The Neal Boortz Show
January 25, 1999
INTERVIEWING LEWINSKY
So, the House Managers of the Impeachment process decided to interview Monica Lewinsky over the weekend, and what happens? The Democrats go stark, raving mad! You would think that Democrats had suddenly seen the smoking gun that could, once and for all, end the Clinton presidency. Here's something the Democrats won't tell you. There are two bodies of people managing the case before the Senate. The House Managers on the prosecution side, and the president's attorneys on the defense side. Throughout the process the president's attorneys have been completely free to interview any of their witnesses at any time they please. Are we to assume that he president's lawyers have refrained from discussing the case with any possible witnesses working in the White House, including Clinton himself? So – no problem when the White House lawyers want to interview witnesses, but just let the House Managers try that stunt.
HEY, DRIVER. I LIKE THAT UNIFORM! PULL INTO THAT REST AREA OVER THERE
Rumors this weekend that Clinton ordered high-ranking Marine Corps officers to drive Monica Lewinsky from the Pentagon to the White House when Clinton found himself desirous of an oral briefing. Click here to read the story on World Net Daily.
WHAT ARE THEY SO PETRIFIED OF?
Why the panic? The level of absolute hysteria in the Democratic ranks sure makes you wonder, doesn't it? Just what are they so afraid of? Do they all know something that we don't?
MORE ON THE ISSUE OF WITNESSES -- AND OUR BUDGET SURPLUS
It is still rather curious -- the way the Democrats are so rabidly against the idea of calling witnesses in the Clinton impeachment trial.
Look ---- the conventional wisdom is that the Republican Party hurts itself the more this thing drags on. The Democrats win in a couple of ways. First, they can slam the GOP for going against the wishes of the American people and prolonging the impeachment trial by calling witnesses; second, the Democrats can claim that the Republicans are running a "do-nothing" congress and have no agenda. All big poll winners for the Democrats.
So --- why are they so frightened of witnesses? Seems to me it would work to their advantage.
Maybe there's a clue from John Crudele, writing in The New York Post. Crudele says "I estimate that President Clinton has no better than a 50-50 chance of remaining in office. Those odds go down to 60-40 against his presidency once witnesses are called before the impeachment trial. (some day I'll be able to tell you why.)"
What sort of a smoking-gun witness is there out there anyway?
By the way … Crudele's column wasn't about the impeachment trial. It was really about this fraud that Clinton and our government is pulling off --- the fraud of a balanced budget.
You can read the column at www.nypost.com/business/2157.htm
HOW IMPRESSIVE MONICA IS!
House Managers, three of them, speaking Sunday evening … all talking about "how personable and impressive" Monica Lewinsky is. She's so bright. She's so poised.
Yeah, right.
Come on, we know a smoke job when we hear one.
This is a woman who had the president's you-know-what in her you-know-what just hours after meeting him. She admits that it is probable that Clinton didn't even know her name at that point. Then she goes on to visions of running away with Clinton after he manages to dump Hillary. And this girl is "bright", "impressive" and "personable?"
Funny, we had another word for this type when I was in my 20's
THE LIBERAL MIND, PART XXIV
You get up, take a shower, get dressed and have breakfast. You kiss your wife and children goodbye and head for the office. There you spend the next ten hours or so working to earn a living. So … that money you earned. Just who's is it? Yours? In your mind, perhaps, but not in the mind of the Social Democratic party.
That effort you put in at work that day …and the earnings you generated … is not your property. It is the governments. You were able to work. You had the ability to earn some pretty good bucks. Those dollars are what they are referring to when socialists say "From each according to their ability." Note the use of the word "from."
That money you earned isn't yours. It belongs to everyone. It belongs to the government. It just came "from" your hard work. Thank you very much.
So --- what are you going to live on? Well .. these people aren't stupid. Of course they're going to let you keep some of that money … just enough to keep you from grabbing a pitchfork and heading for Washington. So, what do they call that money they allow you to keep? In the official parlance of Washington, it is a "tax expenditure."
