The REAL Newt Shows Up at Last Night’s Debate and Brings Big Government Boondoggles and Amnesty for Illegals with Him

By Gary P Jackson

Even the best of con men can only keep up their act for so long. In the end, a leopard can’t change it’s spots, and a scorpion is always a scorpion. It’s their nature.

Newt has been able to deftly hide his Big Government, ultra-liberal mind-set, from the less engaged voter for the last few months. In last night’s debate, Newt brought the Full Monty on an issue that Conservatives care deeply about, and once again showed just how clueless he is, and how his default solution for every single problem is MORE government not less.

Newt has always been soft on illegals, and has always been for amnesty. He voted for amnesty back in the Reagan era, one of the few things Ronald Reagan got wrong. Unlike Reagan, who regretted trusting the democrats, and regretted signing the bill in the first place, Gingrich has stated that even knowing the democrats screwed Reagan, and the country, and nothing they promised in return was ever delivered, he’d still vote for amnesty again.

Newt talks about dealing with illegals in a “humane way”, implying that anyone who isn’t down with his plan doesn’t want that, which is an insult to us all.

Might as well call Conservatives “heartless like Rick Perry has.

He also thinks it’s just horrible that illegals who have lived here for 25 years should be asked to go home. Yeah, because breaking the law every single day for 25 years makes them model citizens!

Among other things, Newt wants to create a WWII style Selective Service Board, at the local level, to review illegals, and give them some sort of “legal” status, if they pass whatever criteria Newt cooks up, or allows them to.

Again, these would be local, and the local citizens on these review boards would determine, using their own standards, who stays and who must go. Unless Newt has buried the details somewhere, it looks like you could potentially have a different standard in every single community. You can bet these review boards would be quite liberal handing out legal status.

Worse, as this is a federal deal, the federal government would be footing the bill, using YOUR money.

We already have plenty of laws on the books to deal with illegal aliens. We’re $15 TRILLION in debt [and counting] The last thing we need is another Big Government boondoggle.

Much like Rick Perry’s DREAM Act, something Newt supports on a national basis, in what he calls an “amended form”, Newt’s “draft boards” would only serve as a magnet for more illegals, rather than a deterrent.

Micky Kaus has a good read on what Newt is up to, and what a mess it would be.

1) A key word here is “ultimately.” Is Gingrich saying he’d wait a while–i.e. years–between putting “every piece in place” and giving out his Selective Service style amnesty? If the answer is yes, then his plan might be an incremental improvement on proposals like the “FEET” plan–which would wait eight years after enforcement measures work before talking about amnesty.

The intervening years of effective enforcement would a) send a signal to the world that the immigration game had changed, counteracting the “magnet” effect amnesty inevitably has, and b) by definition prevent future generations of illegals from getting in even if an eventual amnesty made the idea more attractive. (The improvement would be that the amnesty wouldn’t be a blanket amnesty but a case-by-case review– though if there were any real chance of losing at the review stage few illegals would come forward.)

2) But there’s no particular need (aside from the political need to woo Latinos) to specify now what sort of eventual amnesty might be considered. You could just tell the illegals now living here that they’ll have to wait “in the shadows” while the borders are secured. Or you could say nothing. That would enhance the temporary deterrent effect of enforcement measures and lower the “magnet” effect of ”ultimate amnesty” talk. Gingrich seems to want to tie up all the loose ends in a nice detailed “comprehensive” plan befitting a world-historical thinker like himself. On immigration this impulse tends to get you into trouble.

3) Gingrich doesn’t emphasize the time delay between the enforcement “pieces” and the amnesty, leaving the impression he’d like to rush from one (“OK! Border’s closed!”) to the other, without waiting, say, for the inevitable ACLU enforcement-weakening lawsuits to wend their way through the courts.

