Thursday, September 13, 2007
|
|
Rudy On MoveOn.org. Hillary, and Illegal Immigration
|
|
Posted by:
Hugh Hewitt at
7:08 PM
|
From my interview with Rudy Giuliani earlier today (the transcript is here and the audio will be posted here later this evening):
HH: What did you make of the MoveOn.org ad? RG: I thought the MoveOn.org ad was disgraceful. I think that it is just another indication of what the Democratic Party has become. I mean, MoveOn.org is one of the biggest contributors to the Democratic Party. They’ve contributed hundreds of millions of dollars in ads that have almost all been scurrilous character attacks on Republican candidates. They are an organization that specializes in libel and slander and character assassination. But all of a sudden, now, they’ve focused their attention on an American general in time of war, and accused him of being a traitor. I mean, this is absurdly over the line. And to have Hillary Clinton, with her comments that very day, the very day that ad appeared, that General Petraeus is asking us to have a willful suspension of disbelief, is pure Clintonianism. The willful suspension of disbelief. To ordinary people like you and me, what does that mean, people who talk straight to each other? It means she’s accusing him of not telling the truth. Well, Hillary Clinton has no right to be attacking the integrity of an American general who has put his life at risk for this country, is putting his life at risk for this country. If you want to disagree with his policies and our policies or our programs, fine. But this character assassination has to stop, it has to stop somewhere, and it certainly should stop when we’re going after generals like this. HH: Now Mayor, if you are her opponent in the general election, will her silence about this ad be an issue? RG: Her silence is going to be an issue until she apologizes.
and
HH: Now Mayor, let’s talk some politics in the remaining time we have. Washington Times this morning has a story, illegals talk alienates Giuliani supporters, and it talks about a separation between you and Peter King, and your declaration that illegal immigration isn’t a crime. What were you trying to say, and is this story overstating the differences between you… RG: Oh, sure. Pete King and I are good friends, and he’s a big supporter of my campaign. The simple reality is Pete would agree with me that it’s not a crime. He tried to make it a crime. It’s not. I mean, I’m a lawyer. I know politicians do all kind of pandering, and they make all kinds of statements. I’m not particularly good at that kind of thing. I just tell people the truth. I mean, the truth is crossing the border is a misdemeanor, being an illegal immigrant is not a crime, and Congress tried to make it a crime, I think it was a year ago, two years ago, and it didn’t pass both houses. HH: Should it be a crime, Mayor? RG: It shouldn’t be, because you wouldn’t be able to prosecute it. It would be 12 million people. Do you know how many people we have in jail, every jail, if you used up every jail in this country? About two million. So you would have a crime that didn’t get prosecuted, which would lead to disrespect for the law. HH: Does that logic follow over into the war on drugs, Mayor, to say simple marijuana possession? RG: No, we actually have the resources to deal with it. If you look at the number of people we prosecuted for drugs, it’s hundreds of thousands. It’s not 12 million people. So when you think about it, the reality is that if you made it illegal in the sense of the status illegal, you would have a situation that would totally overwhelm law enforcement in this country. You wouldn’t be able to prosecute murderers. So you know, honestly, we’ve got to stop all the knee-jerk political rhetoric and just be honest with people. And I’m not good at knee-jerk political rhetoric. I am good at being honest with people. When I faced illegal immigration in New York City, I did more about it than anybody in the country. But I took a city that had crime out of control, I handled illegal immigration that was part of it. The federal government wouldn’t deport anybody, so I had to deal with it, and I did, and I created the safest large city in this country. And of my opponents, I am the only one that really has had safety and security as a responsibility on my shoulders, and I’m the only one with results.
Read, or listen to, the whole thing.
|
|
I'd be willing to bet a majority of Americans do not realize that it is not a crime to be an illegal alien. Congress couldn't or wouldn't even address something as basic as that. For all the debate about this program vs. that program, in the end if we can't get a law that says its a crime to be an illegal alien - even a misdemeanor - then why try to pass anything else?
The Mayor then gives a classic Rudy answer - he doesn't support making it a crime because it wouldn't be enforceable. Pure logical Giuliani, even if it doesn't align with party doctrine.
This interview shows the Rudy his supporters like - Rudy The Pragmatist. Idealogues hate pragmatists which is why he'll never be the love-child of the right. But he'll govern far better than any bomb-thrower on the right or left could ever hope to do.
Thank you Hugh for putting up this interview without trying to put a pro-Romney spin on it. |
|
|
Dear Mr. Giuliani: What part of illegal do you NOT understand? If you hope to be the next president of this country, I suggest you listen to the public. I know there are varying opinion but, MOST of the people I know (of varied ethnic and financial populations) ARE angry with the attitude you express. WE MUST SECURE OUR BORDERS! How can WE be a country when we cannot even secure who comes into it. I have a young LEGAL Mexican friend. Hardworking honest and a nice guy. He recently found out some illegal alien had stolen his identity and used it to get a job. It took him MANY days to get someone in law enforcement to do ANYTHING! Actually, not until he finally called his congressman. It is NOT a crime without a victim. Once again, what part of illegal do you not understand: An angry voter. |
|
The Host: "Does that logic follow over into the war on drugs, Mayor, to say simple marijuana possession?"
Hizzonor: "No, we actually have the resources to deal with it. If you look at the number of people we prosecuted for drugs, it’s hundreds of thousands. It’s not 12 million people."
