Did Ted Cruz Really Win Every County in Maine?

The Boston Globe and 2 local papers didn't give him a chance. He didn't win a single county in Massachussetts 4 days earlier. Did Cruz really win EVERY county in Maine?

By Cruz Camp's Own Admission, Heidi Should Be Thoroughly Vetted

The head of the Ted Cruz campaign has said Heidi is Ted's closest adviser. The FEC violations involve her current employer. No personal attacks, just a necessary professional evaluation of Heidi Cruz's role in the Cruz Crew.

How Ted Cruz Can Stop Immigration Abuse NOW!

As a self-described "constitutional expert" Canadian born Cruz could do us all a great service to stop illegal immigration by simply answer 4 teeny weeny questions...

The Complete Concordance of Cruz Corruption, Deceptions and Lies

Reagan was attacked by the Establishment, but people LIKED him. Cruz on the other hand is despised by mild mannered Huckabee and "sealed lips" George W. There is a reason. Here is an (almost) complete compendium of Cruz lies.

Why Isn't Anyone Discussing the SCOTUS Ruling on Natural Born Citizen?

There is a lie being told that "Natural Born Citizen" is not defined anywhere in the Constitution. That's True. What's Not True is that it is NOT settled by the Supreme Court. (It has)

Why I'm Happy To (Now) Be A Texan

In honor of @pmbasse, a descendant of one of the original 300 Texas settlers, I want to tell you WHY I LOVE TEXAS. As they say, I wasn't born here but I got here as soon as I could. And for me that was 3 times.

Ted Cruz Takes More Wall Street Money than Hillary Clinton

When you see who REALLY is running Ted's campaign, you realize how "inside" this pretend outsider is. The top CIA, Goldman Sachs executives are LITERALLY running his campaign.

The PolitiJim Twitter FF List

The most rewarding and frustrating experience on Twitter has to be the concept of Follow Friday. I have a solution. See where PolitiJim gets his news, and twinteraction from.

Wednesday, November 30, 2011

Not Wild With West to Cain: Stop the Train


Allen West is a patriot and a fine conservative.  I wouldn’t presume to tell him what to do.  And he shouldn’t be guilty of the same transgression to Herman Cain.  This from the Weekly Standard:

Rep. Allen West, a Tea Party favorite from Florida, tells radio station WMAL that Herman Cain is a "distracter":

Republican Presidential candidate Herman Cain has become a distraction in the race, says GOP Congressman Allen West.

"Beyond reassessing his campaign, he probably needs to understand that he is a distracter for what's going on right now and we should move on," said West, a Republican congressman who represents Florida.

As I posted today even prior to the new Florida and National results, Newt is almost certainly the nominee based on 4 key factors.  I think not only is Cain cooked, Bachmann is baked and Perry is all puckered out.  But I have the same problem with CALLING on them to get out as I did when many were telling Palin to give up the ghostly apparition of a run.  It’s not of their (or my) damn business.

I wont go back to the “Screw you Erick Erickson” rant (I’m more mature now, you know,)  but the points I made there still stand.  These candidates have already put their reputations, fortunes and political futures on the line.  Who are we to tell them when or how to run or quit?

It is no more conservative than telling someone else how to spend their money.  I’m just now getting over Allen West’s betrayal of the Jim DeMint “HOLD THE LINE” battle cry during the budget debate.  Like Ryan, they folded like a cheap suit and West of all people should have realized the enormous danger that deal put our defense budget (and readiness) in.

Cain’s voice and input on “9-9-9” are still useful to keep Newt, Mitt and nation educated on why the current tax structure needs to go.  In the free market of political ideas, his timing will take care of itself.

Lessons Learned Now that Newt is the Nominee


Newt Gingrich will be the Nominee of the Grand Old Party.  I can’t be the only one who senses that we conservatives have finally given up our infatuation with Ronald Reagan in a skirt, our Cowboy romantic fantasies and a Democrat-demographic crushing Cover-Grail and settled for the Gingrich Next Door.  Let’s quickly look at what polling reinforces this conclusion and second, what we have learned as conservatives in the process.


949901012522016 1. No Surprises.  No one (outside of Texans) had ever heard a Rick Perry speech – let alone a debate until after the Iowa caucuses in July.  Many of these candidates were – to us - like that cool cell phone we think we’ll like, until we find out the battery life is measured in terms of minutes rather than days. Show me the next phone.  Cain had scandals and Bachmann was the unfortunate victim of a Perry false promise.  We already KNOW Newt.  As Charles Hurt says, Gingrich HAS been vetted and his dirty laundry is well known, rewashed and folded.  Gloria Allred won’t get any clients or airtime. Every other candidate who fell, did so because of an education process by the base, and the thrill of a new scandal treasure hunt by the media.  Candidates rise in the polls ONLY because we either think they can beat Obama, or firmly govern from unwavering conservative policies.  There will be nothing new in Newt that will change EITHER of these, baring a health problem or sudden entrance of Sarah Palin.

2. Intensity.  Gallup released their “positive intensity” poll showing the former Speaker the ONLY GOP candidate in double digits (20) with a double digit lead (11) over Romney at 9.  Back in July/August he hovered in low single digits while we flirted with Michelle and Rick (and leaving our dance card open for Sarah.)  Notice however all other candidates intensity except Cain never truly rose from their initial introduction to the base.  It’s like dating.  People can not hide who they truly are for long.  Whether it is 3 dates or 3 months, at some point you feel hope, horror or hopeless indifference at the prospect of a long term relationship.  Gingrich is not only consistently rising since we first saw all the candidates on display in Iowa side-by-side for the first time, ALL other candidate interest is falling – not even maintaining a plateau.  And unlike others who fell as new ones rose – Gingrich has risen WHILE all others were rising.  I suspect Bachmann is the only person who we haven’t gotten a fair shot to “know” yet, but it looks like the Newt momentum won’t give her another chance.

3. Anti-Romney Trends.  People who think the race has been chaotic only do so through a personality purview.  The polls have been CONSISTENTLY 75% to 80% anti-Massachusetts Mitt nearly the entire year.  Everyone else was trying different horses on the Merry-Go-Round but NEVER sat in that stupid bench they always stick in the middle.  And it is interesting that the FIRST time Romney has had a significant fall in enthusiasm, is ONLY with the rise of Newt.  I suspect this means that Newt is not only inheriting Cain supporters, but possibly those attracted to the “articulate politician with government experience” type.  While many of us are sick of politicians in general – Hurt highlights the fact that Newt never really was part of the GOP establishment but certainly has a “experience” to appeal to shoppers concerned about a government inner-workings newbie.  Newt is unique in being RINO friendly without seeming like a total sellout.  The establishment crowd who always want a Harvard Political Science major – can actually settle for Newt, much more than a Tea Partier could toast the Mitch Daniels or Chris Christies.

