Excellent!!
I certainly hope that this blog continues with comparisons on other issues as well. I have long felt that it is VERY important to outline the specific differences comparing Hunter with the other top tier candidates (including Fred Thompson) on border security, illegal immigration and amnesty, NAFTA, NAU/SPP, and China.
Of note in Part 1:
“Thompson’s other mistake is that he is still trying to stick with a federalist argument. Roe v. Wade was certainly a poorly reasoned decision, but it was not only bad because it usurped states rights. It had a far worse effect on the HUMAN rights of the unborn, God’s natural law. Fred does not support a constitutional amendment to overturn this abomination. Apparently he has reverence for our founding documents, or so it would seem. Yet, if you look at the above citations, it is obvious that he was more than willing to amend the constitution for things our Founding Fathers never envisioned: Term limits and a mandatory balanced budget. A man who is willing to change the constitution to tell states they must limit the terms of their representatives, yet who won’t contemplate it for something that the founders clearly would have included had it been an issue at the time – protection of the unborn – is thoroughly confused. Or in Fred’s case, thoroughly phony.”
What other issues will ‘Federalist’ Fred decide are individual state’s issues? Illegal immigration? “Aspirations of citizenship” for illegals? Would that result in sanctuary states with the Federal government off the hook for enforcing our current immigration laws?
...........”I speculate that this is one of the reasons for his delayed entry into the race; to afford him the time necessary to conjure up a believable narrative. Though it is only speculation regarding the delay, it is not speculation that he will have to address his pro-choice history once he does enter.”
Or perhaps he figures the less time to be pressed into answering, the better?
I am so thankful to have the opportunity to support Duncan Hunter!!
Fred Thompson is pro-life, he opposes Roe v Wade as the law of the land and its provision for legalizing abortion on demand. Fred had a 100% pro-life voting record while in the Senate and was endorsed by the National Right to Life organization twice, in his election in 1994, and in his reelection in 1996.
>>>>>“Thompson’s other mistake is that he is still trying to stick with a federalist argument.
The federalist reasoning on the abortion issue is the most logical and rational at this point in time. Overturning Roe v Wade is what all pro-lifers want. Once Roe v Wade is finally struck down, the issue returns to the purview of the states by default. Exactly where it was for almost 200 years, prior to the 1973 Supreme Court decision of Roe v Wade. A decision that all pro-life conservatives believe was done by judicial fiat. What J.White called, "an act of raw judicial power". Before Roe, abortion on demand didn't exist.
The chances of a Reagan style Human Rights amendment to the Constitution passing into law anytime soon, is about slim to none. Reducing abortions is the objective of every pro-lifer I know.
Fabricating falsehoods about Fred Thompson`s solid pro-life record is an outrage and a sign of desperation by YOU Duncanista's.
Wrong.
Fred, IMO, held off until September for three reasons.
1) To try and restore some sanity to presidential campaigning, by entering at a much more traditional time period, after Labor Day,
2) Because no one pays much attention to news in July and August, and
3)It pushed Newt's possible entry into October when it would probably be too late for him - Newt had initially planned to enter in September if he ended up doing such.
Most sane people will accept Fred being anti-Roe and having a solid voting record as sufficient pro-life bona fides.
I’m probably more conservative than Fred Thompson, but like Duncan Hunter, I have absolutely 0% chance of being the next president of the United States (unless they scrap the primaries and install a lottery system).