Sen. Kerry on OBL

I don't know if the Great Equivocator, Sen. John F. Kerry, is the most stupid United States Senator in history because I don't know much about all the other really stupid United States Senators.

I don't know how I missed this earlier, but about a week ago in a television interview, Sen. Kerry said, "President Bush allowed Osama bin Laden to escape from Tora Bora." The theme, over and over during the interview, was how inept President Bush is. Oh, really?

The above quote is a perfect example of the politics that a United States Senator, who should know better, is playing with our national security and the lives of our military personnel.

If I said, "President Bush captured Saddam Hussein", every hate-Bush extremist would scoff and say "the brave men and women of the United States Armed Forces captured Saddam Hussein." And they would be "ZACKlyRight". Nobody that says "Bush captured Hussein" implies he carried a gun and crawled in spider holes, yet the phrase is so offensive to the hate-Bush crowd.

The capturing of Hussein, the toppling of the Taliban in Afghanistan, the toppling of Hussein's murderous regime, and every other success in Afghanistan and Iraq is the result of an U.S. Armed Forces apparatus that consists of a civilian leadership supported by the best military infrastructure the world has ever seen (no apologies to the British or Israelis) . The U.S. military is well represented at the table where there is any discussion of U.S. military operations. Does anyone think that Bush says, "I think we should attack at midnight under the cover of darkness using Apache helicopters accompanied by gunships, two insertion teams and a TRC pinch at dawn"? C'mon? No President, not even, God forbid, a President Kerry, would draft military operations. The President says, I want to liberate Kuwait, how do I do it? The Joint Chiefs of Staff huddle with the civilian leaders and they develop multiple plans. There is a weighting of success and casualties. Then, presentations are made to the President and she/he signs-off on one of the options. Senator Kerry knows this yet he still chooses to play politics with the inability of the United States to capture OBL. Cheap and disgraceful. Par for the course with this chameleon.

Unless, of course, Sen. Kerry is criticizing the brave women and men hunting OBL in Pakistan. Maybe somebody in the liberal media can ask the Senator to elaborate when he says, "President Bush allowed OBL to escape Tora Bora."

Kerry on Iraq; 403 with the President

Two more letters I recently submitted to the Globe; this first uses an opening sentence readers of this space have seen previously; the second, for those that recall my "accomplishments" list, grows the list by one; 403 - 3 for goodness sakes!

Editor,

The first sentence of the lead story in the August 10, 2004 Boston Globe was, "(Sen.) John F. Kerry for the first time yesterday said he still would have voted to give President Bush the authority to go to war in Iraq, even if he had known in October 2002 that US intelligence was flawed, that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction, and that there was no connection between Saddam Hussein and the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001."

Seventeen months after the invasion of Iraq and 22 months after his vote to authorize the war, the Great Equivocator, Sen. Kerry, still would have voted for the war. Today, the Senator cannot bring himself to call for an immediate withdrawal of all U.S. Armed Forces from Iraq yet he cannot stop criticizing those that are fighting the war on terror.

Simply, Sen. Kerry has lost all credibility on this issue. We don't need a political opportunist trying to score political points, we need a United States Senator to start doing the job he was elected to do. Resign or get to work, Senator.

Oh, and Senator, stop with the daily reminders that our "dumb" President "misled" you; it doesn't reflect well on your intelligence. (End of letter)


Editor,

For those that missed it, the U.S. House of Representatives voted almost unanimously, 403 - 3, to support the President of the United States, George W. Bush, by voting down a resolution calling for the immediate withdrawal of U.S. Armed Forces from Iraq (House rejects troop pullout call, November 19, A2). Again, 99.3% of those that voted "yea" or "nay" support the President! The vote is an amazing statement of unity as 187 Democrats joined with 215 Republicans and the lone Independent; surely, the President is a uniter.

Notables voting with the President and voting to not immediately withdrawal the troops were Reps. John Murtha (D, PA), a 73-year old Marine veteran decorated for combat service in Vietnam, Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), house minority leader, Charles Rangel (D, NY), also a veteran, and nine of the ten Representatives from the State of Massachusetts (Rep. Michael Capuano voted "present").

