Hey everyone!

We've moved. I finally bought a domain name and a host server and designed my own site.

here it is...........

www.takingbacknd.com

Check it out... and make sure you switch your "favorites" folder!

After the Rhetoric

So after all of the rhetoric we find out that the Congress supports the war in Iraq. They realize that we have no choice but to win. From
Fox News.

WASHINGTON — The House on Friday overwhelmingly rejected calls for an immediate troop withdrawal from Iraq, a vote engineered by Republicans that was intended to fail. Democrats derided the vote as a political stunt.

"Our troops have become the enemy. We need to change direction in Iraq," said Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania, a Democratic hawk whose call a day earlier for pulling out troops sparked a nasty, personal debate over the war.

The House voted 403-3 to reject a nonbinding resolution offered by the GOP calling for the military to pull out of Iraq.

So Democrats like Murtha can play politics with the war. But when it comes to a vote they realize that American's will never tolerate anything more than their rhetoric.

It reminds me of just last year. The ELECTION was pretty much a referendum on the war. GWB won with the largest vote total in history. He received the largest majority in 16 years. Things have not changed that much in a year.

I know the troops will be heartened by this support of their mission. I imagine though that the terrorists will keep hearing the left playing politics while we are at war. After all, it's not that the old media is going to give this any play. In fact, readers of the Grand Forks Herald on-line today are given the mistaken impression that this is George Bush's war.






Brenarlo's UPDATE: Check out the analysis of the situation by Rob at Say Anything... it's great stuff.

Reality of the Leftist Agenda

Here it is...

I don't think I even have to comment.

Showdown in the House

Tonight the House of Representatives will vote on whether or not to immediately withdraw troops from Iraq. This is a big vote, folks.

Gas prices falling

Fargo gas falls below $2 a gallon

This is great news. I have to fill my car up today... nice... very nice.

State Higher Board of Education supports Sioux nickname

This is great news.

N.D. higher ed board backs UND’s nickname appeals to NCAA

Is congress finally making progress?

Late last night the Senate passed more tax relief. Of course, Sen. Conrad voted against the measure. He just doesn't get it. The economy is moving forward and Sen. Conrad wants to knock the legs out from under it. Heaven (can I say "heaven" anymore in public?) forbid President Bush run a good economy.

Equally important is the bill that the House just passed. It would reduce federal spending by $50 billion. Finally, some substantial cuts.

Now the Senate and the House have to reconcile their versions of the bill. The Senate's bill contains about $35 billion in spending cuts, but includes drilling oil in ANWR, while the House version cuts about $50 billion but does not include drilling oil in ANWR.

Now is the time for the GOP to turn things around. Pass the bill with about $40 in cuts and include drilling in ANWR. Quit playing like Democrats!

GF Herald misses the point

Today's GF Herald covers a story by Paul Glastis of Washington Monthly.

Dennis suggests that the GOP's Social Security plan is doomed because people don't want to make tough decisions for themselves.

"Americans love the idea of choice in the abstract," Glastris writes. "But when faced with the actual choices conservatives present, they aren't buying ....

The problem with the lack of support for partially privatizing social security doesn't lie in the plan itself, just in the way the plan is being delivered.

Many times on this blog I've suggested that Congress pass the Ryan-Sununu bill. (HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE). This plan would let people decide if they want to decide. People have to option of opting out of it.

Dennis goes on,

A better approach might be called "libertarian paternalism," Glastris writes. "The idea is for government to shape the choices people have so that the natural human tendency to avoid making a decision works to the individuals' and society's advantage."

For example, he says, when companies set up "automatic enrollment" plans that funnel employees into 401(k) retirement plans, only a few workers opt out. In contrast, when employers simply give employees the option to enroll, many more workers never get around to signing up.

Applying that same theme to the Ryan-Sununu bill, Congress could pass the bill, which actually keeps every American in the current social security structure, and only lets them choose the new plan when they choose. It's that simple.

I agree that some people would rather have the government make all their decision for them, especially senior citizens, but I'm ready to make my own plans for the future. I'm worried that I will get a negative return on social security.

