Fred Thompson: "We decide who comes in."

Fred Thompson on immigration: We decide who comes in

click link below to see excerpt of speech give in South Carolina :

http://weblogs.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/blog/2007/06/fred_thompson_on_immigration_w.html

Fred Thompson, was in South Carolina today where the Associated Press reports he got a good reception.
He got one of his best responses from the Republican audience when he said of the U.S. when talking about immigration: "And it is our home. And we get to decide who comes into our home."

Inhofe Says Boxer, Hillary Clinton Discussed Reining in Conservative Talk Radio Three Years Ago

By Liza Porteus

WASHINGTON — Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma says he doesn't need an eye exam or a hearing aid and that he clearly remembers hearing Democratic Sens. Barbara Boxer of California and Hillary Clinton of New York talk about the need for a "legislative fix" to curb conservative talk radio.
But Inhofe now says the conversation he overheard took place three years ago, not "the other day," as he told KFI talk radio host John Ziegler on Thursday night.
Boxer early Friday said the Oklahoma senator "needs new glasses or he needs to have his hearing checked" if he thinks he heard her and Clinton having a conversation about talk radio.
After Inhofe clarified his remarks, Boxer's spokeswoman, Natalie Ravitz, added:
"Perhaps he should have his memory checked too. I don't know anyone who thinks three years ago was 'the other day.'"
In an interview with FOX News Friday afternoon, Inhofe asserted that the conversation between Clinton and Boxer took place three years ago, and he brings it up regularly in talking about market-driven media.
"I’ve been telling this story for three years and told this story 100 times," the Oklahoma Republican told FOXNews.com. "I have it memorized ... I tell it the same way every time because it gets a very good reaction."

read entire story: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,285933,00.html

You’re Listening to Radio Free Congress

Fred Thompson discusses the Fairness Doctrine in light of Congressional efforts to revive and use it to diminish the impact of talk radio


I had planned on talking a bit today about Venezuela. The president there doesn't like the way his media is covering him, so he's doing away with the free press. He's established rules on what he thinks is fair, and he’s denying licenses to television and radio stations that don't play by government rules.
I can't criticize him now, though. After all, how would it seem for me to complain about another country, when our own congressional leadership is trying to put the same sort of rules in place here? To do so, they're pulling the Fairness Doctrine out of the dustbin of history.
The Fairness Doctrine is an artifact from the days when there were only a handful of television channels and radio stations on our dials. Then, there might have been something to the fear that somebody might get control of all the media outlets in an area -- so equal time rules were put in place.
As television and radio stations increased, it became clear that the rule was a bust. Instead of protecting free speech, it imposed costs on broadcasters that killed political discussion entirely. Why run the risk of dealing with anything controversial and having the regulators and the lawyers come down on you? Instead of talking about issues, news directors used stopwatches to measure candidates' airtime.
Finally, in 1987, the Federal Communications Commission ended the antiquated policy. Today, with more cable and local access channels than anybody can keep track of -- the equal time rule makes even less sense. Throw in the Internet, and it's absurd.
The real issue here is not what you "can" see or hear -- which is what the Fairness Doctrine was about originally. It's what you're "choosing" to see or hear.
Insiders say it was the collapse of the radio show "Air America" that led to this attempt to retool the Fairness Doctrine as a form of de facto censorship. I guess the idea is that, if you can't compete in the world of ideas, you pass a law that forces radio stations to air your views. In effect, it would force a lot of radio stations to drop some talk show hosts -- because they would lose money providing equal airtime to people who can’t attract a market or advertisers.
The funny thing is that the success of the current crop of radio talk show hosts is due, in part, to a lot of people’s perception that broadcast television doesn’t give the views of their audience a fair shake. Maybe I shouldn't admit it, since I dabble in radio myself, but this media used to be viewed as a kind of broadcast ghetto. The bi-coastal elite had such a grip on the major newspapers and television networks; they pretty much ignored the hinterlands. It was media flyover country.
Now congressional leaders say they want to “level the playing field” there too – meaning they want to diminish the importance of conservative talk radio. In other words, they don’t trust the results of freedom and the marketplace. Why am I not surprised?

