The Library of Congress has partnered with Flickr to pilot a LOC Gallery of uncopyrighted photos that have been collected through the ages. They currently are piloting a 1910’s set with 1500 photos, and a 1930’s-40′ in color set with 1615 photos. Just in these two collections there are some amazing photos.

Click for the next page for two more photos.

ShareThis

Also, after sifting through numerous comments on Fred’s concession blog, it appears that a fair number of supporters would be in favor of a Romney/Thompson ticket in November. That still leaves a huge question around Romney’s true political convictions, since he was named the #6 biggest RINO (Republican In Name Only)by Human Events in 2005. That will be a hard award to overcome to win the votes of conservatives. Not to mention that Fred took Romney to the cleaners on his not so conservative record.  But take a look at this analysis at the Beehive Standard Weekly.

Krell, a big named Fredhead, has asked Fredheads to visit www.pinnaclecascade.com tomorrow for a big announcement. It appears that Fred may still be involved yet. But what does this mean for Conservatives that are still left without a true conservative Presidential candidate?

ShareThis

I would like to wish Fred the best, and thank him for the time he has given to make it this far.  At the very least his candidacy has forced voters to take a closer look at who is conservative based on actions and not just hollow words.

There is no word as to Fred giving an endorsement to any of the remaining candidates, and it will be interesting to see where his supporters turn now that he is no longer running.  I am in a quandary as to who to offer my support as I see very few conservatives in the mix of remaining candidates.  McCain has burned conservatives and Republicans for that matter too many times, all for the glory of the mainstream media, for me to trust him.  Huckabee is liberal in conservative clothing.  Giuliani is more liberal than conservative in his moderate platform.  And Romney is a theological dilemma.

So for now all I can do is wish Fred the best and say that it is the end of a conservative for President.

…..Maybe a conservative third party is the answer.

ShareThis

Before we talk about the candidates and there positions and records, let me say that the issue of national security is difficult to extrapolate from the records of governors who are outside the jurisdiction of national politics. So in order to clear see into their records we need to define National Security:

National Security can be a very large encompassing term including aspects of many issues such as the conomy via NAFTA. However, for our discussion here National Security will be defined as the protection of our national security from outside threats, including the millitary, terrorism, wars and illegal immigration/border security. Illegal immigration will be included in the discussion of national security because there is an open thwarting of our national laws by non-U.S. citizens that has created a portal into our country, whether of legal or illegal purposes.

Let take a look at the candidates and see how is “Walking Tall” on National Security.

Rudy Giuliani:

What he says:

On immigration he says,

1. We need to protect our borders with a physical and technological fence,
2. We need to create a database to track immigrants (including illegals),
3. We need better trained border patrol, and
4. We need a revitalization of Americanization.

On the War on Terror and Iraq he says,

1. America should not play defense in the War on Terrorism,
2. We should not have artificial timetables for withdrawing troops in Iraq, but should leave the decision to the generals,
3. Homeland Security should not be centralized in Washington, but there should be regional executive authority.

What the record says:

At first glance, it seems that Rudy Guiliani is one of the front runners on National Security. As Mayor he helped reduced the crime rate in New York City, though he cannot take the full credit as it had started falling 4 years earlier, but he did help sustain its decline. Then on 9/11 he led New York through the worst terror attack in history and became a spokesman for fighting terrorism. He’s been a adamant supporter of the War on Terror and the Iraq conflict. But this strong position on national security is undercut, but his views on illegal immigration. As Mayor of New York he allowed the city to become a Sanctuary City, a city where illegal aliens could find safety from the prosecution of Federal immigration laws that were violated. He also gave support to the Kennedy-McCain Immigration bill during to summer of 2006 that was an amnesty bill for illegal immigration. What is ironic is that the problem of illegal immigration is a perpetuating factor of gang violence and terrorism in our country. Unfortunately, his talk of strong national security is weakened by a poor record on illegal immigration.

Giuliani goes from “Walking Tall” to “crawling on his knees” when it comes to national security.

Mick Huckabee:

What he says:

On immigration he claims to have a 9 point plan for securing American including:

1. Build a fence,
2. Increase border patrol,
3. Prevent amnesty,
4. Enforce the law on employers,
5. Create and economic border (namely the fair tax, which will be discussed in another post),
6. Empower local authorities,
7. Document security,
8. Discourage dual citizenship,
9. Modernize the legal immigration process.

On the War on Terrorism and the Iraq conflict he says, that he wants to leave the decisions to the generals and that retreat would be a strategical error. He also wants to build support for a stable Iraq with regional partners.

What the record says:

On the War on Terror and Iraq, Huckabee has record on war policy, so all we can do is take him at what he is saying and way the logic of his statements. And like the rest of the candidates he gives the same general answer for Iraq and terrorism.

