THE ATTACK ON TALK RADIO BEGINS IN EARNEST TODAY

This will be a big day for the left in its campaign to rid this country of their nemisis ... those pesky right-wing talk show hosts.  Today we'll be hearing about a new study by the Center For American Progress, a Washington left-wing think tank.  The man running this outfit is none other than John Podesta, the former Chief of Staff for Bill Clinton.  This report will condemn what it calls a "massive imbalance" between conservative and "progressive"  My guess is that the report will blame the preponderance of liberal talk radio shows on anything but the absolute failure of these shows to sustain themselves with good ratings.  We'll also undoubtedly see the typical statements about the asinine concept of "the public's airwaves."

Now we all know that liberals -- and all-too-many conservatives, for that matter -- just love to use the police power of government to solve a private sector problem that vexes them.  It's the liberal way.  The liberal believes that this country is great because of its government, so why not use the government to make it even greater!  At least in the eyes of the liberal elite.

Right now I would like to address this concept of the "public airwaves." Briefly put, it's utter nonsense.   But where did it start?  By the time radio broadcasting came along the elite -- that would be the political leadership -- understood the political value of controlling the flow of information to the people.  A free flow of information was not desirable. The more exercise politicians could control over the dissemination of information, the stronger they were.  And so it is today.  You don't think that Hugo Chavez seized the nation's number one television station last month because he wanted to watch Sponge Fidel Square Pants, do you? 

When our country was founded freedom was uppermost in the minds of our leaders.  By the time Marconi got out his gun soldering gun and transmitted his first wireless signal around 1895 our Republic was already about 120 years old.  By that time we had developed a political class that was perhaps more interested in preserving their positions of power than they were in preserving something so dangerous as freedom of the press. 

Around ninety years earlier our nation's founders had decided that government should not interfere with the dissemination of information.  Unfortunately, at that time there were only two ways to spread the word.  One was verbally, the other was in written form.  Both ended up being protected in the First Amendment to our Constitution.  The First Amendment contained in the Bill of Rights was finally ratified on December 15, 1791.  Can there be any doubt in your mind that had the authors of the Bill of Rights known of the role that broadcasting would one day play in conveying information, they would certainly have included broadcast freedom along with freedom of speech and the press?  Certainly there is no good argument as to why they would not do so.

By the 1930s Marconi's little wireless telegraph invention was really taking hold, and our politicians started talking about government control. Now obviously there was a government role to play in protecting one broadcaster's right to the use of his broadcast frequency, just as there is a role for government to play in protecting your use of your own property.  The government recognizes and affords you a means of protecting your property ownership rights.  This is how it should have been with the government and broadcast frequencies.  That wasn't the way it worked out.  There was political power to protect.

Since there were no first amendment guarantees for freedom of broadcast, the politicians put their heads together to come up with some excuse  to enable the government to step forward and take control ... FAST ... before this radio thing got to be a problem for them.   After all, not only could information be shared with the American people through radio, but it could be done instantly, and at much lower cost than the printed media. 

So ... what to do?  Hey!  Maybe this would work!  We'll just say that the public owns the airwaves!  And since the public owns the airwaves, we, as their loyal representatives in Washington, need to step forward and exercise control over what happens on those airwaves, just as we can manage access and behavior on any other government property!

I know most of you have never really thought about this before, but this argument is ridiculously easy to destroy.  On just what basis does the public own the airwaves?  Is there a purchase contract somewhere that I just haven't seen yet?  Just when did the public acquire ownership of the airwaves?  Did the public own the airwaves when there were no broadcast signals traveling at the speed of light from antennas to receivers?  Or did that public ownership suddenly materialize when Marconi sent his first signal over the distance of about 14 feet?  Maybe public ownership didn't happen until the KDKA broadcast some presidential election results in Pittsburgh on that night about 85 years ago.  But, at whatever moment in time we're talking about, what even took place that suddenly granted ownership of all broadcast frequencies to the public?  Did the public invest huge sums of money to develop these frequencies, or was this done by private entrepreneurs?  Did the government go out and purchase or trade something for these frequencies as it did with the Louisiana purchase or Alaska?  Just what happened?  Where are the ownership papers?  Where's the evidence that the public even had something to do with the very creation of these broadcast frequencies?

The answer is that there is no evidence of ownership.  None.  The public "owns the airwaves" only because the politicians in the early part of the last century said so.  And that's it.  They saw a new means of communication coming forward, a means of communication that had the promise of someday being more powerful than the Constitutionally protected printed word, and they wanted control.  They wanted control, so they took it.

