For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. ---Ephesians 6:12

"The age of casual Catholicism is over; the age of heroic Catholicism has begun. We can no longer be Catholics by accident, but instead must be Catholics by CONVICTION." ---Fr. Terrence Henry TOR, Franciscan University of Steubenville

Wednesday, January 23, 2008

Fred Thompson Candidacy Withdrawn...So Now What???

Freds statement:

Today I have withdrawn my candidacy for President of the United States. I hope that my country and my party have benefited from our having made this effort. Jeri and I will always be grateful for the encouragement and friendship of so many wonderful people.

posted by Fred


I am still convinced that, given enough time, the rest of the country would see what Rush Limbaugh, all the Fredheads, Michelle Malkin, and so many others have seen: Fred Thompson is the only true conservative candidate for President. If only you had downed the Red Bull sooner, Fred.

So whom do we look to now?

John McCain took a while to catch on, even having to borrow a few million at one point after losing most of his campaign staff. But he hit a few home runs in the debates, and people kind of forgot about the McCain-Kennedy shamnesty bill from last May. If/when they sober up McCain will slide again.

Frankly I do not trust him. Although he was a hero in the war, that does not necessarily translate into the world of politics. Some men lose that strength of character that made them heroes when they take office (or we find they never had it to begin with). Ulysses Grant was a great general during the Civil War, but had two very corrupt terms as President later. John Glenn proved his character as a member of the Mercury Seven in space, but later thwarted our own Fred Thompson during the China-gate hearings. And the afore mentioned Senator John McCain...have we forgotten about the Keating Five? The S&L bail-out resulted in a huge run-up in our national debt (a few trillion), and caused a deep recession that resulted in the departure of President George H. W. Bush in exchange for two terms of Bill Clinton.

Huckabee is great on abortion. He supports the Life Amendment, where even Fred would not. The problem with Huck is that he cannot run from the rest of his record. One cannot claim he did not have success as governor of Arkansas, but he governed not as a conservative but as a populist (and some would even say liberal).

Illegal immigration is a major issue these days and Huckabee has been weak on it, wanting to grant scholarships to high school grads here illegally...early in the Primary. Now he speaks as if he wishes to deport all 12 million illegals back to their countries. Sounds like a flip-flop to me, and so recent!

Though he comes off as a pious christian on the campaign trail, he appears to me to be as ambitious as Lucifer. But then many successful politicians often are. Still, back in the days when part of my career in finance included bill collection, I found pastors to be some of the biggest deadbeats around, in spite of their piety.

Former Governor Mitt Romney seems to be the logical choice from what is left. He knows more than anyone about dealing with the economy (which seems to be a growing issue these days) and he handles himself quite well in interviews and debates.

The problem with Mitt is his national electability. Poll after poll shows he cannot beat Hillary or Obama. Its not even close. For his religion the people of this country may sacrifice their pocketbooks.

Rudy Giuliani was my very first choice when he threw his hat in the ring last Spring...until I found out he donated his own money to pro-abortion Planned Parenthood and supported public funding of abortions. When I found that out I forgot all about his great record as Mayor of New York.

Actually my very VERY first choice was Tommy Thompson, the innovative problem solver who introduced us to welfare reform and school choice through his excellent conservative work in Wisconsin as governor. But his hearing aid kept going on the fritz and he shouted at everyone during the debates.

Why didn't we like Duncan Hunter more? Was it the hairdo?

Tuesday, January 22, 2008

Fred Must Stay In The Race!

Fred must stay in the race and participate in all debates at least until Super Tuesday. As I have previously stated, John McCain had to win at least three debates before his surge started. Unfortunately, Fred waited until the South Carolina debate to really come alive. I believe that if he were to keep up the energy and give people a chance to see that he is really the only true link to Ronald Reagan, his campaign would gain real traction.

If you agree with this, please click on the Fred button in my left column and either donate to the cause or at the very least send an email showing support. South Carolina was where is was supposed to happen and it fell short. The people in that state were fooled by John McCain into thinking the Arizona Senator had turned against his own Amnesty Bill. Lincoln was right: you can fool all the people some of the time. But he also said you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.

Fred should stay in. His conservative message will resonate, given time. After all, two of my friends from Illinois switched from Romney to Fred just before the SC primary.

Saturday, January 12, 2008

Obama...Pretty Sickening

Terence P. Jeffrey, Editor in Chief and Editor At Large at Human, reminds us of a decision Presidential Candidate and Illinois Senator Barack Hussein Obama made about the Born Alive Infants Bill. He opposed it. In fact he was one of very few who opposed it.

