|
| Nealz Nuze |
Sponsored by:;sz=120x30;tile=1;ord=SLZOgQoAAHMAAGAN4XM?)
|
| Today's Nuze: June 04, 2003 |
Browse the archives:
|
|
BOORTZ INVITATIONAL GOLF TOURNAMENT
And you're invited. It's June 14th at the Ocala Country Club, Ocala, Florida and it's being hosted by our Gainesville affiliate WSKY97.3! Yes, there's room for you and your foursome.
Just click here for more information on how to sign up! We'll see you there!
A NEW CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT?
The House of Representatives has passed on a new constitutional amendment which would outlaw the desecration of The American Flag. Now it's up to the Senate to kill this bad idea.
Such a constitutional amendment would constitute nothing less than a prohibition on a form of political speech. People (usually misguided idiots) who desecrate the American Flag do so as an expression of political outrage. One of the great things about this country (that liberals haven't managed to screw up yet) is the fact that people are allowed to express their political outrage, so long as they don't do it in such a manner as to deprive someone else of their rights to life, liberty or property. The First Amendment was put there to protect unpopular speech.
The addition of this amendment to our Constitution would itself constitute a desecration of that incredible document.
A MISTAKE? RIGGGGGHHHHHTTTTT.
Everyone out there who thinks that Sammy Sosa "accidently" picked up a corked bat last night raise your hand. Now, if you're French, raise your other hand.
AUGUSTA NATIONAL UPDATE
This year Augusta National Golf Course contributed over $3.2 million to various charities. This included $1 million for the First Tee initiative which introduces the sport of golf to young girls and boys. An Augusta community foundation got $1.25 million, and there was $500,000 to Tiger Woods Foundation. Augusta National Golf Club did all this without sponsors or advertising revenue. Now Hootie Johnson has announced that the Master's broadcast will also be commercial free in 2004. Boy, that's one sorry bunch of male chauvinist rascals, isn't it? They kill off their sources of income and still make those huge contributions to charity ... all because of some unknown feminist wanted to make a name for herself.
THE BURDEN OF PROOF
You will find almost this note repeated in the reading assignments below .. but it's worth repeating. David Limbaugh, a lawyer, knows a few things about the concept known as "burden of proof." I've made this point before on the Nuze .. now Limbaugh is including it in his syndicated column. The burden of proof was on Saddam, not the United States. George Bush did not have the burden of proving that SaddamhadWMDs. Saddam Hussein had the burden of proving hedidn'thave them. Saddam failed to meet the burden of proof .. and paid the price. It was all in accordance with international law, not that this will make any difference with Democrats. What the hell do they care about the rule of law.
MORE GOOD NEWS IN THE AFTERMATH OF IRAQ
I hear this morning that Saddam Hussein and his brutal government wasn't the only casualty of the war in Iraq. The United Nations has taken a hit too. Public perception of the U.N. has fallen sharply since the war. People no longer look at the U.N. in the same light as before. Good news. The more people recognize that the U.N. has no real role beyond the logistical management of basic humanitarian aid the safer freedom will be.
This is an actual picture of Hillary at the very moment she learned that those nasty rumors about here "husband" and Monica Lewinsky were, in fact, true.
DO YOU BELIEVE HILLARY?
Apparently Hillary's new book (not written by Hillary, by the way) contains a few words about her reaction to Bill's affair with Monica Lewinsky.
Hillary says she could hardly breathe when she found about that the stories of her "husband's" little episode with Monica Lewinsky were true. She adds that, as a wife, she wanted to "wring Bill's neck" when she found out.
What a bunch of unadulterated horse manure. You folks aren't really going to buy this nonsense are you? I mean, after Gennifer Flowers and all of the rest of Bill's girlfriends, do you really think Hillary was surprised to learn of Monica Lewinsky?
This book is all about positioning Hillary for her eventual presidential run. Every word was crafted to create a Hillary image that would resonate with the voters, especially the voters of the female persuasion. Hillary instructed her ghostwriters to write just exactly what every wife in American would want to read.
This little arrangement between Bill and Hitlary has never been a marriage. I'll even go so far as to say that calling this arrangement a marriage is an insult to every true loving marriage in this country. There is about as much true, romantic love between these two as there is between Al Franken and Bill O'Reilly. The Clinton/Rodham arrangement has never been anything more than an alliance between two extremely motivated people ... an alliance formed for the purpose of gaining and maintaining power, especially political power.
