Tuesday - January 15, 2008

South Carolinia is in the Sights

According to the new Rasmussen poll, Fred is is a statistical dead heat with Romney and Huck.

Over the past several days, the only real movement in South Carolina’s Republican Presidential Primary has been a four-point gain for Fred Thompson and a five-point decline for Mike Huckabee.

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey shows McCain at 28%, Huckabee at 19%, Mitt Romney at 17%, and Fred Thompson at 16%. Rudy Giuliani and Ron Paul are tied with 5% support.

Posted by Mr. Christian     on 01/15/2008 at 11:26 AM   
Filed Under: • Fred •  
• Comments (25) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

   Friday - January 11, 2008

Fred Gets Human Events Endorsment

HUMAN EVENTS Endorses Fred Thompson

The 2008 presidential election is the most unusual and most important in many years. It’s been more than five decades since such a race didn’t feature an incumbent President or Vice President. Since World War II, America has not had a presidential election at a time when the stakes were higher. Conservatives have to win this election, and to do so, we have to identify a candidate around whom we all can rally.

Fundamental Beliefs

We begin by recalling the profound words of Ronald Reagan at the Conservative Political Action Conference Feb. 15, 1975: “A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency or simply to swell its numbers.” We believed that then, and we believe it now. The issue for us—and for the conservative community—boils down to which of the candidates is most representative of the fundamental conservative principles we believe in. The answer is Fred Thompson.

To reach that conclusion, we looked closely at the former Tennessee senator and his opponents to judge whether they measure up to conservative standards. Some come close, and others clearly do not.

FRED!

Posted by Mr. Christian     on 01/11/2008 at 04:56 PM   
Filed Under: • Fred •  
• Comments (9) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

   Wednesday - December 19, 2007

New Fred Thompson Ad

via RightWingNews

Heh.

Not official, of course, but should be.

Posted by Mr. Christian     on 12/19/2007 at 02:06 PM   
Filed Under: • Fred •  
• Comments (6) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

   Friday - December 14, 2007

Standing Up To Stupid

You all have seen the clip by now.  The one of Fred standing up to Nurse Ratchet when she asks for a “show of hands” about global warming.  If not, here it is:

Here’s a transcript of the exchange:

It was a turning-point for Fred in many eyes, even those at NRO.  Here is what Byron York had to say:

Fred Thompson’s performance at the Des Moines Register Republican debate here in Iowa Wednesday left some supporters — the kind who were enthusiastic early on but who have grown skeptical as his campaign has stumbled — wondering to themselves: Could he still be the best guy, after all that’s happened? As the debate unfolded, there were moments when some of those loyalists began to think the answer might be yes — in spite of everything.

Something has happened to Thompson in recent weeks. Yes, his schedule is still astonishingly light for a presidential candidate. And yes, he sometimes still underwhelms audiences. But in the last month or so Thompson has acted like a man who has been liberated from something. And that is what voters saw on stage Wednesday: a presidential candidate who has declared himself fully free of the stupid stuff one has to do to become president of the United States.

If you’re going to ask Fred Thompson to participate in a grade-school show of hands, or demand that he sign a pledge, or insist that he speak emotionally and at length about how much his religious faith means to him, well, you can just forget it. He’s not gonna do it.

The audience loved it. Thompson, and Thompson alone, had stood up to the silliness that can characterize even self-styled serious-minded debates like the one conducted by the Register. Thompson scored again when he made effective points about entitlement reform, about the role of the National Education Association in blocking education reform, and about presidential leadership. His performance was so good that it underscored what has been, until recently, one particularly strange irony of this campaign. The showbiz guy is one of the best candidates when it comes to substance. He just had trouble selling the product.

Not on Wednesday. After the debate, Thompson’s strategists were elated. But the question remains: If Thompson has arrived, if he has indeed raised his game, is it too late for it to do any good?

