Deficit Heading In The Right Direction

The deficit is at its lowest level in 5 years:

President Bush is crediting his tax cuts with shrinking the federal budget deficit.

The Bush administration reported the deficit had trimmed down to about $163 billion in the recent budget year. That's the lowest amount of red ink in five years, and the president says it represents a below-average 1.2% of the gross domestic product.

After meeting with his economic team,Bush said low taxes can "grow the economy," and that by being "fiscally responsible," the budget can be brought "toward balance."

This year's figure sliced more than 34% off the previous year's deficit, which totaled nearly $250 billion.

Bottom line: Tax cuts work.

Imagine how good these numbers would look if they could get spending under control.

A Question For Al Gore

Now will you debate Global Warming?:

Al Gore has finally won his Nobel Prize, reminiscent of the proverbial little nut that stood his ground, evolving into a giant Oak. Now we can only hope that he runs for President, an office that, given recent history, surely deserves him.

Where else -- except perhaps via the Kyoto Protocol on global warming, which Gore negotiated -- can someone accomplish so little while spending so much? But, to get there, or at least to the Demo nomination, Gore's going to have to do something he has assiduously avoided: debate

Gore's standard rule on live TV has been there will be no live challenge. The last time he ran for President (2000), he succeeded de facto, with George "Carbon Bonoixde" Bush as the token global warming flyweight. This time, debates happen.

That's because Gore represents a party gone global warming ga-ga, with some of the world's goofiest environmental legislation in history awaiting a Bush veto and a Gore signature.

...

The fact is that Al has ducked, feinted, dived away from, or fluffed each and every opportunity for a reasoned debate with any global warming scientist not of his choice, a choice he no longer enjoys. Heartland Institute, a Chicago think tank, spent over a million dollars filing ads in the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times and their ilk, begging Al to debate. No dice. In a less public venue, my own Gato Institute sent kind and courteous letters asking him to share our pretty auditorium on Washington's Massachusetts Avenue, for a civil discussion with our scholars. Again, no dice.

Here's the rub: if any opposition were so easy to vanquish, Gore would relish the opportunity. Obviously there's a substantive and cogent argument he can't kill.

...

Gore only has one scientist, James Hansen of NASA, whispering the sweet nothings into his ear that sea-level could rise this much or more in the next 92 years, as Greenland's ice sheets are destabilized by climate change.

No other scientist is willing to climb out on this limb, because it is simply not supported by the observed climatic history of Greenland since the end of the last ice age. For much of six millennia, ending 3,000 years ago, it had to be warmer, and yet the ice stuck like glue. Hansen's amazing response, which you can read on his blog, documented at www.realclimate.org (not exactly a peer-reviewed scientific journal!) is that other scientists don't agree with him because they suffer from what he calls "scientific reticence." In other words, all his colleagues are chicken-bleeps because they don't agree with him.

How about the other pole? Every computer model mentioned by the United Nations shows Antarctica gaining ice this century because a slight warming will result in more precipitation which must fall as snow. Would Gore like that out in public? Or how about the fact that Antarctica just set its record maximum for sea-ice extent, as measured by satellite.

The world can only hope that Gore's Nobel propels him into another run for the Presidency. He received it for his climate lunacy. Now he can defend it and the Nobel Prize by merely debating those who must be so easy to defeat.

First of all, was there any doubt he would win? I had no doubt. I would like to see him attend a debate on global warming, but I am not holding my breathe.

If you can prove global warming exists you can win an easy $125,000, here.

Rudy Commited Several Gaffes In The Debate, Fred Did Not Commit Any

From FactCheck.org:

Thompson avoids error at his GOP debate debut. But Giuliani commits multiple gaffes.

Summary

Former Sen. Fred Thompson got the facts straight for his GOP debate debut Oct. 9. But former Mayor Rudy Giuliani added to a lengthening string of exaggerations and misstatements:

Giuliani claimed Sen. Hillary Clinton once called the free-market economy "the most destructive force in modern America." She didn't say that. She quoted another author who said free markets were "disruptive." She also said free markets bring prosperity.

