When Seconds Count...

...the police are only minutes away. In this case, a little over five minutes.

Watch the video.

Hat tip, SayUncle.

Fred Kicked Ass.

It would appear that his South Carolina strategy has a chance.

According to pretty much everyone (but the Ronulans who stuffed the FoxNews electronic ballot box last night) Fred Thompson won last night's debate. Examples:

I think it's clear that Thompson ran away with the debate. His answers, after the first one, were decisive, appropriately aggressive, and clearly conservative.

I'm really not sure who came in second. I'll just say everyone but Ron Paul came in second. Fred Thompson was the Only Important Man on the Stage tonight. - The Sundries Shack

--

Fred ... win, place and show. - Mark Levin

--

Tonight, Fred Reminded Me of Roy Hobbs.

Winner: Thompson. This performance was so commanding, I wanted his last answer to echo back to the lights in the back of the auditorium, blow out all the lamps and spotlights, for the theme to “the Natural” to play, and for him to trot around the stage in slow motion while sparks showered down in the background. - Jim Geraghty

--

Fred Thompson is not only winning this debate, he is giving the most commanding debate performance we've seen from any candidate in either party since the beginning of this endless primary process. - John Podhoretz

Fred was trying to raise $540k by today for advertisements in South Carolina. He blew through that number this morning. The campaign changed the call to see if they could make $750k by midnight. As I write this, they show they've collected $754k, and there's still time left.

It's been a slow start. As Katherine Jean Lopez put it:

Okay, where has this Fred Thompson been for the last year? This is the man who published commentaries with us last year. This is the man who people wanted to draft. This is the conservative guy conservatives are attracted to.

Small "L" libertarians, too. But now we will see if he can build some momentum. South Carolina is not a "winner take all" primary state, so I'd say at a guess that Fred really needs to take second place if he is to retain a chance going into Super Tuesday. He's going to have to do something to get the media to point cameras at him. Standing on that stage and describing Huckabee accurately was one thing. The very analytical Bob Krumm thinks Fred is playing a chess game, deliberately attacking the pieces necessary to clear a path. He makes a pretty convincing argument.

But without eyeballs on him, he's just not going to have name recognition going in to the polls.

I really hope that he's as much of a chess master as this game requires.

Opinion as News.

Remember my piece on the VPC's report on "declining gun ownership"? Well, Reuters published a "news" story on that topic a short while ago. I meant to dissect it, but that's not necessary now - others in the blogosphere have pulverized it.

Yesterday, Say Uncle noted that the story appeared to be just another VPC press release reprint, and proceeded to demonstrate that fact. Today, he notes, as I did in my piece, that the source material for both the Reuters article and the VPC paper comes from the National Opinion Research Center of the University of Chicago. What I didn't know at that time (but suspected), however, is that the NORC is funded by the Joyce Foundation - a group that only gives money to people who help advocate for more gun control. That bit of information was part of a truly outstanding post at Free Constitution that I urge you to read. Take a careful look at the difference between opinion polling, and push polling.

Now, if we could only reach as many eyeballs as Reuters manages to...

UPDATE: Via SayUncle, Reuters pulled the piece from its original location and reposted it with this caveat:

Bernd Debusmann is a Reuters columnist. The opinions expressed are his own.

Hey! Even they recognized it as an opinion piece! Perhaps we're reaching the media after all.

The Courts As Sledgehammer.

Someone with a lot more money than you have can use the court system to beat you down and destroy you. Chris and Mel Byrne are experiencing that right now. Go read about their plight. I know these people, and they don't deserve this.

Blogburst for Fred

I'm a Fred supporter. Fairly obvious from the picture and link on the sidebar, but let me put it in a little more perspective.

I'm not really happy with Fred's support for McCain-Feingold, though he has since said that at least parts of it were a mistake. I'm not really happy with his social conservatism, since I'm more of a libertarian.

But of all the candidates running, his views most closely match mine, and on the things we disagree about, I don't think it would be difficult to block any legislative moves in those directions he might want to take.

Above all, when the job of selecting Supreme Court nominees rolls around, he's about the only candidate I trust - trust - not to give us another Souter. I don't trust any of the other ones to do anything but make bigger, more intrusive government.

No matter who gets the (R) nomination, I will hold my nose and pull the lever for him, because I know if one of the Democrat frontrunners wins the White House, the Supreme Court will be more screwed that it was after FDR got through with it, and the lower Federal courts will be as bad if not worse.