I don’t think so.  Fred has always said that he doesn’t have to win Iowa to be competative, just come in the top three.  I believe that is true.  People are already becoming campaign-weary, and we’re a year away from the elections.

FRED!!

Posted by Mr. Christian     on 12/14/2007 at 09:30 AM   
Filed Under: • Fred •  
• Comments (6) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

   Monday - November 26, 2007

Fox and Fred

From The Hill.

Thompson charges Fox News is biased against his campaign

Former Sen. Fred Thompson (R-Tenn.) suggested on Sunday that Fox News is biased against his campaign, charging that the network highlights commentators who have been critical of his run for the presidency.

In an interview on “Fox News Sunday,” host Chris Wallace pressed Thompson on how some conservatives have lambasted Thompson’s campaign and showed clips of Fox conservative commentators Charles Krauthammer and Fred Barnes criticizing the former senator.

Thompson said, “This has been a constant mantra of Fox, to tell you the truth.” He noted that other conservatives have praised his bid for the GOP nomination and took issue with a Fox promo that focused on polling in New Hampshire, where Thompson is registering in the single digits.

He said he is running second in national polls and has been leading or tied for the lead in South Carolina for “a long, long time.”

Thompson, in a firm, but measured tone, scolded Wallace: “...for you to highlight nothing but the negatives in terms of the polls and then put on your own guys who have been predicting for four months, really, that I couldn’t do it, kind of skew things a little bit. There’s a lot of other opinion out there.”

John Hawkins supposes it might be because the inside-the-beltway Republicans are all of the mind that you have to be more in the middle to win elections, which I think is possible.  More than likely, the pundits have all decided who they like, or who they think has the most likely chance of winning and cannot fathom a come-from-behind pull for Fred, but I think differently.  I believe that the national polls are more correct in saying that we the people want someone of his stripe who will move the political landscape more to the right and not compromise.

Posted by Mr. Christian     on 11/26/2007 at 12:54 PM   
Filed Under: • Fred •  
• Comments (3) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

   Wednesday - November 21, 2007

Fred on Heller

Fred speaks out about the Supreme Court taking on the Heller case.

I’ve always understood the Second Amendment to mean what it says – it guarantees a citizen the right to “keep and bear” firearms, and that’s why I’ve been supportive of the National Rifle Association’s efforts to have the DC law overturned.

In general, lawful gun ownership is a pretty simple matter. The Founders established gun-owner rights so that citizens would possess and be able to exercise the universal right of self-defense. Guns enable their owners to protect themselves from robbery and assault more successfully and more safely than they otherwise would be able to. The danger of laws like the D.C. handgun ban is that they limit the availability of legal guns to people who want to use them for legitimate reasons, such as self-defense (let alone hunting, sport shooting, collecting), while doing nothing to prevent criminals from acquiring guns.

The D.C. handgun ban, like all handgun bans is necessarily ineffectual. It takes the guns that would be used for self protection out of the hands of law-abiding citizens, while doing practically nothing to prevent criminals from obtaining guns to use to commit crimes. Even the federal judges in the D.C. case knew about the flourishing black market for guns in our nation’s capital that leaves the criminals armed and the law-abiding defenseless. This is unacceptable.

The Second Amendment does more than guarantee to all Americans an unalienable right to defend one’s self. William Blackstone, the 18th century English legal commentator whose works were well-read and relied on by the Framers of our Constitution, observed that the right to keep and bear firearms arises from “the natural right of resistance and self-preservation.” This view, reflected in the Second Amendment, promotes both self-defense and liberty. It is not surprising then that the generation that had thrown off the yoke of British tyranny less than a decade earlier included the Second Amendment in the Constitution and meant for it to enable the people to protect themselves and their liberties.

You can’t always predict what the Supreme Court will do, but in the case of Heller and Washington, DC’s gun ban, officials in the District of Columbia would have been better off expending their efforts and resources in pursuit of those who commit crimes against innocent people rather than in seeking to keep guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens who would use them only to protect themselves and their families. And that is why appointing judges who apply the text of the Constitution and not their own policy preferences is so important.

