Wednesday, November 30, 2005

Wireless blogging test

If you see this, my wireless blogging works. Lucky for you, huh?

Wireless bloging

Going to try some wireless blogging from a PDA tonight. I may have to post via email. I'll figure this out eventually.

Thursday, November 17, 2005

HOLY CRAP!

For any left-leaning morons out there, this should be startling.

An UNSCOM inspecter tells it like it is.

Wednesday, November 16, 2005

Maybe '08 can be good

You know, after venting on Dr. Spineless in my last post, I have considered that a Democratic run of the White House, Congress and Senate won't be all that bad.

1. They can't spend any more than Republicans.
2. Our taxes will go up, but not as much as possible.
3. Demos won't cut and run from Iraq that quickly
4. No significant policy changes will be passed, because the Demos are in disarray worse than we are.

So, to that end:

1. Let's kick all the Republicans out. Let's show them why they got elected and let them know that we will kick them out and endure 4 years of pain.
2. Let's let the Republicans lose on every single endeavor to prove the point that if they screw with their base, they will lose. We get lots of lip-service at election time, but when it comes time to work, they wimp out.
3. Let's wait until '12 and see if they've learned their lesson. If so, let's put them back in. If not, let them lose more seats.

I've had enough of this. You bumbling fools in Senate need a wake-up call. You were put there by Conservatives, not Liberals. You owe US, not them. You mess with us, and we'll kick you out just to prove our point. You aren't much better than the Dems at this point.

Catch-22

Okay, let me get this straight:

Some nose-miners in Senate, most of whom have no idea what it takes to run a war, want the President to curtsy to them, pat them on their bottoms, and tell them everything will be okay?

You know, I'm not too shocked. Frist is a spineless, vision-less, non-leader who has done nothing to champion the right (Right) causes. He's bent over, said 'Aaahhhh', and let the Democrats govern by hissy-fits.

Dr. Frist, listen to me. This Warner Amendment is nothing more than pandering to those liberal nitwits. You are doing your best to convince the enemies abroad that we have no resolve.

Be a man! Stand up, point at Sheets, Chappaquiddick Ted, Chucky, and Dick Turban, and tell them that you run the show. YOUR president's vision will be followed.

Your mission, should you find the spine to accept it:

1. Investigate that senator/congressman that said he went to Syria in 2002 and talked strategy with our enemies.
2. Get every one of those whining babies in your caucus to support Alito.
3. Stomp your foot on the neck of any RINO you find. Pull them in line, or you have no chance in 2008. TN neighbor or not, I'll spend every waking moment pointing out what a spineless tool you are. If it means we get Hillary in '08, so be it. I'd rather have her and hate her, than have you ride us to the White House then forget we exist.
4. Tell our enemies in the Senate that we WILL win this war, whether they want us to or not.

I don't know which is worse, having a Senate Majority leader who won't support our country by squashing those Democrats from AQ, or knowing that the Senate Majority leader from my home state has turned out to be a snivelling goob with no intestinal fortitude.

Get a grip, Dr. Frist, or I'll spend the next two years compiling a list of reasons why you suck to display in '08.

"Constitutional right to..."

Okay, this phrase is really starting to jump on my nerves. Some people are ignorant, and they should bring a suit against every public school civics teacher they've ever had. These teachers have failed.

Well, never fear! I'm here to fix it:

1st lesson:

The Constitution is the document used to define how our government is formed. It specifically details how powers are delegated amongst the branches and entities in our government. In it, we find a discussion and delegation of the three general powers of the federal government, summarized as such: regulate interstate commerce, protect our borders, and conduct foreign relations.

Now, that list is all-inclusive. There are no other powers invested in the federal government.

As a matter of politics, some concluded that a list of specific prohibitions was required. This became our Bill of Rights. This title is a misnomer. It doesn't list our rights. As Hamilton stated in Federalist Letter #84, they are "various exceptions to powers not granted." They specifically prohibit the federal government from doing things they have no power to do.

As you look at the Bill of Rights, pay special attention to the wording:

I. "Congress shall make no law..."
II. "... the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
III. "No soldier shall..."
IV. "The right of the people ... shall not be violated, ..."
V. "No person shall be held to answer..."

etc.

