rudy giuliani: Page 1
Claim: Mitt Romney said he won't flip flop on immigration at millionaires' meeting (Murdoch, Blankfein, Home Depot, Univision, Giuliani) - 07/02/12
This is all just hearsay, but it would be interesting if it turns out to be true :
Mitt Romney last week told a private group of potential supporters and business and media elites, including Rupert Murdoch, that he was treading carefully around the issue of immigration to avoid looking like a "flip-flopper."
For examples, see the videos below. In the first, they block a woman in a wheelchair from leaving a building. In the second, they use little kids as human shields.
David Shuster tries to keep left from learning about NCLR giving award to someone who'd proposed genocide - 05/30/09
The attached video shows former Rep. Tom Tancredo appearing on MSNBC's Hardball program discussing with David Shuster the issue of Sonia Sotomayor's involvement in the National Council of La Raza. On the downside, Tancredo doesn't back down from his comparison of that group to the KKK and, as happened during the election, he isn't able to very aggressively defend his points by demanding a hearing.
However, by far the worst part is Shuster trying to keep their leftwing audience members from learning a disturbing fact. In 1994, the NCLR gave an award to the person who'd said the following (see the NCLR link above):
"We have got to eliminate the gringo, and what I mean by that is if the worst comes to the worst, we have got to kill him."
Schuster begins shouting him down around "gringo", trying to pretend that things that Tancredo has said are comparable to the quote above when nothing he's ever said has ever come close. After Tancredo says the quote indicates what type of institution the NCLR is, Shuster engages in some unknown form of logical fallacy by saying, "so, everyone who gets an award is a racist". The other guest was the Rudy Giuliani-linked former Rep. Susan Molinari; Shuster said that she'd gotten a few awards from the NCLR.
Whatever Shuster was trying to say, he didn't understand or (more likely) was trying to obscure the point Tancredo was trying to make: the NCLR doesn't have a problem with "heroes" who propose genocide. Just as obviously, Shuster is a reflexive apologist for such organizations, but he needs others to think up his counter-arguments for him.
Earlier today, the New York Times offered "The Immigrant Vote" , promising wrath and ruin upon those who dare stand in the way of corrupt businesses profiting from illegal activity:
Nevada is the first state on the election calendar with a sizable Hispanic vote, and among them will be a substantial number of immigrants. We don't know who they'll choose, but we do know they are anxious. They have endured the racially tinged rhetoric used to sink immigration reform; they have witnessed Republican candidates exploiting the xenophobic nastiness. Families have been torn apart as illegal immigrants have been deported, leaving their citizen children behind.
According to the
exit entrance polls from the Nevada caucuses (link), among Republicans identifying themselves as Latinos: Mitt Romney got 41%, followed by Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee with 9% each, Rudy Giuliani with 8%, Duncan Hunter with 6%, and Fred Thompson with 1%. The only openly pro-amnesty candidate, John McCain, got 25%. Rudy supports an amnesty, he just doesn't push it that much. But, to be fair let's add them together and come up with around a third selecting someone who's in favor of amnesty. And, other factors may have come in to play with that third.
Meanwhile, over on the Democratic side, among Latinos Hillary Clinton got 64% vs. Barack Obama's 24%, and he's slightly more pro-illegal immigration than She  is. Unlike Her, he supports driver's licenses for illegal aliens, and he also marched at 2006's pro-illegal immigration march in Chicago, the one that was organized by several people linked to the Mexican government. Of course, other factors which are not to be discussed may have played a role with some number of those who voted for Hillary. And, Bill Richardson is apparently still on the ballot and got 0%.
UPDATE: Numbers are crunched here.
 Generally speaking, there should be no such thing as the "immigrant vote", since anyone who can vote (at the federal level at least) must be a citizen and thus, even if they're a naturalized citizen they're no longer an "immigrant". A minor point? Well, yes. But, it goes to the already abysmal credibility of the New York Times.
 I'll be using the royal capitalization from here on out.
James Kirchick of the New Republic - home of the odious Jason Zengerle - offers "Angry White Man/The bigoted past of Ron Paul", an attempt by the Beltway establishment to sink his candidacy by revealing excerpts from his old newsletters. Apparently much or all of it was ghostwritten, and the campaign tries to portray him as a (per Kirchick) "naive, absentee overseer, with minimal knowledge of what his underlings were doing on his behalf". To a good extent that doesn't wash, and many of the quotes provided are indeed very questionable in and of themselves. (The Ron Paul campaign responds to the TNR piece here. See also the response from Thomas DiLorenzo (not Lew Rockwell as previously stated), in which he implies he might sue Kirchik for libel; the article implies that DiLorenzo is a neo-Confederate due to a conference he spoke at, when the conference actually dealt with the pre-Civil War northern secessionist movement.)