Posted by Mr. Christian     on 11/21/2007 at 08:24 AM   
Filed Under: • Fred •  
• Comments (4) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

   Friday - November 02, 2007

Fred on Driver’s Licenses for Illegals

From the FredFile

While Hillary Clinton was speaking out both sides of her mouth at last night’s debate over the issue of drivers licenses for illegal immigrants, what went unsaid is that this is a recipe for increased voter fraud. Under the federal “Motor Voter” law (the National Voter Registration Act of 1993), states must provide applicants for drivers licenses with the opportunity to register to vote.

Giving legal drivers licenses to illegal immigrants is wrong and would provide them the opportunity to register to vote in our country. People who are not citizens of the United States should not be encouraged by pandering politicians to further break our laws and risk the health of our political system.

UPDATE: Fred spoke to reporters in San Jose today:

As far as I’m concerned, I think giving drivers licenses to illegals is a bad idea for a lot of reasons. I think we have to quit inducing people to come and stay if they’re illegal. I think it’s a disservice to the millions of people who stood in long lines around the world at American embassies to come here and play by the rules and become American citizens and become productive and great parts of our society. But when you’re making it easier, when you’re providing sanctuary cities and telling your local officials that they can’t even cooperate with federal authorities, and then saying its a federal responsibility, I think that’s an irresponsible way to go,

Drivers licenses are the nearest thing to an ID card that we’ve got in this country. Your need your drivers license for everything. Why aren’t they being apprehended and sent home if they come in and announce that they’re illegal? We’ve either got to be serious enforcing our laws or not. I don’t think we can afford to be selective in that regard.

So right.

FRED!

Posted by Mr. Christian     on 11/02/2007 at 08:31 AM   
Filed Under: • Fred •  
• Comments (2) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

   Monday - October 29, 2007

Fred in Field and Stream

David Petzal, the gun nut for Field and Stream, published a statement by Fred concerning the UN and Gun control.  Here is an excerpt:

Besides concluding that all nations are obligated under international human rights law to control the small arms and light weapons to which its civilian population has access, the UN report remarkably denied the existence of any human right to self-defense, evidently overlooking the work of Hugo Grotius, the 17th century scholar credited as the founder of international law, who wrote, “It is to be observed that [the] Right of Self-Defence, arises directly and immediately from the Care of our own Preservation, which Nature recommends to every one. . . ,” and that this right is so primary, that it cannot be denied on the basis that it is not “expressly set forth.”

There is another disturbing aspect to this call for international global gun control. Throughout modern history, the forced disarmament of people by its government has often been accompanied or followed by that government’s commission of often massive human rights abuses. In fact, no genocide in the 20th century occurred when the victim population still possessed small arms, legally or illegally, with which to defend themselves.

So now the UN wants to disarm civilians? Where was the UN when the massacres in Rwanda occurred? What did the UN do to protect the victims of ethnic massacres in Bosnia? Disarming civilians under the guise of international human rights law will only lead to more such genocides by ensuring that civilians can never defend themselves! It would be funny if it weren’t so perverse.

Posted by Mr. Christian     on 10/29/2007 at 03:02 PM   
Filed Under: • Fred •  
• Comments (4) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

   Thursday - October 25, 2007

Immigration Plan Released

A little late reporting this, but still looks better than anything else I’ve seen.

Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Plan Released

In previous commentaries Fred has mentioned the need to secure our borders and uphold the rule of law. In “The Importance of Border Security” he wrote,

You can’t have national security without border security. It’s not only necessary for any meaningful immigration reform; border security plays a key role in both the interdiction of illegal drugs and in defending America against terrorist threats. Weak borders allow terrorists and smugglers, as well as millions of illegal aliens, easy entrance to the United States. Unfortunately, it’s not at all clear our government is committed to its first responsibility: the protection of our borders.

