Archive for the 'Rudolph William Louis Giuliani III' Category

Who won CNN Youtube Republican Debate?

November 29, 2007

The performance of the candidates in order, might be

  1. Fred Thompson
  2. Tom Tancredo
  3. Duncan Hunter
  4. Ron Paul
  5. Mitt Romney
  6. John McCain
  7. Mike Huckabee
  8. Rudi Giuliani

There are two groups. The first group are loyal to Americans as people and will fight for them. That group of 4 won because they had things to say to help Americans. Those 4 performed as follows in terms of winning the debate.

  1. Fred Thompson Had things to say. Didn’t surrender on the Confederate Flag. Thompson is willing to say what he thinks on social security, entitlements, immigration. etc. Fred had the most to offer on many subjects that was actually for the benefit of Americans. It was also at a good level of using specifics when needed to bolster an explicit set of policies to help Americans. None of the others used specific facts to support policies to help Americans as effectively as Fred.
  2. Tom Tancredo. Was more relaxed and confident than usual. He was funny and self-deprecating at times and comfortable in his skin.
  3. Duncan Hunter. Strong confident, pro-American.
  4. Ron Paul. Independent, didn’t waffle in face of some tough questions.

The second 4 had nothing positive to offer to Americans.

  1. Mitt Romney. Empty suit. Romney has nothing to offer to make our lives better. Romney made 250 million in the 1980’s and 1990’s by ending good paying jobs. Men’s median wages are lower than in 1973. Women’s median wages are what men’s were in 1960. See p60-233.pdf. Romney made money for himself by keeping them lower.
  2. John McCain. Was somewhat defensive and shrill.
  3. Mike Huckabee. He really made it clear at length that he has no loyalty to Americans, that Americans in general are closet racists and that he really despises those who think he owes them or any American citizens loyalty. For Huckabee, hating Americans opposed to immigration is a moral passion. He reacts with anger to any proposal to be loyal to Americans when their interests conflict with immigrants, which is often. Huckabee thinks that conflict is often and thinks Americans who want Huckabee to take their side are racist.
  4. Rudi Giuliani. He was defensive through the evening. Like the others in the anti-American 4, he makes it clear he has contempt and no loyalty for Americans where it counts, in wages and in keeping out those who come here and change our country, which is for the worse.

The top 4 were all comfortable in their skins. The bottom 4 were all uncomfortable. The top 4 were for the people. The bottom 4 had covert or even overt hostility to the people.

That included Romney on the Confederate Flag. Romney made clear his contempt and you could see his mind working to use this as a triangulation issue to advance himself, but he might cost himself votes in South Carolina where Fred Thompson is battling it out with Romney, both are at the top in South Carolina, which is the third event behind Iowa and New Hampshire.

Huckabee on tuition breaks for illegals came out with a passion against anyone who would deny anything to children of illegals or illegals themselves. For Huckabee this is a moral issue direct from God. Anyone who is opposed to Huckabee on helping illegals is not a good Christian or person and is evil. He made that clear.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/28/debate.transcript/index.html

==Hypothesis on why bottom 4 came off as against us

We discuss here a hypothesis of why the second 4 had nothing to offer Americans on good paying jobs, job security, stopping immigration, etc.

The second 4 think, or act as if, its racist to be loyal to Americans. These 4 are intentionally and affirmatively “racist” against Americans. They advocate good job destruction for Americans and their children. They advocate ending the safety of American communities and making them unsafe at night or even by day by immigration by those who have manifested animosity against Americans, especially white Christian or secular Americans.

The bottom 4 are immigration supremacists. Because immigration supremacy is built on calling whites racist to silence them its necessary to point out the anti-whiteness of this strategy and these candidates. Whites are the majority so a strategy to keep wages below the 1973 level for men for all groups has to be built on cowing whites into silence.

Their strategy is that whites who ask for good wages will be called racist when they propose the only real solution, ending all legal immigration. So we need to discuss at length the anti-white racism in the immigration supremacist position of the bottom 4 candidates.

The candidates who imply loyalty to Americans is racist are really implying that whites are racists who deserve nothing. This is the whites deserve to lose their good jobs, aren’t due anything for building the country or fighting the wars, and should be condemned if they say they are.

These candidates intentionally pursue big immigration strategies designed to make whites a minority, take away their good jobs and label all whites as racists. They are doing this to everyone else here too. Since big immigration as a strategy relies on labeling whites as racist to succeed, its necessary to point out the anti-whiteness of the candidates pursuing this approach. The bottom 4 are triangulating with the rest of whites as racist.