The Courts may not save us, but they can certainly sink us.

Fred has a pretty large following in the blogosphere. Here's some of what others are saying about him:

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."

Ironically, Thompson's political spine has been most evident in some of the very same episodes that his detractors will try to spin as grounds for conservative alarm. As a senator, Thompson cast lonely, politically unpopular votes grounded on a genuine understanding of and reverence for federalism, for example, that his political opponents have characterized as being "anti-tort reform." I could write for pages about all that, but let me boil it down to a sentence: Fred Thompson has far more in common with John Roberts (for whose SCOTUS confirmation he served as sherpa) than with John Edwards, and if you can't tell the difference, you ought not be voting in the GOP primaries anyway. - Beldar

--

If he is not already your top choice, Fred is probably in your top three. So even if not ideal, he is acceptable to almost every Republican. Beginning the general election season with an already consolidated Republican Party is a huge advantage when going against a Democratic nominee whose base will be nearly 100% united behind their candidate after eight years in the political wilderness. Each of the other candidates is strong in one or two of the three legs of the traditional Republican stool, but only Thompson has support from all three areas. No matter who the Republican nominee is, he will have enough trouble appealing to independents in the face of a hostile media onslaught. He doesn’t need the added distraction of also worrying about his base. Thompson also has the ability to connect directly with voters like he did with his YouTube response to Michael Moore and his “I’m not gonna play by your silly rules” retort to the Iowa newspaper editor. He has good instincts, and that will serve him well during the general election. - Bob Krumm

--

My emphasis in this and other writings when it comes to political discussions has been on policy. I want a candidate who espouses small government, federalism, free markets, free trade, a brave and unabashed message of capitalism and consequential, weighty and creative solutions to the many foreign policy and national security dilemmas facing the United States.

That's why I am supporting Fred Thompson for President.

Start with the issue of policy substance. Thompson has loads of it, as this editorial makes clear. Thompson has made detailed and specific proposals concerning the issue of entitlement reform, oftentimes in the face of overwhelming and widespread political fears that to mention the need for entitlement reforms is to kiss one's chances at electability goodbye. There is something refreshing about a candidate for President willing to risk his electoral chances to speak some hard policy choices and Thompson is to be commended for his bravery. As the editorial makes clear, Thompson has also presented innovative and intellectually rigorous ideas concerning immigration and the size of the nation's military. The Adam Smith Institute comes out with justified praise for Thompson's tax plan and notes that Thompson has a very interesting and original idea on how the United States could be transitioned to a flat tax system. Anything would be better than the current "progressive" scheme and Thompson is one of the few Republican candidates who has come out with a workable alternative tax system for the United States to adopt. - Pejman Yousefzadeh
A candidate for President should present to the voters a reasonably attractive personality, experience and evidence of sound judgment, a clear-eyed understanding of the challenges and opportunities our Nation faces, and an array of plausible, sound policy proposals. (Fundraising prowess and skeleton-free closets are nice, too.) He or she should also — and this is crucial — understand and appreciate the close, rich connection between the enjoyment of human liberty and the structural features of the limited government for which our Constitution is a blueprint.

An eminent scholar of constitutional law, echoing James Madison and many other luminaries, has observed that "[t]he genius of the American Constitution lies in its use of structural devices to preserve individual liberty." I agree. And, in my view, the candidate who seems most inclined, and best prepared, to honor this "genius" is Sen. Fred Thompson.... Sen. Thompson understands — as did the Framers — that (in his words) "[g]overnment must be strong enough to protect us, competent enough to provide basic government services, but limited by the delineated powers in the Constitution." To achieve and maintain such a government — in a way that protects and respects human freedom — is, of course, no small challenge. Our constitutional response to this challenge reflects the considered belief that, as the Supreme Court has put it, "liberty of the person inheres in [constitutional] structure." Put differently, and as Chief Justice Rehnquist observed, this "constitutionally mandated division of authority was adopted by the Framers to ensure protection of our fundamental liberties."

