Fred Thompson's Election Address

This video should be seen by everyone who plans to vote this year.

Fred Thompson At The 2008 RNC

This has been considered by many to be Fred Thompson's greatest speech. See above in three parts.

Leadership Now More Than Ever

The following is a recent column by former Senator and Presidential Candidate, Fred Thompson in its entirety (for reasons previously stated) in which he so ably sums up the world situation and dangers therein:


Dangerous Times In Georgia Demand Serious Leadership

by Fred Thompson

[My mind goes back to August 2002 in Tbilisi, as I visited Georgia with John McCain. I remember it feeling rather dark and secretive, with the former-Soviet Union’s heavy hand still making its presence felt. President Eduard Shevardnadze, formerly Soviet minister of foreign affairs, presented a friendlier face to the United States, but was beset by economic problems and corruption charges. At the time I did not fully appreciate the power of the democratic impulses that were just beginning to bubble up and would lead to the democratic Georgian government we now see threatened.

What has happened in Georgia since that time should not be surprising to anyone. Certainly Russia has tried to pretty itself up: it renamed the KGB and even gave its 21st century strongman Vladimir Putin a new title.

But for some time we’ve seen Russia sliding back to its authoritarian comfort zone. Murder, imprisonment and property confiscation are back in vogue for any perceived troublemaker. Former Soviet provinces have faced all forms of intimidation, from thuggish trade shakedowns to cyber attacks that shut down communications with the outside world. And whether a former satellite like Poland or a longtime western ally like Germany, Russia has made overt threats over plans to bring eastern European countries into NATO or to deploy a U.S.-provided missile defense system.

Russia is not above using anything at its disposal to make its point. It is a wealthy nation, built on a petro-economy that provides oil and gas to dependent European nations, which are petrified of having their energy supplies disrupted and are now in their own economic doldrums.

Given all this, Russia’s incursion into Georgia is a logical extension of Putin’s autocratic words and deeds and Russia’s regional ambitions, which must be leaving those nations closest to Russia’s borders – the Baltic states and Ukraine – nervous about a bitter and uneasy winter.

All the while, in Eastern Europe some of America’s staunchest friends are watching to see what the reaction of the U.S. and the west will be to Russia’s latest gambit. The U.S. and others use the word “unacceptable,” undoubtedly with the same effect that we get when we use it with the Iranians. So do we threaten Russia with denial of the membership in the World Trade Organization that it so covets? Do we expedite Georgia and the Ukraine’s entry into NATO? Do we cut off the tens of millions that we send into Russia to – hopefully – provide for security of nuclear materials? Everything should be on the table.

But the one thing we must not do is allow Russia to feel it can get away with, let alone feel rewarded for, this invasion of a sovereign democratic nation that has also loyally supported coalition efforts in Iraq.

While this crisis plays out we should also note that these events give evidence of a larger reality: the next American President is going to face an international landscape that is more difficult and treacherous than we have ever faced. By now most Americans appreciate the dangers of international terrorism and the fact that a small number of people can wreck unimaginable havoc upon our country and our people if they get their hands on the right kinds of weaponry. What is less understood is that some of the older, traditional kinds of threats are still very much with us, only heightened because of the increasing availability of nuclear weapons and other weapon technologies.

Who wasn’t impressed by the sea of Chinese performers, smiling and perfectly synchronized at the opening ceremony of the summer Olympics, demonstrating to the world their discipline and “organizational skills”? Or their ability to present to TV viewers beautiful fireworks displays that don’t really exist? What isn’t an illusion is that China is engaged in a rapid military buildup, the extent of which we do not know. With hundreds of missiles pointed toward Taiwan, experts say China is developing the capability to take Taiwan before the U. S. has the ability to respond.

Pakistan and India are still belligerently staring each other down over Kashmir. Both countries, of course, have nuclear arsenals, and Pakistan is of questionable stability with a segment of its intelligence community supportive of the Taliban.

The Iranian nuclear threat proceeds apace.

As Iraq stabilizes and our role there is reduced, there will continue to be a major debate within the United States as to how we deal with this increasingly dangerous world of new threats as well as old ones. Our military is stretched thin and worn down and it is clear to anyone who takes the time to study the matter that we cannot get by with the expenditure of 4% of our GDP on our military. The threats to our country are going to require a much more dedicated response. To what extent should we fill the role that we have filled pretty much since the end of World War II as the No. 1 friend of democracy and provider of stability in the world? How much in the way of resources are we going to be willing to devote to this endeavor?

