Archive for the 'Fred Thompson' Category

Fred Thompson best of top 5 immigration Numbers USA

December 26, 2007

Roy Beck has a new ranking of the Republican candidates on immigration. Fred Thompson is the best of the top 5.

http://www.betterimmigration.com/candidates/2006/prez08_gop1.html

Once you go past Fred, the best of the remaining 4 is Mitt Romney. John McCain and Rudi Giuliani have abysmal ratings in some categories.  The report looks at amnesty and legal immigration.

Based on this, among the top 5 a ranking is

  1. Fred Thompson
  2. Mitt Romney
  3. Mike Huckabee
  4. Rudi Giuliani
  5. John McCain

Ranking all, including Tom Tancredo, we have

  1. Tom Tancredo
  2. Duncan Hunter
  3. Fred Thompson
  4. Ron Paul
  5. Mitt Romney
  6. Mike Huckabee
  7. Rudi Giuliani
  8. John McCain

Fred Thompson edges out Ron Paul on immigration.

Tom Tancredo Endores Romney not Fred

December 20, 2007

Tom Tancredo fears that Huckabee, Giuliani, or McCain, HGM, could get the nomination. By endorsing Romney, Tom does the most to stop HGM. Is that right or should we support Fred Thompson or for some Ron Paul?

Let’s look at HGM first. McCain really is an amnesty heresiarch. So there is no point even voting Republican if he gets the nomination. Mike Huckabee and Rudi Giuliani have promised to oppose amnesty in name. Huckabee appears to support a touchback amnesty scheme. Giuliani seems to say secure the border and then have amnesty.

You can’t have any control if you have periodic legalization of any portion of those here. That makes it a lottery ticket. You lose nothing to try, so you might as well come as an illegal. This is a mistake. With any legalization we are in trouble. Thus Mike Huckabee and Rudi Giuliani are a mistake.

That leaves Fred. Fred has voted for H-1B, but he has been against amnesty in the past. Fred is for attrition. He says so explicitly.

Mitt Romney has said he wants to expand legal immigration. This causes our genetic replacement and suppresses our birth rate. Evidently he wants that.

Tom Tancredo evidently thought Fred was unlikely to win and he wanted to stop HGM with Romney. But how much of a trade is that really?

http://www.betterimmigration.com/candidates/2006/prez08_gop1.html

According to Roy Beck at Numbers USA, Fred is against amnesty and for attrition by enforcement, but none of HGM or Romney qualify. He has Romney as fair. This has not changed since Romney released his new plan. Numbers USA rates both Rudi and McCain as bad on amnesty. They give Huckabee a question mark. Romney is fair. Fred Thompson is excellent.

Why not hold out? Vote for Fred who is excellent on amnesty, attrition by enforcement. This is even better than Ron Paul who is good. Duncan Hunter is also excellent but is a long shot. Bottom line, why not vote for Fred Thompson?

Why not go with Numbers USA ratings? Those tell us Fred is excellent. They also tell us HGM are bad or extremely questionable. Romney is fair. Romney is avoiding the worst. Do we have to go for that now? If not, pick Fred. For me, my choice for now is Fred Thompson. Hold their feet to the fire. Isn’t that we said in the Senate Phone In of 2007?

Fred Hate at NYT and Fox

December 1, 2007

The New York Times and Fox have both vented at Fred Thompson after the debate. This shows he won. We are getting it from these two towers of neocon-liberalism. The New York Times is the leader in print and Fox on broadcast of the strange transgender politics that has dominated the Bush years.

“Thompson Bid, Criticized as Sleepy, Is at the Least Unconventional” By MARC SANTORA
Published: December 1, 2007

Even when a national spotlight is made to order, Mr. Thompson seems to have trouble exploiting it. Here at the CNN/YouTube debate for Republican candidates on Wednesday night, he appeared set to seize the moment, delivering a well-timed swipe at Rudolph W. Giuliani for his hiring record, clearly a reference to the former mayor’s onetime police commissioner and business associate, Bernard B. Kerik, now under federal indictment on tax-fraud charges.

But then he let the moment slide, saying, “We’ll have to address that a little bit further later.” He never did.

Actually, Fred delivered the line perfectly. He didn’t need to go further, because everyone understood it. If you have to explain a joke its not as funny. Fred was perfect on that line. That’s why everyone remembers that line as the highlight of the debate. That was the best line in the debate, and the New York Times says that shows Fred is too tired to be president.

That shows NYT hates Fred. The reason NYT and Fox hate Fred is that Fred is a real conservative, not a neocon. Fred wants to stop chain migration. Fred wants to defeat Islam not just run an occupation that keeps Think Tank pundits and newspapers sold.

