What we're really up to

Apologies to Warner Brothers.



I don't normally do this. Forgive.

My status as a US servicemember prohibits me from contributing to a Presidential candidate.

So somebody drop Fred Thompson a couple of bucks, willya? If you come through Cheyenne, I'll cook you dinner.

Hmmm, is that legal?


If this is the political position that the heart of the anti-abortion movement is willing to endorse, WUTT! is calling today a watershed moment. There is hope for Federalism if religious conservatives will embrace it, and that means more than wishful thinking for the Presidential campaign of Fred Dalton Thompson:

"On abortion, Fred is pro-life. Period. He does not, however, support a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution. His proposal is:

1. Overturn Roe vs. Wade and return the issue of abortion regulation to the states (where it was adequately handled for 200 years before Roe).

2. Allow each state to ban or place restrictions on the performance of abortion in its jurisdiction as it sees fit.

3. Begin the process of convincing the citizens of those states that would still permit abortion that the procedure is wrong and should be banned.

May I point out that, despite Bob Novak’s protestations to the contrary, the Director of the National Right to Life Committee has NO PROBLEM with Fred’s position (please see this article)."

I note that item (3) should be undertaken by true believers only, of their own initiative and resources, not with the power or voice of the Federal government, if (1) and (2) come to pass.

Lest you think Fred pandered to NRLC to get that endorsement, uhhh, I don't think so. He's arguing from a Federalist position, which is almost the inverse of pandering. He is also not hindered by any apparent 180-degree changes in direction from a prior voting record. What's to pander?

This echoes the way out of America's abortion mess that I first saw treated seriously in this book review. Didn't notice it at the time but it stands out now: fave Radley Balko wrote that review.