Now, in my opinion, that does not speak to me. It, in my opinion, speaks to the federal government and limits its actions. When looking at the definition and limitations placed on the federal government in the body of the Constitution, we find no way that a strict reading of the Constitution could have allowed the above actions.

Unfortunately, as Hamilton also said, this Bill of Rights has become a colorable pretext to claim more powers than were granted. The Bill of Rights has ceased to be a protector of our God-given rights, and has become a means by which the government has claimed powers it does not legally have.

So, kids, when you hear someone talk about Constitutional rights, remind them loudly that we have no Constitutional rights. We have a listing of specific restrictions on federal government actions. This listing has been used by those power-hungry people in DC to increase the power of the federal government, and to convince the people of the US that we have to petition the government for rights we already enjoy.

We have every right imaginable, as long as it doesn't interfere with the rights of others. We do not need to go to the federal government to look for a right to teach our children about sex.

Stay tuned for our next lesson: Privacy != Right to Abortion...

Friday, November 11, 2005

2005/11/10 message from Frist at VOLPAC

Recent message in my email from Dr. Frist at VOLPAC:


The Senate held a joint hearing yesterday - at my request - to hear from executives from 5 major oil companies.

Many have written me to express opposition to the 'Windfall Profit Tax' that some democrats called for.

A windfall profits tax is a political ploy ... one that would do nothing to lower the price of gas.

And this tax, on its own, does absolutely nothing to solve our energy
challenge.

This hearing was not a trial ... not an attempt to vilify the oil industry.

I believe in accountability. Our free enterprise system works best when the marketplace is understood and free of taint or suspicion.

So this hearing was intended to give executives of the industry an opportunity to explain to the American people why - in the face of record profits - prices at the pump continued to soar.

What I heard was interesting, but it's clear more facts need to be gathered so that farm! ers, ranchers, homeowners and drivers know why we are in a bind when it comes to high fuel costs.

Price gouging is flat wrong.

Unfortunately, some have tried to blame all our energy problems on 'Big Oil'.

Makes for a convenient sound bite, but such allegations are patently false.

We have an energy problem in America because - for 10 years - we didn't put forth an energy solution!

No new refineries. No domestic exploration. No substantive investment in alternative sources of energy.

The comprehensive energy bill we passed this summer was a start, but there's more to do.

We need to build new refineries. We need to continue to invest in clean coal and nuclear ... and alternative fuels like ethanol and bio-diesel. And we need to explore for oil - American oil - in ANWR.

That's how we solve our energy problem in America ... that's how we ease the pinch at the pump ... that's how we re! duce our dangerous dependence on foreign sources of oil.

A gain, after reading your e-mails last night, just wanted to let you know where I stand.

As always, I appreciate your feedback. To leave a comment on my blog, please click here.


Bill Frist, M.D.

VOLPAC
Post Office Box 158552
Nashville, TN 37215
Office: (615) 386-0045



I certainly hope they don't try to make it harder for petroleum-related companies to do business. Most don't realize that corporations don't actually pay taxes. Sure, they have a tax bill, but they just increase prices to cover the tax bill. We pay their taxes and ours as well. Read the Fair Tax book.

Tuesday, November 08, 2005

SayUncle: Letter to City Council

I think this is a good idea. Let's pass this around.

Friday, November 04, 2005

Why ask for those rights we already possess?

Why do people believe that they must go to the government to request freedoms and rights we already possess? Have they never read the Constitution? Do they not understand how our government was founded? Are they even able to read?

Here.

SayUncle again

If SayUncle says it, it must be true.

Hamilton: Man, Myth, Legend

For those of you who look to the Constitution for a right to privacy, or a right to be the exclusive source of sexual education for your children, realize that Hamilton's fears have come to pass:


I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights.


The point being: why put in a Bill of Rights to prohibit an action by the Federal government for which the Federal government has not been given the power? Why put in a Bill of Rights stating that the Congress cannot pass a law prohibiting the free exercise of religion when the three listed powers of the Federal Government do not provide for regulating religion?

