Yes! Democrats Have Filibuster-Proof Senate!

On June 19, 2009 I typed an outstanding piece on the prospect of a filibuster-proof majority for Democrats in the United States Senate. I recommend everyone go re-read it.

Today, Sen. Norm Coleman conceded the 2008 Senate race to liberal extremist Al Franken.

By tomorrow you will be reading how insignificant this is to the White House and by Monday or Tuesday of next week you'll be reading how 60 is not really 60.

Gasoline is spiraling toward $3.00 a gallon; bloody, incompetent Democrats!

I never tire of being ZACKlyRight.

Three Letters: SOFA, "Diversity", and Prying Janet Reno

No intros necessary:

1. Under the title, "Obama abides by Bush SOFA":

Editor,

You deceive your readers when you suggest US forces are withdrawing from Iraqi cities on June 30, 2009 based on a unilateral decision by President Obama when, in fact, US forces are withdrawing in accordance with the status of force agreement (SOFA) the Bush Administration negotiated with the Iraqi government. President Obama is doing nothing more than complying with the terms of the SOFA negotiated by President Bush (Beginning the end in Iraq, June 23).

I might add, Bush's SOFA with the Iraqi government was necessary because United Nations Resolution 1790, unanimously approved by the United Nations Security Council, only extended the mandate of the multinational force that liberated Iraq through December 31, 2008.

Lest the Editorial Board of the Boston Globe (notable for its lack of diversity, by the way), be tempted to further mislead its readers, President Obama's plans to withdraw all US troops by December 31, 2011 is also consistent with the terms of the Bush SOFA. (End of first letter.)

2. Under the title, "Obama's Cabinet less "diverse" than Bush's":

Editor,

Mr. Peter Canellos is simply wrong when he repeats the already-tired Obama-Biden administration's lie that their Cabinet is the "most diverse" in history (Obama's unintended fusion in Sotomayor selection, June 23, A2).

I only had to go back one President to find a President with a more diverse Cabinet.

In 2005, President George W. Bush had Gen. Colin Powell (black male, replaced by black female, Rice) at State, Alberto Gonzalez (Hispanic male) at Justice, Gale Norton (white female) at Interior, Carlos Gutierrez (Hispanic male) at Commerce, Elaine Chao (Asian female) at Labor, Alphonso Jackson (black male) at HUD, Norman Mineta (Asian male, replaced by white female, Peters) at Transportation, Spenser Abraham (Arab male) at Energy and Rod Paige (black male, replaced by white female, Spelling) at Education.

And, depending on how Obama and his friends in the liberal media need to count white women in order to claim diversity, it's arguable that President Bush's first Cabinet was more diverse than President Obama's. (End of second letter.)

3. Under the title, "Reno Requested Expansion of Clinton Investigation":

Editor,

The lie repeated so many times, it's easy to see how the letters to the editor fact-checker could miss the lie so common, especially among delusional liberals and Democrats: "a decade ago the Republican Party forced the American people to endure a year of misery by delving . . . into the personal life of our President (Letters, June 26)."

As people familiar with the facts know, U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, expanded the scope of the Independent Counsel already investigating President Clinton to include Clinton's perjury and obstruction of justice related to violating Ms. Paula Jones' civil rights.

In her January 16, 1998 petition to the Court requesting the expansion, General Reno wrote, "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 (the Jones) matter, I request expansion of the jurisdiction of Independent Counsel . . . to further investigate and determine whether prosecution is warranted. The court has already been informed of this matter and my request orally . . . It would be appropriate for Independent Counsel . . . to handle this matter because (counsel) is currently investigating similar allegations involving possible efforts to influence witnesses . . . ." (End of third letter.)

We Are at War, Right?

Neither in the Commander-in-Chief's opening remarks nor in any of the questions at today's Presidential press conference did anyone care to discuss the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Think about that.

It is as the Ayatollah says it is, duh!

