Close Please enter your Username and Password
Reset Password
If you've forgotten your password, you can enter your email address below. An email will then be sent with a link to set up a new password.
Reset Link Sent
Password reset link sent to
Check your email and enter the confirmation code:
Don't see the email?
  • Resend Confirmation Link
  • Start Over
If you have any questions, please contact Customer Service

Meriam's Guy

Club for Growth
Posted:Jan 18, 2008 3:45 am
Last Updated:Sep 24, 2023 7:11 pm

September 6, 2007
Fred Thompson's Record on Economic Issues

Club for Growth Releases Sixth Presidential White Paper
Fred Thompson Senate Record is Generally Pro-Growth

Washington - Today, the Club for Growth released its presidential white paper on Republican presidential candidate former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson (see PDF). The sixth in a series of white papers on the pro-growth records of presidential candidates, the attached report provides an extensive summary of Fred Thompson's economic policies during his eight years in the U.S. Senate.

"Fred Thompson's eight-year record is generally pro-growth with an excellent record on entitlement reform and school choice and a very good record on taxes, regulation, and trade," said Club for Growth President Pat Toomey. "His belief in a limited federal government is demonstrated by his numerous votes against government intrusion in the private sector and increased federal spending. His fondness for Tennessee pork aside, Thompson consistently voted against increased spending and new government projects, at times, one of only a handful of senators to do so."

The white paper provides an in-depth look at Thompson's strengths and weaknesses, giving the Senator credit for supporting the flat tax and for sponsoring legislation for Social Security personal accounts at a time when few would touch the issue. At the same time, the white paper explores Thompson's enigmatic record on tort reform and takes the southern Senator to task for his instrumental support of McCain-Feingold, questioning why his belief in limited government doesn't extend to government's regulation of political speech.

"Given his recent doubts about McCain-Feingold, Senator Thompson will have to clarify his current position on political speech," Mr. Toomey continued, "and explain how he would deal with our expensive tort system given his philosophical opposition to comprehensive tort reform. That said, Fred Thompson's overall record contains the hallmarks of a pro-growth economic conservative."


Fred Thompson's Generally Pro-Growth Record


The Club for Growth is committed to lower taxes-especially lower tax rates- across the board. Lower taxes on work, savings, and investments lead to greater levels of these activities, thus encouraging greater economic growth.

Over his eight years in the Senate, Fred Thompson generally supported broad-based tax cuts while opposing tax increases. These include:

Voted for the 2001 Bush tax cuts
Voted for repeal of the Death Tax
Voted for capital gains tax cuts
Voted to require a supermajority to pass tax hikes
Voted to reduce the amount of Social Security benefits subject to taxation
Voted against waiving the Budget Act to allow for a cigarette tax hike
Thompson was a forceful proponent of tax reform, lambasting the IRS as "mismanaged" and "wasteful," and a strong supporter of the flat tax. In fact, Thompson was the only senator to vote to table an amendment proposed by Senator Dorgan that took the flat tax off the table during a budget debate. "The problem with the Dorgan amendment is simple," Thompson declared in a press release the following day, "it puts you on record against a flat tax. I think a flat tax is one of the options that should be considered as part of the debate on comprehensive tax reform."


The Club for Growth is committed to reducing government spending. Less spending enhances economic growth by enabling lower taxes and diminishing the economically inefficient political allocation of resources.

Fred Thompson's record on spending is generally impressive. Aside from a fondness for Tennessee pork, Thompson was a strong proponent of streamlining government and eliminating waste. When he first entered the Senate, he joined a bipartisan group in sponsoring legislation hoping to put an end to corporate welfare. In 1996, he sponsored legislation to institute a biennial budget that would allow time for the Senate to exercise oversight on the spending process. He also often voted for measures to limit spending and against costly government programs. These include:

Voted for the line-item veto
Voted for the Freedom to Farm Act in 1996, which reduced, and aimed to phase out, farm subsidies while diminishing distortions to the agricultural economy
Sponsored an amendment in 1995 and 1996 against a pay raise for congressional members (though he supported a pay raise in 2002)
Voted for welfare reform
Voted against a 2000 amendment that would provide a prescription drug benefit
Voted against the Farm Security Bill in 2002 that sought to increase agricultural subsidies with market-distorting payments, undoing the progress of the 1996 act
Voted against $2.35 billion in agriculture assistance
Senator Thompson often joined with a minority of his colleagues in voting to strip wasteful projects from the various spending bills. These include:

1 of 23 senators to vote for an amendment to eliminate funding for programs carried out by the National Endowment for the Arts
1 of 29 senators to support eliminating $2 million in construction funds for a Smithsonian Institution storage facility for specimens stored in alcohol
1 of 26 senators to vote against extending ethanol subsidies
1 of 31 senators voting to strike a $2.5 million earmark for coral reef mapping off the coast of Hawaii
1 of 24 senators voting to remove $50 million for the construction and renovation of facilities at the National Animal Research Laboratory in Ames, Iowa
As impressive as the above list is, Thompson was fiercely protective when it came to his own earmarks. His congressional website boasts of the federal dollars he was able to "snag" for his Tennessee constituents, including $25 billion in highway funds; $70 million for the Tennessee Valley Authority; $2 million for the Tennessee River; and $23 million for the Spallation Neutron Source project. Thompson felt so strongly about preserving funding for the Tennessee Valley Authority, he fought to exempt funds for the TVA from the balanced budget constitutional amendment in 1995, carving out a new category of "constitutional pork." And though Thompson supported and voted for the presidential line-item veto, he fought vehemently to undo President Clinton's veto of two Tennessee projects.

On balance though, Thompson's consistent votes against many popular spending projects are redemptive. After all, it is hard not to give credit to a senator who was 1 of only 3 to vote against increased spending for juvenile crime prevention programs and 1 of 5 to vote against $200 million for school safety programs. Such minority votes were not uncommon for the Senator. He was also 1 of only 2 senators to vote against an additional $16 billion in healthcare funding and 1 of 7 to vote against $7 million worth of grants for anti-violence programs. A few parochial indiscretions aside, Thompson displayed a general willingness to put the federal government on a sorely needed diet.

Free Trade

Free trade is a vital policy for maximizing economic growth. In recent decades, America's commitment to expanding trade has resulted in lower costs for consumers, job growth, and higher levels of productivity and innovation.