4. Newt Friendly Primary Calendar.  We have suspected Romney would do better in blue, northern primary states and tea party supported candidates would dominate the South.  The GOP has many more “winner take all” primaries AFTER APRIL, but at the moment, Gingrich stands to do exceedingly well in the first 5 primaries.  Romney wrote off Iowa long ago and Gingrich has a commanding lead there.  New Hampshire, a supposed “gimmie” for Mitt has been narrowed to only a 10 point lead, AND DELEGATES WILL BE APPORTIONED relative to the vote.  It’s not a winner take all.  I don’t know how important the New Hampshire Union Leader endorsement has been in the past, but it should be noted the narrowing NH margin happened BEFORE that announcement.  Gingrich doesn’t need to place first to take a commanding delegate lead with Iowa, a healthy 2nd place in New Hampshire and cleaning up in South Carolina where he leads by 20 points.  If New Hampshire Nods to Newt over Mitt – it is highly unlikely Florida would be enough to save Mitt perhaps repeating the 2008 scenario where McCain forced Romney out by Super Tuesday building an insurmountable lead.  Romney's New Hampshire lead reversely correlated to Michelle Bachmann’s strength although you will notice a dip with the rise of Newt below:


While Romney has dropped from 42 to 34 while loosing ground to Newt in New Hampshire the past three weeks, Florida shows similar patterns to the national polls.  Romney’s high was 33 and is down to 21 (depending upon which poll you believe.)  The last poll was early November when Cain was up by 6.  If Florida indeed tracks closely to the national polls, it is quite likely that Gingrich could have a commanding 10 point lead there also by the first of the year.  (Again – look at the almost exact reverse mirror movements of Bachmann’s campaign with Romney.)  UPDATE: Poll released overnight has Gingrich at 41, Romney 17, Cain 13 in Florida. Damn PolitiJim is Good!


The takeaway here is that Florida is not only winnable for Newt, but even if he looses and ALL the delegates go to Romney he would only be slightly behind  in cumulative delegates with Colorado/Maine/Minnesota/Nevada one week later where Newt seems to have a fair shot to make up the difference.  Southern-loaded Super Tuesday (26% of all national delegates) is a month later and states like Texas are winner take all affairs. (Indispensible primary delegate calendar, rules and tally here.)

I know Mitt has money and can run a million ads to try and skew current numbers, but it seems improbable that he would win Florida where Cain (whose voters and momentum Newt should inherit) has held a 6 point lead. 

So I conclude that none of the other candidates have any basis for a resurgence either from some new glorious reason (like a 999 plan) to vote FOR them, or a terrible revelation against Newt.  He has spent his last 20 years heavily working in the family values worlds writing books and producing movies like why GOD needs to be in America and American history.  The Freddie Mac stuff has been proven to be likely exactly what Newt said.  I don’t see how Newt can loose this lead.


With the massive moves of Perry, Bachmann and Cain, the fake outs by Palin, Ryan and Christie, we should have learned something in this process and I’ll take my shot at it.  Just three (of 100) points in no particular order:

anncoulter 1. Not all conservatives are conservative.  Ann Coulter wanted to push a pro-amnesty, pro-global warming anti-2nd Amendment candidate because he she had a fantasy cage match with Obama and SEIU dancing in her head.  Romney (or anyone for that matter) can claim they are conservative because of one position which may or may not be a position they held 10 years ago.  It’s great that our side likes the term unlike Democrats who reenact Usain Bolt’s 100 meter dash World Record in running away from the label “liberal.”  But there ought to be a blood test or something so we know who and what we are dealing with in the media or among ourselves.

2. We have some stupid conservatives.  No seriously.  Every candidate has weird followers and Cain, Palin, Paul and Perry each had a small minority that were so mesmerized by theirs, peyote would have helped them see clearer.  Confirmation Bias and Information Cascade will corrupt the most sincere “smaller government” advocates who are too quick to believe everything their candidate or favorite conservative talk show host tell them.  There is a LOT of information, so independent research on EVERY issue isn’t always possible.  But jumping to conclusions about past positions, proclamations or personal matters injure more than just your ego when you turn out to be wrong.  Examples?  Palin was right on death panels, PolitiJim was right in arguing against the debt ceiling (Boehner Bill 2.0) compromise and Erick Erickson was wrong on pushing Perry and dismissing early polling of Cain with great condescension. (As I’ve admitted before even I was wrong once….when I thought I was wrong once.)

3. We HAVE to keep respectfully challenging each other. And especially our candidates.  I’ve been physically sick at the personal attacks on each other, but very heartened by many who showed humility when they turned out to be wrong.  We are all learning and will need these bonds to fight Obama and the liberal plague that isn’t just a problem at the Federal level, but especially our state and local battles.  The Perry or Palin supporter you alienate today, could have been your greatest help on a school board fight and probably agree with you on 99% of the OTHER issues.  It is a challenge to simultaneously be patient and intellectually open to another’s position, while simultaneously challenging assumptions in a respectful manner.  ESPECIALLY when your opposition is acting less than mature.

999 One quick example was Cain’s 9-9-9 unfairly slammed by people just because it wasn’t THEIR candidate.  99 percent of those arguing on twitter didn’t know a flat tax from a fair tax (or which Cain’s was) let alone just READ the entire thing and wait for opinions to settle.  Some acted like Cain had proposed Sharia law and others like it was the NEXT Ten Commandments.  Arthur Laffer, Cato Institute, Heritage and others quickly affirmed it was the single biggest step toward conservative ideals any major candidate has ever proposed since Reagan.  Others still foolishly argued that the sales tax could be raised ignoring the EXACT same problem with ANY plan with ANY number.  In the end, it moved the debate forward, taught us all (hopefully) a lot about what these things should and should not accomplish and hopefully the best parts will championed by us all and adopted by our nominee.

4. Honesty Must Be Paramount.  My most popular posts so far this primary season seem to have been calling out media and conservatives.  I am NOT being disrespectful to the office by saying that the current occupant is a lying scumbag who intentional deceives even his own party to further a malicious philosophy intent on destroying the foundations of this country.  Obama IS a Marxist and surrounds himself with such.  He lied to get into office and continues to strategically lie and obfuscate though his Wizard of Oz curtain is more transparent by the minute.  And we despise those who don’t question what he says or what he is doing (or has done) all the while ferociously defending him.  Then when truth comes out and is obvious to all they ignore it, change the subject or even attack those who brought it to light.  It is the core of Rules for Radicals originally dedicated to Lucifer (yes that one) by Saul Alinsky.  And some of our people – so called conservatives – have done the same thing bringing disgrace to the conservative cause.  Not only do we need to require honesty from our opponents, but also from our leaders.  And not just from our leaders – from ourselves.

And these points are critical because we have a battle ahead.  Some of you are still hanging on to your Train or hope of an Alaskan grizzly resurging and that’s fine.  But if I’m right (and I am of course), we might only get one chance at a neighbor, co-worker, friend or family member.