I will reprint the entire article since it can be read for free at various websites. All due credit is given. The above cartoon I snagged from a similar article here. Editor in Chief
January 09, 2008

Barack Obama is the most pro-abortion presidential candidate ever.

He is so pro-abortion that he refused as an Illinois state senator to support legislation to protect babies who survived late-term abortions because he did not want to concede -- as he explained in a cold-blooded speech on the Illinois Senate floor -- that these babies, fully outside their mothers' wombs, with their hearts beating and lungs heaving, were in fact "persons."

"Persons," of course, are guaranteed equal protection of the law under the 14th Amendment.

In 2004, U.S. Senate-candidate Obama mischaracterized his opposition to this legislation. Now, as a presidential frontrunner, he should be held accountable for what he actually said and did about the Born Alive Infants Bill.

State and federal versions of this bill became an issue earlier this decade because of "induced labor abortion." This is usually performed on a baby with Down's Syndrome or another problem discovered on the cusp of viability. A doctor medicates the mother to cause premature labor. Babies surviving labor are left untreated to die.

Jill Stanek, who was a nurse at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Ill., testified in the U.S. Congress in 2000 and 2001 about how "induced labor abortions" were handled at her hospital.

"One night," she said in testimony entered into the Congressional Record, "a nursing co-worker was taking an aborted Down's Syndrome baby who was born alive to our Soiled Utility Room because his parents did not want to hold him, and she did not have the time to hold him. I couldn't bear the thought of this suffering child lying alone in a Soiled Utility Room, so I cradled and rocked him for the 45 minutes that he lived."

In 2001, Illinois state Sen. Patrick O'Malley introduced three bills to help such babies. One required a second physician to be present at the abortion to determine if a surviving baby was viable. Another gave the parents or a public guardian the right to sue to protect the baby's rights. A third, almost identical to the federal Born Alive Infant Protection Act President Bush signed in 2002, simply said a "homo sapiens" wholly emerged from his mother with a "beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord or definite movement of voluntary muscles" should be treated as a "'person,' 'human being,' 'child' and 'individual.'"

Stanek testified about these bills in the Illinois Senate Judiciary Committee, where Obama served. She told me this week he was "unfazed" by her story of holding the baby who survived an induced labor abortion.

On the Illinois Senate floor, Obama was the only senator to speak against the baby-protecting bills. He voted "present" on each, effectively the same as a "no."

"Number one," said Obama, explaining his reluctance to protect born infants, "whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person that is protected by the Equal Protection Clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a -- a child, a 9-month old -- child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it -- it would essentially bar abortions, because the Equal Protection Clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an anti-abortion statute."

That June, the U.S. Senate voted 98-0 in favor of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act (although it failed to become law that year). Pro-abortion Democrats supported it because this language was added: "Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being born alive as defined in this section."

Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer explained that with this language the "amendment certainly does not attack Roe v. Wade."

On July 18, 2002, Democratic Sen. Harry Reid called for the bill to be approved by unanimous consent. It was.

That same year, the Illinois version of the bill came up again. Obama voted "no."

In 2003, Democrats took control of the Illinois Senate. Obama became chairman of the Health and Human Services committee. The Born Alive Infant bill, now sponsored by Sen. Richard Winkel, was referred to this committee. Winkel also sponsored an amendment to make the Illinois bill identical to the federal law, adding -- word for word -- the language Barbara Boxer said protected Roe v. Wade. Obama still held the bill hostage in his committee, never calling a vote so it could be sent to the full senate.

A year later, when Republican U.S. senate candidate Alan Keyes challenged Obama in a debate for his opposition to the Born Alive Infant Bill, Obama said: "At the federal level there was a similar bill that passed because it had an amendment saying this does not encroach on Roe v. Wade. I would have voted for that bill."

In fact, Obama had personally killed exactly that bill.

(end of article)

Sheeeesh! That really gives me the creeps. To think that Obama or Hillary might be our next President gives me no faith whatsoever in the intelligence or character of Democrat voters.

We are but one Supreme Court Justice away from overturning Roe v. Wade, and our party acts unsatisfied with the current roster of candidates from which to choose? I would take even Ron Paul over any baby-killing Devilrats than have them regain power and set the pro-life cause back 20 years with Breyer-Ginsburg type appointments.

Mr. Jeffery makes his case very well. And we should never mince words or use euphemisms when describing the act of abortion. Infanticide or murder are the only other synonyms I can think of that are suitable substitutes.