by Fred Dalton Thompson on 5/17/2007 5:12:34 PM

source: http://abcradionetworks.com/article.asp?id=408967&SPID=15663

Union Dues and Secret Ballots by Fred Thompson

Union Dues and Secret Ballots By Fred Thompson

Tuesday, June 19, 2007

There was a time in America when local governments and employers could take advantage of powerless workers. Unions formed as a result. Nowadays, government generally sides with, instead of against, unions. The single biggest advantage unions have, of course, is collective bargaining rights – the right to negotiate for whole groups of employees.
Even with these advantages, however, unions have been losing membership in every sector but government -- which is another story. In the last 25 or so years, private sector union membership has dropped from about 19 percent to under 8 percent today. Most decertification votes, giving workers the chance to end union representation, go against the unions.
One reason unions have alienated potential members is that they often focus on politics instead of supporting their members. Last week, in fact, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously against a Washington state teachers union that had been spending dues on political activities -- against the wishes of individual teachers. Some of those who protested the use of the funds weren't even union members but had to pay to keep their teachers' jobs.
This week, though, the unions are going to try something that could reverse their long decline. The Senate will vote on a measure the House has already passed that would do away with secret ballots on votes to unionize. This would allow union officials to visit individual workers separately to persuade them to sign a card in favor of the union. Given the rather colorful history of some labor unions, it’s not hard to understand why so many people think this is a very bad idea.
Nevertheless, the current congress may in fact pass it. Unions give a lot of their members'-- and nonmembers'-- dues to political candidates, and they're really good at providing free labor to campaigns. So they have a lot of influence in certain parts of congress. That may explain, for example, why the House Appropriations Committee is apparently planning to cut the budget of the Office of Labor Management Services -- the office that investigates illegalities by unions.
Let me restate the obvious. In America, we need the right to join a union. We also need the right not to join a union.

Excerpts from commentary aired on ABCRadio.com on June 19, 2007

Read and listen to the whole thing at ABCRadio.com

I've Got a Crush on Fred Thompson's Politics

You've heard about the Obama crush video, now here's the I've Got a Crush on Fred Thompson's Politics http://www.jameskole.com/

A Federalist Approach to Malpractice Abuse by: Fred Thompson

click http://www.abcrn.com/thompson/player/thompson.html to listen to audio commentary.


Out-of-control medical malpractice lawsuits have been a problem in many parts of the country for a long time. Malpractice insurance costs can be driven so high, that doctors and insurance companies flee to more reasonable business climates. With too few doctors, it’s the patients who suffer the most.
In the past, those who want to solve this problem have tended to ignore our Federalist tradition. They've driven right past their state houses to their airports and flown to Washington to ask for national legal remedies. Fortunately, now we're seeing that states can take effective action themselves.
Only a few years ago, Texas was losing doctors fast. Rising malpractice insurance rates were fueling what analysts called a crisis. In some parts of the state, emergency wards were closing and residents were facing long trips for even basic medical care. The doctors who were most likely to leave the state were those hit hardest by malpractice insurance premiums -- the "high risk" specialists such as neurosurgeons, cardiologists and obstetricians.
Then, in 2003, Texas passed Prop 12, capping non-economic damages in medical malpractice suits to $750,000. $250,000 of that applied to physicians. There were no limits put on damages for medical expenses or economic expenses such as past and future lost income.
At the time, there were only four insurance companies left in Texas willing to cover doctors, and they were scheduling rate increases. Now 30 insurers are doing business in the Lone Star State and others are moving into the market. Rates have fallen on an average of more than 20 percent. Malpractice lawsuits have fallen 50 percent,
So many doctors have now requested Texas medical licenses that thousands are backlogged and an emergency appropriations was passed to help the Texas Medical Board speed up their processing. Now, other states are considering similar legislation to stop the loss of their own doctors to Texas. I consider this a small but important victory for the principles of Federalism.

