Tag Archives: newt gingrich

Newt Gingrich Proving To Be Surprisingly Strong in New Jersey

 Bookmark and ShareNew Jersey Republicans may be happy with Governor Christie’s job performance but not all of them are in agreement with his first choice for the Republican presidential nomination.  many New Jersey Republicans are throwing their weight behind former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich.  Myself included.  While I made sure to give each of the presidential candidates a fair hearing and gave them an all opportunity to earn my vote, back in November I concluded that Newt earned my endorsement and made it public on POLITICS 24/7’s  sister site, White House 2012.

Despite my support for Newt, I have been critical of him.  When mistakes have been made, like Newt Gingrich himself, I see no shame in admitting them, especially if one learns from them and does not repeat them.  And as this campaign progresses, I still believe that Newt Gingrich is the man best suited to do the job we need done in the years ahead.  And so do many New Jerseyans.  This realization has only been reinforced in the weeks since I endorsed him and until recently when I honored to be appointed the Regional Director of Central New Jersey for Newt 2012 .

The position is one that has afforded me the opportunity to get a true sense of how deep support for Newt runs.  Hundreds of volunteers across New Jersey have declared that they too belive that newt Gingrich has a proven record and solid vision for the type of true conservative reforms that our nation needs.  They understand that his he is the anti-establishment candidate and they are proud of it.  Many conservatives like the fact that Newt has always been willing to take on the establishment because he realizes that it is the political establishment that is holding us back with behemoth sized  bureaucracy and the crony capitalism of inside the Beltway political figures who allow bad personal politics to override positive public policy.

Yet today, some are again writing Newt Gingrich off.  Once again, some are trying to claim that this is a two man race that does not include Newt Gingrich.  Well those same people who were wrong before, are wrong again.  Ask people like DeLinda Ridings, who served as a Regional Director for Newt Gingrich in South Carolina.  After two back to back losses in Iowa and New Hampshire, people like DeLinda Ridings help to coordinate the effort and organize the support of Newt Gingrich supporters to pull off an astounding landslide victory that crossed every demographic.

That in and of itself is makes it worthwhile to remember that history does tend to repeat itself.  And if the enthusiasm among Newt Gingrich supporters is any indication, the victory that South Carolinians pulled off for Newt in the Palmetto State can very easily be duplicated in the Garden State and others as well.  That is especially the case given the fact that a few political lifetimes can pass between now and the New Jersey Presidential primary that will take place four months from now in June.

In that time, we are very likely going to see the position of frontrunner change hands numerous times, and while I am confident that Republicans will be united behind our candidate by the time we head to Tampa for the Republican National Convention, I am also confident that each of the candidates are going to to do their best to earn that united support till the bitter end.  In the case of New Jersey, it is one of very last battles in the nomination process and could prove to be quite pivotal in determining who the nominee is.  But as of now, I can tell you that regardless of what any state polls might indicate, the one thing they can not accurately gauge is how strongly voters stand behind their choice for President. And when it comes to the volunteers who are committing themselves to Newt in New Jersey those supporters vary from young to old.  It consists of young college students to older, retired persons.  It includes high powered attorneys to high powered, high energy Moms. school teachers, union workers, small business owners and minimum wage earners.  But regardless of their age or status, they all share at least one favorite quality about Newt.  We know that he is unafraid to challenge the status quo of Washington, D.C. and even fellow conservatives.

Newt supporters know that he will challenge traditional political thinking and force conservatives to make the Republican Party the Party of ideas once again.  We know that Newt is in the mold of great conservative thinkers like Jack Kemp who forced his economic ideas upon the Party and even sold Reaganomics to Ronald Reagan and introduced our nation to the type of Urban Enterprise Zones that revitalized once depressed and dilapidated urban centers.

They know that unlike Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich is the only candidate running for President who understands that we can’t just tinker with the our regressive tax code that is burdening our national economy and depressing every family’s economy and that we must  instead abolish our complex, failing, loophole ridden tax code, with one that offers one rate for one nation and can help grow our economy by leaps and bounds.

New Jersey Republicans understand that our ship of state can’t continue sail the rough seas created by the excessive growth of government and the ever increasing expansion of government involvement in our lives.   They know that to survive the government created tsunami in front of us, we must quickly change course with sharp turns away from the socialist path of so-called moderates and the progressiv-liberal Democrats that have hijacked the Constitution and placed it in the hands of activist judges who have a greater desire to impose on us their personal political agenda than to interpret the intention of our laws.