Over his eight years in the Senate, Fred Thompson voted for many free trade agreements and was a proponent of America's increased participation in the global economy. Although this strong record contains a trouble spot or two-such as his votes for nonbinding, symbolic measures in support of conditional tariffs on Japan in 1995 and to revoke normal trade relations with China in 1997 -the list of his pro-free trade votes is long and encouraging:

Voted to extend trade benefits to sub-Saharan Africa
Voted for the Africa Free Trade Act
Voted for normal trade relations with China twice
Voted for normal trade relations with Vietnam
Voted for Trade Promotion Authority several times
Voted to kill an amendment that would prohibit reducing tariffs in cases where an anti-dumping order exists
Voted against an amendment requiring an environmental agreement with sub-Saharan and Caribbean countries before trade benefits could be received
Voted against an amendment requiring a side agreement on labor standards with sub-Saharan and Caribbean countries before trade benefits could be received

Entitlement Reform

America's major middle-class entitlement programs are already insolvent. The Club for Growth supports entitlement reforms that enable personal ownership of retirement and healthcare programs, benefit from market returns, and diminish dependency on government.

Fred Thompson has been a reliable proponent of entitlement reform, supporting health savings accounts, voting for welfare reform, and voting against a measure that would expand Medicare.

Recognizing the need to reform Social Security, Thompson offered a bill in 1999 that would allow "all working Americans to divert a portion of their payroll taxes to a personal savings account that they will own and can pass on to their heirs." This is especially praiseworthy, as it came at a time when conventional wisdom suggested that Social Security personal accounts were political poison. When few others would touch the subject, Thompson showed a willingness to take on a political sacred cow on behalf of a cause that is critical to the future of America's economy and to the goal of limiting the size of the federal government.

He also voted for a number of other measures that would encourage or create personal Social Security accounts:

Voted to increase the retirement investment options for railroad workers to include private equities, while simultaneously cutting their payroll taxes
Voted for a Social Security lockbox
Voted for an amendment to express the sense of the Senate that any federal budget surplus should be used to reduce the Social Security payroll tax and to establish personal retirement accounts


Excessive government regulation stymies individual and business innovation necessary for strong economic expansion. The Club for Growth supports less and more sensible government regulation as a critical step toward increasing freedom and growth in the marketplace.

Fred Thompson came to the Senate with a deep-seated federalist philosophy that guided many of his positions. He played a key role in introducing several measures that sought to reduce government's regulatory nightmare, which Thompson tallied at 130,000 pages filling more than 21 feet of shelf space. In 1996, Thompson sponsored the 10th Amendment Enforcement Act to keep the federal government out of "issues that are best resolved at the local level." This fervent belief in a limited federal government also led Thompson to cast votes to decrease government's role in the private sector. These include:

Voted for prohibiting an increase in CAFE standards
Voted against expressing the sense of the Senate to increase the minimum wage
Voted against the Patients' Bill of Rights that would allow the government to impose a set of onerous mandates on insurance coverage instead of allowing individuals to make their own decisions about healthcare plans in the marketplace
Voted against requiring utilities to generate 20% of their electricity from renewable energy facilities by 2020
Voted to kill an amendment that would establish a $2,500 cap on credit cards issued to an individual younger than 21 years of age
Voted to exempt small businesses from liability under the Patients' Bill of Rights
Voted for an amendment that would allow governors to waive federal standards for renewable energy production if the additional costs proved too burdensome to consumers
Voted against legislation mandating a national standard for drunk driving
Voted against legislation banning guns within a school zone
There were, however, several aberrations in Thompson's approach to regulatory votes. These are his vote for Sarbanes-Oxley, along with all of his colleagues; a 1998 vote to ban internet gambling, along with 89 other senators; and a 1997 vote to table an amendment requiring congressional approval before President Clinton could implement the American Heritage Rivers Initiative which would jeopardize private property rights.

These few indiscretions notwithstanding, Fred Thompson approached regulatory votes with a healthy distrust of the federal government and an admirable respect for states' rights and private enterprise. As he declared on the Senate floor, "States are not mere appendages of the federal government to be called upon to do the federal government's bidding every time we think we've got a good idea."

School Choice

The Club for Growth supports broad school choice, including charter schools, voucher programs, and tax credits that create a competitive education market including public, private, religious, and non-religious schools. More competition in education can only lead to higher quality and lower costs.

Throughout his eight years in the Senate, Fred Thompson was a faithful supporter of school choice, arguing in 1995 "that our elementary and secondary educational systems need to be restructured. Such restructuring can be achieved by privatizing a major segment of the educational system-by enabling a private, for-profit industry to develop that will provide a wide variety of learning opportunities and offer free competitive choice." Thompson voiced his support for vouchers that are "universal, available to all parents, and large enough to cover the costs of a high-quality education."

In 1997, he voted for a school voucher program in Washington D.C. In 1999, he was 1 of only 13 senators to vote for a proposal that would give $1.8 billion a year for three years to establish a pilot voucher program, paid for by eliminating certain subsidies for ethanol, oil, gas, and sugar. Thompson also supported a 2001 amendment by Judd Gregg to create a pilot voucher program.

Political Free Speech

Maximizing prosperity requires sound government policies. When the government strays from these policies, citizens must be free to exercise their constitutional rights to petition and criticize those policies and the politicians responsible for them.

Regrettably, Thompson's admirable record in so many areas is marred by his failure in the area of protecting free speech. Though Senators McCain and Feingold are more often associated with the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, Thompson was the next senator to sign on to the bill and was instrumental in achieving its passage. Though he acknowledged "the First Amendment right of people to give money to candidates," Thompson had no problem running roughshod over the right of groups to air their political views in his pursuit of the impossible goal of removing money from politics.

To make matters worse, early in his career, Thompson voted for a bill that provided federal candidates with taxpayer subsidies for campaign spending, in exchange for voluntary campaign spending limits.

Since announcing his presidential aspirations, Senator Thompson has admitted that McCain-Feingold has become riddled with loopholes and has distanced himself from his previous support, saying, "I'm not prepared to go there yet, but I wonder if we shouldn't just take off the limits and have full disclosure with harsh penalties for not reporting everything on the Internet immediately."

