Conservatives, Beware of Fred Thompson

He disappointed conservatives during his eight years in the Senate. Is there any reason to think this Washington insider and veteran trial lawyer would be any better as President?

The frustration of conservatives is understandable. Faced with the prospects of Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, or Mitt Romney as the next Republican presidential candidate, many are pinning their hopes on former Senator Fred Thompson of Tennessee. Could this actor-politician be the new Ronald Reagan?

This is the second time conservatives have pinned their hopes on Thompson. When he was first elected in the Republican sweep of 1994, he was seen then as the “new Reagan”—a charismatic movie star turned politician. Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole quickly picked Thompson to give the five-minute GOP rebuttal to President Clinton’s economic address, and no less than The New York Times swooned with its headline the next morning, “A Star Is Born.”

He turned out to be a shooting star—a dazzling flash in the sky, soon gone, not there dependably, night after night, like the Big Dipper. Or, as The Tennessean later put it, “A year ago [Thompson] looked like a rising star. Today he looks more like a fading comet.”

Rumors circulated that Thompson was lazy, uninterested in the daily grind that comes with being a Senator—and one can understand that Capitol Hill is a lot more tedious and less glamorous than a Hollywood movie lot. More important were Thompson’s failures of will and his lack of leadership on any legislation that would promote the conservative cause. Instead what little leadership we got from Thompson advanced the liberal Establishment agenda.

Failure of will: Charged with investigating the Clinton White House’s Asia fundraising scandal (“Asiagate”), Thompson managed to draw a tiny blood sample from Bill Clinton but little more. If he’s that ineffectual against an easy target like Bill Clinton at the height of his parade of scandals, why should we expect Thompson to be any more effective against, say, the other partner in the Clintons’ 20-year plan to rule the nation?

On the wrong side of the fence: The McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill, championed by Fred Thompson, is the only important piece of legislation where he played a major role. And that is not an accomplishment to be proud of as a conservative. In fact, now that he’s running for President, Thompson is trying to flip-flop on this issue. Well, he can run, but he can’t hide from his record.

Never mind that it was patently unconstitutional, as the courts are starting to declare. McCain-Feingold was also, from the beginning, a sham and a lie.

Its stated purpose—its claim to being a “reform”—was that it would take big money out of politics. Well, you can see how successful it’s been! The big corporate and union lobbies are more powerful than ever, and bored billionaires with nothing else to do are eyeing the Senate and the White House as the next trophies on their mantelpieces.

No, the real purpose of “reform” legislation like McCain-Feingold is to serve as incumbent-protection laws. Establishment politicians aren’t threatened by the K Street lobbyists: they feed off them. They are threatened by grassroots organizations that keep an eye on how they vote and pass that information on to their members.

From the National Rifle Association to the Sierra Club, from Right to Left, these groups call incumbents on the carpet. So the incumbents pass laws to restrict the activities of these groups.

McCain-Feingold, the most prominent recent addition to campaign regulations, does this by prohibiting these groups from broadcasting any issue ads that refer to specific candidates for federal office in the 30 days before a primary, or 60 days before a general election.

Why were those dates chosen? Because “that’s when people are most interested in the elections,” according to Congressman Martin Meehan (D-MA), one of the law’s most ardent supporters. In other words, McCain-Feingold and similar laws are intended to silence the voices of ordinary citizens who contribute to these organizations. And they are designed to do so at exactly the times when grassroots citizens can have the greatest impact.

The real purpose of McCain-Feingold-type laws is to silence your voice in the campaign process, by placing a gag on the organizations that represent you and your views. Such measures are the gravest threat to your free speech that exist today.

And who was the only other Republican Senator to join John McCain in pushing hard for this assault on your First Amendment free speech rights? Fred Thompson. Indeed, campaign finance “reform” was the only issue on which he seemed to show any passion.

Thompson was deeply involved in writing the law, lobbied for it among his fellow Republicans, and was even inclined to call it “McCain-Feingold-Thompson.” He and McCain were able to convince only five of their fellow Republicans in the Senate—but added to the Democrats, that was enough. “You were essential to our success,” Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) told Thompson in a gushing thank-you note after passage of McCain-Feingold.

Fred Thompson viewed through the Goldwater Test and the Reagan Test for conservative leadership

The Goldwater Test: Senator Barry Goldwater became the first political spokesman for the conservative movement because, out of all the Republican politicians who claimed to be conservative in the 1950s, he and he alone was willing to confront the sitting Big Government Republican in the White House. President Eisenhower’s policies were “a dime store New Deal,” he said on the floor of the Senate. He spoke truth to power.

Well, again we have a Big Government Republican in the White House, and now it’s no longer a dime store New Deal—it’s a supersized Wal-Mart of a New Deal. The Republican welfare state is far worse than anything the Democrats achieved.

