FACTS on FRED

*

Here are some of the unconstitutional and liberal behaviors and actions of Fred Thompson. You will see clearly he's not the stalwart he's portrayed as. He's an ACTOR, both in Hollywood and Washington. He was a Tennessee Senator from 1995 to 2003. I missed a few sessions (and it's tedious to look them up), but this is more than enough to disqualify Thompson as a viable candidate for any Christian Constitutionalist. His votes on these issues were taken from the New American magazine and CD:

6-95

(20) Counter-Terrorism Legislation, S. 735. This bill would federalize virtually all state crimes of assault, murder, kidnaping, sabotage, and even simple vandalism under the guise of anti-terrorism legislation as long as "the offense obstructs, delays, or affects interstate or foreign commerce in any way or degree...." Because the Supreme Court has since the 1940s ruled that almost everything under the sun has an effect on interstate commerce, the bill is a blanket federalization of the criminal code. The bill would also weaken the posse comitatus guidelines (which bans the use of the military in domestic police actions) to allow for military assistance in chemical and biological weapons cases, initiate a new foreign aid program for terrorism prevention, urge the President to "undertake immediate efforts to develop effective multilateral efforts" to stop terrorism, and authorize the President to use "all necessary means" to stop international terrorism -- including "military force." S. 735 does contain a few appropriate items such as longer jail sentences for terrorists and limitations on habeas corpus appeals from state courts, but the general direction of the legislation was best summed up by Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), a proponent of the bill, in debate on the Senate floor: "[T]he Congress is faced with a decision to increase protection for the people by chipping away at the edges of freedom .... We have no idea what kind of mistakes will be made, or whose rights will be infringed, when this bill is implemented."

TG: This is a Nazi-KGB police state bill making most crimes federal. This takes power away from local law enforcement, who are accountable to the local taxpayers who pay their salary, and gives it to unaccountable, far-away, federal functionaries who can much more easily abuse the amassed power. Of course they would never abuse their power (that's what the Germans and Russians thought), at least not under a good conservative like George W. Bush - but maybe they could under Hillary.

1-96 70% Conservative Rating

(25) Non-Discriminatory Award of Federal Contracts, Amendment to H.R. 1854. During consideration of the fiscal 1996 legislative appropriations bill, Senator Phil Gramm (R-TX) offered this amendment to prohibit the awarding of federal contracts under the bill to anyone but the most qualified (i.e., those with the lowest bids), effectively prohibiting the Clinton Administration from carrying out various minority set-aside programs. While the Gramm amendment was being considered, Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) offered an alternative amendment to prohibit the awarding of federal contracts to "unqualified persons" in the furtherance of "reverse discrimination." Gramm explained that "the whole purpose" of the language in the Murray amendment "is to confuse." The grant recipients who benefit from minority set-aside programs "very well may be qualified, but ... somebody else might have been better qualified or have submitted a lower bid." Interestingly, Murray even admitted in debate that nearly $8 billion in federal set-asides would be at risk if the Gramm amendment were added to each of the regular appropriations bills.

TG: Fred, and his colleagues, want to be able to discriminate when spending YOUR money.

(28) Federal Funding for AIDS Programs, S. 641. This legislation would reauthorize "such sums as may be necessary" for the federal Ryan White CARE Program for AIDS research through fiscal year 2000, provided the total does not exceed the total for cancer research in any given year. While passage of this bill occasioned many senatorial self-congratulations as to how generous they are with other people's money, few senators heeded the constitutional limitations of the federal government under the Tenth Amendment, which prohibits the federal government from exercising any power not specifically authorized by the Constitution.

TG: Thompson voted more than once to spend your money on AIDS programs, which is unconstitutional even if it was a good thing (which it's not).

6-96 70% Conservative Rating

(43) Start II Treaty Ratification. This vote would ratify the second Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START II) with Russia, which would, by the year 2003, require the reduction in the total number of nuclear warheads to 3,500 for each country, ban MIRVed land-based missiles, and reduce the number of submarine-launched missiles. Noting that President Clinton had vetoed a bill to deploy a ballistic missile defense system because it might interfere with START II, Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) criticized the Clinton Administration policy, stating: "Yes, we are getting the Russians down to 3,500 missiles, if they comply.... My simple proposition is this: Missile defense should be our highest national security priority. If the President believes that our highest priority must be sacrificed to gain Russia's approval of START II, I say it is too high a price to pay."