The mayor falsely claimed Clinton proposes to give $1,000 to "everybody." Her proposed subsidies to workers' retirement accounts would be for couples making up to $60,000 a year and would be $500 for those making up to $100,000.

Giuliani falsely claimed that more than 2 percent of the nation's gross domestic product is spent on "frivolous" lawsuits. The figure is from a study about the cost of all lawsuits.

Analysis

The Oct. 9 debate in Dearborn, Michigan, was the first in which former Sen. Fred Thompson appeared with the full array of Republican rivals. That led Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney to quip that the long string of GOP debates had become like the NBC television program "Law & Order": "It has a huge cast, the series seems to go on forever, and Fred Thompson shows up at the end."

But Thompson made it through his first debate without making any false or misleading factual claims that we could detect, while former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani committed multiple factual gaffes, adding to a growing list of misstatements.

As I have said before, I would rather someone calmly tell me the facts behind their position than yell lies at me.

The old "fire in the belly" line on Fred has played itself out with me. I don't care if a candidate is jumping up and down screaming about how much he wants to be president. I would rather hear honest, well thought out answers to the problems we in this country face.

Rudy seems willing to stretch it a little to attack Hillary. While I have no love for Hillary you have to use factual statements against the Clintons. They know politics and can use any mistakes to make you look like an ass.

In case you have not figured it out yet, let me enlighten you. Politicians will tell you anything to get your vote. This is the main goal of all politicians.

This is what sets Fred apart from the rest. It seems to me like he is calling it like he sees it. The rest seem to be trying to get me to vote for them. Of course Fred wants the votes too. He is doing what it takes to get mine.

Win, Fred, Win

The Great One: "Conservative in Which Sense?"

From Mark Levin via NRO:

This "senior moment" and "Fred Thompson-is-lazy" stuff is really starting to irk. I remember hearing the same comments about Ronald Reagan in every campaign in which I participated — 1976 and 1980. And this tactic was especially used against him in 1984. I have spent some time with Thompson. He is intellectually curious and sharp. He is engaging and vigorous. Yes, he chooses his words carefully. He speaks in a southern accent. But the attacks on him appear to have a northeastern-liberal-style feel to them, emanating largely from the NewYork-Washington, D.C axis. This is a man, after all, who worked sixteen hours a day in both television and radio. (By the way, have any of those who promote the "lazy" argument actually analyzed his campaign activities compared to the other candidates? If so, I've not seen any such thing.)

And let me also observe that Rudy is no conservative, despite George Will's pronouncement (the same Will who once said we under-taxed and who advocated spreading democracy throughout the globe). Yes, Rudy takes some conservative positions. And he has taken more conservative positions since seeking the Republican nomination. But he has a record that goes beyond law enforcement and tax-cutting that should cause any conservative some pause. What is his governing philosophy? I am thrilled that as mayor he rid Times Square of hookers and squeegee bums. But he also brought lawsuits against gun manufacturers and to enforce a commuter tax, he was weak on illegal immigration (my opinion), and was wrong on virtually every social issue.

Do yourself a favor and read the rest at the link above.

I have nothing to add.

Guillermo Hernandez To Get Out Of Jail Oct. 15

World Net Daily:

A welcome home party is being planned in Rocksprings, Texas, for a deputy sheriff who was prosecuted and sentenced to prison for shooting at the tires of a van carrying Mexican illegal aliens who had tried to run over him.

The announcement comes from U.S. Border Watch, which has monitored the case of Guillermo Hernandez as well as several other cases involving border security.

"We ask you to join U.S. Border Watch, the Town of Rocksprings, Texas, family members and countless supportive friends [in] a spectacular Welcome Home Party for Gilmer," said the announcement. The event, about which more details will be released later, is set for Oct. 20.

The organization said Hernandez is expected to be released Oct. 15. "This fine young deputy and his family have suffered a great deal as a pawn of our government," said the announcement. "We need to show America we believe in him and what he stands for."

As WND reported, U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton, whom President Bush identified as a good friend, prosecuted Hernandez for injuring two Mexican illegal aliens in a van. Hernandez fired at the van's tires as the illegals escaped from a routine traffic stop, attempting to run over the officer as they drove away.

