Newt's comments weren't tactful, but they were factual -- and needed

    A year ago South Carolina’s lieutenant governor caused quite a ruckus when he suggested that welfare recipients who fail drug tests or refuse to attend parent-teacher conferences should lose their benefits.
    Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer, who was raised in a working-class family, quoted his grandmother: "My grandmother was not a highly-educated woman, but she told me as a small child to quit feeding stray animals. You know why? Because they breed. You're facilitating the problem. If you give an animal or a person ample food supply, they will reproduce, especially ones that don't think too much further than that, and so what you gotta do is you gotta curtail that type of behavior. They don't know any better."
    It’s important to note that Bauer never said anything about whites on welfare, or Indians on welfare, or blacks on welfare. He was only talking about the problem of welfare dependency and irresponsible behavior in general.
    Even though Bauer’s comments had nothing to do with race, they were immediately denounced by the Greenville, S.C., chapter of the NAACP, which said there was no need for him to apologize. The only acceptable action on his part would be to withdraw from the governor’s race. Why? What does welfare have to do with the NAACP?
    In Flint and Detroit, Mich., the NAACP protested a five-year limit on welfare payments. Other NAACP chapters have denounced efforts to limit welfare payments.
    When Valerie Jarrett spoke at the Martin Luther King memorial service at Ebenezer Baptist Church she politicized the event by criticizing Republicans for not supporting President Obama’s proposal to spend federal tax dollars to hire local policemen, firefighters and teachers. The congregants went wild.
    The fact is, of course, that not so much as one cent of federal money is ever supposed to be spent hiring local police, firefighters or teachers. These people are hired only through state and local taxes, not federal oppression. And yet Ms. Jarrett and the wildly cheering Ebenezer congregants have attempted to turn this purely political difference into a black-white issue.
    When a white politician tries to address this, he is suddenly branded a racist. Newt Gingrich dared to say that the NAACP should tell blacks they need paychecks, not welfare checks. A bunch of blacks acted insulted, but they shouldn’t be. It’s their own chapters that have promoted welfare.
    Newt said there were families and even neighborhoods where children were never exposed to honest work, and that the only role models they had were drug dealers. Racist, racist, racist! Or so the politically correct crowd roared. Anyone who thinks this is racist needs to read about the infamous Cabrini-Green project in Chicago, where a survey found that 29 percent of residents were employed full time and another 11 percent were employed part time. What the survey showed was that most residents were single mothers not working. The only work their kids saw anyone doing was the dealing of drugs. It’s just a fact, and it’s not racist to point it out.
    Most of Cabrini-Green has been torn down, with the last building coming down last year. And that’s a good thing! But there are other projects out there that are just as bad. And it should be noted that there are areas of eastern Kentucky and West Virginia where a culture of sloth, drug use and immorality have also taken hold of very substantial portions of the white community. It’s a problem, and if a black person wants to take note of the fact that it is a problem I offer them only thanks, not name-calling.
    There are dysfunctional pockets of poverty in this country. In urban areas the residents tend to be black. In rural areas outside the South the residents tend to be white. Frequently the behavior of these people perpetuates their poverty. That’s just a fact.
    If, as a society, we can’t even mention the fact that we have a problem we certainly aren’t going to begin to solve it. I will admit conservatives could sometimes use a little more tact in discussing these things, but I’d much rather support a candidate who talks about finding a solution to our nation’s problems than one who talks about how to be tactful about it.

Nancy Reagan said husband passed torch of conservatism to Newt

    We've had to put up with a lot of bull malarkey recently about how Newt Gingrich "insulted" Ronald Reagan.
    And make no mistake: There were times when Newt Gingrich was highly critical of Reagan and the Reagan administration. The same is true for Ron Paul. Newt's criticism was based on the fact that he thought Reagan was being too liberal. I admire both Gingrich and Paul for holding Reagan's feet to the fire.
    Now think about it. We're constantly being warned that we shouldn't vote for Gingrich because he's a closet liberal. Now we're being told that we shouldn't vote for Gingrich because he thought Reagan was too liberal.
    In the world of politics, we sometimes criticize those with whom we agree. Over the years, Gingrich was one of Reagan's biggest supporters, and was one of the biggest supporters of the conservative cause. He was a maverick before John McCain knew what that word meant. When the rest of the Republican party was mucking about trying not to make waves he was screaming bloody murder. And more than anyone, he deserves the credit for engineering the Republican takeover of 1994, the effects of which are still being felt to this very day.
    Here's a video made long after Gingrich had "insulted" and criticized Reagan, in which Nancy Reagan claims that Barry Goldwater passed on the conservative mantle to Ronald Reagan, who in turn passed it on to Newt Gingrich.
    I grew up idolizing Ronald Reagan, but that doesn't mean I wasn't sometimes irritated with him. Gingrich's criticism of his rare liberal meanderings makes Gingrich more qualified to be president, not less.
    Oh, and here's the Youtube video of Nancy Reagan claiming that Ronald Reagan passed on the conservative mantle to Newt.

