The Will of the People

Before we get to the substance of today’s post, some quick nuggets:

I just returned to reality from Las Vegas, NV. Vegas is not a parallel universe; it is an alternate universe. You go there and nothing else in the real world seeps through. Okay, sports scores get through, that’s about it. Home and rested now, so I post after an 8-day absence.

It’s been bugging me ever since Imus was fired by CBS and now it seems so silly to mention, but I want to be on record, so I suggest that Sen. Barack Obama was tipped-off by folks inside NBC and CBS that they were going to fire Imus so it could look like his influence affected the decision. I mean, this guy cannot take a strong stand on anything, well unless poll numbers support it by 70%, and two hours after he calls for NBC and CBS to fire Imus, NBC announces they’re pulling him off MSNBC? C’mon? A full 7 1/2 days after the offensive comments, about 180 hours in total, Obama beats the announcement by mere hours. I thought it was very suspicious. Oh, my Gosh, I’m Rosie!

Mr. Alec Baldwin is still employed by NBC.

Obama was against the war from the beginning. Hillary has said over and over and over and over that “based on the facts at the time” she stands by her decision to vote for the war. So, if the evidence is compelling enough to convince Hillary to vote for war, is Obama really the guy that we want protecting Americans in the face of such “facts”. Or, just how dumb is Hillary? Isn’t it one or the other? Please, can a liberal extremist walk the meandering tightrope and explain how Obama and Hillary are both supported by fact, logic and intelligence?

The Saudis arrested 172 terrorists today. So they say. Wow, that’s a lot of terrorists. Would not a country struggling to convince the United States of America that it was a serious partner in the war against terrorists arrest juuusssst about 172 terrorists to make such a point? Yes, Rosie in 'da house.

The meat of today’s post, the follow-up letter to the Wall Street Journal which published its letters on the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent pro-life ruling in today’s (April 27) paper:

Editor,

I’m surprised and very disappointed that you chose to publish a letter that began, “I’m not surprised but very disappointed in your position supporting the (U.S.) Supreme Court’s ban on certain late abortions (Abortion Decision: Court Should Not Take Away Patient’s Choice, letters, April 27).” Of course, the Partial Birth Abortion Ban of 2003 (the Ban) is not the U.S. Supreme Court’s but the U.S. Congress’s and the President’s, or in other words, the People’s! The U.S. Supreme Court did nothing more than rule that the will of the People was constitutional.

Twice disappointed that you only published two letters on the ruling and that both letters contained the same, tired, pro-abortion whine – “government” doesn’t know better than an abortionist. I don’t know who or what the letter writers think is “government” but the Ban was passed in the U.S. Senate 64 – 34, in the U.S. House 281 – 142 and signed by a popularly elected President who actively campaigned on a culture of life platform. In this case, “government” most certainly means the People.

Thrice disappointed, my letter submitted on April 20 would have been the perfect letter to run opposite the two letters you chose to publish. I repeat the entire, two-word, letter here for it was appropriate to be published on April 27 and it perfectly captures the essence of the two paragraphs above: Elections matter. (End of letter.).

Life, the War in Iraq and Gonzales

My last three letters to the Boston Globe and one I sent to the Wall Street Journal:

Editor,

So as to hopefully get their attention, I'll put the impact of Wednesday's U.S. Supreme Court ruling into a number that liberal extremists claim to understand: the banning of partial birth abortion will save at least the lives of 3,000 babies each year as this is the low end of the estimated 3,000 - 5,000 babies that were annually killed by this gruesome and barbaric method (High court upholds ban on abortion procedure, April 19, A1).

Further, we can only hope the will of the people, as the ban was approved by the U.S. Senate 64 - 34, the U.S. House 281 - 142, and signed by a popularly elected President who campaigned on a "culture of life" platform, will continue to eradicate the plague on our society - abortion - that kills 3,000 unborn, innocent, human lives every day. (End of the first letter.)


