Tuesday, May 31, 2005

Brainless Blackmun...

while most observers of the Supreme Court have little doubt as to Justice Blackmun's incompetence, his own notes and papers provide stunning evidence of just how true this was. In a most interesting article, Brains Behind Blackmun, David Garrow reveals how Blackmun left most of his significant opinions to the whimsy of his clerks. Not only did he not provide them guidance as to constructing of the various opinions (including Roe v Wade, Bowers, Webster...), he was often unaware of what his opinions, over his signature, contained.

Now we know, to pass Liberal muster for a Supreme Court seat, you must not only be willfully ignorant of the law, but willfully ignorant of your own opinions. No wonder Bork didn't stand a chance.

Let's hear them talk about how they saved the Constitution again. Their rank hypocrisy just never tires.

Wednesday, May 25, 2005

Saddam birthed Al Quaeda in Iraq...

How many times have we had to listen to libs loudly proclaiming that Saddam had nothing to do with Al Quaeda? Despite the fact that you can usually tell how wrong libs are by their decibel level and shrillness, this one just jumps off the B.S. meter. Ignoring the huge amounts of evidence presented by Iraqi intelligence officers, the public knowledge of Saddam paying families of suicide bombers, the evidence that Hussein's intelligence staff spent months before the U.S. attack destroying documents and computers with any pertinent information stored on them, the evidence of the mukhabarat training "Arab's" at
Salmon Pak in hijacking a plane without weapons (does that ring a bell?), the libs continually, steadfastly keep repeating the mantra that Saddam had nothing to do with Al Quaeda or terrorism against the US specifically. It's as if a Moslem terrorist leader, who tried to assassinate an American President, who was forced to give up captured lands and oil by the US, would go after everyone else but the US. Who really believes that? Do the libs really, honestly believe that or do they just hate W so much, that they don't care what lies they conjure up?

I know this will come as a shock to many, but there's even more evidence that they're wrong again. Former Iraqi premier Iyad Allawi revealed to the Arab daily al-Hayat that information discovered by the Iraqi secret service in the archives of the Saddam Hussein regime shows Saddam's early support of Al Quaeda and it's 'birthing' in Iraq. The #2 man in Al Quaeda, Ayman al-Zawahiri, visited Iraq under a false name in September 1999 to take part in the ninth Popular Islamic Congress. The article quotes Allawi stating:

"Saddam's government "sponsored" the birth of al-Qaeda in Iraq, coordinating with other terrorist groups, both Arab and Muslim. 'The Iraqi secret services had links to these groups through a person called Faruq Hajizi, later named Iraq's ambassador to Turkey and arrested after the fall of Saddam's regime as he tried to re-enter Iraq. Iraqi secret agents helped terrorists enter the country and directed them to the Ansar al-Islam camps in the Halbija area,' he said.

The former prime minister claims that Saddam's regime sought to involve even Palestinian Abu Nidal - head of a group once considered the world's most dangerous terrorist organization - in its terrorist circuit. Abu Nidal's organization was responsible for terrorist attacks in some 20 countries, killing more than 300 people and wounding hundreds more."

Interesting. It's known that Saddam invited Al Quaeda's #2 man al-Zawahiri, to Iraq in 1999, brought in "The Jordanian Abu Musab al-Zarqawi" where according to Allawi he began to form a terrorist cell, coordinated Al Quaeda's contacts with other terrorist organizations including efforts to link it with Abu Nidal, afterwards training unknown Arabs in hijacking and hostage taking, but it's all of no import to libs.

W was right, and he's owed an apology. We'll now wait for the libs to do the right thing, but we won't hold our breath.

Tuesday, May 24, 2005

My take on the Republican French Victory...

First and perhaps foremost, it would seem that you can take McCain and Frist’s name out of the 2008 nomination pot. This isn't necessarily a bad thing but I could also be streaching to find the silver lining. Let's face it, McCain’s a nut and a RINO, and Frist simply isn’t electable. Obviously, neither have the backbone to lead the party. Then, I got to experience McCain and Byrd grandstand, which made me sick to my stomach.