These are not airy abstractions, far removed from real-world, "kitchen table" concerns. Our President must understand — and I believe Sen. Thompson does — the Constitution's end (human freedom) and means (federalism, separation of powers, and limited government). This matters more, all things considered, than the extent to which his canned debate answers please dial-turning focus-group members. "Our Constitution," he recognizes, "innovatively guarantees our liberties by spreading power among the three branches of the federal government, and between the federal government and the states." - Notre Dame Associate Professor of Law Richard Garnett

--

Sen. Fred Thompson may be a professional actor, but it’s hard to find a more authentic conservative candidate in this campaign. He has been a consistent champion of fiscal discipline, national security, and government reform, among other issues important to the Right. As National Review recently editorialized, “Thompson has set a standard for specificity, conservatism, and soundness” yet to be matched by any other candidate. More than anyone else, he advocates a conservatism of the head that should appeal to conservative hearts. If the Republican nomination should go to the most principled and consistent conservative in the race, there should be little question that Fred Thompson is the man to nominate.

Some worry Thompson doesn’t want the presidency badly enough. In an era when politicians plan their political moves years, if not decades, in advance, Thompson is almost an accidental candidate: someone willing to run if the people want him on his terms. This may be his greatest liability — but it should also be an asset in wooing conservatives to his cause.

Thompson, after all, is not running a campaign of simple slogans or pandering platitudes. He is willing to take positions that risk offending potential constituencies. Witness his attack on the gluttonous farm bill and opposition to some business-favored federal tort reforms. He may have been unprepared to answer a media question about the “Jena 6,” but he can discuss the crisis in Pakistan, the threat of nuclear proliferation, regulatory bloat, or the future of entitlements with a level of nuance and detail that comes only from genuine intellectual engagement. If Republicans are looking for an “anti-Hillary” — a reluctant candidate with a commitment to limited government who will bring honor and integrity to the White House — it would be hard to do better than Fred. - Jonathan Adler

--

He's pro life, liberty, gun, constitution, originalist judges, federalism, small government, low taxes, economic freedom, secure borders, strong defense, national security, national sovereignty, etc.

He's the most reliable conservative in the field and comes without the social liberalism, abortionism, nanny statism, open borders, gun grabbing, big government, big spending, big tax leanings and unstable knife in the back RINO baggage of Giuliani, Romney, Huckabee and McCain.

He doesn't cater to the global warming, socialized health care, or open borders/amnesty crowds. Just say no to all this liberal garbage.

With Fred, we know we're getting a solid, no-nonsense, commonsense pro life and liberty conservative who will defend the nation, secure the borders, defend the constitution, appoint originalist judges, defend the Bush tax cuts, work to simplify and flatten the tax code, keep social security solvent while providing alternative private accounts, reduce government and spending, and work to return states issues to the states. Imagine that.

In fact, he comes closest to being the conservative leader I've been praying for all these years. I don't know about you, but I think it would be great to be able to enthusiastically support and work for a true conservative candidate whose principles and convictions match so many of my own. - Free Republic's Jim Robinson

--

It’s true I once called him “Punxsutawney Fred,” but his anti-candidacy has grown on me, and his backing of Federalist principles is a welcome break from eight years of big-government "compassionate conservatism." Thompson might not be ideal, but he's certainly better than we usually get, or even expect. - Stephen Green

Those are pretty typical.

Here are some of the man's own words that I especially liked. When asked what he would do for Iowa's farmers by a local reporter (obviously a leading question regarding the annual Farm Bill) he responded:

I would continue to enjoy the fruits of their labor. I’ve been looking all over Iowa for a bad steak and I can’t find it. Been trying my best. It’s not a matter of what I would do for the farmers. Farmers are not looking for a president to hand them something. Farmers want fair treatment and a chance to prosper in a free economy and that’s what I would help ensure. There’s a lot of programs we’ve got out there, some of which are good programs, some of which are not. And I think that we need to work our way through that and make sure we’re doing what’s good for the country, not just the farmers, not just the people of Iowa, not just the people of Tennessee. But good for the country. A sound policy that makes sense. I think there’s a lot more that we could do for the working farmer in terms of ecological programs and environmental programs - land conservation, soil conservation - that would be fair and it would be beneficial to the nation and to Iowa and to our country. We’re going to have to phase out the corporate welfare system we’ve got, however. There are extremely rich people living in skyscrapers in Manhattan that are receiving subsidy payments. I think that’s wrong. I’d put a stop to that if it was within my power. That still continues in this latest Farm Bill and it’s not right. There ought to be a cutoff at some level and it’s not right ot have millionaires receiving farm subsidies.

Didn't hear that on the Nightly News, did you?