And what has been Fred Thompson’s response these past seven years as the GOP massively expanded the federal government? If he’s said anything to warn us about the direction of the Republican Party, he’s said it so quietly that nobody—not just us, nobody—has noticed. And by his silence he has become complicit.

The Reagan Test: Throughout the 1960s and 70s Ronald Reagan walked with conservatives. He was at our conservative functions, and not just at the head table—he mingled with us, listened to our concerns, and made it clear where he stood. Also, our conservative friends were all around him as he governed in California and then ran for President—people like Dick Allen, Ed Meese, Lyn Nofziger, Marty Anderson, Paul Laxalt, Judge Bill Clark…and the list goes on.

Where are the long-time conservative activists today around Fred Thompson? Not campaign consultants who sell themselves to the highest bidder at campaign auctions. No, dedicated and recognized conservative thinkers and activists who will work only for truly conservative politicians.

Go ahead, try and name one. And if conservatives were not part of his inner circle before he started running for the presidency, we cannot expect him to have conservatives in his inner circle if he gets elected. And in politics, personnel is policy.

When we look at the two politicians who are closest to Thompson—Howard Baker and Lamar Alexander—we can see very clearly why Fred will never be a conservative leader, much less a conservative hero.

Fred Thompson and Howard Baker are as intertwined as the two sides of a coin. Fred Thompson was Howard Baker’s campaign manager in his successful reelection campaign in 1972, after which the two were good ole’ Tennessee buddies. Senator Baker invited Thompson to move up north and be minority (Republican) counsel to the Senate Watergate Committee in its investigation of Richard Nixon.

Thompson, it is said, was the person who got Senator Baker to ask a Nixon aide: “What did the President know, and when did he know it?” The reply led to the discovery of the Nixon tapes, and that led to Nixon’s resignation. Almost sounds like something scripted in Hollywood or on the set of “Law and Order.”

Thompson and Baker are still good ole’ buddies today, with Baker urging Thompson to make this run for the presidency and playing a key role in its unfolding. Officially or unofficially, we could expect Howard Baker to play a key role in a Thompson White House.

And who, you ask, is Howard Baker? You belie your age, of course, by asking that, but even old folks may be excused for a little fuzziness on this matter. Well, Howard Baker was one of the chain of leaders of the liberal (Big Government) wing of the Republican Party. The order of succession was Nelson Rockefeller-Howard Baker-George H. W. Bush-George W. Bush. Because he never got to the White House as its #1 or #2 occupant, Howard Baker has sort of faded into history, but he was important in his heyday—and on the opposite side of the ideological fence from conservatives.

As Republican leader of the Senate, Howard Baker worked with President Carter to turn the Panama Canal over to the drug-running Panamanian dictatorship. He voted to spend taxpayers’ money for abortions. As a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination in 1980, he said Reagan’s proposed tax cuts were “a riverboat gamble.” You get the picture. And this guy is still Fred Thompson’s closest advisor.

As for Senator Lamar Alexander (who’s up for reelection in 2008), he’s cut from the same cloth as Baker and Thompson—talk conservative but act like a “moderate” (i.e., liberal); above all, avoid sharp ideological confrontation with the Democrats. “The conservatism he exemplifies…,” wrote Jonathan Rauch in Reason magazine, “is no longer a program. It is a style of talking.”

Like Thompson, Lamar Alexander got his first job in Washington from Howard Baker; and when Thompson dropped out of the Senate in 2002 to return to lobbying, trial lawyering, and show biz, Alexander replaced him.

But you don’t have to take my word for it, because Fred Thompson passes the Sally Quinn Test

Fred Thompson may get an F on the Goldwater Test and an F on the Reagan Test, but he gets an A on the Sally Quinn Test. And that tells us a lot.

Sally Quinn is a noted writer and the wife of Ben Bradlee, long-time editor of the Washington Post. You can’t get more to the center of the Liberal Establishment in Washington than this power-couple. And on June 26, 2007, she penned a telling bombshell in the Post on Fred Thompson.

Vice President Dick Cheney is “toxic” and “has the potential to drag down every member of the party—including the presidential nominee—in next year’s elections,” she advises, so the movers and shakers in the GOP must convince President Bush to force Cheney to resign.

“Until recently, there hasn’t been an acceptable alternative to Cheney…,” she admits. “Now there is.” (And by now you can guess who.)

“Everybody loves Fred,” gushes Sally. “He has the healing qualities of Gerald Ford and the movie-star appeal of Ronald Reagan. He is relatively moderate on social issues. He has a reputation as a peacemaker and a compromiser. And he has a good sense of humor. He could be just the partner to bring out Bush’s better nature…”

I had never known Sally Quinn to be so concerned before about the fortunes of the Republican Party, and I am shocked that she allows for even the possibility of a “better nature” in President Bush. Be that as it may, we can see what’s going on here. She rightfully sees Fred Thompson as a marshmallow—oops, I mean “peacemaker” and “compromiser.” As the sitting Vice President in 2008, he would have the inside track on getting the GOP nomination. And liberals could rest easy, knowing their power is safe whether the Democrat or the Marshmallow Republican wins in 2008.

