Beldar Goes with Fred

I note Beldar is with Fred.

On every issue I care deeply about, Fred Thompson is a genuine, thoughtful conservative — without any major exceptions or doubtful areas that I have to forgive or ignore. And in the simplest possible words: I trust him because he’s demonstrated that he has a real political spine.

Fred’s my “Goldilocks candidate”: On national defense and foreign policy generally, on taxes (and, in particular, income tax reform), on spending, on judicial appointments, on immigration, on increasing the size and capacities of the military, and on a host of other issues, he’s “Just Right.” And not only do his present views and positions match my own, but they’ve been consistent views throughout his career, so I don’t have to worry that he’ll be easily talked out of them through some rationalization in the name of “expediency.”

Pretty much what I said the other day.

Those of you who have been watching will know that we’ve been having some problems on and off with the full-size RSS feed. Or, here, if you like.
We solved the problem last night, as it turns out the RSS plug-in that we were supposed to be depending on to help us, was actually screwing us up. The RSS feed noted to the lower right is your baby for the full-sized posts.  I would suggest checking out Feedburner for the truncated version.

Atom is available, too. 

Clement Moore is rolling in his grave… laughing.

If Hillary Clinton does make it to the presidency, by some stroke of bad luck, the positive aspect of it is that our webpages here on the right side will write themselves.

The Arizona Republic reports on what the chattering class claims to be impossible, getting illegals to leave:

Congress’ failure to pass comprehensive immigration reform, immigration crackdowns, Arizona’s new employer-sanctions law and a sluggish economy have combined to create a climate families such as the Francos no longer find hospitable.

The pressure by the likes of Michelle Malkin on Congress not to pass amensty, a.k.a. Comprehensive Immigration Reform, is paying tangible benefits.   This is a battle, for our national sovereignty, that can be won, and it can be sabotaged by traitors in Congress.

Hat Tip:  Memeorandum.

Addendum:

It is not exactly a shock, but Michelle has picked up the story:

The open-borders propaganda line that “you can’t deport them all” has always been a red herring. If you enforce the law, many will leave on their own. It happened with Pakistani illegal aliens after 9/11. It’s happening now in Arizona

No more path way to citizenship, just a path back to the border.

Mark Levin says

“Mike Huckabee is now becoming a very divisive figure in the Republican party. It’s not his faith or his Merry Christmas commercial that many conservatives question (I certainly don’t), but it’s his record as governor and his stated positions on the war, foreign policy generally, taxes, spending, and illegal aliens.”

Quite so.  And yet, what does the press focus on? His religious expression, which last I knew, was supposed to be free. Indeed, the diaper filling contest the left and the press engaged in, complaining about Huckabee’s ‘crime’ of having a cross of Christ in the ad, could hardly have been more self-righteous had Huckabee intentionally chosen to use a Swastika, instead of the bookshelf he used without recognizing the image of the cross. In fact I’m willing to bet that those complaining about it so loudly now would in that event consider that such an ad would be protected speech.

So the question becomes, why all the focus on religion as regards the Huckabee campaign? Frankly, I don’t think that the majority of what we’re seeing is what Huckabee intends. Rather, I suspect what’s going on, is the press is redirecting the public’s attention off of his stand on the issues that Levin mentions. Remember the story that we ran here, some weeks ago that suggested that the Democrats as a matter of policy were backing off of Huckabee so as to be able to destroy him in the general election? I suggest that it is still a motivation.  I also suggest that what’s going on here is that the press and the left are hoping to destroy the religious right along with Huckabee, in that same move.

But I think that there is a serious miscalculation going on here.. perhaps intentionally so. As Levin notes, Huckabee’s biggest problem isn’t his religion, or the expression of it. His biggest problem, even among evangelicals, is his policies. Thompson said the other day Huckabee is no conservative… and he’s right about that.
So defeating Huckabee, doesn’t defeat the Religious right. Just the religious… including the religious LEFT…  And I’m not convinced that’s an attitude we Americans should be taking, if freedom of religious expression is as dear to us as some are claiming.

Time Magazine  continues to dig a deeper hole. Hume last night:

Putin Up a Fight

The naming of Russian President Vladimir Putin as TIME magazine’s “Person of the Year” is drawing some fire from the right.

Dean Barnett of the Weekly Standard — for one — says the selection — “clarifies some of the deep-seated bias and willful ignorance that characterize so much of the mainstream media.”