source: ABC Radio Networks

Join with the I'm With Fred Group at Facebook

join the I'm With Fred group at Facebook:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2356633240

Good News about CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) - by: Fred Thompson

Good News about CAIR

Click http://www.abcrn.com/thompson/player/thompson.html to launch podcast player

I've talked before about the Council on American-Islamic Relations -- most recently because it filed that lawsuit against Americans who reported suspicious behavior by Muslims on a U.S. Airways flight. Better known just as CAIR, the lobbying group has come under a lot of scrutiny lately for its connections to terror-supporting groups. This time, though, The Washington Times has uncovered some very good news about the group.
For years, CAIR has claimed to represent millions of American Muslims. In fact, they claim to represent more Muslim in American than ... there are in America. This has alarmed Americans in general as the group often seems to be more aligned with our enemies than us -- which isn't surprising as it spun off from a group funded by Hamas. As you know, Hamas has been waging a terrorist war against Israel and calls for its total destruction. It also promises to see America destroyed. Nowadays, Hamas is busy murdering its Palestinian political rivals.
Even with this history, and CAIR's conspicuous failure to condemn Hamas by name, it has been treated as if represents Muslim Americans by our own government. The good news is that the financial support CAIR claims to have among American Muslims is a myth. We know this because The Washington Times got hold of the group's IRS tax records.
CAIR's dues-paying membership has shrunk 90 percent since 9/11 -- from 29,000 in 2000 to only 1,700 last year. CAIR's annual income from dues plunged from $733,000 to $59,000. Clearly, America's Muslims are not supporting this group -- and I'm happy to hear about it.
Of course, every silver lining seems to have a cloud; and this cloud is that CAIR's spending is running about $3 million a year. They’ve opened 25 new chapters in major cities across the country even as their dues shrank to a pittance. The question is; who’s funding CAIR?
CAIR's not saying. The New York Times earlier this year reported that the backing is from "wealthy Persian Gulf governments" including the UAE and Saudi Arabia. Obviously, we have a bigger problem here than the one with CAIR.
::Back::posted by Fred Dalton Thompson on 6/20/2007 5:03:11 PM

Sign up for Fred Thompson's Twitter Feed

Want to receive messages from both the Thompson team and from Fred Thompson himself? Read the always updated Twitter feed on the left side of this page or follow Fred at http://twitter.com/fredthompson You don't need an account, but if you set one up, you can add him as a friend.

Fred has been Twittering from England, and the Thompson team is adding news and information, as well.

Where's The Fence?(tm) National TV Ad

Fred’s Remarks to The Policy Exchange in London

Fred’s remarks to The Policy Exchange as prepared for delivery on June 19, 2007:
Thank you very much. Charles Moore, Anthony Browne, Dean Godson, distinguished guests: I appreciate the cordial welcome to London. I always look forward to visiting the United Kingdom, and this time around I couldn’t ask for a better host than the Policy Exchange.
We have a few policies back home that we’d like to exchange, and think tanks like this are the place to come. After just five years, the Policy Exchange ranks among the best, and the fine reputation of your work has reached Washington as well. I congratulate all of you, and I thank you for the hospitality.

to see entire speech, click http://fredfile.imwithfred.com/2007/fdt-speech-to-the-policy-exchange-in-london/

Fred Thompson on Palestinians, Iran & Israel

Terrorized
By Fred Thompson

Click http://abcradionetworks.com/Blog.asp?id=15663&m=6&y=2007 for the audio commentary this transcript is based on.

