NEALZ NUZE
The Neal Boortz Show -- News Talk 750 WSB -- Atlanta
While I am on the air from 8:30 to Noon you can send me e-mail at wsboortz@yahoo.com!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thursday, July 9, 1998.
OH --- GIVE ME A DAMN BREAK, WOULD YOU MARY MARGARET?
There is a little profile of Mary Margaret Oliver, the Democratic candidate for Lt. Governor, in today's Constitution. It would seem that one of Oliver's central theme is going to be child care. Yes, she is yet another Democrat who has developed this idea that it is the responsibility of the government to take care of people's children for them.
Actually, you can see why Democrats would want to push this child care agenda. Two good reasons. First, the burden of child care usually falls heaviest on the mother. That goes without saying in the all-too-common instance where there isn't a father around. Women are more oriented toward security than to freedom. This makes them ripe targets for politicians who seek to build voter loyalty by offering tantalizing bits of government-provided security (here, we'll take care of your child for you) in return for freedom. (but you're going to have to abide by our child-care rules and give us a little more of your money).
Second, these Democrats know that once government-provided child care has become the norm, they will be able to scare voters to the polls with charges that their political opponents want to take this little goodie away from them.
Oliver says that "those who don't want me to win will characterize me as an Atlanta liberal."" Well, duh! Aren't you the one with the endorsement from Jane Fonda? What in the hell does that make you, a right-wing extremist?
Oliver is also setting up the excuses for a loss at the ballot box. "Some people are never going to like aggressive, strong women." She sas.
There you go. If she loses, it's because she's an aggressive and strong woman. Not because she's a tax-and-spend big-government liberal with Jane Fonda's blessings.
CAMILLE COSBYS COLUMN
I got quite a lot of reaction to my comments on Camille Cosby's column in yesterday's USA Today. Many people wondered why I was picking on someone who's son was murdered.
Hey, she made the decision to write her little article about American teaching people to hate black people. Does she claim some immunity to any adverse reaction to what she wrote on the basis that her son was murdered?
The two points about her article that most upset me concerned the Voting Rights Act and slavery.
First, as to the Voting Rights Act. She claims that if it is not renewed when it expires in 2007 then black people will be denied the right to vote. What ignorant nonsense. The expiration of the Voting Rights act will not result in the right to vote being taken away from one single black person in this country. Her claim here is totally and absolutely without basis.
Then there's the matter of our currency. Mrs. Cosby is upset because so many of the faces on those dollar bills are the faces of people who once owned slaves.
I have to tell you, I am so sick and damn tired of the slavery excuse. The untold truth is that virtually every single living and breathing citizen of the United States is descended from slaves. Blacks have no corner victimhood in this matter. As for those faces on those dollar bills . those are the faces of men who created a country in which black people have achieved positions of wealth and power that are unmatched anywhere else in the world, especially in the African Continent. Considered as a separate economic entity, blacks in the United States would comprise the second richest nation in the entire world; second only to the United States as a whole. Blacks in the US have a higher standard of living, a higher education level, higher incidence of home ownership, more wealth . etc . than any other industrialized nation.
The brutal truth is that blacks living in the United States today are beneficiaries of slavery, not victims. You may not like that statement . but you can't refute it. Deal with it.
CLINTON ON KIDS AND GUNS
Now Clinton wants to make it a federal crime for an adult to "allow" a child to have access to a firearm, or if an adult's firearm is used by a child to cause harm to someone else. A FEDERAL CRIME.
The fact is that children have had access to their parents guns since the formation of this country. While I was growing up I always knew where my father hid his .45 service pistol. I also knew that I was not to touch it or play with it. One hundred years ago virtually every household in this country had a gun - and every kid in that household knew where that gun, and its ammunition, was. Yet children were not taking those guns to school and shooting classmates.
The problem is not access to guns.
The problem is access to parents.
Parents are just not involved with their children. They are off working their asses off to pay the incredible costs of government, or, in the case of too many so-called familes, there aren't "parents" at all. There is just a mother. No father to be seen.
But --- blaming it on the guns is so much easier for the politicians. They absolve themselves of any responsibility for the carnage, and get to make our government bigger and more powerful as they seek a solution.
