HILLARY SHOWS HER HAND

OK ... sorry about not being on the air yesterday.  Actually, all weekend long I was soooo looking forward to Monday so that I could play a little Hillary sound byte for you.  Those who listen to the show today will actually hear Ms. Rodham screeching these words ... for you Nuze readers .. here's the transcript.  Hillary was talking about the profits earned by Exxon Mobile in 2006.  She was speaking to a meeting of Democrats:

"The Democrats know what needs to be done.  Again, we're working trying to try push this agenda forward.  The other day the oil companies reported the highest profits in the history of the world.  I want to take those profits and I want to put them into a strategic energy fund that will begin to fund alternative, smart energy; alternatives and technology that will begin to actually move us toward the direction of independence." 

Many years ago one of Hillary's professors at Yale identified her as a socialist.  I ask you now, did that professor have a point? Does this sound like the rantings of a person who is supportive of the concept of free enterprise?

Where do we start with Hillary's comment?  There are so many points that need to be brought up.

First is Hillary's obvious belief that the profits of American corporations are the government's to take.  This attitude shows a complete disdain for the concept of private property rights.  Those profits belong to the shareholders of Exxon Mobile, not to government, and certainly not to Hillary Rodham.  

And just who are the shareholders of Exxon Mobile?  Who are the people that Hillary wants to punish by "taking" their earnings?  

Here we have to battle the economic ignorance of the American people ... an economic ignorance fostered by our hideous system of government education.  Most Americans believe that the Exxon Mobile shareholders are probably rich fat cats sitting on their yachts in the Bahamas or jetting around the world on their private jets when they aren't living in their multi-million dollar homes. 

Wrong.

Some of the largest shareholders in Exxon Mobile are quite likely retirement funds.  Teacher retirement funds, Police retirement funds.  Fireman retirement funds.  These funds invest their member's money in stocks of corporations likely to return a good annual dividend.  The dividends are then used to write the monthly checks to retirees.  This is the money that Hillary wants to "take."  

Now Hillary knows this.  She may be America's most dangerous politician (you're beginning to see why) but she most certainly is not stupid.  She knows who those Exxon Mobile shareholders are.  She also knows that most Americans buy the fat-cat scenario and that she can talk about "taking" corporate profits with virtual immunity.  The people who she depends on to vote for her have no understanding how dangerous she is.

Once again we find ourselves right back at our neighborhood government school.  Hillary knows that there will be no real price to pay for  her anti-capitalist comments because most Americans have a completely distorted view of the role corporate profits play in our economy.   We know that our government schools do a hideous job of educating our children.  Politicians know this also.  We're upset.  Politicians generally are not.   Hillary couldn't stand up there and say "I want to take these profits and ..... " if the American people had any clear understanding of economics and corporate profits.  The dumber the masses, the easier it is for people like Hillary to get away with her demagoguery.

To begin with .. let me tell you that Exxon Mobile made about $39 billion in 2006.  Now that's a lot of money, isn't it?  Does that profit figure give you enough information to determine whether or not Exxon Mobile made too much?  Too little?  Just enough?  Some of you who are reading this are unfamiliar with my radio show.  Perhaps you haven't read Nealz Nuze before.  So ... let me ask you this.  You now know what Exxon Mobile's profit was.  Can you tell me what their profit margin was?  Now if you approach the average man on the street and ask them what they think a fair profit for a corporation would be the answer will average out at about 20%.  That's right.  Repeated surveys show that most Americans think a 20% profit margin would be a fair figure for most American corporations.  Well, as of the end of Exxon Mobile's third quarter of 2006 their profit margin was 11.46%.  That's quite a bit below the profit margin of many huge finance corporations and banks.  

I'm not sure what Exxon Mobile's profit margin was when you factor in the final quarter. My quick calculations show it to be somewhere between 10 and 11%.  That, clearly, is too high for Hillary.  A profit margin that high means that Hillary wants to move in and "take" the profits.  She has things she wants to spend that money on.  Never mind the retirement funds who depend on corporate dividends paid from these profits to write retirement checks.  Never mind individual investors who use the dividends from these profits to pay bills.  Hillary doesn't care about these people. She cares about power.  She knows that Americans all Americans can see is that $39 billion figure -- and that their economic ignorance can be manipulated for votes.  To manipulate these people all The Hildabeast has to do is get up there and talk about "taking" profits away from evil, rich corporations.  

Music to an uneducated public's ears.

