Is Newt the enemy of my enemy?

I would prefer Rick Santorum of all the remaining candidates. However the organized establishment attack on Newt Gingrich says a lot to me about who the establishment fears. I will grant you that Newt has negatives, he is not all that solid on illegal immigration, his campaign is at times a little erratic i.e. the right wing social engineering comments or the Bain Capitol ads, and there are a lot of people who just don’t like him. Perhaps he has the most negatives of any one running not named Ron Paul, but don’t be deceived, he has a long list of positive accomplishments as well, more than anyone else running.  Newt was speaker of the House during those difficult and contentious years when President Clinton fought tooth and nail against several fundamental reforms, and it was Newt who as speaker took up the fight to reform welfare and balance the budget, if you recall the House Republicans shut down the government rather than go along with business as usual and we had the first and so far last balanced budgets in many a year.

Also recall President Clinton vetoed welfare reform numerous times before the republicans forced it through with enough bipartisan support that Clinton conceded. Now of course Clinton claims credit for them, but these victories, not political victories mind you, but actual American legislative victories would not have been attained if John Boehner were speaker back then. In fact imagine how much better off we would be if Mr. Boehner had half the spine Speaker Gingrich had.  

Like I said I am not yet willing to give a whole hearted endorsement to Mr. Gingrich, among other reasons is his history of personal misconduct. I will not say, “Character counted for Clinton, not Newt” (the fact that the Main stream media is perfectly willing to do the same in reverse is of note). I cannot say rather Newt’s finding of Christ is legitimate, that is not my place, but I absolutely must judge rather I believe he is a man of sufficient integrity to sit in the seat of power in the nation that has leadership in the very cause of freedom. There is any number of legitimate concerns about Newt but the blatantly false ads and charges spewed by the establishment are reprehensible at best.

The first ridiculous charge is that Newt was hostile to Reagan. The quote pulled from a special orders speech in which Newt seems to argue against Reagan’s anti-communist policy. What is quoted is Newt echoing some concerns of other conservatives about the implementation of Reagan’s “rhetoric”. The purpose of the speech, and the whole series of special order speeches from which it was drawn was to support Reagan and advance the cause of conservatism. This is diabolical. The second is a quote about Vice President Bush not running as a continuation of Reagan. In the same interview he explains that Reaganism is a set of principles and that they are inclusive and must be advanced. Mark Levin’s site compiles the documentation at http://www.marklevinshow.com/goout.asp?u=http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2012/01/video-of-newt-bashing-reagan-is-bogus.html

I have said before and will repeat with my dying breath that in order to save this Republic we must defeat the republican establishment as surely as we must defeat Obama. These half truth attacks on Gingrich embolden me in the possibility that I would support him whole heartedly, and my lukewarm feelings toward the Romney campaign are trending downward. As I have pointed out there are any number of legitimate concerns about Newt but the Romney camp has no desire to compare records. You see Newt Gingrich has fought to advance conservativism and when has Mitt Romney done the same? Was it when he pushed through Romney-care? Distanced himself from Reagan? Supported Joe Saunders? Referred to himself as a “progressive”?  

I do not believe the Republican establishment was nearly as happy with the 2010 election as one would think. They look at Christine O’Donnell and Sharon Angle as examples of why tea party values don’t win, but they ignore the fact that without those tea party values they maybe win 30 house seats instead of 60! The intensity with those that I would call the establishment makes me believe that they see conservatives as more of a threat than they do the liberal destruction of the Obama philosophy.

Is a man known by the friends he keeps or by the enemies he makes? Mitt has a lot of the wrong friends and Newt has a lot of the right enemies.

Again my fondest wish is that the Newt-Mitt pile of malarkey will become a hill Rick Santorum can climb to the top. If not, if it comes down to Newt or Mitt, than the enemy of my enemy is my candidate for president.

Until next time, keep on the firing line.

And the winner is (or at least should be)

Way back in August I began to look at the Presidential candidate’s stance on pertinent issues. Throughout this lengthy procedure I have attempted to stick solely to the issues and avoid the social-political aspect of the contest. I haven’t analyzed debate performances, haircuts or wardrobes, I haven’t looked at gaffes or accusers of misdeeds from the 1990’s, all we’ve tried to do is select the most important issues and review the candidates positions on those issues. Even at that, there are still more issues that warrant attention but with the caucuses/ primary season well under way I think it is appropriate to tell you what my conclusions are. Hence let’s take a moment to review the candidates as I rate them, worst to first. 