However, other quotes from the TNR piece beg for context, and others are craftily spun in order to make Paul look as bad as possible. Consider this:
That same year , citing a Christian-right fringe publication, an item suggested that "the AIDS patient" should not be allowed to eat in restaurants and that "AIDS can be transmitted by saliva," which is false.
There are at least three things wrong with that.
1. Per the Red Cross (link):
There are no known cases of saliva by itself spreading HIV... However, because there could be a risk of blood contact during prolonged open-mouth kissing, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends against doing this with a partner who has HIV.
So, outright calling it "false" isn't exactly honest, not that TNR has much familiarity with that concept.
2. In 1990, how many studies had been done on transmission via saliva? In 1990 - when the excerpt was written - was it still a very open question? [UPDATE: a search of the contemporaneous NYT and medical literature at pubmed.gov shows mixed results, with some saying it could be transmitted via saliva and some saying it's very unlikely; one HIV+ person was convicted of attempted murder after biting someone.]
3. Just because someone "cites" something doesn't mean that they agree with it.
Did Kirchick make a "mistake"? Or was he intentionally trying to deceive by confusing what we (mostly) know now with what was known in 1990?
Kirchick goes on:
The newsletters are chock-full of shopworn conspiracies, reflecting Paul's obsession with the "industrial-banking-political elite" and promoting his distrust of a federally regulated monetary system utilizing paper bills. They contain frequent and bristling references to the Bilderberg Group, the Trilateral Commission, and the Council on Foreign Relations--organizations that conspiracy theorists have long accused of seeking world domination. In 1978, a newsletter blamed David Rockefeller, the Trilateral Commission, and "fascist-oriented, international banking and business interests" for the Panama Canal Treaty, which it called "one of the saddest events in the history of the United States."
I guess that reasonable people can disagree on whether the CFR and other Rockefeller-linked groups are just friendly social groups or whether they do attempt to run matters, but I suggest being very suspicious of hacks who try to claim the former. As for the Treaty, consider this:
...the White House in late 1977 directed the well-connected former chairman of the finance committee of the Democratic National Committee,
S. Lee Kling, to set up the "Committee of Americans for the Canal Treaties, Inc." (COACT). To anyone not aware of Kling's past or his mandate from the White House, COACT seemed like a grassroots, nonpartisan effort on behalf of the treaties... the list of COACT members included David Rockefeller (chairman of Chase Manhattan Bank)...
What's more, Paul's connections to extremism go beyond the newsletters. He has given extensive interviews to the magazine of the John Birch Society, and has frequently been a guest of Alex Jones, a radio host and perhaps the most famous conspiracy theorist in America.
Being interviewed by someone doesn't mean you agree with everything they say. And, while Alex Jones is a bit of a showman and does have some far-out-there ideas, others are not. And, unlike someone like Kirchick, he's willing to buck the establishment.
Note also this email he sent to a RP supporter a few weeks ago:
I don't think Ron Paul is a homophobe; I'm just cynical and enjoy getting supporters of political candidates riled up. If you were a Giuliani guy I'd have called him a fascist.
The recipient goes on to call Kirchick a "muckraker, a charlatan, and a hypocrite"; as for the part about "dishonoring" TNR with his presence, I'd say he fits right in.
UPDATE: John Gibson of Fox News did a radio interview with Kurchik here. It contains this absolutely incredible statement:
"When someone mentions the Trilaterial Commission in nefarious terms, you know that they're a little kooky... ...The Bilderbergers, that's a real out there conspiracy theory..."
Then, he pretended that Bohemian Grove was just a "men's social club in Northern California".
This guy is a complete establishment suck-up and apologist. While some of the theories about those groups are indeed out there, pretending they're just happy friendly social groups is something that no one who isn't just trying to suck-up should engage in. Also, he appears to be a fan of Rudy Giuliani; at the last link Rudy gives an award to David Rockefeller and mentions all the groups with which he's been associated, including the CFR and the Bilderbergers.
TNR has released some scanned copies of the newsletters here. I'm going to leave it to others to look through all of them but the first one in the "Conspiracies" section is from 1978 - well before some of RP's supporters were born - and it contains highlighted sections that apparently we're supposed to shocked at, such the fact that David Rockefeller is linked to politicians and the news media or that the true owners of the Panama Canal are not just the supposed owners. So? Another one in that section, a solicitation letter, is so over the top that I'm almost positive that Ron Paul himself didn't write it, and I don't think too many politician write their own solicitation letters.