Hernandez was sentenced to one year plus one day in prison after Sutton's office had recommended seven years. Hernandez decided not to appeal his case, choosing to serve the short sentence rather than risk another trial and possibly a longer sentence. He reported for his term earlier this year, and it was subject to routine allowances for good behavior and other factors.

U.S. Border Watch raised funds to provide for the deputy's family while he was serving the penalty demanded by the Mexican government.

As WND reported Sutton decided to prosecute Hernandez only after the Mexican consulate wrote letters demanding it. An investigation by the Texas Rangers concluded Hernandez did nothing wrong in discharging his weapon at the fleeing van.

Sutton was the same one that prosecuted U.S. Border Patrol agents Ramos and Compean for firing their weapons in pursuit of a fleeing Mexican illegal alien drug smuggler.

It is great he is getting out. I wish him the best of luck in the future, and I am saddened by the way this country treated him for doing his job.

Rasmussen: "51% Of Republicans See Thompson As Conservative"

From Rasmussen:

During Fred Thompson’s first month as a formal candidate for the Republican Presidential Nomination, Republican voters continue to see him as the most conservative candidate in the field. Fifty-one percent (51%) of Republican voters now see the former Tennessee Senator as politically conservative. That’s up from 48% a month ago.

Perceptions of Mitt Romney have moved in the opposite direction. Thirty-six percent (36%) now see him as politically conservative. That’s down from 42% a month ago and little changed from two months ago.

Just 30% of Republican voters see John McCain as politically conservative, down from 33% a month ago. Twenty-six percent (26%) hold that view of Giuliani, little changed over the past month.

Looked at from the other perspective, 68% see Giuliani as moderate or liberal while 56% of Republicans say the same of McCain. Romney is viewed as moderate or liberal by 42% of GOP voters and 35% say the same about Thompson.

A question to all the people attacking Fred for not being conservative enough:

Who are you going to vote for?

Rudy? He is a real conservative, right?
Mitt? He is better than Rudy, I think.
John? Immigration!

Win, Fred, Win

Is This What The Democrats Want For Our Expectant Mothers?

Government ran Healthcare at its best:

Mothers in British Columbia are having a baby boom, but it's the United States that has to deliver, and that has some proud Canadians blasting their highly touted government healthcare system.

"I'm a born-bred Canadian, as well as my daughter and son, and I'm ashamed," Jill Irvine told FOX News. Irvine's daughter, Carri Ash, is one of at least 40 mothers or their babies who've been airlifted from British Columbia to the U.S. this year because Canadian hospitals didn't have room for the preemies in their neonatal
units.

"It's a big number and bigger than the previous capacity of the system to deal with it," said Adrian Dix, a British Columbia legislator, told FOXNews.com. "So when that happens, you can't have a waiting list for a mother having the baby. She just has the baby."

The mothers have been flown to hospitals in Seattle, Everett, Wash., and Spokane, Wash., to receive treatment, as well as hospitals in the neighboring province of Alberta, Dix said. Three mothers were airlifted in the first weekend of October alone, including Carri Ash.

"I just want to go home and see my kids," she said from her Seattle hospital bed. "I think it's stupid I have to be here."

Canada's socialized health care system, hailed as a model by Michael Moore in his documentary, "Sicko," is hurting, government officials admit, citing not enough money for more equipment and staff to handle high risk births.

Sarah Plank, a spokeswoman for the British Columbia Ministry of Health, said a spike in high risk and premature births coupled with the lack of trained nurses prompted the surge in mothers heading across the border for better care.

"The number of transfers in previous years has been quite low," Plank told FOXNews.com. "Before this recent spike we went for more than a year with no transfers to the U.S., so this is something that is happening in other provinces as well."

Critics say these border crossings highlight the dangers of a government-run health care system.

"The Canadian healthcare system has used the United States as a safety net for years," said Michael Turner of the Cato Institute. "In fact, overall about one out of every seven Canadian physicians sends someone to the United States every year for treatment."

Neonatal intensive care units in Alberta and Ontario have also been stretched to capacity, she said.

The cost of these airlifts and treatments, paid to U.S. hospitals by the province under Canada's universal health care system, runs upwards of $1,000 a child.

