Archive for the general Category

Super Tuesday & Why we should punch our ballet for Mitt

Posted in Elections, Fred Thompson, general, immigration, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, politics, Ron Paul, taxes on January 31, 2008 by ambrose7

A Few weeks ago I had they chance to vote in Michigan’s primary, when I did this the Republican race was wide open and It wan anyone’s game.  I showed my support for this time for true Regan Conservatism and cast my vote for Fred Thompson. 

Since this time the landscape has changed greatly with only 2 viable candidates left in the Republican Party; Mitt Romney and John McCain. (Sure Ron Paul is still here, but he just is after more media coverage before going back to the libertarian party.  The Huckster is still around as well but he’s up to something far more sinister) 

Of the two candidates left the difference couldn’t be more different.  Minus his health care plan, Mitt Romney is a strong Conservative.  McCain is not.  McCain calls himself a Republican but is there in name only.  McCain is for Amnesty, He’s against tax cuts, his people would even tell you he doesn’t believe he can carry true conservatives in an election.  He’s simply hoping to grab moderates, Independents, and Democrats.   Why would Republicans want a leader whose staff would basically cant carry Conservatives because he’s not running on a Conservative platform. 

No I mentioned something earlier about Huckabee’s slow talking Southern Baptist demeanor fool you.  I am confident Huckabee was part of some back room deal with McCain long ago.  Since about halfway through Iowa these two have been spending there time and money going after Mitt Romney.  McCain as the moderate pulling Independents, and Huckabee as the Conservative, splitting the conservative vote, and allowing McCain to sneak by with wins in places like North Carolina and Florida.  And lets face it I cant say it enough, Huckabee isn’t actually a conservative merely a social conservative, with the term former minister in his title.

So this being said is why Conservatives everywhere need to get out and Rally around Mitt.  Those who have supported Tancredo, Hunter, and Thompson in the past need to throw their support to Mitt. Those who are running for Huckabee should throw there support towards Mitt, Even the less crazy Ron Paul supporters should look to make a change.   Conservatives need to bring in someone who won’t come in here get rid of tax cuts, and make it legal to be illegal.  Lets quite turning a blind eye towards the record of this Grandfather type old man because he was a POW, or because he got a nice sense of humor.  Let’s remember he’s also good friends with Ted Kennedy and has time and time again supported liberal’s and liberal Bills. 

I’m now supporting Mitt Romney.  Will I ever consider myself a “Mitt head” no, he’s still the guy I support because I’m against the other guy, But there’s good reasons to not want the other guy to win.

-Ambrose-

Advertisements

Black Tuesday

Posted in blognews, Elections, Fred Thompson, general, News, politics on January 22, 2008 by ambrose7

A short while ago, Fred Thompson issued this 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.”Thanks for your support, everyone.”

Fred you will be missed.

HUMAN EVENTS Endorses Fred Thompson

Posted in blognews, Elections, Fred Thompson, Fred(!), general, Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, News, politics, Ron Paul on January 11, 2008 by ambrose7

I was excited yesterday to hear Sean Hannity speak of a big mystery endorsement for Fred Thompson today.  I had no idea who it could be.  Lets face it Conservative group after Conservative group have endorsed Fred Thompson over the past few weeks.  I love to bring up to supporters of the Huckster that it was Fred Thompson not Mike Huckabee who the National Right to Life group supported and more recently the South Carolina Right to Life supported.  Recently South Carolina right to life even put there money where there mouth is sending out thousands of mailers supporting Fred Thompson. 

All that being said this morning I was ecstatic to read that Human Events would endorse Fred Thompson.  Human Events is the premiere conservative magazine in my opinion, with such featured columnists as Newt Gringich, and Ann Coulter.  

About there endorsement Human Events said this 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.  To reach that conclusion, we looked closely at the former Tennessee senator and his opponents to judge whether they measure up to conservative standards. Some come close, and others clearly do not.” 

Its good to see one Conservative media group to step out and do the right thing.  I would now challenge both Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh who must support Fred Thompson because of those things they say they want in a President to step out and do the same before it’s too late.

To see the rest of the article from Human Events – http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=24398

To tell Sean Hannity “Your A great American now step up for Conservatism and support Fred Thompson” – http://www.hannity.com/

To Tell Rush Limbough the same – http://www.rushlimbaugh.com

-Ambrose-

A Silent Primary

Posted in blognews, Fred Thompson, Fred(!), general, Mike Huckabee, News, politics, Stupid Media on January 6, 2008 by ambrose7

Wyoming held its Republican primary today with little fanfare or News coverage.  Several candidates hadn’t been there at all, yet the people of Wyoming spoke out, and though you will find little coverage of the primary through you’re major networks, a conservative message won the day.  With Mitt Romney winning the field and taking 8 delegates, and Fred Thompson coming in second with 3 of his own.  Duncan Hunter finished third on the day and will receive 1 come Convention time.  Its good to know that there in America’s heartland conservative values still win out, In a place where people voted on a candidate’s message alone, and were not overwhelmed with the media driven message of “change” the down home values of Freedom, Family and Faith won the day.

