STOP THE TAPE: Frist Move Exposes Dingy Harry's Dems

Rush,
Thanks for the great work.

Warn me before you stick a photo of that wax dummy of Helen Thomas in there! Sure they made it look a little better but, egah!!!!

Helen Thomas = Barbara Boxer...HAHAHA!

They are in the same class of Ugly. ;)

..make them go with this plan, which is exposing them as the frauds that they are, because Dingy Harry said, "After a hundred hours of debate, the rights of the minority are extinguished."

The debate is the minority right. The vote is the majority right. If the Democrats want more "rights" they should win more elections.

-PJ

BOXER: When I came to the Senate as a freshman in 1993, I was very impatient and wanted everything done. And I thought that I knew everything, and I wanted it my way. And I did vote to end the filibuster. I was absolutely wrong. I was brand-new in the Senate. I didn't understand what I do understand now, and what our founders taught us, that the house is the cup. It gets hot. And the Senate is the saucer, where things cool down.

=======================================================================

Senator Boxer On Judicial Nominees:

• Senator Barbara Boxer: “Let These Names Come Up, Let Us Have Debate, Let Us Vote.” “Mr. President, I am very glad that we are moving forward with judges today. We all hear, as we are growing up, that, ‘Justice delayed is justice denied,’ and we have, in many of our courts, vacancies that have gone on for a year, 2 years, and in many cases it is getting to the crisis level. So I am pleased that we will be voting. I think, whether the delays are on the Republican side or the Democratic side, let these names come up, let us have debate, let us vote.” (SenatorBarbara Boxer, Congressional Record, January 28, 1998)

• Boxer Told Her Fellow Senators That Nominees Deserve An Up Or Down Vote. “I make an appeal: If we vote to indefinitely postpone a vote on these two nominees or one of these two nominees, that is denying them an up-or-down vote. That would be such a twisting of what cloture really means in these cases. It has never been done before for a judge, as far as we know--ever. Again, it would undermine what Senator Lott said when he said these people deserve an up-or-down vote.” (Senator Barbara Boxer, Congressional Record, March 9, 2000)

That pic of Babs revealed very similar features. I won't be able to look at her the same way. Well, I needed an excuse not to look at her, that'll do.

It really is that simple.

" Helen Thomas = Barbara Boxer...HAHAHA!"

All those ugly democRATS look (and act) alike!

All those ugly democRATS look (and act) alike!

Ugly is as Ugly looks/does

You'll also enjoy this:

FDR Designed Social Security to Empower Democrats

Listen to Rush Conduct Broadcast Excellence

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

You know, the president can sit there and praise FDR all he wants but he's not fooling me. He may be fooling some of the liberals out there, but he's not fooling me. I know full well what Social Security was for and the Democrats today confirm my knowledge. The purpose of Social Security -- stop and think of this, folks. It all came about in the New Deal, when everything crashed and burned. Had it not been for the New Deal, would we have Social Security? And I know this is an "if" question and "if" is for children, but stop and think of what Social Security is. Social Security is said to be a retirement plan. Well, it never was portrayed as that, but it was portrayed as insurance in your retirement, the golden years, whatever. When it started out, it used people's own money. They were taxed, and it's a Ponzi scheme. The early recipients scored really huge. They contributed like 24 bucks and got $28,000 back. Today it's just the opposite. You contribute $28,000; you'll get $24 back of your own money. Everybody else will make up the difference. But still, what's the concept?

The concept is that somewhere along the line, we're going to start taxing your earnings, and we're going to save that money for you so that when you can't work anymore, that money gets given back to you from whom? The government. Who's in charge of your retirement? The government is in charge of your retirement. Why didn't somebody say at the outset, why didn't FDR say at the outset, "You know what? This New Deal has taught us a lesson here. People need nest eggs." You can lose everything overnight. You can lose your job, but if you have a nest egg, that's some insurance against it, so we're going to require a forced savings plan from every citizen. You're going to have to take X amount of your paycheck and put it in an investment plan that you control, that you run, that you manage, it grows and grows and grows as time goes on. You can track the history of the stock market over the number of years we're talking about. The stock market always goes up, never goes down. Number of years we're talking about. By the time you start working till you retire, the stock market is going to be up, guaranteed. No matter what period of time you look at. Now, why, all of a sudden, did somebody say, "No, we can't do that. We're going to bring this money to the government. We're going to take this forced savings plan and we're going to tax people and we're going to take the money to the government, and then when they get 62 to 65, whatever it is--" and, by the way, when Social Security was first formed, nobody lived until retirement age, or very few did, so there weren't that many payouts. This was a welfare program from the get-go. But more than that, it was a program designed to literally attach, with an almost umbilical cord, citizens to their government. Citizens would become dependent on the government for their retirement. Even though the citizen actually had to earn the money and have it taxed, the idea was Social Security is my government caring about me.