NO EXCUSE FOR THE BUSH BUDGET

Sure .. it eventually calls for the elimination of over 100 federal programs, but it doesn't call for any true spending cuts.  This is a president who has just about doubled the amount of money the Imperial Federal Government of the United States spends in any given year ... and he couldn't present a budget that cuts --- and I mean really cuts --- federal spending by just one percent?

Our government is addicted to our money.  Every year the addiction grows.  When are we going to force our government into a 12-step program of some type? Hey, this is fun. The White House is inviting your questions about the budget. Ask away!

ANTI-WAR RESOLUTION SHOT DOWN

Senate Democrats came up short in their effort to pass a resolution condemning President Bush's troop surge in Iraq.  Joe Lieberman had it right when he said the resolution was meaningless, so why bother supporting it?  So the question stands:  if President Bush's plan in Iraq is so wrong, then why not pull the funding for it?

Even some Republicans who had supported the anti-war resolution voted against it, because Democrats wanted to limit debate to just that one proposal.  There was another proposal on the table; a resolution which said that the Senate would not cut funding for the additional troops in Iraq.  The Democrats were afraid that if this resolution were to be debated and voted upon it might very well draw more votes than the anti-war resolution they were pushing.  That would, of course, had made their anti-war resolution look rather anemic.  So the democrats chose the path of preventing the alternate resolutions from coming to the floor of the Senate .. and in so doing they accuse the Republicans of trying to stifle debate.  

So it comes to pass that Harry Reid fails in his bid to debate President Bush's troop surge.  But really, as Lieberman pointed out, it would've been a complete waste of time anyway.  What would be accomplished?  Hardly anyone in the Senate is going to actually vote to stop the war.  The next time a Democrat drones on about how Iraq is becoming like Vietnam, then they need to be asked when they are going to vote to cut off funding to the war like in Vietnam.  That conversation will be over.

Democrats don't have the votes or the you-know-whats to cut the war off.  So once again, despite the fact that they have control of both Houses of Congress, despite the fact that President Bush's approval ratings are at Nixonian levels...despite the unpopularity of the war...they can't even bring a resolution criticizing the war to the floor.

Karl Rove probably can't believe his good fortune.

RUDY IS OFFICIALLY IN

Rudy Giuliani is in the race.  America's Mayor has announced he is running for president in 2008.  Does he have a chance to win the Republican nomination?  Let's hope so...he may be the only chance there is to prevent The Hildabeast from being sworn in.  And in order to defeat Shrillary, the conservative Republican base is going to have to suck it up in the primaries and accept a few realities.

Rudy is well-known as a supporter of gun control, abortion rights and gay marriage.  There's also the issue of his messy divorce a while back.  Who cares...none of this matters when it comes to stopping Hillary Clinton.  So while the right may have to hold its nose and get Giuliani through the primaries, he may well be the only one with a real shot at saving the Republican from a second Clinton presidency.

Can he get there?  Let's hope so.  If somebody "more conservative" like Sam Brownback or Mike Huckabee or John McCain wins the nomination, unfortunately...Hillary will probably win.  But in some polls, Rudy still runs ahead of Hillary.  There may still be hope. Otherwise, come January 20, 2009 we're going to witness the swearing in of President Hillary Rodham.

GLOBAL WARMING

Chicago is going through its coldest stretch of weather in 11 years.  That's "coldest."  Must be the global warming, right?

With much of the country in the freezer, one professor has stepped forward to question the entire premise of global warming.  And that's the dirty little secret of the global warming crowd...that there are smart people who don't think there is such a thing as man-made climate change.  So aside from the record-setting low temperatures outside, what is the evidence that whatever global warming there is isn't being caused by the actions of man?  As it turns out, plenty.

According to Timothy Ball, a former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg in Canada, there is no such thing as man-made climate change.  He calls the whole thing "the greatest deception in the history of science."  Is he right?  Who knows...but what happened to the idea of open debate?  This guy is treated by the media and the Left as some sort of global warming denier...a kook who thinks the Earth is still flat.

Look, folks .. you can buy this man-made global warming nonsense all you want.  Just sit back and believe everything you hear from the political class and the United Nations.  Not me.  I'm gathering all of the information I can to continue to debunk this alarming campaign.  

Now this certainly isn't going to make the front page of the New York Times or the Washington Post, and I rather doubt that you will see it reported on CNN, but over 15,000 scientists who have signed a petition expressing their doubts in idea that any global warming we might be experiencing is being caused by man.  That petition says:

"We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."

Now I really don't have the room to list all 15,000 of these scientists here ... so you can check it all out on this link. 

Oops ... it looks like there may be more than just a few talk show hosts out there who think that there's something wrong with this global warming business.

A BLOW TO GENERAL AVIATION?

