I Wanna Live!!!

One of these days SCOTUS is going to hear a case which challenges Roe vs. Wade and overturn that bad piece of judicial legislation, which was the product of that increasingly imposing despotism known as rule by judicial fiat (the liberals' way of imposing their religiously social beliefs upon the rest of us).

This video is more than a year and a half old and there is no particular occasion to justify posting it, except for the continuing slaughter of the unborn due to the continued state of denial by the left that fetuses are humans even though they consistently grow into larger humans when allowed to do so. These denying liberals bury their heads in the sand on abortion and the war on terror while thinking their buried heads are great thermometers that sense an increase in the temperature of the Earth.

Just feeling a little frustrated today. I've missed posting on a lot of stories due to my internet technical difficulties. The most frustrating had to be the SCOTUS decision on guns in our nation's capitol. I wanted to shout from the treetops but had no internet access with which to do so. AT&T did rush the new aircard out to me, once they determined I qualified under warranty. So you will see some new posts before Monday...while everyone else is outside drinking lemon aid and roasting weenies.

Correction: There is actually another reason to post this prolife video today. Something happened in Canada that warrants it. Click HERE to find out if you dare, but there is a rather graphic (meaning truthfully horrifying) picture associated with the blog post.

Fred Thompson's Opinion On Latest SCOTUS Decision

Fred Thompson weighs in from his Townhall.com blog about the recent SCOTUS (Supreme Court Of The United States) decision regarding enemy combatants (though Fred and I agree it was decided more with Gitmo detainees primarily in mind). My links to Townhall posts and columns usually only last a day before the link points to a non-page, so I am posting the entire bit:

[A Supreme Mistake

Upon reading the opinion in Boumediene v Bush, one must conclude that the majority knew where they wanted to go and simply had to figure out how to get there. The trip was not a pretty one. How could it be when the justices seemingly wrote a map based on ideas cherry picked from over 400 years of established law and backfilled with justifications to create a new right for alien combatants that Americans themselves do not enjoy?

They could have saved us all a lot of time if they’d told us what was clearly on their minds.

They don’t trust military tribunals to deal with those accused of being enemy combatants, even if the tribunals are following guidelines established by Congress.

That the government has probably detained some prisoners at Guantanamo for longer than they should have.

And that Guantanamo should just be closed.

Though they are willing to give it lip service, they don’t really believe we are at war … at least not a “real” war.

Therefore, they should create a new right for our nation’s enemies commiserate with the displeasure that they and the rest of the “enlightened” people have with this “war,” Guantanamo and the Bush Administration.

At least this approach would have been an honest one and based upon about as much legal justification as the approach they took.

But, instead – as Justice Scalia pointed out in his dissent – they for the first time in our nation’s history, conferred a Constitutional right of habeas corpus on alien enemies detained abroad by our military forces in the course of an ongoing war – a broader right than has been given to our own citizens. The court majority did so acknowledging that they could find no precedent to confer such a right to alien enemies not within sovereign U.S. territory

The majority had simply decided that prior courts had denied such rulings based on “practical considerations.” In other words in prior cases and prior wars it had just been too inconvenient to bestow the right of habeas corpus upon non-citizens in foreign jurisdictions. So, by focusing on what they saw as “practical” instead of those pesky court precedents based upon the issues of citizenship and foreign territory … and the Constitution … the majority reached the conclusion they wanted to, since what is practical is subjective. One can only ponder the state of our nation directed by the subjective instead of the Constitution.

As Chief Justice Roberts pointed out in his dissent, the court strikes down as inadequate the most generous set of protections ever afforded aliens detained by this country as enemy combatants.

Among the problems the majority saw was the prisoner’s limited access to classified information, even though his personal representative is allowed access to it and can summarize it for the accused. Exactly what procedures would pass muster with the majority? Well, this has to be figured out by the habeas court later – and most certainly be challenged in endless rounds of further litigation.

At this stage, no one can really tell the extent to which this decision is going to add to judicial confusion, additional administrative difficulty, time and attention of military personnel or how many more prisoners will be mistakenly released to join the at least 30 who were released from Guantanamo only to return to fight the United States.

In reading the majority opinion I am struck by the utter waste that is involved here. No, not the waste of military resources and human life, although such a result is tragically obvious. I refer to the waste of all those years these justices spent in law school studying how adherence to legal precedent is the bedrock of the rule of law, when it turns out, all they really needed was a Pew poll, a subscription to the New York Times, and the latest edition of “How to Make War for Dummies.”

It is truly stunning that this court has seen fit to arrogate unto itself a role in the most important issue facing any country, self-defense, in a case in which Congress has in fact repeatedly acted. This was not a case where Congress did not set the rules; it did. But the court still decided – in the face of overwhelming precedent to the contrary – to intervene. This decision, or course, will allow for "President Bush Is Rebuffed” headlines, the implication being that the Administration was caught red-handed violating clearly established Constitutional rights when in fact the Administration, and the Congress for that matter, followed guidelines established by the Supreme Court itself in prior cases.

People can disagree over whether Congress got it right, but at least members have to face the voters. What remedy do people have now if they don’t like the court’s decision? None. If that thought is not enough to cause concerned citizens to turn out on Election Day to elect a new president, then I don’t know what will be.

I also find it just a tad ironic that in a case involving habeas corpus, which literally means that one must produce a body (or person) before a court to explain the basis on which that person is being detained, the decision of this court may mean more fallen bodies in the defense of a Constitution some of these justices ignored.]

I still prefer this man to John McCain!