I have examined Fred Thompson’s eight-year record as a Senator in detail, utilizing the vote ratings of the American Conservative Union (ACU) at www.acuratings.org. He emerges not as an out-and-out liberal, but not as a principled conservative either.

Fred Thompson’s record may appear to be “conservative,” but only by comparison with Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, or Mitt Romney, and a Less-of-a-Big Government Republican is still a Big Government Republican. And given his lack of conservative leadership as a Senator, it would be a grave mistake to expect conservative leadership from him as President.

For six of his eight years as a Senator, Thompson ranked in the bottom half of Republican Senators in terms of his commitment to conservatism. What makes this more remarkable is that he served as a Senator from Tennessee, winning his two elections by hefty margins. He didn’t have the excuse that his electorate was liberal, like the electorates of RINO Senators from Oregon, Maine, or Rhode Island. He had a safe seat with a conservative electorate. So when he voted liberal, we have to assume it’s because that’s what he believed.

Conservatives who look to Thompson for salvation need to pause and consider his record—a record that includes these votes:

♦ FOR restricting the rights of grassroots organizations to communicate with the public. See ACU’s vote 3, 1998.

♦ FOR allowing the IRS to require political and policy organizations to disclose their membership—a vote against the constitutional rights of free association and privacy. (The Clinton Administration used such IRS intimidation against conservative groups that opposed them.) See ACU’s vote 11, 2000.

♦ AGAINST impeachment proceedings against President Clinton, specifically the reappointment and reauthorization of managers (drawn from the Republican membership of the House Judiciary Committee) to conduct the impeachment trial in the Senate. See ACU’s vote 1, 1999.

♦ AGAINST an accelerated elimination of the “marriage penalty.” See ACU’s vote 10, 2001.

♦ FOR handouts to politicians, specifically taxpayer funding of presidential campaigns. See ACU’s vote 6, 1995.

♦ FOR handouts to politicians, specifically congressional perks such as postage and broadcast time funded by taxpayers. See ACU’s vote 13, 1996.

♦ AGAINST restraints on federal spending, specifically the Phil Gramm (R-TX) amendment to limit non-defense discretionary spending to the fiscal 1997 levels requested by President Clinton. See ACU’s vote 6, 1997.

♦ FOR the Legal Services Corporation, the perennial liberal boondoggle that provides political activism disguised as “legal services” to Democratic constituencies. See ACU’s vote 16, 1995, and vote 17, 1999.

♦ FOR an increase in the minimum wage, which, of course, increases unemployment among the young and poor. See ACU’s vote 16, 1996.

♦ FOR President Clinton’s nomination of Dr. David Satcher as U.S. Surgeon General. Among other things, Satcher opposed a full ban on partial-birth abortion. See ACU’s vote 1, 1998.

♦ FOR open-ended military commitments, specifically in regard to U.S. troops in Kosovo. See ACU’s vote 8, 2000.

♦ FOR corporate welfare, specifically the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC). See ACU’s vote 23. 1999.

♦ AGAINST worker and shareholder rights, specifically the Hatch (R-UT) amendment to require unions and corporations to obtain permission from dues-paying members or shareholders before spending money on political activities. See ACU’s votes 4 and 5, 2001.

♦ AGAINST property rights and FOR unlimited presidential power, specifically by allowing President Clinton to implement the American Heritage Rivers Initiative, which he established by executive order, without congressional approval. See ACU’s vote 20, 1997.

♦ FOR restricting the First Amendment (free speech) rights of independent groups. See ACU’s vote 23, 1997.

♦ FOR the trial lawyers lobby, and specifically against a bill that would put common-sense limitations on the medical malpractice suits that increase health costs for all of us. (Of course! He’s been a trial lawyer himself for some three decades.) See ACU’s vote 18, 2002.

♦ FOR limitations on campaign freedom of speech, by limiting contributions to national political parties to $2,000 and limiting the rights of individuals and groups to participate in the political process in the two months before elections. See ACU’s vote 7, 2002.

There you have it. The actor who talks like a tough conservative has, in his real political life, voted in all these ways to increase the power of the federal government, limit the rights of taxpayers and individual citizens, and shut grassroots activists out of the political process.

There’s a lot of confusion about where Fred Thompson stands on the abortion issue.

During his Senate years, the Memphis Commercial Appeal described him as “basically pro-choice on abortion,” The Tennessean described him as “a pro-choice defender in a party with an anti-abortion tilt,” and National Review deemed him to be “pro-choice.”