250x169GodUnplgdBookletPDF0 I can’t tell you the number of people I’ve met that want NOTHING to do with Christianity, because of an experience with a bad Christian.  Going forward we will bleed in battle and have a riot (both literal and figurative most likely.)  But we have to become better people to win the war of ideas.  We aren’t Muslims (the vast majority of us at least) so we don’t read a holy book that commands submission through force.  And I don’t know about you but I’m much more willing to listen to ideas from someone who is respectful and gives me respect than a dismissive arrogant blowhard.  And if I listen – I certainly have a better chance of learning.  I hope we all are.

Monday, November 28, 2011

Sex Scandals Can’t Stain Cain


Daren Jonescu of Canada Free press has written an article called Cain’s World.  When he begins with “Herman Cain knows too little about foreign policy to be President of the United States,” I am actually a little bit DEFENSIVE of Cain preparing for another attack on a good conservative.  Instead, Jonescu pulls a bait and switch. He attacks (unfairly in my opinion) Gingrich and glosses over the problems with Cain. Go figure.  My (likely poor) summation of his points:

  • Cain’s fall is all because people still believe the sexual allegations, and it gave an excuse for lookey-Lou’s to jump to Newt.
  • The Republican Establishment coordinated with the liberal media and played a “gotcha game” with Cain on foreign policy because he was an “outsider.”
  • Cain answers aren’t any worse than Palin’s “I can see Alaska” and should be respected for saying he doesn’t know anything.
  • Newt is a flip-floppin’, political phony with profuse moral failings.

Sex Scandals Can’t Stain Cain – Lying and Lying Followers Can

With the new sexual affair allegations coming out, (Ginger White is her name,) I think it is important to rally around Herman Cain unless there is 100% convincing proof he is lying (I don’t think he is by the way. This woman lost a libel lawsuit.)  I think the evidence the Obama/Axlerod machine is at work is more and more transparent since Obama seems to be counting on racial division to get him re-elected in 2012.  (The NYTimes ran an article today essentially confirming what Ulstermann Report has been saying for months.)

As Dick Morris explained a week or two ago, the impact of the sexual allegations (except among conservative women) has been marginal.  By and large 3/4ths of conservatives have dismissed the charges and, as you know, on the first surge of accusations - he actually maintain a strong lead.  Morris says that the Clinton affair taught him most people don’t WANT to know.  I can’t imagine this is true in the conservative community to the same extent it is in the general voter population, but he had effectively rebuffed these charges quickly.

Dick Morris Discusses Cain Accusations

Cain’s fall in the polls can be traced more accurately to the Lincoln/Douglass style debate.  (Don’t get me started that it was NOTHING like the Lincoln Douglass debate itself).  Cain's thrice shy response to avoid answering questions first from a conservative congressman moderator did more (in my opinion) to shake the confidence of those taking a test drive on Cain Train than any other factor.

DJ complains that Nervous Nellies bailed on Mr. Cain due to perfect storm of false scandals and RINO-LIB motivated attacks.  Well pardon me.  None of the candidates automatically deserve our support.  Cain had less “strong support” than either Perry or Bachmann and couldn’t maintain it.  How will he do when battled in a general election or once in office?  Is it MY devotion to him, or his ability to earn my devotion that makes a good president?  They must earn it.  More so with candidates we have never met or evaluated before.  This is a job interview.  We know what we are getting with Gingrich and Romney not just because we can evaluate their positions and track record giving us MUCH more data to go on - but we can watch their REACTIONS and RESPONSES to issues.

Herman Cain has had curious responses to not just foreign policy, but a simple question on his views of abortion.  It turns out Cain may be the strongest pro-Life candidate in the field except Santorum and HAS put over a million dollars of his own money behind it.  That is better than a congressional vote record any day.  It is also why - after OTHERS (not even his campaign) pointed out his pro-Life credentials, it hasn't come up since.   But if one of Cain's strengths is supposed to be his ability to communicate - how can he be so continually inept at answering straight forward questions?  If my big three issues on car buying is price, looks and gas mileage - and the price is way too high - that car salesman still has a shot at me.  But if the salesman can't PROVE it really saves gas, do you get mad at the customer for not buying it "on faith" when it will take a month of driving to figure out if it did indeed do well in that regard?  Of course not.

A series of blunders by Cain following or horrific performance by Cain at the Lincoln/Douglass debate reinforced the idea that Cain may not just be well versed in foreign affairs, he may not even make the right choices on conservative principles with the necessary data.  He would release Gitmo terrorists conditionally.  It is what he said.  He isn't aware of the details of a war initiated in the past year with US ground troops CURRENTLY on the ground, or what Obama's position and actions have been in that country (Libya.)  And forgive me if I want a leader that doesn't have to that our largest creditor has nuclear weapons and has had them since 1960. 

DECISION MAKING.  Cain keeps saying that he is a great decision maker and hires good people.  A campaign would be a great place to demonstrate that and yet he continues to hire sub-par (if not embarrassing) campaign and advertising staff promising us that when he is in charge of the US economy and a nuclear bomb he'll do just fine.  For now we have to evaluate his ability to sell pizza to stoned college kids, albeit profitably.  THIS is what is holding Cain back.  He isn't demonstrating an ability to recruit and run a team NOW.  It is all the data we have to go on and he is failing.  Miserably.

And let's assume that he hires good people and can make decisions. Do we have time for Cain to understand the entire nuance of China/US relations, China's internal policy and before having to make a decision that may be required in a split second?  Hell no.  That is WORSE than a flip flop.  Even Romney wouldn't need a week to be educated on China's currency manipulation and economic models to INCLUDE that understanding when making a decision.  I almost got lockjaw from my mouth flying open when Cain suggested his 9-9-9 plan would be an answer to make American goods competitive with China.  China keeps their currency artificially low SO THAT they have an unfair competitive advantage.  Trade with China might not even be a central issue when determining a US economic policy - but the lack of HOW it would impact surrounding issues isn't just a benign political argument. 

HillaryAnswerCall How will Herman Cain respond at 3 a.m. in the morning to a nuclear attack by Pakistan on India?  We have no idea because Herman has no idea and he will rely on the advice of an unknown Secretary of Defense or Secretary of State whom hasn't even been hired yet.  The world is getting WORSE, not better.  China has increased their cyberwar effort and escalating their military spending.  Russia is hinting at reinstating communist control.  More nations adopted sharia-loving regimes than at any time since Mohammad was "marrying" 9 year old little girls.  I don't think expecting a candidate to have a remote idea of the MECHANICS of a policy that would stop Iran from getting nukes (other than drilling for more oil in the US which was Cain's answer) is "accepting a RINO."   How would Cain even know WHO to hire if he doesn't have the basic grasp of the situation before he puts someone else in control of it?

I’m not trying to say Cain would be terrible.  Or that he wouldn’t be better than Obama.  I am sure he would.  But a reporter asked Cain recently about an issue on Iran and (no kidding) Cain answered him "9-9-9."  Sorry, that isn't a conservative answer.  Neither is praise for Alan Greenspan who was Cain’s favorite Federal Reserve Chairman.  We wouldn't let a Democrat or liberal get by with that, and it is embarrassing that some want us to just "accept" Mr. Cain because he is a good church going man. 