Ron Paul: I could simply cut and paste the quotes here about defense and Israel and move on but I have more to say than that. I heard Rand Paul, Ron Paul’s son on Hannity’s radio show saying Ron Paul is the only Reagan conservative in the race. This is patently false, Ron Paul is not a conservative at all, he is a Libertarian. That’s all right of course; there is a Libertarian element in the Tea Party that should be represented, I just don’t happen to fall into it. On matters of spending, regulation, private property and free market Libertarianism and conservatism overlap considerably, but on most social issues the Libertarian philosophy is far more akin to the far left (i.e. drug legalization). Ron Paul purports to be the champion of the constitution, but some of his interpretations are questionable, i.e. his views on the war powers act or the view that the legislative branch has the authority to dictate to the judicial what cases it may review. Finally there is no way to be a “Reagan Conservative” without believing in a strong national defense. Rep Paul said in the Fox SC debate, “We bomb and bomb other countries and then wonder why they are upset with us.” I challenge Rep Paul and his supporters to find the poor innocent little country we just decided to go bomb the snot out of. In fact Reagan was ultra-aggressive in military action usually with great success (Grenada, Libya) but sometimes not (Lebanon) but he certainly did not have a live and let live philosophy with nations who threatened us or our allies. In the end Ron Paul is not a viable presidential option, though he would appeal to pot smoking draft dodging democrats in the same way Reagan appealed to working class patriotic Democrats. If that’s the new base we want, go for it, I’ll pass on the whole Ron revolution thing.

Mitt Romney- first off I do not have a problem with Bain Capitol, they invested in underperforming companies, often restructured them, which usually means layoffs and more often then not put those companies on a path of profitability which means job growth. Second I do not have a problem with his investments being taxed at 15% (which is less then Warren Buffet’s poor secretary)  of course investment income is taxed twice, first when it is earned and then after that already taxed money earns a profit that profit is taxed again. As long as he pays his taxes he is doing what is his duty though he is ineligible to be treasury secretary under the Obama administration, I could care less where his money is invested. In fact I have no problem with any of Candidate Romney’s positions. I find his stances on foreign policy, defense and immigration top notch, I think his economic plan is very good though I would like to see a more aggressive tax policy that will do away with the progressive tax code altogether. What I do have a problem with is that the positions of Candidate Romney are far from those of Gov. Romney. Further, Gov.  Romney was unrecognizable next to Senatorial candidate Romney. I think the weakest candidate compared to Obama is Gov. Romney because with him the sharpest Republican weapon blunted. His only objection to Obama-care is that the Federal government does not have the authority to impose government run health care, but he believes such a system when run by a state is wonderful. Somewhere at the core of Mitt Romney’s being there is someone who does not trust free market and free enterprise, therefore I would support Mitt over Obama unwaveringly, but while the race is open, I’d as soon have a better reliable conservative

Newt Gingrich- I’ll confess that early on I considered not even including Newt in this analysis just as I ignored John Huntsman or Gary Johnson, but that would have been a mistake. Newt can articulate conservatism at times in as clear and inspiring a manner as anyone, though at times his campaign has been erratic. All in all his positions are solid though he lags a bit on immigration compared to some in the field. I can not say that Newt’s past sins are not an issue to me but I will say that airing one side of a bad divorce as though it was news is unethical. The biggest thing that has made me take a second look at Newt is the fierce way the establishment has fought against him. It gives me hope, but the personal sins give me pause. I do fancy the thought of Gingrich in a debate with Obama, however.

Rick Santorum- often I have went through issues before Sen. Santorum had released his plans, I.E his economic plan, or his tax plan, and at times I find his specific positions hard to find on his website, still Santorum is a true conservative and a man of character and long term integrity. He did support no child left behind which was intended to redirect education policy toward education rather than social engineering, however to get it passed the liberals were given way too much and the size of government grew.  Also supporting the prescription drug plan was a big mistake. These aside I do not doubt even for a moment that Santorum is a real conservative in all three areas, defense, social and fiscal and he hasn’t the baggage of a Gingrich.

