MEDIA BIAS? NO WAY! (YEAH RIGHT.)

Now let's sit back a bit here and watch the media at work.

Yesterday you saw headlines in newspapers and heard many TV talking heads telling you that the Republicans had blocked debate on an anti-war resolution in the U.S. Senate. But is this the way things really happened? Just where did the media get this story? Where did the mainstream media come up with the idea that the Republicans were trying to stop the debate?

Well .. it came from a vote. A cloture vote. Republicans refused to step forward and vote for the cloture motion, so it failed. But just what is a motion for cloture? Why, it's a motion to stop debate and vote on the issue in question! The issue in question here the Democrat non-binding resolution opposing Bush's moves in Iraq.

Are you following this? There's a debate going on in the Senate. The debate is over a Democrat-inspired resolution condemning George Bush and his latest actions in Iraq. The Democrats bring a motion to the floor to stop the debate and vote on the resolution. The Republicans vote against the motion. The debate goes on ... and suddenly the left-wing media is reporting that the Republicans are trying to block debate on the Iraq war in the Senate? On what level does this make sense?

If the situation were reversed and it was the Republicans bring a cloture motion to the floor of the Senate, with the Democrats opposing the motion, you can bet your first born that the mainstream leftist press would be blaming the Republicans for trying to stifle debate in the Senate.

The truth is that the Republicans have kept the debate going ... rather than blocking it. But Harry Reid gets up there and accuses of the Republicans of trying to block debate and the media grabs Reid's slant and runs with it. But what would you expect? Reid is the Democrat leader of the Senate! Do you really expect the media to do anything other than adopt his slant?

There is more to the story. Why are the Democrats so anxious to vote on their anti-war resolution and be done with it? Because the Republicans have another resolution they want considered. It's called the Gregg resolution and it was introduced by Republican Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire. The Gregg resolution would state that the Senate would oppose any reduction in funding for troops in Iraq. Harry Reid called Gregg's resolution a "diversionary tactic" and refused to allow it to come to a vote. So the Republicans have in turned refused to allow the Democrats anti-war resolution to come to a vote. The Democrats are afraid that the Gregg resolution would get more votes than their favored Warner-Levin anti-war version .. and that would make them look bad.

Now once again, and all together ... "there is no liberal bias to in the mainstream media!"

Yeah .. sure.

Al Gore says that the Bush Administration is paying scientists to dispute the party line on man-made global warming. Now isn't it odd that Gore doesn't mention that many of the scientists who are preaching the party line are being paid to do so! These scientists know that as soon as they get off the man-made global warming bandwagon their funding dries up. I guess this just slipped Gore's mind.

HILLARY SHOWS HER HAND

Actually, all weekend long I was soooo looking forward today so that I could play a little Hillary sound byte for you. Today you will actually hear Ms. Rodham screeching these words ..... 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.

REID DEMAGOGUERY FALLS ON DEAF EARS

Harry Reid is insisting that Republicans have done something dastardly by proposing debate on competing resolutions. Here’s what he’s said now:

“What you just saw was Republicans giving the president the green light to escalate in Iraq,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, (D-NV), said, steamed after the vote. Reid contends the Republicans “are trying to avoid a debate on this matter.”

Dingy Harry best get used to this because he won’t be able to play hardball on this issue. In fact, the more word gets out that there are competing resolutions, the more indefensible Reid’s position will become. Until Reid caves on this, President Bush wins. In fact, if Reid agrees to debate the Levin-Warner and the McCain-Lieberman resolutions, he still loses because I’m betting that more people will vote yes on McCain-Lieberman than on Levin-Warner.

A massive budget bill for the remainder of the current fiscal year comes before the Senate on Wednesday, and Reid promised war amendments to that debate. Bush has requested $245 billion in funding for the war, to cover this year and next year.

Reid’s Democrats can offer amendments to that supplemental spending bill but they don’t dare put up much of a fight on this. If they actually succeed in putting in language that caps troop levels, they’ll be on the record as supporting defeat. They’ll essentially be saying that they’re for the status quo. By the time that they actually got the bill passed, the ’surge’ troops would be in Iraq, leaving Democrats in the precarious position of demanding the troops return home. That won’t happen because they’d be signing the death certificate on their Senate majority.

At the day’s end, Democrats aren’t in a strong position. Yes, they’ll huff and they’ll puff but they’re too spineless to blow the White House down.

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.

DEMOCRATS WANT TO RAISE TAXES

But don't worry....if you're concerned about the deficit or the size of the federal budget, Democrats want to help. In order to "pay for" Bush's tax cuts, they're all too happy to raise your taxes. Remember...in 2007 when it comes to politicians, there is no difference in spending between Republicans and Democrats. The difference is in how they finance their spending binges. Democrats tax and Republicans borrow. So basically either you pay or your kids will pay. Some choice.

One Democratic presidential candidate has made it very clear how he would pay for his spending: taxes, taxes and more taxes -- but only on the rich. Speaking on the issue, John Edwards...who was The Poodle's running made in 2004 (not to be confused with The Poodle's keeper,) says he would tax the rich to pay for his spending proposals, including a grandiose plan for socialized medicine The Trial Lawyer says to cover his health care plan, he'd repeal George W. Bush's tax cuts for people over $200,000.

Then, he'd tax capital gains. Edwards complains that brokerage houses aren't accurately reporting people's capital gains. This is a ripe area for class warfare rhetoric. Democrats can convince their followers that only the rich have enough money to invest, and thus only the rich have capital gains ... so let's tax 'em more!

I don't know any other way to say this: There is absolutely no limit to a politician's desire for your money. When you take the money you earn and spend it as you see fit, politicians don't benefit. But when they can take the money and spend it on their project, votes are bought, power is preserved.

U.S. TO INSURGENTS: NO MORE MR. NICE GUY

According to this Washington Times article, the U.S. military will combine with Iraq troops in a major offensive to quiet Baghdad.

Briefing a small group of foreign reporters, three American colonels who are senior advisers to the Iraqi army and police in Baghdad said a command center overseeing the crackdown in the capital would be activated today. “The expectation is the plan will be implemented very soon thereafter,” a senior adviser to the 9th Iraqi army division said at a U.S. military base in Baghdad. It’s going to be an operation unlike anything this city has seen,” Col. Doug Heckman added. “It’s a multiple-order magnitude of difference, not just a 30 percent, I mean a couple hundred percent” larger than previous offensives.

One of the things that didn’t get alot of attention in President Bush’s surge speech was the announcement of new rules of engagement. I’d doubt that this offensive would be possible if the old rules of engagement were still in place. I’m not predicting victory yet but I have to think that this offensive has a better chance of succeeding than past offensives. I base that on Col. Heckman’s description of the offensive being “a couple hundred percent” larger offensive than previous offensives.