Friday, September 7, 2007

Club for Growth on Fred


Senator Thompson's eight-year record in the U.S. Senate demonstrates an admirable commitment to limited government and free-market principles. His record on entitlement reform and school choice is excellent, while his support for lower taxes and free trade is very good. On Social Security reform in particular, Thompson courageously supported personal accounts at a time when few politicians were willing to risk their necks taking on the third rail of American politics.

His record on spending (save the occasional pork project) is generally impressive, as demonstrated by his votes to restrict the growth and reach of the federal government. On regulation, too, Thompson voted generally against government intrusion in the private sector. Many Republican politicians talk about limited government and the principle of federalism but Thompson exemplified those ideas, often voting against bills that would have made it easy for a political opponent to paint him in a negative light.

While this strong federalist philosophy casts a redemptive light on his opposition to tort reform, it does not fully excuse or explain a number of his votes. His persistent federalism also makes his role in the passage of McCain-Feingold all the more disappointing. It is difficult to reconcile Thompson's fervent belief in a limited government with his enthusiasm for increasing government regulation on political speech. Thompson has never adequately addressed this contradiction and will have to do so. His recent doubts over the legislation's efficacy are encouraging, least of all because all politicians make mistakes, and rare are those willing to admit their own.[link]
The above summation is from the Club for Growth (limited government, pro-growth, anti-tax organization) on Sen. Fred Thompson. His record (on subjects important to the club) is spread out and talked about with a 'white paper' pdf at the link also. Good read and good summary of the political career (Senate) of Fred.

Jay at StoptheACLU is having weekend trackbacks again, go over and check the links.


If this guy is a friend of yours, you may want to make sure he's not around next time you get sick.
A sick acquaintance with several credit cards apparently proved too tempting for a man who authorities have charged with 107 counts of fraudulent use of a credit card.

Officials with the Florence Police Department said 26-year-old Christopher Wade Hall, 2025 N. Wood Ave., Florence, has also been charged with first-degree theft of property.

"He went on a shopping spree for a few months with stolen credit cards," said Florence police detective Cliff Billingsley.

Authorities said the investigation indicates that Hall took 12 credit cards without the owner's permission.

"From what we have been able to determine, here in Florence he used two (cards) more than 100 times," Billingsley said.[link]
Christopher Wade Hall
Not only did the man prey on his sick friend, he did it to the tune of $50k+ in meaningless expenses. The report goes on to say that all the purchases weren't local, so a grand jury will convene to see if any more charges will be filed.

News: My daughter is having surgery this morning (tonsils) so I may not be online today. Good thoughts and prayers are appreciated.

Thursday, September 6, 2007

HRW attacks Israel (again) and Bad guys dead

Human Rights Watch has decided that Israel acted wrong in firing upon Lebanon in the last little war:
In its harshest condemnation of Israel since last summer's war, Human Rights Watch charged that most of the Lebanese civilian casualties came from "indiscriminate Israeli airstrikes," according to a report to be released Thursday.

In a statement issued before the report's release, the human rights organization said there was no basis to the Israeli claim that civilian casualties resulted from Hizbullah guerrillas using civilians as shields. Israel has said that it attacked civilian areas because Hizbullah set up rocket launchers in villages and towns. [link]
It's hard to win if you're Israel, no matter what you do, or what they do (like anyone really believes that terrorists weren't using civilians as shields) you can't win. This is probably the first of many condemnations of Israel to come.
More than 1,000 Lebanese were killed in the 34-day conflict last summer, which began after Hizbullah staged a cross-border raid, killing three IDF soldiers and capturing two others. They are still being held.

IAF warplanes targeted Lebanese infrastructure, including bridges and Beirut Airport, and heavily damaged a neighborhood in Beirut known as a Hizbullah stronghold, as well as attacking Hizbullah centers in villages near the border. {emp. mine-LN}
You can readily tell the A(w/t)P wrote this article, they never seem to tell you that any of those 'civilians' were terrorists. Since there is no exact way to know exactly how many were, a little caveat would be welcome. At least they remembered who started the war this time.

Three slimes got their's:
Israeli troops backed by tanks and bulldozers moved a kilometer (half-mile) inside the Gaza Strip to strike at Palestinian terrorists on Thursday, a day after Defense Minister Ehud Barak said a broad operation inside the coastal territory was inevitable.

Three Palestinian gunmen were killed and 12 people were wounded in a battle with soldiers, but there were conflicting reports on the details of the clash in the southern Gaza town of Khan Younis.[link]
Of course there are conflicting reports, anytime you have 2 sides to something, you will inevitably have 2 reports.
Meanwhile, IDF troops operating in the northern West Bank town of Jenin on Thursday arrested an Islamic Jihad member armed with a rifle and two explosives devices.