The conventional wisdom has been that Romney had it all wrapped up after all he won Iowa and New Hampshire, just like Jerry Ford! Oh wait a minute when they actually counted the votes Santorum won. So if in spite of outspending everyone by a ton and turning the race negative to a new level, he has only won in a neighboring blue state, this race is still got a long way to go.  

I just hope our candidates remember that liberalism is the enemy and not each other.

Until next time, keep on the firing line.  

Powering the Economic Engine of Freedom

Why didn’t the American Revolution happen in Ireland? The question warrants some thought.  The Irish were oppressed by the British in fact far more severely than were the colonies, they have a proud warrior tradition, a Judeo Christian heritage, access to the works of such men as Thomas Locke who was founder of many of the ideas of the American form of government. Yet it was half a world away that the Golden Age of American Freedom began. The answer is two fold: first is the proximity, it is reasonable to think that the Irish would have struggled to mount a successful campaign for freedom on the British home Isle at the heart of British power, but I think the second reason more compelling. You see the Irish population was decimated and in squalor. Little known to many modern historians a greater percent of the Irish population was sold into slavery than was the African, and those that remained were impoverished and dependent on the crown for what sustenance they could eek out. They simply lacked the strength and resource to mount a revolution of ideas.

In what would become the United States full political freedom was preceded by a measure of religious and economic freedom. Much of the tension that lead to the hostilities in the colonies sprung from British attempts to use the power of the tax to stifle and control the freedoms of the colonists. The American Revolution was in large part due to men who had been successful (i.e. the rich) risking ever thing to preserve economic opportunity for those still to come.

Two notes to public school teachers: slavery is a color blind evil and has oppressed people of all religious, ethnic and geographical boundaries, and the sustainability of religious and political freedom in the USA depends on the free enterprise system remaining strong, and the strength of the American economy rests on the ability to produce adequate energy. Energy equals oil.

Yes it would be good to replace fossil fuels with green energy and I believe that day will come but we are about as close to that as the farm tractor was to replacing the horse in1898.  

You will know when renewable energy has succeeded, the Liberals in congress will cease to want to subsidies it and complain that those accursed rich “big solar” execs don’t pay their fair share of taxes. When the free enterprise system creates and wants effective and affordable resources it will not need to be subsidized.

The Obama administration will point to our becoming an exporter of gasoline as proof of its leadership but remember the savings Obama plan for energy is similar to its plan for immigration, crate less demand through diminished economic activity. Not the plan I wish to support.

Here are some of the Republicans alternate plans.

Mitt Romney-   from Romney’s site As president, Mitt Romney will make every effort to safeguard the environment, but he will be mindful at every step of also protecting the jobs of American workers. This will require putting conservative principles into action.

Significant Regulatory Reform

The first step will be a rational and streamlined approach to regulation, which would facilitate rapid progress in the development of our domestic reserves of oil and natural gas and allow for further investment in nuclear power.

·                                 Establish fixed timetables for all resource development approvals

·                                 Create one-stop shop to streamline permitting process for approval of common activities

·                                 Implement fast-track procedures for companies with established safety records to conduct pre-approved activities in pre-approved areas

·                                 Ensure that environmental laws properly account for cost in regulatory process

·                                 Amend Clean Air Act to exclude carbon dioxide from its purview

·                                 Expand NRC capabilities for approval of additional nuclear reactor designs

·                                 Streamline NRC processes to ensure that licensing decisions for reactors on or adjacent to approved sites, using approved designs, are complete within two years

Increasing Production

The United States is blessed with a cornucopia of carbon-based energy resources. Developing them has been a pathway to prosperity for the nation in the past and offers similar promise for the future.

·                                 Conduct comprehensive survey of America’s energy reserves

·                                 Open America’s energy reserves for development

·                                 Expand opportunities for U.S. resource developers to forge partnerships with neighboring countries

·                                 Support construction of pipelines to bring Canadian oil to the United States

·                                 Prevent overregulation of shale gas development and extraction

Research and Development

Government has a role to play in innovation in the energy industry. History shows that the United States has moved forward in astonishing ways thanks to national investment in basic research and advanced technology. However, we should not be in the business of steering investment toward particular politically favored approaches. That is a recipe for both time and money wasted on projects that do not bring us dividends. The failure of windmills and solar plants to become economically viable or make a significant contribution to our energy supply is a prime example.

