Five Letters

As usual, none need any introduction.

1. Under the title, “Editorial Chutzpah”:

Editor,

It is the mother of all chutzpah that the Boston Globe Editorial Board, which is 100% white according to the Editorial Board profiles at Boston.com, would bemoan, "Black, Latino, and Asian residents make up about half the population of Boston," and people of color only account for "44 percent of workers in healthcare, 24 percent in the for-profit sector (profit something the Boston Globe would know absolutely nothing about), 22 percent in education and 37 percent in nonprofits other than healthcare and education (Diversity seeks a foothold, editorial, May 19, A14)." (End of first letter.)

2. Under the title, “Obama FINALLY drives bipartisanship”:

Editor,

As President Bush so frequently achieved massive bipartisan support for major legislation or for significant confirmations -- the USA PATRIOT Act passed the Senate 98 – 1, the vote in the House authorizing war in Iraq was 296 – 133, the authorization vote in the Senate was 77 – 23 with Sens. Clinton and Kerry supporting the President, a supplemental war funding bill in 2005 passed the Senate 97 – 0 with 43 of 44 Democrats voting with the President, the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act (EGTRRA) passed the Senate 62 – 38 with 12 Democrats in favor, EGTRRA passed the House 240 - 154 with 28 Democrats in favor, the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act passed the Senate 54 – 44 with 11 Democrats in favor, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act passed the Senate by a near veto-proof tally of 64 – 34 with 17 Democrats in favor, the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act passed the Senate 98 - 0 and the House 380 - 15, the No Child Left Behind Act passed the Senate 87 – 10 and the House 381 - 41, Supreme Court Justices Roberts and Alito were confirmed with substantial bipartisan support -- it was good to see President Obama FINALLY get Republicans and Democrats in Congress to agree on something – Congress resoundingly rejected the President’s plan to bring terrorists to the United States, shower them with rights they are not entitled to, and to try them in federal courts (Obama and Cheney clash on fight against terror, May 22, A1).

But maybe next time, as Bush did, President Obama could get Congress to support him on a policy issue rather than rebuke him. (End of second letter.)

3. Under the title, “Bush fostered minority home ownership”:

Editor,

In addition to noting that “the percentage of US families that own their own home peaked at around 69 percent in 2004 to 2006”, the Boston Globe could have also noted that the George W. Bush administration had the most positive impact on US minority home ownership in Presidential history (Ideas, May 24, C8).

A recent analysis by the Pew Hispanic Center found that more Hispanics, African-Americans and Asians own a home now than at any time in American history.

Specifically, the analysis found, that as of 2008, 48.9% of all Hispanic household heads owned a home compared to 41.9% in 1995 (Clinton). The numbers for African-Americans and Asians for the same periods were 47.5% versus 42.1% and 59.1% versus 49.1%, respectively.

Minority homeowners never had a better friend in the White House than President Bush . . . according to the facts. (End of third letter.)

4. Under the title, “GOP: Big Tent of Ideas”:

Editor,

Uh, isn’t the fact that Gen. Colin Powell and Vice President Dick Cheney are members of the same political party, each with their own very substantial following, the proof that the Republican Party, is in fact, the party with the bigger tent of ideas (Powell urges GOP to “reach out” to base, May 25, A4)?

Where's the Democrat notable for disagreeing with the Party line on anything? (End of fourth letter.)

5. Under the title, “Ethnicists join racists, ageists, and sexists”:

Editor,

The Associated Press surmised, “Any Republican effort to block Sotomayor's confirmation could be risky for a party still reeling from last year's elections and struggling to gain back lost ground with Hispanics, the fastest-growing part of the population and one that is increasingly active politically (Leader says GOP won't filibuster on Sotomayor, May 28).”

Of course, a Republican effort to block Sotomayor’s confirmation might appeal to pro-life Hispanics. Or pro-Second Amendment Hispanics. Or pro-private property rights Hispanics. Or any right-leaning Hispanic who is not an ethnicist.

