GOP Keeps US House and US Senate

We are just more than a week out from Election Day and I need to repeat what I wrote back on August 26: Republicans will keep control of the US House of Representatives and the US Senate.
Since August 26 much has happened. I'll not go into detail on what has happened, all those that subscribe to a liberal (news)paper have certainly read enough about a non-sex sex scandal to know what I'm referring to, plus I intend this to be a very short post in order to simply be on record.

Bona fide sexual harrasser and undeniable sexual predator (who was innoculated from it all because of his unwaivering belief in abortion-on-demand), William Jefferson Clinton had it exactly right: It's the economy, stupid.

All the people that pay for gasoline, own homes, have jobs, and own stock will simply decide Democrats will certainly not manage the war against terrorists better than Republicans and that they haven't minded their accumulation of wealth through home appreciation, 401(K) account appreciation, Roth account appreciation, 529 account appreciation, and increased disposable income from moderate merit increases and tax cuts coupled with declining gasoline prices and stifled inflation. That African-Americans and Hispanic-Americans are participating in the "ownership society" as they never have before will be the under-theme in the election result's post-mortem (voter turnout will be low as the national Democrats simply will not be able to incense traditional Democrat voting blocs with their hateful racial and ethnic rhetoric and those minorities that do go to the polls will vote for Republicans in greater percentages than the "experts" project).

Just one man's opinion. I'd love to hear yours but only if you include a brief "why" you think as you do.

Finally, Mr. Jeff Jacoby, the only non-liberal extremist that writes for the Boston Globe, did a column today on racially-motivated, political, hate ads (boston.com, Today's Paper, Opinion). Yes, he mentioned the disgusting ad by the NAACP from 2000. Yes, it is possible he's getting concept ideas by reading ZACKlyRight.blogspot.com.

Rape: Apparently, Not Always Rape and Not Always Bad

Recalling the Senate Judicary's (led by Democrats and Sen. Joe Biden) obsession with the lurid fantasy shared by Ms. Anita Hill, at least the Country's awareness about bona fide sexual harassment was raised. Or, so we thought.

When President Clinton started receiving oral sex from a 20 year-old intern, the definition and the liberal media's definition of workplace sexual harassment suddenly changed. Yet, of course, Attorney General Janet Reno couldn't get enough information on the sexual escapdes of her boss, so she kept expanding the role of the Special Prosecutor/Counsel to look deeper and deeper into the President's behavior. Anyway, the liberal media convinced us that there are actually some situations where a female subordinate can sexually please her male boss and it is not workplace sexual harasssment. As I write so many times, the liberal media must be so proud.

Though, the relaxed standards were not enough to save Republicans, however. House Speaker Newt Gingrich (affair), Rep. Bob Livingston (affair) and Sen Bob Packwood (sloppy kisses) were all hounded out of office for their actions (again, actions that did not involve receiving oral sex from a 20 year-old female subordinate).

Fast forward to 2006, the Democrats cannot milk enough benefit from the alarming and disgusting emails and text messages that Rep. Mark Foley (R, FL) sent to a disturbing number of U.S House pages. No sex, but the emails are enough to cost Rep. Foley his job, put the Speaker and his leadership team at risk and put Republican control of the House in danger. Yes, the Democrats and their accomplices in the liberal media are offended by the actions of Mr. Foley and the non-action by the House leadership.

Flashback to 1983 when Rep. Gerry Studds (D, MA), who passed away last Saturday, actually DID HAVE SEX with a 17 year-old page. No concern at all by the Democratic caucus. Why? Well, as we learned this week from Rep. Studds' former press secretary, the sexual relationship with the page was "consensual". Okay, go it. In 2006, Republican emails to 18 year-old page: bad. In 2006, Democrat sex with 17 year-old page: okay. I would be remiss in not sharing that in 1993, the House censured Rep. Studds for his conduct. He did not lose his job, however. His Democratic caucus even found it necessary to give him three standing ovations on his first return to the House chamber after his censure.

