Greene endorses Whitehead

Bill Greene sent this to me last night, I didn’t get it until this morning:

Bill Greene, Republican candidate for U.S. Congress, announced tonight his endorsement of former Georgia Senator Jim Whitehead in the runoff for the special election to fill the late Charlie Norwood’s seat.

“Jim Whitehead ran a great race,” said Greene. “Whether in public forums, or in meetings with voters, he never engaged in negative politics against me.
We maintained a relationship of mutual respect, and stayed focused on the issues in this campaign. I have great admiration for Jim for doing that, especially considering the negative campaigning that Paul Broun engaged in against me throughout this campaign.”

Greene ran a strong grassroots campaign, focused on the issues most important to the people of the Tenth District. “I truly believe that my campaign helped Jim to formulate stronger positions on issues like Illegal Immigration, the Fair Tax, and the War on Terror,” said Greene. “As a result, he showed stronger conservative colors, which enabled him to connect more with people across the District. I look forward to continuing to assist Jim when he gets to Congress, especially in the vital area of immigration reform.”


  1. GOPGrassroots says:

    Speaking of Negative Politics, wasn’t it Bill Greene who attacked Whitehead for being an “Isakson/Chambliss Republican”. That worked real well. Lol.

  2. Lee Benedict says:

    You are correct Grassroots.

    Whitehead probably would have won this outright if he attended more than 60% 0f the forums/debates. He did skip a few because he was in DC, and this is according to his staff. Talk about counting eggs…chickens…whatever, before they hatch. Perhaps this is the wake-up call folks were waiting for. Come on Jim, get out there and do it!

  3. GeorgiaEagle says:

    This alleged endorsement reminds me of Pat Buchanan’s endoresement of George H.W. Bush at the ’92 GOP National Convention. What Pat said earlier that year about Bush and what he was saying at the convention were at opposite ends of the scale…which made me wonder what deal had been cut for Buchanan to make him get out the pom-poms and cheer for Bush?

    Given that Bill Greene makes a living in Washington politics (, SICM, et. al.), this looks like he’s trying to keep in the good graces of the GOP leaders in DC by backing their “annointed” candidate … politics as usual. I hope Greene’s supporters ask him some really candid questions regarding this alleged endorsement. If we don’t see a public endorsement either on Greene’s or Whitehead’s web site, then Greene’s supporters need to pick up the phone and perhaps talk some sense into him before he blows his credibility given what he has said (rightly so) about Whitehead during his campaign.


  4. 1)Evita Paschall had more support than Greene.

    2)Greene and Whitehead are professional politicians.
    The 10th is sick and tired of both of em.

    3)Let’s see what happens on July 17.

  5. Observer says:

    Underwood and Mark Myers also endorsed Whitehead. Do you conspiracy theorists think they cut deals also?

    They all endorsed Whitehead because he will make a good congressman and Paul Broun is a nut case. He is not his father.

  6. GeorgiaEagle says:

    Dear Observer,

    Please observe that no one mentioned Underwood or Myers in this thread. It is credible given Greene’s years of working in Washington GOP politics (and that his businesses are tied to the same) to question his endorsement given the statements his campaign made during the race. If he is the “hardcore conservative activist champion that deserves your vote” one has to wonder why he endorsed Whitehead since the concerns Greene pointed out regarding Whitehead remain. Greene was absolutely correct when he commented back on June 13th:

    “You see, if a politician claims to believe something, you have to examine his words very closely to learn what he really means. For example, at a recent candidate forum at Augusta State University, Jim Whitehead stated that while he would ‘never vote for amnesty,’ he believes that ‘shipping them back is not the answer … deportation is not the answer … we need them. We need them for our people … We need people who have great work ethics in our corporations.’

    In other words, Jim Whitehead was against amnesty before he was for it. The people of Georgia aren’t idiots; we recognize flip-flopping when we hear it, such as when a politician tells us he’s against amnesty but that we need illegals for our people. Shades of John Kerry!

    Amnesty is not just giving illegal aliens a ‘pathway to citizenship;’ it’s allowing them to stay in the United States in direct violation of the laws of this country. Anyone that says we shouldn’t deport them is by definition supporting amnesty – and that is just plain wrong.