More recently, when Sean Hannity asked Thompson if backing McCain-Feingold was the "right decision in retrospect," Thompson replied: "Part of it was, and part of it wasn't." He elaborated, supporting repealing a ban on issue advocacy ads because "that's not working," but continued to support limitations on individual contributions.

While Thompson's recent pangs of doubt are somewhat encouraging, his doubts are not motivated by a strong First Amendment philosophy, but the realization that McCain Feingold isn't working. One has to wonder if this erstwhile supporter of McCain-Feingold has truly learned his lesson, or would he impose even harsher restrictions on political free speech to rein in the aforementioned "loopholes?"

Tort Reform

The American economy suffers from excessive litigation which increases the cost of doing business and slows economic growth. The Club for Growth supports major reforms to our tort system to restore a more just and less costly balance in tort litigation.

Thompson's position on tort reform is a bit of an enigma. At first glance, his record contains a mix of both good and bad votes, though many of these bad votes are better understood in light of Thompson's federalist philosophy. To his credit, this former trial lawyer voted against the McCain-Kennedy Patients' Bill of Rights; to exempt pro bono healthcare professionals from malpractice liability; and for the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act, requiring all class action securities lawsuits involving more than 50 parties to be filed in federal court.

The majority of his votes though, were against measures seeking to discourage runaway lawsuits. He voted multiple times against amendments to provide liability protection and limit damages, including:

Voted to kill an amendment that would limit punitive damages to twice the sum of compensatory damages; place limits on attorney's fees; and require lawsuits to be filed within two years of the discovery of an injury
Voted against a bill that would cap the liability of businesses from damage caused by Y2K-related computer problems, though Thompson voted for a conference version of the bill that extended liability protection to businesses with 50 employees or less
Was 1 of 7 Republicans to vote against a Dole amendment to limit punitive damages in civil cases
Voted to table an amendment to limit non-economic damages for pain and suffering in medical malpractice suits
Voted to table an amendment to raise the standards to require "clear and convincing" evidence in medical malpractice cases involving labor or delivery of a baby if the doctor had not provided prenatal care
Thompson's belief in a hands-off federal government is sincere to the point where he was the only senator to vote against liability protection for teachers and volunteers. As Thompson explained numerous times during his eight years, these votes and others stemmed from a firm belief that the federal government should not meddle in matters best left to the states.

In a recent blog post in defense of his 1998 vote against a cap on attorney's fees, he argued that "I did not come to the Senate to review billing records from lawyers in private lawsuits. For the record, I oppose the federal regulation of any fees negotiated by two competent parties at the state and local level. This goes for lawyers, doctors, butchers, bakers, or the occasional candlestick maker. Even if excessive fees offend congressional sensibilities, there are other remedies that make far more sense than the federal one."

At the same time, Thompson's votes demonstrate an inconsistency that calls into question his federalism defense. While he voted for the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act, he also supported a Sarbanes amendment that would have weakened the Act by narrowing the definition of class action suits. Thompson opposed several bills capping punitive damage awards, but voted for the Common Sense Product Liability and Legal Reform Act of 1995 that did just that. He voted against liability protection for volunteers and teachers but for protection for pro bono healthcare professionals.

While Thompson's federalism argument is laudable as a means of reducing the impact of the federal government in private transactions, the fact that he has also not supported or suggested any meaningful lawsuit limitations at the state level raises the question of whether he appreciates the damage that excessive litigation does to our economy. It would be reassuring if, as a presidential candidate, he proposed solutions to our litigation crisis, even if they fell short of comprehensive federal tort reform.


Senator Thompson's eight-year record in the U.S. Senate demonstrates an admirable commitment to limited government and free-market principles. His record on entitlement reform and school choice is excellent, while his support for lower taxes and free trade is very good. On Social Security reform in particular, Thompson courageously supported personal accounts at a time when few politicians were willing to risk their necks taking on the third rail of American politics.

His record on spending (save the occasional pork project) is generally impressive, as demonstrated by his votes to restrict the growth and reach of the federal government. On regulation, too, Thompson voted generally against government intrusion in the private sector. Many Republican politicians talk about limited government and the principle of federalism but Thompson exemplified those ideas, often voting against bills that would have made it easy for a political opponent to paint him in a negative light.

While this strong federalist philosophy casts a redemptive light on his opposition to tort reform, it does not fully excuse or explain a number of his votes. His persistent federalism also makes his role in the passage of McCain-Feingold all the more disappointing. It is difficult to reconcile Thompson's fervent belief in a limited government with his enthusiasm for increasing government regulation on political speech. Thompson has never adequately addressed this contradiction and will have to do so. His recent doubts over the legislation's efficacy are encouraging, least of all because all politicians make mistakes, and rare are those willing to admit their own.
Heck with the Giants!!!
Posted:Jan 17, 2008 4:10 pm
Last Updated:Jan 18, 2008 2:13 am

Tired of the bogus build up! NY will be watching. That is a big TV audience. Lets get down to reality. No more BS. Only way the Giants win is if we bring our D game.

Sound the horn!!!!!! On this position... RT is hailing the under rated Mark Tausher hailing from the University of Wisconsin. The man, when Straghan was at his best and "set" the NFL sack record, actually shut out Straghan. He will barring some weird play that breaks down, shut him out again.

On the other side, Chad Clifton is still one of the best pass protectors at LT in the NFL. He is top 5 and he will control the 2nd year DE with the weird name.

The Giants DT's are not as good as our DT's and what we do best is pass block. They will be negated in the passing game and run on in the running game.

My worry is Jon Ryan. He did not look good last week.

Mason Crosby is no problem. an asset and better than the Giants kicker.

I think we get a big KO return this week. I am predicting Williams because of his quickness and speed.

I think we will cover kicks pretty good.

Looking at the Giants offense. I think they will be able to run the ball a little. The Key is us getting out ahead so that they can not slow down the game a lot with the ball control game. The RB Bradshaw concerns me a little.

Trust me, that 35-13 game is still in their heads. It would be anyones when you lose to a team like that at home and now play them on the road. So, if GB get that first TD to go up 7-0, its going to be a downhill game for Green Bay. Otherwise, it will take awhile.

I like our DE rotation for this game.I know we can rush 4 and be able to put enough pressure on Manning. Our tandum of Pickett and Harrell will close off the middle. The key will be Bigby not letting a Giant WR get past him. Tackling.

Poppinga can probably handle the Giant TE. This Frees up Hawk and Barnett.

