Posted on 05/06/2007 8:00:42 PM PDT by neverdem
(Editor's Note: The following remarks were delivered at the annual Lincoln Club of Orange County dinner on Friday, May 4.)
So we meet again, and I'm honored, because I know we're here for the same reasons: Love of our country and concern for our future.
A lot of Americans have these concerns tonight. They are concerned about the way things are going in our country right now. Some fear we may be in the first stages of decline. We've heard this malaise talk before.
Of course Iraq is a large part of it. Not only is it tough going, but the effort is besieged on all sides. From those playing the most crass kind of politics with it at home to criticism from around the world.
Even at home, as we enjoy the benefits from one of the best economies we've ever had, people seem uncertain; they raise concerns about global competition or a growing economic disparity among our citizens.
These are challenges. But how we react to them is more important than the challenges themselves. Some want us, to the extent possible, to withdraw from the world that presents us with so many problems, in the hope they will go away. Some would push us towards protectionist trade policies. Others see a solution in raising taxes and redistributing the income among our citizens.
Wrong on all counts. These are defensive, defeatist policies that have consistently been proven wrong. They are not what America is all about.
Let's talk about the issues here at home, first. A lot of folks in Washington suffer from a big misconception about our economy. They confuse the well-being of our government with the wealth of our nation. Adam Smith pointed out the same problem in his day, when many governments...
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
Let’s talk about the issues here at home, first.
:::
Something the socialists can not do, and will not do. Address real issues critical to the future of America, because they are not interested in the future of OUR AMERICA... only their socialist variation of America. They will not, and cannot expose their agenda.
What do you make of the following?
:::
The border MUST BE SECURED first. Anyone interested in solving the issue, knows that. Fred agrees, good sign. The flow must be stopped. Then work out a plan using the closed border for protection of the plan, to work out a solution for guest workers among the illegals that are here. That is job one.
The flow must be stopped or all the rest of the BS is worthless.
Ping
Fredipedia: The Definitive Fred Thompson Reference
Please FReepmail jellybean if you want on/off this list. WARNING: This ping list is EXTREMELY active.
that was a dup? Sorry bout that.
I am not sure if it is exactly a duplicate, but transcripts and video links are all over the place. I don’t want anyone getting mad at me for pinging too much. :)
A conservative like Fred talks about the dangers of big government--while a liberal like Rudy talks about the benefits of big government.
I'll go with Fred's vision ANYDAY!!!
Go, Fred, Go!!!
All the border first crap is a dodge. Illegal means illegal means not legal means not condoned or excused or allowed, or laws mean nothing and there is no reason for any of us to obey the smallest regulation about anything.
All the border first crap is a dodge.
:::
Sorry, but you are wrong. If the border is sealed, they cannot come back across without control. And all the illegals that are deported just come back because they can, and do, and the White House lets them get away with it.
Seal the border, enforce the laws. Then deal with the ones that are here, and if that means sending them back to do it legally, then so be it. I dont care — the federal government has created this travesty upon America and now they can fix it.
“Border first” can be a dodge, but it isn’t necessarily, as you point out. If a candidate means it sincerely, it’s the right policy.
"They can't come back across without control" in a pig's eye. Wishes, horses, beggars.
If you don't make it more unpleasant to be here illegally than to be in Mexico within the law, then they will be here illegally.
No, unpleasantness at the border, readily evaded, will not remotely get a tenth of it done. And all the pols pretending it will are just trying to appease anti-immigrant opinion while leaving open their amnesty options. Which emphatically means they will support amnesty, and aren't serious about any of it, and do not deserve our support.
When a pol stands up and says "no illegals tolerated in the US first", then you can be sure he will also be serious about the border. When instead he says "border first", you can be sure he wants illegals here and is not willing to take leftist heat in the matter.
They play it that way because they all think those "illegals" will soon be amnestied *voters*, and they don't want to PO that new voting block. They think so because they see the entire left agreeing with Bush and a third of the right (who want the extra labor and low cost workers), and they calculate that those combined will get their way. Even though 70-80% of the public does not want any amnesty.
It is a sellout. Always has been. Border first is lipstick and rhetoric, nothing more.
“People talk a lot about moral issues, but the greatest moral issue facing our generation is the fact that we are bankrupting the next generation. People talk about wanting to make a difference. Here we could make a difference for generations to come.”
BUMP!
On illegal immigration, Mexico is the BIG FRIGGIN ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM that all the pols try to pretend is not there.
When FDT says address the problem, I think he means, MEXICO.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.