    We’re facing a national security crisis, thanks to our open borders, and thanks to the 20 million illegals already living in this country. This is no time for crass politics just to try to get elected. This is the time for action!”

    My observation is that someone who panders to the illegal immigration reform crowd by filling out surveys opposing amnesty ( yet on the campaign trail says our corporations need to keep the illegal aliens here working ( is far worse than a nut case – he’s a double-minded man who is trying to please the GOP power base (which is pro-amnesty) while abusing the trust of thousands of voters – especially in the CSRA – by lying to cover his deceit. Team Whitehead knows that they may be flush with cash and have the support of GOP elected officials and county leadership but if the people figure out where Whitehead really stands on this issue and others conservatives care about he’s going lose this race…period.

    Let me predict how many debates Whitehead will participate in before the run-off election: zero – because his handlers know they can’t have any more incidents where either he shows his true intentions or Broun exposes them before a live audience. He will do what any normal politician does when his only advantage over his opponent is the amount of political capital he has: he will use that money and his ‘bots to spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt through the media to overwhelm his challenger.

    Whether or not Whitehead wins this runoff his campaign is symbolic of the current tailspin of the GOP nationally.


  7. Holly says:

    Georgia Eagle,

    The YouTube video is a cut and paste. Funny what that can do, isn’t it? The actual “we need them here,” snippet is talking about legal immigrants. Sylvia Cooper quoted the entire part of that in a City Ink column for the Chronicle.

    Jim does think we need the ones who are here now not to leave in mass, but he’s echoing the sentiments of the Dustin Inman Society about the idea of attrition through enforcement, meaning it’s impractical to round all the illegals up and deport them all at once. That would destablize our economy as is, not to mention be very expensive for taxpayers.

    However, if employers are given the right to question green cards’ validity (which is now a felony), the employment opportunities for illegals will dry up, and they will have no source of income, which means they will have no choice but to return home. (And, given time, if there are employers disobeying the law and hiring illegals, it would be easier to prosecute them at that point.) The DIS believes that about half of the illegals will go home within the next five years, and then we can revisit the idea of what to do with the ones who are still here.

    Charlie Norwood had an idea that we should allow illegals to stay for two years after turning themselves in so that they could finish what they had come to do, but then they were out of status – nothing renewable about it. If they wanted to return to the US, they had to do it just like every other legal immigrant does.

    I’d invite you to look over sources like Project Vote Smart, which has online surveys for the candidates, or call the Whitehead campaign office, rather than use unreliable sources like YouTube videos made by opponents. Those aren’t always the most honest. By the way, Dr. Broun has a survey on that site as well.

    It’s funny to me that you’d suggest that Dr. Broun exposes Jim’s “lies” in debates. If there’s an example, I’d like to hear it.

    Finally, I’m guessing Dr. Broun hasn’t agreed yet, but Jim’s decided to participate in debates on the Austin Rhodes Show (Augusta) and Newsmakers with Tim Bryant (Athens). Look for those to come up this next week, I believe.

  8. bowersville says:

    Debate schedule:

    Friday, June 29, 5-6pm, Augusta, 580 am,

    July 9, Atlanta Press Club, GPTV,

    Athens, date TBA, 1340 am.

    AJC P/I

  9. GeorgiaEagle says:

    Hello Holly,

    I am open to correction regarding the YouTube video. It would be more persuasive to see the entire video tape of the debate mentioned. However my concerns about Whitehead’s immigration policy are not formed by one YouTube video and his opponent’s opinions, but rather by Whitehead’s own repeated statements.

    In Merritt Melancon’s article in The Oconee Enterprise on May 17 regarding Whitehead and Broun, Mr. Whitehead made what I consider a clear amnesty stance. I’m going to quote the reporters introduction and the Whitehead quote as it appears in the article:

    The third issue Whitehead is focusing on in his campaign is immigration reform.

    First and foremost, he wants to work to secure the U.S.’s borders. But he also wants to make it the responsibilities of private companies to make sure and help their employees, who are in the country illegally at this time, to file for worker visas and permits.

    “But we need to support our corporations in their efforts to get their workers registered. We don’t want to make it so people with skills and work ethic who we need to fill these positions can’t work here. But we do need them to be legal and to know where they are. There are a lot of ways to make them legal.”