It would be easy to argue that government should control newspapers as it does broadcasting.  Trust me, the left wing ideological tilt of the nation's newspapers is every bit as pronounced as is the conservative influence in talk radio.  If it were not for the First Amendment, would these politicians be able to conjure up some sort of "public ownership" excuse to perhaps apply a fairness doctrine to newspapers?  Well ... let's give it a try.   

Let's see .... you can print a newspaper all you want, but it really doesn't do any good unless you get that newspaper to the people.  You have to load those newspapers on to trucks and get them to the newsstands, the hotels, and to the people who deliver them to your front door.  And guess what!  To do this you have to use the public's roads!  There!  See how easy that was!  We've created an excuse for government control of the content of your daily newspaper!  All we had to do was show that the newspaper publishers use the public's roads and highways to get their news and opinion to your office or home! 

It is so very much easier to make the case for public ownership of the roads and highways than it is to make the case for ownership of the airwaves.  Unlike the broadcast frequencies,  we actually paid for those highways through our tax money ... and we continue to pay for their maintenance year after year! 

So .. why doesn't government step in with some control here?  The answer is simple.  The First Amendment.  Government hands are tied when it comes to newspapers.  Not so with talk radio, thus the left-wing study surfacing today. 

Talk radio is conservative because that's what the listeners want.  Don't give me this "corporate ownership" nonsense.   WSB radio in Atlanta, my flagship station, is owned by Cox Radio, Inc.  Cox Radio, in turn, is owned by Cox Enterprises which, in turned, is majority owned by people who have been stalwart Democrats since day one.  In fact, Cox Enterprises was formed by James Cox, the Democrat candidate for president in  the 1920 presidential election.  (Defeated by Warren G. Harding)  Interestingly enough, Cox's running mate was someone named Franklin D. Roosevelt.   Does Cox Radio put me on their talk radio stations because I reflect the political ideology of the principals?  Hardly.  It's because I get ratings!  And that means I make money for them.  They've tried liberal hosts .... and they don't get ratings and they don't make money for the company.   Simple as that. 

So .. .the battle is joined.   Liberals feel threatened by talk radio.  They tried to succeed with their Air America, and all the George Soros and embezzled funds in the world didn't help them.  So, in the liberal world, if at first you can't succeed, use the government to destroy your opponents.

This is going to be fun ... if not tragic.  Let them get control in Washington and it will be the end of talk radio as we know it today.

CAREFUL IF YOU ABUSE A CHILD IN DELAWARE ... UNLESS ..................

Thanks to Linda, a listener, for putting me on to this one.

You do know what a statute of limitations is, don't you?  Let's say you commit a crime.  If there is a four-year statute of limitations on that crime then the state has four years in which to prosecute you.  Once four years pass, you're home free.  There is also a statute of limitations in civil cases.  Doctors are particularly good in coaxing their state legislatures to set a rather limited statute on instances of medical malpractice.  When I was practicing law in Georgia a victim had two years from the occurrence to discover the malpractice and file a suit.  Governments like to set very short statutes of limitation where they may face liability ... often one year or less.  Different states have differing statutes of limitation on different crimes and civil wrongs.  On some crimes in some states you'll find none at all.

Now ... onward to Delaware.  The Delaware House of Representatives approved a bill on Tuesday that eliminates the two-year statute of limitations for child abuse for suits for damages due to personal injuries caused by the sexual abuse of a child by an adult.  Now, in Delaware, the victim of sexual abuse will have more time to sue for civil damages.  The statute was two years.  Under the new legislation it will be 25 years, the second longest statute of limitations in the country.

But wait!  Does this new statute of limitations apply to everyone? 

Durn ... I'm sure glad you asked.  Turns out it doesn't!  It seems that there are some very powerful private interests in Delaware that worked very hard with some state legislators to make sure that they --- or, I should say, their members --- would not be subject to the new lengthened statute of limitations.   Hmmmmmm.  Now just who would that be?  Who would be powerful enough in a strongly Democrat state such as Delaware to get their members a pass when it comes to increasing their exposure for lawsuits that might be brought about as a result of sexually molesting a child? 

Well; to be that strong in a Democrat state you might have to be a union, right?  And right you are!  It was a union, all right, but not just any union.  It was the nation's most powerful union!  Yup, you got it .... the teacher's unions!

Would any of you care to guess just what group of people out there has the highest rate of sexual abuse of children in the nation?  Dr. Charol Shakesshaft of Hofstra University studied that very question. 

OK ... calm down.  I want to hear that giggling stop out there right this minute!  You hear!  This is a respected academic we're talking about here ... and a woman.  So knock off the "Shakesshaft" jokes.  This is a serious matter.

Are you ready to move on here?    Good. 