Yet his voting record as a Senator was solidly pro-life, earning him high marks on pro-life voting records and bottom-of-the-barrel ratings from abortion groups like Planned Parenthood. Leaders of social conservative groups like the Family Research Council, Christian Coalition, Concerned Women for America, and the Eagle Forum have had praise for his social-issues record.

How can this be? How can the conservative National Review and Tennessee’s leading newspapers describe him as “pro-choice” when his voting record is the opposite? The confusion results largely because Thompson takes—to use one of Washington’s favorite words—a “nuanced” position on abortion, and then sometimes compounds the confusion with conflicting statements. In addition, his role as a Washington Insider—a Washington lobbyist—raises disturbing questions that have not been answered satisfactorily by Thompson.

One of Fred Thompson’s deepest held political convictions is his belief in federalism—that the federal government should stick to the powers granted it in the Constitution, leaving everything else to the states or the people. That’s great--if he actually voted as a federalist on the host of issues ranging from presidential power to education. The one area where he does take a pretty consistent federalist position, however, is on the abortion question.

“I’ve always thought that Roe v. Wade was a wrong decision,” Thompson says, and “that they usurped what had been the law in this country for 200 years, that it was a matter that should go back to the states. When you get back to the states, I think the states should have some leeway.”

Because he believes abortion essentially should be a state matter, not a federal matter, Thompson has voted repeatedly against federal funding of abortion in Department of Defense facilities and says he opposes public financing of abortions for low-income Medicaid recipients. The same federalist reasoning, however, is presumably what also leads him to oppose (in a Christian Coalition questionnaire) a constitutional amendment “protecting the sanctity of human life” as well as federal legislation “protecting the sanctity of human life.” I say “presumably” because Fred Thompson himself has never really explained his seemingly conflicted statements and positions on abortion in a comprehensive and logical way.

Thompson is not against abortion per se, since he says he doesn’t know whether life begins at conception. At least that was the position he took before he started running for President.

“I’m not willing to support laws that prohibit early term abortions,” he told the Conservative Spectator, a Tennessee newspaper, in 1994. “It comes down to whether life begins at conception. I don’t know in my own mind if that is the case so I don’t feel the law ought to impose that standard on other people.” “The ultimate decision on abortion should be left with the woman and not the government,” he told another newspaper. And in his Christian Coalition questionnaire, he penciled in: “I do not believe abortion should be criminalized. This matter will be won in the hearts and souls of the American people.”

Note that when he explained why he opposes Roe v. Wade on federalism grounds, he ended up saying: “When you get back to the states, I think the states should have some leeway.” “Leeway” obviously is code for “the states should allow some abortions.”

Thompson has, however, voted consistently against partial birth abortion. There’s no doubt that life has started in those late-term situations.

Fred Thompson the “conservative” politician vs. Fred Thompson the pro-abortion lobbyist

New information uncovered by the Los Angeles Times indicates that Thompson has lobbied on behalf of an abortion rights organization.

The official minutes of the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association (NFPRHA) document that the group hired Thompson in 1991 to try to influence the George H. W. Bush Administration to loosen the restrictions that prevented federal funding from going to clinics that engage in abortion counseling.

Thompson’s support for federal funding of abortion is vividly recalled by the President of the NFPRHA, Judy DeSarno; the Director of Government Relations, Sarah Szanton; and a member of the Board of Directors, Susan Cohen.

To be fair, Bush’s Chief of Staff, John Sununu, has denied ever talking to Thompson about abortion. That may mean that Thompson either spoke to other officials in the White House or took the NFPRHA’s money and did nothing for them.

He would personally rejoice if the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, at least according to some of his statements on abortion. For the sake of argument, let us grant him that sentiment. But if vacancies occur in the court during his presidency, would he have the fortitude to nominate and fight for judges who share his federalist sentiments and on that basis vote to overturn Roe v. Wade? And would he do so particularly if he faced a Democratic Senate and House of Representatives, as seems likely?

Nothing in his past suggests that he would fight. The Nelson Rockefeller/Howard Baker/Poppy Bush wing of the party, of which Thompson is an integral part by virtue of the umbilical cord between Thompson and Baker, has always believed in accommodation rather than confrontation. You accommodate the Democrats, as Thompson himself did in his “Asiagate” investigation, and you can bet your entire rainy-day fund that the Democrats won’t accommodate a Supreme Court nominee who might overturn Roe v. Wade. Accommodation on this issue is a one-way street. Any accommodation would be done by President Thompson.

As far as other abortion-related politicking is concerned, there is nothing to suggest that abortion is a key issue anywhere near the top of Fred Thompson’s “to do” list. “We need to concentrate on what brings us together and not what divides us,” was Senator Thompson excuse, as told to The Tennessean. And later, when a pro-abortion group needed a Republican Insider to represent its views at the White House, we now know—from the minutes of the group’s meetings—who they turned to: Washington lobbyist Fred Thompson.

