Thursday, December 1, 2011

Newt in 2012

Newt in 2012
Commentary by Sanford D. Horn
December 1, 2011

Remembering Ronald Reagan’s 11th Commandment, thou shalt not denigrate a fellow Republican; former Speaker of the House of Representatives Newt Gingrich has exemplified that credo masterfully throughout the debate season refusing to fall prey to the various moderators push for salacious headlines. Newt is also the brightest candidate running and would send Obama to a corner whimpering and wondering why his pants are wet after a debate with the former speaker.

That said Newt Gingrich is my choice for 2012. There is no point in deliberating the what ifs and who should be running, etc. That benefits nobody and takes away from the accomplishments of the slate of candidates who are putting themselves out there – subjecting themselves and their families to the slings and arrow that come from the media and the public.

In selecting Gingrich, I am trying to be mindful of what I have told so many throughout this campaign and not be hypocritical. I am trying to remember the bigger picture and that on the whole, Gingrich is the better candidate, despite one major issue that will no doubt continue to gnaw at me.

The issue is illegal immigration and that has been one of my top three issues for many years now – so much so, I supported former US Rep. Tom Tancredo (CO) during the 2008 primary season as this was his driving, if not, lone issue before dropping out of the race. But, Tancredo at least had the guts to address the issue head on and not hide from is as most candidates on both sides of the aisle continue to do.

Republicans don’t want to address illegal immigration for fear of alienating and losing the Hispanic vote. The GOP also does not want to lose the support of businesses that hire illegals. Democrats on the other hand, don’t want to address the issue because many in their ranks want to grant the illegals amnesty, give them a path to citizenship and expand their voter ranks.

I remain steadfast in my opposition to even one illegal alien invading the United States – and that is exactly what it is when people willingly and knowingly sneak across the borders from another country into the United States. For any illegal alien to be given free medical care, free education, food stamps and subsidized housing it is theft against the taxpaying citizens and legal residents of this country. Thus my support for deporting the illegals.

When faced with the ignorant argument and comparison that to deport 12 to 20 million illegals is akin to what the Nazis did to European Jewry during the Holocaust, it becomes imperative to give a history lesson. German Jews were legal German citizens. French Jews were legal French citizens. Austrian Jews were legal Austrian citizens. In fact, many served honorably for their native countries during World War I. With Hitler’s forced passage of the Nuremburg Laws revoking the citizenship of German Jews followed by his invasion of the other countries, Hitler rounded up Jews as part of his plan to systematically slaughter them. The deportation of illegal aliens from the United States is for the purpose of returning lawbreakers to their country of origin. As a Jew I am forever insulted that such a comparison be made.

Here it is vital to remember Ronald Reagan’s 80-20 rule: don’t dismiss a candidate with whom you agree 80 percent of the time just because you disagree with him the other 20 percent. There is no perfect candidate; and there is no candidate with whom we will agree 100 percent of the time.

On the issue of illegal immigration, Gingrich is being pragmatic. He recently said the GOP should not be the party to split up families, citing those illegals who have been in the United States over a quarter century, are paying their taxes and are active in their churches. While Gingrich is not calling for a path to citizenship and the right to vote, he is also not calling for their ousting from the country, but instead a path to legalization. Such a plan is being excoriated as amnesty, and it is – the illegals in Gingrich’s plan are not slated for deportation, but nor are they to be granted citizenship. As long as they are allowed to legally stay in this country, it is a form of amnesty, which I oppose. Gingrich does remain committed to the removal of those miscreant illegals not in the aforementioned category.

I am for Newt – he may be better known by his first name than his last – for myriad reasons. He knows how Washington works, which, for all the talk of needing more Washington outsiders, it is important to traverse the system successfully. I am for Newt because of his “drill here, drill now” energy plan. He continues to offer practical solutions regarding the budget, spending and the debt as well as personal responsibility concerning business, bailouts and mortgages. Newt is for a strong military in the Reagan style of peace through strength and understands the importance of a solid alliance with Israel – the only Middle East democracy and where the Arab-Israelis have more rights than Arabs in Arab countries.

I have been for Bachmann – and still like her. I have been for Cain – and still like him. Personal baggage aside, but not dismissing it, Newt Gingrich appears to be the experienced adult in the room who can help restore the United States to its former self. He understands and appreciates American exceptionalism (read his A Nation Like No Other) and will help restore the confidence needed to right the path toward economic recovery.

Sanford D. Horn is a writer and educator living in Westfield, IN.

No comments:

Post a Comment