Today, Fred has released his Border Security and Immigration Reform Plan.

These are the highlights:

No Amnesty. Amnesty undermines U.S. law and policy, rewards bad behavior, and is unfair to the millions of immigrants who follow the law and are awaiting legal entry into the United States.
Attrition through Enforcement. Adding “at least 25,000 agents” to the Border Patrol and doubling the number of ICE agents.
Enforce Existing Federal Laws. Rejecting sanctuary cities by cutting federal discretionary funds to states and local governments that ignore existing immigration laws.
Reduce the Jobs Incentive. Require U.S. employers to use the E-Verify system to determine if a person can legally work here.
Bolster Border Security. Finish building the wall along our border.
Increased Prosecution. Go after coyotes, alien gang members, and criminals.
Rigorous Entry/Exit Tracking.

The plan also includes improving our immigration process; rewarding those who play by the rules and add to our country:

Maximize Program Efficiency. Make it faster and easier for employers and immigrants to obey the law.
Enhanced Reporting.
Modernize Immigration Law/Policy. Reduce chain migration to spouses and minor children of U.S. citizens.
English As Official Language. The plan would promote assimilation and legal immigrants’ success, and require English proficiency in order for any foreign person to be granted lawful permanent resident status.
Freedom from Political Oppression. The U.S. would continue to welcome victims of ruthless regimes.
Service to Country. Those lawfully serving in our armed forces would have an easier time becoming U.S. citizens.

Posted by Mr. Christian     on 10/25/2007 at 08:43 AM   
Filed Under: • Fred • Immigration •  
• Comments (6) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

   Friday - October 19, 2007

Jackie Hearts Fred

My favorite line:
“...just like there’s a conspiracy to build up Hillary Clinton and make her a genius when she’s basically a moron.”

Posted by Mr. Christian     on 10/19/2007 at 01:58 PM   
Filed Under: • Fred •  
• Comments (3) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

   Thursday - October 11, 2007

Fred’s Facts Check Out

I only watched a few minutes of the debate this week, but what I saw was rather imporessive.  I feared Fred would get into that slow drawl mode and lose everyone’s interest, but he didn’t seem to.  I think he bobs and turns his head too much, but I can take that if the content is right on.

FactCheck.org has the skinny on whether Fred made up stuff or not.

Thompson stuck to the facts in his rookie outing. A number of his statements attracted our interest, but they all checked out.

Corporate Taxes 2nd Highest in the World: Thompson was correct when he said of the U.S., “We have the second highest corporate tax penalty in the world.” According to a study produced by the global consulting firm KPMG, the U.S. top corporate tax rate of 40 percent is just slightly below Japan’s 40.6 percent. The United States is resisting a worldwide trend that has seen most nations reduce corporate taxes during the last decade. As of Jan. 1, 2007, the German rate was 38.36 percent; the Italian rate was 37.25 percent; and the Canadian rate was 36.1 percent. The average for the 30 major industrial democracies was 27.8 percent.

WMDs in Iraq: Thompson corrected moderator Chris Matthews, who wrongly implied that the former senator had said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction “right before” the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq:

Matthews: You made a statement a couple of days ago, I believe, that alluded to the fact you believed that there were such weapons [WMDs] in Iraq. Do you believe they were there right before we got in – they were moved out somewhere? ...
Thompson: No, I didn’t say that. I was just stating what was obvious and that is that Saddam had had them prior. They used them against his own people – against the Kurds.

Thompson was correct. Matthews referred to remarks the senator made to about 60 persons in Newton, Iowa, last week. Both MSNBC and the Des Moines Register quoted him as saying, “We can’t forget the fact that although at a particular point in time we never found any WMD down there, he clearly had had WMD. He clearly had had the beginnings of a nuclear program.” Thompson didn’t say in the speech when Saddam “had had WMD.” The Register updated its article with a follow-up interview in which he made clear he was referring to a period long before the war:

Thompson (Des Moines Register): He [Hussein] acknowledged, I think, in filings made by the United Nations that prior to the invasion – sometime prior to the invasion – that he had chemical and biological weapons. I mean he used chemical weapons on the Kurds.