As we learned above, sometimes male on female workplace sexual harassment is okay. Though I disagree, that's the way the liberals have argued and as they control the media, that's the message we get. Now, we learn that not all rape is real rape. It now appears some rape is just "sexual offending".

Let me explain. In 1993, a man living in southern California, raped his wife. He was convicted of rape and served a very short sentence and was on probation for 5 years. He subsequently moved to Massachusetts where the law requires convicted rapists (as well as other animals) to register with a state Sex Offender Registry. Well, this particular rapist did not register. In 2006, the brother-in-law of this convicted rapist is running for Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The gubernatorial candidate is a Democrat named Deval Patrick; his sister is . . . well, just kinda, sorta, a rape victim. His Republican opponent, Ms. Kerry Healey, is trying to make Mr. Patrick's nonchalance about rape a campaign issue (Blogger's Note: As well as having a relative that ignores the law, Mr. Patrick also came to the defense of a violent convicted rapist, Mr. Benjamin LaGuer, a man Mr. Patrick never met but only corresponded with, and then using his influence as former Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division, encourged the governing Parole Board to release Mr. LaGuer early. I covered this in several posts below for those that missed it.). Ms. Healey, as a human being, thinking rape is a pretty serious crime thought this "discussion" was relevant to the voters of Massachusetts. But, lo and behold, the Boston Globe and the liberal media think it is Ms. Healey that is out of bounds with her television ads addressing Mr. Patrick's empathy for rapists.

Two more letters to the Boston Globe; neither needs any more set-up than what you've just read above.

Editor,

I want to congratulate the Boston Globe for the very apparent and huge wall that exists between its news organization and its editorial organization. I also need to acknowledge the completely opposite view each organization held in commenting on the fact that Mr. Deval Patrick's brother-in-law is a convicted rapist. That is, the news organization refused to publish the story and the editorial pages are filled with letters to the editor disclosing the fact and there's even a column from Ms. Joan Vennochi today (Politics trumps law, October 19, A11) that shares the fact.

And, now, thank you to the editorial pages for sharing this story, but more importantly, for unwittingly illustrating just how unqualified Mr. Patrick is to be governor of the Commonwealth. Clearly, Mr. Patrick is more governor kindling than timber.

For, of course, all of the letters to the editor, so far, have supported whiny and sensitive Mr. Patrick. And, of course, Ms. Vennochi's column condemns Ms. Kerry Healey, who is not a convicted rapist (Blogger's Note: Boston.com, then Today's Paper then Opinion to get to Ms. Vennochi's column). Actually, Ms. Vennochi was only prepared to go as far as calling Mr. Patrick's brother-in-law a "sex offender". Sex offender? She can't be serious. (End of first letter.)

Editor,

And again I shake my head in amusement at the stupidity of those coming to the defense of Mr. Deval Patrick and attacking Ms. Kerry Healey.

In "New Healey ad again links Patick, LaGuer (October 19, B6)", Ms. Mary Lauby, executive director of the Jane Doe Fund, the state's leading advocacy on sexual and domestic violence, attacks a recent Healey ad that depicts a woman walking in a dark parking garage, "I feel outrage at this depiction of perpetrators when any victim advocate knows that 90 percent of rapists and those who carry out sexual assaults are known to the victims."

As a husband is known to his wife, perhaps? (End of second letter.)

There is an excellent "teaching moment" in the "husband on wife" rape subject. You would think Ms. Lauby would use a high-profile case to illustrate the perils wives go through to accuse the animal to whom she's married with with rape. Nope, not this Executive Director; instead, she turns the story on its head and argues against the woman trying to raise the State's collective awareness about rape. Maybe Ms. Lauby should look for a new job.

Everyone (but me, apparently) forgets the NAACP's James Byrd Ad

Looks like these two letters won't get published either but that won't stop readers of ZACKlyRight.blogspot.com from benefitting.