The second letter should be a stand-alone post but there is just too much going on to do so. I've written it 20 times if I've written once: the 2006 elections were not what cut-and-run Democrats claim. Well, now, because they're in the propaganda game, the Boston Globe agrees with me. People can now see for themselves, the liberal media will always claim election results represent exactly what the liberal media wants election results to represent. Anyway, the second letter:

Editor,

Your own Ms. Susan Milligan debunks your ridiculous claim that, "Iraq wasn't the only factor that decided congressional races last fall; embryonic stem cell research was a major issue, too (Sign the stem cell bill, April 15, D8)."

In Ms. Milligan's April 7 article, "Conservative activists fear war dwarfing social agenda", she notes that healthcare, the economy, immigration, terrorism, and the environment all polled ahead of stem cell research as issues important to all voters, conservative, independent and liberal!

My goodness, what won't the Boston Globe claim was a factor in the 2006 elections as long as it is politically convenient?

Anyway, I hope we've seen the last of unchallenged quotes by cut-and-run Democrats and compliant, liberal commentators who have demonstrated they can parrot the Democratic Party's talking points and little else, that the November elections were a mandate to surrender in Iraq. (End of the second letter.)


Editor,

When it was politically convenient to believe the words of a former aide of U.S. Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales in order to trash Mr. Gonzales and the Bush Administration, Senate Democrats and the Boston Globe did (Ex-aide contradicts Gonzales on firings; March 30; A1, above the fold).

Two weeks later, when it was politically convenient to not believe the words of the same aide to trash Mr. Gonzales and the Bush Administration, Senate Democrats and the Boston Globe did (Testimony of ex-aide to Gonzales questioned; April 14; A1; above the fold).

This is called “politics” for the Senate Democrats: touché and bully for them.

This is also called “liberal bias” in the media: shame on them. (End of third letter.)

An apology to U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales for all my past posts where I spelled his name with a "z" and not an "s". Of course, I'm disappointed none of my readers called me on it.


Finally, you do not have to be wordy to be brilliant.

Editor,

Elections matter (Ruling to Shift Abortion Fight, A4, April 19, 2007)! (End of Wall Street Journal letter.)

Two words! If published, it will be the shortest letter in WSJ history. I asked that the Letters Editor let readers know that "the letter writer is Pro-Life".

Billy said "pee-pee" in school today, Mommy

Both conservative and liberal commentators have acted, and are acting, like 8 year-old school children in covering the Imus story. Did, and does, everyone really need to say or write the offending comments? Are commentators so ill-equipped to make their point without being able to say or write the comments?

Gov. Mitt Romney is a Mormon. That is, he belongs to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Now that we've started a "national conversation" on racism, misogyny and religious intolerance, it will be interesting to see if people, especially liberal extremists (specifically after Gov. Romney wins the Presidential nomination of the Republican Party), are tolerant of Gov. Romney's religion. My bet is they won't. It is a long way off but I suspect the liberal media will adopt code words to scare people about the Governor. I write about this now because not only am I ZACKlyRight, I also enjoy being first. Mark this post; we will re-visit it many times in the next 18 months or so.

(Brief aside: Because I'm predicting Gov. Romney to be the Republican nominee and to be our next President does not make him "my guy". My guys, Govs. Tom Ridge (PA) and Jeb Bush (FL), do not appear to be interested in being the next President of the United States of America.)

And, re: being first, please see the following two recent posts, Sen. John Edwards and Edwards Sponsored Hate-Speech, March 10, 2007 and Selma, Alabama, Sen. Robert C. Byrd, and Senate Democrats, March 8, 2007. You can even see the first letter from the March 14, 2007 post if you need to refresh your intelligence about the almost inate, hate of the Extreme Left. (Blogger's Note: I now display my last 20 posts on the front page so you can view all three of these posts by just scrolling down.)

Finally, I re-print my post from March, 26 2006 because it is so related to the Imus episode:

When is a racial slur a racial slur?

Last week, talk show host Dave Lenihan of KTRS (St. Louis) was fired shortly after making the following on-air-comments about Dr. Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of State for the United States of America, and the prospects of her becoming the next Commissioner of the National Football League: "She's been chancellor of Stanford. She's got the patent resume of somebody that has serious skill. She loves football. She's African-American, which would kind of be a big coon (he meant "coup"). Oh my God. I am totally, totally, totally, totally, totally sorry for that. I didn't mean that. It was just a slip of the tongue. She's definitely got all the attributes to be commissioner. I'm really sorry about that."