The best part of the Ryan-Sununu plan is that if for some catostrophic reason your retirement account doesn't pass what you would've made in the current social security structure, you would still get what you would've recieved under the current structre. In other words, you cannot do worse than you are currently doing, only better... much... much... better.

Check out the Ryan-Sununu plan. It reduces government, cuts taxes, is completely paid for, and will allow Americans to accumulate more money.

The GF Herald missed this one.

Sen. Conrad playing politics with war and peace, again

Yesterday, the Senate voted on two resolutions dealing with the war. Joe Miller wasn't too happy about it. Rob at Say Anything didn't think it was a big deal at all. I think I'm somewhere in between.

As a Sen. Conrad researcher, I was more concerned with his votes than most others. I look at this from a different angle. This angle was also pointed out in a forum at Say Anything.

The North Dakota votes are interesting.

Conrad voted against them both, a largely conservative position (he's with 13 other Republicans and NO Democrats). Dorgan, on the other hand, voted in favor of the first bill (with 38 other Democrats and a RINO) as well as in favor of the second.

Any thoughts on what this could mean? Remember, back in 2002 it was Conrad who voted against the "Joint Resolution" that sent us to war, with Dorgan for it. With these votes, Conrad appears to be aiming for a more conservative appeal, just in time for 2006.

Well said.

Senator Conrad knows darn well that he needs to be seen as a conservative to win. He's a smart man and a good politician.

Sens. Conrad and Dorgan have been doing this for years. Senator Dorgan votes for the war, now wants a stupid timetable 3 years later. Senator Conrad votes against the war but doesn't want a timetable 3 years later.

I'm glad that Sen. Conrad voted the way he did, but I wish it were for good reasons.

It's too bad that Sen. Conrad isn't campaigning every year.

Great editorial in the San Diego Union-Tribune

Bush 'lied'?

Senate Disappoints Joe Miller

Many of you have undoubtedly heard about the Senate voting overwhelmingly to compel the President to outline a plan for withdrawal from Iraq. I, as you can tell, am disappointed with this action.

Here's why:

1. The Republican Senators have bowed down to the Democrats showing weakness
2. The Senate has compromised the President's authority and strength at the worst time as he is currently on foreign visits.
3. The Senate has weakened the War effort by building on a view of distaste for the war in America which endangers our troops and the Iraqi people by empowering our enemy.
4. The Democrats have called this a vote of no confidence which further jeopardizes the War effort and will possibly affect the Military on recruitment and retention.
5. It displayed the disregard of the Senate for the safety and well being of Americans in the line of fire and put their political welfare above that of human lives.

Many of you will applaud this action but please explain to me how it strengthens the war effort.

I am truly disappointed and can tell you it really took the wind out of my sails.

Democrat's on WMD

Here's a great short movie put out by the GOP with a number of statements by prominent Democrats about Saddam's WMD program.

Hockey Update

The UND Fighting Sioux Hockey Team jumped up three spots in the USCHO poll to #7!

Dorgan's Windfall Profit's Tax is Wrong!

A letter in the Forum from Ron Ness about Senator Dorgan's Windfall Profits Tax. Mr. Ness is president of the North Dakota Petroleum Council. I've actually met him and found him to be a very "good guy."

I thought it might be interesting to hear what someone who's in the industry has to say, as opposed to someone who's never worked outside of government.


Sen. Byron Dorgan’s (D-N.D.) windfall profits tax proposal would discourage domestic investment and further increase our reliance on foreign oil just as occurred in the 1980s and is opposed by leading U.S. economists as bad economic policy. Just like the previous WPT, Sen. Dorgan’s proposal will drain investment dollars, which could have been used to invest in new oil and gas production. This impacted North Dakota significantly since the Williston Basin is a high-risk, low-reward basin that depends upon a healthy investment climate to thrive.

Current oil and natural gas prices are high as a result of supply and demand in a global market, exacerbated by the catastrophic impact of hurricanes Katrina and Rita, which challenged the oil and gas industry as it has not been challenged in decades. The response by industry to get facilities affected by these storms back in working condition has been nothing short of spectacular. As a result, prices have moderated in recent weeks and are now well under the post-Katrina highs, demonstrating an efficient free-market system.