Everyone should know that Mr. Adrian Walker is the B Section, city beat writer for the Boston Globe. He's African-American. He and I have exchanged quite a few emails on race relations and he even referenced me once and quoted from one of my emails once in one of his columns.

Editor,

Mr. Adrian Walker deserves an A-plus for his brilliant sleight of typing in "A big week for Patrick (October 16, B1)".

First, Mr. Walker acknowledges that a local, rival newspaper ran the story about Mr. Deval Patrick's brother-in-law being a convicted rapist and not properly registering as a sex offender when he moved to the state of Massachusetts. Then, in the very same sentence, and throughout the rest of his column, Mr. Walker continues to use the word "campaign" to connect this news story with Ms. Kerry Healey. There has been absolutely no connection of this factual news story eminating in the Healey campaign and to suggest otherwise is a gross smear of Ms. Healey.

Also, I'm sure President Bush would have loved the "Patrick treatment" from the Boston Globe. That is, the Globe refusing to publish news stories about his daughter and a nephew during his presidential campaigns.

Finally, I question the "outrage" of those who are selectively offended by the Gov. Dukakis - Willie Horton ad but who never mention the NAACP's James Byrd ad. Recall, during the 2000 Presidential campaign, the NAACP produced a black and white commercial of a pick-up truck dragging chains and a voice-over of Mr. James Byrd's daughter saying that Gov. George Bush "killed" her father "all over again" when he did not sign a hate-crime bill. There is so much work to be done on race relations in this country; the Boston Globe, the established liberal media and, it pains me to write, Mr. Walker, are not helping by selectively politicizing one ad from 18 years ago and ignoring a more disgusting one from just six years ago.

But, maybe it is just about politics and not about improving race relations and that's an opportunity lost . . . and it's a shame. (End of first letter.)

When is sex with a 17 year-old page not a crime? When the perp is a Democrat, of course.

Editor,

Just a week after every single Democrat in Washington said and every liberal columnist wrote "protect the children" in the wake of Rep. Mark Foley's text messages, it was the height of arrogance for the Boston Globe to publish a column from Rep. Gerry Studds' former press secretary that included the phrase "consensual affair with a 17 year-old page" to describe the acts that earned Rep. Studds a censure in the U.S. House of Representatives (The force of Gerry Studds, October 17, A11). (End of second letter.)

Deval Patrick Update

Since last week's post, much has happened here in Massachusetts. The Boston Globe (especially the paper's letters editor as evidenced by the letters that are published) is hammering Republican Gubernatorial candidate, Ms. Kerry Healey, for her ads reminding Massachusetts voters that Democrat Gubernatorial candidate, Mr. Deval Patrick, is "proud" of his work trying to get a brutal rapist released from prison and for trying, and succeeding, in getting the death sentence of a cop killer reduced to life with the possibility of parole. Strange, he's proud of it and Healey's taking hits for sharing it.

Then, over the weekend we found out that in 1993, Mr. Patrick's brother-in-law raped Mr. Patrick's sister. Yes, the brother-in-law was convicted of rape in a California courtroom. The sister and brother-in-law reconciled and moved from California to Massachusetts in the late 90s. When a convicted rapist moves into the state, she/he is required to register as a sex offender. Well, Mr. Patrick's brother-in-law did not. The Boston Herald reported the story and the Boston Globe refused to publish the story . . . that a convicted rapist was in violation of not registering per the laws of the State (I guess the concern for "children" and females in the wake of the Rep. Mark Foley emails only goes so far!). Instead, the Boston Globe is pounding Ms. Healey because the story was reported in another local newspaper. Yes, the Boston Globe is insinuating the Healey campaign planted the story. Though there is no evidence of a Republican conspiracy, the liberal extremists are crying "dirty politics". Boy, if only Mr. Patrick had a brother or sister that committed first degree murder; he could have the election sealed with the revelation!

Or, fine, Ms. Healey is the source of the "story". At the end of the day, another rapist is now registered with the State. Can we at least credit Ms. Healey with this?

Inappropriate emails, text messages, rape and cop killing

I think, like all law abiding citizens, that if former Rep. Mark Foley committed any crimes, he should be punished accordingly. I do not think people that didn't know what Rep. Mark Foley did should be held accountable for what they didn't know. This puts me at odds with liberal extremists.

I think, like all law abiding citizens, that rape is as horrible a crime as can be committed . . . short of murder. The Democratic candidate for Governor in the State of Massachusetts, Mr. Deval Patrick, went out of his way to assist a man that bound a 59 year-old woman and then repeatedly raped her over the course of eight hours. Mr. Patrick sought the early release from prison for this particularly brutal rapist. I think people that KNOW what horrible things others have done and then assist them anyway, should be held accountable. This puts me at odds with liberal extremists.

Finally, I think, like all law abiding citizens, that shooting and killing a State Trooper is a pretty horrible crime. The Democratic candidate for Governor in the great State of Massachusetts went out of his way to get the death sentence of a just such a convicted cop killer reduced to life in prison WITH the possibility of parole. He succeeded. Again, I think people that know what horrible things others have done and assist them anyway, should be held accountable. This, too, puts me at odds with liberal extremists.

I can only imagine what the liberal media would do to any Republican that assisted a man that repeatedly raped a woman over the course of eight hours. I mean, look at what the liberal media is doing to Republicans in the wake of the Foley disclosures and Foley didn't even have sex with anyone! As of today, nobody is sure Rep. Foley committed any crimes at all.

Anyway, the letter below is in response to a Ms. Ellen Goodman, the extremely liberal syndicated columnist who appears regularly in the Boston Globe, essay on the depravity of the Republican Party:

Editor,

Is is a shame that the rest of the Country is missing out on the hysterical, yet also sad, political cartoon that played out in Massachusetts this past week.

First, the liberal extremists of Massachusetts, apparently not having their fill of sex during the Clinton years, cannot say "sex scandal" enough when talking about former Rep. Mark Foley's disgusting emails and text messages to US House pages. These extremists are hyperventilating at the prospect of Democrats re-taking the US House of Representatives by making an issue of the Republican House leadership not more aggressively forcing Rep. Foley, who actually didn't have any sex with any House page, to resign when the leadership learned of the Representative's lewd behavior. "Throw the bums out", they insist.

While in the very same breath, the liberal extremists of Massachusetts expect Massachusetts voters to elect a man, Mr. Deval Patrick, that supported the early release of a convicted rapist (that is, Mr. Patrick's boy forced sex on a bound 59 year-old woman - though rape is about power and not sex - for eight hours!). The same extremists expect Massachusetts voters to think it "noble" that Mr. Patrick fought to commute the death sentence of cop killer, Carl Ray Songer . Thanks, in part, to the efforts of Mr. Patrick, the cop killer is now eligible for parole; he's twice been denied, but there's always hope for those on the Left!

Oh, this voter get's it all right: just start laughing when a liberal extremist starts lecturing on values or morals (Courtesy of GOP, voters finally get 'it', October 6, A17). (End of letter.)

I titled my letter, "Courtesy of liberal extremists, voters finally get it".

Pro-terrorist lobby II

And the pro-terrorist lobby will not relent.

Citing the same article I cite in the letter immediately below, yesterday's (Saturday, September 30) Boston Globe had 4 more letters supporting the terrorists and attacking the President. Only one letter was published that was critical of the terrorists or supportive of the President, an almost veto-proof majority of the U.S. Senate, and the will of a majority of Americans. The letter immediately below could have been published to add some more balance to yesterday's letters. The second letter below would have been a great letter for the Globe to have published this morning; instead, the Globe published 7 letters supporting the terrorists and attacking the President and none supoporting the President, the bi-partsan majority of the United States Senate and the will of the majority of Americans. Thus, the third letter way down below that I sent this morning.

