Real World Event Discussions

Brilliant article by Rush Limbaugh

POSTED BY: Skywalken
UPDATED: Friday, October 28, 2005 15:37
VIEWED: 7807
PAGE 1 of 3

SKYWALKEN

Tuesday, October 18, 2005 9:53 PM

Rush Limbaugh has written a great article titled, "Holding Court: There's a crackdown over Miers, not a crackup." It's about the conservative reaction to President Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers.

It's a good read:

Quote:
I love being a conservative. We conservatives are proud of our philosophy. Unlike our liberal friends, who are constantly looking for new words to conceal their true beliefs and are in a perpetual state of reinvention, we conservatives are unapologetic about our ideals. We are confident in our principles and energetic about openly advancing them. We believe in individual liberty, limited government, capitalism, the rule of law, faith, a color-blind society and national security. We support school choice, enterprise zones, tax cuts, welfare reform, faith-based initiatives, political speech, homeowner rights and the war on terrorism. And at our core we embrace and celebrate the most magnificent governing document ever ratified by any nation--the U.S. Constitution. Along with the Declaration of Independence, which recognizes our God-given natural right to be free, it is the foundation on which our government is built and has enabled us to flourish as a people.

We conservatives are never stronger than when we are advancing our principles. And that's the nature of our current debate over the nomination of Harriet Miers. Will she respect the Constitution? Will she be an originalist who will accept the limited role of the judiciary to interpret and uphold it, and leave the elected branches--we, the people--to set public policy? Given the extraordinary power the Supreme Court has seized from the representative parts of our government, this is no small matter. Roe v. Wade is a primary example of judicial activism. Regardless of one's position on abortion, seven unelected and unaccountable justices simply did not have the constitutional authority to impose their pro-abortion views on the nation. The Constitution empowers the people, through their elected representatives in Congress or the state legislatures, to make this decision.

Abortion is only one of countless areas in which a mere nine lawyers in robes have imposed their personal policy preferences on the rest of us. The court has conferred due process rights on terrorists detained at Guantanamo Bay and benefits on illegal immigrants. It has ruled that animated cyberspace child pornography is protected speech, but certain broadcast ads aired before elections are illegal; it has held that the Ten Commandments can't be displayed in a public building, but they can be displayed outside a public building; and the court has invented rationales to skirt the Constitution, such as using foreign law to strike down juvenile death penalty statutes in over a dozen states.

For decades conservatives have considered judicial abuse a direct threat to our Constitution and our form of government. The framers didn't create a judicial oligarchy. They created a representative republic. Our opposition to judicial activism runs deep. We've witnessed too many occasions where Republican presidents have nominated the wrong candidates to the court, and we want more assurances this time--some proof. The left, on the other hand, sees the courts as the only way to advance their big-government agenda. They can't win national elections if they're open about their agenda. So, they seek to impose their policies by judicial fiat. It's time to call them on it. And that's what many of us had hoped and expected when the president made his nomination.

Some liberal commentators mistakenly view the passionate debate among conservatives over the Miers nomination as a "crackup" on the right. They are giddy about "splits" in the conservative base of the GOP. They are predicting doom for the rest of the president's term and gloom for Republican electoral chances in 2006. As usual, liberals don't understand conservatives and never will.

The Miers nomination shows the strength of the conservative movement. This is no "crackup." It's a crackdown. We conservatives are unified in our

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

DARKJESTER

Tuesday, October 18, 2005 10:44 PM

Rush is one of THE conservative voices in America today. You cannot write him off, or ignore him. The man has a remarkable mind.
I disagree with almost everything he says (especially his disparagement of liberals like me - I'm sure he wouldn't like my "truth about conservatives" speech either!) but the man is intelligent, articulate, and believes what he says. I give him points, and respect, for that.

MAL "You only gotta scare him."
JAYNE "Pain is scary..."

REALLYKAYLEE

Tuesday, October 18, 2005 10:59 PM

integrity. it's what matters most in a (wo)man running for president. somehow i think we're a little better off with bush and cheney than coulter and limbaugh.

shakespeare: more words than God.

HOWARD

Tuesday, October 18, 2005 11:06 PM

Do you people even realise how outside of
the USA the notion of anyone listening to
the likes of Rush Limbaugh is enough to
make millions of people die from laughing
so hard???!!!!

Its like Americans who believe FOX NEWS;
Europeans, Canadians, Mexicans etc don't
know whether to laugh or cry over the
madness of it!!

KNIBBLET

Tuesday, October 18, 2005 11:12 PM

What's the difference between Rush Limbaugh and the Hindenburg?
One's a flaming nazi gasbag and the other a durigible.

In the words of the flaming nazi gasbag: "Abortion is only one of countless areas in which a mere nine lawyers in robes have imposed their personal policy preferences on the rest of us."

If you don't like abortion - don't have one.

Keep your friggin hands and religion off my ovaries. Keep your prudish narrow-minded bigotry out of my bedroom and shut the hell up about your addictive need for superstition and how your favorite made up deity can beat up someone else's favorite made up deity.

Stop pretending to be the saviour of the downtrodden when what you're really after is more of what makes the world go round ... money, power and oil.

I used to be such a 'born again' prig. Once I gave up the idea on that train that never comes, I've been so much happier.

For those who found my comments offensive: I'm betting I'm offended more by the hubris of the current administration.

