Fredipedia: the definitive Fred Thompson quick-reference
Posted on 01/01/2008 8:22:09 PM PST by Josh Painter
When Tom Tancredo dropped out of the race and endorsed Mitt Romney, two of the key members of his Iowa team didn't follow suit. Bill Salier, who had been Tancredo's Iowa State Chairman, and Angie Anderson, who had served Tancredo as Iowa State Executive Director, both signed on with Team Fred and immediately began campaigning for Sen. Thompson.
Salier and Anderson may have the highest profiles of the former Tancredo supporters who are now working for Fred Thompson, but they aren't the only ones. Many others have followed the pair over to Fred's campaign from the Tancredo effort, from campaign volunteers to folks who just intend to vote for the clear conservative in the primaries.
The Admiral salutes Morgan, whose blogging activities include Hoosiers for Tancredo and his personal blog, My Two Cents Worth. I want to welcome Morgan and all Tancredo supporters to the effort to nominate and elect Fred Thompson president.
Some of us call ourselves "Fredheads," others (like me) like to be known as "Frederalists" and still others prefer "Frednecks." No matter what descriptive you prefer, we're all hard-core Fred Thompson supporters. Many of us were involved in the successful grassroots effort to draft Fred as a presidential candidate, and we firmly believe in the conservative and federalist principles the big guy stands for.
Rest assured that Fred Thompson will carry the banner for the same conservative principles to which Tom Tancredo has long been committed. A reading of Thompson's published plan to strengthen border security and reform immigration should have special appeal to those who were in Rep. Tancredo's camp. Fred is equally strong on other issues of concern to Tancredo conservatives, and he has demonstrated that he doesn't change his tune to pander to special interest groups or blocs of voters.
Speaking for my fellow friends of Fred, we're overjoyed to have you join us in this crucial and historic effort for Fred Thompson and conservative principles. Let's work together to make sure that it's a consistent conservative who is the nominee of the Republican Party in 2008 and who will defeat whatever liberal that the Democrats choose to throw out against him.
- JP
FRED THOMPSON is the best person to lead this country. He is a true conservative and has been his entire life. All one has to do is check his record to see this.
During my time in the Army as an Intelligence Analyst, I served under both Presidents Carter and Reagan (as my commanders in chief). Without argument, President Reagan was the best commander-in-chief a military person could ever have served under. Fred Thompson possesses the same qualities and vision as President Reagan in that he is strong on national defense and sees a dire need to secure our borders and control immigration.
I can think of no better person to lead this country and fix the problems we have. He is the only candidate from either party who has specific and detailed plans on border security and immigration reform; revitalization of America’s armed forces; saving and protecting Social Security; and tax relief and economic growth. These are detailed on his Web site at www.fred08.com . I challenge you to find any other candidate who has laid out specific plans to fix anything.
Fred Thompson has published his first principles, some of which are mentioned above. In addition to those, he strongly believes in individual liberty, personal responsibility, limited government, federalism, traditional American values, the rule of law and is a strong proponent of the Second Amendment — all concepts established during the birth of our country and documented in our Constitution.
Again, try to find any candidate who has laid out their plans to “fix” this country. You will find they all speak in vague and abstract terms on their plans.
For those who have heard Fred Thompson speak, you will usually hear him say that the Fred Thompson you see today is the same Fred Thompson you saw yesterday and is the same Fred Thompson you will see tomorrow. He stands by his principles and values and doesn’t shift his positions based on polls or public opinion; in other words, he doesn’t say what the voters want to hear just to get elected, but remains steadfast on his views and convictions.
During his time in the Senate he focused on three areas: to lower taxes, strengthen national security and expose waste in the federal government. Fred Thompson has foreign policy experience, having served as member of the Senate Foreign Relations and Senate Intelligence committees.
As chairman of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, he opened the investigation in 1997 on the Chinese government’s attempt to influence American policies and elections, and this investigation identified connections with the Clinton administration (documented in the committee’s report).
As a member of the Finance Committee, he worked tirelessly to enact three major tax-cut bills. Fred Thompson remains steadfast and even though a person may not agree with all his views and he understands some may disagree with him, you can count on him to be consistent and unwavering.
Don’t be fooled by his laid back approach and what critics call his “laziness.” As a former assistant U.S. attorney, he earned a reputation as a tough prosecutor and he possesses the toughness this country needs in order to tackle today’s and tomorrow’s issues.
I ask that you take a hard look at what this country needs, then take a hard look at all the other candidates’ views, policies, their records and their track record on consistency. Fred Thompson possesses integrity, loyalty, commitment, energy and decisiveness, all traits of an effective leader, and will emerge as the best person to take this country boldly forward.
It’s nice to see his former staff have the heads and gonads still with them.
Well, as far as Thompson goes, I put this down in another Thompson thread...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1946833/posts?page=20#20
And then put this down in a Romney thread...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1946998/posts?page=9#9
I don’t know how many other voters will use my “first criteria” for eliminating candidates from consideration, but I put it down as my number one and first criteria — of being a Christian. Then all the other criteria can be evaluated after that.
