Michelle Obama Lists “Politically Savvy” Jane Fonda As Role Model

February 3, 2014 at 10:01 am


Here’s the report via The Examiner:

It seems Jane Fonda, the actress known as “Hanoi Jane” for her treasonous actions during the Vietnam War, has a big fan in the White House. On Monday, Newsbusters’ Tim Graham reported that Michelle Obama considers the 76-year-old actress something of a role model.

Says Graham: “In their latest interview with Michelle Obama, People magazine asked if there were role models the First Lady looked at to think ‘When I’m 70 or 80, I want to look and live like her?’”

Obama considered two actresses: Cicely Tyson, and then the “politically savvy, sharp woman” named Jane Fonda.

“I just went to see Cicely Tyson on Broadway. She is in her 80s [just turned 80 in December] and did a two-hour play with stamina and passion. I told her ‘I want to be you when I grow up!’”

“There’s Jane Fonda, a beautiful, engaged, politically savvy, sharp woman,” she added.

While Obama thinks highly of Fonda, veterans will never forget her treachery during the Vietnam War.

Also read Breitbart’s frank assessment below:

Typically first ladies are a hands off topic as we don’t elect them to office, and often I have a more measured response but I’m being blunt here.

Michelle Obama profiled in People Magazine sees the traitor Hanoi Jane Fonda who has the blood of dead Americans in Vietnam on her hands as a ‘politically-savvy’ role model.

But then again what’s the surprise because the Obama’s are in league with domestic terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, former leaders of the 1960s’ Weather Underground, a domestic terrorist organization. Michelle Obama often comes across to me as an angry black woman who had all the advantages such as going to Princeton University after coming from basically nothing. Yet instead of maximizing her advantages in life she seems to wear them like a burden and projects the burden onto others.

After all, remember when she said twice in prepared speeches on the same day that “For the First Time in My Adult Lifetime, I’m Really Proud of My Country” (Video). I wonder if Hillary Clinton with the blood of four dead for Americans in Benghazi idolizes Hanoi Jane Fonda as well.

Sequester: A not so bad Idea whose time has come

February 21, 2013 at 8:56 am

sequesterRepublicans on Capitol Hill are once again desperately trying to slow down the spending train in which we are all passengers, and which is racing toward the cliff. And once again President Obama is giving demagoguery a bad name as he tests the limits of the short sightedness and ignorance of the American people.

Obama, as he stepped off the golf course, said that sequestration,  which was originally his idea, now will precipitate the destruction of the world as we know  it. Our leader believes that everyone from firemen to food inspectors will be decimated if the cuts go through, and, of course, Republicans will be at fault.

Even though Obama is eagerly rolling up his newspaper again, Republicans on the Hill are refusing to act like whipped puppies this time around. They are insisting that unless Obama comes up with substitute spending cuts, the sequester as previously agreed to by both parties and signed by the President will go through. Although still fearful of Obama’s skills at misleading the public, and unlike the Bush tax cut expiration fight, they don’t have to lift a finger in order to strike a blow for deficit reduction. The sequester is automatic. It has already passed.

It’s not that across the board cuts are a great idea. Ideally, cuts would be made where cuts should be made and not in other places. We still have a double digit number of jobs programs and a shrinking battleship capacity. We have crumbling infrastructure, yet will have less to spend.  And the sequester does not affect entitlements, which are badly in need of restructuring.

But get this: the sequester would cut one and a half percent from domestic spending. That’s about a week’s worth of government spending, as we run up trillion dollar deficits year after year and  approach a $17 trillion national debt. We are like the drunk who, after buying rounds for the house all night, leaves a few pennies on the counter and congratulates himself for his frugality.

The point here: if we don’t cut spending now and in this way, when in the world will we? Our “leader” has shown that he will not cut anything except the military unless he is forced to. So now Obama has outsmarted himself  and signed off on a sequester that he thought would never come to pass. He did not count on the fact that his overreaching, belligerent demagoguery would stiffen the Republican spine.

Republicans are a political party, not a suicide pact, and sometimes they have to pay the price for losing elections by biding their time and choosing their battles wisely. Let’s face it. We are not going to make any real progress toward fiscal sanity while the Democrats control most of Washington. During this time Republicans must  stay alive, speak the truth, not follow every diversion Obama throws their way, and maintain their credibility. By not caving on sequester they show that they are willing to take a political risk for the sake of the long-term benefit of our country.