Soon after the comments, the phone lines lit up and soon after that, the station announced Mr. Lenihan was fired.There are reports that the local NAACP chapter president called the station and after learning of the firing, commended the station for its swift action.

Contrast the above with the following March, 2001 comments of one of my favorite whipping boys, the Dean of Democrats, the "conscience of the Senate", the only Senator to vote against the U.S. Supreme Court nominations of Thurgood Marshall and Clarence Thomas, a man that filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for over 14 hours, ex-Ku Klux Klan member, Sen. Robert Byrd: "There are white niggers. I've seen a lot of white niggers in my time. I'm going to use that word. We just need to work together to make our country a better country, and I'd just as soon quit talking about it so much."

The apology, if you can call it that, came in the form of a press statement and not at a microphone: "I apologize for the characterization I used on this program. The phrase dates back to my boyhood and has no place in today's society. As for my language, I had no intention of casting aspersions on anyone of another race. In my attempt to articulate strongly held feelings, I may have offended people."

Of course, I think Mr. Lenihan's slip-of-the-tongue is offensive, but I also recognize he apologized immediately. Also, if you read the whole text of his comments, he was praising Dr. Rice before and after the comment. He was championing her for the NFL post.

And, naturally, I think ex-Klansman Byrd's comments are more offensive. Yet, practically no one in the liberal media gave a second look to his comments.

Ironically, ex-Klanman Byrd opposed Dr. Rice as Secretary of State. The vote in the Senate in January, 2005 was 85 - 13. Sen. Byrd was a very loud "no". Hmmm.

Racial slurs and a voting and legislative history that suggests a racist. The "Dean of Democrats"; the Democrats must be so proud.

Just as a footnote, my U.S. Senators, Edward Kennedy and the Great Equivocator, John F. Kerry, also voted against the first African-American woman to be U.S. Secretary of State. The agenda-pushers and race-baiters are still in control. Those wanting an honest race-relations conversation are not. Apparently, a racial slur is most definitely not a racial slur when a "prominent" Democrat says it; I refuse to accept that as the standard. I wish the president of the local chapter of the NAACP in St. Louis felt the same way; I wish any Democrat in the Senate felt the same: I wish that any liberal media outlet felt the same; what a shame none does. (End of March 26, 2006 post.)

Hos, Christofacists, and lousy motherf---ers

The letter to the Boston Globe:

Editor:

Your editorial, The Cheap Shot (April 11), condemning the ugly, harmful and ignorant words of Mr. J. Don Imus was outstanding.

I “googled” and “googled” but I could find no such condemnation of Sen. John Edwards (think CBS and GE) for defending two paid campaign workers (think Imus) who referred to conservative Christians as “wingnut Christofacists” and “lousy motherf - - - ers”.

No doubt in an article in your paper today is this quote from Sen. Barack Obama, "I understand MSNBC has suspended Mr. Imus but I would also say that there's nobody on my staff who would still be working for me if they made a comment like that about anybody of any ethnic group. And I would hope that NBC ends up having that same attitude."

We will never advance the conversation on racial and religious tolerance when equally offensive words are treated so differently by the liberal media and are allowed to be treated so differently by a top-tier Presidential candidate who should now be looked on as nothing more than an opportunist.

Selective outrage is no outrage at all. Selective outrage harms everyone. It, almost by definition, affirms some hate and it cheapens the outrage when outrage is warranted. (End of letter.)

Sen. Edward's wife, Elizabeth Edwards, has cancer. The news web sites that I visited today reported that "Sen. Fred Thompson says he has cancer". What's up with that? Is he lying? He's not liberal activist Sharon Stone, is he?