Is this what Hillary wants for our country?

How Fred Did In The Debate

I think he did a fine job. He did seem a little nervous at first, but he gave a solid performance last night. I would say it was a tie between him and Rudy. Rudy does shine at these types of events. This debate was on economic issues. Most of the candidates argued the need to cut spending and taxes.

Like I said yesterday, Fred did not leave the nay-sayers in awe. He stuttered a couple of times. But he was funny and straightforward with his answers. That is enough for me.

Fred is on the right path. He can take the nomination. I think he would be the best candidate to represent the Republican party in 08.

Erick at Red State has this posted:

I agree with the consensus that Rudy won the debate last night. In fact, I agree with Alexham, Leon, and others that as long as Ron Paul is in the race, Rudy comes out looking the hero. Every time the nutter from Texas denies the realities of September 11th, he sets Rudy up to take him on and win with sane America.

And yet this image remains an indelible part of last night's debate and sets up an advantage that Fred has among the front runners -- as Rudy and Romney quabbled like children over the line item veto, there was "Dad" looking down at them, the statesman between two kids.

Fred is the elephant in the room. Beyond just the solidly Republican voting record on issues like life and taxes that go beyond what the other two (or three if you count McCain) top tier candidates have, here we have an older guy standing between two younger men bickering with each other over a mundane issue like the previously unconstitutional Line Item Veto Act of 1996. Chief Justice Rehnquist, Thomas, Kennedy, Souter, and Stevens found the legislation unconstitutional. And, as Rudy correctly pointed out, he beat Bill Clinton in the Supreme Court.

It made for a very interesting dynamic to see Thompson, who would not get into the weeds and throw a lot of punches at the other guys like the second tier guys tried to do, tower over everyone else and then pull a few unexpected zingers out, calling Chris Matthews "Christopher" and turning Romney's scripted one liner around on him, calling Romney the best actor on stage.

Time will tell if Thompson can really fire himself up for this. He was not great on the first question. But as it stands, the man who the other candidates have been treating as an elephant in the room — dancing around him as best they could without too many acknowledgments of his existence until recently — proved not only is he a very good elephant on taxes, social security, national security, and business issues, but also was willing to do what few candidates are willing to do, give a real "yes" and a real "no."

That last sentence is important. That is what I have been looking for in a candidate.

To Vote Or Not To Vote

On Mark Levin's show yesterday he encourage disgruntled Democrats not to vote. Of course, he encouraged Republicans to vote.

I think you should not vote for a candidate because he is a Democrat or Republican. If you are not willing to examine the candidates and pick the best one for you, you should stay as far away from the voting booth as you can.

I could not tell you how many people I have met that vote for someone whose position on the issues are completely opposite of there own, just because they are voting for a specific party.

Don't allow yourself to fall into this category.

My Take On The Republican Debate

The time has finally come for a debate which includes all Republican candidates.

How will Fred react? Which candidates will go at it? Who will win the debate?

These questions and many more will be answered tonight. It has been a long time coming.

Rudy Giuliani:

I like Rudy. He is an energetic person. I believe he would do alright with the war but that is where it ends. His position on social issues is a major rub for me. He says he will appoint conservative judges, but I have my doubts about that fact. And that is almost as important to me as the war is. With many of the Supreme Court judges quickly approaching retirement. It is likely the next president will appoint several judges. The war is important, but we cannot allow this country to continue on the path we are on, as it relates to social issues. I don't trust him with my guns either. And that is number one with me.

Mitt Romney:

I don't know what it is really, but I do not care for Mitt at all. He reminds me of a used car salesman. I think he would do a pretty good job all in all. I do not believe he has truly changed his position on all the issues he has flip- flopped on. That is his major drawback for me.

John McCain:

I like John as a man. You have to respect the sacrifices he has made for this country. He has been a decent Senator. But he has been involved with several bills that have appalled me. His recent dealings with the immigration issue, as well as McCain - Fiengold has taken away any chance he will get the nomination.