However, Huckabee’s record on illegal immigration is more telling, and it differs from his new 9-point strategy (actually it not his idea, see the link). Huckabee as Gov. of Arkansas claimed he sought authorization to enforce Federal immigrations laws. However, his record shows that he never sign the application, nor sought the required training in order to allow the state highway patrol to have federal authority on immigration. Basically, he looked into it, but never followed through.

In addition Huckabee sought to give in-state tuition to illegal immigrants that were residing in Arkansas. He requested that a provision for illegals be included in Joyce Elliots House Bill 1525, and gave the bill his full support.

Do we want a president that does not follow through on our national security or gives support for a bill that is in opposition to his stated plan? It makes you question how much Mike Huckabee truly opposes illegal immigrations.

Mike Huckabee is “Walking Hunched-over” at best on National Security.

Mitt Romney:

What he says:

On War on Terror and Iraq Mitt Romney has offered strong and defied positions to

1. Strength, modernize and increase by (100k) our military,
2. Fight radical jihad terrorism by creating Special Partnership Forces (a tougher kinder military unit), creating a new Marshall plan to partner with moderate muslims, and create global alliances,
3. Isolate terrorist nuclear threat Iran.

On illegal immigration he says we need to

1. Enforce the borders,
2. Implement an enforceable employer verification system,
3. Reject amnesty,
4. Punish sanctuary cities,
5. Improve interior enforcement,
6. Encourage legal immigration.

What the record says:

I appreciate that Mitt Romney has given more that the generalized version of his position on the War on Terror and Iraq like most of the other candidates have offered. Again we have no way of looking into his record on these issues as he was a governor an excluded from these policy questions. And there is good room to debate the specifics of his position, but it is clear and well defined.

Then we come to the issue of illegal immigration and the clarity becomes a little fuzzier. While Romney’s plan for illegal immigration seems sound like Huckabees plan, Romney’s plan seems very convenient for his presidential election. There is not a lot of room to criticize what Romney has done on illegal immigration, but rather on what he has not done. Romney has continually criticized Giuliani and Huckabee for their sanctuary cities and policies, however, within the State of Massachusetts there were six known sanctuary cities that Romney never opposed. “Romney let Brewster, Brookline, Cambridge, Lexington, Orleans, and Somerville openly flout federal immigration laws.” Romney’s illegal immigration plan states that he would punish sanctuary cities and improve interior enforcement, but as Governor he did not practice what he is preaching.

Romney is “Walking Hunched-over” as well on national security.

John McCain:

What he says:

On the War on Terror and Iraq McCain says

1. Fight Islamic extremist and terrorists,
2. Build a missile defense system,
3. Increase the size of the military,
4. Modernizing the military,
5. Smarter defense spending,
6. Taking care of military personnel and their families,
7. Honoring our commitment to our veterans,
8. Develop counterinsurgency strategies, achieve military victory for political stability.

On illegal immigration McCain says we need

1. Strong allies in Mexico and Latin America,
2. Pro-growth policies,
3. A flexible labor market for employers,
4. Assimilation policies,
5. America to always be the “City on a shinning hill”.

What his record says:

John McCain is a war veteran of Vietnam and has vigorously worked hard for America’s military as a Senator at home and abroad. There is no questioning his intent in this area. It is disappointing to see that his website sounds very much like a politicians website with nice generalities and platitudes of his goals. No specifics on how much he wants to increase our military by or how he wants to modernize it.

As strong as John McCain is on the Millitary, War on Terror and Iraq, he is equally weak on illegal immigration. After all it was his name attached to the Kennedy-McCain Immigration bill that for all intensive purposes was amnesty. Conservative Republicans fought hard through grass-root efforts to defeat an amnesty bill that did nothing but recycle the same efforts of Congress in the 1980’s. The bill would have given amnesty to at least 12 million illegal immigrants putting an even greater strain on our schools, welfare system, healthcare system and create even greater bureaucracy just to name a few negatives.

John McCain’s overall status on national security is an”On All Fours Crawl”.

Fred Thompson:

What he says:

On the Military, War on Terror and Iraq we need to:

1. A larger, more capable, and more modern military that can defeat terrorists, deter adversaries, and defend the U.S. and our interests,
2. A missile defense system that can protect the U.S. and our allies from long-range ballistic missiles,
3. An enhanced intelligence community, with robust human-intelligence capabilities, focused on terrorism and proliferation,
4. A robust approach to homeland security that will protect our nation from terrorists and WMD, regardless of where they come from,
5. A strengthened system of global alliances to better combat terrorists, proliferators, and traditional threats to our interests,
6. A judicial system that deals with the realities of terrorists and unlawful enemy combatants.

