Podcast – My Answers to Some of the Cruz v Sanders Debate Questions

Although I found the Obamacare debate between the Constitutionalist Ted Cruz and the commie Bernie Sanders highly entertaining and informative, I thought there were points that could have been made, but were not.

I share a few of these, presented by me, in my own less than articulate (compared to Cruz) and impolitic way.

After listening, you will agree with me – that I could not get elected dog catcher. read more

The Hug Said It All

by: the Common Constitutionalist

Well, it took me a while to realize what I was actually watching during the final Romney/Obama debate.

As Charles Krauthammer so aptly described in his post-debate analysis; it was Romney going big and Obama going small. I might add that Obama didn’t just go small, but also petty.

Obama did his darndest to pull Romney into his own micro-squabbling world, but Mitt just would not take the bait and one could tell by the look on the presidents face that his, or someone’s (maybe Axelrod’s) strategy wasn’t working.

This is what took me some time to figure out. I finally realized that Romney was Ronald Reagan and Obama was Saul Alinsky.

Romney’s strategy seemed to be to stay above the fray. Be friendly and likeable while choosing the battles he could frame with big overarching themes. Romney appeared more likeable as Obama insulted and demeaned him.

The times Mitt did engage Obama, he showed he had a firm grasp of the issues. He felt he did not have to dwell on any particular issue or go into detail. Instead, just to reassure the American public that he knows his stuff and can be trusted. This would, of course, drew the ire and insults from the president.

Frankly, if one didn’t know better, one would think Romney was president and Obama was the challenger.

Now, for those of us who are conservative and keep abreast of all the issues, the overly agreeable and aisle-crossing Romney was a bit frustrating, but this debate was not intended for us. It was the final debate and Romney calculated that he could pull in the balance of the “undecideds” with a grander theme. I think it worked and the Obama team appeared to be blind-sided by it.

About 30 minutes in, I realized we were not watching a debate on foreign policy at all. Romney masterfully kept bringing it back to the American economy, his strongest suit. He reiterated time and again that American foreign policy was dependent upon a strong economy, which only he could restore.

The specific points he did make were fact-checked and he was found to be 100% correct.

The matter of General Motors was a great example. Romney claimed he wrote an op-ed in the Wallstreet journal describing how he thought GM should be guided through a controlled bankruptcy, enabling the car company to free itself from debt and other obligations. He said that the government should guarantee loans and such to help them recover. Obama flatly stated that Romney was not telling the truth and he did not say this. It was fact-checked and what Romney had written years earlier was exactly as he described it during the debate.

The lowest light (there were many low lights) for Obama was, of course, the discussion over the size of our Navy. Romney stated that our Navy is smaller than any time since the early 20th century. He is correct, by the way.

Obama, in a condescending tone, explained that things are different now and we also don’t use horses and bayonets any longer either. Mr. Romney must just not understand modern warfare. Well, in fact, Mr. Obama, the military still uses bayonets and have many times, utilized the horse in Afghanistan. How odd you didn’t know that.

Toward the close of the debate was a discussion on trade and the imbalance with China. This was a walk-off home run for Romney. It was even more satisfying seeing the moderator, Bob Schieffer, desperately trying to help the beleaguered president, to no avail. They could do nothing but watch as Mitt calmly and succinctly presented his case for dealing with China.

This brings me to the hug. Romney won the debate and both he and Obama knew it, the minute it was over. How can I be so sure? Easy; body language.

As the debate ended they both got up, shook hands, at which time, their wives approached them on stage. Mitt was all smiles as he hugged his wife. The cameras were rolling on both the candidates. Simultaneously, Obama hugged Michelle. No smile, eyes closed, with a rather somber look on his face. His expression gave me the impression he knew it was over.

A simple hug was all it took for me to declare a winner, although, by that time, I and most others already knew.

Let’s Debate the Lies

by: the Common Constitutionalist

Debate ain’t just something you put on a fishhook, but with all the lies flying around, it smelled as bad during the last one.