The research done by Dr. Shakesshaft disclosed that government school employees -- and that would include teachers -- have the highest rate of child sexual abuse in the nation.   We assume that those statistics would have some validity in Delaware, but the Delaware legislature, bowing undoubtedly to the power of the teacher's unions, has actually exempted government school teachers from this new lengthened statute of limitations! 

In other words ... if your son's karate instructor sexually abuses your little boy one day after karate class, you will have 25 years to get that lawsuit filed.  But, if your child's government school teacher tries to clean your son's eraser after school one day, you had better get that lawsuit filed in two years. 

Bill Donohue, the president of the Catholic League, makes a good point here.  He says that if the Delaware legislature were to pass a law that gave teachers in Catholic schools a pass on the new statute of limitations on child abuse, all unholy hell would break loose.  Government school teachers?  An entirely different matter.

Donohue said: ""The degree of corruption in the Delaware legislature is matched only by the selective indignation its lawmakers have for child rape. The legislators are owned-lock, stock and barrel-by the teachers unions.  Teachers can grope all they want. They can rape little kids. And now they will be protected by making it harder to prosecute them."

Nice going, Delaware.  You're doing a real good job of protecting government school teachers; and you're certainly paying your dues to the teacher's unions; but what about the people you represent?

Now ... for more information.  Delaware State Senator Karen Peterson is the legislator that is leading the charge to protect the teachers from the consequences of their actions. Peterson is a Democrat ... and if there is a party that is owned by the teacher's unions, it would be the Democrats.  Representative Greg Lavell is trying to get the exemption for government school teachers removed.  Lavell is not a Democrat.  He's a Republican.  Just thought you would like to know. 

Oh .. .and thanks to Senator Patterson for making my job so easy!

IRAQ STRATEGY

A think tank run by former U.S. defense officials has released a detailed plan for Iraq withdrawal. The Center for a New American Security is trying to take a more realistic approach to Iraq.  There's an idea that liberal, peace-at-any-price Democrats haven't considered. 

Here's what the think tank has cooked up: 

-          Rather than creating a democracy, just focus on preventing the establishment of al Qaeda safe havens, a regional war and genocide

-          Reduce military presence by the end of 2008 from 160,000 to 60,000 (not too sure about that one)

-          Transfer leadership of security operations to Iraqis while the United States makes a major effort to train U.S. advisors, raising the number in Iraq from 6,000 advisors now to 20,000 by the end of 2008

-          Retain a significant military presence in the region

-          Completely withdraw troops by 2012

The think tank also said that there will be no victory in Iraq, according to Bush standards.  Well, duh.  The Bush standards were set way too high for the amount of force he put into Iraq from the start.  But what is "victory" anyway?  We aren't fighting old wars anymore.  There is no, "Hey my guys killed 3 million and yours only killed 2 million ... we win!"

If anything, it is a more articulated and logical plan than I have seen from either party in Washington.  But then again, that's not saying much these days. 

CONGRESS GETS 3% APPROVAL ON AMNESTY

Guess what has crept up on the list of most important issues facing Americans?  Yep.  Immigration.  Or, illegal immigration. Second only to Iraq, which should technically be labeled our war against Islamic extremists ...  But anyway, Zogby just did a little poll.  You wanna know what it said?  It said that only 38% of Americans think the immigration legislation is a good idea.  Even worse, a measly 3% of Americans think that Congress has done a good job handling the immigration bill.  The president did a little better with 9%.  I mean, Bush's approval ratings have been low, and Congress is notoriously unpopular, but this is appalling.

But I wonder how many people out there actually know how their representatives are going to vote.  Heck, how many people out there even know who their representatives are!  When these polls are taken and they ask about Congress, people generally assume the entire body of Congress.  And this is fine, but if you want to actually do something about an issue (like immigration) you have to lobby your individual representatives.  They are the ones that are supposed to be representing you with their votes.  Now I have gotten plenty of emails from listeners, sending me their letters they've sent to their representatives.  This is a good thing.  But unfortunately I am afraid that it isn't the norm.  So when you see that 3% approval rating, how do your representatives stack up?  Do you think that three out of every hundred people approve of their job?  If so, this is some pretty lousy representation we have here.   

A WIN FOR PRIVACY, BAD FOR INVESTIGATORS

For you e-mail lovers out there, you will be happy to know that those emails officially belong to you.  They are private property.  Not the government's.  Not your hubbies.  Yours.  Well, if you live in the under the jurisdiction of the Six Circuit - that would be Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky and Tennessee.  (This is for all you government educated folks.) 

Already wiretap restrictions prevent the government from reading  your emails ... at least without a warrant.  Getting into someone else's email is just the 21^st century version of telephone wiretapping.  And now we are going to see a string of cases on the issue. 