Let me ask you a hypothetical question. What do you think America would do if Canadian soldiers were firing dozens of missiles every day into Buffalo, N.Y.? What do you think our response would be if Mexican troops for two years had launched daily rocket attacks on San Diego — and bragged about it?
I can tell you, our response would look nothing like Israel’s restrained and pinpoint reactions to daily missile attacks from Gaza. We would use whatever means necessary to win the war. There would likely be numerous casualties on our enemy’s side, but we would rightfully hold those who attacked us responsible.More than 1,300 rockets have been fired into Israel from Gaza since Palestinians were given control two years ago. Israelis, however, have gone to incredible lengths to stop the war against them without harming Palestinian non-combatants. But make no mistake, Israel is at war. The elected Hamas government regularly repeats its official promise to destroy Israel entirely and replace it with an Islamic state. Hamas openly took credit for killing one woman and wounding dozens more last week alone.The Palestinian strategy is to purposely target and kill Israeli civilians. Then, when Israel goes after those launching the attacks, Palestinians claim to be the victims. If Palestinian civilians aren’t hurt in the Israeli attacks, they stage injuries and deaths.Too often, they garner sympathy and support from a gullible or anti-Semitic media in the international community. Israelis, themselves, are often incapable of facing the damage they inflict in self-defense. Knowing this, Islamic extremists are using their own populations as human shields.I’m beginning to wonder how much longer this vicious plot will work though. International sympathy for Palestinians has diminished as the same Islamofascist extremists have brought havoc to Madrid, Bali, Somalia, London and elsewhere. More importantly, Israelis themselves are suffering so badly, they may be on the verge of losing their sympathy for the people who have sworn to kill them.Imagine what it would be like to live, knowing that a rocket could fall on you or your children at any minute. Half of those who live nearest to Gaza have fled their homes. Those remaining are traumatized by daily warning sirens and explosions. The irony is that Israel has the military might to easily win the war that is being waged against them today. They haven’t used that might, in the past, out of compassion for Palestinian civilians and because it could trigger a wider regional conflict. That balance of power is about to change, though. If Iran develops nuclear weapons, the very existence of this tiny nation of Israel will be threatened. The Iranian regime has left little doubt that it intends to see Israel “wiped off the map.” Hamas is using the same language, not coincidentally, and has announced it will begin launching missiles into Israel from the West Bank too. If the world doesn’t act to stop Iran’s nuclear ambitions, it must be prepared for the consequences of Israel defending itself.


— Fred Thompson is an actor and former United States senator from Tennessee.
© PAUL HARVEY SHOW, ABC RADIO NETWORKS