The ugly and divisive ethnicity card having already been played with a flourish by President Obama, no doubt Democrats and liberals will do what they do best and demagogue any Republican or conservative effort to oppose Sotomayor on the issues.

I cannot overstate the insult to the entire Hispanic community that is leveled by Democrats and liberals when the assertion is made that the community will vote monolithically for no other reason than ethnicity.

We will never be a color-blind society until we are a color-blind society.

After I signed my name, I added this little description as sometimes the Globe allows such a blurb: The letter-writer knows that Hispanics can be of either race and wants the readers to know the phrase "color-blind" in used figuratively. Also, the closing sentence was penned by the letter-writer on his blog on December 6, 2006. Chief Justice John Roberts plagiarized the sentence in a SCOTUS opinion issued in June 2007. (End of fifth letter.)

Liberals will Lament Lightweight Latina

Before the confirmation hearings for Sonia Sotomayor begin, the liberals, the extremists as well as the jihadists, will be lamenting her nomination.

Gutless Liberal Media; Panetta Must Go

The White House press corps is full of cowards.

President Obushma has been allowed to completely change the subject of enhanced interrogation techniques at Guantanamo because the gutless cowards in the liberal media refuse to ask White House press secretary Gibbs or the President one simple question:

Can the President legally order enhanced interrogation techniques against terrorists?

So simple.

I know, I know, President Obushma nor Gibbs will answer that question. They will both answer it is a moot point because the President won’t so order, but that’s not the answer to the question asked. A gutless White House press corps that cannot ask the simple question certainly has no backbone to ask the necessary follow-up.

I wrote long ago that CIA Director Leon Panetta should resign. This man that President Obushma just had to have at the CIA advised against selectively releasing CIA memos for the sole purpose of politicizing past national security measures. The President disavowed the counsel of his own CIA Director and selectively released the memos anyway. This matter alone was justification for Panetta to do the right thing.

Some time ago Panetta gave an interview to the San Francisco Chronicle where he claimed the President does have executive power to order the use of enhanced interrogation techniques. In the same interview Panetta quickly states that the President will not exercise that power.

So, the question then must be asked of the White House. Does President Obushma have executive power to order the enhanced interrogation of terrorists.

If the answer is “no” then we now have additional justification for the removal of Panetta. If the answer is “no” then the President should fire the man he previously emasculated with the selective memo release.

If the answer is “yes”, well, then, it’s a whole new ball game in Washington. The new game is not one the gutless cowards and Obushma cheerleaders in the liberal press corps want to play.

Finally, Obushma’s silence in defending Panetta and the CIA against the remarkable charges of Speaker Pelosi that the CIA lied to her, even after Panetta issued a statement it did not, further underscores the lack of confidence the President has in the Director.

Director Panetta must go. Americans deserve a CIA Director fully capable of keeping us safe. Panetta is not that man. He should be fired or he should resign. Republican concerns that a man of no intelligence background and with no appreciation of the gamesmanship skills required for the position were demonized at the time of Panetta’s nomination but those concerns now look so very prescient.

Is Dowd a Pelosi (as well as a plagiarist)?

(Blogger's Note: I googled "Obushma" and found web references a few weeks earlier than I ever used the word so I was not the first.)

The bitter and vengeful Maureen Dowd, the character assassin for the New York Times, was caught in a plagiarism scandal earlier this week.

Normally, I would have let this go as I honestly didn’t think any members of the Angry Left ever had a unique thought, the members are the epitome of the “echo chamber”. I really thought the members (like all gangs, they wear black leather jackets, the back of this gangs reads, "Politics of Personal Destruction”) did get the same hateful talking points each morning from the White House and just kept repeating them as instructed.

So, Wednesday I see the story on the web news sites and I’m intrigued enough to go read the New York Times on-line. What do I see but Ms. Dowd’s Wednesday column, “Cheney Grabs a Third Term”.

