Neal Boortz

Tuesday, June 4, 2002

Basic indisputable truth follows. Leftists don't like talk radio. They don't just dislike talk radio a little ­ they hate it. Left-wingers hate talk radio with a blue-steam, Grade A, unadulterated blinding passion. They know without a doubt that their loss of control in Washington in 1994 was due generally to talk radio and specifically to the influence of The Godfather, Rush Limbaugh.

Why do leftist hate talk radio so? Because they're so damned bad at it, that's why. There is not ONE successful, money-making, listened-to talk radio show in the entire nation that is hosted by a leftist. Not one. I've gone into the reasons for the leftist failure at talk radio before ­ and I'm not here to completely rehash that question now. Suffice it to say that leftists wilt in the face of fact and logic ' and talk radio callers kill them with it.

So, why bring it up? Well, if you're a talk radio fan you need to know just how the left intends to destroy their nemesis. They can't succeed in the talk radio arena, so it must be destroyed. Basically, they have two game plans. Plan A is to use the regulatory police power of government to harass talk radio into submission. Plan B is to attack on the basis of political correctness.

To learn more about Plan A, just go to my Democrats' Secret Plan for America essay at http://www.boortz.com/demsecrets.htm (linked at the top of this page).

But what about Plan B? Here's where we encounter the leftist phrase hate radio. Liberals know that that confrontation with conservative and libertarian talk show hosts on the actual issues is a no-win situation. The solution? Ignore the factual and logical basis behind the opinions expressed by these talk show hosts and attack those opinions as expressions of hate.

Liberals know that most people, conservatives and liberals alike, don't like people who hate. Hate is a negative emotion, one to be avoided. If you can take the argumentative points made by your political opponent and successfully brand them as expressions of hate, then you have won the argument. You win not by presenting a better, more rational argument. Nor do you win by pointing out factual errors. You win by turning our natural aversion to the emotion of hate against your opponent.

Over the past months I guess I've read a dozen or more articles about the evil of right-wing hate radio. There is one common thread that runs through all of these articles. Not one of them ­ not one ­ actually sets forth an opinion expressed by one libertarian or conservative talk show host to show just how that specific opinion constitutes hate speech. The issue is ignored. Facts are ignored. No counterpoints are offered.

One tactic ­ one tactic only. The conservative talk show host is spouting hate speech and should, on that basis and that basis alone, be discredited and ignored.

There are now leftist websites dedicated to fighting hate radio. One such website calls it hatecasting. Pretty catchy, huh?

There are organized campaigns to convince advertisers that they don't really want their advertisements running next to a hate-filled diatribe from some hate-filled talk show host on some hate radio station, do they now?

Leftists are determined to regain the total domination and control that they believe is their birthright in Washington. They can't sit back and watch the fascist-socialist movement they believe in die just because some libertarians and conservatives are allowed to freely express opinions on the nation's federally controlled airwaves.

A few races going the wrong way this fall could give them the chance they're dying for ­ the chance to destroy talk radio.

Congressional Investigation Starts

It's a joint House-Senate investigative committee. Today it will begin hearings on American intelligence failures that led to Sept. 11. Will they be able to set the partisanship behind and make an honest effort to get at the truth? Are you kidding? This is an election year!

Six Continents Hotels ­ Actively Supporting America's Enemies

Just before I went on the air yesterday, I read a short piece in the Atlanta Business Chronicle about a hotel group called Six Continents. (http://www.sixcontinentshotels.com/sixcontinentshotels) This is no small group, as you can see. I've stayed in many of these hotels. No complaints, especially with the higher-end properties.

But Six Continents is not what you would call thrilled with the Talkmaster right now. It seems that they're a bit unhappy about some comments I made, and some comments they think I made, on the air yesterday.

Back to that article. It seems that Six Continents wanted to engage in some corporate charity. That's fine! It's good PR to take a portion of the revenues and donate them to a worthy charity. It makes you a good corporate citizen and all that.

My problem is with the choice of their charity. They've chosen UNICEF, The United Nations Children's Fund.

The word children is supposed to generate all sorts of warm and fuzzy feelings. As the leftists in this country have aptly demonstrated, you can get away with almost any outrage against common sense if you just do it in the name of the children. Watch the Democrats. Every single time they come up with some new government spending program ­ a program for which there is no Constitutional authorization and which has virtually no meaningful chance of success ­ they'll tell us that they're doing it for the children.

In the case of Six Continents Hotels, supporting America's enemy is just fine. It's just fine, because they're doing it for the children.

America's enemy? Yes, America's enemy. The United Nations. This is UNICEF ­ it's a United Nations agency. Do they do good work? Yeah, they do ­ sometimes. They help children. UNICEF engages in relief efforts around the world. No doubt many children benefit. That's fine.

But ­ there are many American charities, United States charities, charities not tied to the United Nations, that do the same work.

The difference? Remember, children are impressionable. Treat a child nicely and you earn that child's loyalty and love.

Let me drag out a little analogy here. Let's say that you are having a problem with your neighbor. Your neighbor doesn't like your house because it's bigger and better than his. Your neighbor doesn't like your lawn because it's larger and better landscaped than his. Your neighbor doesn't like your dog because it constantly whups up on his mutt.

Your neighbor doesn't like the way you treat your family. You're way too nice to them. You let your children work and keep the money they earn. You treat your wife with respect and dignity. Your neighbor seizes his children's earnings and spends it for himself. His wife is seldom seen, a virtual prisoner in her home.

