Former presidential candidate Fred Thompson was elected to the Footnote to History Hall of Fame Tuesday. Thompson received 98.5% of the 545 ballots cast, just missing the record percentage of 98.84% posted by Eugene McCarthy in 1992. Thompson joins such historical luminaries as Harold Stassen, Ross Perot, Adlai Stevenson, Walter Mondale, Thomas Dewey, Wendell Willkie, Horatio Seymour, Charles Pickney, and Rufus King. Thompson called a Tuesday afternoon press conference to discuss his induction, but, unfortunately, no reporters showed up.

K-Lo has up a thank you to the Fred Thompson, a must read for Fred Thompson supporters. It was nice to have the possibility of electing a politicians who actually gets it.

Mexico won’t extradite criminals to us if they may face the death penalty, so why don’t we just kill innocent Mexicans until they give us our murderer? “It’s up to you, Mexico: You want innocent people or murderers to die?”
There’s one flaw with that plan, though…

Continue reading ‘The Death Penalty and Mexico’ »

It’s official. Got this in my e-mail:

Statement from Sen. Fred Thompson
McLean, VA – Senator Fred Thompson today issued the following statement about his campaign for President:
“Today I have withdrawn my candidacy for President of the United States.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.”

I guess his campaign was but pearls before swine.
Good news, though…
I’m still around! Yay!
UPDATE:
Jim Geraghty uses my own rhetoric in pointing out what he saw as the flaw with the Fred Thompson campaign. If only some candidate would punch the hippies.
UPDATE 2:
I think I’m going to let this sink in for today and then tomorrow I’ll come up with…
…wait for it…
…A PLAN!
UPDATE 3:
I heard Romney react on FOX News. It was extremely choppy, but he said Fred Thompson would make a good VP. Having Fred Thompson in reserves would pretty much make sure all of America’s enemies would be very interested in the U.S. President’s health.

Man has always looked to the stars and wondered, “Can you set a ninja on fire?” It seems an impossibility since a ninja is too quick to be exposed to open flame.
But I have a plan.
The obvious way to set a ninja on fire would be to hit him with a Molotov cocktail, but as soon as you lit the rag on it the ninja would be alerted and disappear into the shadows. I intend to devise some sort of Molotov cocktail-like device that uses a chemical reaction to catch fire on impact. Them I will sneak up behind a ninja and throw it at him. You may think I can’t sneak up on a ninja, but you underestimate me.
People will know I’m a leader because I set a ninja on fire.
Frank J. ‘XX for Some Office
“He set a ninja on fire.”

If I’m going to be a serious candidate for something, I need principled issues to run on and inspire the nation. So what is our great nation missing? There’s not enough violence, I say.
Look at Europe: A bunch of sissies. If that’s civility, who wants that. But look at the Middle East: A bunch of violent idiots. They got barely anything else to do than kill each other. Can’t we find some happy compromise between the two extremes? My idea is that it should be socially acceptable to punch people in the face.
Why is this important? For one, we have freedom of speech. When America first recognized the right of freedom of speech, there were duels. So, yeah, you could say what you want, but someone might bust a cap in your ass for it (but in a civil manner). We don’t have that now. And what do we have? We have hippies running around denouncing military in a time of war, the biggest losers in the world feeling empowered to troll the internet, and people generally saying things about America that aren’t very smurfy. Freedom of speech must be tempered by a right to punch jackasses in the face.
If someone denigrates the military to you, isn’t that basically consent to be punched in the face? And wouldn’t the internet be more tolerable if trolls were regularly hunted down and beaten? Freedom of speech is too important to not hurt those who abuse it.
That’s just common sense.
Frank J. ‘XX for Some Office
“Not afraid of a punch to the face.”

I love polls, and I would like your assistance in formulating one. I was listening to clips of the Demoncratic debate on Morning in America this morning, and was amused at Clinton inserting her Size 8s into Obama’s backside over and over again. The poll questions will be “Which Hillary Do You Prefer?”. What I need help with is the various faces she has taken on in the last 20 years. There have been so many, that I have a hard time keeping track. A few come to mind: The Ball Busting Hillary (e.g. at the debate), The Weepy Patriot Hillary (e.g. New Hampshire crocodile tears over how much she loves her country), The Contemptuous Hillary (e.g. her treatment of Arkansas troopers and Secret Service), The “I’m Just a Girl” Hillary (e.g. the New York senatorial debate where the opponent got “too close” to her): The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy Victim Hillary (re: Monica Lewinsky), and The Stand By Your Man Hillary (re: Jennifer Flowers). Do you have additional suggestions?

I was in Dallas over the weekend on business, and took my daughter along with because we have friends down there (Maggie Katzen and Gradual Dazzle) and I like to travel with her. Anyway, we fly out of Minneapolis – St. Paul International Airport, and you can imagine my surprise when we were flagged by the airline (which shall go unnamed) for special security screening. I don’t know if I was too nice to the lady who took our luggage (i.e. I appeared suspiciously nice, or she thought I would not make a fuss over the extra hassle) or whether it was a truly random screening. Anyway, we get over to the security checkpoint, and they take us aside, and give our carry on an extra look over and swab it for bomb materials. They pat me down, which I don’t have a problem with — as far as I’m concerned, they should pat down every male between the ages of 15 and 50 if they want. The absurd part was that they patted down my 5 year old daughter. RTO over at the Signaleer, who would know far better than I the logic of what they were doing due to his service in Afghanistan, explained to me that for checks to be effective, they truly need to be random. I realize it has become almost passe to complain about airport security, but does anyone think that what they are doing is making any of us safer in a meaningful way? It was my understanding that 9/11 happened because the hijackers were able to gain access to the flight cabin — a problem that has been done away with. It seems like everything since has been overkill. Sure, I can appreciate it is probably not a good idea to allow knives, lighters, and box cutters aboard, but do we really need to ban fingernail clippers and hair gel? And now, there are these extra restrictions regarding batteries, which I don’t really understand. Given the fact that airport employee security is porous at best–is anyone confident that insiders can’t get stuff on board a plane that should not be there–are these extra hassles really doing us any good? Anyway, I thought I would throw the topic to the comments, since it interests me. Out of respect, I will not identify the airline that flagged my 5 year old daughter as a terror suspect. Maybe they heard that she had was double gold stripe Karate expert?