Putin got the nod over Al Gore, “Harry Potter” author J.K. Rowling, Chinese leader Hu Jintao and General David Petraeus.

TIME insists it did not intend to glorify Putin. Deputy managing editor Adi Ignatius saying “It’s not an honor … we’re not saying that he’s a good person, we’re not saying he’s a bad person. He is the person who has most affected the news in 2007 and going forward.”

Not Returning

Meanwhile TIME — which has been engaged in a effort to hire what managing editor Richard Stengel calls “star writers” — is not renewing the contracts of conservative columnists William Kristol and Charles Krauthammer — both of whom are also FOX News contributors.

The New York Observer reports Stengel was unavailable for comment about the reasoning for the decision because he was working on the “Person of the Year” issue.

TIME is said to be negotiating to replace one of the high-profile contributor spots with National Review senior editor Ramesh Ponnuru.

Go ahead, Time. Tell me how this is not part and parcel of the extreme leftward trend we’ve noted here
many times before. Not that they’re all that much different from the rest of the MSM, mind you.

And yes, I consider Ramseh a pretty fair writer, but, all respect to him, he’s hardly of the gravitas of Kristol and Krauthammer.

  Jonathan Martin at the politico is reporting that Tom Tancredo is about ready to call it quits. Which, as it happens is approximately as important as announcing that the 17th St kazoo band is going to be playing in East Podunk, the night of super Tuesday.

Fox has picked up the call, now, too:

Republican presidential candidate Tom Tancredo plans to drop out of the race during an announcement Thursday afternoon in Des Moines, Iowa, GOP sources close to the campaign have told FOX News.

Tancredo, who has aggressively pushed his anti-illegal immigration message throughout the GOP primary race, has not been able to break through in the polls against his better known competitors. He and California Rep. Duncan Hunter typically poll in the single digits behind Texas Rep. Ron Paul in national surveys.

Tancredo would not personally confirm whether he will pull out of the race.

Tancredo had the immigration thing down right. Too bad that was the limit of his ability in the area of getting it right.

MNC-I SOLDIER DIES FROM NON-COMBAT RELATED INJURY

Posted: 17 Dec 2007 05:23 AM CST

MNC-I SOLDIER DIES FROM NON-COMBAT RELATED INJURY

BY CHARGÉ D’AFFAIRES PATRICIA A. BUTENIS AND GENERAL DAVID H. PETRAEUS ON THE TRANSFER OF SECURITY RESPONSIBILITY FOR BASRA PROVINCE

Posted: 16 Dec 2007 01:53 PM CST

BY CHARGÉ D’AFFAIRES PATRICIA A. BUTENIS AND GENERAL DAVID H. PETRAEUS ON THE TRANSFER OF SECURITY RESPONSIBILITY FOR BASRA PROVINCE

SEVERAL MILITANTS KILLED DURING AFGHAN, COALITION FORCES OPERATIONS IN HELMAND

Posted: 18 Dec 2007 04:27 AM CST

SEVERAL MILITANTS KILLED DURING AFGHAN, COALITION FORCES OPERATIONS IN HELMAND

A quick shout to Stan in SanDiego. I got your code, buddy, and I may actually get to install it this week.

Thanks.

Now if you could get this RSS monster running again, I’d be a lot happier.

Fred explained Mike Huckabee if a few short words: He is not a consevative.   Paul Mirengoff, Powerline, is a wee bit more verbose:.

Huckabee seems to believe he deserves a “pass” by virtue of his status as an evangelical and the fact that evangelicals have supported Republicans. That’s a dangerous mind set. Other serious Republican candidates have no difficulty understanding that resistance to them flows not from prejudice or elitism but from legitimate policy differences. Thus, Rudy Giuliani understands that his “pro-choice” and related positions, not anti-Catholicism, represent the source of Republican resistance. And John McCain has acknowledged that his position on immigration reform, not prejudice or personal animus (of which there actually is some), was the reason why his campaign faltered so dramatically. Huckabee’s small-mindedness stands in sharp contrast, and constitutes another reason to see him as second-tier in stature, if not in present popularity

I don’t believe that Huckabee in fact believes that being an evangelical entitles him to a free pass.  Rather Huckabee uses his evanglical card much like Mrs. Clinton uses her sex card, to avoid examination.  Mrs. Clinton does not want her lack of qualifications and experience actually examined.   Huckabee does not want to defend his liberal policy positions.