So I urge all New Jersey voters to remember that this race is not over.  There is a long way yet to go and I ask that you join us in supporting the only conservative reformer in the race for President…..Newt Gingrich, the conservative with a true vision, a vision fitting of our great nation.  A vision that suits the high aspirations of our nation and its people.

To join the effort, you can contact me, Anthony Del Pellegrino, at :

Newt2012CentralNJ@gmail.com

You will be directed to the coordinator of the region you residen in, and we will get you on board with Team Newt!

Bookmark and Share

Leave a comment

Filed under politics

Santorum Ad Tells Us What the “DEAL” with Newt Gingrich is

Bookmark and Share Fresh off of his poor third place showing in Florida, Rick Santorum is trying to take advantage of Newt Gingrich’s big 15% second place loss to Mitt Romney in the Sunshine State by reclaiming the title of “conservative alternative” to Mitt Romney, the big winner in Tuesday’s primary contest [see the ad below this post].

The ad entitled “Deal”, is a very powerful condemnation of Gingrich which catches you off guard with opening arguments that would have you think the ad is comparing Santorum to his three Republican rivals, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, and Ron Paul. It claims that the three politicians in question support legislative policies which are conservative anathema; Cap-and-Trade, amnesty, and the government bailouts. It would be bad enough for Santorum’s Republican rivals to have to wear all three of those issues around their necks, but the surprise comes when it is revealed that three politicians in question are not Romney, Paul, and Gingrich but rather President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Newt Gingrich.

The surprise comparison is twice as debilitating for Gingrich because while you might expect Mitt Romney to be accused of being too liberal, this ad avoids Romney and shockingly puts Newt Gingrich in an entirely differently league, one that puts him directly in the room with iconic liberals Obama and Pelosi.

The ad happens to be one of the most effective of this campaign cycle to date. It is produced well and is quite creative. It also presents Santorum’s case against Newt in a way that avoids being overly outlandish and to the point of being too hard to believe.

Yet while the ad is quite good, it is also indicative of the unfortunate position that Rick Santorum finds himself in. This ad pits him against Newt Gingrich, not frontrunner Mitt Romney, and it signals the fact that Santorum knows he is still competing in a primary within the primary………. the conservative primary within the Republican primary. It demonstrates that Rick Santorum is in a desperate fight to just get in to the race against Mitt Romney.

The good news for Santorum is that it is quite possible that conservatives have not yet ensconced themselves in Newt’s camp and Rick could still possibly win over a majority of them. One most notable conservative to recently go to Santorum’s side is Michele Malkin, a talking head with a considerably large conservative following. But at the same time it is a little late in this race for Santorum to hope his horse places or shows when the only ticket he can cash in on is the one to win.

But hope springs eternal and this ad is has a spin on it that forces me to give Rick Santorum a lot of credit, even though I believe it will help Mitt Romney than it will help Santorum.

5 Comments

Filed under politics

Romney Wins Florida But Newt Makes It Clear That There are “46 More States to Go”

Bookmark and Share As is the norm for Florida, the Sunshine State has again made electoral history. For the first time, the Republican winner of the South Carolina primary, lost the Florida primary. What it means in the long term is uncertain, but what it means in the short term is quite apparent. Nationally, Republicans have no real clear favorite for President yet.

Still, Mitt Romney’s win was significant and he deserve credit for orchestrating it. He spent $17 million to do it, but he did it and in the end, especially with 50 delegates now in his column, that is all that matters. However, while Romney once again becomes the frontrunner for the nomination, you will have to forgive me if do not declare this race over yet.

With little more than 5% of the delegates allocated so far, there is no denying that the race is not over yet, but it was made even more obvious to me after hearing Romney deliver his victory speech, and after Gingrich and Santorum gave their concession speeches.

In his speech, Mitt Romney rose to the occasion and sounded enthusiastic, but humble, and most of all, he sounded presidential. He delivered a speech that allowed people to truly begin to get comfortable with the idea of him being the candidate who can take the fight to President Barack Obama and beat him. He didn’t seal the deal, but his Florida victory speech helped make people more willing to accept the now almost inevitability of his being nominated for president. And now back in the frontrunner position, Romney offered not only a brief glimpse of the potential that exists in his carrying the Republican banner, he even took some steps to put the ugliness of the intraparty battle for the nomination behind him by eloquently making the point that “a competitive primary does not divide us, it prepares us.”

But in his facing the fact that he came in second place to Romney with at least 15% less of the vote than Romney, Newt Gingrich offered a speech which oozed of defiance and held a true thirst for not just beating Barack Obama, but for bringing about the type of reforms that Americans want, but as of late, have not often come to see in either Republicans or Democrats. He also provided some of the best reasons for his candidacy to date.