Mr. Mayor, if you tried to prosecute everybody in the U.S. who has marijuana in his or her possession, I guarantee you'd be looking at WAY more than 12 million people -- you'd most assuredly "have a situation that would totally overwhelm law enforcement in this country." So how about if YOU "stop all the knee-jerk political rhetoric[,] just be honest with people," and instruct law-enforcement folks to concentrate on more important things? How about -- oh, I don't know -- finding terrorists?
|
|
|
Like I said, i'm a fred guy, but crap if that guy doesn't sound like he could kick arse as the POTUS |
|
Let me get this straight. Giuliani says that being an illegial immigrant is not a crime; just a misdemeanor. My Merrian-Webster defines misdemeanor as "a crime less serious than a felony". Since we can't enforce violations of this crime(misdemeanor), then we should basically ignore it?
I don't know what the mayor has been smoking, but sounds like he and McCain both support legalizing illegal immigration, and hence both favor amnesty.
|
|
A misdemeanor is STILL A CRIME!!!
Rudy just shot himself in the foot! But, of course, what would we expect from an ex-mayor of a sanctuary city?
|
|
|
If its not against the law, then why are they called illegal immigrants? |
|
|
|
...entering the country without valid documentation is a crime. Simply, being in the country without valid documentation is not a crime. You can, however, in theory, be deported, but it's a civil procedure, not a criminal one, and only attempted in a small minority of cases.
There are many other similar distinctions in the law - usually differentiating between one crime and another, sometimes distinguishing between what's a crime and what isn't. It's illegal to sell heroin. It's also illegal to purchase heroin, but it's not as serious a crime. It's not illegal to have heroin in your bloodstream, even though you very, very likely must have committed a crime in order to have heroin in your bloodstream. You can fire someone for testing positive for drugs, but you can't have that person arrested (as far as I know anywhere in the U.S., but for all I know there may be exceptions).
Got it?
That said, I don't think Rudy's answer comparing to marijuana was very good at all. I still think he'd be a kick A S S Prez, as another commenter channeling Obama might have said. |
|
|
Ahhhhhhh Rudy. BIG mistake! |
|
Giuliani has more positions than the Kama Sutra, and must be hernia-proof to be able to wiggle so much without busting a gut.
I truly DESPISE this guy; he's the GOP equivalent of Bill Clinton.
If the GOP is stupid enough to nominate this guy, they are going down in flames.
If I want to vote for a New York lib, I'll vote for Hillary Clinton. And if this election boils down to RINO Rudy versus Hillary Clinton, I'll vote for the real thing, just out of spite and meanness.
New Coke didn't last very long, either.
|
|
Rudy, what about Document Fraud, Identity Theft, Social Security Fraud, and Tax Fraud? Every illegal MUST commit at least one of these CRIMES in order to continue to live and work in the United States. Do we just simply ignore these criminal behaviors simply because the mere act of being here illegally is technically not a crime?
Conservatives and Republicans, we can do much better than this grand appeaser of illegals. He has already committed to the necessity of amnesty (or Regularization as he antiseptically refers to this abomination). If you want to do something about the 3rd World invasion and the irreprable harm being done to our country then Rudy is clearly not the solution. |
|
for HELLary... under ANY circumstances!
But, I couldn't bring myself to vote for Rudy under any circumstances either!
If it's not Thompson or Hunter on the Republican ticket, I may be forced to do something I've never done... and never thought I'd do...ever, not vote for POTUS. Gives me a lump in my throat!
|
|
our principles?
"So you would have a crime that didn’t get prosecuted, which would lead to disrespect for the law."
If so, we might as well open the borders and lay down because without the strength of principle we are nothing.
Disrespect for the law? So what! There's plenty of that right now, who says all twelve million have to be prosecuted next year? No one that I know of, to say we can't has never been in the US vocabulary, it's just a cop out.
I want illegal entry and illegal residence to be a criminal offense.
The reason is not that hard to understand, the law isn't only for prosecuting the guilty, its also for protecting the innocent.
Creating laws that help stop illegal residence and entry protect our nation and ourselves, our children.
This proposed negotiated peace is exactly as that sounds...its how slaves are made and I'm not tolerant of my nation, my children's very future becoming an excused vassalage.
|
|
Lots of good stuff under the USC, using the Justia site. Like illegal entry into the US:
http://law.justia.com/us/codes/title8/8usc1325.html
Six months first offense max. and up to 2 yrs second.
18 USC holds most of the criminal code, but activities for misdemeanors go with their section of the Code. http://law.justia.com/us/codes/title18/parti_.html
Like Ch. 69 for Nationality and Citizenship...
Hit up Ch. 25 for Counterfeiting and Forgery...
Ch. 47 for Fraud and False statements...
When I was traipsing through the Code on other matters, I hit the parts on Social Security and document fraud in that is a big 'no-no'. What about all those 000-00-0000 codes that companies put in for checking status? Americans truly do not appreciate how much the government gets into your life until you start looking at the US Code. |
|
Yes a misdemeanor is a crime, but it is a little crime. Rudy is right, you cannot lock up 12 million illegal aliens. Get your heads out of your collective butts. Fanaticism over this is a good way to lose the general election.