In short, a President Thompson would give pro-life conservatives some supportive rhetoric but little action. So what else is new?

Fred Thompson was a key architect of one of the worst pieces of legislation in recent years—the speech-muzzling McCain-Feingold campaign finance law.

Fred Thompson cast votes in the Senate that increased the power of the federal government, limited the rights of taxpayers and individual citizens, and sought to shut grassroots activists out of the political process.

Fred Thompson fails the Goldwater Test with a grade of F: He did not speak out against the Republican Big Government rampage of the past seven years.

Fred Thompson fails the Reagan Test with a grade of F: He has never walked with us or surrounded himself with conservatives or fought our fights.

Fred Thompson has instead been a protégé of one of the icons of liberal Republicanism, Howard Baker, who continues to be his key advisor.

Fred Thompson plays a tough guy in the movies and on television, but in real life he is a marshmallow who would pose no threat to the Big Government Establishment that continues to dominate Washington.

Fred Thompson is, in fact, a Washington insider and part of that Big Government Establishment through his eight years as a go-along Senator and even more years as a trial lawyer and Washington lobbyist.

For the past year, I have been preaching to conservatives that we should not align ourselves with those who have fatal flaws from a conservative perspective. The imminent entrance of Fred Thompson in the race doesn’t change a thing, for the reasons I have demonstrated here.

Conservatives, let’s keep our powder dry. The GOP has taken us for granted in supporting their political agenda. Conservatives should make candidates come to us, and let’s make them prove that they are worthy of our support.

I don't have the transcripts of the event.

http://www.brooklaw.edu/news/calendars/index.php?calID=&month=9&selectMonth=1&year=2004

ACLU - First Meeting of the Semester
Come and learn about the ACLU and help plan for events and prjects for the year.

	Wed. September 1, 2004

Phi Alpha Delta Supplement/ Commercial Outline Review 5:00 to 6:00p.m., Room 501

What is the Federalist Society? Former House Representative and Federalist Society Founder Hon. David McIntosh talks about the founding of the Federalist Society.




MLSA First Meeting 1:00 to 2:00p.m., Room 605		Thu. September 2, 2004

Faculty Workshop Series: Professor Heidi Kitrosser Brooklyn Law School Professor Heidi Kitrosser will be speaking on "Containing Unprotected Speech: Toward a New Understanding of the R.A.V. Problem."




SBA Student Organization Fair 4:00 to 7:00p.m, Courtyard		Tue. September 7, 2004

Matrimonial Law Society 1:00 to 2:00p.m., Room 400

Environmental Law Society Meeting Come to the first meeting of the Environmental Law Society and help set the agenda for the year.




First OutLaws Meeting The first meeting of the school year for the BLS student organization for the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community and their allies. Come hear about upcoming events and how to get involved!		Wed. September 8, 2004

Federalist Society Meeting 1:00 to 2:00p.m., Room 505




LAAW Meeting 1:00 to 2:00p.m., Room 605		Thu. September 9, 2004

First Class Party Games, food and fun!




LAAW Training Session 2:00 to 4:00p.m., Room 505		Fri. September 10, 2004

Phi Alpha Delta Suitcase Party 2:00 to 7:00p.m., Cafeteria




First BLSPI General Meeting Come to the first meeting of the semester and meet the e-board, find out about open positions and learn about upcoming events.		Mon. September 13, 2004

National Lawyers Guild Meeting First meeting of the semester.




ACLU General Meeting 1:00 - 2:00 PM, Room 505		Tue. September 14, 2004

Welcome Reception for New Public Interest Students Hosted by the Career Center's Public Service Programs Office

SALSA General Meeting 5:30 to 6:30p.m., Room 601

Brooklyn Entertainment Law Society 5:00 to 6:45p.m., Room 501




The First Young Alumni Event This will be a great opportunity to catch up with old friends and make new ones.		Mon. September 20, 2004

American Constitutional Society Meeting Come to the first meeting of the semester! Guest speaker will be Udi Ofer, Project Direct of the Bill of Rights Defense Campaign.

Phi Alpha Delta Meeting 1:00 to 2:00p.m., Room 402




Matrimonial Law Society Meeting 2:00 to 3:00p.m., Room 400		Tue. September 21, 2004

Environmental Law Society 1:00 to 3:00p.m., Room 500




Death Penalty Project Meeting 12:30 to 2:00p.m., Room 500		Wed. September 22, 2004

Corporate and Securities Law Association 1:00 to 2:00p.m., Room 605

National Lawyers Guild Meeting 1:00 to 2:00p.m., Room 505

National Lawyers Guild Recruitment Meeting 1:00 to 1:45p.m., Room 502




Faculty Workshop Series: Professor David Dana Northwestern University School of Law Professor David Dana will be speaking on "Extraterritorial Protection of Natural Resources in Constitutional and International Legal Discourse."		Thu. September 23, 2004

ACLU Debate Series Topic: Gay Marriage 1:00 to 2:00p.m., Student Lounge

Seminar Paper Workshop Professors Davis, Szymczak and Fajans hold a workshop on how to write seminar papers.

