Newt Gingrich for Amnesty

Newt Gingrich recently made a statement that if favors some illegal migrants remain in the U.S.

The punishment for entering or staying in the U.S. illegally is ultimately deportation to one's native country. Newt is saying that he proposes a selective criteria where some illigal migrants are allowed to stay and work in the U.S. Therefore, the punishment for illegal migration is waived for some by allowing them to stay and work in the U.S. The foregoing is the very essence of what an amnesty is.

To suggest that one has good reasons to forgive illegality in no way precludes amnesty. An illegal migrant who has deep ties in the U.S. is considered a sacred cow under Newt's plan. However, anyone who would live in country that does not afford them legal rights is taking severe risks. In short, the U.S. government never promised them a rose garden.

Of course, Newt Gingrich'S proposal of the odious "Red Card" is meant silence the objections of many in the Republican party that fear that immigrants are more likely to vote Democratic if given a chance. The policy of allowing a foreigner to work and pay taxes in the U.s without even the possibility of them applying for citizenship is dubious. In fact, it takes taxation without representation to new heights. Further, it would mean an underclass of residents who would never truly be integrated or even loyal to so-called American values.


The possible problems with the "Red Card" are that the workers would have children who would be U.S. citizens. The workers could also marry Americans and gain legal status that way. The Democratic party or other groups could seek and be successful in modifying the law to allow such workers to vote.


In the end, the worker program that Newt proposes also increases the size of the federal workforce. After all, it would take a few thousands functionaries to police and administer such a program. What kind of conservative openly advocates expanding the federal workforce. You guessed it, a Republicrat flip-flopper.

Mitt Romney for American Imperialism

I watch the CNN national security debate, which was held at DAR Constitution Hall in Washington, D.C. Mitt Romney responded to the sentiments of the esteemed Congressman Ron Paul. Romney acknowledged the divergent foreign policy ideas of Ron Paul and president Barack Obama, but he also cited what he believed to be similarities. Apparently, Romney believes that Obama is an anti-imperialist, which is nonsensical. How could one compare Ron Paul and Barack Obama? Obama takes orders from NATO and the United Nations while Ron Paul affirms American sovereignty and, eschews involvement in NATO and the United Nations. No comparison.

Mitt Romney says he wants U.S. military dominance through-out the world. Why? He says there are nations that want to oppress others. Now, if one has the strongest military in the world, would that not mean imperialism, which is a form of oppression? The only way to know you have the strongest military in the world is to be an aggressor nation and win wars.

One could have a strong military that is purely defensive as is the case with China at present. The use of submarines, ICBMs, an air force and the like would do the job. The policy of having bases bespeaks an empire and aggressor nation status.

The president of the United States is not tasked with being an imperialist, but the protection of the American people. It's called national defense for a reason.

Newt on the Laura Ingraham Show

On Tuesday or Wednesday, I was listening to the Laura Ingraham show. Her special guest was presidential candidate Newt Gingrich. Laura asked some very piercing questions. The first that stood out to me was when she asked what Newt had to tell the people of Iowa in light of the mailers being sent detailing his despicable treatment of women. To this, Newt answered that in an election campaign folks ought to expect some negative news about a candidate. Of course, Newt evaded the question. Yes, the content of the mailers was negative, but were they true? Newt does not deny the truth of the mailers.

The second question of note is about his work for Freddy Mac. Of particular note was Newt's comments that after being the House Speaker it was an example of free enterprise for him to have contracted his services to Freddy Mac. Before the said comment, Laura pointed out that had he not been House Speaker he would not have been awarded the contract. My position is that reaping the benefits of having had  and by virtue of being a elected or civil office holder is not  exactly free enterprise. 

Newt used his former government position to get a contract with a government agency in order to influence government functionaries in the legislature to be favorable to a government agency. If the foregoing is Newt idea of free enterprise, then he would keep that shit to himself. 

Newt Gingrich is the flavor of the week. Sweet to the mouth and bitter to the belly. May his fall come quickly.

Herman Cain: Clueless on Foreign Affairs

Herman Cain was like a pompous and pretentious illiterate at a spelling bee contest. Why in the world would a man who wants to replace Obama not have an intelligib­le opinion on the Libyan battle?


Moreover, there is no one other than Ron Paul who has can contrast himself on foreign when matched with Obama. The criticism of Romney, Newt, Bachmann and others are weak and beside the point. Unless there is a strong contrast GOP candidates can't best Obama on foreign policy.

The GOP nonsense that Obama does not support Israel is weak. The fact is that support for Israel is bolstered by the congress. Even if a president wavered in support of Israel it would be of no consequenc­e.

Ron Paul correctly states that toppling a dictator most often results in states that are even more dangerous to American interests. Further, there was no declaratio­n of war and U.S. vital interests were not in play. Also, Paul is critical of the U.S. waging war because of a mandate from a foreign organizati­on or power. Agree of disagree, Ron Paul has been the most potent critic of Obama's foreign policy.

Online Polls Controversy

The very idea of an online poll is for individuals who frequent a website to vote. The poll is not meant to be scientific. The poll is for people who visit the site. The fact that Ron Paul supporters are adept web surfers does not discount the fact that we are real individuals. An online poll is not scientific, and the attempt to deny surfers an opportunity to vote because one does not like the way they vote is ridiculous.

The online poll is supposed to make a visit to a given site fun and engaging. Indeed, the way most visitors vote should be of no concern of a website owner. After all, the rational goal is to draw traffic to a website to cash in on advertising through site visitor statistics. The mere fact that the foregoing reasoning does not hold shows that a lot of websites are fronts for a particular presidential candidate.