Can someone please let Ms. Cindy Sheehan know that she can add 806 addresses to her list of locations to protest? No matter where Ms. Sheehan's capitulation tour travels, she will never be far from the office or residence of 403 influential people that agree with the President. I look forward to the media's coverage of Ms. Sheehan's protest outside of Ms. Nancy Pelosi's home or office. (End of letter)

A safe and happy Thanksgiving weekend to everyone; I'd prefer to enjoy it myself but if the blame-America first crowd says or does anything stupid (gee, what are the chances?), I'll chime in.

Clinton on 1998 Iraq

The liberal extremists at the Boston Globe will never print this letter. The quote below is very long, but stay with it; I left only the really poignant parts and look how long it is! You can "google" as I suggest for the full text. I think the phrase "weapons of mass destruction" is used seven times. Quick, call the Great Equivocator!

Editor,

During an address to the Nation defending his decision authorizing air strikes in Iraq on December 16, 1998, President Clinton said (all italics are mine for emphasis), "Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq . . . their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs . . . their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States . . . Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons . . . (UN weapons inspectors) are highly professional experts from dozens of countries . . . their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability . . . other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles . . . with Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them; not once, but repeatedly . . . unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war . . . against civilians . . . even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq . . . I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again . . . Saddam's deception has defeated (weapons inspector's) effectiveness . . . this situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere . . . and so we had to act and act now . . . let me explain why . . . first, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years. Second, if Saddam can cripple the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community, led by the United States, has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday, make no mistake, he will use it again as he has in the past . . . That is why, on the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, including the vice president, the secretary of defense, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the secretary of state and the national security adviser, I have ordered a strong, sustained series of air strikes against Iraq. They are designed to degrade Saddam's capacity to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction . . . so we will pursue a long-term strategy to contain Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction and work toward the day when Iraq has a government worthy of its people . . . first, we must be prepared to use force again if Saddam takes threatening actions, such as trying to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction or their delivery systems, threatening his neighbors, challenging allied aircraft over Iraq . . . the credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War . . . the best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government, a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently . . . the decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties . . . Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors . . . And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them . . . may God bless and protect the brave men and women who are carrying out this vital mission and their families. And may God bless America (google "Clinton and December and Iraq" for the full text)."

I do not believe President Clinton "lied", "cherry-picked intelligence", "misled", or "exaggerated" any aspect about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. Maybe Sen. Hillary Clinton thinks her husband lied . . . about, Iraq, I mean. Maybe Sen. John F. Kerry thinks President Clinton cherry-picked. Maybe the editorial staff at the Boston Globe thinks President Clinton misled and exaggerated. Or, just maybe, the hate-Bush crowd believes whatever they have to believe in order to justify their hatred. Their manufactured hatred doesn't make us any safer as a Country and it certainly doesn't help our troops in the field. I agree with President Clinton, God bless America. (End of letter.)

Anytime the liberal extremists, more concerned about picking up a few seats in the House next November than winning the war on terror, actually want to join the war on terror is fine by me.

No decorated veteran that agrees with President Bush is less "decorated" than a decorated veteran that disagrees with him. That the liberal media has suggested it is so is absoultely disgraceful. That Sen. Kerry enforces the implication is disgusting. Where's the outrage?

Justification for War II

The following is an exact re-print of my August 23, 2005 post:

My (the United States) next door neighbor (Saddam Hussein) is a Level 3 sex offender (he has used weapons of mass destruction on his own people). I know this because the State of Massachusetts (the Boston Globe, Sen. John F. Kerry, the United Nations, etc.) have told me so. He's been convicted multiple times. It's a matter of public record.

My next door neighbor stands at my propery line and makes menacing faces toward me.

He makes suggestive gestures when he sees my three kids playing in the backyard.