OutLaws Meeting 1:00 to 2:00p.m., Room 505

ACLU Debate Series 1:00 to 2:00p.m., Student Lounge

National Lawyers Guild Recruitment Meeting 5:30 to 6:00p.m., Room 502

SBA Welcome Party at Fuelray Celebrate the new semester with your classmates.




Courtroom Advocates Project Training 1:00 to 6;00p.m., Room 601		Fri. September 24, 2004

School for Law and Justice Mentoring Program Find out about volunteer opportunities to mentor high school students from the School for Law and Justice.




1st JLSA Luncheon 1:00 to 2:00p.m. Room 605		Mon. September 27, 2004




Federalist Society Presents: Has Blakely Left Us without Sentencing Guidelines? Author Jack Kress will discuss Blakely v. Washington and its potential impact on the federal sentencing scheme.		Tue. September 28, 2004

AALSA E-Board Meeting 4:00 to 6:00p.m, Room 500




MLSA Information Session 12:30 to 2:00p.m., Room 500		Wed. September 29, 2004

FBI Information Meeting Special Agent Marsha Parrish will present information about both the Summer Honors Internship in Washington,D.C., and Special Agency positions for graduates.

BLS Democrats Meeting 4:00 to 5:00p.m., Room 505

Italian American Law Students Association Meeting 6:00 to 7:00p.m., Room 605




PSP Office Brown Bag Presentation: Public Service Resumes and Cover Letters Overview of Public Service Resumes and Cover Letters		Thu. September 30, 2004

BLSA Meeting 5:00 to 6:00p.m., Room 502

Legal Association of Activist Women Rikki Klieman discusses her life, career, and new book.

Here you go:

http://www.stopthenorthamericanunion.com/CFRMembers.html#T
CFR Annotated Membership Roster: A - Z

By Scrivener
July 17, 2006
Updated December 14, 2006

A B C D E F G H I J K L M
N O P Q R S T U V W Y Z

*** Elected to Membership in 2005-2006
††† Elected to five-year term membership in 2006
† Term Members

>>>Thompson, Fred D. (R-TN) - former U.S. Senator (1994-2003); author of the Chinagate “Thompson Report” <<<

As you can see from this excerpt, the Council on Foreign Relations [CFR] is all for border control. BUT, they are for North American Continent Border Control and free flow of people and goods with in the borders of the continent.

NOTE: SOURCE - Hard SOURCED from the CFR.org SITE

Total: 69 Pages - Below are EXCERPTS

http://www.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/NorthAmerica_TF_final.pdf
Building a North American Community
Report of an Independent Task Force

Sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations
with the Canadian Council of Chief Executives and the
Consejo Mexicano de Asuntos Internacionales

Task Force Final Report:
Upon reaching a conclusion, a Task Force issues a report, and the Council publishes its text and posts it on the Council website. Task Force reports reflect a strong and meaningful policy consensus, with Task Force members endorsing the general policy thrust and judgments reached by the group, though not necessarily every finding and recommendation. Task Force members who join the consensus may submit additional ordissenting views,which are included
in the final report. Upon reaching a conclusion, a Task Force may also ask individuals who were not members of the Task Force to associate themselves with the Task Force Report to enhance its impact. All Task Force reports ‘‘benchmark’’ their findings against current
administration policy in order to make explicit areas of agreement and disagreement. The Task Force is solely responsible for its report. The Council takes no institutional position on the findings or recommendations in the report. The Task Force on the Future of North
America is sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations with the Canadian Council of Chief Executives and the Consejo Mexicano de Asuntos Internacionales.

Foreword page 17

Excerpt:

America’s relationship with its North American neighbors rarely gets the attention it warrants. This report of a Council-sponsored Independent Task Force on the Future of North America is intended to help address this policy gap. In the more than a decade since the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) took effect, ties among Canada, Mexico, and the United States have deepened dramatically.

The value of trade within North America has more than doubled. Canada and Mexico are now the two largest exporters of oil, natural gas, and electricity to the United States. Since 9/11, we are not only one another’s major commercial partners, we are joined in an effort to make North America less vulnerable to terrorist attack.

This report examines these and other changes that have taken place since NAFTA’s inception and makes recommendations to address the range of issues confronting North American policymakers today: greater economic competition from outside North America, uneven development within North America, the growing demand for energy, and threats to our borders.