·                                 Concentrate alternative energy funding on basic research

·                                 Utilize long-term, apolitical funding mechanisms like ARPA-E for basic research

What I like best about the Romney plan is in italics. As a West Virginian I am further encouraged by these quotes from a key Romney adviser which I pulled from a pro cap and trade site “America has hundreds of years of coal reserves," writes Talent, a Republican and key Romney economic advisor, blaming government regulation for hampering domestic coal mining and other energy production.

“The problem is not that America does not have energy. The problem is that our government – alone among the governments of the world – will not allow its own people to recover the energy that they possess. http://www.grist.org/list/2011-09-14-mitt-romneys-energy-policy-crafted-by-coal-funded-shill

Rick Santorum- I just finished reviewing Sen. Santorum’s key votes on energy and environment and find his record flawless, he is pro-coal, pro-drilling, pro-nuke, and understands how many jobs these activities create. He is staunchly opposed to cap and trade and has favored repeal of CAFÉ standards that help create price and safety issues with vehicles.

Newt Gingrich- from http://www.newt.org/solutions/american-energy-plan

1.                             
Remove bureaucratic and legal obstacles to responsible oil and natural gas development in the United States, offshore and on land.

2.                              End the ban on oil shale development in the American West, where we have three times the amount of oil as Saudi Arabia.

3.                              Give coastal states federal royalty revenue sharing to give them an incentive to allow offshore development.

4.                              Reduce frivolous lawsuits that hold up energy production by enacting loser pays laws to force the losers in an environmental lawsuit to pay all legal costs for the other side.

5.                              Finance cleaner energy research and projects with new oil and gas royalties.

6.                              Replace the Environmental Protection Agency, which has become a job-killing regulatory engine of higher energy prices, with an Environmental Solutions Agency that would use incentives and work cooperatively with local government and industry to achieve better environmental outcomes while considering the impact of federal environmental policies on job creation and the cost of energy.

My favorite idea from Newt’s summary is replacing the EPA that is almost as good as eliminating it altogether. Point #4 is also extremely well taken.

Rick Perry- “We want to help you with the technology and support to develop these oil reserves safely, and when you’re ready to start selling, we want to be one of your best customers.”

-Barack Obama in Brazil, on America importing more offshore oil from Brazil, March 19, 2011, Business Week

Today, unstable countries in the Middle East have the potential to cut off the spigot and do great damage to our economy. Our continued reliance on unstable and hostile countries for energy is as unnecessary as it is dangerous.

My “Energizing American Jobs and Security” plan will commence or expand energy exploration from the Atlantic coast to the western seas off Alaska. We will end the bureaucratic foot-dragging that has reduced offshore drilling permits in the Gulf of Mexico by eighty percent. We will tap the full potential of the Marcellus Shale in Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia. We will unleash exploration in our Western states, which have the potential to produce more energy than what we import from Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait, Venezuela, Columbia, Algeria, Nigeria and Russia combined.

If we do not act, and the Obama Administration’s job-killing bureaucratic rules take effect, America will lose 2.4 million jobs by 2020. With a renewed commitment to developing American energy resources and technology, we will create American jobs – 1.2 million based on various studies. The stark difference between the Perry vision and the Obama vision amounts to 3.6 million jobs in just one sector of our economy. But the ripple effect will impact all sectors of our economy. Manufacturers will benefit from more affordable electricity, in addition to new opportunities to provide goods to energy producers. All sectors of the economy will reap the benefits of a more stable and affordable supply of electricity.

I believe in an “all of the above” energy plan that encourages the development of all our conventional and renewable sources. I will not tolerate the federal bureaucracy’s war on natural gas and coal generation – which are responsible for two-thirds of American electricity generation – because America needs all forms of energy to keep prices stable and meet the demand of our growing population.

As we look to the future, we know developing American energy is vital to creating American jobs. It is vital to keeping the lights on and making electricity affordable for our families, manufacturers and employers.

I believe one of the quickest ways to create jobs and restore investor confidence in America is to expand energy production in America. It is time to end the overregulation, excess litigation and bureaucratic intimidation that has stalled our recovery. Let’s have a “Made in America” energy policy, and make America strong and prosperous again.

Perry’s website included the Obama quote which I found appropriate. His plan also is solid as shale coal.

Ron Paul- FREE MARKET SOLUTIONS

The free market – not government – is the solution to America’s energy needs.

