Not So Young But Angry Conservatives Unite

Getting sick of the progressively worse slant and obvious bias of the media? Got booted out of other sites for offending too many liberals? Make this your home. If you SPAM here, you're gone. Trolling? Gone. Insult other posters I agree with. Gone. Get the pic. Private sanctum, private rules. No Fairness Doctrine and PC wussiness tolerated here..... ECCLESIASTES 10:2- The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of a fool to the left.

Monday, October 17, 2005

Conservative Crackdown, not Crack-Up

Yeah, tell it to this man.....

LINK: http://www.opinionjournal.com/forms/printThis.html?id=110007417

Holding CourtThere's a crackdown over Miers, not a "crackup."BY RUSH LIMBAUGHMonday, October 17, 2005 12:01 a.m.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 objectives. And we are organized to advance them. The purpose of the Miers debate is to ensure that we are doing the very best we can to move the nation in the right direction. And when all is said and done, we will be even stronger and more focused on our agenda and defeating those who obstruct it, just in time for 2006 and 2008. Lest anyone forget, for several years before the 1980 election, we had knockdown battles within the GOP. The result: Ronald Reagan won two massive landslides.

The real crackup has already occurred--on the left! The Democratic Party has been hijacked by 1960s retreads like Howard Dean; billionaire eccentrics like George Soros; and leftwing computer geeks like Moveon.org. It nominated John Kerry, a notorious Vietnam-era antiwar activist, as its presidential standard-bearer. Its major spokesmen are old extremists like Ted Kennedy and new propagandists like Michael Moore. Its great presidential hope is one of the most divisive figures in U.S. politics, Hillary Clinton. And its favorite son is an impeached, disbarred, held-in-contempt ex-president, Bill Clinton.
The Democratic Party today is split over the war and a host of cultural issues, such as same-sex marriage and partial birth abortion. It wants to raise taxes, but dares not say so. It can't decide what message to convey to the American people or how to convey it. And even its once- reliable allies in the big media aren't as influential in promoting the party and its agenda as they were in the past. The new media--talk radio, the Internet and cable TV--not only have a growing following, but have helped expose the bias and falsehoods of the big-media, e.g., Dan Rather, CBS News and the forged National Guard documents. Hence, circulation and audience is down, and dropping.
The American left is stuck trying to repeat the history of its presumed glory years. They hope people will see Iraq as Vietnam, the entirety of the Bush administration as Watergate and Hurricane Katrina as the Great Depression. Beyond looking to the past for their salvation, the problem is that they continue to deceive even themselves. None of their comparisons are true. Meanwhile, we conservatives will continue to focus on making history.Mr. Limbaugh is a radio-show host. This is the latest in our occasional series.

16 Comments:

  • At 11:06 AM, Blogger Chrissie said…

    Hey, you have a awesome blog here! Without doubt I will suggest my friends take a look at your blog ! I have a statin drugs site. It all but embraces a lot that tallies with statin drugs stuff. If you have got the time, please come and check it out.

     
  • At 11:12 AM, Blogger Kevin said…

    ...[unlike liberals] 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...

    Exactly. Being unapologetic is always a good thing - and being stagnant in an every changing world is even better!

     
  • At 11:16 AM, Blogger Kevin said…

    We believe in individual liberty...

    ...except for gays (amongst others).

    [we believe in] faith...

    ...right, but only your own.

    [we believe in] a color-blind society

    Hmmm - thats interesting as I seem to recall most readers on this very conservative blog supporting racial profiling.

     
  • At 11:18 AM, Blogger Kevin said…

    Roe v. Wade is a primary example of judicial activism.

    hmmm. or maybe the judges legitimately could find reason (or many of them) not to ban such the practice. ya think?

     
  • At 11:23 AM, Blogger Kevin said…

    The framers didn't create a judicial oligarchy. They created a representative republic.

    Well thats just flat out false. Consider WHO represented this republic. Certainly not the poor. Certainly not anyone of color. Certainly not women. It goes on.

    So seeing how women are at least 50%, and at the time much higher due to war casualities, add in the poor, those of color, and you'll find that they actually created a republic to be represented by much less than 50% of the population.

    Not that I'm faulting them -- given the time period, but why are we so proud as to not be able to look back and see the problem with that system?

     
  • At 4:58 AM, Blogger The Conservative UAW Guy said…

    That's a great piece!

    Chrissie, I have a site where I cram statin drugs down peoples throats until they choke to death.

    It's mostly just killing spammers and stuff...

     
  • At 5:01 AM, Blogger The Conservative UAW Guy said…

    Kevin, don't spill kool-aid on your DU talking points.

    Abortion is not in the constitution, BTW. I read the whole thing...
    twice.

     
  • At 8:52 AM, Blogger NDwalters said…

    Chrissie, add some comments, but not just spam, please.

    Conservative UAW- I thought Rush stated it well to clarify that we are not as fragmented and nuts as the liberals. We have issues with Miers, but we're not abandoning a dang thing. We're regrouping and talking. At least we're not like the DNC and Move On who talk once or twice during elections and then act like neither exists the rest of the time.

    Kevin, stop reading into the Constitution was not ever there. Reading into the First Amendment, did not mean right to shuck the unborn like oysters back in the day. It meant right to free speech without Royal Authorities whipping you in public. Also, when making that choice, think about this, you guys could have let the cures to cancer, leukemia, and other minds end up dead before their time. How short sighted you libs are. It isn't just the mothers' body, it's the kid also. How selfish can you get?

    Dare I ask?

    Oh bite me, that we don't tolerate other faiths. I'll have you know the GOP welcomes everyone, as do conservatives. You libs call conservative blacks Uncle Toms and sell outs. Liberal self-hating Jews call GOP Hebrews KAPOs and traitors. Yeah, you libs are NOT tolerant.

    Rights for all, of course we're for that. However, here's a kicker, you give up certain rights when you murder or try to commit terrorism against your own countrymen. You give that up by choosing to leave the Family of Man and joing the Brood of Animals.

     
  • At 9:30 AM, Blogger Kevin said…

    I just wanted to start out by saying that it's cute that you are both writing to Chrissie.

    Actually, I understand how most people don't realize what happens here -- so let me just explain so you can just delete subsequent posts (joking aside here).

    She's never visited your site. It's very easy to write scripts that crawl out blogs - determine that people are actually reading them, and then post comments - all without ever visiting the site.

    Thats just the nature of the beast. You can respond to it if you want, but the person that 'posted' that comment is never coming back to read what you write, namely because they've never really been here in the first place.

     
  • At 9:32 AM, Blogger Kevin said…

    Abortion is not in the constitution, BTW. I read the whole thing...

    So? Neither are a lot of things. I think I missed your point somewhere.

     
  • At 9:34 AM, Blogger Kevin said…

    It meant right to free speech without Royal Authorities whipping you in public.

    Yes, but like ALL other rights, it was written so that we could make it adaptable to the current time.

    And all I was saying was that you were presuming that there were just liberal (and activist) justices - when in fact, that's just not true.

     
  • At 9:37 AM, Blogger Kevin said…

    Also, when making that choice, think about this, you guys could have let the cures to cancer, leukemia, and other minds end up dead before their time.

    Right. And the right has been trying to support stem-cell how?

    How short sighted you libs are. It isn't just the mothers' body, it's the kid also.

    Well, we're not about to have this argument because neither of us will make any points valid to the other. So, not trying to sway any opinion, I simply don't believe that a sperm and an egg constitute a child.

     
  • At 9:41 AM, Blogger Kevin said…

    You libs call conservative blacks Uncle Toms and sell outs.

    Hmm - didn't know that. But then again, you always relate 'libs' to democrats - a party I have told you time and again I do not support.

    I think it's funny how you undermine my political side of life. If for no other reason, I have truly loved the Republican party (since I've had to chose one come election time) forever and a day simply because the Reps favor pushing big brother out of peoples lives. That appeals highly to me.

    It's only been recent (past 1-2 years) that I have taken an active stance against what I see unfolding in front of me. It's not activism, nor anything else, it's just a country of people not doing whats best for one another (IMO).

     
  • At 11:16 AM, Blogger NDwalters said…

    And the ranting keeps on going, and going, and going (Energizer bunny beats drums)

     
  • At 9:47 PM, Blogger Kevin said…

    What rant?

     
  • At 9:49 PM, Blogger Kevin said…

    ...at that I first said that I have always loved the Republican theory of no-government.

    Then I added the change in my political view and attached an 'in my opinion'.

    I still can't figure why you just make shit up?

     

Post a Comment

<< Home