Second, the deal is nothing more than a delay of the inevitable. The Deanocrats can still filibuster whensoever they please and the Senate can exercise the Constitutional option should the libs filibuster when it’s not an “extraordinary circumstance”. Two of the seven French, err GOP, Senators who lost their nerve can claim, based on the three that will be voted on, that an originalist philosophy could not be considered an extraordinary circumstance and move for cloture. The media will say they are breaking the deal, the GOP loses that fight regardless.

Bottom line, the deal sucks, but it’s not as big of a deal as it seems. It does point out a huge vacuum of principled, determined leadership in the Republicans. This will come back to haunt them later. I personally would love to see McCain look Saad and Myers in the eye, but Mephistopheles, aka "sheets" Byrd, could do it easily. In this case, having no conscience is an asset.

Personally, I’d rather use the option today and lose the media fight now, while most are not paying attention, rather than when the world is watching when Rehnquist steps down. If I was Bush, I’d get Estrada to the floor now, to test everyone’s will, before we have a battle over the Supreme Court.

It's official, SEC is committed to screwing investors...

Not sure I thought I'd ever see this day, but watching some of the latest shenanigans at the SEC, particularly with the SEC's Division of Market Regulation, headed by Ann Nazareth, leaves little doubt that protecting the investor is a rather low priority.

The primary issue apparently concerns Strategic Naked Short Selling. This is where a company (think Soros Hedge Fund here), sells a stock it doesn't own. Normally, in short-selling, the stock will have to eventually be purchased by the seller and supplied to the buyer. This aids in liquidity of the market. Easy enough. The control on the damage short selling could cause is the requirement to supply the actual stock at a later date and the "up-tick" rule (more later).

But the difference here is in the word "strategic" - that in some of the smaller cap stocks, the buyer never goes out and buys the stock. He just keeps shorting and shorting - forcing the companies price lower and lower. This in turn, makes it impossible for them to raise capital and eventually forces them into bankruptcy. Happily, for the seller,he is then clear of any responsibility to ever supply the stock to the unfortunate buyers. His profits from the sale of the stock is his to keep.

While not common on the NYSE or AMEX, the complaint's have come frequently, and with increasing frustration from the OTC market - where a lot of companies historically have started. The claim from many of these small cap companies is that the SEC and DTC (Depository Trust Company) not only overlook, but even contribute to this ruining of American companies by their tacit agreement or direct aid by not requiring delivery of the shares - in effect creating phantom shares not issued by the company. The DTC will credit a buyer's account with shares that were not actually procured in the market, they just tell the broker to reflect them in the account (simplified, but accurate.)

Now of course, Ms. Nazareth - who has been nominated for a Commission seat, and who ultimately is charged with overseeing these type of infractions, has denied that Strategic Naked Shorting exists. She's indicated it's just whiney shareholders who can't handle their liquor or something. Here's where it gets interesting.

The SEC recently, on the small cap companies, eliminated the "down-tick" rule. This has been an important safeguard to keep the price of the stock from being driven down by continuous short shelling. Simply, a short can't be executed unless the price just increased, if even only by a small amount. Now, the shorts can be continuiously executed and systematically force the price down. That's just wrong.

Next, the SEC has granted the DTC (and it's sister the NSCC) limited liability for "direct losses caused by the NSCC's gross negligence, willful misconduct, or violation of Federal securities laws for which there is a private right of action."
Protect Me!

Read that again. That's right.... The DTC/NSCC can't be sued for actual damages, by investors, if they willfully screwed the same investors over. The agency charged with protecting investors, has ruled that companies willfully violating U.S. Securities Law to the detriment of U.S. shareholders, are protected by statue. IF Nazareth is correct, and this type of intentional fraud - Strategic Short Selling - doesn't go on, then why does the DTC/NSCC need such protection??

But it gets even better. Guess who is one of the main "owners" of the DTC?? Would you believe our own Federal Reserve? Now, understand this - the Vice-Chairman of the Federal Reserve System is Rodger Ferguson. Guess who's married to Ferguson? It's simply beautiful. Let me give you a hint. Who's responsible for regulating the DTC? Bingo.