Your neighbor is also constantly trying to cause you problems. He claims that you use too much water on your lawn and he's trying to have watering restrictions placed on you.

He says your house is too big for the neighborhood. He's trying to get the city to make you demolish a wing. He has contacted the tax appraiser. He thinks you don't pay enough taxes and wants your assessment increased.

This man is not your friend.

Now, you learn that down the street there's a child in need. She has a serious illness. You want to help. You want to give some money to her parents to help cover the medical bills.

I ask you ' are you going to visit that child's parents yourself to see what they need and how you can help? Or are you going to give your troublesome neighbor $5,000 with instructions that you want him to then donate that money to the sick child.

Me? I'd give the money myself. Why would I want to increase the stature and respect of my neighbor? He's trying to destroy me and my way of life ­ and I want to make him a more respected figure in the neighborhood? I don't think so.

The United Nations is not our friend. Since its inception it has constantly and sometimes effectively worked against the interests of the United States around the world. There are currently active proposals kicking around the United Nations to

* Make American citizens accountable to a world criminal court for actions that the U.N. deems to be a crime that would not be a crime under the U.S. Constitution or U.S. laws.

* Levy a tax on individual Americans to support U.N. welfare and indoctrination programs elsewhere in the world.

* Levy a tax on American technology to fund U.N. programs.

* Force the United States to raise tax rates on its citizens and businesses so that our lower tax rates won't allow us to engage in unfair tax competition with nations with higher tax rates.

* Control Americans' access to and use of certain national parks and historic sites in the name of preservation as defined by the U.N.

The United Nations has also been an avowed enemy of Israel for decades. The U.N. animosity toward Israel is so palpable that one might be excused to correlate support for the United Nations with anti-Israel feelings.

This, then, forms the basis for my opposition to UNICEF and my disagreement with Six Continents' plan to support that U.N. agency.

The money comes out of the pocket of some American and into the coffers of Six Continents. Six Continents then transfers the money to UNICEF as a donation. UNICEF then might use the money on some relief effort for some child.

Does the child know that the money comes from an American citizen? Does the child even know that the money comes from an American corporation? NO. The child learns that the money comes from the United Nations.

Where does that child's gratitude and allegiance go? The United Nations, that's where. When that child grows older and hears anti-American rants from the U.N. and reads anti-American and anti-Israeli resolutions from the U.N., that child, and his parents, will certainly be programmed to see things from the United Nations' point of view. After all, what have Americans ever done for him?

Bottom line. If we're going to be charitable, then by God let's get the credit for it. With the Six Continents Hotels plan, no credit.

I know that the people of this country are among the most charitable in the world. I want other people to recognize that. We need friends.

There are far too many agencies, programs and people around the world that are working to generate envy and hatred toward the United States. I don't see the sense in voluntarily supporting these efforts with my money.

Just What Constitutes Emergency Spending?

The Senate Appropriations Committee has just passed out this year's supplemental spending authorization. President Bush had asked the Senate to limit the supplemental spending to emergency items only. Bush said, I expect the Senate to only spend on what is necessary to fight the war and for our immediate emergency needs.

So ... what are some of the emergency spending needs passed out by the Senate?

* $2.5 million to map coral reefs off the coast of Hawaii

* $16 million for New England fishermen

* $2 million to the Smithsonian Institution to transfer a few truckloads of bottles containing frogs and bugs to Maryland.

And it wasn't just the big-spending Democrats. The appropriations bill passed the committee by a vote of 29-0.

The lesson? Congress has neither the desire nor the will to curtail its spending. Why should it? The money is collected at the point of a gun and then spent for the personal benefit (buying votes) of the senators and congressmen. Wow! What a deal!

Federalization Now Under Way at Hartsfield

Think about that word. Federalization. Is that a word that instills confidence in you? Are you convinced that security at Hartsfield International Airport is going to be improved once those screeners start drawing federal paychecks?

We hear that some of the screeners at Hartsfield are anxious. Oh, do they want that federal job. Unions, great benefits, virtual immunity from firing.

What a deal! Right now, these screeners are making eight bucks an hour. When the job becomes federal, that pay will go to $14 an hour! Managers at the checkpoints could earn up to $68,000 a year! And there's not even a requirement for a high school diploma!

There's already fear and dissention among the ranks. Letters are being circulated about a strike. The NAACP is being asked to review the process ... thereby bringing affirmative action into the picture.

Just what I want, my safety on an airliner being in the hands of an affirmative action employee.

Tell me ­ I need to be informed ­ tell me just one instance where a private function was turned over the federal government with the result being improved service and performance. Just one!

And why do we expect airport security screening to be any different?

The Lead Paragraph Says It All

Here is the lead paragraph of an editorial you sure won't see in the New York Times, the Atlanta Constitution or the Washington Post.

Apart from their utter failure to educate the vast majority of their students in large urban school systems, the biggest outrage perpetrated by the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers is to charge their members exorbitant union dues, spend relatively nothing negotiating labor contracts and then pour tens of millions of surplus dues dollars into election campaigns of Democratic Party members. Once elected, Democrats return the favor by pouring billions of taxpayer dollars down the public school rathole. The victimized urban school children never manage to learn much, but lots of the public loot finds its way into the pockets of the teachers who can't, or don't, teach. Well said! That's why I include the Washington Times website in my daily cruise through the Internet [http://www.washtimes.com]