0 votes

Fred Thompson's Platform: Security and the "Greater Good"

Slogan: Security - Unity - Prosperity

Message on website:

"We are steeped in the tradition of honor and sacrifice for the greater good. We are proud of this heritage. I believe Americans are once again ready to achieve this greater good: which is nothing less than the security, prosperity, and unity of our country."

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Welcome Comrade Thompson

Welcome Comrade Fred Thompson to the presidential race.

Stalin and Mao would be proud of you with slogan of "unity, prosperity, security and sacrifice of people for the greater good".

military service

Republican Candidate Military Service
US Navy '58-'81
Officer - Retired as Captain
Drafted in '62
US Air Force '63 - 65
Flight surgeon in South Korea, Iran, Ethiopia and Turkey
Air National Guard '65-'68
US Army '69-'71
173rd Airborne, 75th Rangers
Deferred "1-Y" treatment for depression

heres an idea of where

heres an idea of where freddy stands on the law.
We should be posting as many negative articles about fred as we can. they are not too hard to find.

A lie needs a second lie for a brace and a third lie for a crutch.
Lying is easy. The difficulty is telling only one lie.


none are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.


With all this "Honor" talk going on from Fred" I maybe late for supper, but not the dessert" and Huckster. One would think they were Klingons. One is better to die with Honor, than to have someone save you from death.

Speaking of sci-fi...

I had this mini-quiz written up:

Whose slogan is "A safe and secure society"?
A) Emperor Palpatine
B) The Ubiquitous Security Company
C) Fred Thompson
D) All of the above

Welcome to Soviet America.

Welcome to Soviet America.

I prefer:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new guards for their future security — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. — The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

Fibbin' Fred?

Any candidate who claims not to know what the NAU/SPP is does not deserve to be president because he is either too uninformed or just plain fibbin'.

I'll let you decide which...

Jane Aitken, 35-Year Veteran Teacher
Ron Paul 2008 Consultant
GOP Woman of the Year 2009
Founder NH Tea Party Coalition (NOT AFFILIATED WITH ANY FAKE 2009 GROUP)
Founder USPEINetwork @ Yahoo (Nat'l Edu Activism Group)
Board Coalition of NH Taxpayers

Fred Thompson Empraces Communism.

"The greater good" say Fred Thompson. Fred proves with his own words that the founding principles of this nation of liberty and respect of the individual should be subverted to empower the state. Fred would make Stalin proud.

Join PyraBang the peoples search engine.

USSR Redut

Security that never comes-Unity here, unity there,unity everywhere-Prosperity is gone on vacation to China.

And my dear comrades the future is so bright I need my dark sunglasses.

What a joke.

I signed in as Lonny Lumpkin

I signed in as Lonny Lumpkin and asked Mr. Fred why he is a member of the CFR and organization who's goal is to abolish the sovereignty of the U.S.

Also since you are a member of the CFR that tells me you are a neo-con of which scares me more that the terrorist themselves why because the neo-cons are taking our liberties away for security and you know we lose both.

652 messages for a media candidate are nothing.

GO RON PAUL !!!!!!!

"Freedom is a right that can never be won in war,only by each individual "

Spinfactor or Bust

Who's worried about a pompus hot air spinfactor.......we've got the Doctor! Sure as tootin, Bill will try to establish himself as the Authority on all that is right. I'd just watch out for the Fox tactics. It became obvious to me in the recent debates that they want to engage Ron in a way to trip him up and box him in as a lone wolf. They are trying to make Ron lose his cool, and say something stupid that they can "launch around the world". Ron's too smart for that. Just keep resting comfortably on the Constitution and, the fervent efforts the founding fathers displayed, to not only write it, but to defend it! Ask O'Really, "What is it about the Constitution that makes you uncomfortable, and maybe we can discuss it for your "conservative" audience".

alan laney

Just Like Huckabee

It's all very well to talk about being ready to "achieve the greater good" or preserve our "honor," but what they really mean is they'll force us to give what we have to others, or sacrifice our lives.

They're not talking about what they'll give or sacrifice, only about what they'll force us to do. It just doesn't have the same ring to it as "Give me Liberty, or give me death!" Only a real leader would lead instead of push.