When asked in Iowa whether he would stay in the race, he responded:

That is a very good question... Not because it's difficult to answer, but because I'm gonna answer a little bit of a different way than what you might expect. In the first is wanting the opporunity. I wouldn't be here if I didn't. I wouldn't be doing this if I didn't. I grew up in very modest circumstances. And I left government and I and my family have made sacrifices for me to be sitting here today. I haven't had any income for a long time because I'm doing this. I figure if you're gonna be clean, you have to cut the [unintelligible] off. And I was doing speaking engagements, and I had a contract to do a TV show, I had a contract with ABC radio like I was talking about earlier and so forth... I guess one would have to be a total fool to do all of those things and to be leaving his family, which is not a joyful thing at all... if you didn't want to do it.

But I am not consumed by personal ambition. I will not be devastated if I don't do it. I want the people to have the best president they can have. (applause) When his talk first started it didn't originate with me. There are a lot of people around the country and both directly and through polls... liked the idea of me stepping up. And of course, you always look better at a distance, I guess. (laughter) But most of those people are still there and think it's a good idea.

I approach it from the standpoint of a deal... Of kind of a marriage. You know, if one side of the marriage has to be really talked into the marriage, you know, it's probably not going to be a very good deal for either one of them. But if you mutually think that this is a good thing — in this case, if you think this is a good thing for the country, the you have the opportunity to do some wonderful things together. I'm offering myself up. I'm saying that if I have the background, the capability and the concern to do this and I'm doing this for the right reasons... but I'm not particularly interested in running for president, but I think I'd make a good president.... If what people really want in their president is a super type A personality, someone who has gotten up every morning and gone to bed every night and been thinking about, for years how they can be president of the United States... someone who can look you straight in the eye and say they've enjoyed every minute of campaigning... (laughter) I ain't that guy. (more laughter) [To questioner] So I hope I've discussed that, or I haven't talked you out of anything. I honestly want... I can't imagine a worse set of circumstances than achieving the presidency under a false pretenses, especially if you feel the way I do. I've gone out of my way to be myself, because I don't want anybody to think they're getting something they're not getting. I'm not consumed by this process, I'm not consumed with the notion of being president. I'm simply saying I'm willing to do what's necessary to achieve it if I'm in sync with the people. And if the people want me, or somebody like me, I will do what I've always done with everything else in my life. I will take it on and do a good job. You'll have the disadvantage of having someone who probably cna't jump up and click their heels three times, but will tell you the truth. And you'll know where the president stands at all times.

Fred is running hard for a good showing in South Carolina heading into Super Tuesday. He's trying to collect $540k by tomorrow to run ads in the state, and it looks like he's going to make it.

Throw the man some money, would you? It would be a nice change of pace to have a President who is not consumed with the notion of being President, and who has policy positions and core values that align pretty much with mine.

Fool Me Once...

More linkery. No commentary this time. Flopping Aces has the full scoop on the latest from the "loyal opposition."

Nobody would distrust a senior citizen, would they?

So... Thomas Jefferson Would Be a Domestic Terrorist, Then?

God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.
The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is
wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts
they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions,
it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...
And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as
to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost
in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

Blognomicon brought this one to my attention. It seems our Civil Masters just aren't comfortable with, you know, freedom of speech and the free exchange of ideas. The House of Representatives just passed H.R. 1955, the "Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007." (Doesn't that name just make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside?) It passed 404 to 6, and now goes to the Senate. Well, actually the Senate has their own version, S. 1959. (I'm happy to say that AZ Rep. Jeff Flake voted "No.")

Funny thing is, nobody who voted for it seems to want to talk about it.

The summary of the bill says:

Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 - Amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to add provisions concerning the prevention of homegrown terrorism (terrorism by individuals born, raised, or based and operating primarily in the United States).

Directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to: (1) establish a grant program to prevent radicalization (use of an extremist belief system for facilitating ideologically-based violence) and homegrown terrorism in the United States; (2) establish or designate a university-based Center of Excellence for the Study of Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism in the United States; and (3) conduct a survey of methodologies implemented by foreign nations to prevent radicalization and homegrown terrorism.

Prohibits the Department of Homeland Security's efforts to prevent ideologically-based violence and homegrown terrorism from violating the constitutional and civil rights, and civil liberties, of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents.

Right. We'll just be "watched." After all, the bill contains language to ensure that our Constitutional and civil rights will be respected and protected.