You want stricter and real border controls, severe civil penalties for employers who hire illegals, no welfare or benefits for illegals, and ending sancutary cities (through threats of cut off of federal funds), fair enough. I support that. But try to get in touch with your inner Mexican and take a siesta on the big roundup of illegals you dream about because it is not going to happen. |
|
|
If a single mom exchanges sex for financial gain, she's a prostitute.......But if she has the backing of a studio, makes a million dollars a year, and allows a camera crew to film and distribute the entire experience, she's an X rated Starlet!.......................Which is the same stupid logic that the GOP has if they think that they can win the Whitehouse with a Northeastern Liberal!.......The end result is that GOP prostitutes deserve a MADAM!......."Madam Speaker" and "Madam President"........And the conservatives move to the third party....End of story. |
|
are the policies designed to change the country
forever.
But it will be a country run by "inner Mexicans"
and outer Mexicans.
Meanwhile, we will have another 10,000,000 Moslem "moderates" flooding in. You know, inner and outer Moslems buliding 10,000 mosques and
terrorist schools from Algonquin, Maine to San Diego.
PC, anyone? |
|
are the policies designed to change the country
forever.
But it will be a country run by "inner Mexicans"
and outer Mexicans.
Meanwhile, we will have another 10,000,000 Moslem "moderates" flooding in. You know, inner and outer Moslems buliding 10,000 mosques and
terrorist schools from Algonquin, Maine to San Diego.
PC, anyone? |
|
read. That was even stupid for you...
|
|
The overwhelming figure of 12 million (more like 20 million) is so overwhelming only because officials like Rudy, Bush, Kennedy, Chertoff and many others willfully neglected and ignored the crime for so long. If murder, arson, tax fraud, larceny, etc. essentially weren't prosecuted for the last 20 years I would imagine that we would have so many millions of these perpetrators that we couldn't prosecute and incarcerate all of them either.
You don't have to prosecute every illegal. Go after a large enough sampling with the full force of the law and eventually many of the rest will self deport. It's the same basic concept of gaining compliance with our tax laws. We don't go after every taxpayer, just enough to force every one else to toe the line. If illegals are made to live with a real threat of losing everything at any and every moment then this will act as a great disincentive to continue their illegal act of living and working here.
|
|
|
Joe, If we do the things that you claim you are for, then we wouldn't have to deport 20 million -- most would deport themselves. No jobs and no freebies = no money = no subsistence = no reason to stay. Unfortunately, Rudy hasn't supported your measures in the past and he doesn't now. |
|
Joe has it on the money folks. This whole thing is suicide for the party. Rudy is right on this subject. I think Fred has an ace up his sleave in the I&N issue. Just waite.
GO FRED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
|
June 5, 2006, a nine year old little boy from Sandy Springs,GA, Jordin Paulder, gets an axe buried in his head by a monster from Honduras that should not have been here (http://www.immigrationshumancost.org/). But hey, esa es la vida. No, it just wouldn't be practical to secure our borders. Or the working grandmother in Dallas last December who was shot in the back of the head while exiting an elevator, then in the face as she turned around to face her killer, and then once more in the body when she would not release the bags the twenty-four year old illegal alien from Mexico was trying to steal(archive Mike Gallagher). C'est la vie. Or the family from Houston that four weeks ago was slaughtered by a drunken illegal alien behind the wheel. Nope, it simply isn't practical to save the lives of statistically unfortunate Americans.
Nor is it practical to protect Americans from having their identities stolen, wages garnished, jobs lost, schools overcrowded, hospitals closed or any other such like. Pragmatism trumps the common welfare.
But it surely is practical to have a couple hundred thousand plus of our troops in Iraq to make their borders unassailable.
Yes old rule of law Rudy, que tipo. Me gusto ese muchacho mucho.
It sounds to me as though Rudy's knowledge of the law is as imcomplete as his will to put the interests of the citizenry of this nation ahead of our guests. |
|
So Rudy's premise is being in the country illegally can't be a crime because there are too many to prosecute. It is a crime, though. He states that he's a lawyer, so he knows it's a crime. From PBS site: According to the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, in 1999 an estimated 14.8 million Americans were current illicit drug users, meaning they had used some illicit drug during the month prior to the survey.
Entering the country illegally is just the first crime; driving (no license, no insurance, no problem), tax evasion, etc. |
|
The only candidate who speaks to ALL Americans and not just the nuts on either extremist side.
Finally! Someone worth voting for.
Those of you arguing the "immigration law" should look it up; he's interpreted the LAW correctly. That's what he SHOULD do, understand and interpret it correctly - that should not be confused about his POSITION on the issue.
These are two different issues that some of you are conflating. |
|
This is interesting coming from Rudy.
I think it shows us what he really believes about those who try to enter our country illegally.
He didn't see a problem when he was in new york city about enforcing the smallest of crimes because he felt that the rule of law was important. He even started having the police get all over window washers for crying out loud!
But when it comes to folks who want to sneak in and trash our rule of law by their very entry, there's just too many to deal with.
I really can't see much difference between Clinton and Rudy on social policy.