With a telephone, it is easy to monitor whether the call is an international call.  But with email, it is a bit trickier.  You could register an account in Pakistan but already be in the U.S. I suppose that technology gurus could easily tell where emails are being sent from at that point in time, but that is beside the point.  The point is that email is the newest way to engage in terrorism.  Don't be fooled, folks.  Terrorist organizations are extremely Internet savvy.  Maybe even more than the average American.  And with more restrictions on e-mails, it may soon be impossible to monitor any communication on the Internet, even if it involves terrorist investigations. 

Now we'll have to see how other courts rule - and you know how I feel about government invasion of privacy - but there is a point where you just have to use common sense.  And common sense would tell me that complete 100% protection of email is an open invitation for terrorist communication.   And that's definitely something I'm not too fond of.  

WHAT A WASTE OF TIME AND TAX DOLLARS

At a time when we are fighting a war with Islamic extremists, trying to prevent granting amnesty to millions of criminals and bent out of shape about "climate change," the House has found a way to waste time and tax payers' money.  I know ... let's go back to the civil rights movement!  Let's re-open cases that are nearly half a century old.  "This is important because we have to correct these wrongs!" 

What a bunch of horse-squeeze.  A waste of time.  What we're really seeing here is pandering to a specific voting block. 

First let's get to the quote.  From my home state of Georgia. "We must do something to right these wrongs," said Rep. John Lewis, Georgia Democrat and civil rights veteran who sponsored the bill. "We have an obligation ... let us move to close this dark stain on our nation's history." 

How long does this go on?  How long do we wallow in the hideous history of bigotry and racism in America?  The world is a different place now.  We fought the civil rights battle, and we're much better for it.  But it seems that some of the race warriors just can't adjust to an era of racial equality under the law.  They long for the battles of the 60s.  How long do we keep turning the clock back like this?   

You want to know the cost of this?  Over $30 million in the next ten years.  $10 million a year over the next decade to create a unit at the Justice Department to pursue cases that have sat cold for decades - like we need any more units or departments to expand the federal government.  $2 million of earmarks per year in grants for state and local law enforcement agencies to investigate cases where federal prosecution isn't practical - isn't practical?  The whole thing isn't practical!  And another $1.5 million to improve coordination among investigating agencies.  You know what needs coordination?  Agencies focusing on terrorism.  That is our main threat.  That is where our priorities lie.  Sounds like a government outrage if I've ever heard one! 

READING ASSIGNMENTS:

More exciting global warming news.  Are you reading for global cooling??  Solar scientists say that by 2020 the sun will be into its weakest solar cycle (aka. It won't be so darn hot ... and there is nothing man can do to stop it!)

Granting amnesty is bad enough.  But Kris Kobach, former chief adviser on immigration law to Attorney General John Ashcroft, says that the bill just hands citizenship over to terrorists on a little silver platter. 

In case you've been under a rock (or on some warm sandy beach on vacation), Bush vetoed the stem cell bill.  Well, back to the drawing board ... but I guess it saved some tax dollars. 

Here's an unfortunate combination:  TB and illegal immigrants.  131chicken head snappers tested positive for TB.  They are apparently more susceptible to the disease because "they come from other countries."  It's OK guys, you can go ahead and say it ... 

Mexico to the rescue!  After Hugo Chavez banned Venezuelan's favorite TV station, Mexico said that it will help to air the programming.

Hillary got booed at her liberal little Take Back America conference.  She blamed the Iraqi government for the current chaos.  Apparently this view was not liberal enough. 

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, when the average price of regular unleaded gas peaked at $3 per gallon in 2006, most major companies were profiting only about 10 cents per gallon on refining and marketing options, while the federal tax alone is as much as 18.4 cents per gallon. 

And speaking of sand ... apparently it is more likely that you will die in a sand hole than be eaten by a shark.  Either way seems like a pretty lousy way to go. 

Which countries' GDPs are comparable to US states'?  Take a look.  For all you government educated, let's see how many of the U.S. states you can actually name! 

Dilbert, the comic strip, has a few smart-ass remarks on environmentalism.

Apparently a Dutch man drove 67 years without a license.  Never got caught!  Either the police are really lax or he's a damn good driver ... well, it is Amsterdam.  I wonder what his vanity plate would say?  2OLD4U

Are you an illegal alien?  Would you like to attend one of our wonderful colleges or universities?  Well, amigo!  Just click right here for instructions on how to apply for financial aid if you're an illegal alien!

Meet Neal Boortz at a rare West Coast appearance! Neal will be signing books Monday, June 25th at Book Passage, 51 Tamal Vista Blvd, Corte Madera, CA 94925 - 1pm

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!