On illegal immigration Thompson believes that we need to

1. Securing our borders and enforcing immigration laws. Amnesty is not an option and the toleration of “sanctuary cities” must end,
2. Review our immigration laws and policies to ensure they advance our national interests.
3. Uniting Americans by welcoming legal immigrants willing to learn English, assimilate into our communities, and become productive citizens.

Fred Thompson was asked by a voter in South Carolina,

Voter…: I’m looking for a tall man who will stand tall for America. (Pause.) Who will cut the ears off of earmarks! (Pause.) Stop dead illegal immigration! (Pause.) And pull the teeth of activist judges…

Thompson: Yep.

Voter: … who take your house to build 7-Eleven! (Pause, then louder) And I want to know if you’ve got a Jim Bowie knife and a good strong pair (pause) of Channellock pliers! (Laughter, even more applause, calls of “That’s right!” and “Hear, hear!”)

Something tells me Mitt Romney doesn’t field a whole lot of questions like that.

Thompson, for his part, answered with Southern-fried aplomb. “Did you ever see the movie ‘Walking Tall‘?” he said, referring to the 1973 action flick about Buford Pusser, a Tennessee sheriff who single-handedly rid his town of crime and corruption. “You know the ax handle that old Buford used to carry? I got me one of them. I knew Buford Pusser. His daughter gave me one of those ax handles and I still got it. I thought about it many, many times. There’s a lot you can do with that.”

Story is from Newsweek

What the record says:

Thompson is only one of 2 Senators in the Presidential race that has any experience with military, war and immigration policy. In may of 1999 Thompson voted for a National Missile Defence, and in Feb. of 1999 he voted to raise pay for military men and women. Thompson has continually supported the military and authorized the defense of our country through the War on Terror.

On immigration Thompson is not only the strongest candidate he is blanaced as well. As a Senator he voted to promote legal immigration by increasing the number of skilled and farmer workers allowed legally into the country. He voted to protect our border security by increasing the penalties for those help transport and provide documents to illegal aliens.

All in all Fred Thompson is the only candidate that is “Walking Tall” on national security.

ShareThis

Comcast Cable recently put Fancast beta online, not only for their subscribers, but for anyone browsing the internet. According to Comcast Interactive Media (CIM)

“Fancast is the first online destination that enables users to watch, manage and find entertainment content wherever it is available – on Fancast, on television, online on DVD or in theaters. On Fancast, users can view an expanding library of free full episodes and clips from top networks and movie partners, find the content they are looking for across multiple platforms and create a personalized entertainment experience.”

Fancast is the beta of a new idea in cable communications that will allow users to not only watch online television, but connect you to all possible internet viewing options from one location. If you want to watch a DVD, connect to Netflix online viewing. You want to see that movie you just watched the trailer for, then link to Fandango to purchase your tickets. And soon you will be able to schedule your DVR from Fancast when your not at home.

If your looking for a place to catch up on your favorite shows, then Fancast can be a one stop shop for you. There are currently full length episodes for 154 different shows one their site, for everything from 24 to Battlestar Galactica to MacGyver, to The Office. Fancast does not currently have every episode yet, but new shows and episodes are being added constantly.

For me the weakest point of Fancast beta, is there video player. Currently it only has a one size display unlike the network tv competitors. Like the network tv websites, however, Fancast does use single commercial breaks to help pay for the airing of the tv online.

ShareThis

I’ll start off by saying, that I am pleased that Grudem making the distinction that Mormon’s do not hold the same beliefs as Christians. Unlike recent populist preacher Joel Osteen who stated in a recent interview with Chris Wallace that “from what I’ve heard from Mitt, when he says that Christ is his savior, to me that’s a common bond.” And I agree with Grudem that the Bible does not have a prohibition on non-Christian being rulers, or even that Christian must elect other believers. In fact I believe it’s more irresponsible for voters to vote for someone just because they state they are a believer. The Bible makes it clear that we can not know the heart of a man and must look at his actions. It is maddening to me that Evangelicals want to vote for Huckabee on the basis that he is a fellow Christian. If he is a believer, I look forward to worshiping God with him eternally, but I’m not voting for him for that reason. Instead voters have a responsibility to look at what a candidate stands for politically for the benefit for our country. A commenter on Grudem’s article made the point this way:

Phileo writes:
…”I voted for GW Bush twice. I did not vote for him BECAUSE he was a Christian; I voted for him because the alternative was a loopy-environmentalist-whacko in one election and a pretentious-wannabe-war-hero in the second election.If the next election pits a Mitt Romney against a socialist-adulterer-enabling-pandering-shrill-sounding-socialist-abortion-rights-militant, guess who I’ll be voting for?”