Finally, not willing to risk the safety of my children, I ask Sens. Clinton, Kerry, Edwards and Biden if I can kill my next door neighbor. They all vote "yes".

The "autopsy" on the neighbor reveals that he was completely incapable of harming my kids. Even today, all four support my action in killing my next door neighbor.

So, today, MoveOn.org is arguing for the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. Fine. Is this the position of Sens. Clinton, Kerry, Edwards and Biden? All four of these Senators are going to run for their party's presidential nomination in 2008; which of these will be the first to disavow their vote in 2002 and their support for the war on terror through August 2005?

If the "position" of the Democrat Party is withdrawal, then shouldn't someone in the Party be saying that right now? Even Sen. Russ Feingold (D, Minnesota), arguably the most vocal Senator against the war on terror, doesn't even call for an immediate pull-out. If the position of the Democrat Party is not pull-out, is one of these Senators going to try to "time" their flip-flop just as the Party's hatred for all things George W. Bush reaches a critical mass? Will the Party really nominate the person that tries to steal the drum major's staff?

Trust me on this, Ms. Cindy Sheehan is a much bigger problem for the Democrats than she is for President Bush. Yes, the Democrats may be enjoying the liberal media's enabling of this Bush-hater today, but she will ultimately divide the Democrats. Trust me on this. (End of re-print)

So, the week of November 14 was the week that the cowards and opportunists in the Democrat Party flip-flopped on the war on terror. This date was earlier than I expected, but I was proved "ZACKlyRight" nonetheless.

The PEOPLE and Amendments

The liberal extremists at the Boston Globe are simply out of control. Today, the "geniuses" on the editorial page chose to print a letter from an idiot that tried to use the Amendments to the U.S. Constitution as proof that the document is a "living document". He was overly cute and the editorial board of the Boston Globe thought this was another opportunity to print a "we hate President George Bush" letter. The thing is, the letter writer was exactly right (not "ZACKlyRight", that's me) with everything he wrote except for acknowledging he, too, was a "constitutional originalist".

The letter writer wrote, "The original drafters wrote the first ten amendments - the Bill of Rights. Is this not sufficient evidence that the possibility for additional thinking is precisely what the Constitution's framers counted on when they made room for amendments? The amendments abolishing slavery and giving women suffrage came about because the Constitution enabled a reinterpretation of what the document meant by "all men".

Simply, and I'll type this s-l-o-w-l-y so the liberal extremists can follow along, the Amendments are drafted, voted on and passed by the . . . hold on now, I don't want to lose anybody . . . the P-E-O-P-L-E.

There are two ways an Amendment is approved. The first is by an Amendment being passed by both the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives by a 2/3 majority. The proposed Amendment must then be approved by 3/4 of the individual states. The second involves a Constitutional Convention and this second means has never been used in our Country's history.

Sure, liberal extremists can believe that Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (57 law clerks prior to her appointment and not one a person of color) can write law that supports a liberal extremist view. This is not the definition of sound jurisprudence. Lo the day that Associate Justice Scalia tries to write law.

The PEOPLE write law. I said this several days ago in my Alito post (please go back and read it). I was right then; I'm right today.

Anyway, the letter I sent to the Globe today:

Editor,

Based on a letter published in the Boston Sunday Globe (November 13), your readership may be under the impression that activist judges write Amendments to the U.S. Constitution; nothing could be further from fact.

Amendments to the U.S. Constitution are passed in one of two ways: the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives pass an Amendment, each by a 2/3 vote, and then 3/4 of all the individual states must "pass" the Amendment or the never-used Constitutional Convention can be assembled.

The U.S. constitution is a "living document" as long as the PEOPLE say it is. Do liberal extremists that have enjoyed the activism of liberal judges really want to give "conservative" but non-originalist judges the same latitude? Or, can we all agree that the PEOPLE decide. If you think the PEOPLE should decide, then, guess what, you may be an originalist. (End of letter.)