Now, the whole concept of this is something designed to empower government and make the citizens dependent. FDR was no schlock. He was no fool. And he was a Democrat. He tried to pack the Supreme Court. He was an ideologue. He knew what he was doing. In his mind, he was setting the Democratic Party up for 50 plus years of power and majority status. Because the more citizens you make dependent on the government, the more citizens that are always going to vote for you to keep it coming back. And, by the way, it didn't stop with Social Security. Then we had all kinds of welfare programs and you know the rest. That's why it's taking a long time to turn this around and the reason why the president is determined on this, the reason why the president's going to fix this, is because he knows what he's up against. The Democrats, Social Security and the judges are the two things that scare them to death. If they lose the government control over Social Security, and if they loose the ability to institutionalize liberalism by way of activist judges inventing and writing law from the bench, if they lose those two things, they have lost two of the three legs of the stool on which they're sitting. They may lose the whole stool. They may not be sitting on a stool when that happens. That's why they're scared. They're not concerned about you when it comes to Social Security and they're not concerned about you and your retirement. They're not concerned about anything. If they were, the NAACP would be the first people supporting the president's plan, but the NAACP is actively opposing it because they're liberals. They're big government types. They're not out for the advancement of colored people. Ask Clarence Thomas or Condoleezza Rice if they're out for the advancement of colored people. (Interruption) Yeah, look at Kweisi Mfume. They're trying to shaft Kweisi now, right? Kweisi wants to run for the Senate in Maryland and somebody's got some dirt on him that he showed favoritism with a female staffer, more than one, favoritism with a bunch of female staffers when he was running the NAALCP himself. So ask Kweisi if they're for the advancement of -- he ran the place and they're trying to sabotage Kweisi. So all you have to do, folks, the president's plan, individual retirement accounts, the plan announced last night, let's really help the poor with it. My gosh, who is going to benefit more? The black population in this country has the lowest life expectancy. They don't live as long. So they don't get to retirement age. They pay all these taxes and Social Security. Some don't live long enough to get all the benefits or even part of it. So the president wants to accelerate that. The NAACP, black caucus ought to be first in line supporting the plan if they really cared about black people and their economic circumstance, but, no, no, no, no. They're big government types. They want the power of running the government.

If your agenda revolves around growing the government and controlling people with government, you need to control the government to do it, and they don't, and that's another reason for their panic. This whole Social Security thing was a wolf in sheep's clothing from the beginning, but it's been around as it is for all these years and all those years it's sort of inculcated itself into people's minds as some great government plan to guard people against poverty in their old age. There are so many better ways of doing that. If you're going to tax people's income all along their lives and put it in an account, let them run the account where it's really going to grow and amount to something. But, oh, no, no, no. No we can't have people in charge of their own retirement. We can't have people in charge of their own success. We want the government and Democrats to be credited with the reason people have a retirement, and that's why this fight's going on. That's why they oppose whatever the change the president offers. Anything that takes some of this money away from government and puts it in private hands, they're going to oppose it.

Same thing with the judges. It's really no more complicated than this, folks, and that's why I say they're corkscrewing themselves into quicksand because they're on the precipice of losing all this and they've lost their number-one megaphone, the mainstream press, to continue this charade with people. So they've lost the ability to actually do all the mesmerizing and all the propagandizing and all the demagoguery. I mean they still have people out there doing it, but they're not reaching as many people and there are counter-arguments waged all the time. So they're in full-fledged panic about this. You can guarantee -- any proposal that comes along, common sense proposal that empowers individuals in this country -- you can count on liberal Democrats in this country opposing it in a screeching, childlike tantrum-type fashion, stamping their foot like Barbara Boxer and her kid.

END TRANSCRIPT

Read the Articles...

(FoxNews: Bush Clarifies Social Security, Energy Plans)

(NRO: The Bush approach to Social Security reform is tactically quite inspired)

(WSJ: Why is Harry Reid acting like David Koresh? Because conservatives are winning)

Rush truely can defeat liberals ... without even trying.

Very Nice! I believe you should send these directly to her, let her know that we know.

There is so much more that I'd like to add to this post. But I just don't have the time.

A small example:

"The Limbaugh Letter"

My Conversation with Larry Schweikart

RUSH: ...Can you give us a sneak preview, and your thoughts on the melding of the editorial page and the front page that happened in the 60s?