What do you think? http://consequeries.com/

Dr. Paul on Fred

Dr. Paul said it best, "I welcome him to the race to help dilute the pro-war vote." or something along those lines. And we can all paraphrase, he is welcomed to the race to dilute the big government, pro-IRS, pro-collectivistic, pro-self-sacrifice, pro-anti-liberty vote.

Alarming coincidence?

Around the time Fred Thompson announced his candidacy, the press ran stories about how the number of suicides were up.

Security, Prosperity and Unity = SPP

How obvious can you get!!!!!

This guy is a North American Union Globalist if I ever saw one.

I think this would be a good question to ask in a debate.

I would like every candidate to answer. Give me three reasons why It is good for UNITED STATES of AMERICA to remain sovereign.

They wouldn't be able to answer it. They never think of it happening. The first guy would fall on his face the secound would make sure not to give his answer. The next would build on the secound answer trying to make his better they would have to pull it out of thin air and learn on the spot. It would be funny to watch. Expecially if Ron went last. Life, Liberty, and the persuit of happiness. or Rights, freedom, and justice. or Of the people, by the people, for the people. It would be like takin candy from a baby.

"Friend of Fred"

Unfortunately, one must be a "Friend of Fred" not only to post, but also to view any comments. I guess I could sign up even though I already know who I am voting for (and it ain't Fred). As someone else wrote on here, I support Fred Thompson as an actor and human being. If someone wants to give it a try, http://fredfile.fred08.com/2007/ask-fred/#postcomment (just be nice, please).

Drain the swamp!

Friend, HAH!

SO...you have to be signed in as a "friend of Fred" in order to even view the posts! THEN, after you sign in so that you can rip Fred's totalitarian philosophies, he can then count the Ron Paul supporters who go to his site to skew his numbers, counting them as his "friends." I don't need to view his posts OR comment either if it means that I'm going to be required to be counted as among his "friends." That's exactly the kind of thing I'm working to eliminate from this country.


Geater Good? HAH!

So, when people talk of the "greater good," just WHO are they talking about? What they mean is that they want you to sacrifice for some ideal that THEY will name. Otherwise who IS this "greater good" that they name? People like to decide for themselves what is good for them. When you start saying things like "greater good" it should send a red flag up for everyone because what that person means by that is that he wants to control you and make you sacrifice for something you are not willing to sacrifice for. That is not freedom by MY definition.



There are people who believe in life and liberty, and still come to a different conclusion regarding abortion. What Ron Paul says is "The Federal Government has no right to decide this." I can accept that as neutral.

What you say is "Abortion is similar to fascism." This is quite a bit too far out from neutral. I feel compelled to reply.

Since I do not believe in your right to force me to shelter and feed homeless people in my home - I believe in my right to kick them out of my house even if I know sure death will result - I don't believe in your right to tell me I should shelter and feed a baby in my body.

The mother who decides for Abortion does so not because they hate the child and want it murdered - they simply believe they don't have the resources to shelter and feed it. And I believe a mother has the right to her own body and nobody can force her to do something with it.

Morals are not to be forced upon other people. I believe that if a mother can be persuaded, or aided in another way, then that is a good thing. I do not believe it is a good thing to point a gun at her head in the name of life and liberty. Even if you can save a life. That's not good enough. The greater good of saving a baby's life does not justify the incredible attack on liberty and sovereignty over one's own body that it requires.

I believe in the states

I believe in the states making the decision with regard to abortion, and if the person doesn't like the law, move. With that said...

I have a problem with your assertion that the potential mother has more rights to her body, than the unborn in the mother's womb has a right to it's life. I am not saying I am pro-life. I have always been pro-choice, but this campaign has instilled a re-evaluation of my position, and I am still undecided at this time. Now, I certainly agree that a woman who has concerns about the health of herself or her unborn child, or under circumstances of rape, sexual abuse, etc. should be allowed to choose. However...

...and, allow me to change course here a second...

Let's say the mother just had a child and cannot afford to feed it? She needs to become part of the welfare state? We have to pay for it? No, the woman needs to take responsibility for her choice to have the child which she couldn't afford. I'm sure you can agree with having to take on your own responsibilities.

...back to where I was going...

So, if the woman needs to take responsibility in the above scenario, why shouldn't she have to take on the responsibility for getting pregnant in the first place? Again, not due to rape, abuse, etc. But, please tell me you agree that if a woman wants to have the freedom to do as she wishes with her body, then she must also take on the responsibility that comes with that choice (pregnancy due to unprotected sex or lack of abstinence).