TG: We would limit our arms and Russia would promise AGAIN to limit theirs (Pete Rose wants to bet on whether they do or not). Providing for AMERICAN defense is one of the few things gov't is supposed to spend our money on.

(54) Line-Item Veto Legislation, Conference Report on S. 4. This conference report would unconstitutionally grant the President line-item veto power in spending and tax bills by allowing him to cut or eliminate spending or a tax break within legislation after signing it into law. Congress would then have the option to pass a bill overturning the line-item deletion, but that bill would itself be subject to a veto by the President. This dangerous legislation would savage the separation of powers and further tip the scales of power from the legislature toward the executive branch. Although the legislation was marketed as a means of eliminating legislative pork, all it would do is make one player in the pork barrel politics game dominant: the President. As an example of how the line-item veto would be used to facilitate even more costly presidential pork, Senator Dale Bumpers (D-AR) recalled that when "I was governor ... I had a line-item veto. And I used it occasionally. Do you know what I used it for? To get legislators in line. 'Senator, you know that vo-tech school for your high school in this bill? That sucker is going to be gone unless you get back down there and change your vote.' That is the way I used it. That is the way a President of the United States would use it."

TG: This gives the President near-dictatorial legislative powers, which is unconstitutional and dangerous. How much more dangerous will it be when Hillary holds the pen? Ignorant Christians and conservatives are duped into thinking something might be a good idea if "their" guy is in office (not taking into consideration they are also being duped about who is "their" guy). But that will all change when a Democrat gets into office (or do they think Democrat will never get back into power?). They will be glad to take full advantage of such powers that OUR side gave them.

(57) Constitutional Amendment for Congressional Term Limits, Senate Joint Resolution 21. This resolution would call for a constitutional amendment to limit the number of consecutive terms a congressman could serve to two terms for senators (12 years) and six terms for representatives (12 years), regardless of the wishes of the voters. By preventing many congressmen from seeking re-election, the amendment would give Congress an increasing flavor of a perpetual lame-duck session and insulate congressmen from the wishes of their constituents. Lame-duck legislatures are the friends of special interests and the advocates of big, wasteful, and elitist government.

TG: Terms should be limited at the ballot box. What this did was keep a few honest conservatives from running again. What it would also do is create an entire Congress of lame-ducks who wouldn't have to worry about being accountable to their citizens. They could vote however they wanted, break any promise made, and not have to worry about reelection.

10-96 75% Conservative Rating

(79) Minimum Wage Increase, Conference Report on H.R. 3448. This bill would increase the federal minimum wage from $4.25 to $5.15 per hour in two stages ending September 1997. The bill also contains a number of tax breaks for individuals and small businesses totaling $20 billion over ten years -- elements added as a sugar coating to get the Senate to take the minimum wage-hike pill.

TG: Not all jobs are intended to support a family. There are lots of temporary, entry-level, non-skilled, part-time jobs intended for kids just getting into the work force, someone wanting a little extra cash working part-time or weekends, and so forth. Forcing employers to pay every bus boy twice what the market calls for forces them to only hire half as many bus boys, hurting the very lower class they pretend they are helping. If you want to hire a kid to walk your dog, mow your lawn or shovel your snow, should the gov't force YOU to pay them $9/hr? Why not? In such cases YOU would be the employer.

8-97 85% Conservative Rating

(2) Requiring Congressional Approval of U.S. International Trade Agreements That Amend U.S. Law, Senate Joint Resolution 5. Senator Ernest Hollings (D-SC) offered an amendment to S.J.R. 5 which would require congressional approval of any U.S. international trade agreements that amend or repeal U.S. laws. The amendment reads, in full: "No international trade agreement which would in effect amend or repeal statutory law of the United States law may be implemented by or in the United States until the agreement is approved by the Congress." As Senator Hollings noted during consideration of the amendment, "This is constitutional language, that no international agreement that would, in effect, amend or repeal statutory law can be implemented until approved by the Congress. Under the Constitution, Article I, Section 8, it is the duty of the Congress to regulate foreign commerce -- not the executive branch ...."