Obama said the Benghazi incident in Libya was a terror attack: Pardon me for beginning with the most blatant assault on your senses. No he did not say that & he knows he’s lying! And by the way, the UN Ambassador, Rice is not part of the State Department; so who, if not Obama, sent her out to continually lie about the attack being caused by a silly video that no one saw?

The president is Mr. Energy: This would be a real knee slapper it weren’t so serious. Obama is enemy number one to the energy sector and he knows it, with the wholesale closings of coal plants, lawsuits against gas producers and oil producers and moratoriums on drilling and exploration of public lands. Mitt Romney was 100% correct regarding his facts on Obama’s record for both oil production and coal.

Mitt Romney has investments in China: Yes he does and as he stated so does Obama, as well as millions of other American citizens. And there is no larger investor in China than GM, Government Motors, Barack’s poster child for government bailouts, where 7 out of 10 of their manufacturing plants are in China. You like apples, UAW? How do you like them apples?

Middle Class tax cuts: He told us he would cut our taxes and he did. Obama has not cut mine or your taxes. Tax cuts are not rebates or temporary tax holidays. When one says, “I will cut your taxes”, the other hears and understands, my tax rate will be cut. Obama has done no such thing, nor will he.

Romney’s Taxes:When Obama said,” Mr. Romney thinks it’s fair to pay a lower tax rate than a nurse or bus driver”, Barack is either stupid or lying. Since we all know “The One” is

There are No Secrets

a genius, he must be a liar. Anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of tax policy would know that capital gains and dividends are always taxed at a lower rate than is regular income. Why? It’s simple. Capital gains and other investment incomes are actually double taxed. The money is first taxed as income and then that income is invested and taxed again. Sounds fair, eh?

Obama wants equal time to speak during the Debate: Well, he didn’t get it. In fact, in all three debates; the 2 presidential and 1 V.P. event, the democrat candidate had more time than his republican challenger. Obama had a full 10% more time during the last debate. So when John Candy-Crowley told Barack, he’d get his chance to speak, she wasn’t kidding.

We didn’t lose a dime bailing out the banks: Wrongo! Pants on Fire! The same day Obama made that statement the CBO confirmed we lost $24 billion taxpayer dollars on the bank bailouts.

Barack administration created 5 million new jobs during his great recovery: That sounds great but he neglected one important thing; to subtract all the jobs that were lost. Just a minor detail, I know. That’s like saying the Patriots scored 23 points last week. That’s fabulous until you add up the points the Seahawks scored, which were 24.

Barack saved General Motors, while Romney wanted to force them into bankruptcy: In fact government motors did go through a managed bankruptcy guided by the Obama administration and their cronies, which left most investors including the bondholders with virtually nothing. Mitt Romney knows, and so, I’m sure, does Barack Obama, that a standard corporate bankruptcy is not an automatic death sentence for the company. It simply allows them to write off debt and restructure thus becoming more competitive and able to survive. One doesn’t close the door and fire everybody just because they go through bankruptcy, and Obama, no doubt, knows this. Oh by the way, GM stills owes the taxpayers in excess of $35 billion and we will never see it!

Equal pay for women: Fun fact: Women who work on Obama’s own staff make a minimum of 18% less than their male counterparts.

Obama Wins Debate!

by: the Common Constitutionalist

It’s 6:00 pm, Tuesday, October 16,2012 and I have a prediction.

Barack Obama won the Town hall-style debate!

Yes, I know it’s still a few hours before the start. So how can I call it already, you ask?

Simple. The story has been written.  The mainstream media is so “in the tank” for Obama, that unless Mitt Romney overwhelms him once again he will be declared the winner.

That is, of course, their biggest fear; that Romney will completely outclass the president as he did in the first debate and the media will be unable to declare their beloved president the victor.

The media is lucky, in one regard; that the debate format is a Town hall with a small “needy” audience.

I understand that there are to be approximately 80 attendees. These attendees are supposed to be undecided or independent voters selected by the Gallup organization by means of polling.