-Ambrose-

What’s all this stuff about fire?

Posted in Elections, Fred(!), general, politics with tags , , , , on December 24, 2007 by Randy Streu

It’s difficult for a logical, critically-thinking person such as myself not to get annoyed when I hear the same tired, old criticisms of my Presidential candidate-of-choice passing out of the mainstream media and through the lips of people who used to consider that same media an enemy to convert — and not a source to parrot.  The main, ironically, is the long-since-disproven “lazy” charge — and its corrolary (and my pick for dumbest (sub)standardized and parrotted statement), “no fire in the belly.” 

I find the lazy charge ironic, because it is generally the thing that issues from the lips of those who, rather than look at what Thompson has been doing during this campaign (for example, as I mentioned before, writing policy rather than kissing babies, his current “flat-out” schedule in Iowa, etc.), have instead simply trotted out the old criticisms from other people.  And who’s the lazy one here?

But the one that really bugs me, especially from people who claim to be Republicans (a prerequisite for which is the belief that government is the problem — rarely the solution) is this idea that Fred Thompson doesn’t “want it” badly enough.  Never mind the fact that you’re pretty much going after a self-described “low-key” guy basically for not having his own Howard Dean moment (‘cuz that worked out).  Frankly, I remember with fondness the good old days in which lust for power was considered a bad thing among potential leaders.  It used to be that those of us who wanted the government to leave us the heck alone actually preferred leaders who were somewhat reluctant to accept the mantle — and then only because we told them they were needed.  It used to be that such a thing was considered nobility (actual nobility — the content of character, rather than the pedigree of blood).

But, in these days of the obsessively power-hungry Hillary Clinton, it seems we believe we can’t beat such blatant lust for power without someone willing to match it.  But I disagree.  I believe that, as the curtain draws tighter and tighter, those who lust for power begin to show their true colors.  People like Senator Clinton actually believe that we, the American people, owe this to her — and her frustration continues to become more apparant.  Contrast that, then, to a candidate who was drafted into race, and is running it because he believes in the values for which he stands — truly and earnestly.  A candidate whose motivation stems from limiting — not increasing — the power vested in the federal government.

I am voting for Fred Thompson precisely because he refuses to fit a mold — because he refuses to remake himself to suite somebody’s idea of what a candidate “should be.”  I’m voting for Thompson because the Fred(!) on the campaign trail today is the same guy who’ll be in the White House next January.  He represents my views on the stump, and I know without reservation that he’ll represent those views as President — because he has the record to prove it. 

I’m voting for Thompson because he doesn’t want power — he wants instead to put it back where it belongs: with the people.

-Streu-

Harvard Publishes Meaningless Report; Media Calls It News

Posted in general, national defense, News, Stupid Media with tags , , , , on December 22, 2007 by Randy Streu

A three-person team from the Harvard School of Public Health found nothing, issued a report to the British Medical Journal, and has seen headlines on televised, radio and print news touting the uselessness of airport security measures.

The report was actually an out-of-discipline study (find the report here) which measured airport security screening as though it were disease screening, under the same standards used by the UK National Screening Committee “to assess screening technologies on the basis of sound scientific evidence and advise on whether they should be implemented, continued, or withdrawn.”

In other words, if terrorism were a disease, airports bodies and security checkpoints doctors, would the screening measures used to detect and prevent the infliction and spread of air-based terror?  An interesting study, and probably one worth pursuing. 

So, what’s the problem?  Put simply, there was no data.  Or, rather, there was no conclusive data.  The report cites security costs, versus the 38-year death toll from explosives on planes at “only 2000.”  As a health situation, says the report, the known-incidents-versus-cost analysis would suggest that too much money is being spent on prevention.  The study, written by a health studies group, and not by foreign policy or national security experts, does not consider mounting tensions and escalating threats.  Nor, at least in the article cited, does it appear to consider non-device threats, such as crashing a hijacked plane into a building.

However, lacking — or apparantly lacking — this data is not the major problem with this study.  The major problem is that the research was based mostly on reviewing literature on the airport security screening process.  They found no scientific data among the literature reviewed that studied the effectiveness of various screening processes.

The group itself also did no such study.