The Great Equivocator, again, on Iraq

The Great Equivocator, Sen. John F. Kerry is at it again. As readers of this space know, I've been pointing out Sen. Kerry's vote in favor of the war in Iraq for some time. Well, yesterday, on Veterans Day of all days, Sen. Kerry chose to play politics with the brave men and women that have died fighting a war he voted for but chose not to fund (recall his vote against $85 billion in support of our troops.)

Anyway, the letter I submitted this morning to the Boston Globe:

Editor,

Yesterday, the Great Equivocator, Sen. John F. Kerry said he voted for the war in Iraq based on "contentions by an administration that turned out to have engaged in 'cherry-picking intelligence and stretching the truth beyond recognition'" (President steps up attack on war critics, November 12, A1).

The first sentence of the lead story in the August 10, 2004 Boston Globe was, "John F. Kerry for the first time yesterday said he still would have voted to give President Bush the authority to go to war in Iraq, even if he had known in October 2002 that US intelligence was flawed, that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction, and that there was no connection between Saddam Hussein and the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001."

That anyone thinks Sen. Kerry has any credibility at all on the war on terror is laughable; Sen. Kerry made his "if I knew then what I know now" comment 17 months after the U.S and her many allies engaged the enemy in Iraq! Does the Senator really mean to suggest with all of his experience and "foreign affairs gravitas (that's me laughing again)" that President Bush was able to fool him for 17 months and more? Is he wasting his time on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee? Is he incapable of asking any tough questions? Is he suggesting that brave men and women of the Armed Forces are dying because of his complete and total inability to do his job? If he is being "fooled" by the dolt that everyone thinks the President to be, how truly incompetent must the Senator be?

President Bush's quote yesterday, "While it is perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began," is exactly right. Senator Kerry's nuancing of his ever-changing position on the war (voting for it and then voting against the funding of it, for another example), especially on Veterans Day, is despicable. He should either start doing his job or resign; the brave men and women in the Armed Forces deserve better and the voters of Massachusetts should not continue to be embarrassed by his gross dereliction of duty. (End of letter)

The Senator had 17 months to review his vote, that is an eternity in political Monday morning quarterbacking, and he still would have voted for the war knowing what he knew on August 9, 2004.

Earle; NO; falling gas prices

There simply is no need for me to elaborate on a Ronnie Earle post. After reading a few of my previous posts, you know that District Attorney Earle, a Texas Democrat with a history of political vendettas, thinks if A gives money to C so C can give money to D that B is the only one to have committed a crime. I literally have nothing else to say on this matter given the gross violation of all that is logical. And for my liberal friends that are in a lather that C (the Republican National Committee) committed a crime, go ask your friends at the Democrat National Committee if they want Ronnie to indict C for its involvement. Oops, there I go again with the logic (or is it sarcasm?).

Attention Liberal Hollywood Elite: there is still poverty in New Orleans. Regardless of what The Elite might think, the poverty is not related to the number of news cameras in New Orleans; the poverty is there when the cameras are gone.

I paid $2.09 for a gallon of gasoline yesterday. The liberal media loved to blame Bush when gasoline was $3.29 a gallon. Where, then, is the credit for orchestrating this huge $1.20 drop since three hurricanes rocked the Gulf Coast?

Seventy-seven percent of voting Iraqis approved their Country's constitution. Look a liberal (that conveniently ignores that Sens. Kerry, Clinton and other liberal Senators voted for the war, but is blinded by hatred for President Bush) in the eye and ask her if a democracy in Iraq makes the United States more or less secure.

Attention, Sean Penn, there's still poverty in New Orleans.

During the Presidential Debates, the Great Equivocator, Sen. John F. Kerry asked, "how safe do you feel now?" after sharing that air cargo is not inspected prior to loading onto passenger flights. He has yet to introduce legislation to change this. Is this what people mean by the "politics of fear"? Maybe he needs more time to study the issue. Maybe he's not sure if he'll vote "for" the legislation before he votes "against" it or if he'll vote "against" the legislation before he votes "for" it.