On Tuesday night, I posted four of my latest letters that the Boston Globe did not publish. The first discusses a Saturday Night Live skit with Cheney as puppeteer to Obushma’s marionette. Dowd’s Wednesday column is a mean-spirited and nasty dialogue between Cheney and Rumsfeld. It is a skit that Saturday Night Live could have done if they wanted to do something less funny than my idea. Ms. Dowd also repeats a significant portion of the Bush’s Third Term letter that I’ve been publishing here since February 9.

So, now seeing more evidence of plagiarism from bitter and vengeful Dowd, I went back and read the plagiarism news stories.

Check this out, in an earlier column the bitter and vengeful Dowd wrote:
More and more the timeline is raising the question of why, if the torture was to prevent terrorist attacks, it seemed to happen mainly during the period when the Bush crowd was looking for what was essentially political information to justify the invasion of Iraq.

On a blog that I’ve never read, the Talking Points Memo, a Josh Marshall had previously written:
More and more the timeline is raising the question of why, if the torture was to prevent terrorist attacks, it seemed to happen mainly during the period when we were looking for what was essentially political information to justify the invasion of Iraq.

Now here is where the story gets truly unbelievable. The bitter and vengeful Dowd claims she came into the idea of the sentence by HEARING a friend convey a similar idea.

Anyone ever play “whisper down the lane”? Person 1 whispers something to Person 2 and so on to some last person and the last person repeats what the second to last person said and it’s compared to the first pass. It’s an exercise in listening comprehension and, in my opinion, the inherent diversity of others. In the game, “The little boy who lives in the red house has a puppy dog,” has no chance of being repeated exactly the same way by the third person. No chance.

Yet, Ms Dowd heard a friend repeat what the friend apparently read on Talking Point Memo and Ms. Dowd reproduced it word-for-word except for two or three words? Only delusional liberals circling the wagons to protect one of their bitter and vengeful leaders could believe such garbage.

Given the timeline of my post and Ms. Dowd’s 'Cheney' column, it appears she could be a serial plagiarist. I’ve not been contacted by Ms. Dowd or the New York Times with an apology.

To possibly being a serial plagiarist, we now have to ask, is Ms. Dowd a pelosi as well? Ms. Dowd’s explanation of how she came to write the same exact words as Mr. Marshall is simply not believable.

Four Letters

Before we get to today's post, remember, if you come in contact with a delusional liberal, your reply to almost everything is, "I agree with Presidents Obama and Bush."

The last four letters to the Boston Globe; as usual, they need absolutely no introduction:

Under the title “Obama took Cheney’s Advice”:

Editor,

On January 4, 2009, Vice President Cheney said the following during an interview with CBS's Bill Schieffer when asked about the national security measures enacted by the Bush-Cheney administration, "If (Obama) were to seek my advice - he hasn't, but if he were to seek my advice - I would say, look, before you go out and start to make policy based on the campaign rhetoric we heard last year, what you need to do is to sit down and find out what we've done, find out how we did it, what the justification was for it, what kind of results it's produced, and then make an informed judgment about whether or not you want to keep these things."

As we have seen President Obushma completely disavow his campaign rhetoric on national security measures and instead reassert Bush-Cheney on renditions, state secrets, wire-tapping, military tribunals, and Bagram Air Base detentions, as well as keeping Gitmo open, to list just a few reassertions, Obushma has, indeed, taken Cheney's advice.

Until the Angry Left convinced me of Cheney's deviousness I never would have thought him the puppeteer to marionette Obushma! Can he possibly be pulling the strings? Quick, call Saturday Night Live, I have a hysterical idea for a skit! (End of first letter.)

Under the title “2004 Democratic Presidential Nominee agrees with Cheney”:

Editor,

Mr. Derrick Z. Jackson pens yet another dishonest column attacking out-of-power Republicans when he tries to smear Vice President Cheney with "(Cheney) would have invaded Iraq even if we knew Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction (Cheney talks and the GOP squirms, May 16, A11)".