We can see how Thompson might have given the crowd in Newton the impression that he thought Iraq possessed WMD immediately before the 2003 invasion. Unless he saw the Register’s update, Matthews could well have been left with that impression, too.

Economic Growth: Thompson erred – but on the safe side – when he said, “We’re enjoying 22 quarters of successive economic growth.” Actually, the U.S. economy has grown for 23 successive quarters, according to the most recent figures from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. And when preliminary figures on gross domestic product for July, August and September are released later this month, the official total is expected to reach 24.

Restraining Future Social Security Benefits: Thompson also was correct about the effect of restraining growth of Social Security benefits for future retirees:

Thompson: And then, lastly, one of the other things that could be done would be to index benefits to inflation. Index benefit to inflation for future retirees. It would not affect current or near retirement people. [It] would be indexed to inflation instead of wages, as it is today. And it would solve the problem for several years; it wouldn’t solve it indefinitely, but it would give us a window of opportunity to get our arms around the problem. It would be a major step in the right direction.

The Social Security actuaries calculate that it would require a tax increase of 1.95 percent of taxable payroll to pay benefits promised under current benefit formulas for the next 75 years. But most of that “actuarial imbalance” would disappear under various proposals to peg benefits of future retirees to inflation rather than to wage growth. One form of so-called “progressive” indexing would allow future retirement benefits for the lowest 40 percent of wage earners to keep growing under the current formula, which is pegged to wage growth, but slow down the growth of benefits for higher-income workers retiring after 2012 according to a sliding scale. Benefits for those at the very top would rise only enough to keep pace with inflation. Actuaries calculated that this would remove 1.21 percentage points from the 1.95 percent actuarial imbalance.

Opinions differ on whether any reduction in future benefit growth is a step “in the right direction,” and we take no position on that. Thompson was correct to say that proposals for inflation indexing would “solve the problem for years,” however.

Not a bad report card for his first time out.  How did the others fair?  Go and have a look.  There is a lot of detail, much of it aint pretty.

Posted by Mr. Christian     on 10/11/2007 at 03:28 PM   
Filed Under: • Fred •  
• Comments (6) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

   Thursday - September 27, 2007

Fred’s Principles

The Friends of Fred have published four guiding principles that Fred will run his Presidency on.

We believe to take the measure of a man you must understand his principles. What will be the standards he applies as issues come before him? Fred Thompson has clear principles he has honed through his years of public service. We now have those principles on the Fred08.com website. Here are a few:

• Individual Liberty. As Jefferson spelled out in the Declaration of Independence, our basic rights come from God, not from government, and that among these inalienable rights is the right to liberty. We must allow individuals to lead their lives with minimal government interference.



• Personal Responsibility. The corollary to liberty is responsibility. No society can succeed and thrive for any duration unless free people act in a responsible way. All of us must take responsibility for our actions and strive to improve our own lives and to contribute to building a better society.



• Federalism. Our Constitution innovatively guarantees our liberties by spreading power among the three branches of the federal government, and between the federal government and the states. In considering any action by the government, we must always ask two questions: is the government better equipped than the private sector to perform the task and, if so, what level of government (federal or state) ought to do it. Washington is not the seat of all wisdom.



• Traditional American Values. A healthy society is predicated on belief in God; respect for all life; strong families centered on the institution of marriage—the union of a man and a woman; and self-respect and tolerance of others. While we are all free to live our lives in the pursuit of our own happiness, the government has a responsibility to respect the right of parents to raise their children and to promote the values that produce the strongest society.

These principles will guide a Thompson administration. What do you think?

I like what I see.