Why should we look to the Bill of Rights (a misnomer if I ever heard one) to determine if we, the people, have the right to do something? The Bill of Rights is a list of specific prohibitions on Federal Government action, not a listing of our rights...

Read the whole thing. Federalist Paper 84 here.

Thursday, November 03, 2005

Some Secret!

Bob Novak and Valerie Plame link: here.

Fields v Palmdale School District

Let me quote:


When parents of schoolchildren in Palmdale, California learned from their sons and daughters that they had been questioned in their public elementary school about sexual topics such as the frequency of "thinking about having sex" and "thinking about touching other peoples' private parts," some of them exercised their constitutional right to take their grievance to the courts. The questioning was part of a survey the Palmdale School District was conducting regarding psychological barriers to learning. The parents brought an action in district court against the School District and two of its officials for violating their right to privacy and their right "to control the upbringing of their children by introducing them to matters of and relating to sex." They brought both federal and state claims. The district court dismissed the federal causes of action for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and dismissed the state claims without prejudice to their right to re-file in state court. We agree, and hold that there is no fundamental right of parents to be the exclusive provider of information regarding sexual matters to their children, either independent of their right to direct the upbringing and education of their children or encompassed by it. [Bold - mine. Italics in original]


When parents become lazy and expect schools to teach children sex, parents lose the right to differ with the school. Good job, America!

Dang Bush and his decades of racism against blacks!

How'd he have this much power when he wasn't even president? We need to close the Senate and demand an answer!

Whatever you do, don't make noise at the terrorists!

Funny, funny, funny. The West Bank and Gaza residents can fire rockets and attack Israelis, but Israelis are wrong because they make too much noise...

Capt. Ed and bloggers' First Amendment protection violation

Great! I'll finally be arrested around election time! Here.

SayUncle: Memogate?

SayUncle has a review of some local election fun here.

Wednesday, November 02, 2005

Not black enough

Apparently Thomas isn't black enough for some liberals:


Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
Editorial: A nomination that will divide
Posted 10/31/2005

In picking Appeals Court Judge Samuel Alito for the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday, President Bush gave his right flank what it wanted: a true-blue conservative. The question now is: Is Bush giving the country what it needs?

The nomination is troubling in that 1) it's liable to divide America rather than unite it, 2) it lessens the extent to which the court mirrors the nation's rich diversity and 3) Alito has taken worrisome stands on many issues. Still, Alito deserves the benefit of the doubt until he gets his day in court - or rather before the Senate Judiciary Committee - to make the case for his confirmation.

Bush had chosen White House counsel Harriet Miers to succeed the retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, but many conservatives vigorously objected, questioning whether Miers had the intellectual stamina to stay conservative. The nominee withdrew her name. Now, Bush has picked Alito, a judge who may be in the archconservative mold of Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

Prior to Miers, Bush had named Appeals Court Judge John Roberts to succeed O'Connor but switched to have him succeed Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who died in September. A guiding principle for Bush in the two previous nominations seemed to have been candidates with thin paper trails - the less to trip them up at the hearings.

Bush discarded that principle in naming Alito, who boasts a thick portfolio of opinions he's authored, the result of sitting on the 3rd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Philadelphia for 15 years. Bush said that Alito "has more prior judicial experience than any Supreme Court nominee in more than 70 years." That experience, the intelligence he displays and his firm grasp of constitutional law are pluses.

But, regrettably, Bush declined to consult with Senate Democratic leaders in making his choice. A big reason President Clinton had relatively smooth sailing on his high court nominees is that he did consult with GOP leaders beforehand.

Another minus is that the nomination lessens the court's diversity. O'Connor herself had expressed the desire that her successor be a woman. O'Connor seems to have grown wiser about diversity as a result of her Supreme Court experience. She came to see the virtues of having a court that looks like America - doubtless a big reason she softened her opposition to affirmative action in recent years.

In losing a woman, the court with Alito would feature seven white men, one white woman and a black man, who deserves an asterisk because he arguably does not represent the views of mainstream black America.

Finally, many of Alito's opinions, often dissents, are worrisome. He was the sole justice on a 3rd Circuit panel in 1991 to regard a Pennsylvania requirement that women notify their husbands before getting an abortion as not an undue burden on access to the procedure. The Supreme Court specifically disagreed with his dissent in an opinion written by O'Connor.