It has been observed how often doing the right thing turns out to be good politics. I think the notion that the sequester will throw us into a recession is absurd. It’s a $16 trillion economy. This is a drop in the bucket. I think the result will be just the opposite when reluctant businessmen, foreign investors and credit-rating agencies see that we are at least making a start toward deficit reduction.

Besides, it will be worth the spectacle. As the economy improves after the Republicans hold fast, Obama won’t know whether to laugh or cry.

Fred Thompson’s America 1.25.13 (What Difference Does It Make?)

January 25, 2013 at 9:21 pm

Does the truth behind the Benghazi attack and the murder of our Ambassador to Libya really matter? Or is Hillary Clinton right in saying, “What difference does it make?” Fred shares his thoughts in this installment of Fred Thompson’s America.

Video transcript:

Hi folks, I’ve been doing a little traveling this week and I was at the airport in Nashville catching a little television passing by when I heard the most bizarre statement I think I’ve ever heard a public official make. It was Hillary Clinton on television saying it doesn’t really matter the identity of the people who killed our folks over in Benghazi. Whether it was a demonstration that got out of hand or whether or not it was just some people that decided to kill some Americans, does it really matter now?

Well, I think it matters. Maybe it matters because we owe it to the people that we sent over there to be killed. Maybe we owe to their families. Maybe we owe it to them because the president promised to bring the perpetrators to justice. Maybe it matters because of that. Maybe it matters because nothing seems to be being done to bring them to justice. Maybe it matters because some people strangely think that in order to bring anybody to justice you gotta know who they are. Maybe it matters because what you are saying here in your testimony is that this whole thing about bringing to justice is just a farce to kick the can of responsibility on down the road a little bit further.

Maybe it should matter to you because this ambassador was your person. You sent him over there. You know, the guy who was asking for help and asking for assistance because he was in danger, help that you never sent him. Doesn’t it matter a little bit to you the identity of the people who killed him? Maybe it matters because the president said Al Qaeda was on the run. Maybe it matters because some of these same people are showing up in these other countries attacking our friends and allies.

And finally, maybe it matters because the administration thought that it mattered enough to immediately send out people to lie to the American people about the identity of these perpetrators. Maybe it matters because of that.

It does matter. There are a lot of unanswered questions about this Benghazi situation, but the number one question I have today to Hillary Clinton is:

Madame Secretary, are you not the most overrated secretary of state in the history of our country?

Fred Thompson’s America 1.23.13 (Thoughts On Gun Control Debate)

January 24, 2013 at 9:35 am

The following special video update features Fred speaking on various important topics of the week, with a focus on the ongoing debate on gun control. FredthompsonsAmerica.com will feature videos like this each week so be sure to subscribe to the email newsletter to ensure you get the updates when new videos go live.

Justice Done

June 26, 2012 at 8:04 am

I am occasionally reminded that a lot of folks have forgotten my deep, dark secret. I have spent a considerable part of my career in television, movies and politics – pretty high profile stuff. What is often forgotten, or not known, is my many years practicing law, much of it as a trial lawyer.

Although we’ve always been told to think otherwise, I never saw it as in any way inconsistent with my conservative political beliefs. From an early age I wanted to be that guy who would – and could – take a worthy client and stand against even powerful forces, including the government itself. The image of John Adams representing the British Redcoats after the Boston Massacre stayed with me. To take on that line of work one doesn’t even have to necessarily be sold on the virtue of your own client – just that he deserves representation and that our rule of law, better than any other, will most likely result in justice.

What Goes On In the Court Room Versus Media Interpretation

One of the things I learned over the years is that there is often a difference between what goes on in the courtroom versus what the media is reporting in the court of public opinion, even in highly publicized cases.

Reporters must summarize and place emphasis on the things they deem most important or newsworthy. That doesn’t mean that I don’t form opinions. It just means that I try to keep an open mind, knowing that I don’t have all of the facts – facts that a jury will have. For example, in the Trayvon Martin shooting case in Florida, the media had George Martin charged, tried and convicted of shooting an unarmed, innocent man. It is a case that is politically and racially charged and pressure was brought to bear immediately to charge Zimmerman with murder, which soon happened.