While limiting his negative attacks to calling Romney a Massachusetts moderate, Newt introduced what was seemingly a very heartfelt, personal contract with the American people, a spin on the now famous 1994 Contract With America that he spearheaded and guided through Congress.

Newt’s personal contract consists of two parts. The first part is conditional and it requires that the people elect conservatives to Congress. If they do that, Newt promises that before he takes office, he will request that on January 3rd, 2013, the new Congress stays in session and immediately repeals Obamacare, Dodd-Franks, and Sarbanes Oxley, three bills that are being viewed as among the most detrimental legislative initiatives effecting our economy. Gingrich vows that if the American people elect strong conservative majorities to Congress, those three measures can be repealed by Congress and on the day of his inauguration, he will sign the legislation to rid us of those massive government burdens. The problem there is that unless it is veto proof majority, President Obama will have the opportunity to veto it before Gingrich has the opportunity to sign it. So Newt might want to hold back on his request for january 3rd vote on those issues.

The rest of Newt’s personal contract is a promise to promptly enact a series of constitutional executive orders that will consist of immediately abolishing the existence of all White House czars, an immediate order to commence construction of the Keystone Pipeline project, an executive order opening the American embassy in Jerusalem and essentially acknowledging that divided city as Israel’s capital, another executive order which would reinstate the Reagan policy that did not allow federal money to fund any abortions, anywhere in the world, and last but not least, he promised to enact an order that repeals any and all of the anti-religious acts enacted by the Obama Administration in what Newt described as the President’s war on religion.

Newt’s speech was far from a concession speech, but what it did do was offer voters some good reasons for why Newt should not give up. With a room full of supporters waving signs that reminded voters that there are 46 more states which have yet to vote, Newt demonstrated that he still has what it takes to continue contesting this election.

The other speech of note came from third place finisher Senator Rick Santorum.

Even though Santorum placed a very distant third with only 13% of the vote in Florida, his speech actually provided a good rationale for his own continued participation in this race.

Knowing full well that he was not going to have a strong showing in Florida, Santorum elected to make his primary night remarks from Nevada, where he is campaigning in advance of that state’s Caucus which takes place this Saturday.

Taking advantage of the very rarely traveled high road in their primary contest, Santorum exploited the bitter battle between Romney and Gingrich by looking like the adult in the room who had his eye on the real prize…….defeating President Obama.

He stated that he was not going to criticize the personal and public successes achieved by both Gingrich and Romney as they have done to one another. Instead he declared that republicans deserve better, and that he was going to focus on the issues important to the American people. However, Santorum did argue that Newt failed at taking the momentum he had coming out South Carolina and converting it in to establishing himself as the conservative alternative to Mitt Romney. According to Santorum, Newt proved to make himself the issue and the American people do not need a President who is the issue, but rather a President who can address the issues and solve the problems surrounding them.

All three speeches were actually quite good and they all provided a solid foundation and legitimate reasons for this nomination contest to remain competitive. The problem is that Santorum and Gingrich will still have to find the resources it takes to convince voters that it really isn’t over. If Newt can finally stick to the themes he struck in his speech in Florida, themes based on his being the anti-establishment candidate and a true conservative leader capable of achieving very real and very bold reforms, he can survive long enough to see another victory, but it may not happen for another month or more and the longer he goes without a victory, the harder it will be for him to achieve one.

Right now, the only thing we can be certain of is that Mitt Romney is the one in the catbird seat tonight. The real problem I see here though is that Romney is still the candidate which for numerous reasons, many Republicans seem to be settling for. Such uninspired support makes it quite possible for someone like Newt to turn things around by actually inspiring people and causing voters say, you know what? I don’t have to settle for Mitt. We can do better.”

Until Mitt Romney is willing to stop playing it safe, and proves that he too can be a bold leader, he will remain vulnerable to being overshadowed by the boldness of Newt Gingrich’s vision and red meat agenda. For Mitt it is now a judgement call and a gamble. Does he continue to play it safe and rely on his giant campaign war chest to suppress the amount of support Gingrich and risk the possibility of Newt turning things around again? Or does he step out of his safety zone and make an attempt to prove that he is more than just a wealthy Republican establishment candidate?

My experience with Romney leads me to believe that he will continue to play it safe with the expectation that Newt will be do just the opposite and a loss it all by taking one too many risks.

On a final note, yes I know that I did not mention Ron Paul and that I did not include his concession speech. And no it is not because I am afraid that if I give him any ink, people will flock to his side and elect him President. The reason I did not include Ron Paul is because he has yet to become a significant factor in this election and because he said absolutely nothing new in his speech following his single digit, last place showing in Florida.