I hope Hispanic-Americans, as well as all other Americans offended by racism, bigotry or intolerance (this could mean you if you were offended by Imus' comments), pay close attention to the grief the liberal extremists in the United States Senate are going to give U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez on April 17. No, I'm sure none of the aggressive questioning will be perceived by the liberal media as "white elitists" putting it to the "Latino". The white elitists will be Democrats and the Latino works for a conservative so it's all good.

For those that missed it, all previously filed charges were dropped in the Drunk Stripper Lies about Rape Case. No word yet on new charges being filed against the stripper. We know the names of the real victims in this case yet the name of the only person that may now be prosecuted for a crime is still not being shared by the liberal media. Odd.

Random Musings

First, a mea culpa. For many, many posts I've been writing that former Ku Klux Klan Kleagle, Sen. Robert C. Byrd, Democrat, West Virginia, holds the record for the longest single speech while filibustering legislation. Though Sen. Byrd spoke for over 14 hours filibustering civil rights legislation in 1964, the record for a single speech is 24 hours and 18 minutes. Sen. Byrd is at least third on the list as another Senator once spoke for 22 hours. Facts I did not get wrong: Sen. Byrd was a Kleagle in the Ku Klux Klan. He is the only Senator in history to vote against Thurgood Marshall and Clarence Thomas for the U.S. Supreme Court. He did use the n-word in a 2001 television interview - twice! - and defended the use of the word in the same interview. Democrats hold a majority in the United States Senate because Sen Byrd was re-elected in November 2006.

I'm not following the argument of anyone thinking there is a problem with the gobs of money that Sens. Clinton and Obama and Gov. Romney raised. If anyone was buying the message of Sens. Dodd and Biden or Gov. Huckabee, the latter three wouldn't have reported such dismal numbers. Partisans are contributing to the people they support. What's the problem with that?

Mr. Sam Fox, the man who supported 295 Vietnam combat veterans and was vilified for it, was appointed ambassador to Belgium by President Bush in a recess appointment. What better way to slam a Democrat-controlled Senate that left Washington, DC without funding the troops in Iraq?

Anytime liberal apologists, who reflexively remind us that three unknown Republican Congressmen accompanied Madame Speaker Pelosi to Syria, want to equate Madame Speaker Pelosi to three unknown Republican Congressmen is fine with me.

Unemployment hit a 5 year low, 4.4%!, last month . . . in case anyone was interested. The liberal media was not. Damn it, anyone at the White House want to mention it?

The head of J. Don Imus would be a tremendous trophy for Revs. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. Of course, bagging Don Imus does not educate a single African-American kid . . . but, Revs. Sharpton and Jackson will add to their coffers nonetheless so what do they care?

Just to remind everybody, according to the liberal extremists, the 2006 elections were a mandate by the American people to end the war in Iraq. Democrats are dithering over legislation to bring the troops home 17! months! from! now! Could they have more contempt for the American people? Or, isn't it so much easier to admit the elections were no such mandate? We will visit this again, I promise.

The Magical 4-Month Window

Cut and Run Congressional Democrats who want U.S. troops to surrender in Iraq in September 2008 know that if a Cut and Run Democrat wins the White House in November 2008 that she or he can order U.S. troops home on January 20, 2009, right?

Congressional Democrats should fund U.S. troops without legislating a surrender date.

Sen. Kerry's Contribution to Political Discourse

In the recent news stories describing the vilification of a man, Mr. Sam Fox, who !supported a group of 295 Vietnam combat veterans!, Sen. John F. Kerry is quoted as saying, "I hope this signals a new day in political discourse".

Just so everyone can appreciate Sen. Kerry's contribution to the "discourse", on October 31, 2006, Sen. Kerry referred to White House spokesman, Tony Snow, as a "stuffed-suit White House mouthpiece standing behind a podium" (Kerry's 'stuck in Iraq' remark ignites firefight with Bush, GOP; Boston Globe; November 1, 2006).

At the time, Mr. Snow has just beaten colon cancer. Since Mr. Snow's cancer had not yet recurred I guess Sen. Kerry thought Mr. Snow was a fair target for the ugly personal attack. I cannot find an account of a public apology from Sen. Kerry for this public attack.

Thanks for the contribution, Senator.