Simon & Schuster has ordered a first printing of one million copies. My fervent hope is that I will see a stack of those books on the discount table at Sam's Club within months.
IDIOTIC LEFTIST RHETORIC
OK ... let's start with this. This isn't about the Bush tax cut. This is about class warfare. This is about seedy politicians setting one group of Americans against another group for political gain.
The Democrats had hoped to prevent Bush from getting his tax cut. They were afraid that it would actually lead to increased economic growth and declining Democrat hopes for the 2004 elections.
Well .. the tax cut passed, and the Democrats needed something else to stir up the masses. The decision was made to make a full class warfare assault on Republicans. Set up the rich as evil and the poor as victims. The leftists are basing their current class war onslaught on the fact that the Bush tax cut actually allowed people to keep more of the money that they earned, but it did not send enough checks to families who do not pay taxes.
Now it may seem perfectly understandable to most people that a tax cut means cutting the taxes that people actuallypaytaxes. But not Democrats. To a Democrat the definition of "cutting taxes" is "taking money from one income earner who pays taxes and giving that money to someone who does not pay taxes." Strange --- but we are talking about politics here.
So ... the class warfare assault is on. Listen to the words of Connecticut Congresswoman Rosa Delauro ... a Democrat.
"What kind of perverse Robin Hoods steal secretly to rob from the poor to give to the rich?"
Now, isn't that amazing? Allowing a taxpayer to keep more money is to "steal" from or to "rob" the poor and "give" to the rich. There really aren't any words I can say here that could adequately illustrate just how absurd this statement is.
Then there's New York Democrat Charles Rangel:
"The cruelest thing of all is that when they still found themselves three or four billion short and instead of shaving a little bit off of where the bulk of the money would go they saw fit not only to go after low income people, but the children of low income people."
Oh yeah! Let's paint these evil, greedy Republicans as attacking children.
At least one congressman has it right ... Tom DeLay from Texas:
"To me it's a little difficult to give tax relief to people that don't pay income tax. It's a spending program," Mr. DeLay
Brit Hume's panel on Special Report got into this last night. They were discussing some new proposed legislation that would go ahead and give $400 checks for each child of a low income family that doesn't pay income taxes. When Fred Barnes correctly referred to this as welfare the other panelists almost wet their pants. They just couldn't believe that this man was referring to this as welfare? Well, what else is it? You take money away from the people who earned it, and you give it to people who did NOT earn it. It's a straight cash grant. It's welfare. If the left is going to be so anxious to redistribute income like this ... why not at least have the guts to call it what it is.
This, by the way, is what is objectionable to liberals, this is what they find so troublesome about Fox News Channel. Fox continues to remind viewers that the families the Democrats are continually referring to don't pay any taxes.
READING ASSIGNMENTS
Oh man ... What a great column from Thomas Friedman of The New York Times. You gotta read it.
http://www.ajc.com/print/content/epaper/editions/wednesday/opinion_e3ddf850e14eb1df00f6.html
Tuesday's Best of the Web.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110003578
David Limbaugh has this one exactly right; under the operative U.N. resolutions the U.S. never had the burden of proving that Saddam Hussein didn't have WMDs. Saddam had the burden of proving he didn't have them.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/davidlimbaugh/dl20030604.shtml
And Mona Charen takes on the WMDs in Iraq issue.
http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20030603-084008-8562r.htm
Is it possible that the Jayson Blair scandal at the New York Times has brought some newspapers to recognize the dark side of political correctness?
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110003580
French weasels continue to grope for a believable excuse for their opposition to dethroning Saddam Hussein.
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20030602-085643-2454r.htm
Cat Fight! No, it's not quite as good as that Miller Light commercial, but here's Michelle Malkin taking on Malibu Babs.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/michellemalkin/mm20030604.shtml
"After two years of being accused of being too stupid and moralizing to be president, George W. has passed two tax cuts, won two wars and maintained the highest sustained public job approval ratings in the history of presidential polling."
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/tonyblankley/tb20030604.shtml
Congressman J.D. Hayworth has some things to say about France that might not be considered complimentary.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GuestColumns/Hayworth20030604.shtml |
|
|
Search Boortz.com