The Task Force offers a detailed and ambitious set of proposals that build on the recommendations adopted by the three governments at the Texas summit of March2005. The Task Force’s central recommendation is establishment by 2010 of a North American economic and security community, the boundaries of which would be defined by a common external tariff and an outer security perimeter.

Task Force Report

Shared security threats. Over the last decade, terrorist and criminal activity has underscored North America’s vulnerability. All of the 9/11 terrorists succeeded in entering the United States directly from outside North America, but the 1999 arrest of a person trying to cross
the Canadian-U.S. border as part of a plot to bomb the Los Angeles airport shows that terrorists may also try to gain access to the United States through Canada and Mexico. This person was found to have cased Canadian targets as well, and al-Qaeda has publicly listed Canada as one of its prime targets along with the United States.

Failure to secure the external borders of North America will inhibit the legitimate movement of people and goods within the continent.

After the 9/11 attacks, delays at the Canadian-U.S. border prompted parts shortages in both countries, costing manufacturers millions of dollars an hour. Trade across the Mexican-U.S. border also suffered in the immediate aftermath of the attacks, which hindered U.S. economic growth.

Continent-wide consequences mean that Canada and Mexico have an overriding commercial interest in increasing North American security, apart from any other considerations. Inaddition, future terrorist assaults could target critical infrastructure or sites in any of the three countries.

Beyond terrorism, all three countries must deal with a persistent flow of undocumented immigrants. International criminal activity also poses a continuing threat to public safety in the region, including drug and gang-related violence along the Mexican-U.S. frontier. These cross
-border threats cannot be adequately addressed by any one government alone.

Failure to address security issues will ultimately undermine gains on other matters. In the North American context, failure to collaborate effectively to address security issues will have a direct impact on commercial relationships as well as on our freedoms and quality of life.

Shared challenges to our economic growth and development.
NAFTA has dramatically enhanced our ability to make better use of the abundant resources of our three countries and thus made an important contribution to economic growth within North America. Over the last decade, however, our economies have faced growing challenges in increasingly competitive and globalized world markets. We need to do more to ensure that our policies provide our firms and workers with a fair and unfettered basis to meet the challenges of global competition.

Unwieldy North American rules of origin, increasing congestion at our ports of entry, and regulatory differences among our three countries raise costs instead of reducing them. Trade in certain sectors—such as natural resources, agriculture, and energy—remains far from free, and disputes in these areas have been a source of disagreement among our countries. Furthermore, the NAFTA partners have been unable to resolve a number of important trade and investment disputes, which has created continuing tension in our commercial relationships.

Leaders in our three countries have acknowledged these challenges and discussed a wide range of responses during the 2005 Texas summit.

Those involving changes in formal trade agreements will of necessity take time to negotiate and ratify. However, in other areas, notably regulatory cooperation and the expansion of transborder activities in critical sectors such as transportation and financial services, there is a
shared recognition that the three countries can and should act quickly in ways that would make a real difference in improving the competitiveness of firms and individuals in North America.

Shared challenge of uneven economic development. A fast lane
to development is crucial for Mexico to contribute to the security of the entire region. Mexico’s development has failed to prevent deep disparities between different regions of the country, and particularly between remote regions and those better connected to international markets. Northern states have grown ten times faster than those in the center and south of the country. Lack of economic opportunity
encourages unauthorized migration and has been found to be associated with corruption, drug trafficking, violence, and human suffering.

Improvements in human capital and physical infrastructure in Mexico, particularly in the center and south of the country, would knit these regions more firmly into the North American economy and are in the economic and security interest of all three countries.

Leaders in our three countries have acknowledged these problems and indicated their support for a number of promising measures, including immigration reform, but there remains considerable scope for more individual, bilateral, and joint efforts to address development needs.

What We Can Do

In making its recommendations, the Task Force is guided by the following principles:

• The three governments should approach continental issues together with a trinational perspective rather than the traditional ‘‘dual-bilateral’’ approach that has long characterized their relationships. Progress may proceed at two speeds in some spheres of policy. Canada and the United States, for example, already share a long history of military cooperation and binational defense institutions, and they should continue to deepen their bilateral alliance while opening the door to more extensive cooperation with Mexico. Yetmany issues would be better addressed trinationally. Shared concerns range from regional economic growth to law enforcement, from energy security to
regulatory policy, from dispute resolution to continental defense.

• North America is different from other regions of the world and must find its own cooperative route forward. A new North American community should rely more on the market and less on bureaucracy, more on pragmatic solutions to shared problems than on grand schemes of confederation or union, such as those in Europe. We must maintain respect for each other’s national sovereignty.

• Our economic focus should be on the creation of a common economic space that expands economic opportunities for all people in the region, a space in which trade, capital, and people flow freely.