It is with Grudem’s support for Romney based on his qualifications as the best conservative candidate that I take exception. In his article, Grudem supplies nothing, but the campaign fluff that can be found on the Romney website. I’m glad that Romney was at the top of his class at Harvard, and that he is successful in business, no one was saying that the guy was stupid. But his political positions in the past and his proposed policies are far from conservative. He is perceived as a political flip-flop because he has made campaign promises that are not consistent with his record as Gov. of Massachusetts. It does not matter how exaggerated the flip-flop is just like a small lie is the same as a big lie. A lie is a lie and a flip-flop is a flip-flop.

On the position of Sanctity of Marriage, Romney opposed same sex marriages, but barely, but up a defense when it was time for him to make the policy change.

On taxes: He did not raise taxes, but he did raise government fees. Governments fees are the backdoor tax. Simillar to an executive order that he will control as President, it’s a way to get what the government wants even if it does not go through the legislature.

Now, I’m not saying that Mitt is bad guy. With the exception of maybe Hillary Clinton, most politicians are nice people in person. What I am saying as a candidate who is trying to convince Republican voters that he is the best conservative choice for President of the United States, he is a far cry from Fred Thompson and several other presidential candidates.

Mr. Grudem, thank you for clearing up the confusion on Christian being required to vote for other Christians, but on the issue of the best conservative candidate you should take a closer look.

Powered by ScribeFire.

ShareThis

Time Warner Cable company spokesman Alex Dudley announced Wednesday that the broadband service provider will be testing new pricing tiers for their new broadband cable users later this year. The idea is designed to tax the heaviest users of the companies bandwidth, about 5% of users who use 50% of the network capacity according to Dudley.

There can only be two reasons for this change in pricing structures, and in the end it boils down to only one. Either Time Warner is trying to even the playing field by discouraging internet users from making heavy downloads, so they can accommodate more subscribers on their current network space, or they have found a convenient argument to simply charge more money for users that are actually using their internet service to the full capacity. Both options accomplish the same goal, which is to make more money for Time Warner Cable. And you cannot blame them for doing what the business is designed to do, make money.

But while this may seem like a fair way of handling over-usage of the internet (is there such a thing) by the few, is this truly a good idea to gouge those who use the internet the most? How many of these customers are small businesses, or those who are using their unlimited downloads to create a living, do research, or simply use the web to make their lives more productive? Are 95% of broadband users limited in their use of the network because of 5% of users? I do not know who comprises this 5% of users, but Dudley makes it sound that it is people who are downloading large amounts of high definition movies. That might put a kink in Netflix plan to offer high def movies online.

What about the customers who use a VoIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) service other than Time Warner’s? Maybe they are part of the 5% of users. I know that Vonage will use a good amount of my bandwidth and inhibit extremely large downloads and uploads when I’m on the phone. Could this be a way to force more people to use Time Warner VoIP, instead of a competitors service?

I am sorry Mr. Lefor, but your Vonage service exceeded our low price tiering for broadband. But if you switch to our all-in-one package of phone, cable tv and broadband you can have our maximum broadband download package.

The assumption after hearing this news is that Time Warner wants to make broadband more affordable for more customers. That sounds good and very philanthropic, but I doubt that Time Warner is going to drop to $9.95 broadband plans for the average user that checks their e-mail and visits a couple of their favorite websites. In all likelihood, rate plans well stay about the same $39.95-44.95, while the bootlegger (5% of Time Warners customers) that are downloading hundreds of high definition movies, or the chatty Kathys on VoIP will be charged a much higher rate for hogging the network space. Or worse yet, the low priced internet broadband will be packaged with cable tv and phone, so they can claim you are getting a better price for broadband even though you now pay 2 times more for unlimited downloads.

While no specific date for their new tiered pricing trial was given, Dudley said to start looking for it in the 2nd qaurter, in Beaumont, TX where the trial will take place.

AP story found on Wired News: Time Warner Links Web Prices With Usage

Powered by ScribeFire.

ShareThis

If your not using Firefox I suggest you do if you want faster and safer browsing with great add-ons such as Google Account Multi-Login.

ShareThis

Following Fred’s debate victory, Human Events gave their official endorsement for Fred Thompson.

“We conclude that Thompson is a solid conservative whose judgment is grounded in our principles.”

This is another victory for Fred Thompson as he rallies support in South Carolina.  Fred in ‘08.

ShareThis

It’s also important to note that Fred Thompson finished second in Wyoming’s caucus securing 3 delegate votes. Third in Iowa, Second in Wyoming, it looks like Thompson is building some unmentioned momentum as he heads to South Carolina were his campaign is poised to take the lead.

ShareThis