Now, as the facts come out, the case looks very different. A jury will have to decide, hopefully free of the pressures felt by the prosecutors and unnecessarily influenced by the media circus around the case.

The Sandusky Case

Occasionally, however, a case comes along that has me practically standing on my chair rooting for a particular verdict – when I’m convinced that our system of justice itself is on trial. Such is the case of ex-Penn State football coach Jerry Sandusky, who was convicted Friday of 45 counts of child sex abuse. The question of guilt or innocence, whether for the most casual observer or members of the jury, boiled down to one question: Why would these eight young men put themselves, years later, through the torment of publicly describing the terrible things that Sandusky did to them?

Yet even before the verdict, another question kept going through my mind. Sandusky’s lawyer, a weird piece of work himself, said that plea negotiations were never attempted before the trial. My bet is that the prosecution would have at least listened to entreaties from the defense to open plea talks. After all, there are no slam-dunk cases and you never know how your witnesses are going to do on the witness stand. So, my question was, “What kind of perverted, evil, warped individual would put himself and his family through this sickening spectacle in the hope that some rabid Penn State fan might hang the jury?” As much as I consider myself a man of the law and a lover of even Sandusky’s constitutional rights, I must confess, I thought that his very presence in the courtroom attested to his guilt.

One of the commentators said that Sandusky looked “wistfully” at one of his victims while he was testifying. Could it be that deep within his own perversion, that he really didn’t think he had done anything wrong? If so, it’s an even more compelling reason why he should be put away for the rest of his life.

People like me, sitting at home, even with courtroom experience, thankfully don’t decide such matters. Jurors, who have a much higher calling, must put aside their prejudices. But I must say it sure felt good when their judgment in this case was the same as my own.

- Fred Thompson

“Is Romney Leaning Left?” And Other “Ask Fred” Replies

June 8, 2012 at 11:34 am

Thank you to everyone who has submitted an “Ask Fred” question. I have very much enjoyed the exchange of ideas. Here are a few of my responses. Go here to submit your own “Ask Fred” question.

Hiding Labels and Harry Reid
Q (from 46069): I enjoyed your book.  I’m glad you started this newsletter.  I’m sure I will enjoy it too.  What do you think of groups like, “No Labels.”  Couldn’t we accomplish most of their goals by just demoting Harry Reid to the minority side of the Senate?
A: Demoting Sir Harry is necessary but not sufficient. It’s going to take a lot of good elections to get the job done. Considering our fix, we must turn to that well-known political philosopher, Tom Petty, who reminds us “there ain’t no easy way out.” That advice goes to our “No Labels”  friends too. If you’re wearing a good looking Armani suit, you’re not looking to shed your label. It’s only when you might be kind of ashamed of what you’re wearing that you want to hide the label. Our goal should be to make our party something we’re proud of. Thanks

Will Fred Run For Senate Again?
Q (from 28729): Mr. Thompson in the years since you left the senate have you wanted to run again for senate, or perhaps run a national or local campaign on the east coast??
A: I can honestly say that it has never crossed my mind. Though the Senate is not as well regarded as it should be and used to be, it was an honor for me to have served. And, although I would still like to take the floor on occasion and tell them “how the cow ate the cabbage”, the rest of it has no further appeal to me. I believe that there are seasons in one’s life and then it’s time to move on. The Senate was a very important season for me but no more than that. Besides, staying too long hurts the country. Political careerism and the fear of loosing one’s seat is at the heart of a lot of our problems. Thanks.

A Die Hard Republican’s Concerns
Q (from 75703): If you think the country would not vote for a man who had an affair and a baby, you are out of your mind. Even though he did not have a child, that we know of, or an abortion, Just remember that Bill Clinton had many affairs before and after he was president. Bill Clinton was the best president we have had since Ronald Reagan.  I am a DIE HARD REPUBLICAN, but facts are facts.
A: I suppose you refer to John Edwards. No one is saying an adulterer can’t be president. As you note, Clinton got caught after he got elected. I’m just saying that with all the hurtles that anyone has to jump to even be considered for president, having, in addition, “lying skunk” on your resume might not help. Remember, he couldn’t get the nomination before people knew about the other stuff. On your “best president” Clinton line, remember I helped stuff things like welfare reform down his throat before he would accept it so my take is a little different.