I do understand that there is also a man involved, and if they (as a couple, married or not) cannot take on the responsibility of a child, then they together need to abstain or take precautions before having sex. It's called responsibility and we all have to be mindful of it. As with all our unalienable rights, there are the responsibilities to protect them, and not to impose upon others the results of how we chose to exercise those rights (including upon the unborn).

The unborn does not force itself into existance

Your analogy is not correct.
If you invite a homeless person to your boat, you have no right to kill him if you change your mind. A pregnancy is not forced upon a woman (if it is, then she should be allowed to abort), but a voluntary decision which she herself has taken. While the person you have invited can be asked to leave your boat once in harbour, you cannot throw him overboard. It is less simple to remove an unborn child without killing it or seriously putting its health at risk. This is known to any woman who makes such an "invitation".

The baby is an individual and should have the right to its own body. We should not force a moral upon the child which takes away its rights.

However, it isn't clear to me exactly when a baby should be considered to be an individual. That is not an easy question. But the principle that unborns do have rights from some stage, is pretty obvious to me.

Abortion - Analogy

The individual enters the boat under an implicit understanding that it will be brought back to shore. That's why I can't throw him overboard. Breach of contract, in a way.

If I pick someone up from the sea that was moments away from death, saving his life, then can I throw him off my boat if he starts doing things to my boat that I don't like? I think so.

Should I be coerced to preserve his life, at considerable cost to myself and my family? Certainly preserving his life might be the morally sound thing to do, but I do believe that I have the choice.

Life is Inalienable, Not Conditional

Here is an essay I wrote for school... It's on the Pursuit of Happiness, but later on highlights how the inalienability of life has to be true at conception or otherwise it would be conditional.

One of the most interesting and timeless parts of the Declaration of Independence is Thomas Jefferson’s choice of “pursuit of happiness” over “property.” I bet some of you might have seen the movie Pursuit of Happyness with Will Smith. It won an Academy Award. Even so, a lot of people today, especially career politicians and judges alike, don’t come close to understanding it, confusing it to apply to the “the right to marry” of all things. For the record, while there is no specific right to marry, there are three recognized, God-given rights, one of them being liberty, which marriage, as a voluntary contract, is made possible under. Take a moment to notice the wording though. As you may later deduct, actually doing it, that is marrying someone, would make it property.

According to John Perry Barlow, co-founder of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (which specializes in “Defending freedom in the digital world”), “extolling the pursuit of happiness was a toxic stupidity entirely unworthy of my greatest American hero, Thomas Jefferson. Indeed, it is a poison that sickens our culture more wretchedly every nanosecond. I wish he'd never said it.”

That is the most ignorant thing I have ever heard in my life.

To understand Jefferson’s switcheroo, we need a good definition of property. My favorite is a result of your life and liberty. It’s that simple! It can be both a pretty straightforward and a very abstract concept. It is straightforward in that all the uncontracted fruits of my labor, that is whatever I take from the wild and turn to subjective, valuable use, belongs to me, myself, and I.

Where the concept gets abstract, I think, is where it gets brilliant. We don’t think about it too often, but we are for the most part free people. This is where the pursuit of happiness falls into place. What can be our only motivation as free people? We get to choose who to associate ourselves with, what to do with ourselves, and where to place ourselves. Since it is voluntary, our motivation will always be based on rational self-interest. I can volunteer and be a good person, if I think that will make me more content, and I can also learn how to fly an airplane, if I think that will make me more content. I can do whatever I want, as long as I don’t take away from the life, liberty, and property of another. After all, our natural rights are based on equality. I can feel like doing this, I can feel like doing that, or I can feel like not doing this or that but figure I’d feel bad if I didn’t do it. The reference point is always how I feel, and how I expect it to affect my own self-content.