I hope Al Harris is on Toomer. He doesnt do well on taller WR's such as Burris. Let our best corner Woodson take him. T Williams will be good on Steve Smith.

All we have to do is hold the Giants to 20 or less and we walk away with this game. The Packers have scored over 30 at home every game since the Washington game where we had 2 TD's called back on very bogus calls.

Last week I predicted Grant to have 135 yards and he had 2001. I think he gets 150 on the Giants because of our balance and their poor defensive backfield. Our WR's as a group are better than a hurt Terrell Owens and a Terry Glenn who had not played all year. They will not know what hit them.

Unless Green Bay turns the ball over, i think they score at will on this defense. Not bragging, I just see it this way.

Dallas had not been playing well. Yet they dominated a game that they lost. Dominated it.Its not like the Giants "beat" them. They held on. Good for them. Another factor is that that game was a "rivalry" game.

The Giants road record as it may be impressive, was filled with many weak teams and close wins against those teams as well.

Green Bay is a better team. Better Coached.

They have more questions than answers. Green Bay has improved much more since week 2 than NY has.

Green Bay 38 New York 13

Brett Rules

Dennis "The Mad Dog"
Who is barak obama?
Posted:Jan 17, 2008 3:46 am
Last Updated:Jan 17, 2008 4:09 am

Barack Obama on Abortion

this is from a site called "On The Issues" it just states everyones stances and voting records

Voted against banning partial birth abortion. (Oct 2007)
Stem cells hold promise to cure 70 major diseases. (Aug 2007)
Trust women to make own decisions on partial-birth abortion. (Apr 2007)
Extend presumption of good faith to abortion protesters. (Oct 2006)
Constitution is a living document; no strict constructionism. (Oct 2006)
Pass the Stem Cell Research Bill. (Jun 2004)
Protect a woman's right to choose. (May 2004)
Supports Roe v. Wade. (Jul 199
Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Apr 2007)
Voted NO on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. (Jul 2006)
Voted YES on $100M to reduce pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005)
Rated 0% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-choice stance. (Dec 2006)
Why People should vote Fred Thompson
Posted:Jan 16, 2008 2:22 am
Last Updated:Jan 16, 2008 6:57 am

Why I Endorse Fred Thompson for President
Thommy Oliver

While Fred Thompson is not leading the polls, Thompson does have a majority of endorsements from prominent conservative bloggers.

Blogger endorsements obviously don’t have a large impact on the actual voting process, but what is important is that all of these pundits follow the race and the candidates closely, and make up their minds not only on soundbytes, but on substance and record. Some of these bloggers have been on board since the beginning, while others have only endorsed Thompson recently.

Well, it is time to officially add my name to the list. Of course, our readers here are well aware of who I support and I even work with the campaign, but I realized I have never really officially said “I endorse (insert candidate’s name) for president).” I’m not in the same league as some of these prominent bloggers, but this site has its share of readers and we hold our own against many on the web.

How did I come to this decision? Well, since I actually have supported Thompson from the beginning of the draft campaign in March, it wasn’t a very hard decision. My endorsement is based on this criteria (in no particular order): philosophy, trust, policy, and the ability to appeal across the board to conservatives.

However: before today, I thought that since everyone who reads my posts on the internet would obviously have a pretty good idea of which candidate I supported and I didn’t see any point in saying anything official, but today Rick Moran said that the bloggers who have a good size audience need to stand up and make your pitch explaining why they support Thompson, if they haven’t done so already. Time is running short, and this post is not only for our regular commenters here, but for those who just read this site for updates and those who might just be passing through.

Let me explain why Thompson is the candidate that measures up the best to my standards:

My personal philosophy is deeply rooted in federalism. I am a member of the Federalist Society, and that principle is what guides me politically. Fred Thompson is supported by a majority of the founders of the Federalist Society, and for good reason. He is the most conservative viable candidate for the nomination, and there is little dispute of that. He has been a voice for federalist principles long before he decided to run for President this year.

His views on the role of government have been consistent since the early 1960’s. Although his book, 1975’s At That Point in Time, was not necessarily about political ideology, one could have an understanding of his beliefs after reading it. From the time he was elected to the Senate in 1994 until he left in 2002, he was always guided by his principles. He was the author of the Federalism Accountability Act, which he introduced in 1999. He was the first to introduce a bill for defining term limits for members of the House and the Senate in 1994.

In 2000, Thompson was the recipient of the “Restoring the Balance” Award from the National Conference of State Legislatures, which is awarded to national policymakers committed to federalism and its impact on issues involving state legislators. The following is from the press release announcing the award:

Thompson’s dedication to the principles of federalism and sound government policy has resulted in the Committee’s advancement of the Federalism Accountability Act, and Senate passage of the Regulatory Right to Know Act, the Federal Financial Information Assistance Management Improvement Act, the Truth in Regulating Act, and revision of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.

In 2000, Thompson authored a report that was aimed at specifically reducing the size of government and wasteful spending in DC.

On his website, Thompson wrote at length about the need for federalism in today’s atmosphere:

When you hold firm to the principles of federalism, there’s another advantage: our federal government can better carry out its own defining responsibilities - above all else, the security of our nation and the safety of our citizens. Sometimes I think that our leaders in Washington try to do so many things, in so many areas, that they lose sight of their basic responsibilities.

We saw some improvement in the post-1994, “Contract with America” takeover of Congress - strings to federal programs were cut, more federal programs were being turned over to states, historic legislation to reduce unfunded mandates became law, and we rolled back the Clinton anti-federalism executive order. But in recent years we’ve seen backsliding.


It is not enough to say that we are “for” federalism, because in today’s world it is not always clear what that means. What we are “for” is liberty for our citizens. Federalism divides power between the states and government in Washington. It is a tool to promote freedom. How we draw the line between federal and state roles in this century, and how we stay true to the principles of federalism for the purpose of protecting economic and individual freedom are questions we must answer. Our challenge - meaning the federal government, the states, our communities and constituents - is to answer these questions together.

Out of the viable candidates for the Republican nomination, this is one area where Thompson is clearly head and shoulders above the rest of the field, with the exception of Ron Paul. No other candidate has outlined a clear set of principles that would guide their presidency, and among some of them, those principles that guide them are not exactly clear. After Thompson, Rudy Giuliani probably has spoken about the need for federalism the most and spoke at the Federalist Society Lawyers Convention, but he was not a known believer in federalist principle during his time in office, and didn’t claim to be at the time.