Regards,
Star Traveler
FRED in ‘08
FRED in ‘08
Tancredo supporters should all be supporting Hunter.
I understand YOUR criteria, but kindly don't piss in the pool.
Why he would endorse Romney over Thompson is just more evidence of same.
Why is fred not a christian?
Don't get him started.
because Thompson just can’t win.
You asked — “Why is fred not a christian?”
Well, someone directed me to a campaign statement that Thompson just made on YouTube, in order for me to ascertain whether he was truly a Christian or not. That poster seemed to think that this message would clarify the issue. I looked and it actually confirmed to me that Thompson is not a Christian, instead of affirming it for me.
My posting is at —
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1946833/posts?page=98#98
That’s pretty much why I came to that conclusion...
Regards,
Star Traveler
Thompson is running because the rest of the candidates are poor.
Romney is a horrible candidate who has no shot at beating Obama or Klintoon.
The guy is from Massachusetts, is a Mormon, and has changed his position on abortion and immigration depending on what office he is running for.
Giuliani at least had the integrity to not change his pro abortion stand to try to fool the gullible, guys like Romney should be selling cars.
If the guy says he is a Christian, I guess he is a Christian.
http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/blog/g/fae04137-df08-41e1-807c-2f09818fe5b8
you have your guy, I have mine. Rush likes him too.
Well, that’s not the criteria that the Bible applies to it. In fact, and as I noted in another thread, Jesus says to certain people who claim to do things in Jesus’ name (in fact doing good things in his name) — that Jesus says to those people “Depart from Me! I never knew you!”
And so, if one doesn’t want to hear those words from Jesus (”Depart from Me! I never knew you!”) it would pay to know exactly what it is that makes one a Christian, from what the Bible says.
One clue is that it’s not “just because you say so”... LOL!
Regards,
Star Traveler
The worst thing about Romney is that he probably would win. And then all bets are off as to what he would do on any particular day of the week.
Personally, as a former Tancredo supporter, I’d like to have “None of the above” as an option, and then start over with a new set of candidates.
Is the Pope a Christian?
Tancredo supporters and Hunter supporters should all be supporting Fred.
So because he didn’t mention jesus, he’s not a christian?
I have to say that sounds pretty lame.
According to you, you can’t be a christian unless you are an expert about christianity. I don’t agree with that.
Every conservative GOPer should be supporting Hunter. Then again, we wouldn’t be called the stupid party if they did.
Does he believe in and adhere to the basic, historic and foundational doctrines and teachings of Christianity? If so, then I would say he is...
For further clarification on that issue, take a look at Walter Martin’s “Kingdom of the Cults”, which compares all sorts of groups and churches and doctrines to basic, historic and foundational Christian doctrines and teachings. In there you’ll find some good research that will save you probably thousands and thousands of hours of your own personal research. He’s done it for you in that book. And there will also be information related to your question, too.
It’s at —
http://www.amazon.com/Kingdom-Cults-Walter-Martin/dp/0764228218/
Regards,
Star Traveler
P.S. — You can also check it out at the library, too.
Well if Jimmy Carter is running, I'm sure he'll get your vote.
I was stupid enough to vote for him in 1976 because he was a "Born Again" Christian.
May God forgive me for being so shortsighted.
FRED in ‘08
Yep, Tancredo pretty much pissed away his credibility.
And the cheap-shot at Hunter at the end will further marginalize him among conservatives.
Fred in 08!
No, it’s much more than that. He exhibited that he had no idea what the “good news” is (in that it’s how one is saved). Now.., if he had the least clue to that, he would have known what to say in regards to the “good news”. Anyone who is a Christian, who knows those basic, historic and foundational doctrines and teachings of Christianity would pick up — in an instant — on what Thompson said. The only ones who wouldn’t pick up on it very quickly, would be those who are unfamiliar with what is the criteria for being a Christian. And with those people, it would simply sound like nice and good phrases...
Regards,
Star Traveler
follow the money.
You said — “Well if Jimmy Carter is running, I’m sure he’ll get your vote.”
Well, no, he actually wouldn’t. That just goes to show you that you haven’t quite figured out what I’m saying here.
—
You then said — “... because he was a “Born Again” Christian.”
You’ll note (and you’ll also see from that other thread I was in) that this is simply the *first criteria* that a candidate must pass. And even though it’s really not a hard criteria to pass, if one really is a Christian — it still has to be something that is convincing and not something that is done for political expediency (like I think a lot of candidates may do, and like it appears that Thompson is trying to “slide by” with).
You’ll also note that I’ve said that there are going to be *other criteria* after this first criteria. You make it out to be that this is the *only* criteria and I’ve never said that. So, you’re going on a mistaken impression here...
Regards,
Star Traveler
Would you care to estimate what percentage of self-described Christians are actual Chrisians according to your criteria?
10%? Less? More?
You’re mistaken, but this thread should not be turned into a religion thread. According to his biographical information, he is a christian. He’s said it many times. He has said the pertinent information often. He is a christian according to the teaching of the church that he claims.
You asked —
—
“Would you care to estimate what percentage of self-described Christians are actual Chrisians according to your criteria?