As the Boston Globe reported on August 10, 2004, the 2004 Democratic Presidential nominee (this means he won his Party's nomination so he was somewhat popular within the Party) John F. Kerry, while standing on the rim of the Grand Canyon, stated, "Yes, I would have voted for the authority" for war knowing as he did a full 17 months after the start of the war that no weapons of mass destruction would be found.

While I'm writing about the least accomplished Senator in the history of the United States, I gratuitously add that I have yet to hear Sen. Kerry ask how President Obama plans to "win the peace" in Afghanistan or Pakistan.

Mr. Jackson also took a malicious shot at Cheney for his "secretive, industry-stacked energy panels" but Mr. Jackson has yet to write anything about in-power Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's "secretive, industry-stacked" health care panels.

I, of course, agree with Cheney/Kerry and Cheney/Clinton because I see through Mr. Jackson's deceptions and mischaracterizations. Only fools and self-deceivers see a difference where none exists. (End of second letter.)

Under the title “Real Oxymoron: Pro-Life Democrat (Blogger's Note: Ms. Ellen Goodman had suggested that 'pro-choice Republican' was an oxymoron)”:

Editor,

Ms. Ellen Goodman's entire pathetic column, The days of pro-choice Republicans (May 15, A15), is resoundingly rebutted by the fact that there really is no such thing as a pro-life Democrat.

Like so many other issues, on the abortion issue, the Republicans demonstrably have the bigger tent of ideas. (End of third letter.)

Under the title “Military Commissions were an Act of Congress”:

Editor,

It is simply a lie that the military tribunals established to try the terrorists held by the Obama-Biden Administration at Guantanamo were "created by the Bush Administration" (Trust the federal courts, May 7, 2009).

The military courts were the result of an act of Congress.

The Military Commissions Act of 2006 was passed by a House vote of 253 - 168 with 34 Democrats in favor of trying the terrorists. The Senate passed the same bill by a vote of 65 - 34 with 13 Democrats voting "yea". Notable Senators voting "yea" were Ken Salazar (CO), later asked by President Obama to serve in the Obama-Biden Administration (SecInterior), and Jay Rockefeller (WV) who was briefed on enhanced interrogation methods used by the CIA at Guantanamo and who raised no objections to the methods.

It is obscene that the Boston Globe would pervert President Bush's ability to drive Congressional bipartisanship, an ability that has so far eluded President Obama. (End of fourth letter.)

Fools and Self-Deceivers
Obushma’s Third Term
The Emperor is Wearing Bush’s Clothes

A very long post today. I intend to leave it up with no immediate subsequent posts in hopes of collecting some comments and having a conversation on any of the items contained.

First, today, President Obama will be honored at my alma mater with an honorary law degree as he gives the commencement address at the University of Notre Dame. The Obama apologists, the liberal extremists who control the media in other words, have been allowed to suggest the protesters are intolerant of debate. That is, of course, a lie. The student protests are against the honorary degree. As anyone who’s listened to the argument of the students, they’ve made their position very clear.

Second, the ZACKlyRight Style Book announces the following changes:

1. Where appropriate, the “Obama administration” will now be recognized as the “Obushma-Biden Administration”; “President Obama” as “President Obushma”.
2. When appropriate, The Obushma-Biden Administrations military tribunals in Guantanamo will be referred to as “kangaroo courts”.
3. When appropriate, “sleep deprivation” will be added to the list of interrogation techniques that the pro-terrorist lobby in Congress thinks constitutes all the “torture” techniques; teething 3 month-old babies now susceptible to federal torture charges.
4. Where appropriate, “pelosi” will be substituted for “liar” as a noun and “to lie” as a verb, in the correct tense. For example, the Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi is a pelosi and she pelosied again.