Although the 4 didn’t express these ideas explicitly, their behavior at the debate, and their past record are consistent with this hypothesis. They don’t have anything to offer to make American lives better. The top 4 did. The top 4 are immigration restrictionists in one way or another. The bottom 4 are immigration supremacists.

==Questions that should be asked.

A question that should have been asked, is: Do you think its racist to want to stop all legal immigration, and send all the illegals home?

To Huckabee, do you think Tom Tancredo’s statements or positions on immigration are racist?

Do you think America should remain a majority white country? What would you do to keep it that way? (This should be asked of Democrats as well.)

Are those who say America should stay majority white racist?

For Dems and Huckabee:

Do blacks have lower IQ than whites?

Is it partly genetic?

Is it racist to say so?

Does it matter?

Do “racial differences exist” between blacks and whites in crime?

For Hispanics?

Is it racist to say “racial differences exist” between blacks and whites in crime? Hispanics?

Does that imply we should not have immigration by blacks or Hispanics?

Is it racist to say so?

Is there regression towards the mean in IQ and behavior?

Does this mean we should not have immigration from the third world, even higher IQ or better behaved individuals?

Is it racist to say so?

Is it white supremacist to say so?

Is the Confederate Flag a symbol of white nationalism or white supremacism?

Do you consider Pat Buchanan, Tom Tancredo, Virgil Goode, Trent Lott, or George Allen to have said anything that is white nationalist or white supremacist?

Do you believe America will become a white minority country?

Do you think its racist to say it should not?

Do you think doing anything to stop America becoming white minority is white nationalism or white supremacism?

Are you an immigration supremacist in the sense that you believe America will become minority white and that you call anyone who says to stop that a racist or white nationalist or white supremacist?

Is anyone who says America should stay majority white a white nationalist?

A white supremacist?

Do you believe every American either has to

  1. Support or accept minority status for whites, or
  2. Support keeping America majority white and thereby be a white nationalist or white supremacist?

Is ignoring the issue and letting it happen, America becoming minority white, the right thing to do?

Is anyone who talks about it as negative, a racist, white nationalist or white supremacist?

If saying America should be white majority is white nationalism, and saying it should be white minority is immigration nationalism, which are you?

Does your answer change if its white supremacist v. immigration supremacist as the labels?

Rudi H-1B Giuliani

November 10, 2007

http://www.joinrudy2008.com/commitment/indepth/13

==Giuliani Position

EXPANDING OUR INVOLVEMENT IN THE GLOBAL ECONOMY

Strengthen America’s 21st Century Workforce: Education is power in an information economy. American workers must be the best trained and prepared workforce in the world in order to successfully compete in the global economy.

* Promote science and mathematics through technical certification or an associate degree.

* Advance successful training programs leading to competitive skills the market demands.

* Allow early withdrawal from retirement accounts for qualified retraining programs.

* Expand the number of H1B Visas for skilled foreign workers to meet market demand.

H-1B is what undermines incentives for students to study math and science. This goes all the way back from employer to K-12. If you can’t get a good secure job in science and math, why get a Ph.D.? If Americans don’t get Ph.D.’s, why should TA’s from China and India teach American undergrads science and math? If undergrads are not taught science and math, who will teach science and math in K-12? Who in K-12 will want to learn science and math if the Chinese and Indian TA’s don’t want to teach it to them in college?

Anonymous wrote: I find Ravi Aron’s remarks irrational and filled with hate and contempt for U.S. IT professionals.

http://www.computerworld.com/blogs/node/6482

http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2007/11/09/professor-norm-matloff-on-offshoring-and-the-future-of-american-engineering/

Is Giuliani getting his attitudes on Americans from Ravi Aron or those at New York investment banks who think the same way?

=Back to Rudi

Create “Global Prosperity Initiative”: Bringing more countries and people into the global marketplace will make America safer and create new markets for our products worldwide.

We have the market. Our textile and toy industries have been destroyed. China sends “terrorist toys” here to kill us, see David Yeagley.

America must promote higher living standards around the world, help reform the International Monetary Fund and World Bank to encourage pro-growth policies, and distribute foreign aid in ways that reinforce good governance and economic freedom, similar to the Millennium Challenge Corporation.

These institutions are staffed by Ph.D.’s in econ and business from US schools. Has this worked?