PerryRock And while we all admire a 43 year marriage and a vocal commitment to Christ, can I ask where the repentance is in accusing both the Romney and Perry campaigns for the false accusations with ZERO proof of the sexual harassment attacks?  Last I looked in my Bible, gossip and slander were no less of a sin than adultery and murder.  And where is the apology and public repentance to Governor Perry for trying to insinuate he was a racist because of where he went hunting? Is this the action of a God fearing Christian?  Yet I get emails daily from Cain supporters who act more like propagandists for Pravda than Christian conservatives.  Although I am convinced Cain is innocent of the worst harassment charges, conservative Iowa talk show host Steve Deace has testified that he WITNESSED Cain making inappropriate remarks to two of his employees.  Sorry if I am NOT convinced Cain is Jesus Christ.  And Newt most certainly is not the devil.  I am convinced of is that many conservatives are not worthy to wear that title.  Especially with Alinsky character assassination.

Newt's personal problems don't plague him because A) he has publicly confessed his failings where they occurred, B) he hasn't repeated them, C) his own daughter has put to rest many of the false accusations, and D)  the man has been consistent in pushing for morality in our "civilization" for 20 years now after his own failings.  His "flip flops" - for anyone intellectually honest enough to study them - don't belie a hidden liberal.  We don't despise ALL of Washington and Jefferson's actions because they owned slaves.  Similarly, when the Heritage Foundation is "for" an individual mandate and the "father" of the conservative movement signs legislation to allow amnesty and raise taxes - it is a bit misleading to assume Newt's views were that of flaming liberal in the prosperity of another era.  Hell, Churchill LED the dismantling of the British fleet following WW1.  Would you really not want him to lead the United Kingdom in War World 2?

PalinCouricInterview I'm not white washing Newt or trying to dissuade those from following Cain.  I like both men and could live with either as the GOP nominee.  I am, however trying to be ACCURATE.  And falsely accusing Sarah Palin of mentioning that you can see Russia from Alaska (which you can) is a poor response (and lazy research) to the truth. CBS has never released the full footage from the interview, but Palin explains in Going Rogue:

Though Katie edited out substantive answers, she dutifully kept in the moments where I wore my annoyance on my sleeve. For instance, when she asked me how living in Alaska informed my foreign policy experience, I began by trying to frame the geographical context. Lower 48ers grow up seeing our state tucked with Hawaii in a little square off the coast of Mexico on the nightly news weather map. So I began by trying to squeeze a geographical primer into a ten-second sound bite, explaining that only a narrow maritime border separates Alaska from Russia, that we're very near the Pacific Rim countries, and that we're bordered by Canada. But Katie interrupted and I did not complete my answer. I wish now I had stopped her and said, "Here's the geographical context. Now may I answer your question?" (p. 274)

So do you believe the only conservative voice in the 2008 election who largely facilitated the tea party movement or the former morning talk show host whose network promoted faked military documents to try and derail George W. Bush?  Do you really want to make THAT argument?  Until I SEE the footage for myself, I don't' think I'm terribly wrong to give more weight to Palin's recollection than the media's fact-devoid line.  I think I’m even righter (PolitiJim grammar) to wonder why a supposedly conservative supporter of Cain would want to trash another iconic conservative falsely to make a point.

Do you really want to compare the records of a successful Governor that dealt with international shipping and water rights, border control, national guard duties and military bases with an ordained minister, talk show host and successful CEO from Atlanta?  Why?  Why demean (and falsely misrepresent) Palin to make your candidate look better?  Those that continue to trash other conservatives - especially without well documented facts - end up embarrassing themselves and loosing credibility.

Is the very solid, conservative New Hampshire Union Leader correct in endorsing Gingrich over the rest of the field?  To me Gingrich is like Captain D's seafood dinner.  

It doesn't taste too bad while you're eating it but you remember the health code violation from years back and quite can't enjoy it like that fine Santa Barbara seafood restaurant.  We do know this.  Gingrich allowed himself to be interrogated by the NHUL editorial board.  Cain refused.  I seem to recall a number of us screamingly "Holy hell" over Obama's unwillingness to be interviewed by Fox News.  It was Cain who himself said, “I’m not supposed to know anything about foreign policy?”  Let's try not to be hypocrites and not hold OUR guys to the same standards we used on the Liberals, ok?  I think those wishing for Newt’s demise might better focus on why Bill Clinton praised Gingrich this weekend.  THAT is what has me really concerned.

in my book, honesty is honesty no matter where the needle points.  And if conservatives can’t be honest about the pluses and minuses of their candidates – how can we ever gain credibility with independents or liberals?

So what is an honest view of Cain and Gingrich?  They BOTH are pro-life, pro-Israel, claim to care about the Constitution and reducing government.  Newt has both a longer ‘Con” list and “Pro” list than Cain, mostly because we know more about him.


Can do more damage to the Democrat Party than anyone and his inspirational story focus poor on hard work rather than hand outs.

Can defend conservative position in media and debates better than anyone and would eviscerate Obama on policy and knowledge.

9-9-9 may be most aggressive economic growth plan put forth and certainly understands creating jobs and reducing regulation.

Has a very good track record of creating a national agenda to elect conservatives, balance the budget and implement welfare reform.


Understands the government machine which may help in dismantling revising.


We have no idea if running a successful business will translate to governing.

Newt has proven he has a ton of ideas but has held a LOT of positions that are not purely conservative .

Has proven he simply does not understand US or foreign policy on a host of issues and if he will have a Dan Quayle moment that could kill him in a general election.

Newt still doesn’t understand current data on global warming and showed bad judgment on Pelosi’s couch, Dede Scofozza and (most importantly) Paul Ryan.


We have no idea if he will “flip” on TARP, role of Federal Reserve and (frankly) any issue but pro-life because he has no record from which to extrapolate.

Unsure if pride or being an “insider” will corrupt him as it did when he was Speaker.


Newt’s mixed record of government programs leaves us unsure if truly believes in limited government. 


The “compassion” over “conservative” reasoning make us wonder if he is guided by conservative core principles and if he would settle for amnesty.

We can be assured that the Democrats and media will not fight fair, and will be tougher on our candidate than they are on their own.  As always (going back to How to Pick A GOP Candidate), the question is not just who is more ELECTABLE, but also who will effectively SELL conservative policies to the masses and GOVERN fearlessly and conservatively.
Neither of these guys are God or Goofy.  But I’m leaning toward categorizing conservatives who want to myopically do so to either one of them into the latter.

Sunday, November 27, 2011

Did NH Endorsement Allude to Palin?


The New Hampshire Union Leader endorsed Newt Gingrich today with many points PolitiJim has made over the past few weeks.  The single most compelling reason (but still not conclusive for me) is Newt’s accomplishment with Contract For America, Welfare Reform and obtaining a Balanced Budget with a Democratic President.  In all fairness, the accomplishment was as much as Bill Clinton’s complicity to tack right after his terrible miscues of health care and moral failings – but Newt did take most of the opportunity to drive home true conservative plans.