Third, for those who have been reading ZACKlyRight since at least February 9, 2009, you know that I’ve been comparing the staggering number of Obushma reassertions/reaffirmations of Bush since that time. At the end of this post I will re-produce the latest version of that letter to the editor of my “news”paper, the Boston Globe, but for now, I highlight significant participants on the national scene who are just now catching up to my prescience:

a. “It is disturbing. It's not just one episode, it's a clear trend that is emerging." - Tom Andrews of Win Without War, a coalition of groups opposed to the US troop presence in Iraq responding to the Obushma-Biden administration re-starting "kangaroo courts" at Guantanamo (Obushma keeps tribunals, draws ire, Boston Globe, May 16, 2009, A1). A few days ago the Boston Globe editorial board, notable for its lack of diversity compared to any Bush 43 Cabinet, referred to the military tribunals as "kangaroo courts".

b. "The Obushma(-Biden) administration is morphing into the Bush administration on these important issues." - Jonathan Turley, a constitutional law professor at George Washington University (Ibid).

c. I intend to give as little credit as possible as the Wall Street Journal is literally cutting and pasting my prior posts into their editorial, this was the Wall Street Journal’s editorial from Saturday, May 16, I bold where my prior thoughts were plagiarized:

Obama’s Military Tribunals
Another Friday, another bow to Bush's antiterror legacy.

President Obama's endorsements of Bush-Cheney antiterror policies are by now routine: for example, opposing the release of prisoner abuse photographs and support for indefinite detention for some detainees, and that's just this week. More remarkable is White House creativity in portraying these U-turns as epic change. Witness yesterday's announcement endorsing military commissions.

White House officials insist that their tribunals will be kinder and gentler, stressing additional due-process safeguards for terrorists on trial for war crimes. But the debate that has convulsed the political system since 9/11 isn't about procedural nuances. It has been over core principles, with Democrats decrying a "shadow justice system" and claiming that "Our Constitution and our Uniform Code of Military Justice provide a framework for dealing with the terrorists."

The latter quote is from a speech by Senator Obama in 2007 denouncing "a legal framework that does not work." He also referred to the civilian criminal justice system and courts martial that Democrats then claimed, and many still claim, are the right venues for antiterror prosecutions. After the Supreme Court's Boumediene decision gave terrorists habeas rights, Mr. Obama again laid into the Bush Administration's "legal black hole" and "dangerously flawed legal approach," which "undermines the very values we are fighting to defend."

At least some people in the White House must now be embarrassed by their boss's switcheroo, though you can't tell from Friday's declaration. Part of the tribunal face-lift is that "the accused will have greater latitude in selecting their counsel." Say what? Enemy combatants already have better access to attorneys -- white shoe and pro bono, no less -- than nearly every criminal defendant in America. Perhaps this means Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, 90 Yemenis and the rest will now be able to choose lawyers from both Shearman & Sterling and Covington & Burling, instead of one or the other.

Another red herring is supposedly tightening the admissibility of hearsay evidence. Tribunal judges already have discretion to limit such evidence, and the current rules are nearly indistinguishable from those of the International Criminal Court. The sensible exceptions involve evidence obtained under combat conditions or from foreign intelligence services, which are left untouched by Mr. Obama's nips and tucks.

In any event, Mr. Obama deserves credit for accepting that the civilian courts are largely unsuited for the realities of the war on terror. He has now decided to preserve a tribunal process that will be identical in every material way to the one favored by Dick Cheney -- and which, contrary to the narrative that Democrats promulgated for years, will be the fairest and most open war-crimes trials in U.S. history. Meanwhile, friends should keep certain newspaper editors away from sharp objects. Their champion has repudiated them once again. (End of WSJ editorial lifted from ZACKlyRight.)

As promised, this was my last letter to the Boston Globe on President Obushma; if anyone has the joyous opportunity to encounter a delusional, hate-filled liberal on a discussion on just about anything except confiscatory taxes and slaughtering unborn human life, you can just say, “I agree with President Obushma and President Bush”; for the readers convenience, the most recent updates are bolded and italicized:

Editor,

It must render those who voted for President Obushma apoplectic.