As usual, this letter to the editor requires no introduction:

Editor,

That the Boston Globe Editorial Board (notable for its lack of diversity, by the way), masters of demagoguery and misrepresentation in its own right ("mission impossible", "torture", "CIA leak", etc.) deluded itself into thinking the mullahs of Iran would acknowledge President Obama didn't meddle in Iran's recently-held corrupt elections does at least help highlight the woeful naïveté of the Obama-Biden administration (How not to help the Iranians, editorial, June 19).

President Obama has a "shrewd grasp" of the situation in Iran? You were joking, right?

A day after repeating its indifference in Iran's corrupt elections, leaving pro-democracy demonstrators without the support of the "leader of the free world", all the major news outlets are now reporting that Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, is accusing the Obama-Biden administration of interferring with Iran's politics. I'm shocked!

I understand how the Obama-adoring Editorial Board could be disappointed the mullahs are less impressed with President Obama as it is but I am terrified that the Obama-Biden administration and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's State Department could think their silence in supporting Iranian democracy would somehow keep America safe from "the traps set by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his coterie of thuggish hard-liners". (End of letter to the editor).

Filibuster-Proof Senate; Republicans Can Only Hope!

I'm not researching it but I think very shortly some court in Minnesota is going to require the governor of that state to certify liberal extremist Al Franken as the next senator from that great state.

Sen. Norman Coleman would then have to decide if he wanted to further contest the fact that absentee ballots that went AWOL during the recount miraculously reappeared and provided the margin of victory for Franken.

Fast-forward to Franken being sworn-in. This would give the Democrats the magical 60 votes needed to ram through any legislation they wanted in the Senate as Republicans could no longer filibuster, or threaten to filibuster.

The sooner this happens (read: Coleman, don't appeal!) the better FOR REPUBLICANS.

You will know I'm ZACKlyRight with this call becasue almost immediately after Franken is seated, if not sooner, the Obama-Biden administration will be dismissing the monumental legislative advantage. And, about 10 minutes after the Obama-Biden administration dismisses the event, listen for the liberal extremists who control the media to immediately parrot the dismissal.

Or, maybe the secret is out earlier if the thoughts in this post get a wide distribution.

First, ponder the embarrassment if the Emperor cannot pass any meaningful legislation with a filibuster-proof Senate. Well, the thing is, he won't. There are enough responsible Democrats, three or four, who will be the Republics firewall. The Obama-Biden administration knows this so in advance of being embarrassed, it has to lower expections.

Second, and I'm not being morbid just a realist, the former Ku Klux Klan member, Robert C. Byrd, is very frail. A majority cannot nastily strong-arm a minority and then not expect the maximum reaction when the advantage is lost, so just maybe, the majority shouldn't press the advantage too aggressively. Franken is picked by his state's Supreme Court to be the next Senator from Minnesota. Sen. Reid, over-joyed with his filibuster-proof Senate, jams through a bill authorizing the release of DOD photos showing terrorists being treated roughly. Sen. Byrd dies. Oops! No more filibuster-proof Senate until the next Senator from West Virginia is chosen. Well, in West Virginia, the governor appoints vacant Senate seats. The governor of West Virginia is a Democrat, so, yes, another Democrat will get appointed. However, until that person is selected and seated, the business of the Senate will continue. Even if the vacancy is only a month, Republicans can make things extremely difficult for a Democrats who abused their majority.

This scenario repeats itself with Sen. Kennedy of Massachusetts. The state of Massachusetts does not permit gubernatorial appointments. So, if Senator Kennedy were to pass, his seat would remain open until a special election could be conducted. The Kennedy scenario is interesting as his illness could keep him from the Senate floor thus preventing him from voting to end a Republican filibuster. His presence in the Senate actually hurts his Party if he routinely cannot make it to the floor.

As so many Democrats and liberals quietly celebrated US military deaths in Iraq so that they could demagogue the deaths leading up to the Novermber 2006 and 2008 elections, I wonder if the same Democrats are praying as hard for Kennedy as I am especially in this period prior to Franken being sworn in.

So, do not look for the Democrats to abuse the filibuster-proof majority if they get it and look for the Obama-Biden administration to dismiss the advantage as soon as it's gained.

