I'm With Fred '08

Rick Burgess - A Father's Heart part 1

2008-01-28T20:10:00.001-08:00

2007-09-15T18:09:00.000-07:00

www.Fred08.com

The Price They Paid - What Happened to the Signers of the Declaration of Independence

2007-07-04T09:39:00.000-07:00

5 were captured by the British and tortured

12 had their homes ransacked and burned

2 lost their sons during the Revolutionary War

9 fought and died from wounds or hardships during the Revolutionary War

They signed and pledged their lives, their fortunes and sacred honor.

What kind of men were they?

read entire story
http://snopes.com/history/american/pricepaid.asp

Perspective -Pardons granted by President Clinton (1993-2001)

2007-07-03T16:16:00.000-07:00

Complete list of Bill Clinton's 396 pardons during his administration from the Department of Justice web site.
http://www.usdoj.gov/pardon/clintonpardon_grants.htm

Sentencing of Scooter Libby by Fred Thompson

2007-07-03T16:00:00.000-07:00

The sentencing of Scooter Libby was the last in a series of acts that has resulted in a shocking injustice – one created by and enabled by federal officials. As I’ve been saying for many months, this is a “he said-she said” case about political infighting that would have never been brought in any other prosecutor’s office in America.
The CIA started the ball rolling by sending the Democratic partisan husband of one of its employees to Niger on a sensitive mission. Knowing an opportunity when he saw one, he returned and blasted the Bush Administration (the fact that he blatantly falsified a few important things along the way is another story). It should not have been a shock to CIA officials when people then asked, “Who is this guy and why was he sent to Niger?” The only mystery in Washington is why the CIA employee-wife’s name, Valerie Plame, took as long as it did to leak.
Nevertheless, the CIA demanded that the Department of Justice investigate the leak of her name (not surprisingly, the fact that the CIA was making such a request was leaked). This put pressure on the DOJ. The DOJ, in turn, promptly caved to the media and Congressional pressure to appoint a Special Counsel to investigate the Plame leak. However, there were two glaring problems for anyone with a sense of justice, or who may have gone to law school for one semester.
The Justice Department and the new Special Counsel knew that:
1.) The leaking of Valerie Plame’s name did not constitute a crime because she was not a “covered person” under the relative criminal statue and,
2.) They already knew the name of the leaker: State Department official Richard Armitage.
Yet small matters such as these do not matter much to Justice Department officials trying to cover their own....

read or listen to the entire commentary by Fred Thompson

http://abcradionetworks.com/article.asp?id=419364&SPID=15663

A Thompson Book Revival

2007-07-02T19:39:00.000-07:00

By David D. Kirkpatrick

Other presidential contenders have sold more books, but none of their books have sold for as much as Fred D. Thompson’s.
Mr. Thompson’s amble toward the Republican race has sent the price of used copies of his long-forgotten, out-of-print 1975 memoir soaring to $199.35 on Amazon.com’s network of used-book dealers, providing a gauge of his appeal as a candidate, if not as an author.
The book, “At That Point in Time: The Inside Story of the Senate Watergate Committee,” recounts his stint as Republican counsel to the panel. Before Mr. Thompson, a former Tennessee senator and actor, became a presidential contender, a reviewer on the site concluded that the book was likely to appeal to only a few “Watergate enthusiasts.”
But in June, when his potential candidacy was shaking up the race, a second reader called it a “fascinating book.” He concluded that he was glad “I got my copy before the prices went crazy!’’
“I certainly hope Fred runs!” he said

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/07/02/a-thompson-book-revival/

A Better than Fair Day by Fred Thompson

2007-07-02T10:39:00.000-07:00

Yesterday was a good day. Talk radio, along with the blogs, helped block an immigration bill that the American people overwhelmingly opposed. Then, a congressman, who is also an ex-radio talk show host, managed to get a “yes” vote on language in a House bill that could permanently stop those who want to resurrect the Fairness Doctrine.
We've been hearing threats to use the obsolete Fairness Doctrine to go after talk radio ever since the left-leaning talk radio network, Air America, failed. Ironically, I think Air America might have had a shot if its target audience hadn’t already been...

read entire commentary: http://abcradionetworks.com/Blog.asp?id=15663&m=6&y=2007
listen to podcast: http://www.abcrn.com/thompson/player/thompson.html

Clinton Slams Fred Thompson's Cuban Remark

2007-07-02T10:26:00.000-07:00

Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton on Saturday criticized Fred Thompson for suggesting illegal Cuban immigrants pose a terrorist threat. "I was appalled when one of the people running for or about to run for the Republican nomination talked about Cuban refugees as potential terrorists," Clinton told Hispanic elected officials. "Apparently he doesn't have a lot of experience in Florida or anywhere else, and doesn't know a lot of Cuban-Americans."