REALLYKAYLEE

Tuesday, October 18, 2005 11:25 PM

"it's not a problem . . . 'cause it's not."

all-
don't make the crack up BETWEEN the parties any greater. issues are enough for that- personal attacks just make things messy.

shakespeare: more words than God.

SEVENPERCENT

Tuesday, October 18, 2005 11:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Skywalken:
Rush Limbaugh has written a great article titled, "Holding Court: There's a crackdown over Miers, not a crackup." It's about the conservative reaction to President Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers.

It's a good read:

Quote:
I love being a conservative. We conservatives are proud of our philosophy. Unlike our liberal friends, who are constantly looking for new words to conceal their true beliefs and are in a perpetual state of reinvention, we conservatives are unapologetic about our ideals. We are confident in our principles and energetic about openly advancing them.

I was laughing so hard by the time I got to this point that I had to stop here, so I have to admit I couldn't finish the whole article. Let me see if I get this right:

Rush is proud of his philosophy, that conservatives never hide their true beliefs, and that he is confident in his principles.

Sooooooooooo, why did a man who claimed for years that drug abusers should be given life imprisonment and that the ACLU was horrible for America get caught abusing Oxycontin, doctor shopping, and finally have to turn to the ACLU for help in defending himself from charges that he himself petitioned on-air for?

Sorry, after those shenannigans, Rush could tell me the sky was blue and water was wet and I'd go get a second opinion. He did get one thing right though. "Unapologetic." Because I don't think he's ever apologized for any of his blatant hypocrisies.

7%

------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.

CHRISTHECYNIC

Wednesday, October 19, 2005 1:14 AM

This was brought to my mind only by the word “originalist” in an article about the Supreme Court and is thus slightly tangential

Does anyone else find it odd that it is traditionally those who strongly support the right to bear arms as a result of the Second Amendment that talk about the value of originalism?

By definition an originalist is one who follows the original intent of the constitution, by the English language:

Quote:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

the intent of the Second Amendment was to strengthen a well regulated militia. As such an originalist in the Supreme Court would be forced to decide that either:
a) The Militia should be reinstated
b) The right to bear arms is not protected by the Second Amendment at this time

The National Guard does its job quite nicely and, to my knowledge, it is not in the power of the court to reinstate the militia anyway. As such an originalist in the court would be forced to overturn any gun rights claimed to result from the second amendment.

To some this seems the best of all possible outcomes, to others it seems the loss of one of the most important rights. Regardless of your position on the matter I think it’s clear that what a Second Amendment supporter does not want is an originalist in the Supreme Court reading the second amendment.

-

The way this is written it might give the impression that I am against the right to bear arms, I’m not. I just see this as an odd little quirk, one of many present on all sides of American politics. No matter how hard I try I can not see it as anything other than people want a judge in office who takes an originalist reading of their job, but a liberal (not in the political sense) reading of the issues.

CONSCIENCE

Monday, October 24, 2005 2:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Knibblet:
If you don't like abortion - don't have one.

That argument is exactly like a slave owner saying, "if you don't like slavery - don't own a slave."

Damn, you baby killing supporters are such incompassionate morons!

Any honest neurologist will tell you that a human fetus can feel pain at 20 weeks. This is probably a conservatively late estimate, but it is scientifically solid. Elements of the pain-conveying system (spino-thalamic system) begin to be assembled at 7 weeks; enough development has occurred by 12-14 weeks that some pain perception is likely, and continues to build through the second trimester. By 20 weeks, the spino- thalamic system is fully established and connected.

There are three different indicators providing evidence that the fetus feels pain.

1. Anatomical
- pain receptors spread over the body in stages: 8-16 weeks
- pain impulse connections in the spinal cord link up and reach the thalamus (the brain's reception center): 7-20 weeks (summarized by Anand, K.J.S., Atlanta)

2. Physiological/Hormonal
- fetuses withdraw from painful stimulation
- two types of stress hormones, normally released by adults subjected to pain, are released by adults subjected to pain, are releases in massive amounts by the fetus subjected to a needle puncture to draw a blood sample:
(a) from 19 weeks onward (N. Fisk; London, England)
(b) from 16 weeks onward (J. Partch; Kiel, Germany)

3. Behavioral
- withdraw from pain
- change in vital signs

A 20-30 week old fetus actually will feel more pain than an adult. The period between 20-30 weeks is a uniquely vulnerable time, since the pain system is fully established, yet the higher level pain-modifying system has barely begun to develop.

Below is a graphical represenation depicting this mis-match in pain detection and pain modification:

Dr. Paul Ranalli is a neurologist at the University of Toronto and acting president of the de Veber Institute for Bioethics and Social Research. He is also Vice-President of Canadian Physicians For Life.

In testimony before the House Constitution Subcommittee, Professor Robert White confirmed that the 'fetus within this time frame of gestation, 20 weeks and beyond, is fully capable of experiencing pain.... Without question, all of this is a dreadfully painful experience for any infant subjected to such a surgical procedure."

http://www.physiciansforlife.ca

http://www.cirp.org/library/pain/anand

CAUSAL

Monday, October 24, 2005 2:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Howard:
Do you people even realise how outside of
the USA the notion of anyone listening to
the likes of Rush Limbaugh is enough to
make millions of people die from laughing
so hard???!!!!

Aw, go suck on a mango, amigo.

________________________________________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.