Fred! on immigration

If anybody thinks that Rudy "sanctuary city" Giuliani or Mitt "The Waffle" Romney, or ¿Hillary? or Barack "Hey, let's just let 'em all come in!" Osama Obama have a better plan for dealing with illegal immigrants, let's see how.

On the other hand, Fred! Thompson has outlined his approach to dealing with this issue. You can read about it over at SoCal Pundit.

Fred! wins Nat'l Right-to-Life endorsement

What was the big hue and cry from those who tried to attack Fred! Thompson's pro-life stance? "Well, he worked for a lobbying firm that did work for a pro-choice group," or some such nonsense. Of course, they fail to mention that was, like, 20 years ago. For crying out loud, I was in favor of abortion 20 years ago. Even 15 years ago. And now, I'm about as pro-life as one can get. And so is Fred! Thompson.

And even the National Right-to-Life Committee (NRTLC) says so (From FOXNews):

The National Right to Life Committee announced its backing for Thompson in Washington, D.C.,

“Our endorsement is a testament to Sen. Thompson's longstanding pro-life record, his commitment to protecting unborn children and our belief in his ability to win,” said Wanda Franz, president of the committee.

The group also cast him as the candidate most likely to beat abortion-rights supporter Rudy Giuliani in the primary race for the GOP nomination.

"While there are various polls, and some are up-and-down, the overwhelming consensus has been that he is best-positioned to top pro-abortion candidate Rudy Giuliani for the Republican nomination," said the group's executive director David N. O'Steen.

Is Fred! perfect? No. He has voiced support for--and against--some issues where I would have disagreed with his stance. But, compared to Rudy "I strongly support a woman's right to kill her child" Giuliani and Mitt "Magic Mormon Underwear" Romney, I'd take Fred! any day of the week!

(And yes, Romney's Mormonism is a problem for me. Click the link on the sidebar entitled "Are Mormons Christians", and look for "Why Romney flip-flops so much" But, if it were between him and Hillary? I would more than likely hold my nose and vote for him.)

Of all the candidates running for the White House, Fred! is the best choice for this country. Thank you, NRTLC for seeing that and supporting this man for president!

Finally!! It's Fred! time

It appears as though he will announce on September 6th, according to The Tennessean:

WASHINGTON — Former Sen. Fred Thompson of Tennessee will make the long-awaited announcement of his Republican presidential bid in a broadcast on the Internet on Thursday.

The Webcast will be followed by a five-day tour of the first three states in the primary parade: Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina; and capped by a homecoming event Sept. 15 in his hometown, Lawrenceburg, Tenn.

"I believe that there are millions of Americans who know that our security and prosperity are at risk if we don't address the challenges of our time," Thompson said in a written statement issued after a half-hour telephone conference call Thursday with supporters.

He listed those challenges as terrorism, taxes, excessive federal spending and government incompetence.

In the five months since Thompson, known to many Americans for his role on TV's Law & Order, first expressed interest in running, he has vaulted into second place in most national polls. As the months wore on without an announcement, questions have arisen about a Thompson candidacy. He will face those questions with a smaller margin of error.

The man has been running second--sometimes first, and no lower than a close third--in almost every poll, without even being in the race officially. Once he gets his machine up and running, I don't see him going anywhere but up. He has not been one to mince words about what he would like to do when elected, he doesn't pussy-foot around the issues. And he has done so knowing that if he does run, he will not be able to "gloss over" what he said, and make some kind of political maneuvering to make it look like he didn't say them.

There may be some questions about who he dealt with and who he defended or lobbied for some twenty years ago. What somebody believed twenty years ago has no bearing on what they believe today, unless they try to deny what they believed previously. Twenty years ago, I was very much pro-abortion. I voted for Dukakis. And Cuomo. Now--well, read what's underneath the title of this blog and you'll see where I stand now. So what if Fred! lobbied for a pro-abortion group twenty years ago. Look at his record in the Senate, and he voted pro-life 100% of the time. Not like Romney, who was pro-abortion, but is now pro-life, although he just might consider thinking about maybe discussing whether he might entertain the idea of changing his mind...maybe.

Fred! to announce tomorrow(?)(!)

More buzz about likely events: RedState is saying they may have the scoop of the day: Fred! Thompson may be announcing that he is an official candidate for President as early as tomorrow:

Now, those of you who (like me) suffer from a snidge of "Fratigue™" [that's an acronym for "Fred! Fatigue--Ed.], take heart. The announcement is rumored to be subtle, quick, and in-line with a normal day of talking about where he stands on America and the issues we face as a nation.

And, it is rumored he will announce his candidacy TOMORROW.

He isn't looking for cameras and parades. He's looking to do a few things for the country that need doing, and that he thinks only a President can do.