• The strategy needs to be integrated in its approach, recognizing the extent to which progress on each individual component enhances achievement of the others. Progress on security, for example, will allow a more open border for the movement of goods and people; progress on regulatory matters will reduce the need for active customs administration and release resources to boost security. North Americans solutions could ultimately serve as the basis for initiatives involving other like-minded countries, either in our hemisphere or more broadly.

• Finally, a North American strategy must provide real gains for all partners and must not be approached as a zero-sum exercise. Poverty and deprivation are breeding grounds for political instability and undermine both national and regional security. The progress of the poorest among us will be one measure of success.

Recommendations

The recommendations of the Task Force fall into two broad categories that correspond with the imperative to build a safer and more prosperous continent. The Task Force also proposes reforms and institutions within each of the three governments to promote progress in these areas. The Task Force has framed its recommendations into shorter-term measures that should be pursued now, and long-term steps to be implemented by 2010.

Making North America Safer Security

The threat of international terrorism originates for the mostpartoutside North America. Our external borders are a critical line of defense against this threat. Any weakness in controlling access to North America from abroad reduces the security of the continent as a whole and exacerbates the pressure to intensify controls on intracontinental movement and traffic, which increases the transaction costs associated with trade and travel within North America.

September 11 highlighted the need for new approaches to border management. In December 2001, Canada and the United States signed the Smart Border Declaration and an associated 30-point Action Plan to secure border infrastructure, facilitate the secure movement of people and goods, and share information. A similar accord, the United States-Mexico Border Partnership Agreement, and its 22-point Action Plan, were signed in March 2002. Both agreements included measures to facilitate faster border crossings for pre-approved travelers, develop and promote systems to identify dangerous people and goods, relieve congestion at borders, and revitalize cross-border cooperation mechanisms and information sharing. The three leaders pledged additional measures at their March 2005 summit meeting.

The defense of North America must also consist of a more intense level of cooperation among security personnel of the three countries, both within North America and beyond the physical boundaries of the continent. The Container Security Initiative, for example,launched by the United States in the wake of 9/11, involves the use of intelligence, analysis, and inspection of containers not at the border but at a growing number of overseas ports from which goods are shipped. The ultimate goal is to provide screening of all containers destined for any port in North America, so that once unloaded from ships, containers may cross land borders within the region without the need for further inspections.

WHAT WE SHOULD DO NOW

• Establish a common security perimeter by 2010. The govern-
ments of Canada, Mexico, and the United States should articulate as their long-term goal a common security perimeter for North America. In particular, the three governments should strive toward a situation in which a terrorist trying to penetrate our borders will have an equally hard time doing so, no matter which country he elects to enter first. We believe that these measures should be extended to include a commitment to common approaches toward international negotiations on the global movement of people, cargo, and vessels. Like free trade a decade ago, a common security perimeter for North America is an ambitious but achievable goal that will require specific policy, statutory, and procedural changes in all three nations.

• Develop a North American Border Pass. The three countries
should develop a secure North American Border Pass with biometric identifiers. This document would allow its bearers expedited passage through customs, immigration, and airport security throughout the region. The program would be modeled on the U.S.-Canadian ‘‘NEXUS’’ and the U.S.-Mexican ‘‘SENTRI’’ programs, which provide ‘‘smart cards’’ to allow swifter passage to those who pose no risk. Only those who voluntarily seek, receive, and pay the costs for a security clearance would obtain a Border Pass. The pass would be accepted at all border points within North America as a complement to, but not a replacement for, national identity documents or passports.

• Develop a unified North American border action plan. The
closing of the borders following the 9/11 attacks awakened all three governments to the need for rethinking management of the borders.

Intense negotiations produced the bilateral ‘‘Smart Borders’’ agreements. Although the two borders are different and may in certain instances require policies that needto be implemented at two speeds, cooperation by the three governments in the following areas would lead to a better result than a ‘‘dual-bilateral’’ approach:
Harmonize visa and asylum regulations, including convergence
of the list of ‘‘visa waiver’’ countries;
Harmonize entry screening and tracking procedures for people, goods, and vessels (including integration of name-based and biometric watch lists);
Harmonize exit and export tracking procedures; Fully share data about the exit and entry of foreign nationals; and
Jointly inspect container traffic entering North American ports, building on the Container Security Initiative.

• Expand border infrastructure. While trade has nearly tripled across both borders since the Canadian-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (FTA) and NAFTA were implemented, border customs facilities and crossing infrastructure have not kept pace with this increased demand. Even if 9/11 had not occurred, trade would be choked at the border. There have been significant new investments to speed processing along both the Canadian-U.S.and Mexican-U.S. borders,
but not enough to keep up with burgeoning demand and additional security requirements. The three governments should examine the options for additional border facilities and expedite their construction.

In addition to allowing for continued growth in the volume of transbordertraffic,suchinvestments must incorporatethe latest technology, and include facilities and procedures that move as much processing as possible away from the border.

More at the PDF

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.