After asking four US Senators and one US Representative who voted for the Iraq war to serve in his administration,
after retaining Bush's Secretary of Defense,
after retaining Generals David Petraeus and Ray Odierno,
after retaining Bush's Undersecretary of the Treasury for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence,
after announcing he will keep combat troops in Iraq until December 31, 2011,
after announcing he will continue operations at Guantanamo for up to a year under the Bush rules,
after announcing he will continue President Bush's faith-based initiatives program under Bush's rules,
after announcing he will leave Bush's No Child Left Behind Act intact,
after reasserting Bush on state-secrets,
after reasserting Bush’s detention policy at Bagram AB,
after reaffirming Bush’s 6-Nation strategy with North Korea,
after promoting Bush’s chief North Korean negotiator to Ambassador for Iraq,
after reasserting Bush’s drone-use policy in Pakistan,
after affirming Bush’s decision to walk out on Durban I by boycotting Durban II,
after stating that there are no US policy changes toward Hamas or Venezuela,
after reasserting Bush on removing the gray wolf from the Federal endangered species list,
after condoning the continuation of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids in search of illegal immigrants,
after upholding the media ban on covering the return of fallen US troops for family members who desire privacy,
after announcing an open-ended NATO war in Afghanistan to be fought solely by American "mercenaries",
after reaffirming Bush by repeating that the United States is not at war with Islam,
after reasserting Bush's belief that Iraq needs a "stalwart partner" in the United States,
after requesting supplemental funding of $83 billion dollars for his wars in Iraq and Afghanistan subsequent to promising he would not use supplementals to fund the wars as Bush did,
after announcing he'd honor NAFTA exactly as Bush honored NAFTA,
after realizing, as Bush did, the strategic importance of Turkey and relenting on accusing Turkey of Armenian genocide,
after reasserting Bush and reiterating America's commitment to a "two-state solution" in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,
after embracing President Bush's sub-Saharan Africa relief efforts by announcing continuation of Bush's President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) and the President's Malaria Initiative,
after reasserting Bush on polar bear protections (Bush polar bear rule stands, May 9, A4),
after embracing Bush's use of military tribunals to try terrorists currently being held by the Obushma-Biden Administration at Guantanamo (Obushma to restart military tribunals, with more rights, May 15),
President Obushma, on the counsel of no fewer than five military advisers appointed by or promoted by President Bush and retained by President Obushma, now adopts Bush's position that Department of Defense photographs of prisoners of war should not be selectively released (Obushma reverses prisoner photo stance, May 14, A12).

The Emperor is indeed wearing Bush's clothes. (End of most updated Obushma’s Third Term letter.)

Fools and self-deceivers can explain differences on these 29 distinct reassertions.

Obushma Again Reaffirms Bush

Much was made this week of President Obushma relieving Gen. David McKiernan of his command in Afghanistan and replacing him with Gen. Stanley McChrystal.

What hit me like a Milan Lucic check was that President Obushma did not tap Gen. Eric Shinseki to be the new guy in Afghanistan.

Recall, Gen. Shinseki was the General who said the United States would need “several hundred thousand more troops” in Iraq in order to pacify that country. Members of the Bush Administration were viciously attacked by the liberal extremists who control the media for saying that General Shinseki was “wildly off the mark” for his exaggeration.

Well, as history proved, Gen. Shinseki was “wildly off the mark” as only 30,000 additional troops were needed to pacify Iraq (though, President Obushma is doing his best to lose that which was won).

Nevertheless, when President Obushma asked Gen. Shinseki to be Secretary of Veterans Affairs, the liberal extremists continuously repeated the lie that President Obushma’s selection was a “repudiation” of Bush since Gen. Shinseki was proved right by Bush’s surge strategy. Liberal extremists equating 200,000+ to 30,000 for those needing a little help keeping up.

The facts are these: President Obushma made staffing changes in Afghanistan and President Obushma kept General Eric Shinseki as far away from the Afghan theater as he possibly could, a decision of President Obushma’s I completely endorse. By the convoluted and twisted logic of liberal extremists, President Obushma has again reaffirmed President Bush.