UPDATE 2: This has got to be a joke. Little Green Footballs - added as a show of support to this site's "blogroll" after some incident a few years ago and just now removed - offers "Ron Paul's Personal Details in Racist Newsletter" (link). Apparently the fact that whoever wrote a paragraph knew that Ron Paul had grandchildren strongly implies that the author was Paul himself and not a surrogate.
UPDATE 3: Andrew Sullivan - someone who wouldn't last more than a week as a pundit if he allowed open comments - flees the ship for USS McCain:
After the awful news about Ron Paul's ugly, repellent past newsletters, I find myself rooting again for the man who was my second choice.
UPDATE 4: Via this guy in the comment at http://volokh.com/posts/1199830642.shtml#311903 consider this from their documents page:
A 1989 newsletter compares Salman Rushdie to Ernst Zundel, a Canadian Holocaust-denier.
The 1989 PDF (link) only "compares" their cases and points out liberal hypocrisy, calling out TNR by name (probably why they highlighted it; bolding added):
Would the New Republic, which has been sickenly pompous on Rushdie and in its hymns to secular humanism, defend things it would find heretical? The answer is no. This liberal magazine has past defended Canada's "anti-hate" law, which was used to fine and jail a Canadian author, Ernst Zundel, who questioned the historical reality of the Holocaust. Liberal newspapers like the Washington Post and the Boston Globe have also praised the Canadian law and this prosecution. I'll believe Establishment liberals are really committed to free speech when I see Norman Mailer and his cohorts wearing "I am Ernst Zundel" buttons and holding readings of his works. I personally am offended by writings advocating fascism, socialism, Communism, and other forms of special-interest big government. Many people understandably find Zundel's writings offensive. But his case is no different in principle from Rushdie's except that Zundel is poor and in jail, and Rushdie is rich and protected.
Last night, Charlie Gibson of ABC News moderated two debates sponsored by WMUR and Facebook, featuring the Republican candidates and then the Democrats. Like all the preceding debates, it was like something ripped from the pages of the Soviet Union.
First, the Democrat version (transcript link) does not feature a single instance - not even one - of immigration or any related words.
[The House] last night passed a giant new spending bill that undermines current plans for a U.S.-Mexico border fence, allowing the Homeland Security Department to build a single-tier barrier rather than the two-tier version that has worked in California.
The spending bill, written by Democrats and passed 253-154 with mostly their votes...
...The 2006 Secure Fence Act specifically called for "two layers of reinforced fencing" and listed fiv
[After my administration ends] We'll hand over a country where we've ended illegal immigration where it has to be done - at the border.
And also a country who's arms are wide open to people who come here, people who come here legally and openly.
George P. Bush ("George Prescott Bush") has (earnedmedia.org/fred1210.htm) joined the Fred Thompson as the National Chair of his "Young Professionals for Fred Thompson" group. This is at least the second link he has to the Bush family.
Judy Woodruff/PBS lies about Romney, Giuliani ("anti-immigrant", Mark Shields, David Brooks) - 11/23/07
On tonight's PBS News Hour, Judy Woodruff discussed political matters with Mark Shields and David Brooks . And, she lied:
On the Republican side, you've got Romney and Giuliani trying to sort of out anti-immigrant one another.
Obviously, that's a false statement about both. Part of Romney's stock speech about this topic is to support legal immigration. And, Giuliani wants to "solve" illegal immigration by declaring a massive amnesty.
David Brooks offers "The Real Rudy" (link), most of which consists of a series of now-infamous Rudy Giuliani pro-illegal immigration quotes. I half-expected him to try to explain them away, but I wasn't too surprised that he explicitly supports that side of Rudy, calling someone who supported illegal activity "moderate".
Rudy Giuliani held a conference call earlier today, and "Captain Ed" says (captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/016063.php):
Iowa wants to know about the NAFTA superhighway coming through the state -- Giuliani will not support any kind of NAFTA superhighway, anywhere.
What a relief!
Fred Thompson - someone who I don't entirely trust and who in fact doesn't appear to be exactly energetic - has released an immigration plan that actually sounds acceptable (link). First he says he's against amnesty, but aren't they all. But, the surprising bit is that he appears to actually mean it:
Attrition through Enforcement. Reduce the number of illegal aliens through increased enforcement against unauthorized alien workers and their employers.
Last night's Fox New GOP "debate" only had two, offhand questions about immigration matters, and one of those was in response to something Fred Thompson said (transcript link). Their September debate at least had a section devoted to the topic, even if all the questions they asked were weak.
Obviously, immigration is a vital topic and many Americans are concerned about it.