John McCain’s beliefs are rooted in federalism and when he has voted on the issue in the past, more often then not, he came down on the right side of the argument. McCain has a record that, more often than not, strengthens his case. At the same time, McCain is famous for his maverick tendencies, which makes it harder to pin him down to a consistent set of beliefs. McCain also is for the Global Warming Treaty which would destroy US Economy because of restrictions on industry.

Mitt Romney has spoken about federalism during his run for the nomination, but Romney is also a pragmatist and a manager. While there are obvious advantages to that type of experience, it doesn’t necessarily lend itself well to identifying a philosophy that guides a politician. Romney is a candidate who would likely govern conservatively.

Mike Huckabee’s candidacy is not based upon the need for federalism, and though that is not a negative in some areas, it is at odds with my values. Ron Paul is a strong, principled candidate, but there are too many areas of concern for him to be my pick.He is so far off in foreign policy that he is not viable.

This is another area where I feel Thompson is the best representative of the Republican nominees. Thompson has become known for his refusal to pander or fudge on his facts. If one checks factcheck. after every debate, Thompson is the one candidate whose facts check out each time. He is not afraid to tell the truth about what is going wrong and what he believes is the best remedy to fix the problem.

His policy proposals are strong and firm. Even those who do not support Thompson for the nomination don’t question his substance. With Thompson, what you see is what you get, and his word is firm. He doesn’t weasel his way around an issue, for he has shown that he will tackle the toughest problems head on. No other GOP candidate has touched an issue as politically dangerous as social security besides Thompson, and he has done it repeatedly throughout the campaign. According tto NumbersUSA, Thompson introduced the toughest immigration proposals, and although he didn’t recieve Tom Tancredo’s endorsement, the majority of Tancredo’s staff has gone with Thompson, as has Steve King, the immigration hawk from Iowa.

Once again, when it comes to conservative policy proposals, Thompson comes out on top. Thompson has been the leading voice for reducing the size of government (with the exception of Ron Paul).

Fred Thompson may have started his presidential campaign late, but he is the first candidate in either party to come out with solid plans to reform Social Security and immigration. And while most candidates have called for increasing the size of the military, Thompson laid out a detailed plan to achieve that end in a Tuesday speech at the Citadel Military College. On these issues, Thompson has set a standard for specificity, conservatism, and soundness that we would like to see the other Republican candidates measure up to.

It’s obvious why conservatives see something to like in Thompson. He has offered clear, conservative ideas on fixing Social Security, policing immigration, and expanding the military. We encourage the other candidates to follow his lead.

Across the board Appeal To Conservatives:
Thompson has the advantage over his rivals is that he is the one candidate that can unite the base. Every other candidate either has issues with certain segments of the base, or has questions that remain unanswered.

Rudy Giuliani would have real problems uniting the social conservatives. John McCain has angered many on the right, making it more difficult for him to enjoy universal support inside the party.

Mitt Romney has been saying the right things, but the questions about his movement towards the right remain.

Mike Huckabee has a very strong base of support among social conservatives and the Religious Right, but has real problems outside of his core support.

Ron Paul? I like the guy, but he can’t realistically unite the GOP around his candidacy. In the end, all of the candidates have their strengths, and each one is strong in their own right, but only Fred Thompson has the ability to unite the conservative movement completely behind his candidacy.

Foreign Policy Experience:

This is an area where the republicans have more than one solid choice. Out of the top tier candidates, two have extensive experience in dealing with foreign policy, and one could make a legitimate claim that Rudy Giuliani would make three.

Most who follow the race closely would agree that John McCain is probably the most experienced candidate in this particular area, but the gap between him and Thompson is not that large. One would only have to look at Thompson’s resume to realize this:

Chairman of the International Security Advisory Board of the Department of State currently; a high-level panel charged with evaluating long-term threats to U. S. security
Served on the US-China Economic Review Commission
AEG Scholar specializing in Diplomatic Relations and Foreign Intelligence
Special Counsel to both the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations under President Reagan
Member of the powerful Senate Committee on Finance, which has jurisdiction over, among other things, international trade
Member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
Member of the National Security Working Group, which observes and monitors executive branch negotiations with foreign governments
Member of the American Enterprise Institute for Policy Research, studies national security and intelligence, with a focus on China, North Korea, and Russia
Member of the U. S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee
U.S. Senate Finance subcommittee- Member, International Trade
In 2008, the United States needs a President who has experience dealing with affairs on an international level, and Fred Thompson’s resume is quite impressive.

National Security:
Once again, more than one candidate has experience dealing with national security. John McCain and Fred Thompson both have the experience of being legislators during 9/11 and the build up to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Rudy Giuliani served on the Baker Committee and was the Mayor of New York during 9/11, performing admirably. Mitt Romney has experience dealing with security from his time running the Salt Lake City Olympics and serving on the Homeland Security Advisory Council.

Since McCain’s credentials match any of the other candidates, I am taking it for granted that everyone feels that he is strong in this area. Fred Thompson’s resume is impressive in its own right. Note that some of these overlap with his foreign policy resume:

Chairman of the International Security Advisory Board of the Department of State currently; a high-level panel charged with evaluating long-term threats to U. S. security
Member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
Member of the National Security Working Group, which observes and monitors executive branch negotiations with foreign governments
Chairman of the Government Affairs Committee 1997-2001 (which covered Homeland Security)
Chairman of the Youth Violence Committee in the Senate
Member, Technology, Terrorism and Gov’t. Information Committee in the Senate
Special counsel, Senate Committee on Intelligence, 1982
Important Proposals, bills and Inclusions Introduced while in the Senate:

Nuclear Proliferation Act
Aviation Security Bill Amendment
Homeland Security Workforce Act
Homeland Security Education Act
Thompson Amendment to the National Homeland Security and Combating Terrorism Act
The Federal Emergency Procurement Flexibility Act
The Government Information Security Reform Act (GISRA)
The Thompson Amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act
The Truth in Regulation Act
The Thompson Amendment Requiring Stricter Performance Standards for Aviation Security
The China Regulation Act
co authored the Homeland Security Act
Thompson served as Chairman of the Government Affairs Committee from 1997-2001, and then as the Ranking Minority Member from 2001-2003, when it was renamed the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee. The committee has always been responsible for national security measures in the federal government, and had an even greater role during Thompson’s tenure, before the creation of the Homeland Security Department.