In 1996, he was the sole dissenter when the 3rd Circuit upheld the authority of Congress to ban fully automatic machine guns. Also that year, he tried - in the end, futilely - to make it harder to bring discrimination complaints to trial.

These and many other issues deserve a thorough airing by the Judiciary Committee.



This just reinforces my idea that Democrats believe that all black people think the same. Why is this different from the old racist saw of all [insert minority here] look the same? Democrats supposedly want diversity of ideas, but think they can achieve it by diversity of skin. According to them, all women think the same (different than white males), all black people think the same (different from white males), all hispanics think the same (different from white males), etc. If that isn't racist, I don't know what is.

Whatever happened to judging someone based on the content of his character, rather than the color of his skin? MLK should be rolling in his grave.

If my better half ever leaves me...

You know, if my better half ever wises up and leaves me, I've found an alternative.

Sure, I'm just making a joke. My better half (MBH) would never leave me. She's loving, beautiful, intelligent, and wonderful, and completely blind to my faults. As Money says, I've done amazingly well for myself. I'm truly blessed.

If MBH ever leaves, though, I've found my 2nd and 3rd choices. These two women take a lot of abuse for being conservative women. Women are either supposed to be pretty and dumb, or smart and ugly, according to liberals. Just like black people should just shut up and vote Democrat, and minorities should just be happy with a seat at the children's table of liberal politics.

#2: Ann Coulter. Brilliant hottie who can really give liberals seizures.
#3: Michelle Malkin. I'm amazed that people don't just follow her around to kiss her feet. After reading this, I adore her even more because of her ability to hold her own. She's brilliant, articulate, and HOT.

I have yet to find a liberal woman that is as smart and as beautiful as these two women. The best the Left has is Hillary or MoDo. Maybe that is why the Left hates Ann and Michelle: they are proof that women can be smart and beautiful at the same time.

Tomorrow, I may think Michelle is above Ann. The day after, I'll probably reverse them again.

Honestly, with spokespeople like these two women championing our cause, I can't fathom a scenario in which we lose. Their looks draw people in, and their brains finish them off.

Craziness on Triple-H

Hal Hill and crew on WNOX 100.3 have lost their minds. They are having mock elections for a fictitious Bearden councilman race. They have accurately mocked just about every campaign tactic ever created. I'm laughing hard enough to cry.

Best grill ever

Okay, as some of you know, my better half is a chef. She's good. Even she was suprised and pleased, however, at the meal we got from Tacfolder and Mom on Thursday night. Fantastic. Smoked turkey, chicken, pork, redbeans and rice, and stuffed, smoked peppers. I had some for lunch on Friday, and it was just as good nuked.

While most children will swear by their parents' cooking, I can honestly say that my parents really rock. I'm just glad that my parents and my wife don't specialize in the same kinds of food. I'd really be in trouble...

Iraq/Niger Report from the Senate

Okay, I'm reviewing the Niger conclusions from the "Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments on IRAQ", ordered reported on July 7, 2004. Dick Turban signed it as well...

Try to ignore any typos, as I couldn't cut and paste from my pdf viewer. You can read this yourself from here. Phase 2 is apparently being held up by some Democrat Senators and they aren't telling Turban that.


Page 72: Part K. Niger Conclusions:

(U) Conclusion 12. Until October 2002 when the Intelligence Community obtained the forged foreign language documents[9] on the Iraq-Niger uranium deal, it was reasonable for analysts to assess that Iraq may have been seeking uranium from Africa based on Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reporting and other available intelligence.

...
Page 73:
(U) Conclusion 13. The report on the former ambassador's trip to Niger, disseminated in March 2002, did not change any analysts' assessments of the Iraq-Niger uranium deal. For most analysts, the information in the report lent more credibility to the original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reports on the uranium deal, but State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) analysts believed that the report supported their assessment that Niger was unlikely to be willing or able to sell uranium to Iraq.

Page 74:
(U) Conclusion 14. The Central Intelligence Agency should have told the Vice President and other senior policymakers that it had sent someone to Niger to look into the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal and should have briefed the Vice President on the former ambassador's findings.