Brave New Films is a sleazy , left-wing organization, akin to the low-rent Hollywoodish version of ThinkProgress. A few days ago, John Ehrenfeld from that site tried to attend  a Rudy Giuliani appearance, only to be kicked out apparently after Guiliani staffers learned who he was with.
There have been several videos featuring "Truthers" more or less lamely "confronting" presidential candidates about 9/11. While one featuring John Kerry featured an actual dialog (and more or less a brush off), most of them involve the Truthers yelling questions at the candidate which are then ignored.
I've previously discussed how Rudy Giuliani's scheme to "stop illegal immigration" (one of his Twelve Commitments) by requiring a "foreigners-only" ID card would either fail or would eventually become a national biometric ID.
Here's another way that his card would morph from being just for foreigners to being for citizens as well. Consider the following quote (link):
I usually laugh at rather than laugh with TAPPED, but this post highlighting "town mouse Rudy Giuliani saying embarrassingly stupid things about flyover country while in flyover country" found me regretfully doing a little of the second.
For instance, the bit of advice about "Do not, under any circumstances, make references to elite East Coast universities", referencing this Rudy quote:
"Aren't these questions great?" he said as he got up to leave the diner here.
Rudy Giuliani claimed that he'd never heard of the "NAFTA Superhighway" but his law firm is deeply involved in the Texas leg of the project.
Here's a relatively mild question I put together for the upcoming CNN/Youtube debate about that discrepancy; please go to his campaign appearances and try to ask him this question:
President Bush today sidestepped a direct question about whether he'd be willing to categorically deny there is a plan to create the North American Union.Here's that portion of Bush's thoughts:
Instead, he ridiculed those who believe that is taking place as conspiracy theorists.
"We represent three great nations. We each respect each other's sovereignty.
Rudy Giuliani has vowed to end illegal immigration as we know it. Under his plan, a new governmental organization will scour the web, editing pages to change the words "illegal immigration" to "legal immigration" (all site owners will be required to put their passwords in a government database for their and our safety). Likewise, the same group will access newspapers' computer systems and do a search-and-replace of those two terms.
* Robert Bonner, former Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection
* C. Stewart Verdery, Jr., former Assistant Secretary for Policy and Planning at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security
* Victor Cerda, former Assistant Secretary of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement at the DHS
I give up. Well, not really, but that's how I feel after watching some of the submissions for the Youtube/CNN Republican debate (to be held at some unknown future date). As with the Democratic version, expect CNN to pick the worst of the worst in order to a) not make the candidates uncomfortable, and b) not make CNN's standard questions look as weak as they are.
But if Giuliani inherited [Ed Koch's sanctuary for illegal aliens policy], he reissued it and seemed to embrace it.
At a June 1994 press conference, Giuliani decried anti-illegal immigration policies as unfair and hostile.
"Some of the hardest-working and most productive people in this city are undocumented aliens," Giuliani said at the time.
More proof GOP is corrupt, lacks differentiation from Democrats (Giuliani, Minuteman flyer) - 08/07/07
Rudy Giuliani's southwest political director [Chris Gulugian-Taylor] left a top position [executive director] at the Nevada Republican Party last year after breaking rules by advertising a Minuteman border patrol rally in internal GOP e-mails.
The notices publicizing a "Stop the Illegal Invasion" rally in October 2006 outraged some Hispanic Republicans in the state, who said they feared it would alienate voters in the nation's fastest growing minority group just weeks before elect
In the past, this site has been sharply critical - to say the least! - of the mainstream media ("MSM"), pointing out that they consistently fail to ask politicians tough questions that would reveal the glaring holes in those politicians' policies.
Now, I have to retract that, based on this video featuring Dan Balz (Washington Post, "WaPo") and Mark Halperin (Time Magazine) relentlessly interrogating Rudy Giuliani. They even did it in the aisles of the WalMart in Boone, Iowa... as Rudy was buying granola bars!
These two lions of the MSM relentlessly quizzed him in a "take no prisoners" approach that amateur journalists cannot hope to match.
First, they asked if there should be CostCo's and WalMarts in Manhattan. Rudy answers yes, because he thinks they lower prices. Now, at this point in time you might wonder why they didn't have a follow-up, such as inquiring about traffic and related issues, or disincentivizing walking vs. driving to WalMart, and such like that. But, don't worry: they were thinking of those follow-ups, and that question was just what's refered to in the newsrooms as a "set up". While it can take a full semester to explain that technique, in brief they were lulling him into complacency, ready to spring - like a bear trap - the real question these reporters wanted to ask:
"Is Alez Rodriguez the youngest player to ever hit 500 home runs?"