Bookmark and Share

2 Comments

Filed under politics

Join POLITICS 24/7 on the Steve Wark In The Morning Show

 Bookmark and Share POLTICS 24/7 editor-in-chief Anthony Del Pellegrino (aka:Kempite) will be a guest on The Steve Wark in the Morning Show, KMZQ, AM670, “Nevada’s number 1 station for talk”,  on:

Monday, January 3rd, 2011 at 8:00 am (PST), 11:00 am (EST).

The discusssion will range from the shaping Republican presidential race to the top freshmen legislators to look out for in the soon to be sworn in 112th Congress.

Join in the discusion. Call in at 702-866-6700

Bookmark and Share

Leave a comment

Filed under politics

THE LEGALIZED EMPLOYEE INTIMIDATION ACT

Bookmark and Share    I have held no punches when it comes to declaring my skepticism over our nations continued march in a socialist economic direction and some will argue that the march began not under President Obama but under President Bush when he proposed the first of the recent economic bailout packages. I for one will not defend the non-military related spending practices of President Bush, so I certainly wont defend President Obama against his overspending formulas and I certainly will not endorse any path to expedite our transition to socialism. But what of fascism?

336695336v3_350x350_frontIt is a rhetorical question.

I feel few Americans support fascist intentions. Yet the question is quite relevant when it comes to the current administration and contemporary liberal Democrats.

These are the people promoting something called the Employment Free Choice Act, or Card Check. Passage of Card Check would eliminate the right to vote for or against joining a union through a private ballot. The measure would also undermine the right to freely negotiate contracts.

Passage of Card Check will be a repression of opposition. It will help to produce a vote for unionizing that could be driven by intimidation. That is not democracy. It is fascism. Yet it has become clear that big labor, President Obama and his liberal congressional allies are forging ahead with this power grab.

In a closed-door meeting this past week, President Obama told over 100 top union officials that “we will pass the Employee Free Choice Act.” 

The move is an attack on our democratic values and will inflict a destructive impact on our economy.

Proof of that is best demonstrated by the damage inflicted on heavily unionized northern interests in Americas auto industry.

Government controls and liberal unionization has decimated the industry and turned it into one that can only survive with taxpayer funding. That is a drastic contrast from profitable auto maker in the southern U.S. who are not held hostage to unions. That part of the auto sector survives with profits, not deficits.

Despite these facts, Democrats are anxious to see the “Legalized Employee Intimidation Act” get passed.

They are the political beneficiaries of unions and by forcing more industries to unionize Democrats are increasing the wealth of financial contributions that unions donate to them.

What is startling though is the blatant disregard for democracy that Democrats are demonstrating here. They are willing to deny our fundamental right to vote privately and without coercion and they are willing to deny employers and employees the right to negotiate freely.

Fascism is defined as a movement that favors centralized control of private enterprise, extreme nationalism and repression of opposition. Under that definition one can easily see how we can be viewed as moving in that direction. Our government is controlling more and more of the private sector. Our government is nationalizing more and more of our interests and now they are tampering with the principles of the democratic voting rights.

It is time to put the breaks on government actions that will harm our economy anymore than it has already done and it is time to put an end to measures that take us further away from the original intentions of our intended republic.

Join me in signing a petition that asks the “U.S. Congress to ensure that every worker has the right to a secret ballot when deciding whether to organize a union, as well as the right to ratify the contract terms of their employment, rather than be forced to accept a contract through binding arbitration.” Visit the link  here to sign the petition and pass it on. 

Bookmark and Share
punchline-politics2

Jesus and a Union Guy

 

Two managers and a union worker were fishing on a lake one day, when Jesus walked across the water and joined them in the boat.

When the three astonished men had settled down enough to speak, the first guy asked humbly, “Jesus, I’ve suffered from back pain ever since I took shrapnel in the Vietnam war…could you help me?”

Of course, my son“, Jesus said, and when he touched the man’s back, he felt relief for the first time in years.

The second man, who wore very thick glasses and had a hard time reading and driving, asked if Jesus could do anything about his eyesight.

Jesus smiled, removed the man’s glasses and tossed them in the lake.

When they hit the water, the man’s eyes cleared and he could see everything distinctly.

When Jesus turned to heal the union worker, the guy put his hands up and cried defensively, “Don’t touch me! I’m on long term disability.”

Leave a comment

Filed under politics

THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF ’02 IS KILLING US IN ’09

Bookmark and Share    In 2002, congress created legislation commonly called the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. It was designed to respond to the accounting scandals of Enron and other business interests of the time.antsoxdummyThe legislation established new and increased regulations for all American owned and operated public company boards.

