The American Eleven: Two Down, Nine to Go

Two weeks ago in "Winning the Future," I announced an 11-point plan for victory in the November elections. I called it "The American Eleven," and the reception it has received has been gratifying and encouraging.

The key to the American Eleven is this: Republican victory in 2006 depends on a return to the American values -- not Republican values but American values -- that twice elected Ronald Reagan and returned the House to a Republican majority in 1994 with the Contract with America.

This week, I'm happy to announce that the House has listened to the American people and acted on two of the most important action items in the American Eleven and action on a third item is pending this week.

House Passes Border Security -- Now Call Your Senator

The second action item in the American Eleven is as simple as it is urgent: Control the borders. It is impossible to pass "comprehensive" immigration reform before the election, but controlling our border is possible. Last week, the House took a giant leap toward doing just that with passage of the Secure Fence Act.

The bill provides for more than 700 miles of two-layered reinforced fencing along the Southwest border. In other areas, it would create a "virtual fence" through the use of cameras, ground sensors and other surveillance technology.

The passage of the Secure Fence Act was just what the language of the American Eleven called for two weeks ago: "A narrowly focused bill to ensure that the United States can control the border." Now that the House has shown itself on the side of the American people whose first priority on immigration and national security is to control the borders, House members should challenge the Senate -- every day -- to do the same.

Action Item Eight: Control Spending and Balance the Budget

The eighth action item in the American Eleven challenged House Republicans to show Americans which party is really committed to smaller government with lower taxes and which is committed to bigger government with higher taxes.

One of the major sources of out-of-control spending in Congress has been the practice of "earmarking," or carving out chunks of taxpayer dollars for pet projects and special interests. Often, these earmarks are done anonymously, leaving their congressional sponsors unaccountable to the taxpayers who are footing the bill.

The House voted this week to require all members on all bills to own up to this kind of spending. House Majority Leader John Boehner put it best: "Members should be ready and willing to put their name on the projects they request, and if they aren't willing to do that, they shouldn't expect the American people to pay for it."

Action Item Four: Voter ID Card

Last Friday the House Administration Committee passed a bill (H.R. 4844) that will require that every individual who wishes to vote in the 2008 federal elections must present a photo ID to be allowed to cast a ballot. The full House is scheduled to vote on the measure this week. I'll be sure to keep you posted on what happens.

Watch here for future progress reports on the American Eleven.

Minnesota Democrats Nominate Radical Leftist Defender of Cop-Killers for Congress

I am writing you this week from Minneapolis, where the Democrats have nominated a radical left defender of cop killers to be their nominee for Congress.

Keith Ellison, a former member of the radical group the Nation of Islam, is Minnesota Democrats' choice to replace retiring Rep. Martin Sabo (D).

The issue is not Ellison's religion but his support for radical leftwing people and causes. Blogs such as Minnesota Democrats Exposed and Powerlineblog.com have uncovered that Ellison was a longtime local leader and spokesman for the Nation of Islam and its anti-Semitic leader, Louis Farrakhan. He has been a vocal defender of gang members and convicted murderers of police officers, including cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal and a cop-killer named on the FBI's most wanted domestic terrorist list currently being given sanctuary in Castro's Cuba.

The nomination of Keith Ellison by Minnesota Democrats is another step in the Dean-Pelosi-Lamont radicalization of the Democratic Party. A Democratic Party that would nominate a person this far to the left and committed to these radical values may become a big issue in the Minnesota Senate race and may be a further step toward defining the Democrats as a party that is unacceptably radical at home and weak abroad.

Keep Your Eye on Turtle Bay

As President Bush prepares to address the UN General Assembly on America's vision for the Middle East, keep your eye on the goings on at the United Nations. Note especially the Venezuelan effort to get a seat on the UN Security Council. A Venezuelan seat would be a significant setback to America and our democratic allies and would be an enormous victory for the Iranian-Venezuelan alliance (reaffirmed with last week's trip by Iranian dictator Ahmadinejad to Cuba and to Venezuela). Venezuela is a growing danger.

As Gas Prices Go, So Go Republicans?

The declining price of gasoline is a big underlying advantage for Republicans. If gasoline keeps dropping in price, Republicans' chances of keeping the House will get better and better.

The Latest Democratic Party Idea: Taxpayer-Funded Tuition for Illegal Immigrants

When I was campaigning in Wisconsin for Mark Green for governor this weekend, I learned that Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle had proposed in-state tuition for illegal immigrants.

That means Wisconsin would subsidize and reward illegality in the amount of nearly $40,000 over four years of college, courtesy of the Wisconsin taxpayers, and would simply attract even more illegal aliens to move to Wisconsin.

Not a Bad Week for Winning the Future

Two weeks ago in "Winning the Future," I offered my view that House Republicans faced a choice.

They could either continue to ignore the lessons of Ronald Reagan and the Contract with America and forget the fact that real change must begin with the American people, or House Republicans could learn from history. They could listen to the American people and return to the center-right, populist majority that Reagan and the Contract gave them.