On November 3, 2005, I made another factual error in my post, Robert Casey, Jr., son of the late, pro-life Gov. Robert Casey, is not locked in a tough gubernatorial race in Pennsylvania, he's locked in a tight U.S. Senate race. I found the error myself. This now makes three factual errors in just 33 posts, a rate that is simply too high. Going forward, if anyone sees a factual error, please let me know right away so I can correct.

Poverty . . . still . . . New Orleans.

Two days after I expressed concern over the Left's treatment of Judge Alito's ethnicity, the President of the National Italian-American Federation expressed a similar concern on a television news program. The choice is yours, wait for others to catch-up or read it here first.

ChevronTexaco's Political Action Committee gave almost 10% of all the money it contributed to United States Senators in the current 2005 - 2006 election cycle to Sen. Barbara Boxer's (D, CA) liberal twin sister, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D, CA).

Race; Multinational Force in Iraq; Alito

Traveled out of town for two days and came back to a Boston Globe rich with material.

Yes, I have nothing better to do with my time so I sent this letter in response to African-American columnist Mr. Derrick Jackson extolling a professor, presumably an African-American, that was appointed to leadership positions by Pres. Johnson and Clinton, that ranked Johnson and Clinton high on a list of racial healers and President Bush at the bottom.

Editor,

Imagine my surprise that Mr. Derrick Jackson constructed an entire article critical of President Bush's contribution to the Country's racial climate based on an interview with one angry man (Bush's failing grade on racial issues, November 9, A15).

Forty-six point six percent of all African-Americans in the United States have mortgages on their own homes; the highest percentage in the history of the United States.

As a white male, I don't pretend to know what is most important to the African-American community, but I'd appreciate Mr. Jackson or a more responsible spokesperson letting us know if home ownership is anywhere near the top of the list. The highest home ownership rate in history and the grade is failing? Not even a "D", but failing?

Mr. Jackson's article, long on cheap shots but short on substance, did nothing to help race relations in this country. His article was the very thing he was railing against, so I really have to question how serious he is about improving the dialogue. (End of letter)

Next, continuing my theme that President Bush is absolutely a "uniter" (sorry, I keep using facts to support my "charge"; oh, the burden of being supported by facts), I submitted the following:

Editor,

Ms. Cindy Sheehan still won't take my calls, so can someone please let her know that the United Nations "Security Council voted unanimously yesterday to extend the mandate of the multinational force in Iraq for a year (UN Security Council approves another year for force in Iraq, November 9, A11)." As we all know, Sen. John F. Kerry recently gave a speech calling for a United States presence in Iraq for one more year. So, President Bush has the support of a multinational force backed by the UN and Sen. Kerry. So, who, exactly, is denying the President's ability to lead, build consensus and unite? (End of letter)

Finally, on November 3, I posted, "(Judge) Alito does not support spousal notification no matter what the liberal media says; if a law is passed requiring spousal notification, Alito sides with the people; he can find nothing in the Constitution to prevent the people from enacting such a law." On November 7, Ms. Cathy Young, a contributing editor at Reason Magazine and regular contributor to the liberal editorial pages of the Boston Globe, wrote, "Let's clears something up: Just because Alito voted to uphold (spousal notification) doesn't necessarily mean he agreed with it, only that he concluded it was constitutional." I guess you can wait for others to catch up or you can read it here first. Ms. Young is a professional and I'm just "ZACKlyRight".

One Life or Two?

On Thursday night, just northwest of Boston, a pregnant woman and her unborn baby were killed in a automobile crash resulting, apparently, from two other cars drag racing.

The letter below was submitted to the Boston Globe this morning:

Editor,

The automobile crash on the Lowell Connector Thursday night that took the life of Mrs. Deborah Hornberger and her unborn child is a horrific tragedy.

I'm willing to take the risk that my reference to the crash just two days later will offend many, but this is exactly the time to attempt an open discussion on abortion, especially with a U.S. Supreme Court nominee before the United States Senate. How else to save the lives of other unborn children but to make pro-abortionists reconcile this tragedy with their pro-abortion position? My sincere, public, heart-felt apology to Mr. Brant Hornberger and Mrs. Hornberger's family if I offend them with this letter.

