Posted on 07/10/2007 9:06:01 AM PDT by Dick Bachert
Unless there has been a fairly recent change in policy, your statement is incorrect. Membership has always been by invitation only.
It is true that "anybody" can subscribe to their publication, "Foreign Affairs", and they also maintain other affiliated associations, information lists, etc. which are open to the public, but membership is not.
"Mother was absolutely right. You are judged by the company you keep. And I don’t like the company FDT keeps."
I would remind you, and anyone else with this argument, that the only perfect man ever born on this earth was also judged by the company He kept. Be careful who you brand because of their company.
Thus far most of what I have seen come from FDT has been what we want. I have also seen how the MSM tries to smear anyone they oppose. Mr. Viguerie has already illustrated his thoughts on past conservatives. I haven't checked on it yet, but I would not be surprised to find he spoke out against Goldwater as well.
One last thought on this and I'll go back under my rock. Pundits that speak out against popular candidates using the MSM as primary source should be seriously questioned and treated with the utmost distrust. Mr. Viguerie clearly used such in his article. You just have to take the time to search the FR archives to find the rebuttals to all his arguments and the MSM sources for each of his. :^)
Now, where did I put that candle? Ahah! (Thump)
So Mary, how much does a job like yours pay?
But, in any case, Mr. Thompson has opposed a Constitutional Amendment all along. He has stated in the past he sees no need for a party platform, and he most certainly has not made any kind of unequivocal defense of the unalienable rights of the unborn or their personhood.
While I don't idolize anyone, I would be interested to know just who is going to be on H&C that I should be interested in.
You might be right...if I was on the U.S. Supreme Court.
FR is not a propanganda site to create "files" making Fred's voting record look flawless so we can elect him President, if you want one then start your own site called FredRepublic.com. Fred is not perfect and it is an established fact he cast poor votes on ILLEGAL (let me repeat that word again: ILLEGAL immigration), and you can whine all you want about how unfair it is for other people to discuss it and how you want files listing the other times Fred voted correctly on immigration. Fred has a "C" record, if you want to list the votes where he was right on immigration, you are free to do so.
Now, here's the problem. You keep insisting NumbersUSA is giving Fred bad scores simply because he supported more LEGAL immigration. That's interesting, Duncan Hunter scored an A+ from NumbersUSA. Since they give bad grades for all LEGAL immigration votes, I guess Duncan must be for sealing the border perputally and never allowing another foriegner to LAWFULLY enter this country, right? Get a life. NumbersUSA penalized Fred for bad votes on ILLEGAL immigration, and you if you don't like it that's too bad. Here are those bills:
=========================================================================
S.1664
S.1664 protected businesses from having to pay higher fines when they are caught hiring ILLEGAL aliens. Under the idea that current fines were not enough of a deterrent against businesses cutting their labor costs by hiring ILLEGAL aliens, the Senate immigration subcommittee approved higher fines. Various study commissions have found that the willingness of U.S. businesses to hire ILLEGAL aliens is the No. 1 incentive for foreign workers to become ILLEGAL aliens here. But Sen. Fred Thompson voted with a 10-8 majority in the Judiciary Committee to remove the higher fines from the 1996 legislation against ILLEGAL immigration.
So tell us, shy do you agree that Fred's vote on the Judiciary Committee was correct? Please feel free to let us know why employers should have to pay lower fines when they are caught employing criminal aliens who are UNLAWFULLY in the U.S. ?
========================================================================
Abraham Amendment to stop voluntary verification system
The program established by S. 1664 were intended to assist employers in determining whether the person they hired was UNLAWFULLY in the United States with NO LEGAL RIGHT to work in this country. Such verification is considered by many experts to be an essential tool for withdrawing the job magnet from ILLEGAL aliens. The verification system established by S.1664 did NOT involve an ID card. Rather it provided that when new workers wrote down their Social Security number on an application, employers could phone into a national verification system to help assure that the number was a real number and belonged to the person giving it. In earlier smaller pilot programs, businesses had hailed the verification system for making it easier for them to avoid hiring ILLEGAL aliens. Sen. Thompson voted IN FAVOR of the Abraham Amendment to S.1664. Fred Thompon was part of a coalition of pro-business conservatives and liberal civil libertarians who tried to use the amendment to kill the establishment of voluntary pilot programs in high-immigration states. Sen. Fred Thompson was unsuccessful in stopping the voluntary verification system.
So tell us, if Fred's vote was correct, why was it a good idea to prevent this, successfully-tested program that would allow employers to crack down on ILLEGAL aliens that slipped through their hiring system?
=======================================================================
Mack Amendment to S. 1156
Sen. Thompson voted to grant legal status to Nicaraguans and Cubans who had lived in the United States ILLEGALLY since 1995, along with their spouses and minor unmarried children. The overall ten year impact of this legislation will be the addition of some 967,000 people to U.S. population. There was no separate vote on the AMNESTY, as it was inlcuded in the DC Appropriations bill. The only opportunity Senators had to vote in favor of or against the AMNESTY was the Mack Amendment to S.1156.