This line however was interesting:

Newt Gingrich is by no means the perfect candidate. But Republican primary voters too often make the mistake of preferring an unattainable ideal to the best candidate who is actually running.

This follows the very conservative Union Leader stating that they don’t agree with Gingrich on every issue.  (It is only my speculation that the reference of those telling them what they wanted to hear must allude to Romney.)

Was the Union Leader alluding to Palin to a more idealistic candidate with whom they DID agree more?  There certainly would be no other candidates.

It reflects continued dissatisfaction among Palin fans as well as many who are tired of inauthentic Republicans claiming the “conservative” label without the essential qualities needed not only to get elected, but to fight for conservative principles once in office.  In my series, HOW TO PICK A GOP CANDIDATE, Newt certainly comes the closest in an objective grading of the 3 essential candidate criteria.  While the Union Leader likely made the right call in saying,

He has the experience, the leadership qualities and the vision to lead this country in these trying times. He is worthy of your support on January 10.

Many hearts and minds are still focused on the former Alaskan Governor to be a VP candidate if she does not reconsider running for the top slot.  In any event, while there might be better political selections for the general election strategy, offering the spot to Palin would certainly bring an enthusiastic base of support Gingrich can replicate.  It would also reassure those of concerned about maintaining a steadfast commitment to dismantle ineffective government by tasking Palin to do for the country (and the party) – what she was able to do in Alaska.

Saturday, November 26, 2011

Is A Conservative Immigration Plan A Loser?

slaughterforelephantsIn this Part 3, we will look at American attitudes on immigration with the likelihood a ‘conservative’ plan could be implemented.  Is this one instance where being conservative will kill us politically?  At the end of this post, the PolitiJim solution will be laid out (and embraced of course) as the best idea for immigration reform
Part 1 is about why holding people accountable for breaking the law is important and a little more complete understanding of Newt’s consistent immigration stance as well as what he did NOT say. 
Part 2 laid out THE ULTIMATE CONSERVATIVE IMMIGRATION PLAN and the ECONOMIC REALITIES all of these plans must meet.  All part links are here:

Part 1 – Law and Order & What Newt DIDN’T Say
Part 2 – Newt’s Plan and the Economic Realities
Part 3 – The Political Realities & PolitiJim’s Solution

A reminder of why NO concrete plan is not possible:

  • We don’t know who is here, where they are what they are up to.
  • We aren’t controlling the RIGHT type of immigrants, much less the right number
  • Even if we aren’t loosing many jobs to illegals (which we aren’t quite sure of), the “bad” illegals who use our education and healthcare systems also over burden our law enforcement officials.  In many jurisdictions, illegals are less likely to go to jail than American citizens because of the misplaced “tolerance” to race.

Thanks to Newt, just like Cain’s 9-9-9 plan gave us something to critique – immigration is now up, and I’m glad for it.  We all pretty much agrees the border needs to be fastened down tighter than spandex on Rosie O’Donnell.  But WHAT DO WE DO with the illegal immigrants already here?  In part 2 we learned that it would take five years and possibly as much money as we spent on TARP to “throw the bums out.  Fourteen Million plus Illegal Immigrants and likely
3 Million US citizen children to illegal parents.

AngryCrotchetyCoffeeBird What we also have is an anger on behalf of many of us that are upset these people could freely break our laws coming into the country, and do so without consequence.  It particularly irks us that they enjoy the fruits paid for in blood by generations of people that believed in “freedom” AND “abiding by the law.” And the discussion that they could “cut in line” in front of millions who have gone about entering our country the RIGHT way, makes us puke.

Many who argue for allowing these people to stay under some arrangement to make them “legal” (but not citizens) seem to have four arguments:

  • They are an economic benefit to the US and do jobs we wont.
  • They are good, hardworking people just trying to earn a living.
  • If we don’t allow illegals to stay, they US Hispanics will all vote Democratic and Republicans will never win another election.
  • Many already here are good people who have paid US taxes and it would tear families and communities apart to make them leave.

To the last point, most of us respond, “Boo, frickin’ hoo.”  And it is NOT “unChristian” to protect our borders from being overrun by people who don’t respect our laws.  Lying, disobeying national laws and not submitting to authority are every bit a part of God’s good book as is “loving your neighbor” and entertaining visitors.  La Shawn Barber has a great piece on a Christians view of immigration here.

american flag What the people who espouse these views as “reasons” to allow illegals to stay and get off scott-free do not understand is that TRUE conservatives are people of principle.  You could promise the resurrection of Ronald Reagan and we still would not depart from our principles of honesty and integrity. 

Can we agree that WHATEVER the plan is, it must come from an acknowledgement that “illegals”:

  • must acknowledge that they BROKE our laws.
  • must have a significant consequence for breaking our laws.
  • they will not be allowed preferential treatment just for having gotten away with breaking the laws for a long time.

With no apologies to Newt and Rick, WE ARE A COMPASSINATE country.  We donate more money to charity (and international missions and relief) than liberals and any other people on the planet.  Most of us help our families, friends and neighbors without a second thought for our own wellbeing if they truly need it.  And we don’t look for attention or glory, thanking God we were able to do it.

But excuse us if we would like our generosity to come from our own free will rather than have it extorted from us.

However.  It seems we are not only a minority in the country,  We may be so in our own party.  Even if we wanted to implement the “Ultimate Conservative Immigration Plan,” the question is could we?  Or we would end up doing what we despise the liberals of doing to us with Obamacare - implementing legislation AGAINST the majority of the voters?  It seems from this chart below, most Americans DO believe that getting a handle on the border is more about creating a system for illegals to work here than just enforcing laws.

DemRepubImmigrationChart"Which will do most to strengthen the border –
increasing laws or create a guest worker program?”


But we conservatives aren’t alone in our immigration angst. Here is how Americans feel about the number of illegals here:

Angry Dissatisfied Satisfied Pleased
23% 51% 20% 6%

Pretty interesting that three quarters of Americans are either angry or dissatisfied, right?  Here is a quick overview of what Americans feel about different hot button issues on immigration.


Simply allow illegals to work legally

43% 55%

Impose stricter laws instead of illegal integration into society

66% 24%

Like AZ Law to enforce Fed Laws

73% 26%

Impose Fines on Employers hiring illegals

64% 35%

Ok for local/state cops to ask for citizenship papers of people they stop.

84% 13%

Should we make it easier for illegals to become citizens?

31% 66%

Illegals cost money to the government instead of paying their fair share of taxes

62% 32%

It looks the vast majority are all on the same page, right? What’s the big deal? Newt must be a friggin’ moron to have endorsed this other program, right? Add in these questions and the picture isn’t quite as clear:


Favor a way for illegals to be US citizens?