I haven’t seen nor heard the selection process of the Gallup group, but if it’s anything like the other public polling organizations, save for Rasmussen, rest assured Romney will receive the short end of the stick, as it were.

The audience may not be packed with the leftists but you can bet there’ll be enough to tip the scales in Obama’s favor.

Candy Crowley of CNN, the fair and balanced news organization, will be the moderator for tonight’s debate. She is neither fair nor balanced. She wants Obama to win as much as the other leftists and will do everything in her power as moderator to make it so.

Crowley has already made it known that she will dispense with the agreed-upon rules about asking her own questions and will interject any time she sees fit. That seems perfectly reasonable.

In other words, if she doesn’t get the result she is looking for, Ms. Crowley will just press the point until she does.

As an aside, why in the heck does the Romney campaign put up with this nonsense? Why is it that there is never a single conservative moderator at these debates? I have asked this same question for years. Why do the Republicans put up with this crap? Why not simply have two moderators? For every Candy Crowley or PBS hack, there could be a Michelle Malkin or an Ann Coulter, etc.

The deck is stacked against Mitt Romney, in two ways. First, you have a liberal moderator who already said she’s throwing out the rules and will do whatever she pleases to facilitate Obama’s victory. Okay, she didn’t say the facilitate part, but it is implied. Second, it’s a town hall format. Town halls are notorious for attracting the needy; the people who just want government to do something for them.

The advantage that we may have this time is that regardless of whom is in the room, Mitt Romney will most assuredly be the smartest one in it.

With that intelligence and overall good grasp of the issues, as was demonstrated in the last debate; Romney may be able to climb out of the hole that the leftists have dug for him.

One way or the other Mitt Romney has an uphill battle facing him tonight.

As usually occurs during these town hall debates, the questions will be mostly inane.

Questions like, “Mr. Romney, I’m having trouble paying for my Harvard tuition. How can the government help me?” Maybe Stella in the third row will ask, “Mr. Romney, I need a new kitchen. What can the government do for me?”

Another audience member may ask a hard-hitting question of the president, such as, ” Tell me sir, why are you so awesome?” Ms. Crowley will then add, “Yes, why is that?”

Mitt will of course try to answer the questions honestly and candidly whereas King Barack will just lie to them and pander. Naturally, that will be good enough for Ms. Crowley.

As I stated before, the story has already been written. Within the war rooms of all the major media outlets, tomorrow’s headline has been crafted and will read, “Obama, the Comeback Kid.”

Let’s just hope that Romney can once again come out firing on all cylinders, forcing them to rewrite tomorrow’s headline.

Post Debate

by: the Common Constitutionalist

At the start of the Vice Presidential debate, I thought Joe Bidens strategy might be a winner, but his condescension soon started to grate on me. The constant interruption of Paul Ryan was deplorable.

In fact, Biden interrupted Ryan 82 times during the 40 minutes Ryan was able to speak. That’s an interruption approximately every 30 seconds. Way to do your job Martha.

As Rush says, the Joe Biden you saw last night, was the real Joe Biden and the real modern-day democrat party. Mean, arrogant and patronizing.

I don’t know how Ryan felt, but I was worn out, watching Old Uncle Joe (not Stalin; Biden) cackling, grinning, wagging his finger and lecturing me.

I always thought the media, and the left in general, were disgusted by angry old white men. Yet, watching and listening to the main stream and lefty cable shows, post-debate, one would think the democrats were, in fact, the party of angry old white guys.

When discussing Iran’s nuclear capabilities, Ryan repeatedly stressed that they (Iran) had four additional years to develop fissionable materials and thus develop a nuclear weapon.

Biden’s retort was to agree, that Iran has more fissionable material but forcefully stated, “that we have no need to fear because they don’t a weapon to put it in.”

Well, that sure is good news Joe. And, of course, they’ll never find anyone willing to sell them one.

Biden turned to the camera and stated, “ Folks, we’re going to knowwwwww if Iran acquires a weapon.” “WE’LL KNOW!”