Aggressively Advance Free Trade: Rudy will tear down the walls to free trade and create new markets for American-made products. He will protect America’s innovations and intellectual property by enforcing our trade agreements aggressively.

The way to keep our know-how is to stop foreign students and workers coming here. Teach our own our know-how in school and at work.

* Reduce corporate tax rates and regulatory burden so that Americans can better compete in the global economy.

What about Chinese toy terrorism (Yeagley)? What about know-how transfer to India and China?

* Reform the excesses of Sarbanes-Oxley that are driving our corporations overseas to list on foreign exchanges.

The man who prosecuted the junk bond king, Michael Milliken, has now turned around on this. What else will he change on?

* Reenact the Presidential Fast-Track Trade Promotion Authority and complete the Doha Development Round.

STRENGTHENING OUR REPUTATION AROUND THE WORLD

Refocus State Department and Reform Foreign Service: Rudy will set new priorities for America’s representatives to better promote U.S. policies abroad, while measuring the success of ambassadors and embassies. He will reform and increase the size of Foreign Service and expand language training to meet the demands of the 21st Century.

Combat Anti-Americanism: America must win the war of ideas.

H-1B is anti-Americanism in practice.

Rudy will reform and refocus our international broadcasters, such as Voice of America, and will better coordinate our government’s global communications to help export the idea of freedom and our values, and stimulate debate within oppressed societies.

How about import the idea of loyalty to the people of this country? Other countries think that way? The only way our politicians will be loyal is when they are replaced by immigrant politicians who are open in their true loyalties. Don’t vote for politicians disloyal to their own, they are loyal to no one, only to money. Don’t support disloyal TV stations or newspapers, or move studios. Don’t be the fan of disloyal celebrities.

Expand U.S.-Muslim Exchange Programs: Rudy will promote economic, cultural, and educational engagement with the Arab and Muslim through public-private partnerships to turn the tide against radical Islamic terrorists and connect more countries to the global marketplace of ideas.

Do Rudi’s supporters read his web page? Isn’t this what they are against?

Protect Freedom: Promoting religious and political freedom, human rights and democracy for dissidents across the world, along with supporting women’s rights and promoting women’s education in the Arab and Muslim world, must be a top priority.

Released: 7.11.07

View the press release

==Reference

Giuliani’s Fascism–and Immigration

[Randall Burns] @ 7:24 pm [Email author] [Email This Article] [Print This Article]

Huckabee’s Vice Presidential Campaign–and Immigration

[Randall Burns] @ 5:48 pm [Email author] [Email This Article] [Print This Article]
Rudy Giuliani—Symbol Of The Conservative Crack-Up
By Patrick J. Buchanan

And Rudy? A McGovernite in 1972, he boasted in the campaign of 1993 that he would “rekindle the Rockefeller, Javits, Lefkowitz tradition” of New York’s GOP and “produce the kind of change New York City saw with … John Lindsay.”

A Giuliani presidency would represent the return and final triumph of the Republicanism that conservatives went into politics to purge from power.

==

16 September 2007

Giuliani Still Soft on Illegal Immigration

[Randall Burns] @ 12:16 pm [Email author] [Email This Article] [Print This Article]

 

http://sify.com/news/fullstory.php?id=14554741

Washington: With India’s international profile soaring, most candidates for the 2008 US presidential election on either side of the political divide are making a concerted bid to woo Indian American voters and their top donors.

Almost all the candidates serving in US Congress voted for a landmark law to begin civilian nuclear cooperation with India as well as a range of other economic deals and unlike 2004, outsourcing to India is yet to emerge as a major election issue.

Leading Democratic hopeful Hillary Clinton, who enjoys great support in the nearly two million strong Indian American community, has said: “In Asia, India has a special significance both as an emerging power and as the world’s most populous democracy.”

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/06/19/news/obama.php

Obama on Monday disavowed the memo, which was headlined, “Hillary Clinton (D-Punjab),” a play on the standard reference to a candidate’s party and constituency. The memo referred to investments in India by former President Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton; her fund-raising among Indian-Americans; and the former president’s $300,000 in speech fees from Cisco, a company that has moved U.S. jobs to India.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2007/06/barack_obama_ap.html

See comments above on Hillary Clinton D-Punjab memo.

http://modernpatriot.blogspot.com/2007_02_01_archive.html

I have “retrained” – done as the globalist free traders insisted in the 90s after NAFTA and today as they push new trade deals. I remade myself into an “information technology professional” — a technical writer, software tester, software engineer and database administrator. I did this with a lot of support from my wife at considerable personal and financial cost. The time and money devoted to this endeavor was significant.