The isolationist tendencies of the Democrats are not limited to trade agreements. Many are tired of the war in Iraq and will want to use any “peace dividend” on domestic purposes as future demands of our entitlement programs become more and more apparent.

Little help can be expected from our friends in Europe no matter how much it appears that their own interests are at stake. European countries spend even less of their GDP on their own defense than we do. They continue to trade with Iran, refusing to impose tough sanctions as Iran develops its nuclear capabilities. These are the weak reeds on which many would have us lean in our effort to fight global terrorism and the authoritarianism that threatens democratic countries.

So let’s recap: international terrorism; powerful nation states on a quest for hegemony, whether close to home or further afield and with a willingness to squelch freedom anytime the opportunity arises; less stable and no less dangerous countries with nuclear and ballistic missile capabilities; an alliance of democratic nations of questionable resolve and a debate at home over our future role in the world with a political party happy to create the impression of diminished resolve with little concern for the long term damage such an impression may cause.

Under these circumstances the old title “leader of the free world” takes on renewed meaning. He will have to guide the body politic at home toward resolution and in all likelihood engender resolve in a new alliance of democratic nations to deal with this broad array of challenges. In short it will require someone with experience and the courage to put his nation’s long term interest above his own.

I suppose it’s obvious where I’m going with this. This is no time to elect a president whose international experience is limited to speaking to adoring European crowds who want to see the United States retreat from the world … until they require our help in the next crisis that threatens them.

It has been instructive for the country to see the candidates’ reaction to the equivalent of Hillary Clinton’s 3 a.m. phone call. While he was vacationing in Hawaii, Barack Obama’s advisors scrambled into action and initially came up with the expected liberal bromides which equated the actions of Russia and Georgia and only ratcheted up the rhetoric when they began to actually understand what was happening.

It wasn’t that difficult for John McCain. For him Georgia was another little-known part of the world, whose leaders and history he is familiar with. And long before this Georgian crisis, he’s had the correct read on Russia, just as he’s had the right read on what we needed to do in Iraq

This crisis half a world away confirms what I’ve been saying for a while: This election cycle, the traffic in the world is very heavy …and dangerous; it’s no time to give a kid with barely a learner’s permit the keys to the car.]

In the previous version of this blog, I posted my own opinion about today's Russia and the threat it poses to the world. It is one area where I think President Bush has left us dry. Russia has increased its influence through old satellites like Cuba, renewed its influence in Central America (Noriega returned to lead Nicaragua), and picked up new friends (Venezuela and Iran). It's very much like the Cold War in a way, except now China is leaning toward their old enemy, Russia, and Europe could be held hostage by a natural gas pipeline coming from the East on which they have grown very dependent. Much work is needed to be done by someone in the know. That would be McCain.

Fred pic courtesy of Creative Commons.
Fred column appeared originally in Townhall.com

Fred Thompson's Opinion On Latest SCOTUS Decision

Fred Thompson weighs in from his Townhall.com blog about the recent SCOTUS (Supreme Court Of The United States) decision regarding enemy combatants (though Fred and I agree it was decided more with Gitmo detainees primarily in mind). My links to Townhall posts and columns usually only last a day before the link points to a non-page, so I am posting the entire bit:

[A Supreme Mistake

Upon reading the opinion in Boumediene v Bush, one must conclude that the majority knew where they wanted to go and simply had to figure out how to get there. The trip was not a pretty one. How could it be when the justices seemingly wrote a map based on ideas cherry picked from over 400 years of established law and backfilled with justifications to create a new right for alien combatants that Americans themselves do not enjoy?

They could have saved us all a lot of time if they’d told us what was clearly on their minds.

They don’t trust military tribunals to deal with those accused of being enemy combatants, even if the tribunals are following guidelines established by Congress.

That the government has probably detained some prisoners at Guantanamo for longer than they should have.

And that Guantanamo should just be closed.

Though they are willing to give it lip service, they don’t really believe we are at war … at least not a “real” war.

Therefore, they should create a new right for our nation’s enemies commiserate with the displeasure that they and the rest of the “enlightened” people have with this “war,” Guantanamo and the Bush Administration.