At the time, the Sarbanes-Oxley sponsored Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act of 2002 was considered to contain the most far-reaching reforms of American business practices since the time of Franklin D. Roosevelt.”

Sponsored by Paul Sarbanes, a Maryland Democrat Senator and Ohio Republican Congressman Michael Oxley, the bill passed with bipartisan support and was signed into effect by a Republican President, George W. Bush.  So credit and blame lies in the lap of both major parties but now, almost seven years later, the question is does Sarbanes-Oxley deserve more blame than credit.

The political purpose of the bill was achieved.  It helped to restore public confidence in the securities markets.

In the wake of the accounting scandal that brought down energy giant Enron, its stock prices plummeted from more than $90.00 a share to less than 50 cents a share and investors lost billions and Enron eventually went bankrupt. In response to the shocking demise of Enron, congress tried to act in a way that would restore investors confidence by trying to insure that the scandalous practices of Enron would not be repeated.

So congress responded to the problem which took care of the political objective. They did something about it. But what did they really do about it?

Regretfully, all they actually did was make themselves look good. They made themselves look like responsible legislators responding to our needs but looks are deceiving because seven years later, Sarbanes-Oxley is proving to be more of a hindrance than a help.

There is little evidence proving that the government entity created by Sarbanes-Oxley to oversee the accounting practices of businesses has been effective. In fact, after Democrats refused to pass legislation that would have changed their own accounting practices which led to the need to bailout FannieMac and FreddieMac, there is even more evidence which indicates that government should be the last entity to be counted on for effective oversight. It is government oversight which required banks and loaning entities such as FannieMae and FreddieMac to enter into high risk loans that could not be paid off. All of which helped to usher in the banking crisis that led the way to our current financial crunch.

It is all an example of government overreaching and innefficiency and innaccuracy.

Initially compliance with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act was projected to cost businesses, that want to go public, about $91 thousand dollars to do so but the actual figure is over $4 million dollars.

This typical government miscalculation has helped to push the start up time for businesses from five years to twelve years and it is adding to the stagnation of a much needed rate of growth for our economy.

At a time when the federal government has spent over $ 1 billion 200 million in the name of economic stimulus, does it really make sense to leave untouched, excessive legislation which is counterproductive to the goals of all that stimulus spending?

When you come down to it, enforcement of Sarbanes-Oxley costs more than it is worth.

That is not to suggest that Sarbanes-Oxley must be scrapped.   It must be amended.

Of the eleven sections in the bill, some have merit. Specifically, those sections which hold business executives and owners more accountable. However, no responsible legislative stimulus action can exist without addressing the many other detrimental sections of the bill which are having a debilitating effect on economic growth.

To allow the so-called Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act of 2002 to remain as is, during the economic recovery attempts of 2009, is irresponsible and reckless.

In its current form the bill is destroying new job creation, stifling our entrepreneurial spirit and surrendering entrepreneurial innovation to foreign competitors. None of which adds any value to the hundreds of billions of dollars that are intended to grow our economy.

Without changes to the Sarbanes-Oxley legislation, our government is allowing existing legislation to work against all of their current and future economic recovery measures. Without changes to this bill, we are prolonging the economic downturn we are in and putting our economic future on a course that will put us far behind the burgeoning markets and economies of Asia.

punchline-politics2

U4PREZ

A mathematician, an accountant and an economist apply for the same job.

The interviewer calls in the mathematician and asks “What do two plus two equal?” The mathematician replies “Four.” The interviewer asks “Four, exactly?” The mathematician looks at the interviewer incredulously and says “Yes, four, exactly.”

Then the interviewer calls in the accountant and asks the same question “What do two plus two equal?” The accountant says “On average, four – give or take ten percent, but on average, four.”

Then the interviewer calls in the economist and poses the same question “What do two plus two equal?” The economist gets up, locks the door, closes the shade, sits down next to the interviewer and says, “What do you want it to equal”?

Bookmark and Share

Leave a comment

Filed under politics

THE ALARM BELLS ARE RINGING YET IMMIGRATION REFORM IS STILL ON THE BACK BURNER

Digg!Last year, In Iraq,  5,908 civilians and Iraqi soldiers and police were killed between January 1, 2008 and December 29, 2008.

Members of the police carry a coffin of one of their own. Seven police employees were killed in the same incident that took this fallen officers life

Members of the police carry a coffin of one of their own. Seven police employees were killed in the same incident that took this fallen officers life

In Mexico, 5,376 Mexican federal agents, police and civilians who were killed  by drug traders during the same time period.

So it can be safely said that nearly as many Mexicans died as a result of drug terrorists as did Iraqi’s from the terrorism in their war torn nation.