Ladies and gentlemen, that is how it's done. I shall be writing to the Columbia Journalism Review forthwith, urging that they include this tape in all courses for young journalists.
Note to "citizen journalists": you cannot compete with the MSM, so don't bother trying.
SPECIAL NON-MOCKING, BEHIND-THE-BLOGGING UPDATE: When I first started watching the video, all I knew was the title ("Rudy Giuliani at Boone, IA Walmart"). I originally thought it was going to feature a GHWB-vs-the-price-scanner type of incident. Then, when someone asked about WalMart, I started a bit of a celebration, as I thought that a random citizen - or at least someone from SprawlBusters - was trying to ask Rudy a tough question. I became more than a bit perturbed as there was no follow-up and as the "questioning" became more conversational in tone. Only then did I read the description of the video and realize why that was: the questioners were two MSM hacks.
I'm (thankfully) not familiar with NYC, but if someone proposed planting a WalMart at LaBrea and Wilshire I could outline the various ways that would be a bad idea and how things like traffic tie-ups or the need for road projects might result in costing more than it would save. I'd take that as an opportunity to show that Rudy either isn't able to think things through, or is able to think them through but doesn't care about the negative consequences (for some strange reason or other).
Obviously, that level of dialogue is foreign to Balz and Halperin: their goal is to get a few quotes and maybe ask about a scandal or similar. They are little more than stenographers to the stars (of politics).
I note also that the video is from someone named "mevanh" who signed up to YT just recently, who only has one other video (of Michelle Obama), and who deleted a comment I left on the video similar to the post along with another negative comment. Must be a Rudy fan.
Mitt Romney is apparently going to pull out of the next CNN/Youtube "debate" because he doesn't want to answer questions like those from snowmen. Rudy Giuliani is likewise unsure. Hugh Hewitt thinks it will turn into a chance for CNN to ask a series of leftwing questions, and is suggesting against taking part.
A look at the questions for the debate submitted so far shows that they have little to fear. Unless, of course, they're afraid of asking a question from a hot dog (link).
Two top Democratic contenders in the presidential race are in South Florida to address the National Council of La Raza, the nation's largest Hispanic civil rights group.
Sunday morning, New York Senator Hillary Clinton told the gathering at the Miami Beach Convention Center, she would prefer to pass a comprehensive immigration bill that would provide a path to legalization for immigrants in the United States.
Rudy Giuliani wants your thoughts on 12 Commitments to the American People (he just won't print them) - 07/19/07
Rudy Giuliani has a new video at Youtube where he:
asks You Tube viewers for their opinion on his 12 Commitments to the American People. Voters are encouraged to leave their video or text responses here on You Tube or on Rudys12Commitments.com.
At post time, no comments are showing. Now hold on there, reaching for your Orwellian allusions and all: it could be a technical glitch.
Apparently KFI AM 640 Los Angeles hosts John & Ken - frequent opponents of illegal immigration - want Rudy Giuliani to be president. Or, at least John Kobylt does. He seems to think that the amnesty that Rudy supports isn't amnesty. He is, of course, wrong.
This is oddly similar to a previous situation: John & Ken were one of the major forces behind the Gray Davis recall and have supported Arnold Schwarzenegger. Unfortunately, we see how well that worked out, with Arnie since revealing himself to be little more than a Democrat when it comes to matters like illegal immigration.
The following video shows a "truther" reporter (Matt Lepacek) from Alex Jones' group trying to ask Rudy Giuliani pollster Ed Goeas some questions about 9/11.
11: I'm going to go practice my track-standing. Back later...
10: Three minutes with Larry King commence now...
9: Hunter mentioned pardoning Ramos-Compean, and even bringing back the Reagan Democrats.
8: John McCain warns that having 12 million illegal aliens - 2 million of them being criminals - is dangerous. His solution is his bill, which would give them a wave-of-the-wand legalization, with the government having only 24 hours to deny an application.
7: Ron Paul is pointing out that massive illegal immigration is subsidized...
The unremarkable and as-could-be-expected-biased "Top GOP Hopefuls Keep Distance on Immigration" by Michael Shear discusses how John McCain, Mitt Romney, and Rudy Giuliani are backing off from "comprehensive immigration reform", aka amnesty.
However, it does contain this:
...we need a tamper-proof I.D.
Rudy Giuliani has laid out his immigration plan to something called the "Latino Coalition". Assuming the article is correct, it's clear to me that he and/or his advisors aren't able to figure things out, and he is simply unqualified to be president:
Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) told members of the Latino Coalition on Tuesday that U.S.