Thompson posted Thursday on his campaign blog saying he had been referring to Cuban spies, not immigrants. "Our national security is too important an issue to let folks twist words around for a one-day headline," Thompson said in his post. "Cuban-Americans are among the staunchest opponents of illegal immigration, and especially so when it's sponsored by the Castro regime."

Fred Thompson was criticizing an immigration bill in the Senate, contending it would make the country more vulnerable to terrorism. Noting that the United States had apprehended 1,000 people from Cuba in 2005, Thompson said, "I don't imagine they're coming here to bring greetings from Castro. We're living in the era of the suitcase bomb." Fidel Castro is Cuba's leader.

By BETH FOUHY (AP)

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/06/30/ap3874522.html

Bruce Wllis comments on Fred Thompson

2007-06-29T19:27:00.001-07:00

Thompson says voters want honest president

2007-06-29T16:18:00.000-07:00

By KEVIN LANDRIGANTelegraph Staff

Likely Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson said voters want candor to come out of the 2008 election and confidence from the next president, whoever it is to be.“I think the next president is going to have to tell the truth and let the chips fall where they may,’’ Thompson said during a telephone interview with The Telegraph on Thursday.The complications from the war in Iraq should teach the next leader to own up to things if they don’t go as well as planned and not to dwell on the past.“I think Americans are more than willing to acknowledge mistakes, but we are not going to be wallowing forever in our mistakes,’’ said the former Tennessee senator“When America appears to be weak or divided, that is when things become even more dangerous. We have to be mindful of that as we go forward.’’Thompson, 64, has seized the lack of enthusiasm for the 10 declared GOP candidates and surged in the polls even as he readies when to make his final, expected decision to enter the race.

source:

http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070629/NEWS08/206290353/-1/news08

Veteran Takes On Chris Matthews In Coulter Debate

2007-06-29T16:03:00.000-07:00

Not Fred Thompson related, but worth seeing. This war veteran confronts Chris Matthews for his criticism of Ann Coulter's attacks on Elizabeth Edwards. He is not defending Ann Coulter, but is asking why some of that criticism can't be shared with the Democrats who constantly attack the troops. His point is that they are elected and should be held more accountable for what they say. Credit to Chris Matthews for not running.

Fred Responds to Dem Critics

2007-06-28T19:48:00.001-07:00

Fred Thompson respnds to Democrat's criticism of his past.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCVNuSA__-g

Fred Thompson wows GOP in S.C.

2007-06-28T19:25:00.000-07:00

By JIM MORRILL
McClatchy-Tribune

The former Tennessee senator, 64, and a star of TV's Law & Order, spoke to more than 300 South Carolina Republicans at a Columbia hotel. Invoking Ronald Reagan and what he called his party's "underlying principles," he gave many

read more:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/politics/4926856.html

The Darfur Genocide and Global Warming - by Fred Thompson

2007-06-28T19:09:00.001-07:00

Recently, the new UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said that the root cause of the current genocide in Darfur is … global warming. Now if you've been following the tragedy of the Darfur region in the African nation of Sudan, you know how absurd that statement is.
There's not room here for even a good summary, but let me make a few points. Sudan straddles the line between Christian African and Muslim Arabic cultures, bordering Egypt and Libya on the north. Bloody regional warfare stretches back centuries but, in modern times, the country has been in pretty much of a constant state of war since the 1950s. It's safe to say that millions have died in wars that are often aimed at control of the rich oil fields in the South. Today, however, the vastly reduced African Christian population isn't even involved. Two Muslim factions, divided along racial lines, are fighting for

read more:
http://abcradionetworks.com/article.asp?id=431466&SPID=15663

Fred Thompson: "We decide who comes in."

2007-06-27T15:30:00.000-07:00

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

2007-06-25T19:08:00.000-07:00

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

2007-06-25T18:56:00.000-07:00

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

2007-06-24T14:19:00.000-07:00

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

2007-06-24T13:13:00.001-07:00

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

2007-06-22T04:28:00.000-07:00

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

2007-06-21T18:16:00.000-07:00

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

2007-06-21T12:03:00.000-07:00

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

2007-06-20T16:18:00.001-07:00

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

2007-06-20T13:56:00.001-07:00

Fred’s Remarks to The Policy Exchange in London

2007-06-20T03:23:00.000-07:00

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/