Here are some words from people I respect on Fred Thompson:

“Fred Thompson has, over his career, much better defined federalism than almost anybody else in Washington. He is one of very few people voting against feel-good popular legislation that was not the proper domain of the federal government.”
-Pat Toomey, President of the Club for Growth

“the genuine moderate as opposed to conservative aspects of three of the top-tier, four of the top-tier candidates were on full-fledged display last night. There was one candidate who did not display any moderateness or liberalism or have any of his past forays into those areas displayed, and that candidate was Fred Thompson.”
- Rush Limbaugh

“he shows great political courage in taking on half of the single most important long-term economic issue facing this country (the other half being the long-term Medicare mess). On this proposal, conservatives ought to be rallying to Thompson’s defense, not greeting him with silence.”
-Quin Hillyer

”Good for Fred. Good for his excellent, broad based, tax-cut plan – including a flat-tax option and a corporate tax cut… Good for Fred for mentioning National Review and Investor’s Business Daily for speaking positively about his candidacy… Good for Fred for showing fire, energy, and animation throughout the interview. It’s the same fire in the belly that I witnessed in our CNBC interview earlier this month.

I vastly prefer positive policy visions to down-in-the-mud trashing. (I know, I know, criticizing each other on the issues is a key part of politics.) But my great hope is that the Republican contenders will emphasize their key policy visions as the race heats up.”
-larry kudlow

”That’s why I’m pleased that Fred Thompson has thrown his hat into the ring. Thompson has been talking and writing about his belief in federalism. In a recent speech, he argued that “centralized government is not the solution to all our problems…this was among the great insights of 1787, and it is just as vital in 2007.

Thompson rightly argues that the abandonment of federalism has caused a range of pathologies including a lack of government accountability, the squelching of policy diversity between the states, and the overburdening of federal policymakers with local matters when they should be focusing on national security issues. Federalism “is a tool to promote freedom” as Thompson puts it. So for the supposed heirs to Ronald Reagan who are running for president, let’s hear more about expanding our freedom by cutting the federal government down to constitutional size.”

- Chris Edwards, Director of Tax Policies at the CATO Institute

“Fred Thompson says that he will base his campaign on the ‘first principles’ of ‘individual freedom and limited government.’ If he follows through, he will have an opportunity to position himself as the only small-government conservative in the race.

… Does Fred Thompson, then, offer an alternative for small-government conservatives? While he is not quite the second coming of Ronald Reagan, a look at his record shows that he has generally supported limited government. … Of course, spending the last several years in Hollywood has enabled Thompson to avoid taking positions on many current issues. Now that he is in the race, he’ll have to be much more specific about his positions. But, given the fact that McCain, Romney, and Giuliani are clearly big-government conservatives, Thompson has an opportunity to seize the small-government mantle.”

- Michael D. Tanner, Director of Studies at the CATO Institute

One reason President Bush has lost the trust of the American people is his secrecy and the extension of the executive arm. Out of all the Republican candidates, only Thompson has clearly made the case of a more open White House. Thompson is a candidate who holds a cautious view of executive secrecy. Matthew Nather, of Congressional Quarterly, thinks this has everything to do with his professional experience.

According to Nather in the 12/20/07 issue of CQ:

”As the counsel in the 1970s to the Republicans on the Senate Watergate Committee and as the Chairman in the 1990s of what is now the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, Thompson has much more experience than any other candidate in leading congressional investigations of presidents. He has spent much of his career, in fact, thinking like a prosecutor and standing up for Congressional oversight responsibilities.”

Nather also reminded readers that it doesn’t mean that Thompson would necessarily give away presidential power:

As one of the main authors of the 2002 legislation that created the Department of Homeland Security, Thompson defended Bush’s insistence on having maximum flexibility on hiring and salary decisions for the departments employees. He claimed that a Democratic alternative would “actually diminish the president’s national security authority that other presidents have had.”

In his 1975 memoir, Thompson wrote that “He (Nixon) undoubtedly felt that the institution of the presidency, and he as the holder of that office, were so powerful that no force on Earth was strong enough to make him relinquish the tapes. In this, the master politician misjudged Congress, the Supreme Court, and the American people.”

From his past experiences, from serving on the Watergate Committee to his investigations in the Senate, out of all the Republican nominees, Thompson is the one who seems to have an understanding of the responsibility of the President to the Constitution and the American people.

I endorse Senator Fred Thompson for President.

To Join me in helping Thompson win the White House
Questions you need to answer and Quickly
Posted:Jan 15, 2008 4:44 am
Last Updated:Jan 16, 2008 6:58 am

Questions you need to answer...quickly

Maybe you should ask yourself what qualifies Edwards, Obama or Clinton?

Have they written any Bills while in office? What type of leadership positions have they ever held? The answer is sadly nothing. Look for yourself.

How do they qualify to run the economy of the United States? The economy in the past 5 years has been outstanding.

Unemployment has ranged from 4.7% to a low of 4.5%

The best was 5.7% from 92-2000

We have set records for the Dow in the past 5 years

24 straight quarters of economic growth.

Cutting capital gaines taxes as well as other taxes has propelled the economy.Raising taxes for social programs has never worked anywhere.

We were in a recession in 1999

What is the Clinton claim to fame as its Administration? The Welfare reform which he Vetoed twice and was written by Rick Santorum? Thats what History says.

Ask yourself, what has Hillary accomplished as a Senator? She has named post offices. That is it.She has never even been a leader in any law firm that she was a part of.

What has Obama done while in Office? What Laws? What accomplishments? Exactly....nothing

John Edwards? The same...Nothing...Its all on their records.He is however famous for the case that started all of the ambulance chasing lawyers because of a law suit he was a part of. Thats not a good thing.

But on the flip side, Fred Thompson has a long list of accomplishments. He has written Bills. He has worked as an Ambassador. He has all kinds of experience. He was part of the process of the past two Supreme Court Justices. One prominent Constitutional Lawyer who was Ed Meese's right hand man in Reagans cabinet stated thet Thompson knows more about the constitution than he does. This man graduated from Law School at 22 and was working for Meece at the age of 27! Yet he acknowleges Thompson's brilliance.

