I don't agree with Richard Salbato's support for Fred Thomson, but I think his advice could help a real pro-life candidate like Brownback. Many pro-life groups believe Thomson is the real thing.
I agree with Jessica Echard, executive director of the Eagle Forum, who said "The conservative movement is looking for a new conservative rock star, to put it bluntly," she said. "Maybe some are too quick to jump on the [Thomson]bandwagon . . . this is the stage when we need to be asking all these questions."
Thomson needs to be asked some tough questions before we support him. That said here is "some advice as to how to get a landslide victory in the primary and in the election" by Richard Salbato.
Dear Fred Thomson,
I am so disappointed with those running for President on both the Democratic and Republican sides that I went to your web site to see what you stand for. http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Fred_Thompson.htm To my surprise your stand on everything, at least on that web site, is the same as mine. As long as this is the truth, then you have my vote.
The next president will be the most important president in America’s history. He can be a Chamberlain or a Churchill and that is very important to me, so I must do more than just vote for you. Let me presume to offer some advice as to how to get a landslide victory in the primary and in the election, which I think might happen since no one running now is stimulating enough now for anyone to even put up a bumper sticker. Your opening speech must be electrifying.
As a Catholic, I approve of almost everything that Bush has done in almost 7 years including the war in Iraq. The problem with Bush is that he was and is a very poor salesman for what he did and did not do. In social issues like Abortion and stem cell research, he was flawless but took a great of heat from the left and did not do a good job in supporting his stance.
After 9-11 Bush did all the right things (everything he could do) but again he did not do a good job in selling these things to the public. The war in Iraq was the right thing to do because we knew Hussein had weapons of mass distruction. He used them on his own people in the past and could, would and maybe did sell them to Radical Islam. The fact that we did not find them means nothing since most of these things came from Russia, and we told Russia before hand that we were going to war with them. We know that Russia pulled these out of Iraq to protect their relationship with the West.
Bush did all he could to get Ben Laden considering the very unstable, pro-American government of Pakistan, which could become a Radical Islamic State with Atomic Bombs very easily - a very hard diplomatic problem.
Why then have we done so poorly in Iraq? The blame can go back to President Clinton, because when he took power we had 19 Military Battalions but when Bush took power we had 10 Military Battalions. We went to war with a drastically undermanned and under equipped Army. If we had gone in with the same force we went in the first time with Bush Senior, the war would have been over in months, with a stable government. But our Military Force was cut in half by President Clinton.
Why are must Americans angry with the President and with Congress? The two main issues today are the War and Immigration. With these two issues sold properly you can win hands down.
The speech I would write for Fred Thomson
The War with Iraq
American people, I have decided to run for President of the United States because I do not see anyone who is facing the real issues in the world today and having solutions for them. Instead everyone running for President today is bowing to the poles without seeing the reasons behind these poles. The public has opinions based on the information they get from the news media, and if that information is false or lacking they will have false opinions. You cannot run a government on poles. You run it on good information and good solutions.
American has been at war with Radical Islam since the end of World War II and Europe has been at war with them for over 1000 years. Our Embassy was invaded by Iran under the Carter Presidency and we did not call it a war. Our Embassy in Lebanon was attacked and we did not call it war. Our Military base was attacked by Radical Islam and we did not call it war. Our civilian Airlines were shot down by Radical Islam and we did not call it war. Radical Islam invaded Sudan and Somalia and we did not call it war. Radical Islam tried to bomb the Twin Towers under President Clinton and we did not call it war. Although born in Egypt, Radical Islam is supported by Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and even people in Saudi Arabia. They received technology from North Korea and Pakistan, especially nuclear technology. They receive weapons from Russia and China. Who financed these Radical Islamists? We did! All the money used to finance our enemies comes from oil money. Every country in the world supporting the war against the west gets their money from us in oil or drugs. Except for England, Canada and Mexico, every oil producing country in the world is our enemy.
Let us face facts, 65% of the world’s oil supply comes from Iran, Iraq, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and all travels through the Straights of Hormuz. When Iraq invaded Kuwait President Bush Sr. went to war with Iraq and pushed them out in just a few days, but we did not finish the job. We did that in a few days because we had a strong army at that time, an army with twice the manpower we have now.