Now, after more than a decade of IT work, I face the continuous, even mounting threat of replacement with imported “guest workers” and job loss to offshore outsourcing.

==Don’t vote for crooks

search Hillary Giuliani Wall Street fundraising

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118826947048110677.html

search Hillary Clinton Hsu

Giuliani Kerik

Giuliani Kerik police commissioner knew

http://www.newsday.com/news/columnists/ny-oppay115454628nov11,0,3107857.column

Long before Kerik’s current troubles, in fact even before he was named police commissioner in 2000, then-mayor Giuliani ignored warnings about his shady ethics. First, Giuliani flatly denied to the press that he was been warned about Kerik lobbying city officials for Interstate Industrial Corp., a construction company reportedly linked to organized crime. Years later, before a grand jury, Giuliani changed his denial to a muddle about having been told that he had been warned, but maintaining that he, himself, did not remember, according to The New York Times.

This is a whole new meaning to the phrase: Rudi “Tell it to the Grand Jury” Giuliani.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/10/nyregion/10about.html?em&ex=1194843600&en=eb552e6bc7d0b46f&ei=5087%0A

“Sure, there were issues,” Mr. Giuliani told The Associated Press this week, “but if I have the same degree of success and failure as president of the United States, this country will be in great shape.”

Giuliani was told about Kerik’s issues before appointing him police commissioner. Then he hired Kerik at Giuliani’s firm. Then he recommended Kerik to Bush to be head of Homeland Security. This was after Giuliani had been US Attorney for USAO SDNY.

There are three interpretations from this. Giuliani had a lapse of judgement. For example, he put loyalty above duty. Giuliani is corrupt. The system is corrupt, Giuliani knew these issues or worse are in the records of appointed and elected officials, so Giuliani appointed Kerik, then hired him at his firm, and then recommended him to Bush.

This is the system for the powerful and wealthy under the last interpretation. If you want to get ahead, you form a pact with the wealthy and powerful to ignore these issues. But isn’t that why Giuliani prosecuted Milliken? For having pacts among the powerful and wealthy to ignore market conduct rules?

Is the reason Giuliani wanted Kerik as police commissioner, then as employee, and then to be head of Homeland Security, precisely because he has issues? Kerik won’t make waves or investigate the powerful and wealthy who are part of the pact among the elite to ignore each other’s issues and not ask questions or tell what they know?

This is what Bush wanted for Homeland Security chief? It wasn’t a betray by Giuliani of Bush to recommend Kerik, but Giuliani knew that is what Bush wanted, and Giuliani supplied it? This is mafia like corruption? Isn’t that what Giuliani prosecuted as US Attorney for the Southern District of New York?

==Corruption and sticking it to us on H-1B is their way

Just as they protect each other on “issues” in their files or life, so they stick it to us on H-1B and the rest of immigration. They know all of it. They do it to us because they can. Just like they protect each other, because they can. Its not “personal”? They don’t really have animosity towards us? It isn’t meant to hurt us? They just know it does in advance, say it doesn’t, and do it. They keep doing it over and over again, with the same result, they get richer, and we get poorer and less secure in our jobs and lives.

Rudi and Hillary don’t really mean to take away our job security, so we should vote for them anyhow? You get more of what you vote for. If you vote for losing job security and workplace dignity, you get more. If you vote for educating Asians on student visas instead of Americans, you get more of that. Rudi and Hillary say if you protest, then you are a bigot. Actually, if you don’t protest, you are a chump.

You aren’t going to get job security by keeping silent. To paraphrase Ben Franklin, he who keeps silent about H-1B gains neither job security for his opinions nor job security in the market. The plain fact is, H-1B takes your job security. If you don’t stop it, you lose your job security. Not speaking up doesn’t work.

Don’t vote for Rudi or Hillary or any of the others who advocate for H-1B. If they want our vote, they can say they have had a conversion on H-1B not just amnesty. Until they say zero H-1B, zero votes for them. The zero zero policy.

Rudi supporters say we have to vote for Rudi so he will stop Islamofascism.  They don’t even say he is for stopping Islam, in fact he and they are for Muslims in our military after loose nukes were discovered flying across America.  If Rudi wants to stop Islamofascism, he can say he is against H-1B.

Hillary supporters say we have to vote for Hillary for health care.  The same applies above.  If she wants to give us health care, she can give us job security and end immigration.  She is the one who wants job security, by legalizing Mexican votes for Democrats.