Mit Romney the same way. His economics has been outstanding as a Governor and he was also called in to fix the Olympics which was going broke.

Rudy Gulliani fixed a bad mega city that had a bad crime issue. He also was a fantastic leader at 911 and how he handled that.

None of the top Three Democrats give anyone a real alternative to the Republican top three. They have done nothing and are not qualified to even be in this race as a President.

Their answers are to raise taxes which kills an economy. A federal heath plan that fiscally will destroy the economy. Bill Clinton knew enough to stay away from that Health Care in 1993.

They all want to sign the Global Warming Treaty which would destroy industry with the sanctions it wishes to impose......Thes people have no qualifications whatsover and all they have are talking points with no basis of reality.

Proof Positive
Posted:Jan 15, 2008 3:53 am
Last Updated:Sep 24, 2023 7:11 pm


By: William Kaliher

Daily I watch the decline of western civilization caused by the left and wonder how absolutely stupid these people are. As you read keep in mind I use (American) Democrat, Communist, leftist, left-wing, Nazi, progressive and liberal interchangeably to describe various symptoms of the affliction called socialist.

How can anyone review history and see total failure in every instance involving any form of the abomination known as socialism and still subscribe to even a fraction of that belief system? Does blindness, false notions of doing good or ignorance explain it? I no longer think so; it requires absolute stupidity and a blind faith--any religion would envy in their members--in nothingness. Not a single liberal can recognize the path they’re taking will at best, bring them to a serf-like status of working a rice paddy and at worst leave them in the squalor and poverty of a Haiti but under a government Stalin would envy.

Today, I ran across a post at:

[SOURCE: MoveOn Dragged By Membership In The Vague Direction Of Troop Withdrawal posted by Bionic Octopus

I’m not recommending this left-wing outlet in any manner. A site that finds MoveOn not leftist enough is beyond the delusional aspects of MoveOn itself. However, I want to focus on a single paragraph to work from in highlighting the breathtakingly broad expanse of liberal stupidity. It follows:

"If this is the best MoveOn can do, it's pretty pitiful, and more than that, it amounts to a spit in the face of their beloved 'Cindy' whose sacrifice they so pompously 'honor' while assiduously gutting it of political significance.

Cindy Sheehan calls for 'bringing our nation's sons and daughters home from the travesty that is Iraq IMMEDIATELY, since this war is based on horrendous lies and deceptions. Just because our are dead, why would we want any more families to suffer the same pain and devastation that we are.' How this terminally bollocksless bill can possibly be said to 'honor' or 'support' Sheehan or her campaign is a mystery to me."

I don’t want to focus on this blog or anyone writing under the name of Bionic Octopus. I said these people are stupid, not unsalvageable and someone named Bionic Octopus at least possesses an imagination. Perhaps, he’ll eventually make the mistake of comparative reasoning and reject the idiocy now gripping him. The focus has to be on how dim any group can be to use Cindy Sheehan as a representative.

Let’s look at two fictional members of the Sheehan family from the perspective of the right. Let’s additionally suppose the Right controlled 95 percent of the press, television and other media as is now the case for the left. We’ll also pretend Right-wingers were stupid enough to get worked up over what someone like Cindy Sheehan says.

Case I

Carol Sheehan, of Opelika, Alabama, divorced mother of three living on wages from clerking in a shoe store and support.
Carol Sheehan sets up a tent in front of the Crawford, Texas ranch and demands five minutes of the President’s time. The conservative media takes Carol Sheehan seriously and sends reporters to help demand the meeting. Carol Sheehan states, "Gas went up to five dollars a gallon. It was so high I couldn’t drive little Davy to his doctors visit. This could be life threatening for all Americans."

Run through the Cindy Sheehan lunacy coverage for yourself and imagine all the reporters constantly on the verge of sexual fulfillment over this embarrassment to the President. It’s futile but try to imagine someone from the right taking this lady seriously on this topic.

Case II

Chineeka Sheehan, of Detroit, a nurse’s aid and a black member of the family.

Chineeka Sheehan sets up a tent in front of the Crawford, Texas ranch and demands five minutes of the President’s time. The conservative media takes Chineeka Sheehan seriously and sends reporters to help demand the meeting. Chineeka Sheehan states, "I need to talk to the President about the braking systems on eighteen wheelers traveling the interstates. My nephew Oswald Sheehan got squashed in a crash two weeks ago and it’s all Bush’s fault. He should have been inspecting truck brakes from the day he got in office. This didn’t happen on President Clinton’s watch."

The conservative media sets up like the liberal media does except this time with a member of the professional victim’s class speaking the viewer can actually see the stains where the reporters ejaculated in ecstasy over this opportunity to slam Mr. Bush.

Okay, I believe anyone can see this could not happen with conservatives or . The examples highlight the foolishness required to be a liberal. Conservatives are capable of comparative reasoning and that alone precludes exaltation over a Sheehan know-nothing type.

We’d laugh at our media as if it were Time Magazine and hoot them out of town. A libertarian or conservative media demanding Carol Sheehan meet the press instead of an expert on oil production, distribution or something related? A libertarian or conservative media demanding Chineeka Sheehan meet the press instead of an expert on trucking, braking or something related to trucks or highways is beyond the realm of possibility.

All right, leftists, are you beginning to see why you’re branded stupid? Are you getting a clue why people absolutely laugh when you refer to yourself as intellectuals or sophisticated?

Take a look at your media internationally or nationally. Did ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, the Baltimore Sun, the L.A. Times or any of your other propaganda outlets question Cindy Sheehan’s expertise? No, they pumped you up and used you once again to play the fool.

Of course, war is horrible and it’s a shame Cindy Sheehan or anyone else’s died. There are valid reasons to oppose the war, but your side can not intellectually produce those reasons as can a Pat Buchanan.

Instead your controllers once again played your emotions so you react with the pure imbecility one might expect from an amoeba in a hallucinogenic state. Wouldn’t it be better to whine and cry that President Bush speak with an expert on the financial costs of the war, or an expert on manpower losses versus political or military gains, or even someone that thinks the radical Moslems should win?

