SADDAM BOYCOTTS HIS OWN TRIAL

This is the work of Ramsey Clark.  Saddam Hussein and his defense attorneys just flat-out refused to show up in court yesterday.  Now they're whining about a biased judge.  In case you haven't figured out what's going on here, this is not at all about justice or about biased judges.  This is all about creating a sense of chaos around the trial .. .chaos that will make the completion of the trial all but impossible. Today none of the defendants showed.  Looks like an impasse. The ultimate goal here is to make sure Saddam never stands trial, at least not until he can be brought before some friendly forum in which acquittal or a mild rebuke is all but assured.  The United Nations, for instance.  Ramsey Clark, scumbag-at-law, at work.

OWIE!  IT'S GONNA HURT?

Don't know about you, but I'm getting so tired of these absurd last-minute stays of execution that come from our federal courts.  The latest is a delay granted by the Supremes for poor, poor, pitiful Arthur Rutherford in Florida.  Arthur is afraid that his lethal injection might hurt.  That's right ... it might be painful.  He thinks that the infliction of pain is unconstitutional.  He stabbed an elderly woman, then drowned her in her bathtub.  I guess that didn't hurt at all .. and now this SOB doesn't want to be put to death because he feels it might be painful.

I'm not adamant about the death penalty.  For some it is just too easy to go to sleep and have it done with. If we could lock these animals up for the rest of their lives, fine.  Basic health care.  No television.  No radio.  No reading materials.  For that matter, no visitors.  The murder victim can't receive visitors, so why should the murderer?  One murderer to a cell.  That's where you live.  Food slides in under the door ... pizzas.  You get an hour a day alone in a concrete courtyard for exercise.  The only person you see outside of your prison guard and a doctor would be your attorney.  If we could get that set up I'd go for it. 

If we are going to keep the death penalty, let's get serious about it.  Congress should set up a special federal appeals court that does nothing but hear death penalty cases.  This would the the only federal appeals court that can consider death penalty cases.   The trial court would deliver a complete transcript to the death penalty appeals court within 30 days.  The defense counsel would submit his appeal brief at the same time.  The court would then have 30 days to reach a decision.  If the death penalty is upheld the murderer gets executed the very next day.  One more thing.  He dies the same way his victim died.  In the case of Arthur Rutherford, he would first be stabbed, then drowned.

Pay-per-view could cover the costs.

WHATEVER YOU DO, DON'T SAY WE'RE WINNING

In case you don't already know it, insurgent attacks on our troops and security forces in Iraq are on the decline.  In the 1st week of October of last year there were 700 such attacks.  By mid-December that figure had dropped to 500.  Just last week the number had dropped to 400.  That's a 43% drop in about three months.  At the same time our forces in Iraq are turning over more and more of the Iraqi territory to the Iraqi defense forces to handle.  Just last week military control of two large provinces in Iraq were turned over to Iraqi security forces.

Yeah ... this all sounds a lot like we're losing over there, doesn't it?

NO MATTER HOW HARD YOU TRY, YOU CAN'T HIDE CLASS

Some listener sent me a small cut-out from a newspaper article.  I can't identify the newspaper because only ten lines of print were cut out.  It appears to be an article about the opening of a new store in some community.  Here's the excerpt:

"Debra Jackson said she likes shopping at the Dollar Palace because it is convenient and casual.  "I don't have to get all dressed up like I'm going to Wal-Mart or something," she said."

Nice.

SADLY, GEORGE WILL IS RIGHT

Yesterday, in response to President Bush's State of the Union Speech, I asked for some guidance on just where in our Constitution we would find the section and article which sets forth the responsibility of the federal government to provide for the health care of the poor and the elderly.  I didn't expect an answer, and I wasn't disappointed.  Our founding fathers worked very hard to place a limit on the powers of the federal government.  All powers not specifically granted to the feds were to be reserved for the states and, more importantly, for the people.

It is no longer so.  The average American sees no limit whatsoever on the power of the federal government.  Today I learned that the feds are going to implement some new rules that would require any remodeling contractor to obtain a federal permit .. not a city or state permit ... but a federal permit before they do any renovation work on a home that was built before a certain year.  As the regulations now stand, it doesn't matter whether the contractor is going to replace some wood paneling or re-carpet, he has to get that federal permit.  Why?  Well, there just might be some paint in the home with lead in it.  Oh, the humanity!

George Will wrote an interesting column covering various aspects of the president's speech.  You can read it here.  In that column Will notes that there was once a time when Americans would actually question whether or not the federal government actually had the constitutional right to engage in various programs.  Will says "That impulse is gone in a notion in which it seems quaint to suggest that some things are beyond the government's proper purview.  Today's default position is:  Washington should do it." 

How true, and this is just another reason why I'm a libertarian.  At least we have one party out there that believes there should be clearly defined powers for the various branches of government, and that all other powers should rest with the people. What a concept.  Too bad more people don't understand how crucial it is.