Rush Limbaugh On Thursday Debate

I have never heard Rush Limbaugh get so excited about a presidential candidate so early in a primary. For a man who usually never takes sides until the winning Republican candidate is chosen, Rush seems to be showing his hand early in an effort to keep the only true conservative candidate (Fred Thompson) in the competitive mix.

After Thursdays wonderful debate performance, Senator Thompson has begun to surge in the Rasmussen national poll from 11% to 13% on Friday. There have been no polls taken for South Carolina since Wednesday, but I would expect Fred to have a bounce there. Although his numbers have gone down in SC in recent months, his favorability rating in that state has hung around 72%, the highest of the Republican candidates. And 66% of those already intending to vote for Fred claim to be certain of their choice, an indication of solid support.

Friday, January 11, 2008

Fred Thompson Gets An Important Endorsement

Human Events, a paper (and website) considered to be a favorite of Ronald Reagan, has this morning endorsed former Senator Fred Dalton Thompson for President. The editors, in spelling out their opinions of each of the candidates strengths and weaknesses, consider Fred Thompson to be the only consistently conservative candidate and therefore the only logical choice to support in the primary. Here is an excerpt:

We begin by recalling the profound words of Ronald Reagan at the Conservative Political Action Conference Feb. 15, 1975: “A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency or simply to swell its numbers.” We believed that then, and we believe it now. The issue for us -- and for the conservative community -- boils down to which of the candidates is most representative of the fundamental conservative principles we believe in. The answer is Fred Thompson.

Here is another:

On the issues that matter most to conservatives, Sen. Thompson’s positions benefit from their clarity. He is solidly pro-life. He said that he was in favor overturning Roe v. Wade because it was “bad law and bad medical science.” As the National Right to Life Committee said in its endorsement of him Nov. 13, 2007, “The majority of this country is opposed to the vast majority of abortions, and Fred Thompson has shown in his consistent pro-life voting record in the U.S. Senate that he is part of the pro-life majority.”

Frankly I could not agree more.

South Carolina is a make or break state for Fred. He is pulling out all the stops and giving it his all. Win or lose it will be a very interesting and sometimes entertaining race to the January 19th finish line. And then on to Florida, God willing.


Fred puts Al Colmes in his place in an energetic interview after the debate on Hannity & Colmes. His energy is refreshing and reassuring. This is the Fred we who jumped on his bandwagon early know and admire. This man needs to be President. Let us make it happen.

Thursday, January 10, 2008

All Hands Rise For Fred Thompson On Fox After Debate

It would appear that Fred Thompson has risen to the occasion on the debate tonight. He was personable, knowledgeable, and likable to most viewers. Fred came to win....and to most people on Fox News (post debate) he did just that. This should be a great shot in the arm for his campaign nationally as well as his chances to win South Carolina.

But we must remember that John McCain had to win at least three debates to get his surge going. Hopefully we have seen the end to that since being reminded of McCain's stand on Illegal Immigration. Is it too late for Fred? I certainly hope not. Fred Thompson is the only true consistent conservative in the race, and one of two...maybe three real leaders running.

One thing Fred could use at this time is your support. Please feel free to click on the contribution button in my left column and give whatever you feel comfortable giving. If all Fred supporters gave only $10 or $20 he would have between two and four million dollars, and well on his way to conquering Florida and states beyond.

Good work, Fred!

Wednesday, January 2, 2008

Illini Upset By USC...Very Very Upset!!!

I went to the trouble to write a post in November about The Fighting Illini football team upsetting number-one-ranked Ohio State because it was such a big deal. Illinois had never beaten a number one ranked team as a visiting opponent, and had not beaten any at Champaign, IL since the 1950s. But when I heard toward the end of December that Illinois, through some sort of odd chain of events, was going to the Rose Bowl...I kept quiet. For now they were shrouded in impending doom.

It wasn't enough that the Fighting Illini were the underdogs to a sixth-ranked USC team, or that USC was favored by a 15 point margin (the largest margin in any scheduled bowl game this season) that caused this dampening of my spirits. I guess it had more to do with the fact that since Illinois lost to Bear Bryant's Alabama team in the Liberty Bowl in 1982 (my freshman year), the Illini have won only one bowl game. I can hardly remember who they beat, except that our team was angry about playing another team so far below their own record or abilities. Among the several bowl losses was the January 1984 Rose Bowl (I witnessed in person) in which the Illini, ranked 3rd nationally at the time, fell hard 45-9 to an unranked UCLA team.

An argument could be made to ban the Fighting Illini football team from any and all post season play due to extreme incompetence. They have, after all, given up a total of 94 points in only their last two Rose Bowl appearances. That is quite a record, indeed!