Mrs. Hornberger's unborn child was human life. The Boston Globe reporter that wrote the story and any editors that read the draft signed-off on the following phrases, " . . . the unborn child who died . . . ", " . . . her unborn child . . . (was) the fourth fatality . . . ", and " . . . Hornberger and her child . . . (two times!)". In this story, the Boston Globe got it exactly right. The unborn child was human life. It is disgraceful to me that the Boston Globe can use such phrases on page B1 but deny the unborn child is human life on the editorial page.

Plain and simply, the line between "child" or not is absolutely not whether Mrs. Hornberger was on her way home to her husband or whether she was on her way to get an abortion (again, apologies for the harshness, but I believe it is necessary). Only an extremist can think that what is going through a mother's head defines what is in her tummy. The fetus is always human life and worthy of all the protections offered in our Constitution . . . life being foremost. My hopes are that Judge Samuel Alito agrees. If any reader of this letter agrees this unborn child was human life, be prepared to be called an "extremist" or "radical" by those that support abortion.

If anyone is charged in the death of this child, the defendant can certainly question how a State that protects abortion-on-demand can now argue this baby's death was vehicular homicide or similar.

Let's memorialize the extremely short life of this baby by challenging "rights" extended to women in this Country at the expense of the right to life of innocent unborn babies (end of letter).

Wow! Yes, a huge chance I'm taking with this letter if published, but 3,000 babies are still being aborted each day in this Country. Let's have the discussion. Again, what the mother (wants the baby)/carrier (wants to abort the baby) thinks of the fetus is absolutely not how human life is determined.

I copied the Globe reporter that wrote the story that kept referring to the fetus as a "child". I'll let you know if he responds. I'll ask him if the pro-abortion crowd (I think that might be everyone but him; I would have sworn the Globe had a "pro-abortion litmus test" for any employee) is ignoring him in the Globe lunch room. I'll ask if "extremist!" post-it-notes are being left on his computer monitor.

Two human lives were ended last Thursday night. Make no mistake about it.

I'm trying desperately to get to A-giving-money-to-C-so-C-can-give-money-to-D-and-only-B-committed-a-crime, but, as you can see, much more important issues need to be discussed.

Alito; Farmer and Casey

I was wrong! I take no pleasure in admitting this, but I was wrong.

A few days ago, I said that I would define "extremist" as used by the pro-abortion Left in its attempt to derail the Alito nomination. I was sure, at the time, I would be able to use partial-birth abortion, a procedure the late and great, Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D, NY; seat now held by Sen. Hillary Clinton) called "infanticide", to help with my definition. I was wrong.

In an amazing decision, Planned Childlessness v. Farmer, Judge Alito sided with Planned Childlessness in striking down a New Jersey law that prevented the grotesque partial-birth procedure because the law did not adequately provide an exclusion clause for the protection of the carrier's ("mother" always seems like a huge stretch when we're talking about killing the baby; to get the title "mother", I think you need to deliver a live baby, no?) health (shouldn't this be life?).

It seems the Left just irresponsibly and willy-nilly uses phrases like "extremist", "radical", and "nut-job" to gin-up its base regardless of the facts.

Speaking of extremism, I love the way the liberal media is playing up Judge Alito's votes in Planned Childlessness v. Casey. (Just a word on Casey before we proceed. Gov. Robert Casey (D, PA) was pro-life. He was unceremoniously not invited to speak at the 1992 Democratic Convention for the sole reason that he was pro-life. Love that Big Tent! Now his son, Robert Casey, Jr. is locked in a tight gubernatorial battle in PA and the Democratic Party cannot do enough for the son; they love to highlight he's the son of the popular former Governor, pro-life scoundrel that he was!) Anyway, in Casey, Alito was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court on four restrictions that Casey placed on women seeking to murder their fetus. Alito also voted that the fifth restriction, that a wife notify her husband prior to murdering her fetus, also did not place an "undue burden" on the carrier (see definition above). The U.S. Supreme Court ruled against spousal notification (the father is just there for financial support at the carrier's determination, I guess). The liberal media is writing that Alito voted for spousal "consent". It's simply not true, but why report the truth to your readership when you may not be able to convince them how they should think if you report the facts? The liberal media is also misrepresenting that Alito "supported spousal approval" which we know cannot be true because Judges don't write legislation as we'll discuss below.