Michelle Malkin listed the fact that there have been seven "mini-amnesties" since the 1986 act. The Niacarianian amnesty is one such vote. I know you'd really wish you could pretend those Nicaraguans "refugees" had entered the country through the proper legal channels and Fred's vote was to speed up permanately residency for those poor widdle refugees paticenly awaiting their green cards from the government, but the fact is they BROKE THE LAW to enter this country and Fred supporting giving AMNESTY to ILLEAGAL aliens who had NO RIGHT to be here. There are many, many provisions for people to seek sancuriary in America illegal. If these people were "refugees", they could have gotten one easily, but they choose to sneak into this country ILLEGALLY.
=======================================================================
What part of the word ILLEGAL don't you understand? I know you really WISH Fred's votes were to remove fines for LEGAL aliens and allow more job access for LEGAL immigrants, but the bad votes Fred cast were clearly to reward ILLEGAL aliens. You cry all you want that NumbersUSA is against Fred for hiring legals, that won't make it true.
I concur.
You imply that CFR members cannot be conservative.
Therefore, using your logic, the fact that over half of Reagan’s transition team and over 200 members of his administration were CFR members means:
1. Reagan indeed DID NOT walk with conservatives.
or
2. It is entirely possible that conservative and possibly non globalist individuals are members of the Council on Foreign Relations...
James Baker, Don Regan, George Shultz, Sandra O’Connor, the list of people who both walked closely with Reagan and were/are CFR members is long.
So again, Reagan seems to be your conservative model, and I agree whole heartedly, so I have to wonder where exactly does this hatred/fear of the CFR come from? It is a think tank with a wide variety of powerful members from all sides.
I salute your strong support of Duncan Hunter, he is indeed a fine man, you do him an injustice with the fallacy of the argument.
“No shock that in the end, neither Romney and Thompson give a rip about applying the Fourteenth Amendment to the protection of persons in the womb. In other words, they are out of step with the Reagan Republican pro-life platform.”
Wrong. They are not in lockstep with you 100%, so you denounce them in extreme ways. Most normal people see their opposition to roe v wade and their support for unborn life as sufficient to call them ‘prolife’, no matter what you say.
In fact, the Reagan Republican “pro-life platform” calls for a *constitutional amendment* to protect unborn life. You are out of step with the party’s platform, concepts of judicial restraint, and basic federalism and limited governmnet if you think the 14th amendment already bars what a Constitutional human life amendment would. Practically speaking, Roe would be overturned soon if we put 2 more conservative judges on the bench; the amendment would never happen; thus, the best path forward is the one Thompson and Romney advocate. You dont save lifes or defend liberty when you pervert Constituional amendments beyond their purpose.
you are practically a shill for the Soros-left, doing your best to sow dissention and disunity and bad political thinking and practices; your ways are the ways of extremists who lose. A much better activist and GOP leader gave some good advice: Dont be against things, be FOR things. All your braying and denouncing everybody who doesnt share your view on the 14th amendment has saved this many unborn humans from abortion: Zero.
It’s time you stopped bashing those who don’t agree with you 100% and strated supported and helping those who agree with you 95% (that’s still an “A” on the curve).
LOL! At last a gentleman Fredhead!
The only perfect man to ever walk the earth was, of course, our Lord, Jesus Christ. He knew the hearts of his followere before they did. He still does.
I don’t believe that the MSM was in any way involved with Mr. Viguerie’s article.
FDT on H&C radio shortly.
If a Joan Crawford wannabe like Angelina Jolie can get in, they obviously take anybody.
==============================================
John McCain on Immigration
Have never supported amnesty and never would (Republican Primary debate, 2007)
National security is first and foremost. Border security is a national security problem. We need to act. (2006)
=================================================
George W. Bush on Immigration
Need to resolve illegal immigration without amnesty (2007, state of the union address)
Securing The Border Is Essential To Securing The Homeland. (2005)
==========================================
Mel Martinez on Immigration
Strongly oppose amnesty for illegal aliens. (2004)
Immigration policy should first and foremost ensure the security of our nation (2004)
Support a plan that matches workers with needy employers without providing a path to citizenship. (2004)
===============================================
Thank goodness we can trust politicians when they make it clear they're "against amnesty" in all circumstances. After all, granting a "path to citizenship" (or "asipirations of citizenship" to the "undocumented" doesn't count as amnesty, don't ya know?
Oh and this "On the Issues 2008" site is far less accurate than NumbersUSA. Check on Arlen Specter's "record" on abortion there and it says "27% rating from NARAL, indicatating a pro-life record".
In reality, Arlen Specter is one of the most vocally pro-abortion Senators in the nation, and has said so himself many times that his prime objective is to "protect a woman's right to choose".
“If you look up “hard core conservative” in the dictionary, you’ll find Viguerie’s photo.”
“And that’s bad because..”
... they should be using Ann Coulter’s pic.
Try FDT. :) On right now.
I’m PERSONALLY hoping enough Americans will come to their senses, stop praying for a knight on a white horse to come charging to their rescue in the upcoming presidential beauty contest and elect 300 or so men who have read the Constitution outside a required civics class — and UNDERSTAND WHAT IT MEANS.