All of us are aware of the threats posed by terrorism. 9/11 brought that fact home and since the events of September 11, 2001, America has been on guard and on the offense in that War On Terror. Since that dreadful day and our somewhat official declaration of War on Terror, not a single attack has again taken place on American soil.

That is quite a contrast from the record that we accumulated in the decades since we declared the War On Drugs.

The term “war on drugs’ was first used by President Richard Nixon in 1971. At the time it was a play on the well known “War On Poverty” penned by the administration of President Lyndon B. Johnson in the mid 60’s. The technical aspects of the War On Drugs have varied over time but it’s basic strategy has remained the same……. employ the cooperation of other nations to eliminate the illegal drug trade and eliminate the selling and use of illegal drugs through an aggressive zero tolerance, law enforcement agenda and a persistent and wide spread anti-drug education program and campaign.

To some degree, it has helped but the amount of time and money spent on the effort has produced results that are less than stellar. The rate of success in the War On Drugs certainly would not be considered acceptable in the War On Terror and yet as far apart as the results of the two are from each other, they are about to become one in the same.

Iraq is 6,005 miles away from the shores of the Unites States off of New York. That is a long distance yet we know that distance, although it may not make things easier, it still does not prevent terrorist attacks from taking place here. Mexico isn’t even inches away though. So terrorism through Mexico is even easier. They are connected to us, and not just physically. They are connected to us by direct and immediate contact through trade health, agriculture and citizens, legal and illegal. But perhaps the greatest connection between the United States and Mexico is drugs.

It is a deadly connection. One that dulls the minds of millions, endangers the lives of hundreds of thousands and kills tens of thousands each year.

A soldier stands guard in front of the Camino Real Hotel in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico.

A soldier stands guard in front of the Camino Real Hotel in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico.

Drugs are probably the most prolific and profitable commodity exchanged across the U.S.-Mexican border, yet, despite the negative effects, it’s illegality and the “war” on them, drugs flow form South to North with the ease of the Shenandoah River in the Virginias.

The incredibly violent rate of drug deaths in Mexico during 2008 is a loud warning bell. It rings with more dire warning than the bellowing horns of the Titanic as it went down after the iceberg tore a lethal hole into it’s hull.

The incredible number of deaths occurred as a result of the increased boldness of drug cartels and gangs. They have taken a stand and made it clear that they are defiant and will not allow any government to infringe on their livelihoods.

In 2008, an increasing amount of drug lords have made incursions in the United States. One of the most recent well publicized events brought about an Amber Alert after the grandson of a man with shady loan debts to drug dealers kidnapped his grandson. The boy turned up in Las Vegas, but the drug dealer’s message was clear.

However, I must ask, what will it take for the drug issue to be truly taken seriously in the United States? Would  it have made a difference if that little California boy was found with his throat slashed? How many more incidents will it take before we realize that terrorism is about to get a partner. A partner that, like Palestinians in Gaza firing missiles into Israel, will be lobbing more violence into America.

America must wake up.

While there are those so far on the left and so far to the right that they meet together in the ideological circle and both try to legalize illegal drug use, an explosion of death and violence that we have not seen before is about to unleash itself.

I am well aware that drug violence is nothing new, but the extent to which it is escalating is new and yet we sit idly by as though things are not different. We almost accept it as commonplace.

Do you know how ingrained the dug culture has become in our southern neighbor?

Ever hear narcocorrido?

antnarcoscorridosNarcocorrido is a form of music based on a type of Mexican folk music called corrido. It sounds like a Latin polka and goes way back in time. It was used to celebrate revolutionary figures and heroes like Emiliano Zapata and Pancho Villa. The new version is called narcocorrido and it sings the praises of drug traffickers and drug related bandits. One older narcocorrido sings about Camelia the Texan, and her boyfriend who go to Los Angeles with a load of marijuana in their car’s tires. They sell it and Camelia’s boyfriend dumps her, saying, “Here’s your half, now I’m going up to San Francisco to my true love.” The song goes on to sing about how Camelia pulls out a gun and pumps him full of lead.

It concludes with the line……… “All the police found was the fired pistol; of the money and Camelia, nothing more was ever known.”

Sweet tune, isn’t it?

Not that the little ditty is astonishing. Here in America, with the likes of P. Diddy, 50 Cent, Snoop Dog, and others, the lyrics of that narcocorrido could be considered tame by American standards. Then again, standards are the problem. Just as narcocorrido is easing into mainstream Mexico, acceptance of drugs and drug violence has been easing into American culture.

