The promise of "Frederalism"
By Alisa Craddock
web posted September 17, 2007
Candidate Fred Thompson breezed through my town recently, and naturally I went to join the cheering crowd of Fred Heads and hear what he had to say. The crowd warmed up to him quickly and cheered with unabashed enthusiasm for the man many of us hope will be the conservative alternative to the neo-cons.
And I have to admit, I loved all of it. I loved his humor and style. I loved his humility. He is a man who doesn't seem quite comfortable in the role of presidential candidate, but has given up an easy and enjoyable acting career to do something that can have real meaning for the American people. And the things he is saying are exactly what the conservative wing of the Republican Party needs to hear. Further, we hear our candidate demonstrating that he knows where our hearts lie and will lead accordingly: Less government, less taxes, greater fiscal responsibility, preserve social security, reaffirm the Second Amendment right to bear arms, defend private property, and most importantly to me and to a committed number of crucial conservative voters, defend the right to life and traditional marriage and family, the necessity of which should not be underestimated, nor dismissed by those hoping to win the party's nomination. I was deeply gratified to hear him reaffirm his belief that our rights come from God, and the Constitution. This is an important point, because without recognizing the providence and authority of God, the Constitution can be perverted to mean whatever this or that judge decides it should mean (and in the era of "separation of Church and State" that is precisely what is happening). So by, in effect, affirming Divine Law as the basis of Constitutional law he clarifies the relationship of the two, and reaffirms for us his commitment to those things most sacred to us. He talked about the scourge of liberal judges making law rather than interpreting and upholding law, but admitted that impeaching them is nearly impossible. But he will pick the right kind of judges as President, and if the liberals reject that one, he says, he'll send them another one just like him.
I love it!
When I had the opportunity to ask him a question, I told him many of the social problems in our country right now are coming from our educational system and asked him if he had any plans for the Department of Education we could "celebrate". He advocated block grants to states and less government regulation of how that money is spent. He advocated more parental involvement in the schools, rather than climbing up the political system all the way to Washington over what is essentially a local school issue. I don't know if he really is aware how much the Department of Education's policies undermine parental authority, and American political values (instead promoting global citizenship and socialist values, including secular humanist values), although he is clearly aware that those are problems of great concern to an ever-increasing number of Americans. He went on to talk about educational testing producing schools that teach for passing the test and how this results in artificially elevated scores for some schools, lowering the quality of American education which affects our competitiveness in the global economy. It wasn't exactly what I wanted to hear, but I attribute it more to our different frames of reference than evasion on his part. Still, I wonder if he really understands the stealth attack on American citizenship and Christian virtue that is coming from the highest levels of government. Like all institutions in this country that have power to shape public opinion, the Department of Education is riddled with socialists and atheists. They are heavily overrepresented in education, and there is a pronounced divide between those who embrace tried and tested moral and civic values, and those who are trying to rebuild the world according to some vague New World Order whose principles are best described metaphorically as a man turned upside down. Certainly it turns the definition of virtue upside down.
I have to admit I was a little disconcerted after Sen. Thompson finally announced his candidacy, when I clicked on his official website and saw the words "Security, Prosperity, and Unity" appearing as his campaign theme. In my last column [Fred Thompson—He's an Actor] I mentioned my concerns about his experience on the Council on Foreign Relations, an organization deeply involved in the implementation of the "Security and Prosperity Partnership". In the age of the SPP that many respected conservatives believe is the underpinnings of a planned regional government, a North American Union, it is not a stretch to wonder if his campaign might be getting some help from the "stakeholders" referred to in SPP documents, and to wonder might be expected of him in return.
I did not ask him about it when I had the opportunity to ask a question, but the question nevertheless lingers. Senator Thompson must be aware that the American people have a profound distrust of their government, both Democrat and Republican parties, and have felt the fetters of political and economic slavery tightening around us as we see megacorporations having a controlling power over our lives and our government. Though Pres. Bush and some conservative pundits have ridiculed those of us who believe there is a clandestine effort to quietly entwine our government, social systems, and economic systems with that of Mexico and Canada for the benefit of big corporations, until we are too tangled up to get free, Jerome Corsi, in his powerful book The Late, Great USA, makes an outstanding case that that is, in fact, what is happening.