Fred Thompson and Plain Speaking

June 16, 2007

Fred Thompson and Plain Speaking
By Ray Robison

Fred Thompson is a small town guy who made it from the agricultural communes of south-central Tennessee to Capitol Hill and our TV sets. And while we admire the accomplishments of this distinguished lawyer, Senator and actor, we admire the man even more for seeming to remain grounded to his roots.
Faced with a media establishment that has heightened its opposition to presenting news that makes Republicans look good, Fred Thompson has that rare and invaluable quality of speaking directly to ordinary Americans, saying what needs to be said.
He has ties to Hollywood but is not of Hollywood, which adds legitimacy to his insider knowledge of our media based culture. He is giving voice to that which vexes many of us, that liberal politicians and media elitists increase the risk to this country by downplaying the tyrannical and terrorist enemy in order to win political power. Pointing this out is a talent that has long failed President Bush.
Can anybody imagine President Bush saying what Fred Thompson did a few days ago?
"I listen to the Democratic congressional leaders and I hear them talking about how many (House and Senate) seats they're going to pick up because of this war.... I listened to one of their presidential candidates talk about that this is a phony war, the war on terror. This is what passes for policy today in the Democratic Party."
Can anybody imagine President Bush telling Michael Moore so publicly that the political system he admires in Cuba is nothing but a brutal tyranny? Thompson talked about Castro's abysmal treatment of Cuban journalists, a direct shot at the hypocrisy of the "video-journalist" Moore. The fact that Moore had no memorable response says it all; Thompson scored a direct hit and everybody knew it.
Many of us who loathe Michael Moore cheered silently. Thompson has slyly asserted himself as the easy going but tough guy of the right who also happens to be media savvy, more John Wayne than Reagan. And oddly enough in American politics, it all strikes many of us as genuine.
We never hear this type of trench fighting from the Bush administration anymore, unless it is to imply its' own supporters are haters for wanting to stop an egregiously flawed immigration bill. The same can be said for McCain who used to straight talk us, but for some time has talked only straight to the liberal media talking points in a vain attempt to curry favor. As Fred might say, anyone with two brain cells to rub together would know that the media was going to use and abuse McCain as soon as it got what it wanted from him, an anti-Republican stance.
We want a President who will play take on, or better yet make irrelevant the liberal media and its' anti-American leanings. Defeat it, rather than to win it over, an impossible task for any Republican.
Many of us have not sat idly while major American news misrepresents everything from our war efforts to a make-believe plot to out a "covert" CIA agent. Again and again this administration has failed to support those who support it by defending itself. Instead it gives up and accommodates its opponents.
In the war of ideas, this White House long ago cut and run. Why didn't Powell, a former team member, identify Armitage as the leaker and stop the entire Plame non-scandal before it got started? Didn't President Bush have the same information? Why did they let this lie go unchallenged day after day?
What many of us see in Thompson is a man who will stand by his principles, someone we hope won't pull the rug out from under his supporters' feet to support Ted Kennedy. We see in Thompson a man who understands that public perception matters even as he knows that reality matters more. He understands that the Islamic extremist enemy knows how to use our own values against us. He knows the bulk of American media is all too happy to provide a conduit for that propaganda if it supports the success of liberals over conservatives.
Some believe that Thompson's conservative credentials are damaged by his support of McCain-Feingold. Maybe so, but in this era of Jack Abramoff, tighter control on political money is not an entirely discredited notion. In truth, both Thompson and McCain acknowledged the dangers for corruption before the scandals that cost the GOP so much ion the past election.
George is coy about a statement Thompson made that is clearly a reference to suicide bombers like the 9/11 attackers which is part of a broader statement about illegal immigration. While Will just can't quite figure it out (so he warns you not to try this at home) it is really not a complicated position. Keeping out all illegal immigrants will reduce the chances of terrorists operating in this country.
Some critics say Thomson, who hasn't even declared yet, is devoid of ideas. Winning in Iraq is a good idea that doesn't need to be proposed, but does need constant reinforcement with the American public. Maybe we need a President who will flood the media with subject matter experts directly involved in the war effort (God forbid we are still suffering such losses by the next Presidency) instead of giving the most biased liberal reporters special access to the military's secret programs.
Do we really need a big idea for immigration or do we need to just enforce the laws we have? Many of the economic policies of the President have had spectacular success and just need some one to protect them against a socialist onslaught.
Fred Thompson doesn't need big ideas; he only has to have the courage to reap the ones that President Bush planted in rugged, arid, cold ground and which he failed to protect from a biased media culture.

Ray Robison is a former army officer, a former member of the ISG, and co-author of the new ebook Both In One Trench: Saddam's support to the Global Islamic Jihad Movement and International Terrorism

Fred Thompson Picks Up Endorsement From Former New York Senator over Rudy Guliani

source: NY NY1 News

Former New York Senator Al D'Amato says Fred Thompson is his pick for the White House. Speaking on “Inside City Hall’s” weekly "Wise Guy's" roundtable Tuesday night, D’Amato said the former Tennessee Republican senator and “Law and Order” star is the man to lead the country. "I think he can provide America with the kind of leadership that the people desperately need and that this country needs,” said D’Amato. “And you know, if America doesn't have a leader that the world can look up to, the world is in trouble."