In Farmer and Casey Judge Alito expressed no opinion as to the underlying laws or legislation passed. His role is to interpret the law as written by the people and to determine if the law is constitutional. The people of New Jersey elected representatives, state senators and a Governor that signed legislation making it a crime to abort a partially born fetus. The people of New Jersey wanted the law and enacted it. In Farmer, Judge Alito reasoned the law was not constitutional based on U.S. Supreme Court precedent. In Casey, the people of Pennsylvania elected representatives, state senators and a Governor that thought notifying the husband should be law. Judge Alito did not write the law and based on his opinion he cannot be said to "support" the law. What he said was that the law was constitutional: the people of Pennsylvania crafted a law that did not violate anyone's constitutional rights. The U.S. Supreme Court, still dominated by liberal activists when talking about terminating an unborn life, saw it differently.

To summarize today's lesson: 1. I can be wrong; today was the first recognition (if I go back and review an earlier post, I'm sure I'll find where I botched a graphic description of partial-birth abortion). 2. Alito sided with Planned Childlessness and precedent over ending partial birth abortion in New Jersey. 3. Alito does not support spousal notification no matter what the liberal media says; if a law is passed requiring spousal notification, Alito sides with the people; he can find nothing in the Constitution to prevent the people from enacting such a law. 4. Gov. Bob Casey was a principled, great man; national Democrats are disgracefully using his memory (Moynihan, Wellstone, now Casey, are Joe Lieberman (CT) and Russ Feingold (WI) the only living, principled, national Democrats? I'll entertain serious nominations.).

Coming soon, my thoughts on how A can't give money to D but B has an idea on how A can give money to C and then C pass it on to D and the only one to have allegedly committed a crime is B?

Reno Requested Investigation

Quickly back to the aide of an aide of the President being indicted: what's up with the amnesia of those on the Left?

Again, today, for about the 50th time since the indictments last Friday, the Boston Globe is printing letters to the editor and allowing columnists to suggest the Clinton scandals were about his sexual relationship with an intern. Well, yes, to the extent we were trying to have a serious conversation about sexual harassment in this Country, I guess it was.

For Democrats and liberal extremists that are in deep, deep denial, the Clinton scandals were about a man (President Clinton) lying and obstructing justice in an attempt to frustrate a woman's (Paula Jones) sexual harassment suit. That he was involved in an extramarital affair is certainly between him, his girlfriend and his wife; no Republican or conservative cared. That he was engaged in the classic workplace sexual harassment scenario at the same time a woman was alleging sexual harassment against him is comical as much as the Left's acquiesence is sad. The Left is simply not offended by sexual harassment as long as the sexual harasser believes in abortion-on-demand. What a noble position. Plain and simply, President Clinton lied, obstructed justice and made false statements to frustrate the civil rights of a woman; the courts decide the merits of a sexual harassment lawsuit, not the defendant, his cronies and the massive machinery of the liberal media. Finally, U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno asked for the investigation of the President, expanded the investigation of the President, and monitored and supervised the investigation's progress up to the President's bi-partisan impeachment in the House of Representatives.

I'm going to take a day for the liberals hyperventilating over the Judge Alito nomination to find some paper bags and calm down, then I'll be back for some, hopefully, intelligent comments on what the Left would have you believe is a "radical" judge. If you can't handle the graphic description of a scissor in the skull of an unborn baby you might want to miss my next post (oh, and yes, you'd be considered a "radical", too, for being offended by such a practice).