Under President Clinton our military manpower dropped almost in half and then we were attacked on 9-11. Finally, the American people and congress realized we were in a war. We declared that the enemy was those countries that harbored and financed these Terrorists: Iraq, Iran, Korea and Afghanistan. We went to war. Our mistake was that we went after Afghanistan and Iraq instead of Afghanistan and Iran. Now we are faced fighting Iran and Syria in Iraq and fighting Pakistan Terrorists in Afghanistan. The greatest army in the world cannot cross the border into Pakistan and cannot cross the border into Iran but they come after us across both borders with immunity. Are we really supporting our troops?
Keep it Simple, Stupid (KISS), it is Oil
So what am I saying? Am I in favor of the war in Iraq? Am I in favor of our troops dying in a war with Iran and Syria that they cannot win? No! But we cannot just get out because we and our allies depend on the oil that comes out of this region. As long as we depend on this oil for the very survival of our economy and even our military, we cannot just get out of Iraq.
Democrats say that Bush went into Iraq because of his relationship to Major Oil Companies. That may be true but who cares. It may be true that Major Oil Companies started World War I and II, but who cares. The mere fact that our dependence on foreign oil is our fault. We could have been totally independent of foreign oil in 1975 if we had a congress that was not beholding to Big Oil Companies. It is not just the President and Congress that have become beholding to big oil, but the entire American population has become beholding to big oil. The West has become blackmailed by the new money of the world, oil.
I want to end the war In Iraq and win the war against the Terrorists but we will never do this until we become totally independent of foreign oil as did Brazil. I’m not talking about independence it 20 years as what was just passed by Congress this year or in 20 to 30 years as proposed by Bush recently. I am realistically talking about total oil independence in 24 months.
First, let me tell you what the President and Congress are not telling you. Then I will show you how to become Oil Independent in 24 months and end the war, not only with Iraq but even the future war with Iran.
What no one is telling you is that Colorado and Utah have as much oil as Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Venezuela, Nigeria, Kuwait, Libya, Angola, Algeria, Indonesia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates combined.
That's not science fiction. Trapped in limestone up to 200 feet thick in the two Rocky Mountain states is enough so-called shale oil to rival OPEC and supply the U.S. for over a 100 years.
Exxon Mobil Corp., Chevron Corp. and Royal Dutch Shell are spending $100 million a year testing methods that can bring this oil out for $30 a barrel.. In the 1970s when we had the oil shortage these oil companies started mining this oil, but seeing this OPEC dropped the price of oil making it less profitable and the companies abandoned the project. This is Oil Shale, the same oil we import from Canada and pay them a profit instead of taking the profit ourselves.
The U.S. imports two-thirds of its oil, spending $300 billion a year, or 40 percent of the record trade deficit. Every $10 increase in a barrel of crude costs an American household $700 a year. Oil prices have risen 63 percent since 2004 and now costs every household $2,100 more per year.
Shell and Chevron are working the oil fields of Rifle, Colo. right now but they are not in any rush because they are making so much money on oil from imports at high prices.
Shell and Chevron use the below ground heating method, whereas Canada uses the strip mining method. Although roads, pipe lines and drilling is required, this has a minimum impact on the environment. Remember, Canada is one of our biggest suppliers of oil and their impact on the environment effects us.
Shell, based in the Hague, estimates it can extract oil from Colorado shale for $30 a barrel, less than half the recent price of about $74 to $100 for New York futures.
So how do we get oil independent in 24 months? The next President and Congress must do four things and do them quickly. These four things will not cost one single tax dollar in the long run, although some expense in the short run.
1. First, the next President and Congress must pass a law mandating all gas stations to have at least one Natural Gas pump and one 85% Ethanol pump. We have no shortage of Natural Gas and any car can run on it with a simple $150 change to the car. Iran has done this already.
No matter how much Ethanol we produce, it will not get to the gas stations as long as they are owned by the Oil Companies unless Congress mandates this right now. Once these pumps are installed, the gas stations will find a way to get the Natural Gas and Ethanol. Right now the largest supply of Ethanol gas stations in any state is only 10% and most states are 1% or less. This may require the government to help finance the independent stations but this money will be paid back and most stations are owned by Big Oil. In the long run there will be no cost to taxpayers.
