Fred Thompson: Liberal in Disguise (Calling all Fredheads! Debunk the misinformation!)

News Blaze ^ | 04/20/2007 | Basil Harrington

[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.

[Always Right]

Fred Thompson on Immigration:

We are all very well aware of the fact that we have an illegal-immigration problem in this country. As usual, we avoided the problem for as long as we could and when we couldn’t avoid it any longer we were told that, indeed, somewhere between 12 and 20 million people had somehow come into this country unnoticed.

It’s like we went overnight from “no problem” to a problem so big that it now defies a good solution. It’s become one of those “there are no good choices only less bad choices” that Americans are becoming all too familiar with.

We know that the overwhelming majority of illegals come across the Mexican border. Fortunately, we’ve got someone who is all too willing to tell us what we should do about it — the president of Mexico Philipe Calderon. President Calderon doesn’t think much of our border policies. He criticizes our efforts to secure the border with things such as border fencing. He says that bottle necks at U.S. checkpoints hurt Mexican commerce and force his citizens to migrate illegally in order to make a living (and of course send money back to Mexico). He apparently thinks we should do nothing except make American citizens out of his constituents. Calderon also accused U.S. officials of failing to do enough to stop the flow of drugs in to the United States. Mexican politicians gave President Bush an earful of all of this during his recent trip to Mexico.

I think its time for a little plain talk to the leaders of Mexico. Something like: hey guys, you’re our friends and neighbors and we love you but it’s time you had a little dose of reality. A sovereign nation loses that status if it cannot secure its own borders and we are going to do whatever is necessary to do so, although our policies won’t be as harsh as yours are along your southern border. And criticizing the U.S. for alternately doing too much and too little to stop your illegal activities is not going to set too well with Americans of good will who are trying to figure a way out of the mess that your and our open borders policy has already created. My friends, it’s also time for a little introspection. Since we all agree that improving Mexico’s economy will help with the illegal-immigration problem, you might want to consider your own left-of -center policies. For example, nationalized industries are not known for enhancing economic growth. Just a thought. But here’s something even more to the point that you might want to think about: What does it say about the leadership of a country when that country’s economy and politics are dependent upon the exportation of its own citizens?
 

[griswold3]

I did not vote for GW in 2000 because I knew he wasn’t a ‘true’conservative. But in 2004 I realized if we wanted to win the battles against Islamic radicals, we needed him.
I’m concerned about the level of ‘comprimise’ Fred would have. GW has been more than accomidating to Dems on domestic issues, but holds his ground on the Iraq war.

[jellybean]

Not sure this is even a credible news source. However this is how bad information gets spread across the internet. One lone blogger puts out false information. Then anti-Fredites link back to it as PROOF for whatever their point of the day is.

▲ Click the box to see where he stands on the issues. ▲

Draft Fred Thompson

If you'd like to be a FRedHead let me or Howlin know.

CAUTION: This is a very high volume ping list. You may receive between 5 and 10 pings a day. If you'd rather not receive so many pings, let me know and I'll only ping you once a week.

[kevkrom]

That’s something the ‘Rats aren’t going to be able to throw against him; i.e., the “culture of corruption” crap.

Indeed. One of the biggest knocks on Thompson is how he got "steamrolled" by Glenn on the Chinagate investigation. He was naive enough (at the time) to think that both parties were interested in getting rid of corruption, and was sandbagged by the Democrats tanking the investigation for political reasons.

I think his disgust with all of that is what led him to support McCain-Feingold, though he's pretty clear that Mc-F isn't working like he hoped.

[Always Right]

I consider myself a conservative, but I support free trade.

As did Ronald Wilson Reagan, but he is not conservative to some.

[NavyCanDo]

Outstanding, thanks. I have been searching everywhere for the text.

[Josh Painter]

Spiff wrote: “Fred Thompson is not the most conservative candidate in the race.”

Actually, if you look at the GOP candidates from the viewpoint of which ones have traction and which ones don’t, Fred Thompson IS the most conservative candidate in the race.

And Spiff wrote: “I’d rate his conservatism somewhere around President Bush’s, if not slightly more conservative.”

I would rate Thompson’s conservatism as MUCH more conservative than President Bush’s.

Fred Thompson voted for drilling in ANWR and for terminating CAFE standards. President Bush made himself part of the great ethanol hoax.

Fred Thompson supports sealing the borders before we even begin to discuss any other measures with respect to illegal immigration. President Bush has insisted on linking border security with giving illegals a path to citizenship.

Fred Thompson has spoken out against Mexico’s leadership and as president, would talk tough to them. President Bush doesn’t dare.

Let Basil Harrington go to the Constitution Party. The GOP doesn’t need anyone who can’t tell the difference between a conservative with an 86% lifetime ACU rating (Fred Thompson) and a liberal with a 17% lifetime ACU rating (Joe Lieberman).

[joe fonebone]

pat buchanan is a moron...

[Post-Neolithic]

I did not know he was a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. My first choice was Hunter followed by Thompson but Thompson’s membership in CFR has me rethinking my position. CFR is nothing but a front for those that would eliminate the United States Of America.

[SE Mom]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1820535/posts

It’s up and running:)

Fantastic piece by Fred.

[LonePalm]

Sounds like some people are starting to get scared of Fred.

Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)
LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)

[longtermmemmory]

This is very CLINTONESQUE...

accuse the accuser.

Fred Thompson is on the rise because he is presented as a NON-RINO.

Thus the rudy bots have to defame Thompson ASAP to hold onto the tissue thin concept of “Rudy was good on 9/11 please ignore is liberalism”

[CharlesWayneCT]

Since this is an opinion piece, with the author giving an opinion about whether Fred's overall record is conservative or not, I thought I'd check what else the author had written to see what he thinks a "conservative" is.