Unfortunately, decades of misguided federal action have helped lead to skyrocketing fuel prices, making it even more difficult for hardworking families to make ends meet.

Washington’s bureaucratic regulations, corporate subsidies, and excessive taxation have distorted the market and resulted in government bureaucrats picking winners and losers.

In fact, much of the “pain at the pump” Americans are now feeling is due to federal policies designed by environmental alarmists to punish traditional energy production – like oil, coal, and natural gas – in hopes of making energy sources they favor more “economical.”

Sadly, even with $4.00 a gallon gasoline, many are attempting to make our energy crisis even worse by working to impose job-destroying carbon taxes, or a “Cap and Tax” system.

As long as we allow federal regulations and bureaucratic red tape to get in the way of energy exploration, our country will never solve its energy crisis, and Americans will continue to pay the price in high costs.

A PRO-ENERGY PRESIDENT

As President, Ron Paul will lead the fight to:

* Remove restrictions on drilling, so companies can tap into the vast amount of oil we have here at home.

* Repeal the federal tax on gasoline. Eliminating the federal gas tax would result in an 18 cents savings per gallon for American consumers.

* Lift government roadblocks to the use of coal and nuclear power.

* Eliminate the ineffective EPA. Polluters should answer directly to property owners in court for the damages they create – not to Washington.

* Make tax credits available for the purchase and production of alternative fuel technologies.

It’s time for a President that recognizes the free market’s power and innovative spirit by unleashing its full potential to produce affordable, environmentally sound, and reliable energy.

Finally after being very critical of many of Ron Paul’s positions, I am very impressed, (no surprise) with his position on energy, and quite honestly among very good plans his is likely the best. Perry and Santorum are also strong in that neither of them sat on a couch with Nancy Pelosi or told a New Hampshire audience they believed in global warming as being man-made. Still this is a winning issue for all our candidates if they should choose to do away with the Bain Capital tit for tat they seem engrossed in.

Until next time, (when we will put a bow on these long months of analyzing the candidates) keep on the firing line.

Immigration part 2

Part 1 was posted 12/20/11

Here are the views as I can glean them of the remaining GOP candidates as it relates to border security and immigration. The field is smaller now, as Rep. Bachman has relented. I have mixed feelings, I don’t think she was fairly represented and I am not sure we didn’t let the media sway us in her case; however any conservative must rise above the murderous and lecherous assaults of the media if they wish to be President and Mrs. Bachman was unable to do so at this time. She remains an American hero in my book but perhaps it is time to stop splitting the conservative vote among candidates who in their own belief realize it’s not their day.

Mitt Romney-

•Immigration: Yea or Nae Yea. “I am a great proponent of legal immigration… Many of you are living proof of the unique strength of America that is constantly renewed by new Americans. The promise of America has brought some of the world’s best and brightest to our shores.” September 2, 2011, speech to the Republican National Hispanic Assembly Convention in Tampa, Florida "I love immigration. I love legal immigrants coming into our country ... My guess is everybody in this room is a descendant of an immigrant or an immigrant himself. So we love immigration as Americans. Immigration brings us education, new cultures, ideas, innovative talent. It's wonderful to have legal immigration. I don't like illegal immigration." February 8, 2007; Radio Iowa News •On Amnesty Very much against. Illegal immigration has got to end and any form of citizenship amnesty is troublesome. September 13, 2007; Midland Reporter-Telegram "The idea of an amnesty-type provision is something I oppose and continue to oppose." 05/23/2007, Newsmax.com •On Legislation "Governor Romney believes more state and local authorities should work with the federal government to enforce immigration laws. This builds off of his experience in Massachusetts where he deputized the State Police to work with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and enforce federal immigration laws ... Governor Romney will provide additional resources to enforce existing immigration laws throughout the nation. We cannot be serious about our immigration laws until we provide the resources needed to enforce them. " November 9, 2007, Official Press Release from MittRomney.com  "We must stop providing the incentives that promote illegal immigration… As governor, I vetoed legislation that would have provided in-state tuition rates to illegal immigrants and I strengthened the authority our state troopers had to enforce existing immigration laws." September 2, 2011, speech to the Republican National Hispanic Assembly Convention in Tampa, Florida "Let me tell you about immigration from my standpoint. I think number one, we should secure out border, and number two, We should put in place an employment verification system. And by that I mean that everybody who is not a United States citizen with a valid social security number would be expected to get a card with their name and number and some biometric information and would indicate their work status. Whether they have a visa that allows them to work here or not. And then when an employer is thinking of hiring someone, if they don't have a valid social security number, he/she ask for the card, they put the number in the computer, and the federal database immediately tells them whether they are available to be working or not. If they're not, you can't hire them. And if you do, you get the same penalties and fines as if you are not paying your taxes." A number of excellent quotes compiled by http://2012.republican-candidates.org/Romney/Immigration.php