Look for the Republicans to highlight how ineffectual the Democrats have been with the White House, the House, and a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, if they ever get it.

Letterman Apology is Incomplete

Liberal extremist and hate-monger David Letterman apologized today to Gov. Sarah Palin and her daughter Willow for his vile joke last week.

Given that liberal extremists and hate-mongers almost never apologize, a late apology is better than none at all.

Alex Rodriguez is still waiting for his apology.

It's not Hate if it's from a Liberal Extremist

"During the seventh inning, her daughter (Willow, 14 years-old) was knocked up by Alex Rodriguez" - liberal extremist David Letterman on Gov. Sarah Palin's trip to New York to receive an award from the Group Home Living Corp. for her work on behalf of special needs children.

Viva la Latina! Viva la Latina!

From the beginning, I thought the detractors of Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor played it completely wrong.

Before executing a game plan, it’s advisable to assess the likelihood of the desired outcome. Is the desired outcome achievable? If not, then why pursue a game plan for something unachievable?

As soon as President Obama nominated Sonia Sotomayor for the United States Supreme Court the Republicans should have asked: Can we stop her? Well, I think the answer should have immediately come back “no”. So, if you can’t stop her, maximize your hand by supporting her.

The immediate response by all Republicans in Congress should have been immediate praise and support.

Immediate support would:

1. Give the Republicans all the cover they would need (if liberal extremists didn't control the media) when President Obama makes his second Supreme Court nomination, the confirmation of which could change the balance of the Court. By supporting Sotomayor, Republicans would have a track record of not being reflexively non-supportive. The Sotomayor confirmation does not change the general balance of the Court so why spend capital on something you cannot stop? Instead, benefit from supporting that which you cannot stop.

2. Give the Republicans the opportunity to pander to the ugly ethnicists who apparently heavily dominate the Latino community . . . if you believe all the “news” reports by the liberal extremists who control the media and who amazingly found 1,479 bona fide Latino or Hispanic American groups that issued a press release supporting their unconditional support for the Latina Sotomayor.

3. Allow Republicans to plant a bigger seed of doubt in the minds of Democrats than already exists. Suppose Sotomayor is a pro-lifer? Only two cases have surfaced where Sotomayor brushed against the abortion topic and in both cases she sided with what would be described as the “pro-life” position. On the day of the nomination, the National Organization of Pro-Abortion Women and Planned Childlessness each issued supportive statements. Since then, bupkuss. Where are these organizations in this fight? Yes, maybe they’re keeping their powder dry while the hate-mongers and race-baiters in the Democratic Party run their ugly propaganda operation but maybe they have no powder. Maybe they are suspicious of this nominee’s pro-life markers. Republican support should be a daily watering of these seeds.

As I’ve written here a few times, according to the Centers for Disease Control, African-Americans abort pregnancies at more than three times the rate as whites across all age groups. Maybe, just maybe, President Obama is sickened by this slaughter of innocent, unborn, black, blood. Just maybe, he is allowing himself to be “fooled” by Sotomayor. He gets no grief from the pro-abortion zealots in the nomination/confirmation faze and he is willing to face their Bush/Souter-esque vitriol when Sotomayor sides with four other Justices who do not see a Constitutional right to abortion in the U.S. Constitution.

My advice to all Republicans who come in contact with any liberal extremist, Democrat, or pro-abortion zealot, is let them know you support Sotomayor. And make sure you let them know you think she is pro-life. Viva la Latina! Viva la Latina!

The greatest Supreme Court nomination theater in the history of the United States occurs if Sotomayor is out-ed as a confirmed pro-lifer (in the sense she does not see a Constitutional right) prior to confirmation hearings. I can only hope. What do the hate-mongers and race-baiters in the Democratic Party do then?

Again, I’m disappointed that nobody called me on my repeated use of the phrase, “sickly Latina”. I, of course, was mocking the liberal extremists who control the media who felt they had to constantly remind us that Sotomayor was diagnosed with diabetes at age 9. Go to the American Diabetes Association web site and read that site's assessment of diabetes as it affects women. When appropriate I’ll continue to refer to her as such. But today . . .