So basically, if we vote Rudy into the White House we will be getting a Clinton who is tough on Terror. |
|
|
As a guy who first voted in '60 for Nixon and then for AUH20, with Ronaldus Magnus being the only Prez that I have worked for and loved, I am a conservative who wants to win. If Rudy can beat Her Highness and the rest of Dem socialist pacifists , he has my vote. I cannot see either Mitt or Fred as a valid Commander in Chief. No one is going to be scared of either. They might fear John or Duncan, but they are not going to get the nomination and anyone who works in politics knows it. It is time for Pubs to unite and if it is Fred, let us hear him on national security. So far , zilch. Nothing sticks out. I have read the 12 Committments of Rudy. They stick out. Mitt, is all over the place and not one of you could tell me just what he would do if elected. Not even Hugh. But, Rudy, we know. No, he's not a Christian conservative but he is Right of Center enough to cut taxes, appoint Scalias, win the war against the Islamos, and make the world fear and respect America. In these days of Oprah, Obama, Osama , Moveon,the MSM, Hillary and Biden, that is enough for me. |
|
I cannot believe that this man is leading the race for the Republican nomination.
And since when have misdemeanors not been crimes? It's scary to think that this man was a lawyer and a prosecuter.
He is as big an open borders fanatic as Bush is.
|
|
If Fidel Castro would run on the GOP ticket and it looked like he might win, would you support him?
I get the feeling you would.
|
|
Precisely, we shouldn't be confused about his position on the issue. His record as mayor of New York City, vis-a-vis illegal immigration, is crystal clear. Moreover, his postion on the rights of unborn women could not be more unambiguous. Likewise, the fount of all our liberties, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, the right to protect one's family, property and person is something for which Rudy has demonstrated nothing but uveiled contempt.
Is Rudy's interpretation of immigration law correct? It is a matter of debate. Ultimately, we must decide for ourselves.
What is beyond debate is this the fact that if we cease to exist as a nation, all of this is academic. |
|
"Crime. A positive or negative act in violation of penal law; an offense against the State or United States."
and
"'Crime' and 'misdemeanor', properly speaking, are synonymous terms; though in common usage 'crime' is made to denote such offenses as are of a more serious nature."
It goes on to say that a crime is an act committed in violation of a law and is punishable in a number of ways, one of which is the imposition of a fine.
If Rudy is half the lawyer he claims to be, he is very much aware of the above cites from "Black's"; it is a legal reference book any lawyer has in his bookcase, alongside his Blackstone.
Come to think of it, since NYC is a sanctuary city and Rudy was its former mayor, maybe he DOESN'T know what constitutes a crime and what doesn't.
And THAT from a guy [a POTUS wannabe] who wants to deny New Yorkers' -- and the rest of us -- their right to own guns...
He doesn't even know what is a crime and what isn't, for goodness sake. |
|
"I'd be willing to bet a majority of Americans do not realize that it is not a crime to be an illegal alien."
A majority of Americans are right, and Goofy Giulaini is wrong. It is a crime to be an illegal alien.
The other things they do once they become illegal aliens are even bigger crimes. giving a false SSN can get you up to five years and a quarter million dollar fine.
|
|
Big deal.
This is a guy who thinks the 2nd Amendment is subject to federalism and local interpretations, too.
A guy who thinks Roberts is just as qualified as Ruth Bader Ginsburg as a SCOTUS Justice.
A real legal light.
|
|
"It shouldn’t be [a crime], because you wouldn’t be able to prosecute it. It would be 12 million people.... So you would have a crime that didn’t get prosecuted, which would lead to disrespect for the law.
If Congress passed a law elevating the status of being in the country illegally to a more serious offense, that law would have to be applied prospectively. That is, it would have to apply to anyone entering the country illegally AFTER the law was passed. Otherwise, retrospective application would render it an ex post facto law, which would violate the U.S. Const. So there is no fear of not being able to prosecute 12 million, since those 12 million already here would not be subject to the new criminal law. Maybe Rudy didn't think about this, but if he did, then he was not really being honest. |
|
"So basically, if we vote Rudy into the White House we will be getting a Clinton who is tough on Terror."
There is some question as to just how tough on terror he would be. If you actually look at what he has said regarding the war, he seems a bit iffy.
|
|
|
Castro is in the camp of the resident lefties on this forum. Does the shot fit John? Or are you a Paulbot? Look kid, I have been voting longer than you have been alive. I work in politics, love it, and have supported conservatives since I was 15. I want to win before I assume room temperature. If Rudy is the only Pub that can beat the socialist pacifists, I will go with him. And who little John are you voting for? I don't seem to remember your brilliance on these forums before. Enlighten us with your political prescriptions. |
|
This effort to redefine the word "crime" to suit his own purposes reminds of somebody ...
|
|
"Look kid, I have been voting longer than you have been alive."
I'm not a kid. And for your claim to be true you must be about 120.
"I want to win before I assume room temperature."
What is it you want to win. You "won in 2000 and 2004. What did you "win" on those occaisions?
If Giuliani is nominated and then elected President, what exactly will you "win"?
"And who little John are you voting for?"
Unless you are a lot bigger than six feet, don't call me "little". In fact, don't do it in any case.
Why are you Giuliani people always such retards? The people who support the other candidates are not so obnoxious.
Are you going to try to defend Rudy from his latest gaffe or not?
|
|
KGK
Is there a person whom the GOP could run who you would not support, even if they were guaranteed to win?