President Thompson? (Fred)

This past Friday former Tennessee Senator Fred Dalton Thompson informally announced that he is seriously considering a run for the White House in '08. This, after most polls show him in double digits even though he has not officially thrown his hat into the rather lackluster ring, he is expected to do so on July 4th. So rather than wait until July I figured it was time to write something about him now. First things first, a little background on the man.

Born in Sheffield, AL on August 19, 1942, he actually grew up in Lawrenceburg, TN and married his first wife when he was only 17. He received his bachelors in philosophy and political science from Memphis State University and his J.D. from Vanderbilt Law School in 1967.

Now I may get a bit detailed here due to the fact that Democrats like to refer to him as merely an actor. He's been much more than that. From 1969 to 1972 he worked as assistant US attorney in TN and then as Senator Howard Baker's campaign manager for re-election in '72. And while Hillary Clinton was working hard on the Democrat side to impeach President Nixon, Fred Thompson was working as co-chief council to the Senate Watergate Committee. He was responsible for Senator Baker asking "what did the President know and when did he know it?" Thompson himself asked the famous question: "Mr Butterfield, are you aware of any listening devices in the Oval Office of the President?"

In 1977 Thompson helped run Tennessee Governor Ray Blanton out of office early for allegedly selling pardons toward the end of his term. When a movie called Marie was made about the incident Thompson played himself, which launched his movie career. It has been a career of acting rolls in 24 movies and two TV series, most notably In the Line of Fire and Hunt for Red October, and playing District Attorney Arthur Branch on NBC's Law & Order.

In 1994 he won election to the Senate (seat vacated by Al Gore who became VP), and then won re-election by a landslide in 1996 to a six-year term. During his Senate years, he served as Chairman of the Committee on Governmental Affairs and presided over the China-gate hearings, which investigated whether or not Chinese authorities bribed US politicians with illegal campaign contributions in exchange for Most Favored Nation Trading Status and possibly classified missile technology information. During the hearings Thompson's motions were often obstructed by Democratic Senators John Glenn (most notably), Carl Levin, and Robert Torricelli. The fact that most of those witnesses subpoenaed by Thompson's committee either fled the country or plead the fifth amendment, coupled with a lack of cooperation from either side of the aisle to take the hearings to their proper conclusion (possibly resulting in the discovery of startling and damaging revelations about those in question) forced Senator Thompson to abruptly end the investigations.

Also during his Senate years it should be noted that he introduced/authored virtually no legislation whatsoever, and had a reputation for complaining about long hours in the Senate. Some votes of note were in favor of McCain-Feingold (which he has since declared hasn't lived up to its expectations) as well as votes on the Articles of Impeachment of President Clinton--against the charge of perjury but for the charge of Obstruction of Justice. His complete Senate voting record can be found here.

After stating post 9-11 "now is not the time to leave," he decided against re-election in '02, some say because he simply got bored. A far more likely reason was the untimely death of his daughter Elizabeth from an overdose of prescription drugs on January 30th 2002.

He is currently in his second marriage to a woman 20 years his junior with whom he has fathered two children, since having fathered two other children from his previous marriage. His first wife has promised to campaign for him should he actually run for President.

He is a member of the Church of Christ, which is historically linked to the Restoration Movement of Barton Stone and Alexander Campbell. This movement sought to return to predenominational, original Christianity without extra creeds being added by church hierarchies found in other religions. This church bases its doctrine primarily on the Holy Bible, with nearly all emphasis put on the New Testament. While the Old Testament is honored, the Church of Christ doesn't feel bound to it legally due to the New Covenant with Christ.

His stand on the issues today are virtually identical to his senate voting record. He is pro-life on abortion, against gun control, in favor of prohibiting same sex marriage, in favor of the military surge in Iraq, supports the war on terror, supports extending President Bush's tax cuts,... You can follow Thompson on his opinions daily here in his blog at ABC Radio's website.

The American Conservative Union gave Thompson a lifetime rating of 86 out of 100. Let's face it. He is every conservative's dream when it comes to issues, including appointing prospective Supreme Court justices. President Bush turned to Fred Thompson when he needed someone to guide his nomination of John Roberts for Supreme Court Justice through the Senate; and he did so successfully. He's like Reagan in his ability to communicate with people, a plain talker, but that is so far only when scripted. His ad-libbing needs some brushing up, if a recent speech using note cards is any indication.

Is he entering too late? By today's standards he might be. A lot of money has already been raised by other candidates on a level never before seen. Some candidates brought barrels of money into the race with them. But if the Steven Forbes or Ross Perot campaigns are any indication, money doesn't buy opinions--it only buys attention. Fred Thompson will be running a different kind of campaign, one that utilizes other less costly advantages to get his message out. He has face recognition already from his movies and more recent TV work. But more importantly he has been substituting for Paul Harvey on the radio and reaching a huge and informed audience of registered voters. No one can accuse Paul Harvey of not having a powerful microphone, which he has been loaning to Thompson. There is also the afore mentioned Fred Thompson blog. Expect the internet to be utilized often through You-tube and other means. Speaking of which...that was a pretty good smack-down he did on Michael Moore.

Democrats may accuse him of being a do-nothing Senator; but certainly no worse than former Senator "No-Show" John Edwards, a contender for his party's nomination. So other than Thompson's weak record in the Senate (which could foretell a do-nothing Presidency, which could also make him a do-no-harm President), there appears to be nothing damaging about him which could torpedo a successful run for the White House, except perhaps his history of cancer---but that is in remission; or his divorce---but not only does his ex-wife still like him, she plans to campaign for him. All he really needs to do is beat Giuliani in the likability factor and he could get the nomination.