Thompson has made it very clear he understands the betrayal we felt after all the promises made in 1965, and again in 1986 (the last time the government supposedly dealt with the illegal immigration issue), and especially the promises of Ted Kennedy, the co-author of the most recent "immigration reform" bill. Let's look at some of those promises:
1965 (when Kennedy was chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration and Naturalization). Here's what he said the bill would not do:
First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same.
(We now have a conservative estimate of 12 million (but perhaps as many as 20 million) illegal aliens in our country.)
Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset…Contrary to the charges in some quarters, [this immigration bill] will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area...
(Illegal Latino immigrants have now become the largest minority in the United States.)
Thirdly, the bill will not permit the entry of subversive persons, criminals, illiterates or those with contagious disease.
Though the majority of illegals living in this country are otherwise law-abiding, nevertheless there is a disturbing imbalance of crimes, including murders, sexual assaults, child molestations, drunk driver deaths, gang activity and other criminal mischief in America perpetrated at the hands of illegals who are sometimes deported and sneak back in, returning to live in "sanctuary cities." In addition, many Hispanics are undereducated and do not bother to learn our language. Further, the recent Latino public demonstrations show a belligerence and a deliberate attempt to reconquer (reconquista) the southwest United States.
No immigrant visa will be issued to a person who is likely to become a public charge.
In 2002, the Center for Immigration Studies reported that "households headed by illegal aliens imposed more than $26.3 billion in costs on the federal government in 2002 and paid only $16 billion in taxes, creating a net fiscal deficit of almost $10.4 billion, or $2,700 per illegal household. Their findings were almost identical to similar studies by the Urban Institute in 1998.
Yet Kennedy accused his critics' arguments as being "highly emotional, irrational and with little foundation in fact. They are out of line with the obligations of responsible citizenship. They breed hate of our heritage"
No, Sen. Kennedy, people like you breed hate of our heritage. Democrats breed hatred of our heritage. The arguments against the reforms were obviously well founded, and Kennedy knew it. But the truth is, poor, uneducated people tend to be more accepting of socialism, more accepting of big government, and tend to vote for Democrats. Prior to 1965, the largely European body of immigrants were well educated and tended to vote conservatively. Kennedy further promised:
The bill will not flood our cities with immigrants. (Have you been to Wal-Mart lately?)
It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. (Prior to 1965, 70% of the immigrants coming into America were European.)
It will not relax the standards of admission. (What standards?...)
It will not cause American workers to lose jobs. (When a chicken packing plant in Georgia lost its illegal immigrant workforce, they were forced to hire ex-felons and homeless people.)
So what did Kennedy promise in 1986?
This amnesty will give citizenship to only 1.3 million illegal aliens. We will secure the borders henceforth. We will never again bring forth an amnesty bill like this.
But they didn't secure the borders, and amnesty encouraged the floodgates to open, bringing millions more into the country, such that in 2007, Kennedy brought forth another "amnesty bill like this."
One gets the impression that Thompson is as upset about this as the rest of us. I hope that is true. He has said that before we can talk about any other immigration reform, we have to secure our borders. On that we are all agreed. He also made it plain early on that it may be impractical to try and remove 12 million illegal aliens from within our borders. But the Heritage Foundation had put out a report that showed that the President's 2007 Comprehensive Immigration Reform plan would cost the American taxpayer $2.6 Trillion. Amnesty is now up before Congress again, quietly, stealthily, it moves.
We are agreed, at least, that securing the borders is a necessary first step. It's kind of like trying to rebuild New Orleans in the middle of a storm before repairing and fortifying the levee.
Most of us who believe the SPP is the beginning of a North American Union also believe that illegal immigration has been allowed to continue in order to facilitate the "merger". I look for some clarification from Sen. Thompson on this issue soon. I left my copy of Corsi's book with one of the Senator's traveling entourage. I hope he gave it to him, and I hope Senator Thompson reads it. But mostly, I hope he will soon clarify his position in this regard.
I have confidence in Fred Thompson simply because I can't see him as a con artist. That's not the kind of reputation he has. I believe he will stand up for everything he is saying, and will use all of the power he can bring to bear to restore our government to the kind it was intended to be. But when he speaks of unity, I presume he means party unity. I fear national unity will only come about one of two ways: Either we return to the principles of a nation under God, or we become a godless nation. The alternative of a Christian nation is a nation of brutal repression. We have already seen the first flickerings of political repression. Unless an authentic idea of freedom is restored, we are destined for political and economic slavery. 
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.