Of course, Rudy has no real shot at winning. The Dems would eat him alive.
|
|
|
You did not answer my question. Who are you supporting? I want to vote for Fred but so far, I have seen nothing to tell me he has the cred to be a commander in chief or know tax cuts from fiscal policy. Rudy knows those things. As to winning what, it is the war ........that is the chief issue we all face. To overcome the attacks of Islamofascism and btw, to stop the socialist pacifist agendas of the Dem Party as shown by their candidates. And to me, it is your reasoning that makes you a kid, even though, I bet I am nearly 30 years older. If you are a Libertarian, tell me. If you want Mitt or Duncan. Fine. Or even John. Those are all Pub with some type of record. Just who do you want and will campaign and vote for John. That should be simple for a big guy like you. |
|
Rudy's right in saying it's "not a crime to be an illegal immigrant". For that matter, it's not a crime to be a prostitute. It's not a crime to be a murderer. It's not a crime to be an NFL quarterback who abuses dogs. The act of prostitution is a crime (except in Searchlight, Nevada). Murder is a crime. Abusing dogs is a crime. But it is not a crime to be the person who commits the crimes. For example, Tookie Williams was put to death a while back here in CA for 4 brutal murders. He wasn't put to death for being Tookie Williams.
Rudy really ought to be doing some triangulating here. To insist he's right, if only in a hyper-technical sense, at the cost of alienating supporters, is unwise and smacks of a stubbornness reminiscent of GWB, a character trait which did not always serve the latter well. |
|
ain't so good.
We prosecute pot smokers because it's only hundreds of thousands per year.
WE can't prosecute illegal immigration because it's 12 million of them.
50 MILLION AMERICANS HAVE USED MARIJUANA. I think regular users are said to be around 20 million, but I think it is much higher than that.
Get your answers straight. Will you deport illegal aliens? Lots of them? Will you stop this influx that at some point will destroy America. |
|
First, if you expect me to answer any questions of yours, grow up and stop behaving like an obnoxious brat.
Why are all you RudyRooters such tards?
"As to winning what, it is the war ........that is the chief issue we all face."
Earlier you said you wanted to win once in your lifetime. Since by the sound of things you lived through the Spanish-American War, you must have seen plenty of that sort of winning.
"to stop the socialist pacifist agendas of the Dem Party as shown by their candidates"
A) None of the other GOP candidates have a socialist pacifist agenda. Why not support them?
B) The GOP has been moving left over the last several years. Making Rudy President will accelerate that.
C) This thread is about the MoveOn ad and Rudys immigration position. Can you defend his socialist immigration position, which is no better than Ted Kennedys? I guess you can't, since you're not.
|
|
What right-wingers really dream of is that the Government is going to send its agents to drag illegal aliens out of their homes and places they work, even drag illegal aliens away from their children who are citizens by virtue of being born in America. Then put the whole 12 million of them on trucks and dump them back over the border.
But that would be in so many violations of due process that the Democrats in Congress and the ACLU and sympathetic liberal judges all over the country would block it.
It's NEVER going to happen. It's a pipe dream to make right-wing voters feel good but has no chance of being enacted. Giuliani doesn't mouth nice-sounding pipe dreams to make voters feel good--he tells it like it is.
Giuliani is being REALISTIC. As per his 12 commitments he WILL secure our borders. But he's not going to use storm-trooper tactics against the 12 million illegal aliens already in this country. He has to uphold the law and America's laws don't permit this kind of thing.
If you want a politician to promise pipe dreams and pie in the sky to make you feel good, then don't vote for Rudy.
|
|
I have to conclude that he is indeed a big government RINO. He is a Hillary that is tough on terror. Rudy doesn't really want to change things all that much. He's very happy letting illegal immigrants run wild while cops chase speeders, put up tollways and stoplight cameras (and let illegal aliens without identification go scott free) and happy to waste precious court resources to prosecute hundreds of thousands of pot smokers every year.
WHich of you guys said that if this is the best the Republicans can do, it is time to form a new party? You got that right.
People will see thru his double-speak and even a lightweight like Hillary will trounce his weak arguments in a surfacy debate. He's not really hearing the questions, and his answers are awful. Get me Fred, VP Romney or that guy from Arkansas. |
|
I see from looking at your blog that you are a conservative Christian. How can you justify supporting somebody like Giuliani?
That's not snark. I'd honestly like to know. Giulaini is the nearest thing to an openly godless man ever to make a serious challenge for the Presidency. And he's doing it under the GOP banner.
If this same person were running as a Democrat you would not even consider him. He'd be considered off to the left of the mainstream of the Democratic party.
Imagine - the Dems run for office a big city mayor from a liberal city in a liberal state. he is pro-gay marrige, pro gun control, pro open borders, and pro abortion. He makes no effort to even pretend to any religious faith.