TG: Thompson might have been planning on running for President long ago. He keeps voting to give the President unconstitutional, dictatorial powers. Too bad he's voting that power to Hillary.

(9) Extending Welfare Benefits to Legal Immigrants, Amendment to S. 672. Senator Alfonse D'Amato (R-NY) offered this amendment to extend Supplemental Security Income and food stamp benefits to legal immigrants through September 30, 1997 -- the date those benefits are scheduled to end. D'Amato reasoned: "I do not believe we ever wanted to take 500,000 basically senior citizens and say that 'you're going to be cut off,' senior citizens who are here in this country legally ...." D'Amato did not point out that these welfare recipients are not even citizens and that, even if they were, the U.S. Constitution does not authorize the payment of welfare benefits.

TG: If they don't have a job, or a sponsor, they don't belong here. They certainly don't have the right to MY paycheck.

(11) Automatic Funding of Federal Government, Amendment to S. 672. Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) offered an amendment to strike language in S. 672 which would have put the federal government's spendathon on auto-pilot at the previous year's funding level if Congress and the President fail to pass a budget by the start of the next fiscal year. After the amendment was offered, Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK) motioned to table (kill) the amendment.

TG: Tax, tax, tax, spend, spend, spend, and make it automatic!

6-98 65% Conservative Rating

(44) Anti-Free Speech Campaign Finance “Reform,” Motion on S. 1663. This legislation, commonly known as the McCain-Feingold campaign finance “reform” package, is the most dangerous threat to free speech to reach the floor of the U.S. Senate in decades. It would have a chilling effect on free speech by severely restricting independent expenditures, thereby crippling the ability of conservatives to overcome the leftist domination of the mass media. Under the broad and vaguely worded provisions of the bill, even nonpartisan voter guides such as the John Birch Society’s TRIM Bulletin could be subject to vigorous regulations, random audits, regular reporting requirements, and mandatory publication of contributor rosters. The bill’s authors must have known that it assaults constitutional principles, since it contains a “severability” clause that anticipates that at least part of it will be declared unconstitutional. A severability clause states that if the Supreme Court rules that one part of the law is unconstitutional, the court would throw out only that part and not the whole law.

TG: Sending out a post like this near an election would be illegal if Thompson had his way.

10-1998 55% Conservative Record

(66) Separate Male and Female Military Training and Barracks, Amendment to S. 2057. This amendment by Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) would have required segregated training for male and female recruits in the military, and separate barracks for male and female soldiers after basic training. “Let us not delay the process of implementing changes recommended by former Senator Kassebaum-Baker and the commission she headed, a commission established by the Secretary of Defense,” Senator Byrd urged. “Put these young recruits in separate barracks, train them separately until they have been installed in the military discipline....”

TG: This is a tough one. Women don't belong in the military. But they don't deserve special treatment when they're in, either.

(70) Require All Gun Dealers to Make Trigger Locks “Available,” Amendment to S. 2260. This amendment would require that all federally licensed firearms dealers sell trigger locks, lock boxes, and other safety devices in addition to firearms. “My amendment requires that vendors have these safety devices available for sale,” explained Senator Larry Craig (R-ID), “but it does not require that a vendor sell a safety device along with every firearm.” The amendment would have unconstitutionally imposed an additional burden on the firearms industry, although it was promoted by Craig as a means of avoiding the even more draconian Boxer amendment under consideration.

TG: What? The great gun rights champion wants to put an inFRINGEment on our gun rights? He wants to force the cost of them to go up?

(76) Abolish Marriage Penalty in Tax Code, Motion on S. 2312. This amendment would have abolished the tax code’s so-called “marriage penalty,” which taxes a married couple at a higher rate than an unmarried couple living together. The amendment would have allowed married couples to file separately using “one half of the taxable income computed as if the spouses were filing a joint return.” “The federal government should not be penalizing marriages, a sacrosanct institution and the bedrock of our social structure,” Senator Dirk Kempthorne (R-ID) persuasively argued.

TG: Why should Thompson care? He can afford it.

(78) Restore Congressional Control Over War Powers, Motion on S. 2132. This beautifully concise, one-sentence amendment would have prohibited funds in the Defense Appropriations bill from being used for “offensive military operations by United States Armed Forces except in accordance with Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, which vests in Congress the power to declare war and take certain other related actions.” Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL) explained the rationale for his much-needed amendment: “The framers never intended the Armed Forces to be employed by the Executive as a blunt instrument for enforcing U.S. foreign policy without congressional approval. Yet … that is exactly what we have seen. Absent a reaffirmation by Congress of its proper constitutional war powers, we will certainly see it again.”