SQUAW PEAK
Indians in Phoenix, Arizona have lost in their bid to have the name of Squaw Peak changed. They said that the name was offensive to Indians. The Arizona Board on Geographic and Historical names has said no. By the way, Squaw Peak was named by Indians.
MAYBE THE ISLAMIC EXTREMISTS HAVE THIS ONE RIGHT
The Islamic fundamentalist military junta ruling Afghanistan has ordered citizens to throw out all televisions, videos and satellite dishes.
Perhaps they have the right idea. If, suddenly, every single television in the United States went dark, and could not be revived, American society would immediately begin to improve.
People worry about guns. I can think of no single invention that has done so much to adversely affect our way of life in American than the television. It truly is a "plug-in-drug."
A NASTY TRUTH BEHIND CNN'S PRESENT DIFFICULTIES
It's very simple. As Eugene Patterson, a former Editor of The Atlanta Constitution, said in a recent article, "Journalists used falsehoods to advance their politically correct predilections," Patterson added that "It's fashionable to dislike the military."
Peter Arnett may not have been involved in the development of the CNN story about the American military using nerve gas in an attempt to kill defectors, but he was, as one former CNN employee recently told me, "A willing believer."
DON'T PROTECT THE FLAG --- PROTECT THE FIRST AMENDMENT
We're getting a lot of play recently on an Constitutional Amendment to bar burning the American Flag as a symbol of protest.
This is an attack on the First Amendment. Our guarantee of freedom of speech exists not to protect speech that is popular and non-offensive, but to protect speech that might anger others.
Frankly, if Clinton signs too many more Executive Orders the flag is not going to mean all that much anyway.
MORE ON EXECUTIVE ORDER 13083
I got an e-mail message from Georgia Republican Congressman Max Collins on the matter of Clinton's now infamous Executive Order 13083 on "Federalism."
Collins shared a memorandum with me that he received from one of his staffers on this issue.
Collins' aide writes:
"I think I have a handle on this one, now. It's basically a power-grab by the Clinton Administration. This Executive Order (EO) allows the Federal government almost limitless authority to promulgate regulations in state and local jurisdictions currently protected by the Tenth Amendment.
"While this EO uses much of the language found in a 1987 EO issued by President Reagan, it turns the Reagan policy (to limit Federal activities) on its head. The way that the Clinton EO accomplishes this is by broadly defining "matters of national or multi-state scope that justify Federal action." These would include any matter of concern that is not confined by a single state's boundaries, any matter involving a "need for national standards," any matter in which "decentralization increases the costs of government," any matter in which "States would be reluctant to impose necessary regulations because of fears that regulated business activity will relocate to other states," and any matter related to "Federally owned or managed property or natural resources, trust obligations, or international organizations."
"As you can see, this EO basically revokes the Tenth Amendment limitations of the legitimate scope of the Federal government. It represents a serious threat to State and local governments' authority, to the powers of the Congress, and to individual liberties. Following are a couple of examples of possible executive actions that this would allow.
"(1) The President could implement the UN's Kyoto Climate Treaty through executive department and agency regulations. The "international obligations" clause would allow this WITHOUT Senate ratification.
"(2) Under this provision, the War Powers Act would, essentially, be revoked allowing the President to have nearly unlimited authority to send troops anywhere, at any time, for any reason.
"(3) Under the "interstate" activity clause, criminal law and gun control measures could be implemented by the Justice Department, usurping the powers of the States and the Congress."
Is that enough to get your attention? At least Mac Collins seems to have a grip on what is going on .. Unlike our Democratic Senator.
ANSWERS TO "WHO SAID THAT"
"Stroke of a pen, law of the land. Kinda cool!" That was said by Presidential Aide Paul Begala to a reporter for the Los Angeles Times researching a story on Clinton's use of Executive Orders to implement policy he can't get through legislation.
"We're having pancakes for breakfast. Why don't you have your Mother fix you some pancakes?"
This was reportededly yelled by FBI agents at the home of Randy Weaver after agents had shot Weaver's wife to death while she was holding their baby.
|