That is not to say that we think violence or drug violence is good, but our tolerance of it has increased as our Photobucketintolerance of drugs has leveled off.

For example, I can recall a recall a comments board for a local newspaper in New Jersey called the Asbury Park Press. In it was a story about underage teens arrested for drinking and serving alcohol at a party that they held in their home while their parents were away. More than 60 percent of the comments were of the “let them be” impression. Some said “kids will be kids” and others said “the police should be doing more important things than enforcing underage drinking laws”.

I am not suggesting to bring back prohibition of alcohol but I am merely pointing out the permissiveness that is increasing in society. People are actually suggesting that kids should be let off the hook for breaking laws.

My point is,  just as it took 9/11 to finally deal with terrorism effectively, what will it take for us to deal with drugs and the drug trade effectively?

I for one feel that some of the intentions of the “War On Drugs” must be dealt with by using the same sense of conviction that 9/11 created, especially when it comes to the drug wars goal of employing the cooperation of other nations to eliminate the illegal drug trade.

But more than that, I believe it would be encouraging if we at least secured our border with Mexico. In fact I believe that is, first and foremost our nations top priority.

YES!, our most important priority. More so than even the economy.Secure Border Avavatar

Without a secure border there will be no economy to handle.

At a later date, I will detail a proposal of my own that I have previously released. It is called Open Arms-Secure Borders. It is a comprehensive immigration reform proposal that welcomes legal immigration but defends the sovereignty of our nation and respects and secures our borders.

For now though, Americans must at least acknowledge the fact that the iceberg is in sight and that the U.S.S. Freedom & Prosperity better start steering in another direction or like the Titanic, we will tear apart our hull of security.

Digg!

Photobucket

punchline-politics21 

antlettucePOLITICAL IRONYanttitaniccomic

 During what can, at the very least, only be considered tough economic times, Congress is looked at for acting responsibly and demonstrating some fiscal responsibility.

Yet despite these facts, Congress goes ahead and accepts an automatic pay raise. 

Doing so is reminiscent of the captain of the Titanic demanding that iceberg lettuce be served with dinner the night the great vessel went down.

Digg!

RedWhiteBlue.gif picture by kempite

Be Sure To Sign The Petition To

REPEAL THE CONGRESSIONAL PAY HIKE

Sign the Online Petition – Repeal The Automatic Pay Raise That Congress Is Receiving

Pass The Link On To Family, Friends and Co-workers

http://www.gopetition.com/online/24301.html

Digg!

RedWhiteBlue.gif picture by kempite

1 Comment

Filed under politics

THE NEXT 2 YEARS COULD BE CRITICAL FOR REPUBLICANS

antlinesjpg

The GOP is literally at a make or break point that could a establish a fait accompli   

As we enter into the closing year of the new millennium’s first decade, the approaching official national census process is where some, if not a large portion of the battle for our political future will take place.

After the census has been taken in 2010, every legislative district from which we elect council members in local and city governments to state legislators and members of congress will be redrawn based upon the population shifts determined by the census.

This means that once those figures have been established, during 2010, state legislatures will spend the following year redrawing new legislative districts.

Despite laws that try to regulate how legislative maps can be drawn and try to eliminate gerrymandering, redistricting is primarily a political process that is left up to the political party or parties with majority control at the time that redistricting occurs. That said, the powers that be use their majority status to creatively draw new legislative districts that favor their party. A handful of states have separatecommissions that draw the district lines.  Some of those grant veto to the states governors and some don’t.  But regardless, even those commissions, involved in those 6 or states, contain a degree of politcal leanings.

In either event, by using a range of election results from over the last 8 years or so, party leaders establish where their favorable votes come from. Using that as their basis, they draw districts that contain a plurality of population centers that favor their party.

This allows the majority political party to substantially consolidate power by creating new election districts that are likely to send more of their kind to their county seats and state capitols as well as those who we send to congress.

Regardless of the laws that are designed to take political influence out of the redistricting process and despite the various state redistricting commissions that are set up to oversee the process, it is an entirely political process. You must understand that the politicians create the new districts maps themselves or appoint the redistricting commissions regulating the process. Even when the courts have to step in, it remains a political process…….Who appoints the judges that make the rulings on this type of stuff?…..The politicians. So no matter what, it is a fact that the redistricting process is a political process. To pretend it isn’t, is a demonstration of naiveté that should prohibit one from even discussing politics. The only arguable point may be the varying degree of politicization that the process holds for one state or another.

Keeping that in mind, in one sense the census will, or could benefit, Republicans on the national level.  Having the majority in various state legislatures is key though. 