Really Joe; you’ll know? Just like you knew that the Benghazi attack was terrorism and not due to a video?

How Joe, will you find out they have a weapon? Will you receive that information from your intelligence community? You know, the one you threw under the bus, when you said they gave you the wrong info regarding Benghazi, and were unable to get you the correct intelligence for a two solid weeks. Is that where you will get the information regarding Iran’s bomb?

I’m not in the intelligence community, but even I could let this administration know two weeks after Iran gets a nuclear weapon.

It will be fairly evidently from the giant crater and nuclear fallout that was Israel.

Also, I would add that terrorists don’t need missiles. All they need are suitcases or backpacks and several brainwashed idiots willing to blow themselves for Allah.

As for the rest of the debate, it was more of the same; Old Joe, smiling, cackling and lying about all of the administrations domestic positions. In between, was Joe’s constant attempt at belittling Paul Ryan. By the close of the debate it was clear that Biden looked the village idiot.

One of the barometers of how well Old Joe did is how much time the mainstream media will continue to spend on breaking the debate down.

If he pulled off a clear and concise victory, the press will be discussing his brilliance up until the second the second presidential debate begins next week.

But the AP (Associated Press) , which, for all intent and purpose, is the media arm of the White House, is already speaking of the next Presidential debate. That debate is still a week away. That tells me they don’t want to discuss Old Joe’s performance. Evidently, the sooner they can put it behind them, the better.

Reports have also surfaced that the debate “Moderator” Martha Raddatz actually visited Old Uncle Joe Biden in the White House sometime prior to the debate. I’m sure it was to just stop by and say howdy and not to discuss the questions she would ask during the debate.

As it turns out Martha did Paul Ryan a huge favor by siding with Old Joe. Martha unwittingly preformed a valuable service to the viewing public by allowing all to see Old Uncle Joe, as he really is, an angry, insipid and shrill liberal.

The old saying is, if someone insists on making a fool of themselves, just get out their way and let them.

Ryan, I thought, may have been a little too polite for my taste, but it worked for him. The consensus opinion is that Paul Ryan won and Joe Biden surely lost, both the debate and his mind.

A Smackdown

From: RedState

There was a surreal moment after the debate last night. On CNN, the polling went overwhelmingly for Mitt Romney among debate watchers. Basically two-thirds of the American public who watched the debate claimed Romney won. A majority claimed Romney was with them on taxes, the economy, healthcare, their views of government, etc. He dominated.

A CBS poll of undecided voters who watched the debate mirrored the CNN poll.

Suddenly the Democrats took to the airwaves and twitter to rail against the polls oversampling Republicans and being too heavily skewed, too instant to be meaningful, and clearly not an accurate statistical sample of anything.

About the same time Barack Obama’s campaign team was melting down on television, the campaign sent out an email that did not even mention the Presidential debate. It just wanted more money.

The debate was so bad for Barack Obama I expect Eric Holder to send Jim Lehrer to GTMO. Barack Obama suddenly agrees with Republicans on defunding PBS. Without his precious TelePrompTer to feed his Gollumesque addiction to its illuminated, precious words, the President fell flat. Instead of John Kerry for a debate partner, the President should have just gone through airport security a few times or embraced BOHICA as a debate preparation strategy.

Put it to you this way, within ten minutes of the debate ending, Jessica Yellin of CNN spoke with Stephanie Cutter of the Obama campaign. Ms. Cutter conceded up front that Mitt Romney won on both debate preparation and debate style. It went downhill from there. She began parroting talking points about the debate she herself released to Obama surrogate at sun up yesterday morning. She had nothing new to add.

Mitt Romney had substance, counterarguments for Barack Obama’s points, rebuttals, and a friendly manner. Barack Obama kept his head down at the podium and refused to make eye contact with Mitt Romney. This too is what Barack Obama did with the economy and Libya.