48% 50%

Change 14th Amendment to disallow US citizenship to children born here to illegals

45% 48%

Deport illegals (Favor) or give way to be legal residents (Oppose)

45% 49%

Illegals take jobs Americans don’t want, not jobs Americans want -  (Favor = yes)

62% 34%

When breaking down the numbers it seems that for MOST Americans understand the severity of illegals being here, but don’t have the stomach to send them across the border FEDEX. Again, I’m not using polls as the DECISION MAKER of what we should do – just trying to find out how many people already agree with the general conservative stance, and how many need to be waterboarded, I mean persuaded.  (Sorry, my Chicago roots are showing.)

But just as it showed that only one quarter of Americans are “angry” – it seems that most Americans would be content to find a way for illegals to be legal (but not citizens) if they would pay a fine and meet some other conditions by a margin of about 60% to 40%.  Again, hardly a “deport them all” consensus.

And polls have another problem.  Not that polls are wrong in the sense of incorrectly calculating views – but that PEOPLE CAN BE WRONG in their opinions.  Don’t believe me?  how about the 52% of Americans that thought Barack Hussein Obama would bring ‘hope’ and ‘change,’ heal racial problems, fix the economy and be better than George Bush?  Polls showed that people THOUGHT he would – but they were wrong.  They are only a picture of groups of opinions at a moment in time – destined to change upon MORE information or experience.

In fact, it seems Americans are factually wrong on two issues:

  1. Illegals on whole DO provide more a positive tax benefit at state and federal levels (although possibly negative in some local areas), and,
  2. Illegals do NOT take many jobs Americans would want (with exception of 1% or slightly more in a down economy).

ImmigrationEconBenefitOrThreat It is a small percentage of illegals that are a financial burden and the rest DO provide a benefit to the economy – possibly as much as 5% of GDP.  THAT DOES NOT MEAN WE SHOULD JUST LET THEM SAY.  But let’s be accurate about the whole picture.

Will Hispanics Never Vote For Republicans?

Can I first say that I HATE breaking down studies into ethnic or social classes.  It is demeaning to those groups (in my estimation) since it assumes that Blacks or Latino’s can’t think of what is the best economic policy for their family without checking whether they have Univision, BET or the NASCAR channel on.  But lets get to the bottom of this argument.  What about the charge that the growing Hispanic population would massively vote for  - and keep voting for - the Democrats?  Again, PRINCIPLED CONSERVATIVES are the Honey Badgers here and just don’t care.  We want to do what is RIGHT, not what is political expedient.  But it is important to know the facts.

According to the Hispanic Studies arm of the Pew Research Center, Here is how Hispanics voted in the last 3 elections:

  Republicans Democrats
2006 69% 30%
2008 67% 31%
2010 60% 38%

There were unprecedented Hispanic Republicans running in the 2010 mid-term elections including Marco Rubio who won 55% of the Hispanic vote in Florida while Sandoval in Nevada only garnered 33% – both unprecedented increases.  A quick look at this would seem to suggest that Hispanics are actually TRENDING toward Republicans.  Since 2006 – Latino’s represent eight percent (8%) of VOTERS.

However.  Last month over 60% of Hispanics STILL approved of the job President Obama was doing.  Forty Nine percent (49%) said they were CERTAIN they would still vote for Obama in 2012.  While that is down significantly from 2008/2010, like African Americans, it is wildly different from the rest of the planet who understand that the man is laser focused on jobs.  Loosing them, that is.  (9% are certain to vote GOP, with an additional 14% leaning toward GOP). MIND BENDER: More want Obamacare repealed (29%) than who might vote Republican (22%).

One last interesting general poll.  Mr. “Sensitive” Rick Perry has a 22% to 39% favorable/unfavorable rating as opposed to Gingrich at 22%/36%.  The most “conservative” anti-illegal immigration policy is Michelle Bachmann and her negative/positive is 13%/29% although nearly a third more have never heard of her.  These polls were BEFORE the Gingrich issue but interesting that in terms of negatives, the GOP policy doesn’t make any difference at this juncture.

So what about immigration policy?  Here are some Hispanic opinions:




All US

All US

GOP does better job on immigration





Provide a way for illegals already here in US to be legal





Illegals mostly contribute to US society rather than drain it





Hispanics take jobs Americans don’t want





It should be a serious criminal offense to enter and remain in US without proper documents





Hispanics are unfairly targeted for illegal immigration documents





Do Favor or Oppose the AZ Immigration law









All US

All US

If a candidate had similar views to yours EXCEPT immigration, how Likely or Unlikely would you be to vote AGAINST them





Interestingly, 33% of that “likely” (to not vote for a candidate) was only somewhat likely.  (Both groups were only 13% to extremely likely and about 20% very likely.)  In other words, A Republican who changes their immigration stance to accommodate Hispanic “feelings” isn’t terribly likely to pick up a ton more votes because of it. 

A Univision study shows that Fifty Three percent (53%) or Latinos personally KNOW an undocumented worker and 25% have a family member who is undocumented.  It also believes that Latino’s as a whole are becoming MORE liberal because of a perceived undertone of being “anti-Hispanic” when discussing immigration.  I don’t for a minute believe this assumption since the focus on conservatives in 2010 actually INCREASED the GOP Latino vote.  My guess is – like the rest of the population – if you only listen to UNIVISION and liberal Spanish radio, that will be your view.  Just like is if you only listen to MSNBC and NPR.

But 43% of Hispanics call themselves conservative, 37% liberal and 20% moderate. Even 32% of Democrats call themselves conservatives!  Perhaps more importantly, this poll showed that Washington DC wasting money was the TOP concern of Hispanic SWING voters. 

Conclusion:  A better economy is better for ALL voters. Those who are already predisposed to a “liberal” mindset are really no more likely to vote for a “conservative” than a non-Hispanic.  Study after study has shown that Hispanics certainly share many socially conservative views as conservative Republicans including a much higher anti-gay marriage turnout in California than even non-Hispanic whites.  Michael Medved – no RINO by any means – still believes the anti-immigration rhetoric is hurting Republicans with Latino voters. So,


It is not a Christian virtue to be mean and vindictive.  And a good parent learns that discipline is actually MORE effective, when you are NOT angry.  But the parent who is permissive to his children because he wants to be “liked,”  soon has an uncontrollable, undisciplined extortion-er.  (You don’t like my children or employee analogy? Go to your room.  I’ll deal with you later).  But seriously, as a country we have a responsibility and an authority to exert since it is, “WE the people” who are the government – not a king or bureaucracy.  The elections were in 2010 were a big part of taking back that responsibility when we were a bit too permissive with our pampered and seldom rebuked Bush baby.


The new Alabama immigration law has proven that the fear of the law will cause a great deal of illegals to self-deport.  Newt’s RED CARD program isn’t so much worried about deportation – but loosing that workforce once they come back.  The self-deportation in Newt’s program is more of a “least pain” incentive to no longer have guilt (and the longer term fear incentive it will become harder to stay illegal in the future).

Lest some bleeding heart liberals, Rick Perry or Mr. Gingrich think I’m “heartless.”  I’d like to share a very personal story about responsibility and restitution.