(Blogger’s Note: While President Obushma and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates were trashing Gen. David McKeirnan out of one side of their mouths, out of the other side they were sharing that they relied on the General’s counsel to support their decision to not selectively release Department of Defense photographs of POWs. There is no word if Gen. Shinseki, the General who was proved to be “wildly off the mark” on his battlefield strategy and who now looks after our wounded troops, was asked his opinion on the selective release of the photographs.)

Consider the Source?

I'm not kidding, this sentence appeared in a May 9, 2009 New York Times piece (that was also published in my "news" paper, the Boston Globe) by Ms. Helene Cooper:

"In a wide-ranging roundtable with reporters at the Willard Hotel here, (Afghanistan President Hamid) Karzai called media reports of a widening chasm with Washington overblown, although he acknowledged that his relationship with President Obama HAS YET TO WARM TO THE LEVELS HE SHARED WITH PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH (Blogger's Note: all-caps mine for emphasis; plus I was laughing my ass off when I typed all the caps.)

"The" Reply to Obama's Culture of Death

The two pictures below appeared in the news earlier this week:

Photo courtesy of Michael Clancy.

Photo courtesy of the Armas family.

The first is of the hand of 21-week old Samuel Armas as he apparently "grabs" the finger of Dr. Joseph Bruner who was performing ground-breaking, spina bifida correction surgery. The photo was shot by Mr. Michael Clancy and it first appeared in USA Today on September 7, 1999.

The second is of 9 year-old Samuel, an accomplished swimmer as you can see by the ribbons. The photo is provided by the Armas family.

It has been argued the first photo was the catalyst for The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act passed by the Senate with a near veto-proof tally of 64 - 34; seventeen Democrats united with all but three Republicans in support. But I'd argue it would have also been the definitive photograph to support The Born-Alive Infants Protection Act that was unanimously passed by the Senate, 98-0. Recall, the Born-Alive Act was a response to too many babies who survived failed abortions being left to die in a tray at the abortorium if not just dumped in the "medical waste" trash. That is, Congress legislated babies had to be saved if, first, an attempt to kill the baby failed.

President Obama supports a culture of death as his record in the Illinois Legislature demonstrates. President Obama's choice for Secretary of State, Sen. Hillary Clinton, voted against The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act.

As the Obama-Biden Administration begins to reverse pro-life legislation that President Bush shephered through Congress with tremendous bipartisan support, we should not quickly forget the powerful images above.

What You Won't See in Vancouver

President Bush at the China Summer Olympic Games, photo by Ezra Shaw/Getty Images AsiaPac

I know al Fedaban-Americans, other members of the pro-terrorist lobby and Americans who feel our penance to Europe (for what sin I still do not know) is to fight NATO’s war in Afghanistan with only American blood are uncomfortable looking at the image of an American President waving an American Flag.

I’m sure it’s a vision no one will see at the 2010 Vancouver Winter Olympics.

And, if I’m wrong, I’m sure the Flag waving will be done with the same reluctance President Obama displayed in wearing the American Flag lapel pin.

Three Letters

My last three letters to the editor of the Boston Globe; as usual, none need an introduction:

1.

Editor,

The comparison that liberal extremist cannot see, though it is so blinding, is between Presidents Lincoln and Bush for it was President Bush who "after finding so many generals wanting" turned to Gen. Petraeus to win the war in Iraq (General Petraeus's 'Anaconda Plan', April 28).

The most Lincolnesque action by any President since Lincoln was done by President George W. Bush. (End of first letter.)

2.

Editor,

The liberal extremists who control the media have begun to demagogue President Obama’s opportunity to nominate a “minority” for the US Supreme Court.

Obama cheerleader and Globe Staffer, Joseph Williams writes, “Obama is widely expected to nominate a woman – and could make history by choosing what could be the high court’s first African-American female or Latino, according to legal and political analysts (Obama may break with tradition for high court pick, May 2, A8).”