Viva la Latina!

Viva la Latina!

Ellen Goodman's American Holocaust Denial

My letter to the editor of the Boston Globe this morning; it needs no introduction or explanation other than letting you know the quote in the second sentence was modified by replacing "a doctor of" with "the" for obvious reasons:

Editor,

Pro-abortion zealot Ms. Ellen Goodman can’t see mass slaughter for the opportunity to demagogue a murder (The myth of a lone shooter, June 5, A15).

In eulogizing abortionist George Tiller, Ms. Goodman writes, “He was (the) last resort for many women, especially those women for whom the sonogram did not bring joy and glad tidings.”

But what of those where the sonogram showed a perfectly healthy baby?

It was so predictable that the pro-abortion extremists would dismiss the denunciation of Tiller’s murder by all the legitimate pro-life organizations, just as Ms. Goodman has done.

But, where in the pro-abortion camp is there anything close to even feigned condemnation of the outright slaughter of innocent, healthy, human life; a slaughter that Ms. Goodman implies exists?

Where’s Ms. Goodman’s condemnation or denunciation?

Ms. Goodman's silence exposes the disingenuousness of her entire column.

Further, using Ms. Goodman's logic, her silence indicts her as an accomplice in the slaughter. (End of letter.)

There are whispers that the sickly Latina Sonia Sotomayor may be pro-life. For those new to Supreme Court politics, abortion is THE issue that gets the supporters and detractors of SCOTUS nominees riled-up. If more evidence surfaces that the sickly Latina really is pro-life, watch how my prediction of just a few days ago comes true.

As I've covered here before, according to the CDC, African-Americans abort pregnancies at more than three times the rate of whites. Can't we all imagine the race wars if Republicans supported national public health policy that promoted this disproportionate slaughter?

Maybe if a Senator had the courage to ask, (s)he could ask during Sotomayor's confirmation hearings, "Leaving aside the Constitutionality for just a moment, what is your visceral reaction to hearing of a national public health policy that required Latinas to be aborted at three times the rate of any other defining characteristic of all unborn babies?"

Two Letters - Incompetence and Plagiarism

My last two letters to the Boston Globe; as usual, neither needs any introduction or elaboration:

1. Under the title, “Do, Obama, Biden and Clinton beat their spouses?”:

Editor,

It is outrageous that the Obama-Biden administration, baited by Iran, issued the following denial, "(The United States) does not sponsor any form of terrorism in Iran (Anti-Iran militia faces terrorist designation, May 30, A1)."

The humiliating denial was by Ian Kelly, State Department spokesperson, who, of course, works for Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

The Obama-Biden administration, having gone so embarrassingly far to deny Iran's ridiculous charge, does now unfortunately leave me wondering why the Obama-Biden administration felt the need to qualify the denial. (End of first letter.)

2. Under the title, “Globe Editorial Board Plagiarizes ZACKlyRight”:

Editor,

Many times over the last six year, as the Letters Editor can surely attest, I've submitted letters suggesting the Boston Globe report and editorialize on the actual words spoken by President Bush on May 1, 2003 specifically because the Boston Globe never has reported nor editorialized on the actual words.

So it was encouraging to see the Boston Globe Editorial Board plagiarize my idea of considering actual words when it wrote in defense of the sickly Latina, "Thoughtful people might want to read her actual speech (Sotomayor: The racist remark that wasn't, Ideas, May 31, K8)."

"Thoughtful people", not the liars and demagogues, know that on May 1, 2003, President Bush, in a 1,800 word speech consistent in theme throughout, said, ". . . We have difficult work to do in Iraq . . . The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time . . . The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror . . . and still goes on . . . Yet we also have dangerous work to complete. Our mission continues . . . The war on terror is not over . . . ."

How better things might have been for US troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan if journalistic integrity meant anything to the Boston Globe when referencing Bush's May 1, 2003 speech. (End of second letter.)