It was based, not upon data, but upon a lack of data, that the group made its findings and conclusions.

Now, based on the criteria the group was using for its study, in the context in which they were studying it, their conclusions seem fair enough.  If the UK National Screening Committee was faced with a similar lack of data regarding health screenings, it’s likely it would make the same conclusions.

However, as a matter of national security, for the reasons I stated above, what we really have here is a conclusion of no conclusion.  For the media to take this inconclusive study and widely publish the conclusion that there’s “No proof airport security makes flying safer” is irresponsible, unethical and, frankly, lazy journalism.  The fact is, they were handed a story, it had an angle they liked, and they ran it.

I don’t really fault the Harvard group — though I disagree with their methodology and don’t believe they could reasonably come to any conclusion based on the data at hand (which was, as I’ve mentioned, none at all).  The real blame for passing off this tripe lies squarely on the shoulders of the news media.  It also lies on those who swallowed it, rather than asking the important questions that should be asked whenever some study by some group concludes anything

In no media report was there mention of methodology.  Nowhere in these news reports do we learn about the criteria on which this group is basing their study.  We don’t find out the metrics on which they’re judging “usefulness” of the screening process.  We don’t find out how, why and from whom the group is collecting data.  We don’t find out what data they’re collecting.

To their credit, the mainstream media did, at least, cite the orginal source — the British Medical Journal.  The information I was able to, finally, find about this study was found there.  Those news sources to be found online didn’t even use the one tool at its disposal to make such research simple: the hyperlink.  I googled it instead.  A link to this peice in the BMJ would have been very simple to do.  That they chose not to do it (when, in many cases, they had no problem providing a link to Transportation Security Administration website) makes me believe they didn’t want the average person to learn more about this study.  They wanted to create a false reading of a fairly pointless study and give it credibility merely by saying, “Harvard said so.”

And the study is pretty pointless, by the way.  An inconclusive study is, to be frank, not of much use.  And if usefulness is a measure of value, as it should be, this study truly is worthless.  What’s shocking is, as I traveled the web looking into this story, I found that so many commenters really did swallow this story hook, line and sinker.  Without further inquiry.  This is why critical thinking is important, ladies and gentlemen.

By the way, just to note, this particular peice has only to do with the study and the media response to it.  I am not drawing, nor asking you to draw, any conclusions about the usefulness of airport security measures.  I, also, don’t have the data to do so — and unlike the mainstream media, am too responsible for the things I say to suggest otherwise.

He’s not a Conservative

Posted in Economy, Elections, Fred(!), general, Mike Huckabee, national defense, politics, taxes with tags , , , , , on December 20, 2007 by ambrose7

A while back I spoke about the U-tube debate, and gave Huckabee a hard time about not being a true Conservative.  Well, after that comment I took some flack from Huckabee supporters, who view him as a Jesus-like president (which seems way out there in left field), but I again wanted to point out to everyone out there who is planning on voting in this primary (As we all should) that Mike Huckabee is not a conservative.   

When it comes right down to it Huckabee isn’t a Conservative on taxes (He raised them in Arkansas) as he increased the size of his Government, and Huckabee isn’t a conservative on immigration, as he feels we need to address their “special situation” and help them in every way we can.  For those who would call Huckabee a Jesus-like compassionate conservative, let me say this: Christ loved, yes, but never told people to live in sin.  Huckabee accepts, then wants to offer a scholarship for their troubles.

On that train of thought, McCain is also not a conservative.  Sure he’s a war hero, but let’s not forget he came up with the Bill to grant amnesty for all the illegals living in this country — which would have cost something, and how would we pay for it?  Yes, in the end, bigger government and more taxes. 

Giuliani is so far to the left socially I’m sure he had to make a conscious decision to run as a liberal Republican instead of a Conservative Democrat. 

Now we do have Romney and He’s been a solid conservative for about the last 5 – 10 years; before that he was a baby-killing liberal. 

This leaves us with one candidate as the only Conservative in the pack, Fred Thompson (Yes I’m forgetting about Hunter, Tancredo, Paul and now the ever-enjoyable Alan Keys.  But lets face it these guys are Conservative and, well, insane).

Fred Thompson is sound on the social issues, he’s for strong family values, is pro-life, and now matter how much Dobson doesn’t understand it he’s against gay marriage, but just wants to send it to the states to take care of.  He’s strong on defense, wants to lower taxes, and shrink government.  He wants to send the illegal’s home, and build bigger fences to keep them there.  The people of Iowa are starting to realize that there really is only one choice, one Reagan-like candidate, one man among those running who can lead this country in the right direction.  Its time the rest of the country does as well. 

-Ambrose-