POLITIJIM CONFESSION.  I stole a car when I was in college.  I evaded the law for about 2 or 3 years but made Jesus my boss during that time.  One day, while I was sitting in church – getting on with my life and trying to be a better man, human and Christian – my pastor decided to speak on the issue of “RESTITUTION.”  My pastor gave great sermons and I was all excited until I was convicted by the Holy Spirit that I had to turn myself in.  I was getting married, was an executive at the bank and doing so could have (and nearly did) cost me five years of my life in jail at a minimum plus the INABILITY to continue my career.  But God taught me to be responsible for my actions.  If you do the crime, a REAL man – a REAL Christian, trusts God to fess up and pay up.  A debt to the law is every bit as important as a financial debt morally, for your own self-esteem, and for your citizenship.  God was gracious to me to get off with probation, and an eventual pardon.  But it closed a chapter in my life in understanding that even if you think you are smarter than everyone else, you are a selfish SOB and ultimately will loose self esteem for yourself.  Those of us that had permissive parents, WILL get our discipline lesson, one way or the other.  And I have to believe not only is this why 80% to 90% say they want to get right with the law, but why many (regardless of race) can never seem to “get ahead.”

A tolerance for lawlessness, only breeds more lawlessness.  Why do you think all those bratty kids scream to get their favorite candy bar in the checkout aisle of the grocery store?  No matter how stern the warning or threat, the kids have BEEN taught – that if they keep it up – the parents will cave.  But the parent who is quick to associate appropriate physical pain with a whine or tantrum – soon have children WE want to slip a candy bar or pack of gum to since it is such a pleasure to be around them.PAIN


Or the PolitiJim Anti-illegal Immigration & Naturalization plan.

This is what Newt SHOULD have said:

To those who waited patiently in line and became a US Citizen through our existing laws, we salute and honor you.  Thank you for teaching your children that obedience to good authority and good laws will bring you prosperity, happiness and opportunity.  If you are here illegally, shame on you.  Shame on you for disrespecting the blood of our forefathers who took years to finally agree to fight for independence – even from tyranny -  because they were so concerned with trying to live under authority and the law respectfully.  And shame on you for teaching your children that if you keep breaking the law long enough, it will pay off and that the schmucks who try to do things honorably were foolish.  You will not get away with this anymore.  We aren’t angry, but we are determined.

This country was founded on Judeo Christian values which you have defaced even in the very concept of Liberty.  Freedom isn’t an excuse to do what you want, but a responsibility to do what you ought.  Many of you have worked hard and tried to assimilate yourself into our country.  It is likely somewhere inside of your heart, you know that what you are doing has been wrong.  Most of all, you will have to answer to God Almighty for putting financial prosperity above His principles as your idol.  But that is between you and God.  We on the other hand are a great and generous country weakened by those who have decided to extort finances from their neighbors.  And now you will now need to pay for every year that you have stolen the luxuries of this country by taking on an extra portion of the burdens she endures.  If you love this country, you can earn your way to be a part of it.  And to the employers who knowingly harbored these people, you too will be called upon to contribute to help stop the weakening of the moral fabric of the country.

If you are an honorable person, a law abiding citizen and love this country as much as we do, you are welcome to help us build her into a light that will shine to all nations.  But everyone, must contribute not just their fortunes, but their sacred honor also so that we can rebuild America into the promise of opportunity once again.

politiJimPublicSpeakPodium And then I would give them my plan. It is not a plan to allow any illegal immigrant to get away with what they have done, but to find a way for them to regain their own personal honor while helping this country. 

I am NOT advocating for complete deportation because it is politically harmful to Republicans or financially beneficial to the Republic.  If the illegals who have been here want to stay - they may at a greater penalty, than if they leave, apply properly and come back at another time.  They run risks either way.  The only slam dunk is that they and their families will see them as heroic for making their crime right. 

After studying the data, economic studies and information I think these immigrants could be more useful to America (while learning their lesson) without costing more American jobs built on their current residency.  It will cost them to do so.  And if they are willing to do the right thing, these people will have proven themselves patriots and the type of people we want in this country.

  Here is my plan:

  • Repentance and Restitution (Employers and Illegals)
  • An option to go back home and get in line just like they’ve had all along.
  • Severe Future Consequences for those who don’t comply – and who are caught in the future
  • No illegal children, Citizenship Preference for smart, hardworking people and requirement of citizenship documents at all times.
  • Newt’s Red Card jobs plans that Americans won’t fill

Why should we allow these people to stay (albeit under severe conditions)?  All of us would prefer to have criminals earn money (as they do for Sheriff Joe Arpaio in Arizona) rather than become a financial burden on the community of which they have taken advantage.  With the prospect of a prospective negative American birthrate, the increased Social Security and Medicare burden of the baby boomers, and the possible necessity of workers for jobs Americans will not do, we are now going to profit their indiscretion, rather than being extorted by their lawlessness.  If it is true that each of these workers support 3.5 jobs because of their consumerism, they can now support 4.5 and pay back their debt to society.  If they were to simply leave – we get no benefit except the cost savings of the small fraction that were net “takers” of social programs.

e-verify Step 1.  Initiating a migrant (guest) worker database and an employer certification program to catalog employers and educate them on the new system.  Employers who wish to use foreign (non-citizen) workers, will be much more effective at handling the operation of the system than the federal government.  There also will no longer be any excuse for any employer who hires an illegal.  E-verify will be implemented immediately.  This IS the technology and private industry involvement portions of Newt’s Red Card program.

Step 2. Visa Laws will be changed to allow a new migrant/guest worker program for a period of time authorized by an employer for which they have a job offer.  This too is similar to the Red Card program.  However, under the PolitiJim plan, employers will have to pay a premium for foreign workers, making it cheaper to hire an American for the same position.  No doubt there will be some tomfoolery with the process, but the employer penalties to work outside the system will be so severe, it will be financially beneficial for the employer to use it correctly.  Our government generates additional fees from these new foreign workers to pay for the program.  An economist will have to come up with the foreign worker “premium” although my idea is a 10% salary fee while eliminating the minimum wage laws.  This will go into effect BEFORE the offer for CURRENT illegals to be processed, further incentivizing them to return to their country and try the “new” process.  It also gives a chance to people who HAVE WAITED IN LINE to go first.  If the current US illegal has not taken the same risk already and gone home, they will have to wait AFTER new applicants for the job they currently have.  Foreign workers will not be eligible for Social Security or Medicaid but will pay into the system helping to offset our current costs.  Of course, should they apply and receive citizenship in the future, can participate normally. NOTE: True migrant workers who have been going back every year will be least effected by this process since they have a home to return to and they know an employer who will offer them a position.  If the US truly needs these workers to put food on the table, this will be the least impacted industry per economist’s concerns.