I found an article from March of 2007, on basically the same topic, titled Fred Thompson: Neocon Globalist

Noting that in the article just posted, the author claims 3 real conservatives (Tancredo, Paul, and Hunter) I found THIS comment from the March article interesting:

There already are two fine conservative candidates seeking the nomination: Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo

So, why a month ago did the author not say Duncan Hunter was a good conservative? Did he simply forget Duncan was running, or has he been "shaped" since then to include Hunter in order to get more support for his cause of stopping Fred?

The rest of that article was a repeat of the claims made in this article, except for this paragraph about why the "neocons" are pushing Fred:

Why are neoncons backing Thompson? Ideally, being ex-Trotskyites themselves, neocons would prefer a liberal candidate, like McCain, Giuliani or Romney. But they see that conservatives deplore these candidates, and now are going to try to peddle Fred Thompson, who is just socially conservative enough and just tough enough on the borders, even if it is feigned, to woo naive GOP voters. But let's hope this nefarious neocon plot fails.

I found this article by Basil Conservatives Fleeing the GOP.

As the liberal/globalist stranglehold over the GOP strengthens, more and more conservatives are considering leaving the GOP.

The third-world hordes are invading the West, and we must ask ourselves: are we going to fight back? The Treason Lobby in corporate America and in the Democrat and Republican Parties has sold out America for cheap votes and cheap labor.

I found this post at "reformedchicksblabbing" (a blog) where the author made a good enough argument regarding Basil's viewpoint that I'd rather steal her words than write my own:

Our Daily Dose of Fred Thompson:

It's all very well and good for Basil Harrington to blast Thompson's record on immigration and say that he'll take his ball and go home if Thompson's is the candidate but the problem is serious people (not those who will abandon the party if they don't get their way) need to elect a president from the current poll of candidates. So we have to find the one that is the closest to our values. I know that all the top tier candidates would not meet this criteria (and I assume that only two of the second tier do). And on all the other conservative issues, none of them is a perfect match. I think that as the candidates interact with the public they will see that their immigration policy is wildly out of step with the electorate and it will evolve to reflect what the people want, as we saw with McCain yesterday. These people want the job and will move in the right direction to ensure that they get it.

Thompson is conservative where it really matters: he's pro-life, pro-gun, pro-small government, he's anti-tax and spend and he understands the war on terror. And he has a record to back this up. Plus (and this is a big plus) he is electable in the general election. I would put him up against Clinton any day.

Basil's columns above appear in a lot of places, but I couldn't in my recent searches find any google references to anything he wrote other those three attacks on Fred Thompson. It's like either he just started writing to write this, or he was not well-followed before he wrote this.

I even found a Basil Harrington Blog on "NewsBull", but the only two things they have posted are 2 of the three colmns noted above about Fred Thompson.

What I am saying is that it was hard for me to research any other opinions of Basil to compare them to what I would consider more standard conservative thought.

It does appear Basil is in the Pat Buchanon camp regarding immigration, opposing not just illegal immigration but our current legal policy. And he is a protectionist on trade, something I've never been but that Basil insists used to be the "conservative" position. Maybe I've been taken by the neocons as well.

So all I can say is this: If you believe as Basil believes, you should definitely vote for Tom Tancredo, or Ron Paul, or maybe Duncan Hunter. None of them has a chance of winning at this point, but I couldn't vote for a candidate I thought was selling us out to the new world order, and I don't expect anybody else to either, as bizarre as I think their arguments on the matter to be.

[TomGuy]

That is allot of politicospeak, but I don’t see Thompson saying what he will actually do.

More border guards?
Close the border?
Build more virtual fences and use virtual border guards?
More border stations?
Shake his finger at Presidente Calderon?
Stomp his feet?
Impose economic sanctions?

We know we have a border problem. Thompson is stating the obvious. I want him to give some specifics of what he, as President, would do to corrent the problem.

More specifics and less politicospeak, from Thompson and from all the candidates.

[hosepipe]

Could be true that.. Fred is NOT for a FREE Republic..
Who knows these days.. I am waiting for a candidate to even CALL the U.S. a Republic..

Even then it could be rhetoric.. could be only an elite is allow to run for federal office..
A shadow government?.. Could be.. Things don't add up in Foggy Bottom..

I woke up one day (after 1994) and the republican party was RUN(operated) by BIG government republicans.. Should be an oxymoron Big government republican.. but its is NOT..

True I have not liked George Bush from the git go but all the other liberal(leftist) republicans was a surprise.. I didn't even notice the Coup D'Etat.. Both democrats and republicans seem to be democrats.. for a democracy.. few there be republicans for a free republic..

[NeoCaveman]

He’s a neocon globalist,
I’m a neocon globalist,
Wouldn’t you like to be a neocon globalist too.

:)

[kevkrom]

I would rate Thompson’s conservatism as MUCH more conservative than President Bush’s.

I concur that Thompson is more conservative than Bush, and Thompson also has the ability to communicate a strong conservative message more effectively.

Also, unlike Bush, he understands the way to deal with an obstructionist Congress is not to have meetings and play nice, it is to go to the American people, make the case to them, and have them put pressure on their representatives.

I give credit to Bush for much of what he has done, but his inability to communicate his message clearly and his appeasement of the Democrats are two of his biggest weaknesses.

[pissant]

I stopped reading when he said Bush was a globalist liberal.

[CharlesWayneCT]

Could be the cool half-million he raised in the first three months, or that person who voted for him in the Petersburg, Va. Republican Committee straw poll.

I wish DH’s stock was going up, but once again we’ve gone a week and Hunter hasn’t managed to get himself on the news. If he is going to be President, he needs to figure out how to make himself relevant, because the media isn’t going to help him. And a half million in cash isn’t enough to make it happen.