Barack Obama, at one point, interrupted Jim Lehrer and asked Lehrer to move on to a new topic. It was a brilliant metaphor for what Barack Obama did coming into office. He looked at the economy and decided to move on to Obamacare. His whole career has been one of passing the buck, shifting blame, and failing to take responsibility for tough challenges. He did the same last night.

For four years, Barack Obama has rarely been challenged and he handled it poorly last night. He was ill prepared, flustered easily, and came off as petulant. At some point we should expect the empty chair to ask Barack Obama to take a vacation day and let it debate instead.

I think the explanation for Obama’s performance is pretty simple. Gods in the cult of personality do not like to come off Olympus to be challenged by mere mortals.

There is an important point, however, for Republicans. This was one debate. This was not the election. Mitt Romney showed he can do it. But the campaign needs your help now more than ever. Every penny helps. I guarantee you we are about to see the media resurrect the “Obama is the underdog” theme and, in the meantime, look for most media polls to suddenly have a D+20 sample.

Mitt Romney did fantastic last night.

Malkin Beats Me to the Punch

I am a Santorum supporter. Rather than just explaining why I don’t support the other schmoes, I’ve had a request to write an article explaining my support for him.

Well, it appears, I don’t have to. Michelle Malkin has expressed her support for Santorum as well as I ever could.

From Michelle Malkin:

Rick Santorum opposed TARP.

He didn’t cave when Chicken Littles in Washington invoked a manufactured crisis in 2008. He didn’t follow the pro-bailout GOP crowd — including Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich — and he didn’t have to obfuscate or rationalize his position then or now, like Rick Perry and Herman Cain did. He also opposed the auto bailout, Freddie and Fannie bailout, and porkulus bills.

Santorum opposed individual health care mandates — clearly and forcefully — as far back as his 1994 U.S. Senate run. He has launched the most cogent, forceful fusillade against both Romney and Gingrich for their muddied, pro-individual U.S. Senate waters.

He voted against cap and trade in 2003, voted yes to drilling in ANWR, and unlike Romney and Gingrich, Santorum
has never dabbled with eco-radicals like John Holdren, Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi. He hasn’t written any “Contracts with the Earth”, as Newt did.

Santorum is strong on border security, national security, and defense. Mitt the Flip-Flopper and Open Borders-Pandering Newt have been far less trustworthy on immigration enforcement.

Santorum is an eloquent spokesperson for the culture of life. He has been savaged and ridiculed by leftist elites for upholding traditional family values — not just in word, but in deed.

He won Iowa through hard work and competent campaign management. Santorum has improved in every GOP debate and gave his strongest performance last week in Florida, wherein he both dismantled Romneycare and popped the Newt bubble by directly challenging the front-runners’ character and candor without resorting to their petty tactics.

He rose above the fray by sticking to issues.

Most commendably, he refused to join Gingrich and Perry in indulging in the contemptible Occupier rhetoric against Romney. Character and honor matter. Santorum has it.

Of course, Santorum is not perfect. As I’ve said all along, every election cycle is a Pageant of the Imperfects. He lost his Senate re-election bid in 2006, an abysmal year for conservatives. He was a go-along, get-along Big Government Republican in the Bush era. He supported No Child Left Behind, the prescription drug benefit entitlement, steel tariffs, and earmarks and outraged us movement conservatives by endorsing RINO Arlen Specter over stalwart conservative Pat Toomey.

I have no illusions about Rick Santorum. I wish he were as rock-solid on core economic issues as Ron Paul.

And I wish Ron Paul was not the far-out, Alex Jones-panderer on foreign policy, defense, and national security that he is.

If Ron Paul talked more like his son, Rand Paul, about the need for common-sense profiling of jihadists
at our State Department consular offices overseas and if he talked more about the need for strengthened visa screening and airport security scrutiny of international flight manifests, I might have more than a kernel of confidence that he would take post-9/11 precautions to guard against jihadi threats and protect us from our enemies foreign and domestic. But he doesn’t, so I can’t support Ron Paul.