Like with most issues Gov. Romney has “evolved” into the more conservative position as his target electorate has changed. That does not mean he is insincere but it surely asks the legitimate question. While some of his earlier statements imply a lean toward amnesty his overall gubernatorial record is not at all bad on the subject.

Of course immigration policy and border control are related issues but not the same issue on the latter Romney has said “Our country must do a better job of securing its borders and as President, I will,” said Romney in a September speech. “That means completing construction of a high-tech fence, and investing in adequate manpower and resources.”

So all in all Romney who in so many ways is the prototypical establishment guy bucks the line on immigration, in fact I recently read an article supposing Romney may be unelectable because his views on immigration mirror the sentiment of most Americans in wanting to fix the border immigration system. (I paraphrase of course) but if Romney governs according to his campaign positions we’ll have no beef with him on immigration.

Rick Santorum- Senator Santorum’s voting record on immigration is consistent, as it is on most issues. He voted against a guest worker program that would have been a code word for amnesty, voted in favor of and continues to support the border fence and all means necessary to give us operational control of the border or as the bill defines it, “physical infrastructure enhancements to prevent unlawful border entry," he supports adequate resources and funds to secure both the physical and maritime borders.

The Senator strongly opposes the participation of illegals in social security and does not believe that any guest worker program should include an expedited path to citizenship. He does believe that a reasonable guest worker program as well as some increase in legal immigration is prudent a position that is reasonable considering that the decrease in illegal immigration that Barrack Obama will boast in is the result of lessened economic activity more than any border interdiction. When the economy does resumes growth there will be an increased need for labor and as their was when the Bush economy plunged unemployment to 4%, (Obama fudges the numbers to create a false 8.5% and we are supposed to celebrate) but this is our country and we need to bring in those workers we need legally and according to our laws and customs. That is the legacy of Ellis Island where people came here legally worked hard and improved their lot with each generation. This by the way is the story of Rick Santorum’s family as well. The only softening of the Santorum position is in regards to how to penalize those who return voluntarily to their home country and file to return.

1. Ron Paul- Talk about a change of position: in 1988 Ron Paul was opposed to having an immigration policy and thought anyone who wanted to work should be welcome, with the caveat that at some point in the future a policy may need to be tightened. Clearly we are there. Today Ron Paul did vote for the security fence, though he felt the other provisions of the law more important than the fence itself. Where Rep. Paul makes the most sense is in pointing out that our current welfare state in essence subsidizes illegal immigration so it is ensured it will grow. Here’s a summary of his current views: Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals.
2. Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas.
3. No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That’s a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws.
4. No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.
5. End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong.
6. Pass true immigration reform. The current system is incoherent and unfair. But current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods.

Newt Gingrich-

"I am not for amnesty for anyone. I am not for a path to citizenship for anybody who got here illegally," he said, according to The Hill.

"But I am for a path to legality for those people whose ties run so deeply in America that it would truly be a tragedy to try and rip their family apart."

The former House speaker broke with the rest of the GOP field on the issue of immigration during a debate last week, calling for a more "humane" immigration policy that allows undocumented immigrants to remain in the United States.

"I do not believe that the people of the United States are going to take people who have been here a quarter century, who have children and grandchildren, who are members of the community, who may have done something 25 years ago, separate them from their families, and expel them," Gingrich said during the debate, broadcast on CNN Nov. 22.

"I don't see how the party that says it's the party of the family is going to adopt an immigration policy which destroys families that have been here a quarter century. And I'm prepared to take the heat for saying, let's be humane in enforcing the law without giving them citizenship but by finding a way to create legality so that they are not separated from their families."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/26/newt-gingrich-immigration-gop-amnesty_n_1114025.html

As we pointed out a while back the whole concept of compassionate illegal immigration is a myth and for Newt to make the long term assimilated grandparents the cornerstone of his stance is puzzling at best. Newt’s has stated that a fence is not a magic wand and is only necessary in high traffic areas but would support building one.