Posted by Mr. Christian     on 09/27/2007 at 09:24 AM   
Filed Under: • Fred •  
• Comments (6) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

   Saturday - September 08, 2007

Daily Fred Thompson Attack

Today’s entry comes from Michael Reagan, son of the Gipper, and GOPUSA.com

A Few Questions For Fred Thompson
By Michael Reagan
September 7, 2007

Fred Thompson’s opening shot in launching his campaign on the Jay Leno show was impressive, but now he has to forget the sound bites and the folksy advice and get down to brass tacks.

To begin with, he has to give the voters in the primary states a good reason to pick him over all the other Republican candidates. He has to tell them not only where he stands on the issues, but also what he plans to do about them.

It’s not enough to say he wants a better America—after all, everybody wants that. He has to spell out how he plans to get there.

What is he going to do to give us the smaller government candidates keep promising but never seem to provide?

What is he going to do to win the war in Iraq and the war against terrorism?

How does he plan to create a fairer income tax system that rewards hard work rather than punishes it?

He needs to answer those questions and be very specific in his answers.

He goes on from there, demanding the Fred answer all of these questions with exacting detail before he can be taken seriously.  He doesn’t want to hear anything about how Fred “feels” unless it is how he feels about the people.

Sheesh.  What a putz.

They guy is making his first stump speech and is supposed to have already layed out his entire plan for peace on earth?

Posted by Mr. Christian     on 09/08/2007 at 08:00 AM   
Filed Under: • Fred •  
• Comments (15) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

   Friday - September 07, 2007

Daily Fred Thompson Attack

This morning’s attack comes from Brad Blakeman of Freedom Watch.  He feels that all networks, cable included, should pull all episodes of “Law and Order” now that Fred is running.  The argument is that it gives him a clear advantage to have his mug on the air in a fictional TV show.

Heh.

Link to MSNBC Video

Posted by Mr. Christian     on 09/07/2007 at 08:39 AM   
Filed Under: • Fred •  
• Comments (4) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

DISCLAIMER

THE SERVICES AND MATERIALS ON THIS WEBSITE ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE HOSTS OF THIS SITE EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF SATISFACTORY QUALITY, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, WITH RESPECT TO THE SERVICE OR ANY MATERIALS.

Not that very many people ever read this far down, but this blog was the creation of Allan Kelly and his friend Vilmar. Vilmar moved on to his own blog some time ago, and Allan ran this place alone until his sudden and unexpected death partway through 2006. We all miss him. A lot. Even though he is gone this site will always still be more than a little bit his. We who are left to carry on the BMEWS tradition owe him a great debt of gratitude, and we hope to be able to pay that back by following his last advice to us all:

1. Keep a firm grasp of Right and Wrong
2. Stay involved with government on every level and don't let those bastards get away with a thing
3. Use every legal means to defend yourself in the event of real internal trouble, and, most importantly:
4. Keep talking to each other, whether here or elsewhere

It's been a long strange trip without you Skipper, but thanks for pointing us in the right direction and giving us a swift kick in the behind to get us going. Keep lookin' down on us, will ya? Thanks.

THE INFORMATION AND OTHER CONTENTS OF THIS WEBSITE ARE DESIGNED TO COMPLY WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. THIS WEBSITE SHALL BE GOVERNED BY AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ALL PARTIES IRREVOCABLY SUBMIT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE AMERICAN COURTS. IF ANYTHING ON THIS WEBSITE IS CONSTRUED AS BEING CONTRARY TO THE LAWS APPLICABLE IN ANY OTHER COUNTRY, THEN THIS WEBSITE IS NOT INTENDED TO BE ACCESSED BY PERSONS FROM THAT COUNTRY AND ANY PERSONS WHO ARE SUBJECT TO SUCH LAWS SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO USE OUR SERVICES UNLESS THEY CAN SATISFY US THAT SUCH USE WOULD BE LAWFUL.

Copyright © 2004-2008 Domain Owner