Of course, there was no such elation from the media for President George W. Bush’s dalliance with “history” when, at two different times, his short-list of Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) nominees consisted of federal judges Janice Rogers Brown (African-American female) and Emilio Garza (Latino) despite overt hostility from Senate Democrats for either's nomination. Recall, another Latino, Miguel Estrada, never got as far as SCOTUS consideration as he was the first Circuit Court nominee in history to be successfully filibustered; the selectively, diversity-obsessed, Senate Democrats refusing to let this Latino serve.

My best to the Republican Senator who dares to discuss the paper trail suggesting extremism (there, no doubt, will be an abortion-on-demand litmus test) if Obama nominates a “minority” for we know exactly the next card the White House, Senate Democrats and a compliant liberal media will play . . . the deck now being fixed. (End of second letter.)

3.

Editor,

Sen. Patrick Leahy’s column, Lifting the Bush-era veil of secrecy (Ideas, May 3, C9) was funny for many reasons but since the Boston Globe has a 200 word limit on letters and not a 1,000 word limit, allow me to note just two reasons and not twenty-two.

First, Sen. Leahy (D, VT), typical of liberal extremists, repeatedly and erroneously gives President Obama credit for stopping that which President Bush already stopped. President Bush stopped the interrogation technique of water boarding in 2003. It was not re-started. Therefore, President Obama could not stop anything; he could only reassert President Bush and keep stopped that which was already stopped. It is hysterical that liberals don’t understand simple logic.

Second, Sen. Leahy four times references the Bush Administration as the “Bush-Cheney Administration” indicating just how obsessed Senate Democrats were with the Vice President. The only two times Sen. Leahy refers to the Obama Administration in the column, he refers to it as the “Obama Administration” indicating that he doesn’t want to remind readers that President Obama selected an idiot to be Vice President.

That our Vice President is an embarrassment to Democratic Senate Judiciary Chairman Leahy is actually not that funny at all. (End of third letter.)

Racist? African-Americans Optimistic on Obama

Mr. Derrick Z. Jackson, a liberal columnist for my “news”paper, the Boston Globe, writes “Ninety-one percent of African-Americans approve of the way Obama is handling the economy, compared with 55 percent of white Americans (African-Americans optimistic on Obama, May 2).”

Some time ago U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said that Americans constituted a “nation of cowards” for our in ability to discuss race-relations. Hearing the context of his words, I never thought he meant only whites were cowards and I always thought he meant all races contributed some cowards.

At the time I heard General Holder’s comments (and I did hear them and not read them), my immediate thought was, “he’s ZACKlyRight, it’s what I’ve been writing about since I started this blog almost four years ago.”

I will repeat it again for the newcomers, I do not know if blacks are more racist than whites or if whites are more racist than blacks. I do know there are black racists and white racists; an honest conversation on race would acknowledge this.

Mr. Jackson’s column is heavy on cherry-picking other statistics to attack Republican Presidents and to suggest white America is still struggling with Obama’s race. As White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said, “never waste a good disaster”, Mr. Jackson is not going to miss the opportunity to selectively use poll numbers to encourage more white guilt. You get the sense reading Mr. Jackson that he’s more interested in exploiting the racial divide than he is healing it.

Mr. Jackson even goes out of his way to remind us that “just” 43% of whites voted for Obama over Sen. John McCain last November.

As I wrote shortly after election day, 95% of blacks voted for Obama (Mr. Jackson doesn't remind us of this!) and no one but me seemed to think there was a potential racism issue there (recall, exit polling concluded !100%! of black women in North Carolina voted for Obama).

"Just" 43% of whites supporting the black candidate offends Mr. Jackson; Mr. Jackson is oblivious to 5% of blacks supporting the white candidate.

Ninety-one is less than 95 so maybe Obama is losing support in the African-American community but I still think the 91% number is telling. I suggest 91% indicates some level of racism and I think a nation of cowards should (be able to) discuss it.