Despite the troubling news from places like Minneapolis and the United Nations, the actions of the House this week are promising signs that they've chosen to learn from history. We win when we do what's right. We win when we listen to the American people.

So here's the count on the American Eleven in the House: Two down, nine to go. Not a bad week for winning the future.

Republican victory in 2006 depends on a return to the American values -- not Republican values but American values

Tell this to the Religious Right, who just don't seem to understand the difference.

Every straw poll has it down to four candidates-Newt, Rudy, Romney, and Allen. Allen had a meltdown on MTP and was goaded into a possibly anti-semitic remark by a reporter recently. It may be Newt's to lose. He has to deal with his baggage early. Once he does that, it will lessen the libs attacks on him.

And still Newt does NOT answer the question of HOW. Nice slogans Newt but the Contract with American specified exact legilsation that the GOP would bring to the floor and vote on. So what SPECIFICALLY do you claim you would bring to the floor and vote on?

Solutions Newt, not just slogans.

It may be Newt's to lose.

If so, then we lose. I'm sorry to have to say that, but his 'baggage' is too extreme to be overcome.

He was hounded out of office for moral shortcomings - a standard that only applies to Republicans, but that's the way it is. When it comes time to get out the vote, a lot of middle America just won't make the effort for a man of Newt's moral shortcomings.

In addition, he is the bogeyman to the left. They use Newt Gingrich as President to scare their children at night. Even Bush - though he is hated fiercely - is not considered as big a threat as Gingrich. Bush, in short, is considered a liar, but dumb. Newt is the AntiChrist to their liberal/socialist faith. Everyone who ever thought about being liberal would - to use the popular phrase - crawl over ground glass to get to the voting booth to vote against Newt. (Sort of like I feel about Hillary.)

proposed in-state tuition for illegal immigrants. That means Wisconsin would subsidize and reward illegality in the amount of nearly $40,000 over four years of college, courtesy of the Wisconsin taxpayers, and would simply attract even more illegal aliens to move to Wisconsin.

ok, first I must address what is obvious to me. That is that "in-state tuition" does not necessarily mean "subsidize ... courtesy of the Wisconsin taxpayers." It just means that the person(s) would be allowed to pay a lower tuition fee like an in-state resident does.

Then, I'd have to say if it was subsidized, the citizen's should be totally outraged!

I'm an American citizen and I can't get any help such as this. I make too much money. And, even my nephew whose parents split and he was on his own. He didn't make a whole lot of money and tried to get assistance from the college. No go! Sad.

I agree that we need to uplift and empower AMERICAN values in order to regain the free country we have lost/whittled away over the past 60 years or so. But when I compare the positions of both major political parties, I notice that the positions of the Republican party more closely match those of our Founders than do the positions of the modern-day Democratic Party. (Dems like JFK and Zell Miller are barely Democrats by today's Democratic Party standards.)

I don't know if I am part of the "Religious Right," but I suspect some of my friends would probably label me that way.

Please elaborate. What "differences" are you talking about?

Whatever happened in Newt's personal life can not be bad enough to overcome his year's of dedication to the conservative cause. He is the one national figure who can define and articulate the conservative agenda in a way that "Joe Six-Pack" understands.

Allen was not goaded into an "anti-semitic" remark, unless you call denying a false claim that your mother was jewish "anti-semitic".

He was goaded into a harsh response, which while perfectly understandable (the reporter had just called his mother a racist who taught her kids foreign racial slurs), may not play well to all people, especially those who don't get the context of the jew-baiting happening in Virginia.

Newt has a good deal to offer in the way of useful advice. But as a political candidate he is damaged goods.

He didn't just offend his base with his divorce troubles. During his last couple of years in office he betrayed his earlier ideals, bowing under the pressure of that enormous DNC propaganda campaign directed against him. He was no longer the old Newt who succeeded so well in the Campaign for America.

I would add that the religious right, so called, is a necessary part of the conservative movement. Anyone who thinks they can be dismissed or ignored is smoking something. Conservatives can only win with a coalition, in which the chief aims of the various groups are duly respected. Among those things that need to be respected, even if not everyone agrees, is the right to life and the importance of supporting healthy families for the good of our society.

Allen was not goaded into an "anti-semitic" remark, unless you call denying a false claim that your mother was jewish "anti-semitic".

Agreed 100%. Perhaps I didn't phrase that properly. He was goaded into something that could be construed as anti-semitic by the lunatic left.

I like Newt. I still like Allen. No decision about Romney yet.

The Republicans have very many good candidates. That is a very good thing. I'm most concerned about the possibility of having McCain as the nominee. I seriously would fear to have the future of America in his hands. A McCain presidency would likely be seen as Carter's presidency is now realized to have been.

The way I always understood in-state vs out-of-state tutiton was that the cost of attending a college was $20,000 per year, for example. In-state students paid 20% of that; taxpayers the rest. Out-of-state students paid 80%; with the taxpayers picking up the remainder. Taxpayers subsidize the cost in both cases, the way I understood it.

Oh, hmmmm....I always understood it that in-state tuition was at a reduced rate simply because they already paid taxes. That there wasn't a "difference" to make up.

I'll have to check into that.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.