Scott Walker’s Impact On November
Q (from 19087): What does the confirmation of Gov. Walker mean with regard to the November election?
A: I’ve just written on this but, in addition, the national and Wisconsin republican party are turning over to Romney the excellent organization they built for Walker. This is another important part of the union blunder in having this recall election. Wisconsin is now in play. Walker won by a larger margin than Obama did in Wisconsin in 2008.

Is Romney Already Leaning Left?
Q (from 63090): In 2008, I, as an octogenarian, supported your candidacy as well as I could, for I consider you a real conservative!!! You would have made a terrific President!
I am really worried about Romney. He has just appointed 2 RINO’s to be on his transition team. This is a terrible slap in the face to us conservatives. Even before he is formally nominated by us Republicans, he is already insulting us.
Obviously, I am very shaken by his riding off to the left ALREADY!!!!!
Please console me!!!! I am almost a nonagenarian now and need to know why I should even bother to vote in November. I have voted in every possible election I could for the last 70 years. But what assurance do we conservatives have that Romney would be any better than Obama??? Somehow am beginning to distrust Romney, if he can do something this rash– this early!!
Thank you!
A: First of all, thank you for your steadfast involvement and your kind words. I hope that I can give you some comfort. We shouldn’t be too hard on Mitt too soon. Understandably, people are going to be flyspecking every thing he does and says for signs of ideological impurities. These transition appointments are not that big of a deal and shouldn’t demoralize you. Unless he does a total 180 he is light years better than Obama on taxes, spending, judicial appointments and our military, just to name a few issues. Both the left and the right are going to be saying all kinds of things about Romney but he deserves the benefit of the doubt. Amidst our candidate’s imperfections, let’s not take our eye off the big picture–where Obama is taking this country. And don’t you even think about not voting. Thanks again.

The “Race Card” In Elections
Q (from 42567): Honorable Senator, I live in the Commonwealth of Kentucky and we recently had our primary and my question is this: How big is the statement that Kentucky’s and Arkansas’ Democratic voters voting 42% and 40% respectively uncommitted and not for Obama? The news outlets have chalked it up to our states being racist. Do you believe that the rest of the country feels that we are racist or that we are fed up with Obama’s failure as president?
A: Isn’t it strange how adding 5 trillion dollars of new debt onto the backs of our children brings out the racism in people? Don’t worry about it. They place the “race card” on everybody, even Bill Clinton. Where were all the racists when we elected him, one of the most inexperienced candidates we’ve ever had, president of the United States?

- Fred Thompson

Fred Speaks Out On Fox Business About The Taxpayer Revolt In Wisconsin

June 7, 2012 at 8:54 am

Fred Thompson was featured last night, June 6th, on Fox Business’ The Willis Report where he shared his thoughts on the voter’s role in reining in government spending. Enjoy.

Euromerica? It’s Our Choice…

April 24, 2012 at 5:16 pm

As the Medicare and Social Security trust fund trustees reminded us again on Monday, the U.S. economy is the most foreseeable catastrophe since the predictions of Nostradamus. “Unsustainable” is the word experts of all stripes most often used to describe our burgeoning welfare state.

At a time when, daily, 10,000 Americans retire, total U.S. debt now exceeds 100% of our GDP. The green- eyeshade boys will tell you that when a country reaches 90%, the country loses growth and their creditors lose sleep. As we get downgraded by the credit agencies and look at trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see, remember it’s worse than you think.

Those dire fiscal projections coming out of Washington are – the $15 trillion in debt, the tens of billions in debt service payments we must make, the reduced rate of the growth of government – are actually rosy scenarios. These “upbeat” predictions are based upon optimistic assumptions about such things as economic growth that are widely recognized as unrealistic.

We’ve gotten ourselves into a situation where are even good news is bad news. If the economy bounces back then our current extremely low interest rates will rise. Who is the biggest interest payer on the planet? Uncle Sam. Every 1% rise in interest rates will cost us another $100 billion in interest payments. And you wonder why the Fed is still printing money and keeping rates as low as low as possible for as long as possible.