Bettors drop Romney's S.C. victory odds from 93% to 38% in two days

    Back in 2004 I had a lot of fun betting on political outcomes on Intrade.com, which allows the trading of shares in the happening of certain events. I didn't bet that much money, but won a little and had a pile of fun.
    At the end of the election season I withdrew my money. The government cracked down on Internet betting and so I can no longer place an Intrade bet with a credit card. I don't care enough about it to send them a check or wire transfer, so all I can do is watch.
    But Intrade is interesting to watch, because it tends to be ahead of the curve in predicting political outcomes. As well it should be, since people are having to put their money where their mouth is, by buying shares in outcomes.
    That doesn't mean Intrade shares can't be very volatile. Two days ago Mitt Romney was the overwhelming favorite to win the South Carolina primary. A "share" of Mitt Romney cost $9.30 and would return $10 on his victory. In other words the market was giving him a 93 percent chance of victory.
    Tonight a "share" of Mitt Roney is going for $3.78; the market is giving him only a 38 percent chance of winning. Newt Gingrich, meanwhile, is now given a 64 percent chance of South Carolina victory. Rick Santorum and Ron Paul both come in a two-tenths of one percent, so for you longshot players, there it is. (Note that Newt's total and Mitt's total exceed 100 percent. That's because each is traded individually. There is actually an opportunity for arbitrage on the Intrade system, although it requires far more money and faith than I have to spare.)
    So as of now, Newt Gingrich is the favorite to win in South Carolina. If anyone should tell you otherwise, tell them to put their money where they mouth is.
    But check the Intrade.com board before actually booking the bet!

Marianne Gingrich: Newt lucky to be rid of this hag

    Marianne Gingrich has given another interview in which she tells the world what a cad her former husband Newt is.
    But it's a funny thing about Marianne. My guess is she won't spend much time talking about how she refused to move to Washington, even though Newt was one of the city's power players. Think of the uproar that was caused when it was revealed that Michelle Obama thought about not moving to Washington for six months so the kids could finish the year in Chicago. Newt needed her and she let him down every single day she sat on her duff in Georgia.
    Then there's the fact that Marianne abandoned Newt for six years. That's right, he came home and everything was gone, including her. After six years they reconciled but in the end it just didn't work out. Apparently during the long separation Newt had begun seeing his current wife, and even though Newt and Marianne attempted a reconciliation, it didn't work.
    And oh, my! It seems that it's just fine for Marianne to walk out on Newt, but let Newt be the one to decide he can't take it any more and suddenly he's the goat. And he did have the decency to talk to her. She just went missing.
    Marianne Gingrich is a horrid, wretched woman who is merely bitter because she didn't get the chance to do the dumping as she had done once before. Newt beat her to it. And dear friends, that for her is a bitter pill to swallow. Bitter, bitter, bitter.
    He's lucky to be rid of the hag.

You heard it hear first: Ron Paul to win Iowa

    You read it here first!
    On Nov. 11 I reported that Newt Gingrich was moving up in the polls and Ron Paul was holding his on. I predicted that Paul might pull a "surprise" in Iowa.

Ron Paul supporters are likely the most devoted out of all the candidates, and my personal opinion is that Paul could surprise everyone with his showing in Iowa. Iowa rewards commitment and effort and I think Paul just might win, although I'm not sure how that is going to lead him to victories in other states.

    Since that post Gingrich has moved up dramatically in the polls. He leads in most states except New Hampshire, and leads Mitt Romney nationally. Recently Paul has shed his fourth-place role and is now in third-place nationally. And in Iowa two recent polls puts him in a strong second place behind Gingrich.
    If the election were to be held tomorrow, I think Paul would take Iowa. It's the intensity factor. I'd give Paul supporters an intensity factor of 9, Gingrich supports a 6 and Romney supporters a 2. These Paul supporters are going to make it to the caucuses and they're going to make it out in big numbers. Gingrich, meanwhile, is still suffering from a poor organization on the ground.
    The real question is what happens after Iowa. Paul is running a very strong third in New Hampshire. My new longshot prediction is that Romney will drop like a stone in New Hampshire after a terrible showing in Iowa and Gingrich will take the state with Paul coming in second. Then comes South Carolina and Florida, where Paul doesn't stand a chance. The best Paul can hope for in these states is second, and that's pushing it. But if Paul can limp into the Nevada and Maine caucuses, who knows.
    Oh, and the man the press just loves? Jon Huntsman may yet have some life in him. His recent one-on-one debate with Newt Gingrich elevated him and revealed him to be not quite the liberal everyone feared. He could be the guy people turn to to get the Gingrich without the Gingrich.