Fox on Fred:

Following a debate where GOP presidential candidate Fred Thompson gave a lackluster performance, the former Tennessee senator is challenging his opponents to meet him for a more personal follow-up — on his terms.

FOX News’ Carl Cameron contributed to this report.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,313762,00.html

National Review also gets in its knife against Fred

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ODhjMWEyNWM3ZWMxYTU0NTkyZDVkMGNlMTZiNDRhMDY=

==Frank Luntz: Fred won and people saw he won

http://fredthompsonnews.blogspot.com/2007/11/frank-luntz-on-hannity-colmes-says-fred.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/11/frank_luntz_shares_results_of.html

FRED THOMPSON (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: One of the things I would do for his generation is protect him from our generation.

(LAUGHTER & APPLAUSE)

Luntz:

And the candidate that stood out yesterday was Fred Thompson. … Thompson had several points during that debate where he really grabbed the audience’s attention.

LUNTZ: They are afraid that as they watch — and these people, Sean, are watching both Republican and Democratic debates. I’m not surprised that they are getting very high ratings. They look at what the Democrats offer. And to them it doesn’t sound — and I’m going to use this word deliberately. It doesn’t sound American to the Republicans. And they are nervous that the Democratic candidates will take the country backward. Point one.

Point two is that they want to see the Republicans with a genuine focus. And they find that the Democrats have been more precise in terms of issues than their own candidates have been. And third, and I apologize for this, Sean, they are very disappointed with President Bush. Republicans who voted for him are disappointed in what has happened over the past two years.

Now, Sean, there is one issue that stands out with the Republicans more than any other. It’s not the culture wars, it’s not social issues, it’s illegal immigration. And you touch that. If they perceive in any way that you are a supporter of either amnesty or funding for illegal immigrants, you are going to get a negative reaction.

Rudi Giuliani and John McCain showed negative reaction on illegal immigration.

I can’t overestimate just how angry Republicans are with illegal immigration and how they want their presidential candidate to stop it.

(Frank Luntz on Hannity.)

==Fred Got his Facts Right from Say Anything Blog

http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/fred_thompson_got_his_facts_right_at_the_gop_debate/

http://blogsforfredthompson.com/factcheck-org-republican-cnn-youtube-debate

http://lonestartimes.com/2007/11/30/what-is-right-about-fred/

Rush says Fred only conservative in top tier.

http://blogsforfredthompson.com/rush-agrees-freds-only-conservative

This is one reason Fox and NYT and National Review are attacking Fred, Rush told the truth.

http://blogsforfredthompson.com/huckabee-taking-heat-immigration-fred-thompson-praised

Confederate Flag

http://texasfred.net/archives/793

Who won CNN Youtube Republican Debate?

November 29, 2007

The performance of the candidates in order, might be

  1. Fred Thompson
  2. Tom Tancredo
  3. Duncan Hunter
  4. Ron Paul
  5. Mitt Romney
  6. John McCain
  7. Mike Huckabee
  8. Rudi Giuliani

There are two groups. The first group are loyal to Americans as people and will fight for them. That group of 4 won because they had things to say to help Americans. Those 4 performed as follows in terms of winning the debate.

  1. Fred Thompson Had things to say. Didn’t surrender on the Confederate Flag. Thompson is willing to say what he thinks on social security, entitlements, immigration. etc. Fred had the most to offer on many subjects that was actually for the benefit of Americans. It was also at a good level of using specifics when needed to bolster an explicit set of policies to help Americans. None of the others used specific facts to support policies to help Americans as effectively as Fred.
  2. Tom Tancredo. Was more relaxed and confident than usual. He was funny and self-deprecating at times and comfortable in his skin.
  3. Duncan Hunter. Strong confident, pro-American.
  4. Ron Paul. Independent, didn’t waffle in face of some tough questions.

The second 4 had nothing positive to offer to Americans.

  1. Mitt Romney. Empty suit. Romney has nothing to offer to make our lives better. Romney made 250 million in the 1980’s and 1990’s by ending good paying jobs. Men’s median wages are lower than in 1973. Women’s median wages are what men’s were in 1960. See p60-233.pdf. Romney made money for himself by keeping them lower.
  2. John McCain. Was somewhat defensive and shrill.
  3. Mike Huckabee. He really made it clear at length that he has no loyalty to Americans, that Americans in general are closet racists and that he really despises those who think he owes them or any American citizens loyalty. For Huckabee, hating Americans opposed to immigration is a moral passion. He reacts with anger to any proposal to be loyal to Americans when their interests conflict with immigrants, which is often. Huckabee thinks that conflict is often and thinks Americans who want Huckabee to take their side are racist.
  4. Rudi Giuliani. He was defensive through the evening. Like the others in the anti-American 4, he makes it clear he has contempt and no loyalty for Americans where it counts, in wages and in keeping out those who come here and change our country, which is for the worse.