During the arrest a group of Palestinians at the scene hurled two homemade bombs at the troops. The soldiers returned fire and one Palestinian was hit by a rubber bullet. He was treated at the scene by an IDF doctor.

In addition, troops operating in the town also uncovered 30 pipe bombs in a vehicle.
Bonus catches for the IDF, of course those poor terrorists are only fighting the occupation /sarc

A New Race

Fred! is finally in (good thing too, since I already put my official bumper sticker up):

Update: Can't get the link to work here, so you'll have to travel over to Fred's site to see the video.

On with the real race.

Wednesday, September 5, 2007

Post of the Day

To follow up from the Quote of the day post, here's basically a response (although it wasn't written in response to her):
I legally carry a concealed handgun on a daily basis. I don’t take my decision to carry lightly.

I’m not a police officer, a private investigator, a bail bondsman or a bounty hunter. I don’t deal with criminals on a daily or professional basis. I’m just an ordinary guy.

I don’t carry merely because it’s my right, although I’m within my rights to do so and I also believe that any right not exercised is a right in danger of being lost.

I don’t carry just because I enjoy firearms and shooting sports, although I do.

I don’t carry because I frequent “bad” areas of town, although in this day and age, any area of town can be “bad” at times. Crime can and does happen when you least expect it. [link]
Read the rest of the post, it is a good post on the reasons to carry a firearm (when legally permitted).

Tuesday, September 4, 2007

Quote of the Day

From Kim du Toit:
“I don’t believe that any gun should be in the hand of a thinking, feeling, breathing human being. Americans are by nature filled with rage-slash-fear. And guns are a huge part of our culture. I know I’m crazy because I’m only supposed to say that in Europe. But violence corrupts absolutely.”

In the interview, she talks about how The Brave One was not the correct title for what the movie was really about.
You'll have to click over to see who said that (and read the comments about it).

Hard to imagine the thought process that instantly thinks that guns cause violence instead of people.

Fred in Arizona

Thompson Outperforms McCain in Arizona
Tuesday, September 04, 2007

Arizona is the home state for John McCain, but Fred Thompson is the strongest GOP Presidential candidate in the state at this time.

A Rasmussen Reports telephone survey found that Thompson leads Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton by seventeen percentage points, 51% to 34%. Thompson will be formally announcing his candidacy this week.

Rudy Giuliani, who leads the polls for the Republican Presidential nomination, leads Clinton by eleven points, 49% to 38%. McCain has a ten-point edge over Clinton, 46% to 36%. With McCain as the GOP candidate, 15% of Arizona voters say they’d select a third party option. Mitt Romney is the weakest of the GOP candidates in Arizona but still leads Clinton by seven points, 46% to 39%.

For question wording and responses, click here. [link]

Fred is heating up in the south (leads in South Carolina) and getting a boost from McCain's stance on illegal immigration.

All three front runners (and McCain) have comfortable leads on Hillary in Az, but of course polls don't mean anything without votes.

Silly Season (politics)

September 3, 2007

And they're off (but the race began long ago)

Indianapolis Star

Dan Balz

6 questions to ponder on traditional campaign starting date

WASHINGTON -- Labor Day is the traditional starting date for presidential campaigns, but Labor Day the year before the election?

That's the reality of the 2008 campaign, a contest that has been barreling ahead since January. What happens from here on will matter far more than what has happened up to now, but the first eight months of 2007 have delivered on predictions that this would be one of the most interesting and consequential campaigns of modern times.

On the Democratic side, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York remains the front-runner, but Barack Obama's prodigious fundraising and passionate crowds continue to make the Illinois senator an intriguing rival. Former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina has staked his hopes on Iowa, and so far Iowans remain open to him. The rest of the Democratic field is starting to make noise, though their odds remain long.

For Republicans, the contest is about to change with this week's entry of former Sen. Fred Thompson of Tennessee. He will join former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, Sen. John McCain of Arizona and maybe former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee in a contest still in search of clarity and definition.

To help make sense of what has happened and where things may be heading, think of the next four months -- until January, when actual voters will finally start to make choices that count -- in terms of six questions. For answers to them, we sought out strategists in both parties, based in Washington and around the country, some of whom spoke only if they were not identified.

For them -- and for the campaign itself -- today marks a moment when the pace quickens and the stakes increase. (link)
Great write-up on what will define a 'great' race to the Whitehouse. It still doesn't feel right that the campaign began in January, but now it's getting to be crunch time. There's still plenty of time for the candidates to position themselves (although for most, their positions would be hard to change now), and there really is no telling in this internet age just what will happen next.