Step 3. Restitution – Current illegal residents will be given 3 months to either leave and go back to their home country or to turn themselves into the nearest local or state police department.  THOSE WHO LEAVE, will simply reenter the application process for work visa or residency.  The police will have an opportunity to fingerprint and and question the illegal for outstanding crimes (and be profiled) depending upon when and how they entered the country.  This is important to build a database of those who have perhaps lived “off the grid” but is more important for ensuing months when those without documentation are captured.  As usual MOST real criminals will not turn themselves in, but the proverbial “noose” will be in place for failure to be “in” the database if caught in the future.  The real pressure will be put on those who have other crimes or want to continue their illegality.

SScard There are numerous penalties already on the books for lying on an I9 form or misusing a social security number including penalties up to 5 years in jail and up to $250,000 year fines.  In reality, the courts would be hard pressed to process the influx of court work, and although there would be no lessening of these charges, the practical reality is that like most first offender infractions, the perpetrator will likely get off with probation.   If the illegal has been using someone else’s identity the police will be notified for normal criminal prosecution – normally a mandatory 2 year sentence.

Those who clear the process will then begin the the next process of becoming a “legal” migrant/guest worker, just as those outside the country have been doing.  However, in penalty for not going out and “getting in line” they will face:

  • A five (5) year moratorium of applying for US Citizenship
  • An additional 10% tax to be levied for 20 years, reduced by 1 year for every two years they can prove they paid into Social Security.  (If they become a citizen of course, they no longer are susceptible to this tax.)
  • Immediate loss of all payments already made to Social Security.

Once processed by the police, the illegal may go to an employment agency or their employer to pay for and receive their biometric RED CARD.  Their CURRENT employer (if they have one) will have the option to advertise for a cheaper American for the position or rehire the existing one at the 10% tax.  If they decide to rehire their immigrant, they will need to supply copies of the documentation the illegal provided to them by the local authorities for processing to double check stolen and false ID infractions.  Obviously, if there is collusion between the employer and employee, this can be overcome with a healthy reward to the employee for turning in the employer avoiding their own prosecution and receiving a healthy reward. 

?Why the police and not a “private agency” like Newt’s RED CARD system?  These people have broken the law and will prove that by turning themselves in, they are willing to abide by it in the future.  It is scary for them no doubt and many who have figured out the system by stealing ID’s or using false ID’s will set up integrity for the system going forward.  In any case, NEW foreign workers can certainly use the private system of employers and employment agencies to get their biometric RED CARD as can existing illegals with police processing.

(See CITIZENSHIP regarding US Children citizens born to illegal parents below.)

EMPLOYER RESTITUTION – New infractions will be severe.  At least $25,000 per illegal employee infraction.  With financial incentives to turn in their employers for NOT reporting their new migrant status (verified by police in the initial process) no employer would be foolish enough to avoid the system.  A former illegal could also be rewarded by showing pay stubs for previous years with no social security number or with evidence of employer assistance to obtain one.  An employer who voluntarily turns themselves in for past infractions can also pay a matching salary penalty for the years the employee was employed going forward with complete legal exemption for that employee going forward.  The offsetting inducement to turn in the employer should be large enough that employer fears this prospect and complies.

Boston-Tea-Party Step 4. Citizenship and Education.  An entirely new citizenship bill we be passed requiring English, Constitutional and “true” history of the country.  Mandatory history will be required in grade school and high school based upon something like the Wallbuilders curriculum addressing the reasons for a Republic (not a democracy), the capitalist system and the purpose behind the Federalist papers. 

US Citizen Children of illegal parents.  I would like to know more about the possibility that the 14th Amendment language “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” might actually preclude the automatic citizenship of children born on US soil to illegal trespassers.  If as the scholars assume in Minor v Happersett, that “natural born citizen” requirement is definitively a American born child to two naturalized or native Americans, we have the prospect of an “anchor baby” who may spend many of his years in Mexico or abroad, returning to run for President without even a sense of American values.  I assume the likelihood that the Supreme Court will settle the matter is remote and that a mere law would not clarify this.  I certainly we would be in favor of a Constitutional Amendment clarifying this although not to hold up the rest of the PAIN plan.  Mario Appuzo sets forth an excellent case that much of this can be handled by the states.

If however, proven to be a constitutional right, I think it is important to incentivize families with tax breaks to assist parents who desire their children to be educated with American values and who will stay with LEGAL relatives.  If they are Americans I think we would much prefer they be raised here than in abroad. 

good rick-perry It may have been Rick Perry who said any foreign college student who graduates with honors in engineering, science, math or economics should have a US citizenship stapled to their diploma.  I would add some kind of renunciation of their previous country with the new citizenship test, but the idea is a step in the right direction.  We want the Albert Einstein’s (who as an immigrant) of the world.  Our current system is arbitrary and so prone to politics the entire quota system should be scrapped with a system that reflects a near unlimited door for those who are statistically likely to be productive and honorable citizens. 

I also believe that our existing generation of young people who have been spoiled and blinded to true American values should be offered advantages and incentives for Constitutional and Capitalist studies or achievements.  Every child should have to try and run a lemonade stand as part of the criteria of Federal money until we can completely do away with the Department of Education.  Many conservatives will hate this (and I see some problems with it), but I’d love for us to think of ways we can incentivize kids to learn values of hard work, honor and (unvarnished) American history.  I’ll never forget the anger I had at the Illinois public school system for depriving me of what I learned in my mid-20’s by the book Light and Glory.  Up until that time, I had no idea that principles of America were deeply researched and sourced from major free market, capitalist and Judeo/Christian authors after a study of history’s failure in under governmental philosophies.

Finally, it is ridiculous that when you have to show a Drivers License to buy Codeine Advil or get a Costco Card, there is any discussion whatsoever of it being proof of citizenship for voting and random law enforcement checks.  Anyone who has been outside of the country know that in Europe, China and even Canada, it is a common fundamental necessity to keep order and law.  A Constitutional Amendment would be fine, but there certainly are bills that can be passed NOW to start this process even before my bill is passed.


So, to summarize:

  • PAIN No PAIN, No Gain.
  • Let’s Demand Illegals start helping pay for the mess they created.
  • Let’s start teaching our children that not only is it beneficial to follow (good) law, but there are severe consequences for not doing so. (No more “charge it” mentality laying up problems for our children.)
  • Conservatives need to start challenging ALL Americans and want-to-be immigrants to demonstrate good values of citizenry to their children and their community.
  • And if they don’t want to, they obviously won’t make good citizens.

Postscript:  Tom Tancredo has a piece in WND creating fear about the Red Card system.  Tancredo is blatantly false that foreign countries will do the background checks and was a long point of discussion in the Heritage presentation by Krieble.  I believe criticism much IS  warranted and I discuss here this attitude of fear leveled against it by Tancredo reminds me of the “sky is falling” proclamations over Cain’s 9-9-9 plan.  NONE OF THESE PLANS will be implemented as is. Most of the fears are unwarranted.  Why can’t be specific about “problem areas” without trying to beat up people who are genuinely offering solutions?  Again, we’re acting like a bunch of Salinsky taught liberals – rather than the cool, educated leaders we are supposed to be as conservatives.


Twitter Delicious Facebook Digg Stumbleupon Favorites More