And fears that the PATRIOT Act would be abused were unfounded, right? (The Heritage Foundation told us in 2004 "There is no abuse of the Patriot Act. None." That's not what a 2007 Justice Department Report (PDF) concluded.

But I guess it's not "abuse." It's "mission creep," or "errors."

Note, I'm not saying that parts of the PATRIOT Act weren't necessary, but it was a bill that was essentially rammed through Congress with little to no review or discussion (kinda like McCain wanted to do with "comprehensive immigration reform" and the DREAM Act, no?).

My problem with legislation that essentially views the public as a threat goes back to a quote from Battlestar Galactica (you know, sometimes those Hollywood writers get it right):

The police protect the People. The military protects the State.

When the military becomes the police, the People become the enemies of the State.

The same is true, I think, when the Federal government looks at the People that way.

I'm not sure about you, but I really don't think that we need a new Federal program to help try to find "possible domestic terrorists."

'Cause you can bet your ass every single gunblogger would be on that list, and I already have absolutely NO problem believing that far too many people on the .gov payroll are like the a**wipe described here.

Quote of the Day.

Just as Hillary had a neurotic and "forgetful" moment regarding the antics of her husband; what we are witnessing is a supremely neurotic moment on the part of the left, who willy-nilly have jumped the Clinton ship and climbed aboard the Obama "vessel of hope". They are astounded that the antics of the Clintons (which for years they have rationalized and excused) are being used against them. Their idealization the Clintons had worn thin and, just in the nick of time, along comes a younger, prettier face that can help them shore up those tired, old "progressive" ideas, and delude them into believing they actually are supporting something fresh and innovative.

I hate to tell them, but Obama is just another socialist hack. For sure, he's fresh and young and articulate. But his ideas are no fresher than Hillary's and quite a bit more rigid and uncompromising. Hillary and Bill never believed in anything but themselves. Obama comes across as selfless as Mother Theresa, promising to lead us to his utopian wonderland. - Dr. Sanity, A Not So Inexplicable Anger

(Emphasis mine.)

It's a Beautiful Video, But...

Also via Van Der Leun, a truly gorgeous video someone put a lot of effort into.

Unfortunately, the first third of the video pretty much cancels out the "message" of the piece for me.

I think my biggest problem with religion, the Abrahamic faiths in particular but for pretty much all of them, is the concept that a Supreme Being created all of this - hundreds of billions of galaxies, each with hundreds of billions of stars, cast about the sky in myriad profusion along with nebulae, quasars, etc. just so he could pick one completely ordinary spiral galaxy, one unremarkable star, and one perfectly pedestrian planet and put an intelligent species on it, then make not one, not two, but multiple contracts with those essentially puny beings.

It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. It seems to me to be the ultimate waste of resources.

Especially if the physical laws of this universe prohibit us from visiting those billions of other stars and galaxies.

Quote of the Day:.

You can support a candidate "warts and all," but not "oozing pustules and all." - Gerard Van Der Leun

Amen.

Bill Whittle posts (very) sporadically, but when he does, there's no one like him. I wish to hell he was in charge of the Bush administration's media division. If you don't read Eject!³, what the hell are you doing reading this blog? I know Bill posted his latest several days ago, but, shamefully, I just got around to reading it. As usual, the entire thing is absolutely worth your time, but here's the excerpt that says something I've believed for quite some time:

(A)s for the Surge, I am struck by one thought, and that is this: It seems clear now that we needed more troops in theater from Day One. But I think the spectacular success of the Surge is due less to the number of boots on the ground than it is to something far more important.

Looking back on the rise of the insurgency, it seems as if the average Iraqi did not know what to make of America. I suspect that many would have been far more supportive a long time ago, if it were not for the image of a helicopter atop a building in 1975 and a line of desperate people running for their lives. To work with Americans may have been what many wanted to do much, much sooner.

But...

When Michael Moore makes a hugely successful film praising Saddam's paradise and calling these people who bomb women and children in marketplaces "freedom fighters," and when an election turns and places into Congressional power a political party dedicated to reproducing that helicopter tableau as soon as possible... what would you do? Because if you guess wrong and the Americans leave, you will be taken out into the street in front of your family and have your head sawed off.

I think the Surge has had spectacular success not because of the additional troops so much as for the fact that when the media and the Democrats demanded we cut and run... we did not cut and run. We doubled down. When the calls for defeat and dishonor were at their loudest – sad to say a not unwarranted street rep we had made for ourselves – somehow, somehow we simply just hung on and gave them not a retreat but a charge.