4) That impression is reinforced by his additional embrace of the Krieble Foundation’s “red card” proposal. This plan would apparently grant immediate, legal, non-citizen status to all illegals in the country who went home and obtained an easy-to-get guest worker pass from an employer. There would be no “artificial limits on their number–in effect, as many red cards would be issued as employers demanded. The catch is that in theory a red card holder would then be required to re-return “home” when his or her guest worker pass expired in order to obtain another one. How many of today’s illegals–especially the one’s who’ve been here “for 25 years”–are going to take this deal? If they don’t, will Gingrich immediately offer them Selective-Service style review? If so, his plan moves a lot closer to a near-term amnesty.

Read more here.

As Phillip Klein reports, Mitt Romney was quick to jump all over Newt.

After tonight’s debate, Mitt Romney’s campaign clearly saw an opening to go after a surging Newt Gingrich, after he argued for considering a path to legality for immigrants who had originally come to this country illegally 25 years ago, but had spent decades integrating themselves in a community.

Newt Gingrich supported the 1986 amnesty act, and even though he conceded that was a mistake, he said that he was willing to repeat that mistake by extending amnesty to immigrants who are illegally in the country today,” Romney adviser and spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom said in the spin room following the AEI/Heritage Foundation debate in Washington, DC. “Mitt Romney is against amnesty, and Newt Gingrich made it very clear he was for amnesty.

More here.

I’m no fan of Mitt Romney, but in the interest of fairness, it must be pointed out that Romney actually vetoed DREAM Act legislation in his state, pioneered a program to let state police enforce immigration law, implemented English immersion programs, and [unsuccessfully] fought off attempts to grant driving privileges to illegals.

Let’s face it, when you are to the left of Mitt Romney, on any issue, it’s time for you to pack up and go home.

Romney is actually better on immigration that Newt or Rick Perry. English immersion is critical. Assimilation is a good thing.

Thanks to a misguided U.S. Supreme Court ruling [Plyer v Doe] states are forced to educate the children of illegal aliens, all the way through high school. If we’re going to educate them, we should make sure they know English. It’s the language we speak in America, and the universal language of business.

I’m glad the REAL Newt Gingrich showed up last night. Maybe that will wake people up!

It doesn’t matter what the issue is, Newt’s default setting is to find a bloated, Big Government solution for it. And the “solution” is generally something completely out of touch with Conservative values and goals.

We have plenty of laws on the books to deal with illegals. All that needs to happen is have those laws enforced. If one wants to create new laws, they should be laws that severely punish those who hire illegals. Severe enough to stop employers from hiring anyone not here legally.

I like to think I can put myself in the illegal’s shoes as well. I do understand why someone would want to come to America and live a better life. But we are a nation of laws. When a group refuses to obey those laws they need to be dealt with.

One of the issues of illegals, that few talk about, is the fact these illegals are little more than modern day slaves. Since they are here illegally, and aren’t in a position to complain, employers take advantage of them, not only by paying far less than market wages, but often force them to work in conditions that are unsafe. Of course, the illegals are here by their own choice, but it doesn’t make this situation right.

This is a complicated issue, and deserves serious action, by serious people, not huge Big Government boondoggles, and what amounts to amnesty for 10’s of millions of illegals.

Let’s not forget that many of these illegals aren’t good, hard working people who simply want a better life for themselves and their families. As Texas Agricultural Commissioner Todd Staples notes, in a groundbreaking strategic military assessment, the Texas border is a war zone. Terrorists are routinely crossing our border.

Some of these are Narco-terrorists looking to further there position in the drug trade, but some are members of Islamic terrorist groups like Hezbollah. These Islamic terrorists learn Spanish, and blend in with others as they come over our border.

Border security is a major issue, and instead of talking about securing our border first, Newt is talking about amnesty for illegals. Shows you where his priorities are.

Newt is, and has always been a Big Government liberal. He knows how to talk like a Conservative, but in the end, he’s the farthest thing from it!

America can do a hell of a lot better than Newt Gingrich.

America MUST do a hell of a lot better than Newt Gingrich!



Filed under In The News, Politics

13 responses to “The REAL Newt Shows Up at Last Night’s Debate and Brings Big Government Boondoggles and Amnesty for Illegals with Him

  1. NHConservative0227

    Great post Gary.