Ms. Ann Nazareth is also Mrs. Rodger Ferguson. Isn't somewhat akin to the fox watching the henhouse? Can a spouse legally have regulatory authority/oversight for the other spouse?? What a great country. Do you wonder what would happen to President Bush's Private Accounts and investing in general, if this kind of intentional fraud, perpetuated by the Regulators themselves, is revealed? I think the time's drawing near for such discovery. Several lawsuits have been filed, a Federal court has finally ordered the DTC to turn over it's actual records to a company (Eagletech: EATC) where two different shareholders each claim to own certificates for the Outstanding shares (should be impossible without some fraud occurring.) Why wouldn't the DTC release the company's records anyway?

There needs to be answers. Until then, can you name me one woman who doesn't need a position on the Commission??

Monday, May 23, 2005

The absolute best thing to ever happen to the Republicans....

is Howard Dean becoming the leader of the Democratic Party. Now, not only has their fundraising fallen to levels matched only by their principles, but they are now able to wallow in their folly in a much more entertaining way. I'm just all breathless waiting for the next Dean attempt at the Rebel Yell (Yeagh!) or his pronouncements that the tax cuts will "bankrupt" this country. If I owned one of the Major Media outlets, I'd give Dean his own show. I'm shocked Visa hasn't contacted him for a "priceless" ad.

Now however, after watching his latest performance on NBC's "Meet the Press", I noticed he's gone off into something that he knows even less about than politics - theology. He stated that he "doesn't go to church all that much," and indicated some frustration that many consider him a non-devoted Christian or non-committed Christian. Dean said: "I consider myself a deeply religious person... and some of the other Christians would dare to say that I'm not a Christian. Frankly, it's what gets my ire up... I am sick of being told what I am and what I am not by other people." Dean added: "I'm a committed Christian. I worship in my own way. ... That's my business."

This is just full of interesting. There's the obvious issue of what is a "non-devoted Christian", according to any direct reading of the Bible you either are a Christian (and committed/ devoted) or you are not. I simply can't imagine any other application of Rev 3:16 "because thou art lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spew thee out of my mouth." Can we just call Dean "Luke" for short?

Secondly, Mr. Dean refers to him worshipping "in his own way." That to me is just fascinating. Where in the Bible is man ever allowed to worship in his own way or approach God in any manner he sees fit. From the giving of the instructions on the building of the Tabernacle on the Mount, to Daniel's Vision, to the apostle's instructions in the Epistles, to the descriptions of Heavenly Worship in Revelations, there is no doubt of man's ability to innovate or alter the worship of God. The repetition of God's command to Moses and the Israelis' of "do exactly as I have shown you" should be most instructive. Where oh where is an allowance for man going to God and saying - I want to do it this way and Daddy God saying "Sure, knock yourself out. It's all good"?

We do have many examples in the Scriptures of well intentioned people trying to do their own thing. The obvious example is Cain, but consider even a better example - Aaron's son's Nadab and Abihu in Lev 10. They sought to offer strange fire - that which was not commanded - to God. Keep in mind they were also Priests. They were particularly equipped to present offerings to God. What happened when they tried to offer up their own, well-intentioned, sacrifice? Simple. God then consumed them with fire and told Aaron not to mourn their death, for He (God) will be sanctified in all those who come before Him. This is the reference in Hebrews 12: 28-29 about reverencing God with Fear, for He is a consuming fire - to those who don't worship Him rightly. God simply has not changed on this point, and I really, really doubt he ever will. Even for Howard Dean.

Sunday, May 22, 2005

Soros and Buffett are my hero's ....

Other than buying the Deanocratic Party, thru Moveon.org ($1 to Soros' lacky Eli Pariser: "Now it's our Party: we bought it, we own it, and we're going to take it back") George Soros, joined by Warren Buffett, continue to demonstrate that their hatred for this country is so strong that it is ruining the luck they had in becoming billionaires. That's right, as if the lousy investment they made in politics wasn't loss enough, they are now following it with investments in the currency markets. Unable to foster ruin upon this country by influencing it's Presidential campaign, they now seek to encourage it's economic decline by shorting the dollar (adding pressure and betting that it continues to fall, putting more stress on the economy.) Warren Buffet, by his own admission, has placed a $21 Billion bet on the dollar falling. Nothing like trying to make a self fulfilling prophecy huh?