Is the FAA getting ready to ban small airplane flights around New York City?    This is a response to the crash that killed Yankee's pitcher Cory Lidle and his flight instructor.  They rammed into an apartment building on the upper East Side some months ago.  Based on that one accident the FAA seems to be ready to just ban all small airplane flights around the city .. including flights up and down the Hudson River.  Overreaction seems to be favored over thoughtful action by so many government agencies.  Why should the FAA be any different?

Look for Chicago's pathetic mayor Richard Daley to chime in with a "Me too! Me too!" call to the FAA.  Daley has been a longtime opponent of general aviation.

None of this will resonate at all with the American people.  They view people flying their own airplanes as merely a part of the evil, nasty rich .. and no punishment for these rich people flying around in their expensive toys is too harsh.

Another thing ... President Bush's new budget calls for user fees on general aviation.  This is something that is being pushed by the major airlines.  They want to get private businesses and individual pilots to pick up much more of the cost of maintaining our air traffic control system.  Presently general aviation pilots pay for these services through the very high federal tax on their four buck a gallon plus fuel.  That tax will undoubtedly stay there ... with additional fees (taxes) added on.   

I believe that this could make flying more dangerous.  Many general aviation pilots might make the decision to save money by making their trip VFR instead of filing IFR and getting "into the system."  This would mean that they will be flying without communicating with the air traffic control people who are responsible for maintaining separation from other aircraft.  Yes, they would be flying in accordance with strict rules governing VFR flight .... but they still would not be in the air traffic control system.  

Anyway ... it looks like double-taxation of general aviation pilots is on the way ... and most people won't care.

SUPER BOWL!

The headline on the front page of yesterday's Naples Daily News read "Indy Moment. Tony Dungy becomes first black coach to win the Super Bowl."  It's all about group identity, isn't it?  No appreciation of the individual who is Tony Dungy.  Its all about his color.  Though you may not understand it ... all of this tagging of people with their group identity is part and parcel of the war on individualism.

FUN WITH NEAL'S EMAIL!

READING ASSIGNMENTS

President Mugabe of Zimbabwe continues his war against white farmers.  Nobody really cares. 

So you think all of Iraq's problems started when we invaded in 2003?  Think again.  Christopher Hitchens run downs the many problems Iraq was having prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom.  Turns out Saddam Hussein wasn't in complete control of everything that was going on.

Mortimer Zuckerman says we can't leave Iraq.  The editor of U.S. News and World Report says Iraq is a nightmare and the president is betting his party's future on the troop surge, but we have to stay and fight.  He also says Iraq could get much, much worse.

Joe Biden recently unloaded on all of the Democratic candidates for president in the last 8 years, so Pat Buchanan decides to take a closer look at Biden's interview, the one that got him into so much trouble.  Was he right?  Read on for an analysis.

Five years ago, Victor Davis Hanson wrote about the problem of illegal immigration in California.  So now, some 5 years later, what does Hanson think about the current Mexican invasion?  He thinks it's actually much worse now...worse than he could have ever imagined.

Thomas Sowell is taking on a recent New York Times news story which says more than half of women are not married.  Turns out the Times was fudging the stats...big-time.  They were counting widows and 16 year old girls.  So what is the real number?  Keep reading to find out.

The economy is doing much better now than it was in 1996 when Bill Clinton was running for re-election.  But not if you ask the media.  As David Frum reports, the media reports economic news differently, depending on who is occupying the Oval Office.

With politicians of both parties running a bit on the bland side these days, David Limbaugh wonders if the GOP doesn't have a good shot at recapturing Congress and keeping the White House in 2008.  He says now that they're in charge, Democrats are coming under increased scrutiny.

Cal Thomas says that in a race to the bottom to get votes, not many will be to outrun Republicans.  The reason is because of their outrageous Hispandering, that is trying to get Hispanic votes in exchange for looking the other way on the Mexican invasion.

It turns out all of our allies in Iraq that have pledged money to help rebuild that country are coming up a bit short....in fact, very short.  What's more outrageous is that the countries who owe the most are the ones with the most money, including Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.

A black professor at MIT has started a hunger strike....because he was denied tenure.  He claims it was based on race. But wait...he's going to drink water, take vitamins and electrolytes.  Is that really a hunger strike?  Sounds like something The Sloganmaster would do.

It's done. All the editing is over. "Somebody's Gotta Say It" will appear on your bookstore shelves on Tuesday, February 20, 2007. The autographed first editions have sold out so if you want my mark on your book, you'll need to catch me at one of my book signings. Or if you just want to get to reading, order it online 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.

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!