At least this approach would have been an honest one and based upon about as much legal justification as the approach they took.

But, instead – as Justice Scalia pointed out in his dissent – they for the first time in our nation’s history, conferred a Constitutional right of habeas corpus on alien enemies detained abroad by our military forces in the course of an ongoing war – a broader right than has been given to our own citizens. The court majority did so acknowledging that they could find no precedent to confer such a right to alien enemies not within sovereign U.S. territory

The majority had simply decided that prior courts had denied such rulings based on “practical considerations.” In other words in prior cases and prior wars it had just been too inconvenient to bestow the right of habeas corpus upon non-citizens in foreign jurisdictions. So, by focusing on what they saw as “practical” instead of those pesky court precedents based upon the issues of citizenship and foreign territory … and the Constitution … the majority reached the conclusion they wanted to, since what is practical is subjective. One can only ponder the state of our nation directed by the subjective instead of the Constitution.

As Chief Justice Roberts pointed out in his dissent, the court strikes down as inadequate the most generous set of protections ever afforded aliens detained by this country as enemy combatants.

Among the problems the majority saw was the prisoner’s limited access to classified information, even though his personal representative is allowed access to it and can summarize it for the accused. Exactly what procedures would pass muster with the majority? Well, this has to be figured out by the habeas court later – and most certainly be challenged in endless rounds of further litigation.

At this stage, no one can really tell the extent to which this decision is going to add to judicial confusion, additional administrative difficulty, time and attention of military personnel or how many more prisoners will be mistakenly released to join the at least 30 who were released from Guantanamo only to return to fight the United States.

In reading the majority opinion I am struck by the utter waste that is involved here. No, not the waste of military resources and human life, although such a result is tragically obvious. I refer to the waste of all those years these justices spent in law school studying how adherence to legal precedent is the bedrock of the rule of law, when it turns out, all they really needed was a Pew poll, a subscription to the New York Times, and the latest edition of “How to Make War for Dummies.”

It is truly stunning that this court has seen fit to arrogate unto itself a role in the most important issue facing any country, self-defense, in a case in which Congress has in fact repeatedly acted. This was not a case where Congress did not set the rules; it did. But the court still decided – in the face of overwhelming precedent to the contrary – to intervene. This decision, or course, will allow for "President Bush Is Rebuffed” headlines, the implication being that the Administration was caught red-handed violating clearly established Constitutional rights when in fact the Administration, and the Congress for that matter, followed guidelines established by the Supreme Court itself in prior cases.

People can disagree over whether Congress got it right, but at least members have to face the voters. What remedy do people have now if they don’t like the court’s decision? None. If that thought is not enough to cause concerned citizens to turn out on Election Day to elect a new president, then I don’t know what will be.

I also find it just a tad ironic that in a case involving habeas corpus, which literally means that one must produce a body (or person) before a court to explain the basis on which that person is being detained, the decision of this court may mean more fallen bodies in the defense of a Constitution some of these justices ignored.]

I still prefer this man to John McCain!

President Thompson? (Fred)

This past Friday former Tennessee Senator Fred Dalton Thompson informally announced that he is seriously considering a run for the White House in '08. This, after most polls show him in double digits even though he has not officially thrown his hat into the rather lackluster ring, he is expected to do so on July 4th. So rather than wait until July I figured it was time to write something about him now. First things first, a little background on the man.

Born in Sheffield, AL on August 19, 1942, he actually grew up in Lawrenceburg, TN and married his first wife when he was only 17. He received his bachelors in philosophy and political science from Memphis State University and his J.D. from Vanderbilt Law School in 1967.

Now I may get a bit detailed here due to the fact that Democrats like to refer to him as merely an actor. He's been much more than that. From 1969 to 1972 he worked as assistant US attorney in TN and then as Senator Howard Baker's campaign manager for re-election in '72. And while Hillary Clinton was working hard on the Democrat side to impeach President Nixon, Fred Thompson was working as co-chief council to the Senate Watergate Committee. He was responsible for Senator Baker asking "what did the President know and when did he know it?" Thompson himself asked the famous question: "Mr Butterfield, are you aware of any listening devices in the Oval Office of the President?"

In 1977 Thompson helped run Tennessee Governor Ray Blanton out of office early for allegedly selling pardons toward the end of his term. When a movie called Marie was made about the incident Thompson played himself, which launched his movie career. It has been a career of acting rolls in 24 movies and two TV series, most notably In the Line of Fire and Hunt for Red October, and playing District Attorney Arthur Branch on NBC's Law & Order.