Mitt Romney has the backing of many solid conservatives whom I will always hold in high esteem — including Kansas Secretary of State and immigration enforcement stalwart Kris Kobach, former U.N. ambassador John Bolton, and GOP Govs. Nikki Haley and Bob McDonnell. With such conservative advisers in his camp, Romney would be better than Obama. And a GOP Congress with a staunch Tea Party-backed contingent of fresh-blood leaders in the House and Senate will help keep any GOP president in line. Romney’s private-sector experience and achievements are the best things he’s got going. Only recently has he risen to defend himself effectively. But between his health care debacle, eco-nitwittery, and expedient and unconvincing political metamorphosis, Mitt Romney had way too much ideological baggage for me in 2008 to earn an endorsement — and it still hasn’t

changed for me in 2012.

Lest we forget, this election is not about choosing a showboat candidate to run against John King or Juan Williams or Wolf Blitzer.

It’s not about “raging against” some arbitrarily defined GOP “machine.”

For many grass-roots conservatives across the country, Romney and Gingrich are the machine.

And at this point in the game, Rick Santorum represents the most conservative candidate still standing who can articulate both fiscal and social conservative values — and live them.

A Man Without a (Tea) Party

Wake up Tea Party. You’re backing the wrong man and I can’t figure out why?

Newt’s latest attack of Romney is over Bain Capital and how Mitt has “destroyed jobs”, etc.

There is plenty of things to tag Romney with. Why pick the one capitalist thing he has done? That doesn’t sound like a conservative.

Yet plenty of Tea Party leaders are backing Newt.

“My sense is there is a growing coalition behind Newt Gingrich,” said Joe Dugan, leader of the South Carolina Tea Party. He added that Tea Party members do not want a “moderate” like Romney as their standard-bearer.

He would much rather throw in with an FDR “Progressive” than a moderate or a real conservative like Santorum.

Yes, I said FDR. As I have stated in past articles, Newt has proclaimed reverence for the 4 most despicable presidents in history; Jackson, Theodore Roosevelt, Wilson & Franklin Roosevelt. If given enough time, he’ll probably eulogize LBJ.

If I knew nothing more about Newt, that would be enough. No real conservative would ever back such a man.

I recall going to Tea Party events, where many were condemning Obama for his socialist, Marxist, communist, terrorist friends and ties. You do pick your friends, allies and idols, you know.

Now, I suppose, it’s ok to discount the candidate’s own words & alliances.

I guess we’ll just overlook when Newt stated how, “The Four Freedoms still work.”

In his own words:

No Reagan, no Coolidge or Harding. Just FDR & Wilson.

If you are not familiar with the Four Freedoms, it was part of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s 1941 State of the Union speech where he said everyone in the world should have the freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want, and freedom from fear.

The first 2 are fine, but the third & fourth? Really? Are they in the Constitution, Mr. “History Professor” Gingrich?

Tea Party Nation founder Judson Phillips said, “Newt Gingrich is not perfect, but he is head and shoulders above the best candidate in the field right now.”

Holy crap!! I think I just figured it out. I began writing this article without knowing why my supposed brethren would do this. I was just hoping to solve it before I completed this.

Let’s read what Phillips said again. He is the best “Candidate” in the field. That’s it; Candidate!

Well folks, a candidate can’t govern. These Tea Partiers backing Newt are evidently giving little to no thought of how he will govern once he becomes president. They are so blinded by the possibility of Barack Obama winning a second term; they are willing to sell out what I thought they/we stood for.

Do they think Newt’s fire & brimstone style will carry the day? He only surges after debates. Without them, he is surely toast anyway.

Remember people; both sides have to agree to debates. How many, where, when, etc.
They will also be moderated by the enemy and the audiences that Newt relies on so heavily, will be stacked against him. I guarantee it.

If Newt wins the nomination, Obama may debate him once, even twice early on and then, nothing. There will more than ample time for any debate bounce to vanish.

I don’t care if Newt says he’ll follow Obama to the ends of the earth, The One, will not continue to debate him and the media will certainly carry his water in that regard.