Should THAT happen, the klintoons could somehow slither back into the White House (not a likely prospect given the 300 good guys swept in on the east end of Pennsylvania Avenue) — AND IT WOULDN’T MATTER as the gang on Capitol Hill would reach for their cajones, FIND THEM and refuse to fund their expansion of the socialist welfare state overseen by an imperial presidency Nixon could only DREAM about.
That said, I respect and admire Ron Paul (there, I’ve SAID IT and stand ready to be further abused!) BUT realize that the current war fervor makes him pretty nearly unelectable. My next choice would be Duncan. He SEEMS to have Ron’s grasp of the Constitution AND a real-world understanding that the current struggle with militant islam is simply the next stage in the Crusades, picking up where Richard the 1st and Saladin left off. Actually, for those who know that history, it never really STOPPED. It just went dormant for periods of time.
Like the alien in “Independence Day,” these people want us “To die!”
Having said that, once the muslim threat is hopefully subdued, I’d hope we would revisit the FOREIGN POLICY wisdom of Washington and Jefferson in re. “foreign entanglements” and, unless and until clear, well-defined national interest and safety is actually threatened, stay the hell out of other nations’ business and politics.
In fact, I think Washington and Jefferson might relate to this as a pragmatic move in the right direction:
NOTICE TO ALL FOREIGN CITIZENS and THEIR GOVERNMENTS!
(EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY)
1. As a sovereign nation, you have the same rights to govern your nation as we have. Whether freely elected or despotic tyranny, how you run your government and DOMESTIC affairs is between you and your leaders. If you people don’t like how your government is behaving, we suggest you read some American history for the period between, say, 1774 and 1789. The world is awash in various sorts of small arms and other weapons. Getting enough to turn out your tyrant-du-jour ought not be a problem. Yes, many people will die (just as they did HERE in the late 1700s). It’s the price of freedom. But — and this is important to us — our SOLDIERS will not be among the dead. But trust us when we tell you that the casualties of your revolution will pale compared to those you will suffer should we be forced to invoke Clause 3!
2. Please pay SPECIAL attention to the word “domestic” in number 1.
3. The MINUTE we become privy to firm, corroborated intelligence that you have plans to harm the United States or one of our recognized allies — or, worst case — DO, in fact carry out such an operation, the United States and any such allies who wish to assist will come to you and request that you cease and desist. If you refuse to do so, we will TURN MOST OF YOUR LAND INTO A SMOKING RUIN. (If you’ve never seen RUBBLE BOUNCE, it’s quite a sight. We saw a good bit of that on 9/11 – and will never forget it.) We include in this list of threats AIDING, ABETTING, HARBORING, TRAINING OR SUPPLYING THOSE WHO, ALTHOUGH NOT CITIZENS OF YOUR NATION, MAKE PLANS TO HARM US OR AN ALLY.
We wish to live and trade in peace with all peoples — BUT harm us or injure/kill American/allied citizens AND YOUR WORLD AS YOU HAVE KNOWN IT WILL SIMPLY GO AWAY — FOREVER.
(If you have never seen it, slide on down to Blockbuster and rent “The Day the Earth Stood Still” with Arabic/Farsi subtitles, of course. REREAD 3 AND THINK “GORT.”)
4. Once those smoking ruins have sufficiently cooled – and the radiation levels have fallen — we will put boots on the ground, clear any remaining resistance and seize your former property for the benefit of those who participated in the neutralization of the threat you posed. Casualties among our troops should be very limited because, as we think you have seen, the weapons possessed by the United States will leave very few to resist. REREAD 4 AND THINK 51st STATE!
QUESTIONS????
Thank you for your support in this vital matter.
The SANE People of the United States of America
Until this becomes our policy, we continue to honor those who have paid the ultimate price for the freedoms so many of us now take for granted.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_WDrbbtaO0E
A photo was recently posted on the web showing a white board in a Marine barracks in Iraq on which one trooper had written the following:
“America is NOT at war. The United States Marine Corps is at war. America is at the MALL!”
Indeed!
Abuse alarm set and donning second pair of asbestos coveralls...
“But, there’s plenty there to prove that he thinks the states have the right to have legal abortions. “
... and I could declare on this forum that you have the right to lie and say false things on this forum. No law against that.
Yes, you indeed have that right.
Does that mean I *approve* of your lying on this forum?
“Thompson’s approach is surgical strikes, your approach is a massive air campaign. “
EV’s approach is to call the 99% of Americans who are not as extreme on this issue as he is an ‘enemy’, thereby ensuring we get the pro-aborts in the majority.
This is not ‘massive air campaigns’, this is fragging your own side into oblivion.
LOL.
Touche.
======================================================
But not to worry! Fred, just like President Bush, John McCain, and Mel Martinez, is "100% against amnesty". And we can ALWAYS trust candidates who are against amnesty. Especially if they're campaigning for an higher office and need to take a certain position to "win". :-)
Mel Martinez sends his love to all the conservatives who supported him in the 2004 primary.
Nothing to see here, move along.
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.