Areas such as the Northeast will see a decreased sizes in population. That will result in several Northeastern states losing congressional seats. The region has practically no congressional Republicans left. Connecticut’s Chris Shays was one of the last few holdouts and his overreaching attempts to appeal to  Democrat by essentially voting like a Democrat didn’t hack it. Republicans did not like his trying to be a liberal and liberals did not find him liberal enough so he’s out.

But the loss of seats through redistricting in the Northeast, where Republicans don’t have many seats, will favor Republicans where they are still strong….the South and West.

The census will show a strong increase in Southern population and so will the West. That means the representation lost in places like New Jersey and New York will be added to places like Florida and California, where the increased population will get increased representation. Except for California that bodes well for Republicans, but not in and of itself.

The party in power of each individual state legislature will ultimately determine the final redistricting maps. The party in charge at the time will create new districts that favor themselves and increases their own pluralities in their state capitol. They will do the same with their own states congressional delegation to washington, DC, as they draw congressional districts that favor their party as well.

So that means, if, for example, New Jersey has A Democrat Governor and a Democrat majority in the state senate and the state assembly, which they do now, Democrats will make their existing state legislative districts more favorable to electing Democrats. They will also draw congressional districts that are inclined to do the same. In fact, with the possible loss of one seat due to relatively decreased population growth, the Democrat dominated state legislature would probably emaciate one of the rare congressional districts that Republicans have held, forever, in Northern New Jersey. In the recent 2008 election, incumbent Republican Congressman Mike Fergusson retired and his seat was won by a Republican state senator named Leonard Lance. After redistricting, he and his seat will probably be gerrymandered out of existence.

This all points to the following .

  • The GOP Must Act Quickly

We need to select a Republican National Chairman who has a vision of inclusiveness and a passionate command of the issues and ideological fervor that is rooted in the conservative foundation that has always been the basis of our most productive legislative sessions and our most successful election cycles. That person must also have the capacity for exceptional organizational development and cutting edge thinking that can exploit the internet and the grassroots. The new chairman must also be willing to act quickly and accept the fact that we need to prepare for the redistricting process that begins in 2010.  Any loss of time leading up to 2010 will wreak havoc on our prospects for the decade to follow. (Newt…..are you reading this?)

  • A Bottom Up Strategy

The new Republican National Committee Chairman must immediately focus on and direct all resources to local and state legislative elections. This may sound out of place for the “national” committee, however, by the time the end of 2010 rolls around, it is the state level which will strongly effect our national prospects in the redistricting process that occurs at the start of the next decade.  By electing more officials on the bottom of the ballot, in stste elections, we will be better able to effect races further up the ballot.

By spending the next two years establishing strong candidates to run strong campaigns for state senate and assembly seats, we will increase control of the state legislative bodies that are ultimately responsible for the redistricting that they will undertake after the 2010 census results. With that power and opportunity we will be able to draw new congressional districts that are favorable for increasing Republican pluralities in the newly drawn seats that will be up for grabs in 2012.

Without control of the redistricting process Democrats will have the opportunity to gerrymander more Republicans out of office and make it even harder to get elected into office . That will only make the decade to come more difficult for us to increase our state legislative and congressional prospects.

The new chairman of the RNC, whoever it may be, better be willing to utilize the little time we have between now and then wisely. The once every decade redistricting process that the new chairman should prepare us for could have more of an effect on GOP prospects and our regaining majority status in congress than any of the elections that will follow

 punchline-politics21

GOOD ANSWERS

I guess I would have voted with the majority if it was a close vote. But I agree with the arguments the minority made.
–President Bill Clinton, on the 1991 Gulf War resolution

“I’m not going to have some reporters pawing through our papers. We are the president.”
–Hillary Clinton commenting on the release of subpoenaed documents

I haven’t committed a crime. What I did was fail to comply with the law.
–David Dinkins, New York City Mayor, answering accusations that he failed to pay his taxes.

Things are more like they are now than they ever were before.
–Former U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower

The streets are safe in Philadelphia. It’s only the people who make them unsafe.
–Frank Rizzo, ex-police chief and mayor of Philadelphia

I have lied in good faith.
— Bernard Tapie, French politician accused of fixing a soccar match involving the team he owned, when his sworn alibi fell apart in court.

I don’t need bodyguards.
–Jimmy Hoffa, labor leader

Outside of the killings, Washington has one of the lowest crime rates in the country.
–Mayor Marion Barry, Washington, DC

The police are not here to create disorder. They’re here to preserve disorder.”
–Former Chicago mayor Daley during the infamous 1968 Democratic Party convention

China is a big country, inhabited by many Chinese.
–Former French President Charles de Gaulle

 

 

 

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under politics