The oil and gas industry is a highly cyclical business. In 1999, sour crude oil produced in North Dakota was selling for $4.80, and our industry was struggling to survive. Current prices have resulted in profits to the industry. However, for the third quarter of 2005, the oil and natural gas industry earned 8.1 cents for every dollar of sales. These profits are well below other industries such as banking, pharmaceuticals, computer software, real estate, and insurance, which average between 8.9 to 19.6 cents profit per dollar of sales.

While current prices do result in higher prices at the pump and higher heating costs, they also provide benefits to North Dakota. The oil and gas industry has recently hired hundreds of new workers and still has more than 200 high-paying job openings. Oil and gas production tax revenues, which account for 10 percent of our state’s budget, totaled more than $41 million in the past three months, which is double the amount for the same period last year. This revenue helps fund state government and goes directly to schools, cities, counties and water projects.

In addition, last week’s State Land Department’s mineral lease sale brought in $6.8 million in leasing fees that go directly to the state’s Common Schools Trust Fund. This was the largest amount for any single sale since the early 1980s.

The WPT was a bad idea in the 1980s, and it is an even worse idea today in light of the tremendous capital investment that will be needed to meet the accelerating growth in U.S. energy demand. Sen. Dorgan and Congress should adopt new policies that can help address our nation’s energy needs instead of focusing their efforts on a windfall profits tax that 257 of our nations’ leading economists recently told Congress is bad economic policy and will only dampen the U.S. economy and decrease the domestic supply of oil.

Ness is president of the North Dakota Petroleum Council, which represents more than 100 companies involved in all aspects of the oil and gas industry including oil and gas production, refining, pipeline, transportation, mineral leasing, consulting, legal work and oil field service activities in North Dakota, South Dakota and the Rocky Mountain region.

Here's a nice background piece debunking the need for Senator Dorgan's silly WPT in the Daily Breeze.

Consider: ExxonMobil spent 17 years and $3.5 billion in a deepwater development project in Angola. In 1988, when the company began its work, oil was about $15 a barrel. This year, as the production finally began, the price was far higher.

Is that a windfall? No more than it is for a farmer who plants a crop at one price and harvests it at a higher one. Or a homeowner who buys at $500,000 and sells at $1 million. It is a reward for a calculated risk.

If an oil company starts such a project today, it has no guarantee that oil won't be back to $15, or even below $10, as it was in the late 1990s. The worst thing government can do is tax a so-called windfall higher than it already taxes corporate profits.

This is no mere theory. In 1980, Congress enacted a windfall-profits tax. The result, according to the Congressional Research Service, was a decline in domestic oil production of about 5 percent and an increase in oil imports of about 12 percent.

Sen. Conrad's buddy, Dean, offers NOTHING

Yesterday both Howard Dean and Ken Melhman were on Meet the Press with Tim Russert. I watched both interviews and thought Russert was tough on both chairmen.

The most interesting part, to me, was the fact that Dean said that the Democrats do NOT have an alternative agenda for the Democrats.

DR. DEAN: We have an alternative agenda. We made it very clear. We want a strong national security based on telling the truth to our people at home, our soldiers and our allies. We want jobs in America that'll stay in America, and we believe that renewable energy is one of the areas where we can do that. We want a health-care system that covers everybody, just like 36 other countries in the world. We want a strong public education system. And most of all, we want honesty back in government. I think that's a pretty good agenda.

Sounds good, Doctor. But...

MR. RUSSERT: But those are words that will appeal to people. But when you go behind them, for example, what is the Democratic position on Iraq? Should we withdraw troops now? What do the Democrats stand for?

Good question... here is Dean's detailed answer...

DR. DEAN: Tim, first of all, we don't control the House, the Senate or the White House. We have plenty of time to show Americans what our agenda is and we will long before the '06 elections.

He dodged the question!

MR. RUSSERT: But there's no Democratic plan on Social Security. There's no Democratic plan on the deficit problem. There's no specifics. They say, "Well, we want a strong Social Security. We want to reduce the deficit. We want health care for everyone," but there's no plan how to pay for it.

Good follow up question. Here is Dean's answer...

