-dory for Republicans on Election Day.

United States Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist's ill health means he may soon retire, and President Bush will nominate a new Chief Justice...will it be Clarence Thomas? Speculation abounds...and if it's true, get ready for the mother of all confirmation battles.

What was one of the biggest reasons for President Bush's victory last Tuesday? Michael Barone says it's because people got weary of the Bush-haters.

George Bush won a convincing, dramatic election victory with absolutely no help from the mainstream media, which was rooting for Kerry until the end. Big loser in this election ... the mainstream media.  No juice.

The Swiftees are rejoicing over The Poodle's election defeat....saying he'll never be able to call them terrorists or war criminals ever again.

You may have a hard time believing this nonsense, but some Democrats are actually saying that Bush's reelection is worse than 9/11. These people have lost their minds.

The condescending liberals still don't get why Bush won a second term to the White House. Mark Steyn says the left is absolutely clueless. He also says it wasn't just rednecks that voted for Bush.

Former Speaker of The House Newt Gingrich talks about the president's victory, and what is really behind it. The voting public is deeply estranged from the left.

Liberals are in a panic at Bush's reelection, but Bil Steigerwald says the left deserves everything they get.

Victor Davis Hanson says there was no way John Kerry was ever going to win the election, despite the media's prediction of a close race.  I wish he had told me.

What do you get when a French protester chains himself to the train tracks and a train comes along? Pate, of course.

Do you think Serena Williams shops with Alexandra Kerry? You decide. Warning: a bit indecent.

If your teenager talks about "getting brain", they're probably not referring to studying extra hard...

WHAT THE HECK ARE THOSE POINTY HAND THINGS?
These are links to each individual story on the Nuze, p-links for the geeks out there. Plus, they work today and they'll work tomorrow. Now you can easily discuss/debate/rip apart the Nuze without worrying about the links going bad. Enjoy!

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)

NEALZ LINKS FOR NUZE The Atlanta Journal-Constitution World Net Daily NewsMax Wall Street Journal opinions Washington Times Washington Post Real Clear Politics Media Research Center Naples Daily News The Drudge Report The Associated Press SF Gate townhall.com

NEALZ AUDIO ARCHIVES Interview with Peter Jennings 1/26 Howard Dean Alarm System Neal talks with Ludacris Boo Got Shot CARTOON INDEX Check here for a list of cartoons that have appeared on Nealz Nuze.

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