Here we go again, with the nonsense about making religion, a public issue incidental to an election this time from John over at Powerline:

I’m getting really tired of the role that religion is playing in this year’s election campaign.

Me, I’m, I’m getting tired of all the whining about it getting tired of all the whining about it, most of which doesn’t make any sense.  As I told Bruce yesterday, I am sympathetic to the anger, but the points being raised in this discussion do nothing for its resolution.

There is nothing wrong with either a voter’s or a candidate’s views on a particular issue being informed by his religion. Thus, a Quaker may vote for a candidate he perceives as pacifistic, or a candidate may take a tough anti-crime stance because his religious faith makes him sympathetic to the victims of rape, murder, assault and so on. This is very different from making a candidate’s theology, per se, into a public issue.

I say again, nonsense.  ONe of the main objects of an election season, and most of the things that are attached to it, such as debates, are designed to do is to allow the voter to know the mind of the person wanting a high office.  How better to do that discuss such matters as religion, which are the last I knew were supposed to be the strongest most personally held beliefs of an individual? You want to get a real inside look, there you are.

Further as I pointed out previously, on what basis would such back-and-forth be limited or eliminated?  Are you really suggesting that government get involved in the situation?  That would be squarely against the First Amendment, wouldn’t it?

At this stage of the game in the election cycle, the Constitution does not address what subjects should and should not be broached.  The Constitution, you see, does not limit the actions of the people who are outside of government, but rather the actions of the government itself.  Unless, therefore it can be pointed out where the government is involved with such attacks on Romney or anyone else for that matter on the basis of religion, what we have here is a case of free speech.

Understand… my biggest fear is the injection of judicial activism on the issue. Ask the ACLU, they’ve been making a nice living off such conflicts for many decades, now.

Which is not to say that the people, the voters, shouldn’t have a response to all of this.  Observe; John rightly points out that there are a number of other issues with other religions, or more correctly, perhaps other Christian sects, which are equally if not more problematic.  He asks:

Why shouldn’t Hillary Clinton, for example, be cross-examined about the Methodist Church’s “discrimination” against gays?

In that double standard, John has the big clue to the answer for his earlier question about why Mormonism in this case is the target of such inquiries; Romney is up against somebody who in reality as nothing more than a tax and attacks to bring to the table… Hillary Clinton.

Seems to me the blame for this one falls directly on the Democrats. So, too, should the consequences. on whom, specifically?  John says:

This year, religion has been used negatively against Mitt Romney. But if a candidate’s religious faith has now become fair game for political attack, our public life has changed, profoundly and for the worse, with consequences that will reverberate long after 2008.

Welcome to the party, John, our public life in that area changed rather profoundly for the worse some years ago when the government started backing away from its traditional role of supporting the existing culture in the name of “diversity”. Guess which party brought that to pass?

Hope it was a good one.

LGF, yesterday:

T he ever-tolerant peace-lovers who frequent loony left sites such as Huffington Post and Democratic Underground react to the news of a small chemical explosion at Fox News headquarters.

A few of the choicer ones:

* oh yea good idea…. ****DIRTY BOMB, …Let us Pray

* Fox News being destroyed is one of the best things that could happen.

* We could only wish. Those hate-filled bigots should be taken off the air ASAP!

I suppose the irony of that last one got by the whole mess of them.

Two tidbits from National Review:

First, Lisa Schiffren:

Klo — That very silly feminist blog you linked to this morning — where everyone sleeps with their current boyfriend in the first week of dating— (in later threads some claimed to wait till the second week) — raises a question. What would a conservative feminist do? Apart from the fact that, being a lady, she would not blog about it.

Second, from Kathyrn-Jean Lopez:

NEW YORK (AP) — Another Spears baby is reportedly on the way — and it’s not Britney’s. Jamie Lynn Spears, the 16-year-old “Zoey 101” star and sister of Britney, tells OK! magazine that she’s pregnant and that the father is her longtime boyfriend, Casey Aldridge.

“It was a shock for both of us, so unexpected,” she says. “I was in complete and total shock and so was he.”

Girl has sex with boy friend, gets pregnant, claims to be shocked.  Wow!

Addendum: (Bit)

Trailer Trash Barbie has  Trailer Trash Skipper. Work the equation, people…