Rick Perry-  Perry ‘s short lived status as front runner  took a beating, and I’ll confess I lost a lot of interest when he made the statement that if you don’t want to educate the children of illegals you have no heart. His granting of instate tuition to these children was a prime example of what Ron Paul has called the subsidizing of illegal immigration. He also opposes a 2,000 mile fence as impractical and supports more “boots on the ground” in stead. I support both. The only real strength in Perry’s position is his support for Federal opposition to the insanity that is the “sanctuary cities” for illegals.

In summary, and this is a rare statement, the only two candidates that present a consistent coherent conservative message are Santorum and Romney, with the edge to Santorum for consistency. 

Why 2012 will be one of the greatest years in American history- or not

I will not lie; it has been extremely difficult to get back into the mentality of writing political and social commentary this week. I am still thinking about Christmas and the coming of the Lord and the blessings of family and freedom. There fore it is necessary to resume the business of defending freedom, because I deeply desire that my grandkids enjoy the same blessings that I have and that I do my part, however small, to pass along the freedoms that my father’s generation passed to me.

For months I’ve been examining the GOP Republican field and I do wish to continue with a study of the candidates views on immigration, but first I want to do something I usually don’t and give some thought to the New Year, and what has to happen if we are to achieve the goal of saving the Republic and passing the baton of exceptionalism to one more generation.  

2012 could be the year that the “tea party” or as I like to call them every day Americans, make huge and sweeping inroads to un seat the Republican establishment and make the GOP a true alternative to the Democrat Party’s extreme leftism.  This is no small task and the resistance is great but it is not only a useful thing to do it is absolutely essential. I am no strategist but I simply do not think we have time to establish a third party, and build its base, to compete in a national election. Even though most Americans are pretty far to the right of the Republican establishment, the push from that group will always be to moderate toward the left, to attract the fictional moderate majority. While the far left, which has total control of the Democrat party sees compromise as a tool to erode the freedom of the constitution in bite sized pieces. This is the John Boehner approach to governing, is it not?  Talk, talk, cave. Talk, talk, cave. We need stronger leadership, and many more true conservatives representing the Republican Party in both houses and in the White House. For the representation to align with the electorate than the Republicans should represent a strong conservative majority, the Democrat Party should represent the views of the McCain’s and Huntsmen’s of the world, the moderate pragmatism if you will, and the Obama-Reid- Pelosi- view should be a marginalized fringe with power in line with the insignificance of the scope of their base. I believe this is entirely possible and 2012 could be the year it happens or at least begins- or it may not.

2012 could be the year that Obama is defeated. I have said many times that I do not believe that defeating Barrack Obama is the goal, it is simply the first step toward the defeat of a mentality and philosophy that is crippling this nation and undermining the foundation on which our liberty stands. These ideas began to be put in place in 1912, they surged forward with the New Deal in the 1930’s, the war on poverty in the 1960’s, and the passage of Obama care in the first decade of this century. Obama and his minions merely busted through a bulwark that had been pounded for a century. You see electing someone else is not enough, we must defeat every idea every initiative of the left. 2010 was a disappointment in that we did not bring the ship of freedom back to the shore, but take heart we did throw out an anchor to stop the drifting out to sea. What small improvement we have seen is the result of Obama being stopped from doing any more whole sale harm. Don’t get me wrong, the justice department and EPA have plenty of power to destroy freedom and economic progress without the constitutional process of law. Not reelecting Obama is as crucial as breathing but it is just one step and a very small one at that. We must change the very nature of the debate from how much government may do to how much we can shrink government. We must change the debate from how much might we slow spending to how much we can really cut. 2012 could be the year, or it may not.

2012 could be the end, not the beginning of the end we are well passed that, or it could be a new beginning. We the people will decide. A while ago I was in a prayer meeting at my church and I looked up at the flags, and I really felt that the still small voice of the Lord said to me, “I am not finished with that flag yet”. Don’t get me wrong I am no prophet, America is not eternal, nothing on a finite Earth can be, but I believe with all my heart that the time of American greatness has one more time, that the day in which the Stars and Stripes calls out “Freedom and Justice” to all the world has another generation, or so to go before the end of all things. 2012 could be the year- or not.

You decide.

Until next time keep on the firing line.