Jesus Christ, but that must have gotten someone's attention. Yes, the Surge is working. But I believe it is not a surge of boots that is doing the work so much as it is a surge of hope.

Amen.

I think, too, that the average Iraqi would have been far more supportive had we not abandoned them after the 1991 Gulf War to Saddam's tender mercies.

And, I'm sorry to say, the entire pack of Democrat hopefuls for the Oval Office next year are promising Iraqis that lone helicopter on the roof again...

...with the apparent blessing of about half the population of this nation, damn us all to hell.

Oh, Hell. Revised Quote of the Day.

I spoke too soon. This comment has todays QotD, hands-down:

She never blubbed publicly when it was proven that Bilbo did the cigar bit with Monica Lewinsky, but she turns on the waterworks when she contemplates not getting the Big Chair and then doing the cigar bit on all of us.

I need mental floss to get that image out of my head, but oh is it accurate!

Quote of the Day.

James Lileks, from today's Bleat:

Clive Owen, who is so tough his breakfast cereal has marshmallows shaped like Chuck Norris.

Runner-up, same post:

In the end, I think of the person I'd like to see behind the big desk the night the President addresses the nation after the nutwads pull off something big. It's certainly not Ron Paul. He'd probably bitch us out for starting it all by enraging the Barbary Pirates.

The whole thing is worth reading.

I LIKE This Webcomic!.

(Click for full size.)

xkcd - I can see I'm going to be spending some time perusing the archives there.

UPDATE: Alternate title: "Yeah, we can't think of anything else to use it for, either."

I... Um,... Err,... WTF?!?!?!

Read this.

As SayUncle said, I'm speechless.

UPDATE: Here's a news piece on it, via Tam.

UPDATE II: I'm archiving the story here for the future:

County seizes son for medical care

Father says his family's rights were violated

By Pete Fowler
January 8, 2008

NEW CASTLE - The Garfield County All Hazards Response Team broke down Tom Shiflett's door Friday night and, following a court order, took his son for medical treatment.

The doctor's recommendation: Take Tylenol and apply ice to the bruises. The boy was back home a few hours later.

Authorities said they had reason to believe Shiflett mistreated his 11-year-old son, Jon, by failing to provide him proper medical care for a head injury. But Shiflett says his privacy and his rights were invaded, and that he has the right and the skill to treat his son himself. Shiflett, 62, said he served as a medic in Vietnam during the Tet Offensive.

"Who in the world puts a stipulation on how adequate a person is to care for an injury?" Shiflett asked.

Speaking about the incident from his home in the Apple Tree Park on Monday, Shiflett was very upset. Perhaps most offensive, Shiflett said, was that law enforcement didn't announce there was a warrant before breaking into his home south of New Castle.

"I would have let them in," he said. "It was traumatic to my children, and it's unnecessary."

His spouse, Tina, and his six of 10 kids who are still at home were shocked at the manner of entry. Tina said law enforcement, wearing masks, broke down their door with a battering ram and pointed guns in her children's faces.

"They didn't need to bash into my home and slam my kids to the floor," Tina said, adding later, "I think they get a kick out of this."

She said law enforcement threatened criminal charges should the family even try to follow Jon or find out where he was taken. Jon was returned hours later, around 2:30 a.m. Saturday.

"In all there was not one shred of evidence found that we had done anything wrong or that Jon had not been properly cared for at home," Tina said.

According to a copy of Jon's patient aftercare instructions, a physician recommended Jon drink fluids, take Tylenol, use ice and keep his cuts from his injury clean. Jon still had a nasty-looking black eye and visible bruising on his face Monday after having been hurt in a fall on Thursday.

Jon injured himself by grabbing onto the handle of a moving car his sister was driving and falling. Shiflett and his family said Shiflett ran down the street, checked Jon for injuries and brought him back into their home, where they prayed, applied ice to his head and monitored his condition.

Someone - possibly a neighbor - called paramedics. Shiflett said paramedics looked at Jon after coming through an open front door uninvited. Shiflett told them he didn't want them to treat Jon and asked them to leave.

Friday morning, caseworkers from the Garfield County Department of Social Services arrived. Shiflett allowed them to look at Jon briefly but refused to allow them to take his son for treatment or medical evaluation.

