Posted on 04/20/2007 6:02:18 AM PDT by Ultra Sonic 007
It seems that conservatives are about to make the same mistake that they made in 2000. Every Cassandra warned the movement conservatives that GW Bush was a liberal, but they were all duped by his "compassionate conservatism," which we since have learned really means "liberal globalism."
Now, despite all the warnings, they are about to be conned by Fred Thompson too - another neocon (aka liberal globalist). Will they get what they deserve? Can people really be so shortsighted? In 2011 will we hear GOP cheerleaders, "If only I had known...."
Let's look at Fred Thompson on the issues.
First and foremost, let's ponder immigration, the greatest threat facing the West today. As Jean Raspail foretold in Camp of the Saints, the "best conservative novel ever written," a third-world invasion of the West is taking place, and we must make a stand - before it is too late.
Although tough talking on border control, Fred Thompson has a rather weak record from his time in the Senate. Americans for Better Immigration only gave him a career grade of C. And on chain migration, visa lotteries, reducing unnecessary visas, asylum fraud, and reducing amnesties, he received rather low marks.
Thompson is almost certainly pro-abortion, regardless what he feigns. He has said, "The ultimate decision must be made by the woman." In other words, he believes it's a "choice."
Thompson is pro-affirmative action, and his two votes in the Senate guaranteed that under-qualified minorities would be given preference over Euro-Americans (i.e. white people). Thompson obviously believes that victimology should trump hard work.
And like all neocons, Thompson supports free trade, which is destroying our economy and undermining our sovereignty. Historically, conservatives opposed free trade, and they should; it's national suicide. But Thompson like many GOP cheerleaders has been "neoconned" on this issue.
In foreign policy, Fred Thompson is an adamant neocon globalist. He is a fellow at the neocon American Enterprise Institute, and a member of the neocon / neoliberal Council on Foreign Relations, which supports the creation of a North American Union and the eradication of American sovereignty.
In short, Fred Thompson is no real conservative. He's a neocon globalist. Only look at his past actions, memberships and words.
We already have three real conservatives in the running (Tom Tancredo, Ron Paul, and Duncan Hunter) and let's give them the support they deserve. If Fred Thompson receives the nomination, I'm voting Constitution Party.
Sorry, but my meter indicates you're putting out a high level of bogon radiation...
There are plenty of articles on this board about why one candidate or another is good, and plenty of posts saying the same thing. How do I know this? Not only because I can read the sidebars, but also because I've been getting 2 0r 3 Hunter pings a day for months, and they're all positive threads. So are most of the Fred threads, which discuss why he can win or post his radio editorials.
HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
Before the U.S. House of Representatives
March 20, 2007
The Upcoming Iraq War Funding Bill
The $124 billion supplemental appropriation is a good bill to oppose. I am pleased that many of my colleagues will join me in voting against this measure.
If one is unhappy with our progress in Iraq after four years of war, voting to de-fund the war makes sense. If one is unhappy with the manner in which we went to war, without a constitutional declaration, voting no makes equally good sense.
Voting no also makes the legitimate point that the Constitution does not authorize Congress to direct the management of any military operation-- the president clearly enjoys this authority as Commander in Chief.
But Congress just as clearly is responsible for making policy, by debating and declaring war, raising and equipping armies, funding military operations, and ending conflicts that do not serve our national interests.
Congress failed to meet its responsibilities four years ago, unconstitutionally transferring its explicit war power to the executive branch. Even though the administration started the subsequent pre-emptive war in Iraq, Congress bears the greatest responsibility for its lack of courage in fulfilling its duties. Since then Congress has obediently provided the funds and troops required to pursue this illegitimate war.
We won’t solve the problems in Iraq until we confront our failed policy of foreign interventionism. This latest appropriation does nothing to solve our dilemma. Micromanaging the war while continuing to fund it won’t help our troops.
If Sen. Fred Thompson can assure me that he will aggressively pursue an overwhelming campaign against Islamic Fascists and Socialist, I will be for him even if he advances a globalist cabal. With unfettered republican leadership, a future global administration that is completely pro-Capitalist but anti-Socialist and anti-Islamist may be our raison d'etre. Reason dictates that eventually the world population will demand more centralized government just as it has been evolving through six millennia. I can't help thinking that when the inevitable time comes we should be in a position to guide and control its structure and authority.
That said, my statements about Giuliani vs. Fred on immigration (especially the Obama-Hillary Chinese comparison) stand. I laos think it's worth noting that the only occurences of giuliani's name on the NumbersUSA site are two references to his broken windows policy that have no direct relation to immigration. Hmm...I wonder what their report card for Rudy would look like...
Well you got me there. I wonder if they do report cards on mayors. I happen to like Fred Thompson by the way. I think he will add some zing to this race. He’s a good guy!
I understand he takes the same positions as Code Pink, and I understand he's dumb enough to think we can stand around picking our noses until these guys hit us again. I also understand he lies about the Iraq War every time he discusses it, starting with his statement on why he wasn't supporting the authorization in 2002. For example, he said we had conducted 40,000 bombing missions in Iraq since the end of the Gulf War, a total lie.
It’s obvious the reporter distorted what he actually said, but that is so typical with these liberals
I've been all for Hunter, buthe seems to think that he can win while hardly anybody perceives him as a serious candidate. Candidates are like products--they have a marketing position and brand. For example, dove's position is "gentle soap that helps your skin," and Lava's is "soap that will get anything off your hands." Right now, Hunter is allowing his brand to be "I'm serious and ideologically outstanding but can't get elected." That's as bad as opening a taco stand and marketing them as "Now with 10% less rat poison!" He may think he's getting in under the radar, but there won't be any money around for him to raise if he doesn't get on the stick.
Lack of conservative support is not Hunter's problem. Hunter's do-nothing campaign is Hunter's problem, and if he doesn't fix it, he won't have my support because I'd rather support a conservative winner than a somewhat more conservative loser. The next prez will appoint two Supremes in his or her first term and we can't fool around.
In Greek Mythology, Cassandra was a daughter of Priam, King of Troy, given the gift of prophecy by the god Apollo but also fated to never be believed. (I care)
That release by Paul could have been written by Code Pink...yet there are people on this site who’ll tell you you’re not really a patriot if you don’t support his traitorous ass.
>That is the worst primary season I can remember. No one candidaate’s supporters are busy finding things they like about their own candidate.<
Then you have not been reading the posts by Sun, Walter Martin, jazusamo, Ultra Sonic 007, pissant, Duncan Hunters
Ambassador, AuntB, and a myriad of others, including mine.
Fair enough!
“That release by Paul could have been written by Code Pink...”
You make the assumption it wasn’t....(chuckle)
LOL!
(2) Yes I read it, and their way of securing the borders is through a "Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America"
Since the CFR supports a single union between Canada, Mexico and the USA, I would call that treason.Want some proof? Let's try this link then.
Building a North American Community
I will wait to see what Fred's position on this is. If he supports the "Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America" doctrine, then I don't support him.
On and on it goes.
I long ago concluded Ron Paul is a Republican only when a fundraiser for ‘Ron Paul’ is occuring.
No big deal, his district seems okay with it. But that stuff won’t play in the big leagues, as the poll numbers attest.
One thing about Thompson: he is a Baker Republican, that is, Howard Baker, who lost the 1980 nomination to Reagan. He once worked for Baker.
Ho-hum...
Another “hit-piece” written by a troll in an effort to demoralize conservatives with disinformation.
If he REALLY liked Ron Paul (for example), he SHOULD have provided us with some readily verifiable facts that indicate that Mr. Paul would be a good President.
But didn’t.
Ho-hum....
Thank you.
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.