The Dems would consider such a person as too far left to run for national office. For some reason, the GOP does not.
|
|
Hillary is asking us to have a willful suspension of disbelief that she is
Qualified to become Commander in Chief to a Military she hates, trashes, bashes, slanders and insults:
HER handlers, supporters, comrades, all have insulted our Military once too often:
SHE endorses their slander and vicious attacks of our awesome military:
SHE NEEDS to go run for President of a Terrorist or Communist controlled nation: |
|
WE
the INDEPENDENT conservatives: who yes care
about illegal abortions: and to stop gay marriage because it is an assault on Morals and the Fudiciary responsibility of this nation:
HOWEVER: this time: we want Leaders who will NOT FAKE IT like FOLEY: CRAIG: ETC>
We want leaders who will put a foot in the face of the enemy within, the democrats who are nothing but perpetual hate peddlers and the can't do club:
WE NO LONGER want anything in Politics concerning the PAST PERSONAL lives of the wives and kids of our leaders:
WE WANT THIS NATION RUN for the Majority and NOT bending over to the minority and illegal activities:
CONSERVATIVE means every single person must take 100% responsibility for every aspect of their own lives:
Conservative means enforcing every single law for all parties:
Conservative means protect, defend this nation from enemies foreign and domestic:
RIGHT NOW organizations like MOVE ON and the Democratic party subsidary of MOVE on and HOLLYWOOD are the enemies within:
WE NEED A GOOD HOUSE CLEANING and IF Rudy can do it it will be Rudy and if not it will be one of the other qualified candidates:
THE BOTTOM LINE is we need leaders with guts: |
|
|
The Betray-us pun was idiotic. Indeed the whole ad was over the line, by feet and inches. But Guiliani's giddy, slimy misquoting of it (How dare MoveOn call the General a traitor, bla bla bla...and I bet Hillary is behind it!) is, like Hewitt's, dishonest by miles. History will decide whether MoveOn's accusation was correct on its actual point--but these right-wing infomercial-interviews aren't really interested in that... dull truth isn't what the cancer of conservative talk lives and thrives on. |
|
"And I’m not good at knee-jerk political rhetoric. I am good at being honest with people."
I'm not a Rudy hater, but the louder a man tells me he's honest the tighter I hold onto my wallet.
Rudy's transparent attempts to paint himself as Mr. Honest strikes me as being disingenuous at best. If you're honest you shouldn't have to go out of your way to inform everyone of the fact. Please. |
|
|
Sorry Hugh & Dean, I've been listening to both Romney & Rudy and gotta say, I'm liking Rudy more. He handles the tough questions better off the cuff. If either would grab Hunter or even Lieberman (!) as VP though, they'd get my vote. |
|
"If you look at the number of people we prosecuted for drugs, it’s hundreds of thousands."
A lot more than that are smoking the weed, I'm sure, Rudy! DUI is a misdemeaner, too, until you kill someone. Just for the record, I do not indulge in either; the only drug I take is for HBP/CHOL. However, this is something I'm sure the Democratic Senate would agree to: Legalize marijuana! Then they could light up just like the good ole' college days during their 1960's sit-ins around the administration offices, chanting alcolades (sic) to Jerry Rubin, Abby Hoffman, Tom Hayden, Karl Marx, Che Gueverra, and all the other great thinkers of their time. Far out, man! Groovy! Attica!
I think it's maybe what Nancy needs: Put on the Grateful Dead, plug in the lava lamp, assume a lotus position, and spark up a big fatty so she could get rid of the "deer in the headlights" look in of her eyes. However, Reid needs something stronger. Maybe heroin.
Is that "100 Days" over yet? |
|
|
You left out Hanoi Jane on your list of 1960s great thinkers. She was just so special... |
|
If we believe the government's assertion that there are only 12 million in our midst, we get what we deserve.
Secondly, Giuliani's lame comparison to prosecution of marijuana users tells me that he is more than willing to talk down to us and hand us the party line - and a pack of lies. What's next Rudy, we need tollways because we spent the tens of billions you gave us in gas tax on other things...oops, I mean because the gas tax isn't enough to pay for all the repairs. |
|
Si se puede (Yes We Can)
Yes we can:
Ignore your laws.
Enter your country any time we feel like it.
Collect benefits to which we are not entitled.
Tell you what your immigration policies should be.
File thousands of lawsuits to prevent you from enforcing your laws.
Vote in your elections fradulently.
Take your country.
|
|
Rudy has no more intention of securing the border and enforcing the law as GWB. If you want amnesty and more cheap labor importation, he's your man.
If we wish to keep our representative Republic, we must elect a President who will secure the borders and enforce the laws. The actions of the next President will determine the fate of this great nation. Texans have been on the front line of this inundation and understand its consequences. They know that Duncan Hunter is the one man who can be trusted to do what needs to be done.
The primary responsibility of the U.S. government is to protect the territorial integrity and people of this country. They have completely abdicated this responsibility. Both parties have been complicit in this. We are being told it is not possible to control our borders, enforce our laws, and thereby control our destiny as a nation. Hogwash. We are being sold out by corporations intent on importing workers for jobs that can't be exported with the taxpayers paying the true costs, financial and human. If we act like sheep and don't stop the inundation across our borders, we will lose our country without a bleat.
http://www.gohunter08. |
|
One of the biggest problems we have these days is simply getting our pols to speak plainly.
There is no such thing as an "illegal immigrant".
The term is "Illegal Alien".
An "immigrant" is by definition, legal.
When you deliberately blur the terms, you blur the issue.
I'm more than willing to let all aliens stay here- if they come forward and identify themselves, and if they accept permanent resident alien status with no chance of ever becoming a citizen.
WE aren't doing this to them, they are doing it to themselves by jumping the border and flaunting our laws.
Either go home and sign up the right way, or accept your second-class citizenship without bitching about it.
If you ain't happy with that, then screw you; go home and fix your own damn country and quit sucking the lifeblood out of mine. |
|
I've had it with pols who isist on telling us what can't be done.