    The Whitehead campaign expanded on this in an email with the subject “Straight Talk on the Senate Amnesty Bill from the Whitehead Truth Squad” sent from [email protected] on Monday, May 28, 2007 5:38 PM which I quote the pertinent section in context – therefore please excuse the length.


    “There are better and very practical ways of handling the illegal aliens in our country. Many of you recall our great late Congressman Charlie Norwood had a plan he called his ‘Ellis Island’ plan that would have allowed illegal aliens to come forward, turn themselves in at federal centers in all 50 states, and undergo a criminal background and health check, like our previous wave of immigrants did at Ellis Island.

    For those who passed the checks, Charlie wanted to give them a two-year permit to finish up their job and then go home, with no guarantee they could ever come back. He figured that would get the majority of illegal aliens out of the U.S. within a couple years, with very little federal expense, no more trailer park raids, without totally disrupting the workplace, and with no amnesty that allowed those illegal aliens to stay permanently and apply for citizenship.

    But before we did any of that, Charlie wanted to put a minimum 36,000 troops on the border to guarantee the spigot was off before we started mopping up the mess.

    I sure do miss that guy.

    At that time, I thought Charlie’s Ellis Island plan provided a very good and reasonable alternative to the awful 2006 Kennedy-McCain amnesty plan. But I think we’ve now reached a point we need to send an absolutely unmistakable message to current and future illegal aliens, that there is no reward for breaking our laws.

    That’s why I support the plan of Georgia’s Dustin Inman Society, Numbers USA, and Americans for Immigration Control that would provide no new legal status for illegal aliens, but would also not call for cruel trailer park and workplace raids.

    It’s called Attrition through Enforcement. We should require all employers to use the free U.S. Department of Homeland Security instant online check for their employees, eliminating the job draw for many illegal aliens. We should check for immigration status in routine law enforcement activities, and then actually deport illegal aliens when caught, rather than put them back on the street. If we start consistently doing these things, the majority of illegal aliens will go home on their own, when it is no longer so profitable and risk-free for them to violate our laws. In an estimated five years, we can reduce our illegal alien population by half or even more, then determine how best to finish the job once the problem is contained.”


    I checked what the Dustin Inman Society (DIS) had to say about attrition through enforcement, in particular because the above quote appeared to be at odds with the concept. I searched the DIS website for “attrition through enforcement” and they did not have a definition of the term, however they did link to the NumbersUSA web site where they did in detail explain the idea of attrition through enforcement (again, quoting in entirety):


    “President Bush and the rest of the open borders crowd constantly tell the American people that there are only two solutions to our nation’s illegal alien crisis – give illegal aliens amnesty or round them up and deport them. This is a diversionary tactic to draw public attention away from the most effective and efficient solution – Attrition Through Enforcement.

    The principle behind Attrition Through Enforcement is that living illegally in the United States will become more difficult and less satisfying over time when the government – at ALL LEVELS – enforces all of the laws already on the books. It is also imperative that the government with the full cooperation of the private sector, implements certain workplace enforcement measures. The goal is to make it extremely difficult for unauthorized persons to live and work in the United States. There is no need for taxpayers to watch the government spend billions of their dollars to round up and deport illegal aliens; they will buy their own bus or plane tickets back home if they can no longer earn a living here.

    We know Attrition Through Enforcement will work because, until recently, it has been shown to work even with little or no enforcement. As it currently stands, almost 200,000 illegal aliens self-deport from the United States every year, but imagine how many more would leave if our government refused to award illegal aliens another amnesty, mandated all employers to verify a person’s eligibility to work here, cracked down on identity fraud, and enabled local police to easily transfer illegal aliens in their custody to the feds.”


    Contrary to Whitehead’s proposals to immigration reform, Attrition Through Enforcement (ATE) has not just about securing our nation’s borders. If ATE means we enforce existing laws then rounding up illegal aliens en masse and deporting them is a legitimate option – Whitehead’s logical fallacy of the appeal to repugnance weakens his credibility. ATE has nothing to do with giving employers the right to question their worker’s status, because they already have the duty to verify their employees are legally eligible to work. And it means that the federal government provides the manpower to enforce adherence. ATE absolutely has nothing to do with making sure employers have their illegal employees register with the federal government so they can stay on the job. Similarly, Charlie Norwood’s idea of having these criminals stay in the county with no adverse consequences has nothing to do with it. In fact Norwood’s plan was amnesty, plain and simple. In Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of Law (1996) amnesty is defined as “an act of clemency by an authority (as a government) by which pardon is granted especially to a group of individuals.” The very big difference between what happened at Ellis Island and Norwood’s plan is that those seeking entry were not already violating the laws of the U.S. for their financial gain! Does Whitehead think that the good people of the district will swallow his suggestion that these lawbreakers should be allowed to stay because of their superior ethics on the job?