The top 4 were all comfortable in their skins. The bottom 4 were all uncomfortable. The top 4 were for the people. The bottom 4 had covert or even overt hostility to the people.

That included Romney on the Confederate Flag. Romney made clear his contempt and you could see his mind working to use this as a triangulation issue to advance himself, but he might cost himself votes in South Carolina where Fred Thompson is battling it out with Romney, both are at the top in South Carolina, which is the third event behind Iowa and New Hampshire.

Huckabee on tuition breaks for illegals came out with a passion against anyone who would deny anything to children of illegals or illegals themselves. For Huckabee this is a moral issue direct from God. Anyone who is opposed to Huckabee on helping illegals is not a good Christian or person and is evil. He made that clear.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/28/debate.transcript/index.html

==Hypothesis on why bottom 4 came off as against us

We discuss here a hypothesis of why the second 4 had nothing to offer Americans on good paying jobs, job security, stopping immigration, etc.

The second 4 think, or act as if, its racist to be loyal to Americans. These 4 are intentionally and affirmatively “racist” against Americans. They advocate good job destruction for Americans and their children. They advocate ending the safety of American communities and making them unsafe at night or even by day by immigration by those who have manifested animosity against Americans, especially white Christian or secular Americans.

The bottom 4 are immigration supremacists. Because immigration supremacy is built on calling whites racist to silence them its necessary to point out the anti-whiteness of this strategy and these candidates. Whites are the majority so a strategy to keep wages below the 1973 level for men for all groups has to be built on cowing whites into silence.

Their strategy is that whites who ask for good wages will be called racist when they propose the only real solution, ending all legal immigration. So we need to discuss at length the anti-white racism in the immigration supremacist position of the bottom 4 candidates.

The candidates who imply loyalty to Americans is racist are really implying that whites are racists who deserve nothing. This is the whites deserve to lose their good jobs, aren’t due anything for building the country or fighting the wars, and should be condemned if they say they are.

These candidates intentionally pursue big immigration strategies designed to make whites a minority, take away their good jobs and label all whites as racists. They are doing this to everyone else here too. Since big immigration as a strategy relies on labeling whites as racist to succeed, its necessary to point out the anti-whiteness of the candidates pursuing this approach. The bottom 4 are triangulating with the rest of whites as racist.

Although the 4 didn’t express these ideas explicitly, their behavior at the debate, and their past record are consistent with this hypothesis. They don’t have anything to offer to make American lives better. The top 4 did. The top 4 are immigration restrictionists in one way or another. The bottom 4 are immigration supremacists.

==Questions that should be asked.

A question that should have been asked, is: Do you think its racist to want to stop all legal immigration, and send all the illegals home?

To Huckabee, do you think Tom Tancredo’s statements or positions on immigration are racist?

Do you think America should remain a majority white country? What would you do to keep it that way? (This should be asked of Democrats as well.)

Are those who say America should stay majority white racist?

For Dems and Huckabee:

Do blacks have lower IQ than whites?

Is it partly genetic?

Is it racist to say so?

Does it matter?

Do “racial differences exist” between blacks and whites in crime?

For Hispanics?

Is it racist to say “racial differences exist” between blacks and whites in crime? Hispanics?

Does that imply we should not have immigration by blacks or Hispanics?

Is it racist to say so?

Is there regression towards the mean in IQ and behavior?

Does this mean we should not have immigration from the third world, even higher IQ or better behaved individuals?

Is it racist to say so?

Is it white supremacist to say so?

Is the Confederate Flag a symbol of white nationalism or white supremacism?

Do you consider Pat Buchanan, Tom Tancredo, Virgil Goode, Trent Lott, or George Allen to have said anything that is white nationalist or white supremacist?

Do you believe America will become a white minority country?

Do you think its racist to say it should not?

Do you think doing anything to stop America becoming white minority is white nationalism or white supremacism?

Are you an immigration supremacist in the sense that you believe America will become minority white and that you call anyone who says to stop that a racist or white nationalist or white supremacist?

Is anyone who says America should stay majority white a white nationalist?

A white supremacist?

Do you believe every American either has to

  1. Support or accept minority status for whites, or
  2. Support keeping America majority white and thereby be a white nationalist or white supremacist?

Is ignoring the issue and letting it happen, America becoming minority white, the right thing to do?

Is anyone who talks about it as negative, a racist, white nationalist or white supremacist?

If saying America should be white majority is white nationalism, and saying it should be white minority is immigration nationalism, which are you?