    I’m amazed at how many good conservatives have falling for the Newt charade. The guy is a Progressive. I posted this list (in addition to his illegal immigration stance) to my local 912 group:

    1. He supported the individual mandate as late as this year!!

    2. His past flirtation with environmentalism. Sitting on that couch with Pelosi advocating for the kind of radical change the Princess Pelosi wants!

    3. Taking $1.6 million to consult Freddie Mac.

    4. Endorsing a leftist Republican in Dede Scozzafavva and calling her a great principled leader!

    5. Calling Paul Ryan’s plan “right wing social engineering.” Way to eat your own!

    6. Endorsing Bush’s mediacare Part D prescription drug expansion. Saying that all good conservatives in Congress should get behind it.

    7. Still supporting ethanol subsidies.

    As SE Cupp says it would be fun to have popcorn and beer to watch Newt debate Obama but that’s no reason to nominate him.

    I don’t know where you are in your decision making process yet Gary, but this is making Cain look better and better. Cain is solid on immigration:

    Also Cain was never for the individual mandate like Newt and Romney.

    Cain is much more conservative than Romney, Newt, and Perry. We need to elect the best conservative that can win. I like Bachmann alot, but she’s really not going anywhere. To beat the 3 Stooges I listed above, Cain is the best shot.

    • Gary P


      Yeah Newt is as big of a progressive as any democrat. He’s far more dangerous than Obama.
      I haven’t settled on a candidate.

      I’ve always liked Herman Cain. Long before this year’s election cycle. But he keeps proving over and over he has no business in the White House. He simply doesn’t have the well rounded experience that one needs, and frankly I don’t trust his instincts.

      Remember, Cain worked for the fed, and is dead set against auditing the feed. That sends up all sorts of flags. He also strongly supported TARP and thought it was just peachy for the government to own banks. Even said we’d make money off this deal. It isn’t and we didn’t.

      At this point I’m more about looking into the records of them all, and exposing out and out con men like Newt.

      Sadly, without Sarah Palin, this is just another “lesser of all evils” election, with none of these cats inspiring anyone.

      The biggest worry for me is too many people are buying into Newt’s con, and he’ll be our nominee. That would be a bigger mistake than electing Obama in 2008.

      • NHConservative0221

        Newt would be a disasater, we’re in complete agreement there. However, if a Progressive in Newt or Mittens wins the nomination then we need to hold our noses and fight like hell to beat Obama. If Obama is reelected we’re screwed as a country. As bad as both Newt and Mittens are, they’re both better than Obama.

        As for Cain, I agree he has his flaws. I’ve been a longtime Palin supported as well. It’s a shame she’s not running. I was pretty upset then started vetting the candidates. For all Cain’s flaws he’s much better than Newt,Mittens, and Perry. For the record in one of the debates Cain called Ron Paul a liar and said that he is fine with auditing the Fed, just that it’s not his top priority, that 999 is.

        Cain is great on the economy, very strong core beliefs on a strong national defense and standing with Israel, great on drilling, and great on illegal immigration.

        I think you would at least agree that Cain is better than the 3 stooges on Newt, Romney, and Perry. We don’t have Sarah, so we need to pick the best conservative that can win, that person is Cain. Otherwise we’ll end up with a RINO against Obama.

      • Gary P

        Right now I am torn between Cain who’s lack of experience scares the crap out of me, and Romney, who at least doesn’t suck as bad as Perry or Newt, which isn’t saying much.

        I’m almost to the point of just writing in Palin’s name in the primary, in protest, and possibly supporting the nominee, if it isn’t Newt or Perry. Those are two people I could never support under any circumstance.

        If it came down to Newt vs Obama, all I can say is my research tells me Newt is more dangerous than Obama. That’s how big of a disaster this election cycle has turned into.