TG: Yet another bill turning our president into a king (well, Queen).

* And Thompson voted in favor of several unconstitutional big spending bills in each session. Some of them were for "good" things, like agriculture, but it is nonetheless unconstitutional to spend taxpayer's money on things not authorized by the Constitution. The money is better left with the citizens who earned it.

1999

(1) Impeachment of President Clinton, Article I. Article I — Grand Jury Perjury — is described in House vote #1. A two-thirds majority of the Senate would be required to convict the President and remove him from office.

TG: He voted to keep Clinton in office. He SAID some damning things about Clinton's Commie China contributions, but when push came to shove he failed to WALK his talk.

(13) Ban on Assault Weapon Sales to Juveniles, Amendment to S. 254. Senator John Ashcroft (R-MO) offered this amendment to (in his words) “prohibit private sales of semiautomatic assault rifles to minors, and it would require that they have parental permission in order for one even to be in the possession of a minor.” The Senate adopted the amendment on May 13, 1999 by a vote of 96 to 2 with only Senators Michael Enzi (R-WY) and Robert Smith (R-NH) defending the right to keep and bear arms.

TG: Another infringement on gun rights. 96 of 98 Senators violated their oath of office on this vote, making them lying frauds, if not traitors.

11-2002 56% Conservative Record (in multi-columned pdf file, so I couldn't paste the text)

* Taxpayer bailout of airlines

TG: Anti-free market and an unconstitutional expenditure of our tax dollars.

* $200 Million in worldwide AIDS funding

TG: Again using YOUR money to pay for queers getting AIDS.

* Increase National debt to $6.5 trillion

TG: Spend, tax, spend, tax, hide, and still pretend to be a fiscal conservative. Manage a business this way and you get fired (if not jailed), and they go belly-up.

* Fast track trade treaties for President

TG: One last opportunity to turn the White House into the Pale Palace.

http://www.jbs.org/node/792

Senator Fred Thompson (R-TN), chairman of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee which is investigating illegal campaign fundraising, grabbed headlines at the start of his hearings with the charge that the communist government of China has been illegally pouring "substantial sums of money" into U.S. political campaigns to "subvert our election process" and "buy access and influence in furtherance of Chinese government interests." However, citing national security concerns and the sensitive nature of the evidence supporting those assertions, Thompson did not provide substantiating details.

TG: Again, all talk, no WALK.

12-22-97 Article by William Jasper

Following close on the heels of the whirlwind car-trunk documents were revelations of at least two other major Clinton scandals involving either inexcusable ineptitude or (more likely) criminal obstruction of justice. In the one instance, the FBI claims it simply "overlooked" key intelligence information that it had failed to turn over to congressional investigators on Red China's efforts to buy political influence in the United States. Attorney General Janet Reno claims that she first learned of the evidence -- some of it going back as far as 1991 -- on November 5th, five days after Senator Fred Thompson (R-TN) suspended Senate hearings into campaign finance abuses, including attempts by Beijing to subvert the U.S. political process.

TG: Just when they almost nailed the Clintons, Thompson suspended the investigation. Getting a little too close to the fire, eh, Freddie? Now Hillary will repay him by beating him in the general election.

Judicial Watch interview:

Q. Do you mean that no one really knew about this man’s activities until then?

A. Without our lawsuit, much of what has become known as “Chinagate” would never have come to light. What happened is that the Senate Government Affairs Committee headed by Senator Fred Thompson [R-TN] didn't subpoena Huang, and Attorney General Janet Reno’s Justice Department neither talked to him nor subpoenaed him. We know that Congressman Dan Burton [R-IN], chairman of the Government Reform and Oversight Committee, issued a subpoena to have him appear, but it was never enforced. And that raises the question: Why does John Huang have such protection?

TG: Just when they almost nailed the Clintons, Thompson came up short again.

Fred Thompson is neither conservative, nor a Constitutionalist. If Rudy, Romney. and McCain are the Three Stooges (Larry, Moe, and Curly), Thompson is Shemp.