Defeatism must be exposed and eliminated wherever
it raises it's head. |
|
Sorry SteveL, your rightwing fantasy invoking Nazi like raids on homes to deport the illegals is being advocated by nobody. Deportation needs to happen through workplace raids and when illegals are caught for other crimes and their status is determined, but nobody is suggesting SS raids in the middle of the night.
It's all about incentives -- remove them (jobs and freebies) and the illegals remove themselves. You amnesty guys just love to try and paint the impossibility and improbability of deporting all of the illegals when nobody is suggesting this as a primary tactic. So for the millionth time, just admit that you support amnesty and quit trying to incorrectly paint those of us who don't support amnesty as the second coming of Hitler and the Gestapo. |
|
Today we gather to remember the candidacy of one Rudolph William Louis Giuliani for President of the United States.
What started with so much promise, what with the "tough on crime" mayor of one of the world's great cities pointing to bigger and better things for our nation. Horror of horrors, voters began to understand that Mr. Giuliani was morally opposed to abortion but those morals would not compel him to act on behalf of the aborted. The body politic then heard America's Mayor tell us how illegal immigration wasn't a crime.
I can almost hear Mr. Giuliani now, "Come unto me all you petty lawbreakers, you identity thieves, you who are willing to remain a shadow slave class, and I will give you rest--or at least a landscaping job because man do my rose bushes need help!"
Yes, Rudy's campaign appeared as a sanctuary city on a hill. And then the voters awoke.
We will miss you Rudy O8. Though I'm not sure we won't see you again on the other side--of the aisle that is. |
|
FOX News Poll: Rudy Giuliani Preferred President Over Hillary Clinton If Terrorists Attack America
Thursday , September 13, 2007
By Dana Blanton
NEW YORK —
A majority of Americans say they would feel more comfortable with Rudy Giuliani in the White House than Hillary Clinton if another terrorist attack were to happen in the United States, according to a new FOX News poll.
When compared to other top Republican candidates, more voters see Giuliani as hardworking and as a strong leader, while Clinton leads the Democratic field for not only having the right experience, but also being able to bring about change — as well as doing whatever it takes to win. Views are divided on whether it’s appropriate for Oprah Winfrey to use her celebrity status to encourage support of Barack Obama.
The latest FOX News poll shows that if the United States were hit with a terrorist attack, by a 50 percent to 36 percent margin, Americans would rather have Giuliani in charge than Clinton, including 28 percent of Democrats and an overwhelming 80 percent of Republicans. Independents split in Giuliani’s favor 47 percent to Clinton’s 28 percent.
Opinion Dynamics Corp. conducted the national telephone poll of 900 registered voters for FOX News from Sept. 11 to Sept. 12. The poll has a 3-point error margin.
Click here to view full results of the poll (pdf).
One of the main themes of Giuliani’s campaign is his leadership capabilities and the poll findings suggest that message is connecting with voters, as more Republicans (43 percent) say the phrase "strong leader" describes the former mayor than the other top tier Republican hopefuls, with John McCain trailing Giuliani by some 24 points.
On having "clear stands on the issues," again, Republicans put Giuliani (25 percent) ahead of McCain (19 percent) and Thompson (16 percent).
|
|
|
OK, John. You obviously will not answer which candidate you will support. I have been on this blog for a long time and I have stated why I will vote for Rudy though, I want to vote for Fred if, if , if he can actually stand for something that he explains in more than just folksy whimisical rhetoric. 1. I am not voting for an Apostle or Pope. As a Conservative Christian, I also know that I live in this Kingdom not the Lord's , not until the Millenium. 2. Rudy has solid comments in his 12 Committments to America. Read them John, even to you they will be self-explanatory. And they sound much like Newt's Contract. Remember that one? 3. Rudy was an Attg. under Reagan and is very tough on crime. Dems are not. Rudy will be a strong Commander in Chief, see others if you can see them, other than John McCain as a Commander. Perhaps Duncan , but he is not going to win the nomination. Rudy cannot change anything about abortion. Not one thing but he can appoint Scalia-like jurists that would deal with an expansion or even a detraction of Roe. Look John, your posts sounded as if you did not want any Pub elected. Now do you or not? Almost any Pub is better than a Dem. If you cannot see that, why even think that your posts would impact any other poster. This mostly is a forum where most of the posters think that Dems are our real domestic and international relations' enemies. They will kill us as Hugh avers. Can you not see that? So, I want a winner. One who might at least put some Pub seats in play and allow conservative policies some light. When the Dems win, that will kill the conservative agenda for 8 or more years. At my age, I cannot afford to see the nation slip into a Third World status just to spite some Pub noses. As you see to want to do. Perhaps now, you will be honest and finally tell me who will you support. That at least would put you down for some principled policy. So far, you have not done so. Why is that? |
|
|
Just can't get behind a guy who's so ready to suspend my rights - especially a lawyer. |
|
Rudy (and others) are correct, it is not (yet) a crime to simply BE HERE (though that logic escapes me: You mean to say that if I break into your house, it was only the act of breaking in that's illegal? Not my still being in your house? Interesting...)
However, it is only a misdemeanor the FIRST TIME - illegal border crossings AFTER having been deported are FELONIES.