Ross Talbott, who owns the Apple Tree Mobile Home Park and rents to Shiflett, said, "I thought it was an incredibly stupid power move by people who went in there misinformed and ill-informed. I think they violated their personal rights, their constitutional rights and their rights to family."

Talbott also writes a freelance column for the Post Independent.

"I've been (Garfield County Sheriff Lou Vallario's) longtime supporter, but I tell you what, to send a SWAT team down there was just absolutely over the hill," he said. "Inappropriate is not nearly strong enough a word. It was gross irresponsibility and stupidity. ... Is this Russia? I don't know what we're coming to when they think your kid needs medical help and they send a SWAT team."

Community relations sheriff's deputy Tanny McGinnis said two deputies were first sent to notify Shiflett of a court order for his son's medical treatment and that Shiflett did not comply.

Phone messages to Vallario were not returned Monday afternoon.

A search warrant and order for medical treatment says there was good reason to believe Jon needed treatment. It states that two social services caseworkers tried to explain to Tom Shiflett they believed the boy needed medical treatment after observing injuries including a "huge hematoma" and a sluggish pupil. They offered to pay for treatment, and said they would have to obtain a court order for treatment if they couldn't get Shiflett's consent, the warrant says.

"Shiflett shouted at this worker and advised this worker that if he obtained a court order, he better 'bring an army,'" the warrant states.

A first responder with West Care Ambulance wrote in an affidavit that she and others in an ambulance crew also believed the boy needed medical treatment.

The responder wrote that paramedics left the residence for fear of their safety after Tom Shiflett refused to let them treat his son and became "verbally abusive" to the ambulance crew.

But Talbott said he was there when paramedics responded, and that Shiflett was not yelling or acting abusive. He only asked them to leave, Talbott said, and paramedics were in fact acting belligerent. Shiflett says authorities had no right to enter his home uninvited and without announcing they had a warrant.

"When American law allows federal and state agencies to come in a home and confiscate family, there is something wrong with our system," Shiflett said. "If I can find a law firm or lawyer that can take this pro bono, because I have no money, I'm going to sue everyone on that warrant."

Garfield County Director of Social Services Lynn Rennick said social services is legally required to intervene when it receives a report about possible mistreatment of children, and that sometimes court orders are necessary. She wouldn't discuss any specific case.

Asked what he thought of being taken for medical treatment after the break-in, Jon said, "I think it's ridiculous. There's no reason for it."

Unbelievable. Right there is South Park's Cartman yelling RESPECT MAH AUTHORITAH!!

Or Strother Martin from Cool Hand Luke - "What we've got here is failure to communicate."

The Parallels Are Definitely There.

(Click for full size.)

Found via The Whiteboard, which I check every day.

For Those Attending the Second Amendment Blog Bash,.

Where are y'all staying? I'd like to make hotel reservations where, you know, other bloggers will be.

UPDATE: Reservations made, but I'd rather not spend $120/night +15.08% tax, etc. and sleeping at the end of the Louisville Int'l Airport runway. I will be getting a rental vehicle, so if there's somewhere else a bit less expensive, I'm open to canceling that reservation and staying elsewhere, and I can provide transport.

Shooting for South Carolina.

I believe Fred Thompson's campaign strategy hinges on a good finish in South Carolina. If you really want to see Thompson on the 2008 ballot, he needs your support. I'd never donated to a campaign before, but I threw him $100 about a week before the Iowa Caucus. He's trying to raise $540k by January 11 for the Jan. 19 South Carolina primary. Christmas bills are rolling in, and I am, somehow or another, going to the Second Amendment Blog Bash in May, but I'm going to chip in another $50. As of now he has about $270k.

By my count there are 135 bloggers who have announced that they support Fred Thompson listed at Flopping Aces. If we average $50 each, that's another $6,750.

Representative democracy works for those that show up.

Show up.

Yes, That Would Explain Part of His Appeal...

This week's edition of Time has an interesting op-ed, Why They Really Run, by Michael Kinsley. An excerpt:

There are presidential candidates for virtually every taste, yet citizens find the menu inadequate. They tell pollsters they are discontented with the selection and generally sick of politics and politicians. In part, they are just being polite. The notion that people hate politics and that politicians are all phonies is so ingrained that to tell a pollster that, yeah, politicians are O.K. and the system is not so bad would almost be a violation of democratic etiquette.