Hillary is the odds-on favorite for the Democratic (and some experts say National) ticket although Obama isn't too far off for comfort [Edwards seems to be sinking slowly into oblivion, but don't count out Iowa in the Democratic process]. On the Republican side, it's basically a 3-way race according to where you ask. Guiliani is still the front-runner, with Romney and Fred getting the nod in localized polls. While Romney seems to be the most organized, Fred brings the 'grass-roots' to the table and both these candidates should be well positioned to remind voters of the short-falls of Rudy.

While the next few months promise to be exciting, they (more than likely) will be bitter and 'underhanded' as well. This seems the SOP for politics in this day and age.

May the best candidates win.

Great W-in-Iraq post over at Misha's; check it out (pictures)

Happy Labor Day

Labor Day

Labor Day is observed annually in honor of working people on the first Monday in September in all the states and territories, including Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. The day was originally conceived in 1882 by Peter J. McGuire, the radical founder and indefatigable warrior of the Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of New York. On 8 May, McGuire proposed to the New York City Central Labor Union that the first Monday in September, because it fell midway between the Fourth of July and Thanksgiving Day, be set aside annually as a "labor day." His effort bore fruit on Tuesday, 5 September 1882, when workers in New York City held a large parade and a festival sponsored by the Central Labor Union and the Knights of Labor. In 1884, the New Yorkers held a parade on the first Monday of September and designated that day as the annual Labor Day. The agitation in New York City was soon followed by labor unions in other states, which staged vigorous campaigns in their state legislatures for the establishment of Labor Day as a legal holiday. Their earliest victories were in Oregon and Colorado, where Labor Day was declared to be a state holiday in February and March 1887, respectively. The next year the American Federation of Labor passed a resolution for the adoption of a Labor Day at its St. Louis, Missouri, convention. Thirty states had followed the lead of Oregon and Colorado by the time the first Monday in September was made a national holiday by an act of Congress, with the bill signed into law by President Grover Cleveland on 28 June 1894. In the early twenty-first century, Labor Day parades, rallies, festivals, and speeches were still organized by labor unions across the country and often supported by political leaders. Because of the shrinking popular base of traditional labor unions, however, most Americans tended to regard the day merely as the finale of a long summer of fun in which hot dogs, barbecues, and picnics reigned.
Update: This post will stay at the top until the Holiday is over, scroll down for new posts until then

Monday, September 3, 2007

Pro-Choice Equality

When you are not getting an air conditioner installed, you are indirectly claiming your love for open windows and thus increasing the need for proper home security arrangements. Also, then using candles indoors is out of question. You might as well be working on your garden tools within the doors.

This is for the pro-choice (abortion) people: [note: I am divorced with a child, I support my child willingly and would no matter what the law stated because I feel it is right to do so and I want to do so.]

Since the concept of pro-choice is the basic fact that the female should have the choice of having a child or not, shouldn't this construct be given to the male in the equation also?

Consider, you and your partner become pregnant unexpectedly (wrong time, not trying, etc.). Both of you are pro-choice and both feel that it wouldn't be a good idea to have the child. The husband/boyfriend argues that this wouldn't be good because of [insert good reason here] and you feel roughly the same. After thinking about it, you feel that reason [insert better reason here] would overcome his (and your concerns) and decide (as is your right) to have the child even though he doesn't want to.

A period of time later, you split up (in no relation to said pregnancy). Here's the question: should it be his choice whether to support the child or not? (morally yes and legally yes, in all places I'm aware of, but this is a hypothetical) Why or why not?

Since the decision to have the child was yours and yours alone (in this case, remember his choice was no child), shouldn't he then logically be entitled to the choice of supporting the child or not (that he didn't want and now does not live with).

Also, suppose he wanted the child and you ultimately decided against it (as is your right as you both believe), should he then have legal recompse from you for not having his child? If you have the legal means to get support from someone that didn't want a child (who believed as you that it is your choice) vis-a-vis shouldn't he have the same right to get support (something) from you for not having the child that he wanted?

As I am pro-life, these questions will not keep me up at night, they were just random thoughts that ran through my head and I wanted to get some responses from others on. Feel free to comment and discuss.

Sunday, September 2, 2007

What to believe

With certifications like 350-018 and 642-533, you can go places. Programs like 642-812 as well as 70-528 also readily accept such applicants and even

go to the extent of offering free courses like EX0-100 and 220-603.

Two paths to get to here from there:

EarthCreated by G-dBig bang, going against the laws of conservation and energy, matter was created from nothing
LifeCreated by G-dMatter that was created from nothing somehow forms into life (single-cells)
Human LifeCreated by G-dEvolution from single cell through the animal tree eventually to human (relies on scientific 'proof' missing key 'proof' of actual evolving into a human from another animal)

Any wonder why we believers scoff at evolution? (yes this is a very simplistic argument, sue me)