With that said, a good definition of pursuit of happiness is rational self-interest manifested in voluntary choice. The pursuit of happiness includes the motivation, determination, and expectation of property. It is inextricably woven and is one in the same. While property is a result of what I do with my life and liberty, the pursuit of happiness is why I do it, what form it will take, and what I hope to achieve from it. To pursue happiness, that is to make voluntary choices by being both alive and free, always results in property. Life and liberty together form a blank slate, which property eventually fills in. They are the terms of the game; property is playing it. It is “pursuit,” and will always be a pursuit, because nirvana not only goes against the laws of nature, but would cause the creation of property to come to a grinding halt. Even life and liberty would not be of any use to us. We’d be completely self-content the way we were with no incentive to do anything. We wouldn’t talk to anyone, we wouldn’t find the need to make friends or find a partner, we wouldn’t love or help one another, we wouldn’t pray to God, we wouldn’t look up to the stars, and we wouldn’t move, eat, sleep, and breathe until we fainted and our bodies took over. Not all it’s cracked up to be, huh?

It is a very abstract concept and is a personal fascination of mine. I could do a jumping jack or have a daydream, and both would be my inalienable property. Both would have had resulted from a decision (however, imperceptible it may seem) that I made with my life and liberty intact. Property is both immaterial and dynamic in this way.

I could travel around the world and no one else could ever experience what was seen through my eyes and interpreted in the brain of Julian Hasan. I could have my picture taken doing something or write an account in a memoir, just as I can trade a representation of my labor. This is how the exchange of property works. However, that portion of my life and liberty that was spent in creating that property, and thus made it mine, will always belong to me and can never be directly experienced by anyone else. Life and liberty is not transferable; it is inalienable. You can only experience a representation of my life and liberty, which you most likely traded for a representation of your own.

Although I have primarily emphasized psychological decision-making in the process of property creation, my physical body also happens to belong to me, because the nanosecond I began forming in the womb, I was in a state of life. This can be referred to as biological decision-making. Natural rights are inalienable in this regard. If the rights relied on the brain having been formed or been functional, they would then be conditional. Whatever you do, even at a molecular level, is your property. That means even your body itself is a representation of your life and liberty!

Unfortunately, this is what Marxists don’t understand. Quasi-Marxists view property in a materialistic manner and end up wanting to abolish the institution. They don’t understand that in the broadest sense experiences are also properties, that whenever a decision is made, or a process begun, even when I decided to walk my dog Cinnamon down the street the other day, the resulting walk and the result of every decision I made along the way became my property.

I think Thomas Jefferson foresaw some sort of threat to property in the future and deliberately swiped it with “pursuit of happiness” in the Declaration of Independence. After all, who would say that they wanted to abolish “the pursuit of happiness?” Who would say that they wanted to abolish “[the] result of your life and liberty?”

Ironically, when someone moans, “I hate my life,” they don’t really hate life. They are just not happy with the ongoing results of their life and liberty. They actually hate their property, but I don’t think it would help the situation any to correct them.

Also, A Baby From Rape Has Not Been Formed Involuntarily

Another article I wrote. ("Why You Will Always Be Free")

Your liberty is inalienable. It is not transferable. It can not be taken away from you. It is innate. It is part of you. You can believe that God endowed you with these rights. You can also use reasoning independent of God to come to the same conclusion of natural rights.

You will always be free. Not even the worst of oppressors can take away your freedom. Tyrants are wannabees with no real power. They think that they are masters of others, but they are only masters of themselves.


I’ll tell you why. It’s because you have a will, and no tyrant can change that.

I can put you in shackles. I can torture you. I can enslave you. I can take advantage of you. I can knock you out. But I can’t control your will. Only you can do that.

I can use coercion to try to get you to change your mind, but I can never actually make up your mind for you. If you choose not to obey me, I can raise the stakes, perhaps punish you, maybe even threaten to kill you. You may soon change your mind and start obeying, but it is ultimately you who made up your mind to do so. It is impossible for me to force you to do anything against your will. It is only possible for me to coerce you into doing something. Even when drugged or drunken, you still have a will, only you are more reckless, more impressionable, and less resistant in controlling it. At least, it’s a little uplifting.

We are free because we have a will. We are free because we are our own masters. We are free because we are slaves to our own conscience.

A brilliant woman once wrote, “And now I see the face of god, and I raise this god over the earth, this god whom men have sought since men came into being, this god who will grant them joy and peace and pride. This god, this one word: I.”