2. Second, with a Manhattan Project type of program to produce Ethanol, we could up our supply to 30% in one year. That means passing laws letting private enterprise plant Ethanol crops in huge quantities and even helping them with roads, water systems, and land. This may cost the Government Tax Money at first but when these companies pay it back, we end up with $2.00 a gallon gas, and we drop our total imports by 40%. We will end up with a balanced budget without new taxes.
3. Third, I would mandate that we mine the Oil Shale in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming. This can be done by forming a tax structure that is different for oil imports and oil from American soil, and an incentive to use oil shale. The government can cut the red tape and even use the Military Core of Engineers to speed up the production of wells and pipe lines.
In less than two years, 30% Natural Gas, 30% Ethanol and 30% Oil from Oil Shale. Better than this is that the three types of fuel will compete with each other for the best share of the market and the prices will go down to below $2.00. Our balance of payments will be in the plus side, we will become an exporter of fuel and technology, and our enemy will not have our money to fight against us.
Believe me, all the automobile companies will build Natural Gas, Ethanol and high breads when people know that they can buy this fuel and use it.
4. Forth, start building Nuclear Power Plants again. American companies have built hundreds of Nuclear Power Plants all over the world for the last twenty years for other countries, but not one in America. In the long run this is the cheapest energy in the world and the safest for the environment.
Freedom of Religion
Now let us look at another reason we are in a war no one wants. We founded this country to have Religious Freedom, freedom for anyone to belong to any faith he or she wants to and even the freedom to have no religion. We founded this country on the belief that our Creator gave us unalienable rights, and among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. We founded this country on the belief that Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. Anyone who does not believe in freedom of religion and a government of the people, does not belong here.
For 1300 years one religion has tried to force its faith on the rest of the world by the sword. In every country they control there is no true religious freedom. Where there is a secular government like ours, there is religious freedom and we are at peace with them: Jordon, Egypt, Lebanon are examples. But even these are under attack to become Theocracies. But those who do not want religious freedom, like Iran, want Islamic Law imposed on everyone in the world.
In America, there is not an unlimited freedom of religion. One cannot advocate the overthrow of our government in the name of religion. One cannot kill their own children in the name of religion. One cannot force their faith on others by force or coercion. Now, I want to advocate something radical here but absolutely necessary.
Part of the requirements for allowing anyone in this country as a temporary worker, on a visa, or as a citizen should be a pledge: “I do not believe that any faith should be forced on anyone and everyone has the right to any faith he wants.”
The federal government, both the President and the Congress, has the lowest approval rating in history. There is no connection to the people at all. The reason is that neither the President nor the Congress can do anything simple. Just look at a typical day in the Senate. Half the day is spent on speeches no one wants to hear and less than 10% of the Senators are present. The other half of the day is spent listening to speeches about some bill that no one has had a chance to read or think about. Someone tells them what the bill says and they vote on it, not knowing that it contains hundreds of other things they know nothing about.
Keep it simple, stupid, KISS. Why can’t they write a bill, let every Senator read it without speeches, let the American public read it, and then vote on it. What is the big deal? The big deal is that they do not want us to read these bills and they make them so big (100s of pages) that they hope the Senators won’t read or understand them. Hollywood has more sanity.
The President and the Congress spent weeks arguing an Immigration Bill that no one understood and if they did, they saw that it would not work. What is the big deal? Keep it simple. We only need do two simple things to fix immigration.
1. First, for those who come for jobs we simply need a tamper-proof Job ID Card with a Bar-Code. This can be scanned into a data base to see if the person is who he claims to be and if he is a citizen or not. If not, he does not get a job, not a job mowing lawns, cleaning houses, or working the fields.
Breaking this law, for the illegals or the one hiring them, must have a penalty.
2, Second, for people looking for jobs we do not need a border fence because if they cannot get a job without coming here legally they will not come. We do need a fence, however, for those who come here for drugs, terror, or gang membership. A fence is simple and cheep considering the price of crime. An earth-grader plows and clears a 30 foot wide space; an 8 foot fence is placed on both sides of the 30 foot wide space. Cameras are placed every 100 yards in this space with censors to show any movement. The border patrol only has to respond to the movement.