Also, while one may not be breaking a law (presently) simply by being here, is it also NOT a crime to WORK here, without legal authorization? How many of the millions of illegal aliens (who are "not breaking the law, simply by being here") ARE breaking the law by working (even if it's just as a "day laborer" at Home Depot)?
|
|
Rudy responds to the spectre of the creation of another crimanlized act like the typical prosecutor who has to weigh all the difficulties involved like money, time, and government bureaucracy. But you know, sometimes you just have to bite the bullet and do something. I have seen prosecutors with his mentality do real damage to clearly enforceable acts by adopting this "throw your hands up in the air" approach to difficult but necessary challenges. These are the D.A.'s who have allowed the dilution of penalties, do not undertake the agressive prosecution of really bad guys, and cow to the vile defense attorneys who suck the financial life and morale out of real victims. How would this mentality translate into dealing with other difficult to take on challenges such as a president would face?
The illegal alien problem can be tackled effectively but not by institutionalized government entities who are so entrenched in the tedious and in finding the easiest route to maintaining status quo. They allow real problems to go unchecked or as in the case of Rudy, do not tackle the enforceable due to percieved difficulties. He realistically (in my assessment) cannot think outside the government box. |
|
LIBERALS AND WAR SUCCESS:
IT’S SORT OF LIKE TRYING TO SQUEEZE TOOTHPASTE BACK INTO THE TUBE—IT NEVER WORKS
BY LISA RICHARDS
September 13, 2007
I love how Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton want to know the exact date of the pull-out in Iraq. I think Hillary should refrain from using phrases like pull-out, especially with a husband who’s an expert on the subject. And Barack Obama who has about as much experience in anything governmental as Paris Hilton on a three-day drunk trying tell Americans how not to drink and drive, asked questions so absurd he actually made Ted Kennedy appear sober; if that’s possible.
If the questions had been directed at the fired-by Bill Clinton General Wesley Clarke, you can be sure Harry Reid would have been fawning with drool over the bad-tempered liberal who screwed up a Clinton war so bad even Clinton had to ignore the blue-dress whore under the desk to take time out to issue a pink slip to the General the Clinton’s would later go on to endorse as a presidential candidate.
Petreaus is under direct order from Bush and not a liberal democrat, and the past three days of grand-standing do-nothing-but-whine was proof liberals can’t stand any bit of success Bush is having in Iraq. Liberals want Iraq to fail. They want Muslim terrorists to slaughter our troops like pigs. The want Sheryl Crowe sitting atop an enemy tank posing for photos ala’ Jane Fonda. Hell, if they can get Fonda to do a retake of her Hanoi hoopla, liberals would be in propaganda heaven...
For the rest of column visit my blog
copyright 2007 Lisa Richards
http://www.lisa-richards.com
E-Mail Contact: lisa-richards@lisa-richards.com |
|
|
"Some of the hardest-working and most productive people in this city [New York] are undocumented aliens. If you come here and you work hard and you happen to be in an undocumented status, you're one of the people who we want in this city. You're somebody that we want to protect, and we want you to get out from under what is often a life of being like a fugitive, which is really unfair." -- Rudy Giuliani while mayor of NYC, giving us an idea of just why New York was a sanctuary city while he was there |
|
You are full of it. It's a matter of human rights, not a matter of allowing people to get as much nookie as they want and then give them 3 million state-sponsored ways out of having to take responsibility.
That's like saying if you're not trying to adopt kids left and right you're not pro-life. Just because I don't want innocent people on death row executed doesn't mean I want to take them home with me. Just because I don't want innocent babies killed doesn't mean I want others to f*ck on my dollar. |
|
|
|
I'll tell you one thing about Rudy - if he's President, then whatever policy he wants, he gets. If he wanted Bush's immigration bill passed, he'd strong arm it through Congress and crush the grass roots opposition into wine. Moderate so-and-so, this issue, that issue, whatever. Liberal, Conservative, doesn't matter. You stand in his way, you get the Iron Boot.
Ever seen a police battalion with a tank on the streets of your hometown? I saw it in NYC, not because of riots, but because homeless people were sleeping in the park. Now you may or may not be sympathetic to homeless people, but that's not my point. You're not going to block his nominees, you're not going to block his policies. Try it and he'll smash your head in.
|
|
|
|
I like Rudy. He did a good job bringing order to the disorder of NYC.
However, I respectfully disagree with hizzonor.
Rudy claims he's the only candidate with results dealing with illegal aliens.
Actually, California Congressman Duncan Hunter is the candidate who has tangible, positive results in solving the illegal alian fiasco.
"The Fence" - you know all about it by now.
O.k. - back to order and disorder.
I'll not vote for Rudy because of his "lawyering" the issue on technical definitions.
The terrible disorder created by the illegal alien fiasco is one major negative of open borders.
Even Rudy admits - order is better. So vote for the man who can establish order - Duncan Hunter.
http://www.GoHunter08.com |
|
|
Rudy might have made a mistake, simply because many of the far right immigration nuts are so unfamiliar with how the laws are written. Personally I know he is hard on illegal immigration and wants to eliminate it(start at the border, first and formost, the part that is a crime). But what many people who scream for 100% enforcement with deportation and prosecution of those here already don't realize is that the manpower to carry that out simply isn't there. What we need are practical, creative solutions, that won't cost trillions of dollars, but at the same time will use what we do have to remove the dangerous security threats from the illegal population. Rudy is telling you the truth, straight up, no bs, whether you like it or not, he deserves credit. The drug analogy is a perfect example to understand the current dilemma's with immigration law. |
|
|
|