DR. DEAN: Right now it's not our job to give out specifics. We have no control in the House. We have no control in the Senate. It's our job is to stop this administration, this corrupt and incompetent administration, from doing more damage to America. And that's what we're going to do. We're doing our best. Look at the trouble they're having putting together a budget. Why is that? Because there's still a few moderate Republicans left who don't think it's OK to cut school lunch programs, who don't think it's OK to do some of the appalling things that they're doing in their budget. I saw a show last night which showed a young African-American man in California at the UC of Davis who hoped to go to law school. The Republicans want to cut $14 billion out of higher education so this kid can't go to law school. We're going to do better than that, and together, America can do better than that.

Typical Democrat. It's no wonder he got elected to be their leader. No plans, just complaints.

It's healthy to have an alternative agenda. Americans are smart enough to vote for people promoting the agenda they see as right. Sure, the GOP is having problems right now, but they will continue to win elections if the Dems just keep saying "No!" Republicans couldn't ask for a better DNC Chairman.

What are Sen. Conrad and his buddies going to do?

The Democrats have no plans. There are great problems facing our country and the Democrats have no answers. Senator Conrad has no answers. The GOP has spending problems, but does anyone think for one second that if the Dems had control of the purse strings that the situation would be better? Nope.

The war in Iraq is being won, no doubt, but some mistakes have been made. I can admitt that. President Bush has admitted that some mistakes have been made. Mistakes are made in EVERY war. But what do the Democrats do? Bitch and complain. Do they have any ideas? Nope. Here is Sen. Dorgan's great plan. Basically he said that we need to train the Iraqi troops faster. Wow, great plan Senator! I can't believe no one else thought of that. Our other Senator, Kent Conrad, has only smeared the military. Great way to win the war, gentlemen.

Consider the budget. Recently, the true Conservatives in Congress said "enough is enough" and tried to get spending under control. They even got a bill passed through the Senate that cut spending. There is still a big problem, but at least it's starting to be addressed. Our senators, however, voted AGAINST the measure. In fact, only 2 Democrats voted for it! Were there any alternative ideas expressed? Nope. Every cut that the GOP tries to make is being hammered by Sen. Conrad and his buddies. When Congress is spending too much money, cuts need to be made EVERYWHERE! The latest "complain-a-thon" is about federal student loans. The only plan Sen. Conrad and his buddies can come up with is to take money from hard-working Americans and give it to other people. Here is a great analysis of the situation.

Consider gas and oil prices. Senator Conrad recently unveiled a plan to help with energy costs. His ideas are not that bad for the long term. But in reality, hydrogen, ethanol, and wind energy is just not efficient enough in the short term. What is needed in the short term is less dependence on foreign oil. So how does Sen. Conrad plan to address this? He sent a letter to President Bush urging him to "pressure OPEC to increase output." Senator, we have plenty of oil in OUR ground. Why did you vote AGAINST drilling for oil in ANWR? It doesn't make any sense at all!

If, and only if, the Democrats start bringing some REAL ideas to the table should they be taken seriously. If, and only if, Sen. Conrad and Sen. Dorgan start bringing some REAL ideas to the table should they be taken seriously.

The only chance the Dems have to take back Congress and the White House is that if conservatives keep betraying their principles and conservative voters would just start staying home on election day.

Socialism is Good

From the Fargo Forum:

WASHINGTON (AP) - Amtrak's board of directors on Wednesday fired President David Gunn, saying the debt-laden rail carrier needs "a leader with vision and experience." ...

Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., called the firing of Gunn a "horrible mistake."

Gunn has ridden Amtrak's Empire Builder through North Dakota. "He has run Amtrak like a true champion, in my judgment," Dorgan said.

So that's the kind of business and manager that Senator Dorgan wants for our economy. A business that has never turned a profit. A business that requires over a billion dollars a year in subsidies. A business that despite the subsidies has shrunk further into debt. A business that frankly is obsolete. If there was a need for Amtrak service there would be enough paying riders to operate without subsidies.

Senator Dorgan seems to have a huge problem with business's that make money. He seems to just love business's that lose money. This is just plain failed socialism Senator.

thanks to Say Anything!