For those of you that forgot he already said he had made his mind up, but was waiting for the right moment, consider the costs associated with running for President. Why burn up early dollars, when you can quietly go about determining if there's even an INTEREST in America in a Thompson Presidency..he has saved a lot of the former, and clearly believes there is a sufficient amount of the latter.

Expect the standard pot-shots from the media, and his opponents within the GOP.

Expect him to come out swinging at all of the above.

Yay if it's true!

Common sense from Fred!

With so many illegal immigrants victimizing people who are actual legal citizens of this country, it's about time somebody stood up and publicly denounced these so-called "sanctuary cities." Ironically, Newark, NJ is among this cabal.

If you listen to folks who oppose immigration and border enforcement, you get the feeling they think we put locks on our doors to keep everybody out. The truth is we have locks so we can choose who comes in.

An example of what happens when we don’t make the choice took place August 4th when three Newark, New Jersey, college students with great promise were executed, gangland style. The killers’ ringleader was apparently an illegal alien indicted twice in 2007 for felonies, including the rape of a kindergarten-aged girl.

Why would such a person be set free instead of being handed over to authorities for deportation? The answer is that Newark is a “sanctuary city” which bans cooperation between local officials and federal immigration officials. More than 60 sanctuary zones, including 30 of America’s largest cities, provide a national networked haven for foreign and organized criminals who recruit and operate outside those areas as well. These sanctuaries include Cambridge, Massachusetts; Los Angeles, California; Detroit, Michigan; Chicago, Illinois; Austin and Houston, Texas; Denver, Colorado; and New York City.

The consequences of “sanctuary cities” may be most obvious in the city that became the first in 1979 — Los Angeles. According to the Center for Immigration Studies, a confidential California Department of Justice study from the mid-1990’s showed then that at least 60 percent of the members of L.A.’s most violent gangs, with membership in the tens of thousands, were illegal aliens. Of all outstanding murder warrants in Los Angeles, 95 percent are for illegal aliens. Frustrated police say they are powerless to pick up even well-known, previously deported felons.

The costs of policies that offer shelter to criminals are borne not just by the citizens of Newark, Cambridge, and other sanctuaries though. According to the investigative arm of Congress, the Government Accountability Office, illegal aliens made up 27 percent of the federal prison population in 2005, totaling 49,000 and costing federal taxpayers $1.2 billion. There were also more than 220,000 illegals in state and local prisons and jails. Now, I am not suggesting that all illegal aliens are violent criminals. They are not. Most are peaceful folks just trying to get by like the rest of us. But we would be far better off if we checked on people as they come into the country rather than find out who the bad ones are after they victimize people here.

We have the right to keep criminal predators out of our home. Those who want to immigrate into America need to knock, identify themselves, and ask permission first. They will not do so though if we can’t even ask who they are, which is prevented in sanctuary cities. Now I am a strong federalist, but immigration is a responsibility of the federal government, and the failures of local officials to enforce our national laws have a direct impact on communities around the country. So federal law must be enforced, or our neighborhoods will continue to be the scene of chilling and lurid crimes committed by those who broke the law in the first place to come to America.

So, while the mayor of Newark is declaring that justice will be done swiftly, he's one of the reasons those kids were murdered to begin with. Maybe he ought to just come out and admit that it is the city's failed policy of coddling these murderous criminals that led to the murders of three youn people in his (not-so) fair city. Yeah, that'll happen. Right after Ray "Chocolate City" Nagin admits he's partly to blame for the mess after Katrina.

Dems paint Fred!'s wife as a "trophy"

Um, didn't John Kerry-Heinz make a big deal about TahRAYzah being "saucy and sexy"...when she really isn't? Well, now the Dems are apparently kinda miffed that Fred!--a Republican--is married to a younger woman.

Well, hold your hosses they-a pawd-nah! At least, thus saith Mr. Hawkins (via Right Wing News):

In the case of Thompson's wife, by calling her a "trophy wife," they're basically asserting that she is a bimbo whom Thompson married because she's hot (Think Anna Nicole Smith and that billionaire). But, Jeri Kehn is a lawyer, a former Senate staffer, and she worked for the RNC, so obviously she has a lot of brains.

If anything, pursuing this line will end up backfiring on the left because people will think it's extremely crass.

Well, what else would you expect from this group?

Some people have a case of "Fred! Envy"

Check out this column over at FredHeads USA.

Ya know, if the New York Slimes (motto: "All the news our enemies need to see in print!") is going to try and tear down a candidate (or, potential candidate), they really need to try something other than trying to invent a scandal. Oh, wait. Nah, that's what the Slimes does best.

Let's recap, shall we? The Dem[ocrat Harlan] Matthews went after the son Tony [Thompson, Fred!'s son], not the other way around. Sen. Thompson "was sensitive to the potential appearance of favoritism to his sons’ clients and sought to keep a distance." The son Tony "never lobbied the Senate or discussed clients with his father." The OTHER son, Daniel, "was registered as a lobbyist only at the state level." AND-no charges have ever been filed. No accusations have ever been made.