Yet voters are also right to feel that something is phony about democratic politics and that it's getting worse. Even a candidate who agrees with you on all important issues and always has—no dreaded flip-flops—is forced by the conventions of politics to be disingenuous about at least one core issue: why he or she is running.

Ladies and gentlemen, they are running because they are ambitious. No, really, they are. You probably suspected as much. And yet you would abandon any candidate who dared to admit this, or at least they all believe that you would. We all are told at our high school graduations to be ambitious, then for the rest of our lives it becomes a shameful secret. Ambition can take many forms. Four decades ago, Norman Podhoretz, the editor of Commentary, created a sensation with a book called Making It that revealed how even intellectuals are ambitious. But the purest form of ambition is political ambition, because it represents a desire to rule over other people.

When you hear the presidential candidates carrying on about democracy and freedom, do you ever wonder what they would be saying if they had been born into societies with different values? What if Mitt Romney had come to adulthood in Nazi Germany? What if Hillary Clinton had gone to Moscow State University and married a promising young apparatchik? What if Barack Obama had been born in Kenya, like his father, where even now people are slaughtering one another over a crooked election? Which of them would be the courageous dissidents, risking their lives for the values they talk about freely—in every sense—on the campaign trail? And which would be playing the universal human power game under the local rules, whatever they happened to be?

Without naming names, I believe that most of them would be playing the game. What motivates most politicians, especially those running for President, is closer to your classic will-to-power than to a deep desire to reform the health-care system. Alpha males are alpha males (and alpha females, ditto): it's true among apes, and it's true among humans.

Compare and contrast (from just prior to the Iowa Caucus):

I left government and I and my family have made sacrifices to be sitting here today. I haven't had any income for a long time because I figured to be clean, you've got to cut everything off. I was doing speaking engagements and I had a contract to do a TV show. I had a contract with ABC radio...and so forth. A man would have to be a total fool to do all those things and to be leaving his family which is not a joyful thing if he didn't want to do it.

I am not consumed by personal ambition. I will not be devastated if I don't do it. I want the people to have the best president they can have.

When this talk first originated from people around the country both directly and through polls, liked the idea of me stepping up and of course, you always look better from a distance.

But most of those people are still there. I approached it from the standpoint of a deal. A kind of a marriage. If one side of a marriage really has to be talked into the marriage, it probably ain't going to be a good deal. But if you mutually decide it’s going to be a good thing. In this case, if you think this is a good thing for the country, then we have an opportunity to do some wonderful things together.

I'm offering myself up. I'm saying that I have the background, the capability and concern to do this and do it for the right reasons. I'm not particularly interested in running for president, but I think I'd make a good president.

Nowadays, the process has become much more important than it used to be.

I don't know that they ever asked George Washington a question like this. I don't know that they ever asked Dwight D. Eisenhower a question like this. But nowadays, it's all about fire in the belly. I'm not sure in the world we live in today it's a good thing if a president has too much fire in the belly. I approach life differently than a lot of people. People, I guess, wonder how I’ve been as successful as I've been in everything that I've done. I won two races in TN by 20 point margins in a state that bill Clinton carried twice. I've never had an acting lesson. I guess that's obvious by people who’ve watched me...

When I did it, I did it. Wasn't just a lark. Anything that's worth doing is worth doing well. But I've always been a little more laid back than most. I'm only consumed by very, very few things. Politics is not one of them. The welfare of our country and our kids and grandkids is one of them.

If people really want in their president super type-A personality, someone who has gotten up every morning and gone to bed every night and been thinking about for years how they win the presidency of the United States, someone who can look you straight in the eye and say they enjoy every minute of campaigning, I ain't that guy. So I hope I've discussed that and didn't talk you out of anything. I honestly want – I can't imagine a worse set of circumstances [than] achieving the Presidency of the United States under false pretenses. I go out of my way to be myself.

Fred Thompson doesn't sound phoney to me. And he also doesn't sound like someone with an overactive will-to-power and a deep-seated need to rule over the rest of the population. I hope he can hang in long enough to overcome the media resistance to his campaign, and build momentum. He's already got a pretty good following in the blogosphere.

Dr. Helen on Obama

When I listen to people talk about Obama, I hear nothing but vague ideals mentioned such as "change, new ideas, something different than the mainstream, fresh voices," yada yada yada. But one thing I don't hear a lot about are his views on policy.

Interesting. And so is the link to a Dick Meyers CBS piece describing Obama as "a Rorschach test".