Sen. Conrad is simply wrong on his views of the Supreme Court

Senator Conrad's political games have blinded his judgment. The fact that he sees the Supreme Court as a political institution disqualifies him from the Supreme Court debate. Consider these statements:

North Dakota Democrat Kent Conrad, who also voted for Roberts, said he isn't necessarily concerned that Alito's confirmation would tip the high court's ideological balance to the right.

``I am interested in quality, in character. Those are the tests,'' Conrad said.

That was on November 3, 2005.

Here is what he said on November 10, 2005:

"I found him to be very impressive, I found him to be a very thoughtful person," Conrad said. "He got off to a very good start with me."

Fair, enough. But the next quote bothers me.

"Absolutely he is conservative, but I believe in the broad mainstream of American jurisprudence," Conrad said. "It is healthy to have different views on the court."

Senator Conrad, the only view that matters is what Alito thinks about a judges role in the American government. Being liberal or conservative doesn't matter, if you're talking about the REAL job of the Supreme Court, instead of a legislative body that people like Ted Kennedy wants it to be.

Consider Thomas Sowell's comments.

Actually, the only view that really matters is a judge's view of the role of a judge. If a judge sees his role as applying laws passed by other people, then his own personal views on issues are irrelevant.

Why, Sen. Conrad, do you think that there should be ideological differences on the court? Shouldn't all judges be interpreters of American law, instead of French or EU? Shouldn't those judges that make up law or use foreign law been denied the opportunity to serve on the bench?

Too many people are getting caught up in the conservative v. liberal debate in regard to the Supreme Court. A judge's job is interpret the Constitution, NOTHING more. It's a shame that OUR elected official doesn't see it that way.

Here is my prediction for Alito.

Here is a good analysis on the situation by Scott Hennen.

Here is another great anaylsis of Sen. Conrad's line of thinking at Say Anything blog.

Thomas Sowell on Judge Confirmation.

"Actually, the only view that really matters is a judge's view of the role of a judge. If a judge sees his role as applying laws passed by other people, then his own personal views on issues are irrelevant."

Read the whole column here.

Lack of posting

Sorry everyone... I've been busy with school the last few days so I haven't been able to blog as much... it will pick up though... stay tuned!

Election Test?

You have probably heard that today's election is a test for the GOP in 2006. Let's look at that theory for a bit.

In New Jersey you have a gubernatorial race between Republican Doug Forrester and Democrat Jon Corzine; in Virginia there is another gubernatorial race between Jerry Kilgore, a Republican, and Democrat Tim Kaine; in California you have some statewide measures brought forth by Governor Schwarzenegger; several mayoral elections in large cities; and Texas has a marriage amendment on the ballot. However the one to watch should be in Ohio.

Most of the mayoral elections and one of the gubernatorial are held in Democratic strong holds, and Gov. Scharzeneggar is throwing a Hail Mary pass with his measures. But in Ohio these measures on the ballot could directly represent the attitude of voters. It could also rekindle a flame of "Bush stole the election" creating a larger divide and pushing Democrats into a stalwart type of position for the next 3 years.

Clarification: Virginia's Governor is currently a Democrat, both US Senators are Republicans, and both Houses are controled by Republicans. Also 8 of the 11 US house positions are Republican.

Support the War, Support the Troops

This article in a British newspaper is proof of the need to stand behind the soldiers in battle and support the effort they are involved in.

Those that say, "I support the troops but not the war" should be careful. They need to evaluate how they support the troops. Simply saying "I support the troops" is not good enough. If you disagree with the war that doesn't change the fact that the war is currently still going on, and we can not drop everything and come home. We must project with every bit of confidence that we stand with the soldiers in Iraq and Afganistan and that what they are doing is for the good of our security and the betterment of the world.

Where does Conrad stand? You decide.

30,000 Hits

And Growing.....

Is the GOP getting serious about illegal immigration?

This is encouraging,

House Republicans are looking closely at ending birthright citizenship and building a barrier along the entire U.S.-Mexico border as they search for solutions to illegal immigration.

This is even better,

At this week's "unity dinner," House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, Illinois Republican, said he supports a barrier system of fences in some places and electronic surveillance or vehicle barriers in others, one participant said.

Finally, Republicans seem to be tackling this issue. Illegal immigrants are breaking the law and should not be here. Erecting a fence will not solve the issue but it goes a long way.

"The fence works," Mr. Hunter said. He led the fight earlier in this Congress to complete a 14-mile section of fence near San Diego, and he and other members said the success there gives the idea momentum.

The GOP is even starting to convert President Bush.

Rep. John Shadegg, the Arizona Republican who runs the dinners, said they are reaching some areas of consensus, though he would not specify and said committee chairmen would have to write the eventual bill.
But he said the effort has convinced the White House to do more to enforce the borders -- something he said was reflected both in President Bush's remarks upon signing the homeland security spending bill and in congressional testimony by the Homeland Security secretary.

After stopping the flow of illegals, we can start to deal with those who are in the country right now. This news makes true conservatives, like myself, very happy.

Bloggers Need Free Speech

From the Grand Forks Herald:

Libya reportedly puts blogger in prison

CAIRO, Egypt - Libya has sent to prison for 18 months a blogger who criticized the government on the Internet, Human Rights Watch says in a report that inspired a series of Web tributes to the dissident Friday.

The Senate Approves Drilling in ANWR

No thanks to Dorgan and Conrad.

From Bloomberg.com

The U.S. Senate voted to keep a measure allowing oil drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in a budget bill being debated in Congress.

An amendment to strip the drilling measure from the budget by Senator Maria Cantwell, a Democrat from Washington, was defeated by a vote of 51-48. The Senate still must pass the spending plan and agree on a compromise budget with the House for the drilling provision to become law.

``ANWR is the nation's single greatest prospect for future oil,'' Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said today. ``America can't afford $3 a gallon gasoline and we can't afford to depend on sources hostile to the United States.''

The price of gasoline and other petroleum products are much too high. We need to take money out of the hands of countries like Saudi Arabia and Venezuela.

Meanwhile North Dakota's senators keep voting against ever expanding domestic oil production. They say they want to cut our oil imports when they're in North Dakota but then they go and do the opposite when they are in Washington.

Senator Dorgan's socialistic Windfall Profits Tax that Senator Conrad supports would make it more cost effective to import oil rather than produce in the United States, especially of interest in North Dakota.

What are these guys thinking? We need new sources of energy not hot air.

Pomeroy Doesn't Like Free Speech

From Powerline:

Apparently the Online Freedom of Speech Act failed to pass in the House of Representatives tonight. I infer this from a statement we got a few minutes ago from Minnesota Congressman Mark Kennedy, a leading proponent of free speech, including free speech on the web. Mark writes:

"I'm horribly disappointed that this important measure failed to pass. This bill was designed to protect the free speech rights of Americans whose only alleged crime is wanting to use the Internet to express their opinions."

Congressman Pomeroy voted to suspend free speech.

What does Congressman Pomeroy not want you to know?

Conrad's Shameless Lie

Senator Conrad said this as reported by the Grand Forks Herald:

"At the root of this was and is the use of misleading information to convince the American people that it was a good idea to go to war with Iraq," Conrad, a Democrat, said Friday. "All of this stems from that. What it says is that the fundamental reasons for going to war have proven just to be wrong."

Senator Conrad's statement is wrong and he knows it is wrong. He is intentionally smearing our entire war effort with this statement.

First of all, Scooter Libby was not indicted for bad intelligence information. He was indicted for allegedly not telling the truth about his contacts with the press. The Special prosecutor spent over two years researching this entire matter and did not find any other crimes. I have doubts of whether Libby should be prosecuted for statement when he wasn't under oath. But he is a lawyer and should have known better if he did.

What the administration was trying to do was to correct the record about what Joe Wilson was saying about them. Joe Wilson said that he was sent to Niger by the Vice President to investigate whether Iraq tried to purchase yellow cake uranium as President Bush said in a State of the Union address. He says his trip to Niger proved that President Bush was lying.

On the other hand the Washington Post said that Joe Wilson was lying.

Former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, dispatched by the CIA in February 2002 to investigate reports that Iraq sought to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program with uranium from Africa, was specifically recommended for the mission by his wife, a CIA employee, contrary to what he has said publicly.

