Email ~ great info from nrlc about Fred ~ very encouraging :

November 28, 2007

Sen. Thompson’s Appearance on Fox News Sunday

I was busy with a hundred other things Sunday, so I didn’t get a chance to see former Senator Fred Thompson on “Fox News Sunday” until I pulled it up last night. As you know, the board of National Right to Life has overwhelmingly endorsed Mr. Thompson to be President of the United States. I watched [or read] all of the interview but, of course, gave particular attention to his answers on abortion.

Many items stood out in Thompson’s responses to Fox News’ Chris Wallace. Let me cite three.

#1. Thompson responded “yes” to the question, “Do you believe that life begins at conception”?

#2. Thompson answered “yes” to the question, “Do you believe that abortion is the taking of life?”

#3. Thompson gave, in my opinion, a very thoughtful explanation of his position–why, as President, he would overturn Roe by “directing our energy” on nominating justices to the Supreme Court rather than on a Human Life Amendment. (Thompson has made it clear that he would not change the Republican Party’s platform plank favoring passage of an HLA.)

When the Court is comprised of enough justices whose fealty is to the text and history of the Constitution, not to the enactment of legislation via court opinion, Roe v. Wade will be reversed. When this happens, abortion law would be established by the elected legislative branch, not nine unelected justices. The voice of grassroots American could be heard uninhibited by Roe’s extremist reach.

Wallace challenged Thompson, saying this would mean that some states would have very liberal abortion laws. In effect, Thompson responded, “Think about what you just said.”

He patiently walked Wallace through the enormous obstacles there are to passage of an HLA and how that knowledge reinforces the imperative to nominate and confirm strict constructionist justices to the Supreme Court.

To even be considered by the states, an HLA would need to be passed by 2/3rds of the House and 2/3rds of the Senate–and then ratified by 3/4ths of the states. (NRLC has estimated that 30 senators would have to be replaced to reach the 2/3rds majority.

“When we had control of the House, had control of the Senate, had control of the presidency, there wasn’t a serious effort to put forth a constitutional amendment because people knew that it couldn’t pass — couldn’t pass, wouldn’t pass,” Thompson said

But the crucial point is, whether it is ratification of an HLA after Congress sends it to the states, or passage of protective laws after Roe v. Wade is overturned, in either case the action is in the legislative arena. But while the former requires 38 states for victory, the latter is an individual battle where pro-lifers can win one law at a time, building momentum and reconstituting a culture of life. It is not an all-or-nothing proposition as is ratification of an HLA.

In one sentence, Thompson summarized the extraordinary opportunities that would be available, once Roe is history. “You could move from zero yard line, you know, to the 60- or 70-yard line instead of standing pat, which is what we’re doing how, which is where we will remain if we don’t abolish Roe vs. Wade.”

He made this same point in a slightly different and equally thoughtful way, in answering another question about states having the right not to pass protective legislation once Roe’s collapse returns the abortion issue to elected lawmakers.

“[I]f we can’t carry the argument, if we can’t win the argument–which I think that we are winning nationwide now–we can never pass a constitutional amendment anyway.”

Exactly.

Thompson was on top of his game, energetic, and gave as good (actually better) than he got. If you’d like to read about how NRLC reached its decision to enthusiastically support Sen. Thompson for President, please go to www.nrlc.org/News_and_Views/Nov07/nv111307.htm

If you listen to folks who oppose immigration and border enforcement, you get the feeling they think we put locks on our doors to keep everybody out. The truth is we have locks so we can choose who comes in. An example of what happens when we don’t make the choice took place August 4th when three Newark, New Jersey, college students with great promise were executed, gangland style. The killers’ ringleader was apparently an illegal alien indicted twice in 2007 for felonies, including the rape of a kindergarten-aged girl.

Why would such a person be set free instead of being handed over to authorities for deportation? The answer is that Newark is a “sanctuary city” which bans cooperation between local officials and federal immigration officials. More than 60 sanctuary zones, including 30 of America’s largest cities, provide a national networked haven for foreign and organized criminals who recruit and operate outside those areas as well. These sanctuaries include Cambridge, Massachusetts; Los Angeles, California; Detroit, Michigan; Chicago, Illinois; Austin and Houston, Texas; Denver, Colorado; and New York City.

The consequences of “sanctuary cities” may be most obvious in the city that became the first in 1979 - Los Angeles. According to the Center for Immigration Studies, a confidential California Department of Justice study from the mid-1990’s showed then that at least 60 percent of the members of L.A.’s most violent gangs, with membership in the tens of thousands, were illegal aliens. Of all outstanding murder warrants in Los Angeles, 95 percent are for illegal aliens. Frustrated police say they are powerless to pick up even well-known, previously deported felons.

Now I am a strong federalist, but immigration is a responsibility of the federal government, and the failures of local officials to enforce our national laws have a direct impact on communities around the country.

Link: http://www.elephantbiz.com/2007/08/fred_on_illegal_immigraiton_sa.html

Yesterday, Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani continued their partisan bickering, this time over things like the constitutionality of the line item veto.  While they played politics, Fred Thompson rose above it and took his conservative, small government, tax cutting message straight to the American people. 

He talked directly to the American people about keeping more of what they earn.  He talked truth about entitlements.  He talked about keeping America safe.  He made it known that when it comes to our national security, it won’t be his attorneys that Fred Thompson will first sit down with, it will be his generals. 

Overall, he showed the courage and honesty to address the nation’s real problems, and the leadership to solve them.  Fred Thompson may have been standing between Romney and Rudy, but he stood far above both of them.

a shameless plug~

http://www.fred08.com/

from AP

Fred Thompson - veteran actor, former Republican senator - launched his bid for the presidency Hollywood style. “I’m running for president of the United States,” Thompson told Jay Leno in a taped appearance on NBC’s “Tonight Show” airing Wednesday night.

woo hoo \o/ Go Fred!!