But their continued pronouncements of this nation's demise and efforts to bring it about, though consistent, are wrong. Estimates indicate that Buffett alone is down nearly a $1 Billion on his bet (if he's still invested), Berkshire reported a $310 million dollar loss in the first quarter of this year on the gamble and Buffett has indicated his inclination to continue the position. Soros has no comment. Do you blame him? Of course, Buffett's prognostication are legendary - as we all breathlessly await the collapse of the economy due to the 2003 tax cuts, which would do great harm to the economy - according to Mr. Buffett.

Bottom line is, there simply is no stronger or better or freer economy in the world. There is no better, more liquid or safer place to invest money. For a global investor - where else would you want to put your money? In Europe - with it's socialistic restrictions, soaring unemployment and lack of innovation? In the Middle East? Lol... I amuse myself. How about in Africa or China? You may make good money and you may never see it again. Which South American Dictator or Drug Lord do you trust with your money? The choices kinda narrow don't they?

The Twins are convinced that keeping your own money and buying imported stuff is inherently bad. Hence, their bet. But shucking it down to the cobb - Americans are the richest and wealthiest people on the planet. We possess a lot of extra cash (think tax cuts here) that we can spend on imported goods. We don't need 5 TV's with DVD players and 3 microwaves in our houses, but we want them. So a trade imbalance is not necessarily a bad thing. Economies don't exist in a vacuum, there are other factors involved. By Soro's, Buffett's and the libs exclusive and intense focus on the trees rather than the forest, they simply are practicing the weath transfer they so desperately desire from government by tossing their wealth away (and that of shareholders who invest with them) and giving it to those who recognize their folly.

Ahhhh, there is a God in heaven. I'm going now to go check my currency portfolio balances.

Wednesday, May 18, 2005

Why are the Dems....

acting like it's a horrific crime for the majority party in an elected representative government to exercise the power given them by the voters and use their majority to do the things they were elected to do? Isn't that what the majority is supposed to do?? What is the right of the Democrats that is being violated? The right to disrupt and lockup an orderly government???

Good Job Newsweek.

Led by Isikoff, Newsweek proudly demonstrated that getting a "scoop" is more important than people's lives and supporting troops who are risking theirs. After all the mission in Iraq is, in the common phraseology of the liberal elite - a "disaster." Remember, we are simply trying to establish a new democracy in a region of the world where self-determination has been noticeably absent. The MSM does not hesitate to offer up anything or anyone on the high altar of the religion of "journalism" where the value of people's lives are insignificant compared to the potential value of the propaganda.

The liberal bias only encourages a willingness to sacrifice truth in pursuit of the joy that instills a passion to blame America first. Beat the rush, join the modern liberals in hating America. Hollywood will love you tons. You'll probably win an award at Cannes. However, this time, the Mooreish perversions are directly responsible for the deaths of many individuals and of greatly increasing the risks faced by troops stationed in foreign lands. Thanks to Newsweek's strict adherence to it's publishing standards, they directly prolonged the troops mission and delayed their return home. The lib's incessantly whine "bring the troops home" while doing everything in their power to make the troop's task more difficult. Nothing less than another Vietnam style withdrawal, complete with mother's passing their children to American soldiers to keep them away from certain torture and suffering, will please them or quell their dissent. After all, America is bound to fail. What else could happen with a Republican in the White House? Establishing a freely chosen government in the Middle East is a "disaster" of epic proportions and President Bush is simply another Hitler or Sith Lord ($1 to Lucas) for doing so.

Lib's just couldn't stand the fact that democracy is breaking out all over the Arab world, that even Al-Jazzera was no longer talking about an American occupation and 'abuses', but the opportunity for Arab self-determination thru popularly elected officials. Newsweek appeared desperate to give them reason to change their focus, so they would again hate America, as we so justly deserve. More people died as a result of this article, than have in the Abu Ghab prison humiliations. Much of the liberal media called for swift justice for the evildoers then. Now, when people are actually hurt and die, Newsweek and other liberals want the readers to recognize an honest mistake when they see it. No wonder the left is becoming as irrelevant as the French.

Many on the right have long questioned the far left's allegiance to this country and it's principles, feeling that the Deanocrats would willingly sacrifice either - with a zeal - to dishonor those that would defend it from those wishing to destroy it.

Newsweek, you simply went to great lengths to prove them right. I congratulate you, great job.