Duncan Hunter:

This is the candidate that ideally win the presidency, but he has failed to gain ground on the top tier candidates. I agree with his positions on nearly all issues. He has done a superb job in his time in Congress.
Too bad he can not compete with the top four.

Mike Huckabee:

He is a good man with no chance of winning the nomination.

Fred Thompson:

If you have read this blog much at all, you know this is who I am backing. So this might be a little biased. I think Fred will do alright tonight. He probably will not live up to the bar they have set for him tonight. On his own admission he is "a little rusty". It seems to me that he is being expected to do three times as much as the other candidates are doing. I guess this is because he got in so late. In all reality he got in about the time these things usually start up. All the others got in too early. He will do fine. I believe he can and will take the nomination. A lot of people got upset with him because he "waited" to get in. I hope they do not allow those feelings to keep them from objectively looking at his positions on the issues.

The rest have no chance at all of winning. They are good men, but will fall by the wayside soon.

Ron Paul is an asshat.

TexasFred's Non-Scientific Polling Place

Texas Fred has a new polling site:

I have started a NEW site, TexasFred's Non-Scientific Polling Place where I will be posing some serious questions, all responses are anonymous, even as blog owner I can't see who votes for what...

He will be adding poll questions daily.
Go over and check it out.

Fred's National Campaign Leadership Team

Former Sen. George Allen (Va.); former Sen. Howard Baker; former Sen. Spencer Abraham; and Liz Cheney:

Among the four chairs -- former Sen. George Allen (Va.).

The one-time presidential hopeful has had warm things to say about Thompson since the Tennessean first considered a bid this summer, and recently had his former colleague on while guest-hosting a radio show in Richmond.

...

Thompson's other national chairs are already-announced supporters: former Sen. Howard Baker, former Sen. Spencer Abraham and Liz Cheney.

Seems like a pretty good team.

Win, Fred, Win

Sandy Berger Advising Hillary

Sandy Berger is now an adviser to presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton:

Sandy Berger, who stole highly classified terrorism documents from the National Archives, destroyed them and lied to investigators, is now an adviser to presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton. Berger, who was fired from John Kerry’s presidential campaign when the scandal broke in 2004, has assumed a similar role in Clinton’s campaign, even though his security clearance has been suspended until September 2008. This is raising eyebrows even among Clinton’s admirers. “It shows poor judgment and a lack of regard for Berger’s serious misdeeds,” said law professor Jonathan Adler of Case Western Reserve University, who nonetheless called Clinton “by far the most impressive candidate in the Democratic field.”

Adler told The Examiner that it is “simply incomprehensible to me that a serious contender for the presidency would rely upon him as a key foreign policy advisor.”

He added: “If Senator Clinton becomes the Democratic nominee, at some point she will begin to receive national security briefings that will include sensitive information. At such a point, continuing to keep Berger on board as a key advisor, where he might have access to sensitive material, would be beyond incomprehensible.”

The Clinton campaign declined to comment.

Berger has admitted stealing documents from the National Archives in advance of the 9/11 Commission hearings in 2003. The documents, written by White House counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke, were a “tough review” of the Clinton administration’s shortcomings in dealing with terrorism, Clarke’s lawyer told the Washington Post.

You can go to the link to read the rest of what Berger did.

Hillary loves to be surrounded by crooks. What does that say about her?

Oh, by the way, sorry about putting two Hillary posts back to back. I know you are probably nauseous but I could not resist either story.

Hillary Gets Another Endorsement

From World Net Daily:

WASHINGTON – With presidential primaries approaching and the race for the White House heating up, Muslim terrorist leaders in the Middle East have offered their endorsement for America's highest office, stating in a new book they hope Sen. Hillary Clinton is victorious in 2008.

"I hope Hillary is elected in order to have the occasion to carry out all the promises she is giving regarding Iraq," stated Ala Senakreh, West Bank chief of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terrorist group.

Senakreh is one of dozens of terror leaders sounding off about American politics in the new book, "Schmoozing with Terrorists: From Hollywood to the Holy Land, Jihadists Reveal their Global Plans – to a Jew!" by WND Jerusalem bureau chief Aaron Klein.