  2. Pingback: Texas Border War Zone: Feds Tell Ranchers to Wear Body Armor | A Time For Choosing

  3. Pingback: Newt Gingrich is More Dangerous To America Than Obama and I Can Prove It! | A Time For Choosing

  4. Pingback: Tammy Bruce: Newt Gingrich’s Policy on Illegals is Obscene and We Already Fought a Civil War to End Slavery! | A Time For Choosing

  5. Don

    Help me with this. The growth rate in Federal spending appears to have been the lowest from about 1989 to 2000 during the time Newt was whip and speaker than any time since about 1965 (except for a few years under Nixon). And, there even was a time when income fairly substantially exceeded spending for the first time since 1965 although a couple of years prior to 1975 seem to be close to being in balance. We know that Newt had to drag Clinton in cutting spending and into signing welfare reform. When Newt left as speaker the spending growth rate seems to have increased significantly. (from Heritage charts)

    I don’t see how this record of spending is consistent with your claim that Newt is a raging lefty, more dangerous than Obama. PLEASE EXPLAIN.

    It seems to me our country’s biggest problem now is too much spending and Newt, it seems to me, has the best record of any one in positions of power in the last 50 years. Newt isn’t my first choice, but he seems to have a great record in this most critical area (IMHO).

    (Frankly, I don’t care if he spends some money investigating global warming or doing other stupid things if he cuts total spending and balances the budget without compromising our National Security.)

    • Gary P

      Don I think you’ll find that Newt gets a lot of credit for his years as Speaker, for thing actual Conservatives did.

      At best you can say he didn’t stand in the way.

      Newt is a Big Government guy. If you pay attention, ALL of his “solutions” include some sort of highly complicated, central command and control set up.

      Those sort of things cost real money.

      If you think Newt is the answer, not sure i want to know the question!

      Sorry, but I just don’t!

      • Don

        That is interesting. We elected a bunch of Conservatives to the House last year increasing the number of conservatives in the House, and Boehner seems to be able to get in the way of any real move towards limiting government. My guess is that there are more conservatives in the House now than when Newt was Speaker … so it is hard to believe that he couldn’t obstruct the efforts to limit spending if that was his inclination.

        Newt has lots of problems, but excessive spending does not seem like one of them. I’ll have to review American Solutions and the previous and current contracts with America … to see if I agree with your conclusion. I find it hard to believe I would have thought the previous Contract was a good one if it had promised greatly increased spending.

        I’d rather have Santorum, Bachmann, or Cain, so I am not defending Newt because he is my guy. I just am skeptical that excessive spending is one legitimate area to criticize him about… there are legitimate areas of criticism although I think some mentioned above are overblown, e.g., Newt is concerned about the environment, we all should have some concern about it, but I am quite sure he adamantly denies supporting Cap and Trade.

      • Gary P

        Newt adamantly denies he’s for mandates too, except when he’s promoting the hell out of them!

        Newt is on record supporting cap and tax.

        Newt was pushing government MANDATED health insurance in May of THIS YEAR.

        This is all in Newts own words, ON TAPE.

        Face it, you’ve been conned. Don’t feel bad. Newt is the consummate con man. One of the best there has ever been. No one can look you in the eye and lie better than Newt.

        What Newt really is, is a corrupt, Big Government progressive. [liberal]

        If elected, you’d start seeing “Miss Me Yet?” billboards with Obama’s name on them! That’s how bad of a choice Newt would be.

      • Harry HIggins

        Do any of you Newt haters think Clinton balanced the budget for four (4) years? Think about it. The Demos controlled the HOUSE for forty (40) years and never balanced the budget. During Newt’s speaker years he added 11 million jobs and reduced unemployment down below 5%.
        Romney will probably win this thing. He won’t beat the ACORN canidate. I see him as the second McCain. We need somone that will get down and dirty. Hope I’m wrong.

      • Gary P

        Do any of you Newt cultists understand he gets a lot of credit for other people’s work? Remember, his fellow Republicans couldn’t WAIT to run him out of the Speaker’s position, and out of Congress.

        Newt’s entire record is that of a Big Government progressive [liberal] He is by far the worst possible choice.

        The big gripe with Newt from his peers is he’s disorganized and undisciplined. I think his inability to get on the Virginia ballot, waiting until the last minute, even though he had from July to get the signatures, backs that up.

        BTW, I don’t like Romney, but do you Newtists understand Newt’s health care “solution” is just RomneyCare with twist?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s