Instead Cindy Sheehan fits every aspect of the progressive mentality; she had to lose a to become the left’s ideal expert on war.
Theory of Huckability
Posted:Jan 14, 2008 10:19 pm
Last Updated:Jan 14, 2008 10:19 pm
Yes he is a disaster
Barak Obama's Health care Plan
Posted:Jan 14, 2008 3:47 pm
Last Updated:Jan 17, 2008 3:37 am

Barack Obama's healthcare plan:

Well first of all this is from the mouth of Obama. He says that he doesn't believe in mandates and that he would only mandate . Besides the obvious flaw in that logic he still maintains that he is against Mandates. Or is he? As the Clinton and Edwards campaigns have been targeting Obama's plan as insufficient he responds that his plan is the framework for getting to universal coverage.

So much for being against mandates. He is quoted as saying "If we see there are people who are still not covered when we make it affordable then we will figure out how to make sure that everybodys got voerage. Period.

You can count on that." He also said he will sign a universal health-care plan into law by the end of his first time in office. We already have coverage for poor in S-CHIP. So make no mistake about it Obama wants mandated Universal Health-Care. He also wants government control over profits because his plan requires limiting the amount of profit health care businesses can make and prosecuting companies that monopolize the insurance industry. This is very, very dangerous talk by a man running for President.

First of all we need to address why this is an issue at all with the American people. Throughout the majority of the 1900's America's health care was the envy of the world. Coincidentally that is also when there was the least amount of government intervention. All we have to do is look back at recent history to see why healthcare costs are rising through the roof.

After World War II, Congress made changes to the tax code that tied a patient's access to health insurance to his or her employer.

Under the current legal regime, the employer buys a worker's health plan, determining what it will cover and how much it will cost. The key decisions are made by employers, not patients. This limits freedom of choice. 60% of the population gets their health coverage through employer-sponsored plans.

This is a strong majority that has limited choice in their health plan. Add to that another 27% of the population that has coverage through some kind of government program. A whopping 9% purchases their healthcare directly.

When you see these figures you start to realize why it's a fallacy in the first place that the free market system isn't working. In fact, it's not being given a chance. Also in the current system, the worker pays for the health insurance policy (which is part of his compensation), but the employer owns it.

Therefore, workers cant take their policies with them if they change jobs. This limits portability of plans. There is no or very little ownership by the actual patient. So obviously government already has a big hand in the healthcare industry.

Now there are two rules of thought in the public square right now. One rule of thought is to turn to something along the lines of what Obama or even Edwards/Clinton are proposing with is universal healthcare. The other rule of thought is to all the free market to work itself out.

Well as we've noted that's near impossible under the current conditions. However, I first want to make the case against Universal Healthcare. Before it's implented we should look at the costs.

No matter what is said in the political jargon you will be paying for it. Not only you paying into it for yourself, but also paying into it for others.

There is absolutely no way around this truth. The healthcare industry right now is approximately 1/7th of the US economy. The economist magazine warns us that "Not since Franklin Roosevelt's War Production Board has it been suggested that so large a part of the American economy should suddenly be brought under government control."

That same government that managed Katrina wants to overhaul and manage 1/7th of the economy. The government just to keep the health care industry going will need to replace that 7th of the economy and guess what it comes out of your pocket! With the government controling health insurance prices and caping income possiblities we see a loss of incentive to invent and manage new medicines and technologies that could save lives.

Therefore the quality of healthcare drops. Also with government controling the prices and profits we no longer have an accountable allocation of resources with altnerative uses.

We no longer economize medicine(we really barely do now). The fluctuation of prices of these alternative use resources in a price-coordinated economy usually define to producers what society requires by laws of supply and demand.

Without the mechanism of fluctuation it becomes guesswork on what the public requires and therefore resources are no longer managed on any kind of scale and now that opens the door to much waste. Sound familiar? Don't we have similar complaints with the government in other areas? Now we wish to hand our healthcare completely over to them?

I believe the principles of success are all the same. The principles of the free market always work if allowed to work.

If we look at history and see the famous bet between the Ivory Coast and Ghana. They had a bet on who would be the more prosperous country.

Ghana ran on government control and Ivory Coast on the free market. By 1982 the Ivory Coast had so surpassed Ghana that the poorest 20 percent of the people had a higher real income per capita than nearly all of the people of Ghana.

We can look through history to different countries that have adopted the free market economies such as India, Germany, China, New Zealand, South Korea, Sri Lanka etc etc all saw sharp increases in economic output which relied on prices to allocate resources. The free market always works.

The government's role is and always should be to set a parameter of laws for within the population to engage in free enterprise and enforce those laws.

Finally I want to look at the history of government programs. Some similar to the one being proposed and others not so similar, but with the same result as to which I am about show. First I want to start with the not so similar item. The Tax code.

Government started collecting income tax from Americans in 1913. They didn't even have "withholding" yet. In fact only the top 1% even paid the income tax. Compare that to where the tax code is today. Exactly. Now look at similar programs such as medicare, medicaid, S-Chip, welfare, social security. All of them start as a helping hand for the desperate. Now nearly all of them become a monstrosity and an albatross around the neck of the American tax payer as well as the American budget.

The government just recently tried to expand the S-Chip program. Don't yourself if I haven't convinced you that universal healthcare is a bad idea not only for fiscal reasons, but quality reasons(and I didn't even get into the horror stories across the world that are a result of socialized medicine) and you are ok with universal healthcare as it stands as the politicians are promoting it now then trust me.

This is only the beginning. History teaches us that government will grow this program even larger, and expect you to pay for it.

~Cory Thompson~@1/14/08
Does Praise overcome depression?
Posted:Jan 14, 2008 5:42 am
Last Updated:Jan 14, 2008 10:34 am

Do you believe when you Praise God that depression can be overcome?

Do you recall David when he was depressed commanded his Soul to bless God? The soul is made up of our mind emotions and will and this is where depression resides.

Bless the Lord all my soul and all that is within me bless his Holy Name.

He commanded himself.

Does it work? If so why do we not do it today?
The River Test
Posted:Jan 13, 2008 7:39 pm
Last Updated:Jan 14, 2008 9:22 am

The River Test

A river flows by your school. Knowing the kind of person you are, what do you think you would most likely do as you come to the river on your way to school?

1. Just cross river by the bridge on it.

2. Halt for a few minutes to look at the water.

3. Take off your shoes and dip your feet in.

To link to this blog (Tropical_Man) use [blog Tropical_Man] in your messages.