Coercion is wrong. Reason proves it to be irrational. Holy Books denounce it as sinful. Jesus sets up the conditions by saying, “Listen! I am standing and knocking at your door. If you hear my voice and open the door, I will come in and we will eat together. (Revelation 3:20)” The Muslim’s Holy Book speaks more directly against it by saying, "THERE SHALL BE no coercion in matters of faith. Distinct has now become the right way from [the way of] error... (The Cow 2:256)"

Life, liberty, and property are your inalienable rights. Human nature lies in those three words. Not only do you have these rights, but government, by recognizing them, exists solely to make sure that you benefit as much as you can from them. Government exists to stop coercion dead in its tracts, so that every human being can take full advantage of their nature. After all, how cruel is it to not let a human being enjoy the possibilities that human nature allows for? For the scientists and philosophers out there, it’s blatantly irrational, and for the theists and deists out there, it’s both sinful and irrational.
And thus liberty, as an inalienable right, applies to free will. I also deduct that it applies more accurately to DNA, which follows its own instructions in a similar but more abstract fashion, and most likely makes the will possible in the first place. You can do whatever you want to someone’s body, but it is the DNA, rather than the coercer, that ultimately defines how the body will react or injure, as much as the coercer may feel in control.

Think about it. When I hit you am I really causing the pain? What about those people that can’t feel pain? They wouldn’t feel anything. Your body is what produces the pain. I am just coercing your body into producing it.

This is why life is inalienable. I can beat your body to a pulp, but it is ultimately your body that begins to self-destruct when it can’t cope with the damage any longer. It is impossible for me to take your life. Only your body can take its life in a sort of biological suicide.

(the same applies to being raped... your body is still voluntarily nurturing the child in the womb and allowed the sperm into the egg)

Freedom, in a political context, applies to the elimination of coercion in human relationships. Always remember that even an overbearing and largely unconstitutional government can never change or modify your natural rights. No man and no force on earth are capable of doing this. It is impossible for anyone to take away your freedom. They can only limit the potential or success of your liberty through the use of coercive force.

Also, A Baby From Rape Has Not Been Formed Involuntarily

Deleted extra comment. God, this site keeps going down.

Fred's late to the Race, late to the Constitution.

A Fred Head is a Dead Head.

Fred is trying to do a better Ron Paul than Ron Paul. And he will pull the Constitution message off and make it sound sweeter, better, and more Friendly than Ron Paul does. So what to do? Agree with Fred Heads. Say "How RIGHT you are! Following the Constitution is the Key. The Declaration of Independance was right yesterday and its right today". Then after listing the dozens of areas we agree, then we must list Fred's Track Record. We must say his record troubles me. Then we must say that only Ron Paul has the proven track record and the GUTS to stand up to the Clintons and the Bushes. When Ron Paul was standing up, Fred Thompson was a washington lobbyist making deals for Hatian dictactors for his friend Bill Clinton. He was comprimising our principles on the 2nd amendment and getting well paid by the war-machine. I am glad Fred now realizes the importance of the Constitution, but Ron Paul is the Real Deal. Fred is late to the Ron Paul Revolution.

Yes, please BUY this wonderful libertarian BOOK! We all must know the History of Freedom! Buy it today!

"The System of Liberty: Themes in the History of Classical Liberalism" ...by author George Smith --
Buy it Here: http://www.amazon.com/dp/05211820

Thompson definitely no Reagan

Fred Thompson entering the campaign is a way for the Neo-Cons to use his acting skills for TV, sorry but only Reagan and Clinton (Bill) are the masters at that until this years debates started and Ron Paul has surprised the hell out of me with his camera skills of which are easy when
you are not scripted as the other candidates are.

I look for Fred to take away from Rudy Mc Romney votes of which theres will also take away from Fred (Flintstone) Thompson of which will help Ron Paul .

GO RON PAUL !!!!!!

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA not Unity States of America !!!!

"Freedom is a right that can never be won in war,only by each individual "

maybe CFRed is talking about the

"Security" and "Prosperity" Partnership of "North America". Of course he did tell that girl in Texas (on camera) that he didn't know the CFR was implementing a North American Union, and he's a "conservative" so we can trust him not to lie.


Get active NOW to put Ron in the general election. ronpaul.meetup.com

What is begun in anger, ends in shame.


I can't stick my finger down my throat far enough.....

Yes, please BUY this wonderful libertarian BOOK! We all must know the History of Freedom! Buy it today!

"The System of Liberty: Themes in the History of Classical Liberalism" ...by author George Smith --
Buy it Here: http://www.amazon.com/dp/05211820