CAPITOL POLICE CAVE

When Cindy Sheehan was hustled out of the House gallery on Tuesday night, the Capitol Police sent a message: there will be no disrupting the president's speech. When they ejected a Republican congressman's wife for wearing a T-shirt supporting the troops, the same message was sent. This is not a political protest event. Everybody has to be respectful. No attention-getting cheerleading allowed. No signs in the gallery.   Finally, somebody put their foot down on civility.

But that was Tuesday night. Unfortunately, the Capitol Police have now caved in. Yesterday afternoon, U.S. Capitol Police Chief Terrance Gainer said the ejections were a mistake. He says Cindy Sheehan and the congressman's wife should have been allowed to stay. "We made a mistake" he said. He says just wearing a T-shirt isn't against the rules. This was the absolute wrong thing to do.

Why so? Just wait 'til next year.  Let's see how many people show up to sit in the gallery wearing T-shirts with great big political messages on them. Cameras will find their way to those people during the speech, and the attention will be taken away from the person doing the speaking. The other problem is that crazies like Cindy Sheehan have now been emboldened. George Bush has a couple more State of the Union addresses left. Thanks to the weak-kneed Terrance Gainer, she'll be back.   Now the State of the Union Speech is going to become just another stage for political protesting.  

Let's not leave this without addressing California leftist  Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey. Woolsey gave Cindy Sheehan her ticket. The California Democrat said yesterday: "Since when is free speech conditional on whether you agree with the president?" Sorry...it isn't. But there's a difference between freedom of speech and freedom to disrupt. We have hear a member of congress who invited a woman who has stated that George Bush is ten times the terrorist that Osama bin Laden is to watch that president deliver his State of the Union Speech.  Legal?  Yes.  Cheesy behavior?  You bet.  

Apparently there are a million possibilities here...

ALITO'S FIRST BIG VOTE

THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WILL NEVER CHANGE.

I saw this "vent" from a reader in today's Atlanta Journal-Constitution:

"From what I could gather from the State of the Union speech, it sounds like more good times for the rich."

There you go.  Wealth envy rears its ugly head again.  It's depressing, but it has always been with us, and it shall never go away.  We owe the passage of the 16th Amendment, the one that brought us the income tax, to wealth envy.  People were told that they should encourage their state legislatures to ratify the amendment because only rich people will ay the taxes and, as we all know, those rich people live in just a few Northeastern states.  So let's go get their money!  

Wealth envy doesn't damage the rich so much as it does the person wallowing in the jealousy.  By damning the wealthy you place place a negative connotation to acquiring wealth in your own subconscious mind.  The subconscious mind cannot take a joke.  If you program your subconscious mind to believe that wealth is bad, wealth is evil, and that rich people are to be reviled, then why in the world would your subconscious allow you to make decisions that might lead to wealth?  Whine about those who have acquired wealth and program yourself for poverty.  Celebrate the fact that you live in a society where hard work and good decisions can lead to wealth, and you've programmed yourself for accomplishment.  Your choice.

REDNECK SCRAP BOOK

Is this what happens when first cousins marry? More in the Redneck Scrap Book.

READING ASSIGNMENTS

The confirmation of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court shows that the president can nominate and get confirmed a conservative justice.  Ann Coulter says see, that wasn't so bad.

George Bush said in his State of the Union address that America was addicted to oil.  Arizona Senator John McCain says members of Congress are suffering from an addiction of their own: pork barrel spending.  Time for an intervention.

Exxon Mobil is experiencing record profits....and Ben Stein says they've earned every penny of it.  By the way, did you know that if you took out all of the big oil company profits, you'd only save a few cents per gallon?

In what could be the beginning of the end for the House Republican majority, some are resisting lobbying reform.  Why? Because they think their leadership is overreacting to the corruption scandals.  Then again, some people also think the Earth is still flat.

George Will has an interesting observation following the president's address Tuesday night.  He says that even though polls show most Americans are relatively conservative, most also think government should be in charge of taking care of people in illness and old age.  So much for limited government.

All this talk about the IAEA referring Iran to the Security Council and other such UN measures aren't going to do a thing to keep Iran from getting nuclear weapons.  Mansoor Ijaz says the time for talking is over.

Many on the right were disappointed with the president's State of the Union address and it all comes down to one reason: bigger and bigger government.  Robert Novak says it appears the younger Bush is a lot like his father in this regard.

Larry Elder recites the State of the Union address that those on the left actually thought they heard, rather than the one the president gave.  He calls it the blue State of the Union.

Tony Blankley hits the nail on the head about the despicable reaction the Democrats had to Bush's statement that Congress ignored Social Security reform.  He calls it the Democrats' defining moment.

Debra Saunders actually feels sorry for Cindy Sheehan, but says it doesn't give her the right to break House decorum and wear a protest T-shirt to the State of the Union address.  Saunders also says she wishes the Capitol Police would have let Sheehan stay for the speech.

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
• 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!