The most mind numbing thing about all of this is that our European brethren have provided a blue print for what to do to avoid the fiscal economic disaster that befell them: do pretty much the opposite of what our European brethren did.

Recall that most European nations expanded their welfare state – free health care, well-paid pensions, rich unemployment benefits seemingly in perpetuity ¬– on borrowed money that would be unsustainable in the face of economic adversity.

The European Union – now faced with that adversity resulting from the global economic meltdown and the sovereign debt crisis of so many members – came up with what they thought was a dandy idea. They would bail out the governments of Greece, Portugal and others in return for a pledge by the countries in trouble to institute austerity measures to bring down their debt. Not surprisingly, the people of Greece, Portugal as well as France, Spain, Ireland and Italy, to name a few, didn’t like the idea of austerity: Cut spending? Get a job? Work until age 62? The result of that was reflected in elections where incumbents and reformers were thrown out.

Nicolas Sarkozy may well become the first French president in 30 years to fail in his re-election bid. His Socialist opponent is promising the return of old goodies, plus some new goodies, as well. He’ll supposedly pay for it with a 75% tax rate on the millionaires. Sound familiar? The Dutch government, one of the more fiscally responsible in Europe, bit the dust this week, unable to agree on spending cuts. Every day brings new evidence that the bond markets are increasingly convinced that several of these countries are in a death spiral, as their cost of borrowing continues to increase.

Yet, instead of viewing all this as a cautionary tale, the U.S. has embraced European policies that will ultimately result in European results. Those who think “it can’t happen here” should take note: France, Ireland, the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain have better (meaning lower) debt to GDP ratios than America, as do Germany and the UK.

The comparison between the EU and the U.S. may not be exact, but the underlying problems of the various EU countries are similar to ours, including a growing elderly population and excessive spending. While U.S. spending as a percentage of our economy is not quite as high as most troubled European countries, which average around 50%, it’s getting there. It’s close to 40% and almost twice as high as the U.S. average has been over the last 40 years. In other words, it’s the direction we’re going in that’s most troublesome.

Actually, the biggest difference of economic significance between the US and the EU is that the dollar is the world’s primary reserve currency. Former Treasury Sec. James Baker recently said that if it was not for the fact that people still want our dollars, compared to other currencies, the U.S. would already be Greece. That’s a pretty low bar right now. It makes us the one eyed man in the land of the blind. While it is true that, unlike some EU countries, the U.S. is in no short-term danger of being unable to pay its bills, bad things could still happen.

For example, the dollar could lose its go-to status. The Chinese, who have been diversifying their holdings away from the dollar, are not the only ones urging this. Japan, Russia and some European leaders, as well as the International Monetary Fund, have all questioned the utility of the dollar’s international dominance.

More likely, the U.S. government will try to inflate its way out of our economic crisis. We are the only country that can print dollars. Of course, our creditors will not sit idly by as this flood of new dollars devalues the ones they are already holding. One wonders if anybody still remembers the consequences of the inflation of the 1970s and the “misery index.”

Can we avoid a European scenario? It can not be done with one election, no matter how good the results. Our political institutions were not set up that way. Stamina will be more important than brilliance or even a pure heart. But so much could be done with just the reform of our entitlement programs and our tax code, along with bringing some certainty to the minds of U.S. business and entrepreneurs we depend on to create economic growth.

We don’t need European austerity, which invariably includes tax increases. We need growth – the only means by which we can avoid devaluation, inflation, and all the problems that such a course would bring. Unfortunately, at a time when we need strong leadership and a consensus, we have a president who is a divider and a demagogue. He is uniquely positioned and qualified to lead us away from the abyss, but he will not do so unless he is persuaded that it will benefit him politically.

However, I believe that we have new leaders on the horizon who have the vision and courage to lead. We’ve always produced such people in times of crisis. But leaders – as we have seen from our European friends’ experiences – cannot save us from ourselves as a people, unless we are willing to follow. If we do “buy in” to such leadership, we can not only save our country, we can establish a proposition that the world needs to see and embrace: that powerful and prosperous democratic societies do not necessarily carry within themselves the seeds of their own demise.

-Fred Thompson