(U) Conclusion 15. The Central Intelligence Agency's (CIA) Directorate of Operations should have taken precautions not to discuss the credibility of reporting with a potential source when it arranged a meeting with the former ambassador and the Intelligence Community analysts.

Page 75:
(U) Conclusion 16. The language in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate that "Iraq also began vigorously trying to procure uranium ore and yellowcake" overstated what the Intelligence Community knew about Iraq's possible procurement attempts.

Page 76:
(U) Conclusion 17. The State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) dissent on the uranium reporting was accidently included in the aluminum tube section of the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), due in part to the speed with which the NIE was drafted and coordinated.

(U) Conclusion 18. When documents regarding the Iraq-Niger uranium reporting became available to the Intelligence Community in October 2002, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) analysts and operations officers should have made an effort to obtain copies. As a result of not obtaining the documents, CIA Iraq nuclear analysts continued to report on Iraqi efforts to procure uranium from Africa and continued to approve the use of such language in Administration publications and speeches.

Page 77:
(U) Conclusion 19. Even after obtaining the forged documents and being alerted by a State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) analyst about problems with them, analysts at both the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) did not examine them carefully enough to see the obvious problems with the documents. Both agencies continued to publish assessments that Iraq may have been seeking uranium from Africa. In addition, CIA continued to approve the use of similar language in Administration publications and speeches, including the State of the Union.

Page 78:
(U) Conclusion 20. The Central Intelligence Agency's (CIA) comments and assessments about the Iraq-Niger uranium reporting were inconsistent and, at times contradictory. These inconsistencies were based in part on a misunderstanding of a CIA Weapons Intelligence, Nonproliferation, and Arms Control Center (WINPAC) Iraq analyst's assessment of the reporting. The CIA should have had a mechanism in place to ensure that agency assessments and information passed to policymakers were consistent.

Page 80:
(U) Conclusion 21. When coordinating the State of the Union, no Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) analysts or officials told the National Security Council (NSC) to remove the "16 words" or that there were concerns about the credibility of the Iraq-Niger uranium reporting. A CIA official's original testimony to the Committee that he told an NSC official to remove the words "Niger" and "500 tons" from the speech, is incorrect.

Page 81:
(U) Conclusion 22. The Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) should have taken the time to read the State of the Union speech and fact check it himself. Had he done so, he would have been able to alert the National Security Council (NSC) if he still had concerns about the use of the Iraq-Niger uranium reporting in a Presidential speech.

(U) Conclusion 23. The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), Defense Humint Service (DHS), or the Navy should have followed up with a West African businessman, mentioned in a Navy report, who indicated he was willing to provide information about an alleged uranium transaction between Niger and Iraq in November 2002.

Page 82:
([Redacted]) Conclusion 24. In responding to a letter from Senator Carl Levin on behalf of the Intelligence Community in February 2003, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) should not have said that "[REDACTED] of reporting suggest Iraq had attempted to acquire uranium of Niger," without indicating that State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) believed the reporting was based on forged documents, or that the CIA was reviewing the Niger reporting.

(U) Conclusion 25. The Niger reporting was never in any of the drafts of Secretary Powell's United Nations (UN) speech and the Committee has not uncovered any information that showed anyone tried to insert the information into the speech.

Page 83:
(U) Conclusion 26. To date, the Intelligence Community has not published an assessment to clarify or correct its position on whether or not Iraq was trying to purchase uranium from Africa as stated in teh National Intelligence Estimate (NIE). Likewise, neither the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) nor the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), which both published assessments on possible Iraqi efforts to acquire uranium, have ever published assessments outside of their agencies which correct their previous positions.




My understanding is that the CIA screwed up, has yet to state an official position, tried to muddy the waters, and that Dick Turban knows it. The lockdown yesterday and the flurry of excrement surrounding Clarke are just political stunts. According to what we knew, when we knew it, and what was reported by our Intelligence Community, the 16 words were correct and are still correct. The British still believe it, Niger supports it, and the only people making hay are the morons on the Left.

Update: Thanks, Capt. Ed!

Earth to Reid. Hello, Reid?!

Someday, Reid might read.