But --- and here is where you really start to see the snakes that live in the minds of the left ---- what happens if you want to keep even more of the money you worked for and earned? What if you want a tax cut? Well, my friend, that means that you are greedy. You're looking for a handout. You want charity.
Charity?
You got it. Charity.
One of the principal liberal spokesmen on the issue of keeping what you earn in Richard Gephardt, the man who may be the Speaker of the House after the next election.
First of all, Gephardt has no appreciation for the value of hard work. To him, your financial status in life is determined solely by luck. There are the lucky and the unlucky. The fortunate and the less fortunate. Those who have winning lottery tickets, and those who draw blanks. Yes, Richard Gephardt says that people who earn high incomes --- the so-called "rich", are in that position only because they "won life's lottery." A good education had nothing to do with it, neither did hard work. Good decision making skills wasn't a factor either. It was all in the ticket … whether or not you got the right lottery ticket.
Now, for the latest Gephardt outrage.
Last week Gephardt was asked about the possibility of an across the board ten percent tax cut. Needless to say, he didn't like the idea very much at all. He slammed the idea because it would benefit "rich people" who "don't need our charity."
There you have it. If the government gives you back some of the money it has taken from you .. that constitutes charity.
What if you were overcharged at a grocery store. If you got a refund of the overcharge, would that be "charity" to Gephardt?
There is a very good reason behind this liberal view that all earnings belong to the community – to the government. To believe otherwise would be to recognize the existence of the individual. Once you acknowledge the existence of the individual, you have to deal with the concept of individual (instead of group) rights. One of those individual rights you might have to deal with is the right to property.
No thanks --- it is easier for the liberal to run with the concept that all property is owned by society …. meaning, of course, the government.
JUST A SMALL DIFFERENCE
Two presidents have now faced an impeachment trial. Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton. Andrew Johnson paid for his lawyers out of his own pocket. Bill Clinton is nailing the taxpayers for the costs of his lawyer.
No surprise.
ANAGRAMS
From an article in The Magazine of American Mensa
Richard Milhous Nixon was the first American president whose full name contained all the letter in the word CRIMINAL. Now we have a second president whose complete name contains the letters in the word CRIMINAL.
That president's name is William Jefferson Clinton.
BET YOU'VE NEVER HEARD THIS PART, HAVE YOU?
In addition to this being a shocker to some people, it should open some eyes as to how inept the Republicans have been at getting their message across to the people of this country.
Over the course of the Clinton/Lewinsky affair, how many times have you heard the Clintonistas bleating that Monica Lewinsky clearly said, during her testimony to the grand jury, that Bill Clinton never told her to lie.
Funny, though. The Clintonista Social Democrats never seem to finish out that quotation ---- and the Republicans won't set the record straight either.
So … let's complete the thought. When Monica told the grand jury that the president never told her to lie, she added four interesting words. "He didn't need to."
In other words, she knew what her role was. They had discussed their cover story many times. She knew that she was expected to lie, and the prevaricator didn't need to remind her in such exact terms.
THE HARDEST QUESTION ---- THE NUCLEAR STUMPER
When you run into someone bleating forth their inane defense of Bill Clinton you will often hear them refer to the wonderful things he's done as president.
Don't let them get away with it! Ask them --- "Well, educate me. Just what has he done?"
More often than not they will tell you of the incredible job he has done with the economy. Ask to be specific. Ask them to name just one action Clinton has taken that helped our economy grow. That's when they start drawing blanks.
Clintonistas are sheep. They run with the herd. They are afraid of individual thought and responsibility. The are almost incapable of rational thought.
So -- as they're bragging about the economy, throw these two facts at them:
Fact: the economy started growing 21 months before Clinton became president, and has been growing all along.
Fact: in a survey of corporate executives last year, only six percent gave Clinton administration policies the credit for our economy. Both Reagan and Bush administration policies got higher credit.
Now …. Tell me again. Just what has Clinton done?
It is at about this point that they will walk away.
boortz.com |