After his election to the U.S. Senate, Fred!'s sons got lobbying gigs. Sounds fishy, huh? But here's the kicker: neither one of them lobbied dear old dad. Fred! kept a distance from Tony, while Daniel only worked at the state level. But, Fred! is a Republican, so of course this means he was a corrupt, evil man. Although the Slimes does slide this statement into the story, hoping you'll skim over it:

Mr. Thompson was hardly the only lawmaker with relatives in similar positions. As money pouring into lobbying firms has soared in recent years, many lawmakers have watched family members get into the business.

Oh, and if you want to read about some real scandal, go over to The Jawa Report, and there you can find a lengthy list of all the criminals that the Clintons pardoned on their way out the White House door (**LANGUAGE WARNING**). They make Scooter Libby look like a Boy Scout.

How do you spell "common sense" with only four letters?

There are two ways, actually. First, you could spell it
"F-R-E-D".

Or, you can spell it "N-E-W-T":



About the 1:00mark--"[FedEx and UPS can find] several million packages that are moving. [The government cannot find] several million people who aren't moving....That leads me to a very obvious proposal. Which is that we send a package to every person that's here ilegally."

UPDATE: After watching the video again, Newt was saying "several million", not "seven million" as I had previously posted.

Fred! tops Rasmussen poll!!

According to the latest Rasmussen poll, District Attorney Arthur Branch is atop the list of potential presidential candidates with an "R" next to their name (and some who have an "R" followed by an "INO"). (via Captain's Quarters):

Rasmussen has this as essentially a four-man race at this point, with two front-runners and two struggling to stay in the top tier. They eliminated Newt Gingrich from the polling this time, which undoubtedly helped Fred surpass Rudy, as most Newt voters want a solid conservative alternative with national pull. John McCain and Mitt Romney didn't get helped at all by that change, both losing slight ground instead and remaining tied for third place at a distance.

The second tier has all but faded from the scene. Combined, the rest of the field only gets 3%, under the margin of error for the whole poll. The only bright spot for Duncan Hunter, Mike Huckabee, Sam Brownback, Tom Tancredo, Jim Gilmore, and Ron Paul comes from the 18% who haven't made up their minds as yet -- although even if one of them got all 18%, it would onl make them third in this race.

Keep in mind, Fred! hasn't even officially announced his candidacy. He plans to do that on July 4th (Happy birthday America!). But when he does, you can bet that that number will go up.

Listening to Mark Belling sit in for Rush today, a caller brought up the only real stumbling block for Fred!--his vote to not impeach Co-President Clinton. However, considering Fred!'s position on every other issue, I can live with that. McCain is unstable, Rudy is pro-abortion, and Romney is a regular at the Waffle House. So I can overlook that one mistake from 8 years ago.

Fred!--more than just an actor

Captain Ed has a post up at Captain's Quarters, taking George Will to task for a column Mr. Will wrote about Fred!, and his qualifications. From CQ:

First and foremost, Will has both Reagan and Thompson wrong in the same manner that people dismissed Reagan in his political career. Thompson has a long career as more than just an actor. Thompson's acting career was accidental; his political career was much more deliberate. He made his name as a reforming activist lawyer, first with Watergate, and second in exposing corruption in the Tennessee governor's office. And like Reagan but in a much shorter time frame, he has spent the last several months delivering speeches and papers on issues.

Thompson first came to national attention by working with Senator Howard Baker on the Watergate committee. It was Thompson who brought out the Oval Office taping system that captured all of Richard Nixon's incriminating conversations. Thompson also asked the critical question: "What did the President know, and when did he know it?"

Afterwards, Thompson pursued a case of pardons-for-bribes corruption in Tennessee. He represented Marie Ragghianti, a whistleblower who uncovered the corruption. With Thompson's help, a number of Tennessee state officials went to prison, and while Governor Ray Blanton managed to remain free, his political career was finished. The film Marie tells the story based on the Peter Maas book, and Thompson played himself. That started his improbable Hollywood career; he did not train to be an actor, but a lawyer and a clean-government activist.

It's a shame that more people don't know more about Fred!, and his background. His tenure in the US Senate (8 years) is 6 years more than a certain "clean and articulate" Democratic candidate who has NO BACKGROUND other than he's black. And he supposedly gave a decent speech at the '04 Donkey Convention. And with Fred!, you know that what he says, he means--unlike a certain pantsuit-wearing, lifelong Cubs Yankees fan from Arkansas New York.

Yes, Fred! may have voted against impeaching Bill Clinton. But, is it wise to hold that one mistake against him? Absolutely not! Because compared to the current crop of GOP'ers running for Prez--most of which are RINO's at best--he represents the conservative viewpoint much more completely.