Does your answer change if its white supremacist v. immigration supremacist as the labels?

Holy Economy Mammon RINO 4

October 25, 2007

http://age-of-treason.blogspot.com/2007/10/politician-politician-pants-on-fire.html

The speed with which our government was able to get hundreds of thousands of people in heavily populated areas to “migrate” elsewhere, even though it inconvenienced and terrified many more who were not directly involved, certainly puts the lie to all the ninnies who claim we are incapable of deporting the millions of invaders, have no right to even make them fearful, and darn sure better not inconvenience the Holy Economy with any such attempt.

This was linked to by Vanishing American:

http://vanishingamerican.blogspot.com/2007/10/california-wildfires-officially-arson.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammon

Webster (1977) defines ‘mammon‘ as: 1) the false god of riches and avarice. 2) riches regarded as an object of worship and greedy pursuit; wealth as an evil, more or less personified.

This sounds like the reasons advocated for immigration exactly. We can word-smith this just to see if it works:

Webster (1977) defines ‘immigration‘ as: 1) the false god of riches and avarice. 2) H-1b riches regarded as an object of worship and greedy pursuit; Chinese cheap imports – wealth as an evil, more or less personified.

The whole wiki article is good with links to following

The RINO 4 are John McCain, Mitt Romney, Rudi Giuliani, and Fred Thompson. All have indicated they support legal immigration including H-1B. Many indicate they want to expand legal immigration.

==

Vanishing American analyzes Fred Thompson’s recent policy statement on immigration.

http://vanishingamerican.blogspot.com/2007/10/latest-conversion.html

VA calls some of it twaddle and Fred a globalist. We can combine these as Fred’s plan is globalist twaddle. Fred Thompson’s voting record to double H-1b with his friend Spencer Abraham in 1998 is here:

http://profiles.numbersusa.com/improfile.php3?DistSend=TN&VIPID=743

http://www.fred08.com/virtual/Immigration.aspx

twad·dle play_w(“T0432100”)

(twdl)

intr.v. twad·dled, twad·dling, twad·dles

To talk foolishly; prate.

n.

Foolish, trivial, or idle talk or chatter.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/twaddle

We can try to wordsmith this to see if it works.

Fred twad·dle play_w(“T0432100”)

(twdl)

intr.v. twad·dled, twad·dling, twad·dles

To talk foolishly about only opposing only illegal immigration; to prate that America is a nation of immigrants..

n.

Foolish, trivial, or idle talk that illegal immigration is unfair to legal immigrants or chatter about jobs Americans don’t want to do.

Arab Nationalism, Islam Overlap Fred Thompson Spencer Abraham

July 31, 2007

Robert Spencer at Dhimmi Watch.
Treatment of Palestinian Christians ‘Medieval’
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/017594.php
Yet most Palestinian Christians still identify entirely with the jihad imperative. Will they awaken to the fact that this is not in their best interests before it’s too late?From Charisma (thanks to Andrew Bostom):

(July 30, 2007) – Arab Christians are leaving the Palestinian territories in droves due to discrimination and persecution from a Muslim-dominant police force and government, Dr. Justus Weiner, a distinguished scholar in residence at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, told reporters and academics at the Hudson Institute in Washington D.C. on July 17.

The questions raised by the article or elsewhere are

1) Does Arab nationalism exist?

2) What does it consist of?

3) What is the relation of Islam to Arab Nationalism?

4) What is the relation of jihad to Arab Nationalism?

5) If jihad overlaps, at least for some people, with Arab Nationalism, can this set of some people also include non-Muslim Arabs?

Do specific people in the US like Spencer Abraham fall into the group of non-Muslims who identify with, at least in part with Arab Nationalism and the overlap of Arab Nationalism, at least in part, with jihad?

Debbie Schlussel , Vanishing American , and others have been commenting on Fred Thompson hiring Spencer Abraham.

Are there people in these groups who make statements consistent with such views?

Act consistent with such views?

Actually advocate this?

Deny this exists for any person?

search: Debbie Schlussel Fred Thompson 

==Immigration Votes Fred Thompson

http://profiles.numbersusa.com/improfile.php3?DistSend=TN&VIPID=743 

Fred Thompson, we naturalize 500,000 per year.

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

Naturalize means give citizenship.  Actually the number is higher.

==Spencer Abraham immigration votes

http://profiles.numbersusa.com/improfile.php3?DistSend=MI&VIPID=401 

==DHS immigration statistics

http://www.dhs.gov/ximgtn/statistics/ 

700,000 naturalizations (citizenship) in 2006.

1.2 million permanent legal status petitions granted in 2006.

%d bloggers like this: