Kerry Always Wins in Boston Globe!

The Great Equivocator and political coward, Sen. John F. Kerry, was praised today in the Boston Globe in two different articles.

In the first, he was lauded for submitting a bill (23 years in the Senate and he finally submitted a bill!) that would ease the transition of U.S. troops returning to the workforce after serving abroad . . . as he should have been lauded. But, hey, John, where have you been for 23 years?

In the second, he was portrayed as the "victim" of the Swift Boat Veterans and POWs for Truth. A man, Mr. Sam Fox, was nominated (nomination since withdrawn by the White House; can't wait to see this explanation) for an ambassador position to Belgium. It seems Mr. Fox donated $50,000 to 295 Vietnam veterans in 2004 so that the voice of these Vietnam veterans could be heard. A man helped U.S. Armed Forces veterans be heard and he's a bad guy?! This is outrageous!

The letter:

Editor,

Is the irony lost on everyone but me that on the same day the Boston Globe can publish a story praising Sen. Kerry for submitting legislation (there's a first!) to expand Federal business assistance to veterans returning from war (Kerry seeks business loans for veterans, March 28, A2) and publish a story portraying Sen. Kerry favorably in a story where a man lost his chance for an ambassadorship for supporting 295 Vietnam veterans who defended themselves against the attacks of Sen. Kerry's 1971 Senate testimony (Kerry targets ambassadorial bid of Swift Boat benefactor, March 28, A5).

It's not too ridiculous to ask, do veterans have to denounce the Swift Boat Veterans and POWs for Truth to get Federal assistance under Sen. Kerry's bill? (End of letter.)

Delusional Liberal Extemists

Delusional liberal extremists are chronically bitter about the bi-partisan impeachment of President Clinton.

The letter below contains the relevant language from the column and the petition cited:

Editor,

Liberal extremist and regular Boston Globe columnist, Mr. Robert Kuttner, is demonstrably delusional when he writes, "As for fishing expeditions, compared with what? The Whitewater investigation . . . veered . . . into sexual expose - which had what connection with Whitewater? Now there was a partisan fishing expedition (Gonzales should be impeached, March 24, A11)."

The following is excerpted from Attorney General Janet Reno's petition to the Court on January 16, 1998 requesting the expansion of the Whitewater investigation to include the matters Mr. Kuttner referenced:

"In accordance with the Independent Counsel Reauthorization Act of 1994, I hereby notify in writing the special division of the court that I have commenced a preliminary investigation . . . As a result of my inquiry into this matter, I (Blogger's Note: Bold and italics mine for emphasis and for the benefit of any delusional liberal extremist that may read this) request expansion of the jurisdiction of Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr to further investigate and determine whether prosecution is warranted. The court has already been informed of this matter and my (Blogger's Note: Bold and italics mine for emphasis and for the benefit of any delusional liberal extremists that may read this) request orally . . . It would be appropriate for Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr to handle this matter because he is currently investigating similar allegations involving possible efforts to influence witnesses in his own investigation. Some potential subjects and witnesses in this matter overlap with those in his ongoing investigation . . . . "

The Federal three-judge panel granted General Reno's request.

But delusional liberal extremists can believe what they want to believe (we know they do anyway!) regardless of the facts. (End of letter.)

For those visiting this site for the first time since my access issues from a week ago, please see the post immediately below that was posted on March 23. The letter has since been modified and re-submitted so that it could be published any day (the references assuming publication on Saturday, March 24 were eliminated) as it was not published on March 24.

Back On-Line!

Folks, my blog host, Blogger.com, is trying to move blogs to a new format. My conversion did not go so well and for over a week I was unable to access my own blog. Well, as you see, I've been restored, but this is the old format. I'm reluctant to try again with the conversion. This format works fine for me.

As everyone here knows (see posts of November 9, 15, 16, December 16, and January 20), the 2006 elections were not the repudiation of the war in Iraq that liberal extremists insist. I won't repeat the facts I shared in those posts here, but I encourage everyone to go check 'em out.

In light of the Assemblee National's vote today, I sent this letter to the Boston Globe today so it may run opposite the lead story:

Editor,

No doubt on the front page of your newspaper today is a story that portrays yesterday's vote in the Assemblee National (formerly the U.S. House of Representatives but now named after the lower house of the French Parliament) setting a September 2008 date for the surrender of U.S. troops in Iraq as a victory for Madame Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

As I've been saying since last November, the 2006 elections were not the repudiation of the Iraq war that liberal extremists, and a completely non-inquisitive and completely, compliant liberal media, insist they were. Very briefly, Maj. Tammy Duckworth would have won, Rep. Jean Schmidt would have lost and the 8 incumbant Senate Democrats who voted for the war in October 2002 and subsequent funding every single chance they had would not have been re-elected by the astronomical margins that they were if the elections were such a repudiation.

But yesterday takes the cake. Assemblee Democrats added! $22 billion! dollars to President Bush's $100 billion request for supplemental spending for the war and Assemblee Democrats set a September 2008! surrender date and this is the manifestation of their "mandate"? A round of Kool-Aid for everyone!

The "sit & spin" was the favorite childhood toy of anyone that thinks yesterday's vote was a victory for Madame Speaker or that the 2006 elections were a repudiation of the war in Iraq. (End of letter.)

My Last Three Letters to the Boston Globe

As always, each letter is self-explanatory.

Editor,

The Boston Globe chose to publish the letter ending, "Those smears were highly offensive because the played to the bigotry, homophobic and racial, of a major part of the conservative Republican base in "red state" America, in addition to being false, ad hominem attacks," for the irony, right (It's political discourse, of course, letters, March 11)? (End of first letter.)


Editor,

I will stipulate that columnist Mr. John J. McSheffrey, Jr. was exactly correct in his eyewitness account of the events aboard Flight 1220 when he wrote, "After we were in the air, the pilot announced that the Navy captain on board was escorting home the body of a soldier who had died in Iraq. When we landed at Logan Airport, the pilot made another announcement. Don't be alarmed by the flashing lights, he said . . . I witnessed a flag-draped coffin of one of our finest slowly carried away (Mr. McSheffrey was even allowed to photograph the coffin being carried away) . . . . "

Of course, that Mr. McSheffrey, and everyone else on the plane, witnessed everything he described, especially the flashing lights, does not square with another of his statements, "Most of us are insulated and protected from the hard realities of the war because our government tries very hard to hide from us what I witnessed that night."

Mr. McSheffrey offers no evidence of his indictment of "our government"; he offers quite a bit of evidence to the contrary. But, people believe what they want to believe regardless of the facts. (End of second letter.)


Editor,

When the Boston Globe Editorial Board smuggly and snidely writes, "President Bush came to office six years ago pledging a 'fundamental commitment' to Latin America. Whether because events elsewhere distracted him or because he was incapable of concentrating on more than one or two foreign challenges at a time, Bush has failed to keep that promise," is the Editorial Board lumping the positive nuclear disarmament developments with Libya, North Korea and Iran into one issue and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan into one issue so as to suppress the "challenges" count (Bush visiting the neighborhood, editorial, March 9)?

How is the Editorial Board counting the progress on a negotiated peace between Israel and the Palestinians, the eye the President is keeping on Russia's Vladimir Putin (lest he take something) and the other eye the President is keeping on the appeasing EU countries (lest they give away something)?

No, on second thought, I'm sure the Boston Globe Editorial Board is right, the ethanol tariff issue is the international issue of our time. (End of third letter.)

Sen. John Edwards and Edwards Sponsored Hate-Speech

For those that know what's coming, relax, I decided against reproducing uneditted quotes.

Sen. John Edwards did not fire two paid campaign workers, Ms. Amanda Marcotte and Ms. Melissa McEwan, for any of the following hate-filled, written, statements:

Marcotte: "The Catholic Church is not about to let something like compassion for girls get in the way of using the state as an instrument to force women to bear more tithing Catholics."

Marcotte: "Can't a few white boys (Duke lax players) sexually assault a black woman anymore without people getting all wound up about it? So unfair."

McEwan: President Bush's conservative Christian supporters are his "wingnut Christofascist base."

McEwan: Referred to religious conservatives as "lousy motherf---ers".

Sen. Edwards did not fire Ms. McEwan or Ms. Marcotte. He defended them.

When Ms. McEwan and Ms. Marcotte each resigned from their paid positions in the Edwards' campaign (because Sen. Edwards did not fire them, oh, I wrote this twice already), they each blamed conservative institutions for their demise. Wow, classless as well as foul-mouthed and hate-filled; there's a surprise.

Selma, Alabama, Sen. Robert C. Byrd, and Senate Democrats

Yes, I know, the regular readers of this space are growing weary of my harping about a former Ku Klux Klan Kleagle being third in line for the Presidency. But, based on last Sunday's events in Selma, Alabama and some quotes I read from the day, I cannot resist. If liberal extremists can beat lies to death, I can certainly beat the truth to death.

Anyway, yesterday, was the 42nd anniversary of the "Bloody Sunday", 1965 civil rights march in Selma, Alabama. The event was marked a few days earlier by Sens. Obama and Clinton, among others, as they participated in the annual, empty, shallow, reenactment of the original march. I describe the reenactment as such because none of the participants of the reenactment will say "Selma" for another 363 days.

During one of her speeches, Sen. Clinton mentioned that the civil and voting rights acts of the mid-60s and the Selma march were the catalysts for her, Sen. Obama and Gov. Richardson's (Richardson is a Hispanic American) run for the Presidency.

Well, for those scoring at home, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was personally filibustered by Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D, WV), a former Ku Klux Klan member, for 14 hours and 13 minutes - still a Senate filibustering record - boy, he must have been really motivated! At least three times since 2001 and once since November 2006, Senate Democrats have elected Sen. Byrd as President Pro Tempore of the Senate, making him third in line of Presidential succession (Sen. Byrd would be second in line if liberal extremist, Bill Maher gets his wish and Vice President Cheney dies before a replacement is sworn in.)

Simply, did Sens. Clinton and Obama (and Edwards, who was in the Senate in 2001, and Biden and Dodd while we are at it) vote for Sen. Byrd?

Who are the political opportunists participating in reenactments that no longer provide any consequential effect other than glorifying the opportunists?

Do any of these Democrats have the courage to make a meaningful contribution to improving race relations in this Country and call for Senate Democrats to strip Sen. Byrd of his Pro Tempore position?

In absence of such a call, their flowery rhetoric is nothing more than a fantastic insult to all Americans.

The lack of curiosity of the liberal media is absolutely no surprise.

Congratulations to ZACKlyRight and the site's Participants

I didn't know March 7 was the anniversary of the Bloody Sunday civil rights march in Selma, Alabama. Yet, my last post started a great conversation about African-Americans taking more responsibility for their own lives.

Today, March 4, to mark the Selma anniversary, Sen. Barack Obama spoke in Selma and said, black parents have to "turn off the television set and put away the Game Boy and make sure that you're talking to your teacher and that we get over the anti-intellectualism that exists in some of our communities where if you conjugate your verbs and if you read a book that somehow means you are acting white."

Well, as one commentor in the prior post introduced the concept of "too white", let's see how the militant black establishment reacts to Sen. Obama. Let's see if he's as marginalized, criticized, and dismissed as Mr. Bill Cosby was.

Oh, and whites are about 80.2% of the U.S. population. The national media spends a ridiculous amount of time reporting on a self-absorbed, hotel-chain, heiress and a deceased Playboy playmate . . . all because a huge number of the 80.2% must tune-in to these stories. The reader can make up their own mind about the collective intelligence of whites.