Fred Thompson…He's an actor!
By Alisa Craddock
It didn't take long for the subtle and not so subtle attacks against Fred Thompson to begin, and he's not even in the race yet…officially. The first little dig was "Fred Thompson, the actor who…". Unlike Ronald Reagan who was an actor turned statesman, Fred Thompson is an attorney and statesman turned actor. But the media, in an attempt to diminish his credentials early on, kept emphasizing that Thompson was an actor. ‘He's played the President, now he wants the job for real'—that sort of thing. There were one or two attempts to snipe at his wife, Jeri Kehn Thompson, and to scrutinize his legal career and lobbying activities. Of greater concern is that there have been questions about his pro-life stance.
Now, anyone who reads my columns knows I'm bullish on this last issue. Though I am not a one issue voter (there are several social issues I'm concerned about), that one issue is so important that it does determine whether I consider a candidate a good candidate or a bad one, because so many other important issues hinge on this one--and because it is just plain barbaric. Fred Thompson got the highest pro-life rating possible while in the Senate. NARAL hates him, and that's good enough for me. He consistently voted the pro-life position while he served in Congress.
Some say he isn't conservative enough. His lifetime ACU (American Conservative Union) rating is 86%, which is actually lower than his pal, John McCain. But he is being drafted by the party because we don't like the top tier candidates. What he lacks in conservatism, he will hopefully make up for in integrity. We have been lied to until we don't trust anyone, not even our own President, anymore. Sen. Thompson has a reputation for integrity. In addition, there is a quality of genuine humility about him that is very refreshing in a candidate.
There are others in the race whose voting record is more conservative. Sam Brownback for one. He has a lifetime ACU rating of 95%, but he is not well known except among active pro-life and pro-family circles. He's a solidly married, stable, family man with good Christian values and a clear understanding of the Founding Fathers' vision for America. I would be very comfortable with a Sam Brownback administration. His head is screwed on right. Sam Brownback is a good man, perhaps too good for the job. (But then there are kings and queens who are canonized saints, so virtue should not disqualify one to be President.) But he has a long way to go.
In addition to that, the country is somewhat hostile to Christian conservatives at the moment. Our own party doesn't like us very much. And we are disenchanted with the party because it treats us like an unwanted stepchild. It treats our social agenda with a certain disdain, while the liberals treat our moral values with outright hatred. They often forget that these values weren't invented by us. We're not the ones reinventing the culture. The Left has eroded and perverted 5000 years of Judeo-Christian wisdom with its activist judges. And yet we are treated as though we are standing in the way of progress, like we are trying to establish a theocracy for trying to preserve, or get back, that culture of truth and life that has been stamped out at a dizzying rate.
So we Christian Conservatives have little motivation to support someone who doesn't like us. Fred Thompson is not running as a Christian conservative. He's running a pro-American, pro-Constitution campaign, inspired by the groanings of grassroots America searching for a candidate who will restore integrity and confidence in government, and Right Reason in the social as well as the political sphere. Fred Thompson has said that his candidacy will be based upon "First Principles". This is something Christian conservatives need to take note of and consider carefully. If indeed we can get back to "First Principles", it may well accomplish the most cherished aspirations of the Christian conservatives without having to run on an overtly Christian platform. The Constitution of the United States is a very good platform to run on.
As I mentioned in earlier columns, I feel the Republican party has tried to distance itself from religious conservatives, and is moving toward neo-cons with cross-over appeal to make up for the loss of those on the religious right who may sit out the election if they don't have a candidate that represents their values. The Party's most successful pick (so far) has been Rudy Giuliani. Now I tend to believe Rudy when he says he will pick strict constructionist judges, but he believes Roe v. Wade was good Constitutional law. Further, he has made no promise to endorse a marriage amendment, and I would expect him to sign off on pro-gay legislation and to further advance the gay agenda in our society. That would be disastrous for the culture. Gay activists are determined to completely overturn the Judeo-Christian foundations of marriage and family, and to redefine our culture in their own image.
The power of a Fred Thompson presidency may be that his stance is a Constitutional rather than a religious one. Who is to say whether or not he would sign off on a marriage amendment or an amendment to protect human life from conception to natural death? But he recognizes that Roe v. Wade was "bad law and bad science." He would, I believe, aim to put well-qualified, constructionist judges on the bench and, at the very least, shove the abortion issue back to the states to decide. I once got involved briefly with a private effort to do just that.
Now the problem I have with that is that there are so many liberals in positions of power at the state level who are defiant of the law and the will of the voters, and they are finding means of doing an end run around the laws, or openly ignoring them with apparent impunity. Two examples that immediately come to mind concern efforts to get around the marriage protection amendment in California, a voter initiative that passed handily and became state law, but the radical, leftist, pro-gay state legislature keeps passing bills that allow gay marriage (on the grounds that California's laws that forbid discrimination against people on the basis of sexual orientation are being violated by the law which bars them from marrying each other; Gov. Schwarzenegger vetoed the first one, and presumably will do the same to the new one).
Another example concerns the Kansas law that forbids late term abortion except in actual cases of physical danger to the mother (organ collapse and such as that), but the Attorney General in that state (again, well-funded by the abortion providers) simply refuses to prosecute the most notorious violator of the law, George Tiller, and has used his power to silence those who reveal the facts about the case, and to intervene on behalf of a Kansas City Planned Parenthood office against the Johnson County District Attorney's efforts to investigate the concealment of child rape and illegal abortions.
So our problem is a systemic one, and may not be solvable at the state level. But overturning Roe v. Wade would do exactly that—return the abortion issue to the state level. It will be an important issue for Fred Thompson to contend with: A federal amendment to protect human life from conception to natural death would not only effectively end abortion, but embryonic stem cell research, human cloning, and any other diabolical fruits of the poison tree, at least with respect to the preborn. Once he has declared his candidacy, it will be an issue we would want to take up with him. If he believes Roe v. Wade was bad science, it would still be bad science at the state level. However, I would not reject him if he said he would not sign off on the constitutional amendment, though with his pro-life record in Congress, I have no reason to believe he wouldn't, if by Divine intervention, such an amendment passed in the Congress, and if it was, I believe he would sign it. I take Sen. Thompson at his word when he says his candidacy will be based on "first principles", and one of the first First Principles is the Right to Life.
There is another issue that is of great concern to me, as well as others I've communicated with, and I sincerely hope Sen. Thompson will address it once he has declared his candidacy, and that is his service on the Council on Foreign Relations, an organization heavily involved in global government objectives and the means to achieve them. We who support him will need reassurances that his Presidency will not further, participate in, allow, or conceal any activities that undermine the sovereignty of this nation and its citizens. The systematic and clandestine interweaving of our economy, security systems, social mores, even the land itself with other countries and their interests and laws until it is too late to withdraw from it concerns us greatly. Fred Thompson must set himself apart from those who aspire to a world government. International cooperation is fine, but not when it is in conflict with our Constitution, with the law of this land and its guarantees to this people. No President or Congress has the right to sign away our sovereignty, anymore than he has the right to sign your house over to someone else. This land, this government, this country is ours, and the government and the Office of the President exists to preserve and protect our freedom, our rights, not to form the world according to the will of a cabal of super-rich "stakeholders". That means he will need to address the issue of the planned North American Union and stop it in its tracks.
Will Fred Thompson be the Peoples' President? I believe that he will. That's why "I'm with Fred."
Alisa Craddock is a columnist and activist in the culture war, a convert to Catholicism, and describes herself as a Christian Libertarian. She may be contacted at alisa.craddock at hushmail.com.