Wilson's assertions -- both about what he found in Niger and what the Bush administration did with the information -- were undermined yesterday in a bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report.

The panel found that Wilson's report, rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, as he has said, bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts. And contrary to Wilson's assertions and even the government's previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence that made its way into 16 fateful words in President Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address.

So Joe Wilson is lying. Kent Conrad is repeating his lies even though the bipartisan (Republican and Democrats) Senate Intelligence Committee said that Joe Wilson was lying.

For the life of me I can't understand why Senator Conrad is lying about our pre-war intelligence when our troops lives are still on the line. President Bush's information was the best we had. President Clinton acted on the same information when he was President.

All in all it's a Very Clumsy and Very Rude way for our Senator to lie.

I am calling for Senator Conrad to retract his statement.

Joey Miller linked over to Mike Liffrig's letter earlier.

Update: Here's what Rob over at Say Anything had to say earlier today.

Update II: Friday Nov 4th.

Tony Snow quoted special prosecuter Fitzgerald in a column today directly refuting Senator Conrad's lie.

Unfortunately for the Democratic leader, Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald slapped down the Libby-war link: "This indictment is not about the war … not about the propriety of the war … This indictment will not seek to prove that the war was justified or unjustified … this is focused on a narrow transaction."

Thanks, Dakota

I would like to thank Dakota for having me on her show. I didn't expect to take any callers, but it was a nice suprise (I've never done that before). It was only my second radio interview so I hope I didn't sound too stupid.

For those of you who listened... how did I sound?

Rosa Parks

Thomas Sowell wrote a column last week about what you don't know about Rosa Parks. The news stories about her funeral today inspired me to do this post.

Most people do not know the rest of the story, however. Why was there racially segregated seating on public transportation in the first place? ...

Those who see government as the solution to social problems may be surprised to learn that it was government which created this problem. Many, if not most, municipal transit systems were privately owned in the 19th century and the private owners of these systems had no incentive to segregate the races.

Both blacks and whites spent money to ride the buses but, after the disenfranchisement of black voters in the late 19th and early 20th century, only whites counted in the political process.

It was not necessary for an overwhelming majority of the white voters to demand racial segregation. If some did and the others didn't care, that was sufficient politically, because what blacks wanted did not count politically after they lost the vote.

Private owners of streetcar, bus, and railroad companies in the South lobbied against the Jim Crow laws while these laws were being written, challenged them in the courts after the laws were passed, and then dragged their feet in enforcing those laws after they were upheld by the courts.

These tactics delayed the enforcement of Jim Crow seating laws for years in some places. Then company employees began to be arrested for not enforcing such laws and at least one president of a streetcar company was threatened with jail if he didn't comply.

People who decry the fact that businesses are in business "just to make money" seldom understand the implications of what they are saying. You make money by doing what other people want, not what you want.

I just figured that you hadn't heard this side of the story.

It's clear that freedom is contagious. Government regulation by it's nature restricts freedom.

The government that governs best, governs least (Thoreau).

Media Alert

I will be on Voice of Dakota with Dakota Huseby at 4:10 PM on 1310 KNOX.

What is an Indictment?

Here is a Mike Liffrig letter concerning the Libby indictment.

The letter is HERE,

Alito Decision: Casey v. Planned Parenthood

There has been a lot of excitement around Samuel Altio's decision on Casey v. Planned Parenthood. Samuel Altio was the lone decenter on the Appeals court decision to strike down the state law that require a women to inform her husband of before she gets an abortion. Altio believed that the law was within the bounds of both the state constitution and the US Consititution. Meaning a state has the right to pass such a law.

One might ask, Why would a married woman be beholden to inform her husband? Is she not an autonomous person with her own rights, the same as a single woman?

A husband and wife have entered a marriage contract that if they were to have any children they would both be considered guardians of that child. A father or husband has the right to know if his wife is going to terminate a pregnancy or not being he is directly involved with the consequence of such action.

What was interesting in this decision is that a minor was required to seek the consent of a parent before getting an abortion, and a 24 hour waiting period was inacted. If abortion is a right, why is it ok to delay one's right?