Now, with my rant finished, I will still more than likely, hold my nose once again and vote for Newt, if he wins the nomination. I would vote for a dirty diaper before casting my ballot for King Barack.

The Migration of Newt, Back to the Left

Newt has officially lost me. I was starting to warm to the idea of supporting him. He has had so many strong debate performances; one couldn’t help but to want to jump on board.

For the longest time I called Newt a convenient Conservative, meaning he spoke as a conservative when it was popular & convenient to do so. Whenever he started to get pushback, he was able to eruditely move back toward the mushy middle.

He has fooled me for the last time. I have had enough. I will not support Newt. If he becomes the nominee, of course I will vote for him, holding my nose, once again. I would vote for Spongebob Squarepants rather than Obama.

During last night’s debate Gingrich morphed into a George Bush, compassionate conservative clone. His answer to an illegal immigration question jolted me out of my mesmerized state. I guess I should thank him for snapping me back to reality.

He argued the children of illegal immigrants should not be ripped away from their families. He said that he did not believe Americans wanted to take people who have lived in the country for 25 years and expel them over a crime committed long ago.

He exclaimed that we would have a hard time explaining the uprooting of an entrenched illegal that has been here for 25 years, working, paying taxes, with a family & children in school. He added that he doesn’t see how the republicans, who claim to be the party of the family, could destroy families that have been here for a quarter of a century?

I wouldn’t have a hard time explaining it. It’s quite easy. Here it is.
Mr. or Ms. Illegal; You’ve broken the law for 25 years. Now you’ll finally be punished. It will be your choice to break up your family because of it. Here’s a solution; Take your family with you.

For illegal aliens to live & work in this country, there are only 2 possible scenarios, both unlawful (3, if you count MS 13). You are either committing tax evasion by working here illegally or committing identity theft (fraud) by using someone else’s Social Security number to pay said taxes. Pick your poison.

John Adams said, “ We are a nation of laws, not of men”. Obey the law or change the law. Don’t just ignore the law.

I also don’t wish to hear that Ronald Reagan did it.

Sorry, but it's a fact. I don't like it either.

He screwed up. He believed the lies that were told to him by the democrats about sealing the border, which of course, never happened. Shame on him for believing the dems. He made a mistake.

A few more questions: What if they have been here for less than 25 years? 25 seems like a rather arbitrary number.
What if, after all this time, they still can’t speak English?
When citizens get sentenced to prison, don’t they get ripped from their families? What if the illegal has no family?

In a 2007 Meet the Press interview, Mitt Romney said that illegals should be able to sign up for residency & a path to citizenship. Newt didn’t go that far. He was very careful not to mention anything about citizenship, just someway to make them legal.

This is pulled directly from Newts New Hampshire Campaign emailing, The Daily Newt: “Newt does not believe we have a binary choice between forcibly deporting 11 million people or letting them all stay. Newt recognizes that in some cases where people have lived in the United States for 20-25 years, have had children here, have joined churches and civic groups, and have OTHERWISE lived law-abiding lives, we are unlikely to forcibly deport them but find a way to make an exception for such families, and regularize their status without providing citizenship.”

It continues, “One idea for how to handle such humanitarian exceptions proposed by Gingrich is to empower local communities with the authority to allow those with long-established roots in the neighborhood a legal residency status, but not citizenship. Newt believes local communities are at a better vantage point to determine if those there illegally should stay or go. Under this system, kind of like Selective Service System boards, we will send home those without 20-25 years of residency here and family and community ties.”

Who will be the arbiter of that policy? Arbiter, “Mr. Illegal, have you been here for at least 20 years?” Mr. Illegal, Oh Sí!” Arbiter, “Ok, you may stay”.

Yes, and once they somehow become legal or “regularized”; of course it will end there. No one will ever push it to the next logical conclusion, citizenship. Right.

Mr. Speaker; Madame Pelosi is waiting for you to join her on the couch again.