10%? Less? More?”
—
That’s a very good question. I believe there have been surveys done to try and estimate that very thing. I think The Barna Group has done research on that. They’re at — http://www.barna.org/
How you would come up with it — is to ask a respresentative sampling of people how many are Christians and then ask a series of questions having to do with what Christianity counts as *essential* to the faith and salvation. And by that, you can come up with some figure.
Do I know what it is? No..., other than seeing such a survey once in a while. I know it’s definitely a smaller group than the group that claims to be Christian.
One very clear example of that are the Mormons. They claim to be Christian in their teachings and doctrines — yet — when you get down to comparing what Christianity considers essential for a saving faith to what the Mormons say — they are radically different. Mormon teaching and doctrines is so radically different from basic, historic and foundational Christian teaching and doctrine that they are totally unrecognizable — one to the other.
So, one could drastically lower the “count” of so-called “Christians” in such a survey, just on the basis of someone claiming to follow and adhere to Mormon teaching and doctrine.
And then, you can go on and on, down the list of “essentials” from Christianity.
As far as it being something that I have “cooked up” myself — I can hardly say that, since I had nothing to do with the formation of these basic, historic and foundational teachings and doctrines. They were there long before I was ever born and I have nothing to do with what they are. I have made a decision to adhere to those teachings and doctrines of basic, historic and foundational Christianity, but I have nothing to do with formulating them in the first place.
Regards,
Star Traveler
P.S. — For more information on these basic, and how they compare with many others, as to whether those other adhere to (or don’t), take a look at the very good work (and considered authoritative, by those in Christianity) — Kingdom of the Cults, by Walter Martin and Ravi Zacharias.
http://www.amazon.com/Kingdom-Cults-Walter-Martin/dp/0764228218/
Just another politician, I reckon.
It’$ nice to $ee his former $taff have the head$ and gonad$ $till with them.
Did you see that campaign speech in which Thompson spoke about his faith (as close as I’ve ever heard him speak about it), and yet showed that he had absolutely no concept of what it is about? I took note of that in one of my other posts. So, I’m only saying so from what I heard directly from his own mouth and his own “testimony”. His own testimony gave me no indication and no assurance of him being a Christian.
Now, as far as to what a “campaign” may say about someone being a Christian, I just don’t trust campaign blurbs about someone being a Christian. I mean — hey! they even say Romney is a Christian, too... LOL! (and I know he is definitely not)....
So, those campaign blurbs don’t do very much for me. But, Thompson’s own words do a lot for me —in understanding where he’s coming from. And that’s exactly what his words did for me. They clued me in to the fact that he definitely does not understanding what a saving faith is or what the “good news” is and thus not any criteria for being a Christian is about.
Regards,
Star Traveler
Free advice for you. Let God sort ‘em out. He’s so much better qualified for the job than you...
I’m more interested in Methodists, Presbyterians, Roman Catholics, Baptists, Episcopalians, etc.
I suspect that many of these good church-going people who you (and others thinking like you) deem non-Christian would be incredulous and offended.
Well, I suppose that’s good enough for you. And if you’re satisfied with someone who is not a Christian but yet, fulfilling the other criteria that you have, that’s gotta be your choice, of course.
I’m just letting those know (who have asked me before) why it was that Thompson failed my “first criteria” for a Presidential candidate. Of course, I have other criteria after that, but he did not even make it past the “Christian” part, which is really *not that difficult* for anyone to be! It’s so simple of a choice and such a free gift that God gives — how could anyone refuse??!
So, the fact that someone refuses to be a Christian, that puts a big dent in my qualifications for that person as a candidate for the President of the United States.
I hope that there are plenty of other Christians who will hold up a high standard of being a Christian as a *first criteria* for being President of the United States. Of course, we will all apply other criteria after that — but being a Christian should be the first point of elimination!
Regards,
Star Traveler
The purpose of the thread is welcome the Trancredo supporters to the Fred camp. I say:
You said — “I suspect that many of these good church-going people who you (and others thinking like you) deem non-Christian would be incredulous and offended.”
I think if you looked at that research — first — and the authoritative book that I referred to earlier, that you would know different than you just said. But, apparently you haven’t checked it out, first — before speaking.
Just to let you know, you’ll find that we’re talking about the essentials and the basics of Christianity and that’s what the book Kingdom of the Cults investigates and does research about. It’s something that anyone could do on their own, if they had the time and inclination (and I suppose money, too), but it has been researched and outlined and done for you and that’s why it’s considered such an authoritative work. It boils it down to these basics of the historic and foundational Christian teachings and doctrines and makes those comparisons, across the board, with all of these others.
Look them up and you’ll be surprised... LOL!
Regards,
Star Traveler
No joke...
Are you suggesting Thompson isn’t a Christian?
From what I understand, that be a lie...
Fred used terminology like "divine Providence" because that is the terminology used by the Founding Fathers. Were he to use more specific terms, his opponents might well yield the "Church and State" canard. But when he used the same terminology as the Founding Fathers used themselves, it's hard to argue that he's introducing religion in a manner the Founding Fathers never intended.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.