Abu Hamed, leader of the Al Aqsa Brigades in the northern Gaza Strip, explained in "Schmoozing" Clinton's repeated calls for a withdrawal from Iraq "proves that important leaders are understanding the situation differently and are understanding the price and the consequences of the American policy in Iraq and in the world."

"The Iraqi resistance is succeeding," stated Hamed. "Hillary and the Democrats call for withdrawal. Her popularity shows that the resistance is winning and that the occupation is losing. We just hope that she will go until the end and change the American policy, which is based on oppressing poor and innocent people."

The Brigades, together with the Islamic Jihad terrorist group, took responsibility for every suicide bombing in Israel the past three years. The Brigades also has carried out hundreds of recent shootings and rocket attacks.

Abu Ayman, an Islamic Jihad leader in Jenin, said he is "emboldened" by Clinton's calls for an eventual withdrawal from Iraq.

"It is clear that it is the resistance operations of the mujahideen that has brought about these calls for withdrawal," boasted Abu Ayman.

Nasser Abu Aziz, the West Bank deputy commander of the Al Aqsa Brigades, declared it is "very good" there are "voices like Hillary and others who are now attacking the Iraq invasion."

In "Schmoozing," every terrorist leader out of dozens interviewed stated they hope a Democrat becomes president in 2008. Some terror leaders explained their endorsement of Clinton is not necessarily at the expense of other Democratic presidential candidates, whose policies are not as well known to them.

"All Americans must vote Democrat," stated Jihad Jaara, an exiled member of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terror group and the infamous leader of the 2002 siege of Bethlehem's Church of the Nativity.

More at the link.

So, terrorists support Democrats. What a surprise.

What does surprise me is they actually have a great chance at winning the election.

October 9th MSNBC Debate Should Be Interesting

With Chris Mathews running the thing you can bet there will be a few fireworks. Of course there will also be a lot of stupid questions being asked to.

It will also be the first debate for Fred. Of course we are going to hear how he isn't exciting. I think he will do good. He just don't do things like the rest of them. Of course a lot of people, myself included, have been complaining about the way things are done now. So Fred not following their lead may be a good thing.

Here is some good advise to all the Republican candidates:

Unless the Republican candidates prepare for what’s coming, the winner of their debate tomorrow will be Hillary Clinton. To prevent that result, the candidates have to do what Republicans’ campaign consultants have always prevented: they need to take on the media itself.

This debate -- important most to Fred Thompson who is making his first appearance -- will soon be forgotten in the tsunami of campaign interviews, speeches and rubber chicken dinners these gents are trying to surf. Unless.

There are two “unlesses” waiting tomorrow: unless the candidates allow moderator Chris Matthews to manhandle them, and unless they seize the opportunity to score with Republican voters on an issue that is lurking behind every debate, every television report and newspaper story.

The most important part of the answer -- and not just for tomorrow -- is for the candidates to take on the reporters as much as they take on each other. It’d be great fun, and it would satisfy a great Republican hunger to see some of the media mentionables poked and prodded on their own biases and foibles.

Shocking as it may seem, the New York Times got it wrong in its effusive coverage of the Clinton campaign. In a political blog last Friday, Patrick Healy wrote, “No one is a louder, zestier cheerleader for Hillary Rodham Clinton’s presidential prospects than her campaign chairman, Terry McAuliffe…” The host of tomorrow night’s debate, MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, at least equals and sometimes surpasses McAuliffe.

Matthews is an over-the-top liberal, a brazen cheerleader for Clinton. He can also be a bully. Remember the incident about two years ago when he reduced Michelle Malkin nearly to tears? And how Zell Miller gained instant hero status for asking Matthews if he wanted to take that discussion outside?

To beat Chris Matthews the candidates don’t need to punch him in the nose. But they need to do two things. First, they need to follow Jon Stewart’s example.

In what left Matthews squealing that it was his worst interview ever, The Daily Show’s hyperactive (but not hyperliberal) Jon Stewart’s interview of Matthews on his new book not-so-gently poked fun at Matthews’ outlook on life. If -- with humor -- any of the candidates can take a few shots at Matthews and the premise of his questions, they can come out as the winner.

Read the rest at the link above. The rest is worth the look.