    ATE means that at every level civil government and employers make it economically unattractive for illegal aliens to come to work in America. Since financial gain is the primary motivation for the explosion of illegal immigration recently then we must strike the root. ATE means that employers take the easy means already at their disposal to confirm eligibility to work. It means that those involved in detection avoidance (identity theft, document counterfeiting, etc.) are aggressively pursued. It means that businesses that hire illegal labor should be held liable for the financial impact of illegal immigration in addition to being charged for their crime. If a corporation is found guilty, then it should pay the federal government for the deportation costs for ever illegal alien it hired, and local and state governments that provided services without compensation to these illegal workers should aggressively pursue the corporation for payment. If Whitehead is willing to show some real leadership on this issue and do this, I’ll take his candidacy seriously.


  10. bowersville says:

    GE, you spent two lenghty comments on attacking Whitehead and his team.

    Now, tell us Broun’s stance on immigration in just as lenghty detail.

    I bet you don’t.

  11. GeorgiaEagle says:

    Good evening, bowersville.

    Regarding your charge of attacking Whitehead and company, I plead not guilty. Rather, I sought to reprove the man for his stance on illegal immigration. I sought to explain in detail his error (representing his position as ATE yet repeatedly advocating a policy that undermines the same), lay out a strategy of realistic steps to implement the ATE strategy, and challenge him to rethink his position and take a leadership position in advancing ATE. If I were only interested in attacking him, I would just expose his error; this is key difference. It is my hope he would respond for the good of the district and nation; since he claims to be a Christian he should recognize the Bible as the “guidebook for life;” surely he is familiar with the text, “Reprove a wise man and he will love you” (Proverbs 9:8b).

    As for your challenge, I will oblige. As an active participant of the Regan revolution in Texas in the 80’s, I was disheartened by turn of events during George H.W. Bush’s administration. Then came the hour when the GOP took control of Congress and the White House and within six years they squandered the opportunity to reverse course, lost Congress, and if they don’t get their act together they’ll lose the White House too. In my opinion when the rank and file voter judges their own party’s candidates as critically as they do the other parties’ candidates then the party benefits in the long run.

    In the same article in The Oconee Enterprise I mentioned earlier (for those doing research the name of the article was “Two Republicans differ on issues”), Broun set forward the foundation of his policy agenda. “He describes himself as strict constitutionalist – meaning that he wants to limit the federal government’s role to those duties laid out by the founding fathers in the constitution.” Regarding the immigration issue the journalist noted, “Broun also wants to work to secure the U.S. Border, which is one of expressly outlined duties of the Federal government in the constitution.” He is correct; his understanding of the federal constitution on this point consistent with his policy.

    Since I am not on Broun’s campaign e-mail list, I went to his web site. Not a lot of material, but there was one page that discussed the illegal immigration issue in detail. Like the Whitehead e-mail, I’m going to quote the material in its entirety to avoid the accusation of quoting out of context.


    “Every day thousands of illegal aliens are pouring across our southern border. Whatever their motivation for coming here, they are breaking the law. Historically we have prided ourselves on being a nation based on the ‘rule of law.’ But in this case our government is shirking its responsibility to enforce the law.

    This colossal and willing failure to secure our borders is unconscionable.

    Our national security, and that of your family, is threatened. In this day of international terrorism, we must know who is coming into the United States and why they are here. We must insist that they come legally. And we must deport those who break our laws!

    Furthermore, it is outrageous to expect the taxpayers of the United States to shoulder the burden of paying for various services for illegal aliens. Simply put our policy should be: no government benefits for illegal aliens!

    Finally, we must stop the practice of “birthright citizenship” whereby the babies born to illegal aliens in the United States are automatically American citizens. This is ridiculous. It has been estimated that for each of these ‘anchor babies’ another eight illegal relatives come into the country.”