However, those caught must be put in jail and not sent back right away – 6 months minimum.
Supply Side Economics
Most pollsters say that the main issue today is the war in Iraq. But the truth is that in every election it is the economy and not the war. The American people today are not thinking about the economy because things have been so good for so long. But think about how we got to this point. It the American people remembered the Carter Presidency they would think that the economy is important. Interest rates went over 20%, gas was rationed and construction died. Ronald Reagan came to Washington with Supply Side Economics and brought us out of depression. Supply Side Economics continued under Presidents Bush, Clinton, and Bush Jr. and we have sustained the largest economic growth in history. If it isn’t broke, don’t fix it. I bring this up because my Democratic opponents plan to end Supply Side Economics and destroy this economy.
Their ideas can best be called Socialism. Their ideas on Tax, on Welfare, on Medical Care, on SSI on everything they want to do is nothing but Socialism. In every country were any form of Socialism has been tried it has failed. Why would we want to try something that has already proved to fail?
United Nations or American Military
My Democratic opponents want to reduce our military and let the United Nations keep the peace. All I have to say is look at Iran’s Nuclear Program, and Sudan’s ethnic cleansing to see what the United Nations accomplishes. They sent a peace keeping force into Lebanon to keep Hezbollah from re-arming and now they are stronger than ever.
It is time we look to ourselves for our own defense. For this reason I am going to advocate we bring back the numbers of our military back to the force at the time of Ronald Reagan before Clinton cut it in half. It is a crime that we are using the Military Reserves to fight overseas. This must stop.
We can get out of Iraq and all of the Middle East but only when we become Oil Independent. If we don’t we will have to go from Iraq to Iran and this is inevitable if we do not stop supporting them with our Oil money.
Richard Salbato, Publisher - www.unitypublishing.com
Like Ronald Reagan, the first quality of the leader of the free world is his ability to convince the public of his programs and the only person I see as able to do this is Fred Thomson.
The modern Radical Islam was born in the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and much of this was our fault. Its founder spent time in America and saw the vast immorality of American in the way women dress, in the divorces, in the killing of babies, in the priest and ministers pedophile scandals, etc. He went back to Egypt believing the only answer to these problems was to kill anyone not obeying Islamic Law.
We can stop Muslims from attaching us by cutting off their money but we cannot stop Muslims from killing each other. We only hope that moderate Muslims outnumber Radical Muslims.
Fred Thomson 2008
Fred Thomson on Pacifists
Fred Thomson on Issues
If you agree with this outline of Issues share it with Fred Thomson on:
Fred Thompson Doesn’t Lose Ground With Pro-Life Advocates Over Abortion Issue
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- Likely Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson hasn’t lost any ground with pro-life advocates over news that billing records show he was hired by a pro-abortion group to lobby the White House on taxpayer funded abortions.
Instead of abandoning the potential presidential candidate, pro-life advocates say his record in the Senate and positions now make up for the work he did 16 years ago. They dismiss the lobbying report saying it’s an effect by a pro-abortion group and the liberal media to create divisions within the pro-life and Republican ranks.
Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, told the Washington Post that there is still “clearly an interest among social conservative leaders in his candidacy." Southern Baptist spokesman Richard Land agreed and said that members of the pro-life Christian denomination They find Fred Thompson to be a tantalizing combination of charisma, conviction and delectability.
He's got a Reaganesque ability to connect with ordinary folk that is powerful." At the same time, Jessica Echard, executive director of the Eagle Forum, warned that pro-life advocates should be cautious. "The conservative movement is looking for a new conservative rock star, to put it bluntly," she said. "Maybe some are too quick to jump on the bandwagon . . . this is the stage when we need to be asking all these questions."
Thompson spokeswoman Burson Snyder told the newspaper that the lobbying was "pretty insignificant" but that pro-life groups understand Thompson has strong pro-life views on abortion and stem cell research. "These organizations get what's going on here," Snyder said. "They've seen his voting record. They've seen he was endorsed by the National Right to Life group. When the rubber met the road, they know where he was."