Editor,

In commenting on legislation passed by the U.S. Senate (65 - 34) which authorizes military tribunals and certain interrogation techniques for use against terrorists, Sen. John F. Kerry said, "This bill gives an Administration that lobbied for torture exactly what it wanted (Senate's passage of detainee bill gives Bush a win, September 29, A1)."

No surprise here, this is exactly what a member of the pro-terrorist lobby would say. (End of first letter.)

Wow, a sitting U.S. Senator suggesting the President is part of the "pro-torture lobby". And the Globe happily printed the quote without commenting on how ridiculous the insinuation is.

The second letter:

Edtor,

You cannot imagine how thrilled I was to see the Letters page of Saturday, September 30.

Recall, just seven days ago, on the emotional subject of interrogating terrorists, the Boston Globe chose to publish five letters supportive of the terrorists and attacking the President of the United States.

Then, subsequent to that, our Uniter Not Divider, that's President Bush, by the way, orchestrated passage of U.S. Senate legislation supporting military tribunals for terrorists and outlining acceptable interrogation methods for use against terrorists. The vote in the Senate was 65 - 34 with 12 Democrats crossing over to support the President and most definitely the will of a majority of Americans.

Additionally, this week, the U.S. Senate voted unanimously to support our troops in Iraq with $70 billion. That's 100 - 0. Looks an awful like unity to me but then I'm not a liberal extremist.

This all translated into progress on the Letters page of the Boston Globe today; the letters on the above general topics were 4 letters supporting the terrorists and attacking the President and 1 letter supporting the President, the majority of U.S. Senators and the majority of Americans. Any progress in the war against terrorists should be celebrated. (End of second letter.)

Finally, letter number three:

Editor,

I appreciate that the pro-terrorist lobby has found a friendly forum in the Letters section of the Boston Globe; it and the editorial staff of the Boston Globe share a hatred of President Bush and I understand your mutual affection for each other.

To wit, in reviewing all of the letters the Boston Globe has published over the last week on the war against terrorists, the count ran 14 - 2, those supporting the terrorists and attacking the President of the United States versus those supporting the President. If you throw in the letters from last Saturday, the count goes to 19 - 2. It was 7 - 0 in today's Boston Sunday Globe!

However, it simply is not true that the only "villain" in the 19 letters is the global leader in the war against terrorists, President Bush. Just this week, twelve Senate Democrats supported President Bush's plan for military tribunals to try terrorists and to allow for certain harsh interrogation methods against terrorists. Also, this week, all Senate Democrats voted for an additional $70 billion in military spending to fight the war in Iraq. Last October 7, 44 out of 45 Senate Democrats (Sen. Patrick Leahy missed the vote) voted for an additional $50 billion in military spending to fight the war in Iraq; certainly Congress could cut off spending for the troops if it did not want to support and continue the war. In 2001, all Senate Democrats except Sen. Russ Feingold voted in support of the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001. When the legislation was just recently re-authorized, 33 Senate Democrats voted for re-authorization. In October 2003, about half of all Senate Democrats voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq; the headliners voting "yes" included our very own Sen. John F. Kerry and New York's Sen. Hillary Clinton. There are many other votes I can list but I hope everybody sees that Senate Democrats are "complicit" (a word I choose for its negative connotation in an attempt to mock the liberal extremists) in fighting the war against terrorists.

In the spirit of intellectual and journalistic honesty, I think either a few more letters should be published that support the President, a fantastic majority of the U.S. Senate, and the will of most Americans. Or, if only the letters from the liberal extremists continue to get published that these letters at least recognize the many moderate Senate Democrats that routinely vote in support of the President, a demonstrated "uniter" as the votes listed above clearly indicate. (End of third letter.)

For those in cities other than Boston, please, feel free to use the phrase "pro-terrorist lobby" in any letter you choose to submit to you local, liberal newspaper.