    Broun did not address ATE, but his stance complements the ATE framework. On the video embedded on the same page as the article above he states his action plan: “secure our borders, no amnesty for illegal aliens, deport illegal aliens who commit felonies, no taxpayer funded benefits, end birthright citizenship.”

    The fact of the matter is that illegal aliens have as easy a time getting through our northern border. Since international terrorism is a big campaign theme it finds it way into this issue; given the diversity of immigrants in Canada Broun should have noted that it is just as likely that the jihad of the Middle or Far Eastern Mohammedan will take the northern route. (See Immigration Watch Canada: But since the problems at our southern border have gotten the most attention of late I’ll give Broun a pass for brevity sake.

    Is Broun being dramatic by framing the illegal immigration issue as a dereliction of duty? Unreasonable for insisting those who want to come here must obey our laws regarding the process of coming here? Is he being sensational by playing the deportation card? Absolutely not!

    One area he addressed is cutting off of taxpayer social service and educational benefits to illegal aliens. Birthright citizenship is the most grotesque example of such abuse. If my wife and I go to Mexico legally and have a child there, the child will not be a Mexican citizen. Why? My wife and I are not Mexican citizens, and we have no allegiance to that nation. I can assure you if we entered the country illegally the situation would not change; indeed, our deportation would be painful. However, interests who benefit from the illegal labor racket have made sure that U.S. federal laws meant to help indigent U.S. citizens are applied to criminals from other counties!

    Deporting felonious illegal aliens again is entirely reasonable and addresses the public safety problem rationally. Instead of illegal alien prisoners languishing in our county jails, the Department of Homeland Security should not even let the felon spend one day in a local prison. After an arrest there should be screening to identify whether the person is a U.S. citizen, if not then DHS should pick them up for immediate deportation before the seat in the holding cell gets warm. If the person’s identity is determined before arrest and it is known that the person is an illegal alien, then DHS should be on hand to receive the prisoner from local law enforcement once they’ve made the arrest. We need representatives who will demand that the President do his duty in this regard.

    However, Broun’s action plan has one key weakness: it does not deal with engine driving the illegal immigration tsunami – the lure of financial gain through the illegal labor cabal. Providing the resources and manpower to enforce laws prohibiting use of illegal labor and targeting those employers using illegal labor; stopping identity thieves and document counterfeiters who assist the illegal labor employers; and federal, state and local governments seeking compensation from guilty corporations for the financial impact of each illegal alien employed by the corporation will be necessary to brake the influx and make the economic environment unsuitable for those who would try to enter the nation illegally. So I challenge Broun like I did Whitehead: seriously consider including the ATE strategy to your illegal immigration policy. Such a strategy is compatible with the constitutionalist viewpoint.

    Bowersville, I hope my comments were of sufficient length and clarity. I suspect given the tone of your e-mail you probably are committed to Whitehead. I hope on this issue my notes give you cause to reconsider before you vote.


  12. bowersville says:

    No, I will not reconsider my vote for Whitehead. Dr. Broun has not been able to take care of his own business, much less be trusted with the business of the people of the 10th of Georgia. As a medical doctor, he failed to renew his medical license, his excuse, oversight on his part. Irrelevant, he failed to take care of his business, I don’t trust him to take care of mine.

    Strict constitutionalists? Panderer at best. Article XIV, Section 1, all persons born in this country shall be citizens…with equal protection of the law…therefor medical attention, etc.

    As far as you attacking, you did, you can plead not guilty all you wish, it is contrary to your statement Whitehead would “use his bots to spread fear…” Last time I checked, bot equals parasite.

    I don’t know where you’re from but you’re definitely ain’t from around here.

    As far as taking Whiteheads candidacy seriously, my friend, you don’t have a choice, we are sending him to congress despite your objection.

  13. bowersville says:

    Besides, if you want to jump on Norwood and his beliefs, you are wrong and will be politically damned around here.

    I suggest you take your arguement to JD Hayworth and crowd. I can’t see sending tanks and APC’s into the hispanic trailor parks, Janet Reno style, just to teach’um a lesson. What would Reno do? Grab the anchor baby and send the mother back to Mexico.

    Secure the border, yes. Cruelty, No.

Comments are closed.