SCHWEIKART: Okay, but let me preface this by saying I already have a contract for my next book with sentinel, which is: A Patriot's History of the American Soilder: Why Americans Win Wars.

RUSH: You just gave us a preview.

SCHWEIKART:Right. And it is going to be, in essence, applying Victor Hanson to the United States. I think he is right, but he doesn't go far enough. I have a lot of contacts in the military who feed me information. It is really remarkable what are armed forces are doing.

But regarding this other book that you are referring to, let me give you a brief history of the media up to the 50s. In the 1820s as a result of the Missouri Compromise, Martin Van Buren -- and you're going to love this, Rush -- founded a political party. The sole goal of this political party was to gain and hold power. It was not interested in any principles.

Van Buren's focus for this political party was to avert civil war, an altruistic motive. The party's purpose was not to talk about slavery, so we wouldn't have a war. They were going to reward people who would run for office and hold office who would not talk about slavery. So if you think about it, the foundation for this party was essentially very base. It was, ideas don't count, ideology doesn't count; only money counts. And if we wave enough money in front of you, you will forget about your principles. Guess which party that was?

RUSH: The Democratic Party!

SCHWEIKART: Exactly.

RUSH: I would gat an "A" in your class.

SCHWEIKART: Yes. This party went on to found dozens and dozens of newspapers for the specific purpose of getting candidates elected. They were very honest. They called themselves names like The Arkansas Democrat. Guess which party it supported? The Richmond Whig. Guess which party it supported? They only carried news about their own candadates. They weren't interested at all in objective news. It was strictly to advance the party's propaganda.

RUSH: It doesn't sound like anything has changed.

SCHWEIKART: No, it hasn't. But what did change was in the Civil War, people were desperate for facts. I have a quotation from one editor in the 1860s: "Facts, facts, facts -- that is all people care about anymore." They needed to know information on the war. Was Johnny killed? What is the 14 Pennsylvania regiment doing? Where is Robert E. Lee? And this created a style you may recognize. We used to call it the "who, what, when, where, why" reporters' questions. It created what is called the inverted pyramid style of reporting, where you begin with the most important facts, and then you get down to the drivel. I challenge you to read any paper today, whether it is USA Today or The Washington Post -- what do they always start with? A human interest story: "Twenty years ago, Marge Schott had her little dog on the sidewalk until it was hit by a car, and then blah, blah, blah." Three or four paragraphs down you will get to the key information. You are always mentioning this on your show. You will say, "The nut of this is buried 20 paragraphs down."

RUSH: They bury the lead.

WEIKART: Right. Well, in the Civil War they didn't bury the lead. They started moving the lead to the very front. All they would report is facts. From about 1860 to about 1900, this became entrenched in almost all the major papers. For a lot of reasons, some it having to do with business, most of them became objective. They viewed reporting the news as separate from the editorial content. They tried to get both sides of the story and they tried to be fair and balanced.

Were there exceptions? Of course. You had the yellow press. But basically this model held until about 1960. Now currently I am doing some research with a conservative journalism professor at Dartmonth -- I won't give his name away in case he gets blackballed -- and a guy from the American Enterprise Institute named John Lott. We are working on the question, Can we pin down exactly what caused this change?

My theory is that it was not Vietnam or Watergate that caused the change. I think you see clear indications of this change happening earlier. My gut feeling is it involves John Kennedy. That the press, especially the males in the press, so identified with Kennedy that they started to throw fairness out the window and became terribly attached to his Administration, creating the whole Camelot myth. So by the time Kennedy was assassinated and Johnson came in, and the Vietnam War, they were already moving in the other direction. Vietnam just accelerated something that had already happened, in my view, but I can't prove that just yet.

....

I'm too tired to continue, but the point is the start of the Democratic Party and it's lack of any values except to hold power.

These are the Senators to call to help President Bush get a vote on his embattled judicial nominees:

Senator John McCain (R-AZ)

Washington, DC: (202) 224-2235
Phoenix, AZ: (602) 952-2410

Senator Lincoln Chafee (R-RI)
Washington, DC: (202) 224-2921
Providence, RI: (401) 453-5294

Senator Olympia Snowe (R-ME)

Washington, DC: (202) 224-5344
Augusta, ME: (207) 622-8292

Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE)

Washington, DC: (202) 224-4224
Omaha, NE: (402) 758-8981

Senator John Warner (R-VA)

Washington, DC: (202) 224-2023
Roanoke, VA: (540) 857-2676

I'll ask them to recommend a good conservative replacement for their position that I can seen money to, because they certainly deserve my contempt. These RINO's need to go into the Democratic party where their heart lies.

Bleah! Imaging waking up with a terrible hangover and looking over at that!