In 1994 he won election to the Senate (seat vacated by Al Gore who became VP), and then won re-election by a landslide in 1996 to a six-year term. During his Senate years, he served as Chairman of the Committee on Governmental Affairs and presided over the China-gate hearings, which investigated whether or not Chinese authorities bribed US politicians with illegal campaign contributions in exchange for Most Favored Nation Trading Status and possibly classified missile technology information. During the hearings Thompson's motions were often obstructed by Democratic Senators John Glenn (most notably), Carl Levin, and Robert Torricelli. The fact that most of those witnesses subpoenaed by Thompson's committee either fled the country or plead the fifth amendment, coupled with a lack of cooperation from either side of the aisle to take the hearings to their proper conclusion (possibly resulting in the discovery of startling and damaging revelations about those in question) forced Senator Thompson to abruptly end the investigations.

Also during his Senate years it should be noted that he introduced/authored virtually no legislation whatsoever, and had a reputation for complaining about long hours in the Senate. Some votes of note were in favor of McCain-Feingold (which he has since declared hasn't lived up to its expectations) as well as votes on the Articles of Impeachment of President Clinton--against the charge of perjury but for the charge of Obstruction of Justice. His complete Senate voting record can be found here.

After stating post 9-11 "now is not the time to leave," he decided against re-election in '02, some say because he simply got bored. A far more likely reason was the untimely death of his daughter Elizabeth from an overdose of prescription drugs on January 30th 2002.

He is currently in his second marriage to a woman 20 years his junior with whom he has fathered two children, since having fathered two other children from his previous marriage. His first wife has promised to campaign for him should he actually run for President.

He is a member of the Church of Christ, which is historically linked to the Restoration Movement of Barton Stone and Alexander Campbell. This movement sought to return to predenominational, original Christianity without extra creeds being added by church hierarchies found in other religions. This church bases its doctrine primarily on the Holy Bible, with nearly all emphasis put on the New Testament. While the Old Testament is honored, the Church of Christ doesn't feel bound to it legally due to the New Covenant with Christ.

His stand on the issues today are virtually identical to his senate voting record. He is pro-life on abortion, against gun control, in favor of prohibiting same sex marriage, in favor of the military surge in Iraq, supports the war on terror, supports extending President Bush's tax cuts,... You can follow Thompson on his opinions daily here in his blog at ABC Radio's website.

The American Conservative Union gave Thompson a lifetime rating of 86 out of 100. Let's face it. He is every conservative's dream when it comes to issues, including appointing prospective Supreme Court justices. President Bush turned to Fred Thompson when he needed someone to guide his nomination of John Roberts for Supreme Court Justice through the Senate; and he did so successfully. He's like Reagan in his ability to communicate with people, a plain talker, but that is so far only when scripted. His ad-libbing needs some brushing up, if a recent speech using note cards is any indication.

Is he entering too late? By today's standards he might be. A lot of money has already been raised by other candidates on a level never before seen. Some candidates brought barrels of money into the race with them. But if the Steven Forbes or Ross Perot campaigns are any indication, money doesn't buy opinions--it only buys attention. Fred Thompson will be running a different kind of campaign, one that utilizes other less costly advantages to get his message out. He has face recognition already from his movies and more recent TV work. But more importantly he has been substituting for Paul Harvey on the radio and reaching a huge and informed audience of registered voters. No one can accuse Paul Harvey of not having a powerful microphone, which he has been loaning to Thompson. There is also the afore mentioned Fred Thompson blog. Expect the internet to be utilized often through You-tube and other means. Speaking of which...that was a pretty good smack-down he did on Michael Moore.

Democrats may accuse him of being a do-nothing Senator; but certainly no worse than former Senator "No-Show" John Edwards, a contender for his party's nomination. So other than Thompson's weak record in the Senate (which could foretell a do-nothing Presidency, which could also make him a do-no-harm President), there appears to be nothing damaging about him which could torpedo a successful run for the White House, except perhaps his history of cancer---but that is in remission; or his divorce---but not only does his ex-wife still like him, she plans to campaign for him. All he really needs to do is beat Giuliani in the likability factor and he could get the nomination.