Gingrich criticism shows disdain for working class

    Let’s get something straigt. America’s child labor laws are truly stupid. Children ought to be able to work a few hours a week. It’s good for them and good for society.
    Newt Gingrich, of course, has been coming under fire for saying exactly this. In explaining his position he explained that poor children might be offered jobs working at school, such as helping in the office or assisting the janitor in cleaning the bathrooms.
    Needless to say, the liberals are up in arms. Bathrooms! They say any suggestion of any jobs for children other than that of president of the Coca-Cola Company is demeaning and will subject the children holding these jobs to ridicule. Note that no one is talking about forcing these children to work, only about allowing them to work if they wish to.
    I took over my brother’s afternoon paper route either at age 9 or on my 10th birthday. I remember my horror shortly after noon on Christmas 1970 when my older brother walked into the house with an air of satisfaction and said, “I picked up your papers for you.” I never dreamed there would be paper delivery on Christmas Day!
    I survived. When the weather was truly bad my mother would make my brother drive me on my route, or else she drove me herself. So I didn’t suffer, but I did sometimes get rained on. The notion that allowing children to work will kill them is just a giant load of, well.... But the average liberal today would never allow such a job.
    My paper-route job was actually part of a job chain. My brother had the route before me, and before him Franklin Harrison, and before him Don Dent. I don’t know who had it before him. Each of these three graduated from the paper route to shining shoes at Mr. Walker’s Barber Shop, and then to a job a Peel’s Drug Store. I retired after the paper route, but my brother followed the job chain.
    That meant he shined shoes at Mr. Walker’s Barber Shop. At the end of the day he was expected to sweep and mop, and as I recall was not paid one penny. His services were considered rent payment for the right to shine shoes in the store.
    Imagine, if you will, that Newt Gingrich were to suggest that a poor person might take a job at a barber shop shining shoes. “Shining shoes? How demeaning.” “Sweeping without pay? Slave labor!” You can bet if the liberals had their way jobs like shining shoes at Mr. Walker’s Barber Shop would simply no longer be available (and in fact they aren’t, as people don’t go to barbers much, anymore).
    The outrage of liberals over Gingrich’s comments demonstrates for me the disdain these people have for the working class. These people claim to represent the working class, yet they are outraged over the notion that a student might work as a janitor’s assistant to earn a few extra dollars. The idea of janitorial work is so repugnant to them that they can’t imagine that any person, student or otherwise, would want to do it. This is work Americans Won’t Do; that’s why liberals want to import so many illegal immigrants, which of course drives down wages to make sure that such work is work that American’s Won’t Do.
    I happen to like Newt Gingrich, but I recognize that those who dislike him are not without grounds. It boils down to having a different vision for America.
    Make no mistake, I’d rather be a brain surgeon than a school janitor. And I’d be more than happy to put America’s schoolchildren to work assisting brain surgeons, if they are able. But if not, perhaps they can assist the school janitor, instead.

Newt: Secure the border first

    Next Gingrich recently outlined his immigration plan. He's under fire for suggesting that a few long-time illegal immigrants not be immediately expelled from the country. My attitude is that everyone ought to be allowed to apply to stay. Those who are a net asset to our country should be allowed to stay. Those who are a drain should be sent back home.
    Newt's plan has one thing right. Secure the border first! Everyone talks about the need to stimulate the economy and create jobs. Okay, let's do it by hiring people to build an absolutely impenetrable fence on our southern border. It won't stop all illegal immigration, but it will help.
    Here's Newt's plan, as quoted in Politico:

First, he would build a fence along the nation’s border with Mexico that would be completed by January 1, 2014. He would suspend environmental impact studies and other regulations to speed the development of the fence. If needed, he would send federal employees from Washington to border states to assist in the construction, he said.

Second, he would make English the official language of the country.

“Third, we establish an understanding of American history as it relates to citizenship and we apply to it the children living here,” Gingrich said.

Spokesman R.C. Hammond said that piece of the proposal had nothing to do with recommendations by some tea party groups that the 14th Amendment of the Constitution does not guarentee citizenship children of illegal immigrants.

Instead, Hammond said, it was part of Gingrich’s general push to ensure that Americans are aware of the nation’s history.

Fourth, Gingrich said he would revise the current visa system. He said currently it take too long, is too complicated and too expensive to obtain a visa to do business or be a tourist in the United States.

Fifth, he would make deportation easier. As an example, he said members of the El Salvadorian gang “MS-13” should be subject to immediate deportation.

The sixth part would include changing the guest worker program, which allows foreigners to come to the United States legally to work temporarily. He said a company like a credit card company should be responsible for running the program instead of the federal government, saying it would make it a “very sophisticated, very clean program.”

The seventh would be his approach to letting people in the country for decades stay here, under select circumstances.

    Any immigration policy is better than what we have now, so long as we secure the boarder first.