Rove wants the same thing, to give Rove job security and take ours away.  We don’t get job security by voting for Hillary or Rove picks.  We won’t have health security if we don’t have job security.

We can’t give health care to the third world or even Mexico.  43 percent of Mexicans in the US are on public support of one type or another.  Voting for Hillary just increases that number.

That bankrupts us faster.  Our currency is falling.  Our factories are in China.  China poisons our children because its cheap.  H-1B’s are brought here to take our wages away.  Rudi and Hillary are for all this.  Time to stop voting for them.

==

The political class has sold us out completely for India. They are prostrating themselves before them. We are nothing. We should vote for the Constitution Party. When you vote for crooks, you don’t just waste your vote, you get more of what you vote for. Don’t vote for those who sell you out on your job. That is wasting your vote. Vote third party.

Tom Tancredo: The Pause in Immigration that Assimilates us

June 5, 2007

In contrast to Senate Amnesty and Guest Worker and continued legal immigration, Tom Tancredo proposed a pause in legal immigration in the Republican presidential debate.
Against a pause:

Huckabee against pause.

Rudi Giuliani against pause. Compared Tom Tancredo to Know Nothing party. Backward looking logic. Giuliani advocated perpetual immigration. (This was proven mathematically to cause genetic extinction of those who come here and those who are here at any point in time. See Immigration Vanishing Survival Theorem
)

McCain No barriers and fences.

==

Repost in part on Unpleasant Immigration Arithmetic:

Assume US population at 300 million was the maximum. If people live 75 years, then 4 million die per year. If 2 million enter then births = 4million deaths – 2 million entrants = 2 million.

The ratio of births to deaths is 2/4 or 1/2. The time from birth to parent is roughly 25 years. So in 50 years, one has 1/4, and in 75 years 1/8 of the starting genes.

Even if population went to 450 million, deaths per year are 6 million. With even one million entrants that gives a survival ratio of 5/6. So the number left after 25*n years is (5/6)^n which goes to zero as n goes to infinity.

It goes to zero rapidly in fact.

The above implies that any law with immigration above zero on a sustained basis is unconstitutional and a crime against humanity. Causing the extinction of a group is a violation of treaties the US has passed.

The current US law is thus void. So is the proposed law.

The drop in fertility from 1800 to 1990 in one graph shows this substitution effect pressure from immigration.

Look at the graph of fertility from 1800 to 1990 below:

http://www.elderweb.com/home/node/2919

Fertility falls except during the period of immigration restriction from the 1920’s to 1965. During part of that period fertility rose, which is called the baby boom. This was a departure from the uniform fall in fertility.

Fertility is now below replacement for many groups in accordance with the theorem. Sustained immigration is omnia cleansing.

The same applies in Europe where fertility is below replacement.

We must stop immigration, we must stop legal immigration and we must stop illegal immigration.  We can not have any amnesty or legalization.  We have to get the rate of illegal immigration to zero, not just slow it down.  We must get the rate of legal immigration to zero.  The theorem requires this until the world changes so much that two way equal migration is viable.  But that won’t be viable for centuries.

See also
1965 Immigration Act Causes U inverted U in Income Inequality and Fertility

Republican GOP Presidential Debates Go Tom Tancredo

May 3, 2007

Islamic radicalism question. “How do we win the war on terrorism, when jihadis are so easily replaced, when killed?” (paraphrase). Brownback. Engage moderate Muslim regimes, in Pakistan and Egypt. Confront Iran.

Q: Zogby poll shows 10 to 12 percent support us in moderate countries like Turkey and Morocco, and rest hate us. A: We need to engage. Not much of an answer, blather.

Q to Huckabee. Would you have fired Donald Rumsfeld before election last November? A Yes.

Q: General shakeup in cabinet? A: Jim Gilmore, right hand in pants pocket. Engage in Middle East. Palestinians and Israels. Sunnis and Shiites.

Q: On Iran nukes. A: McCain, will wait until they have a nuke to respond. (That’s too late.)

Q: Help Israel strike Iran? A: Tancredo. Would depend on our analysis, but would support.

Q: Amend Constitution so foreign born can run? A: Huckabee Yes, McCain maybe, Guilani sort of Yes. Rest No.

Q: to Rudi, what did you learn about African American community or by interacting with them? A: Tried to move people out of welfare, followed Tommy Thompson program. Moved people off, crime down.

Q: Dislike most about America to Romeny A: No real answer.

Q: Global warming to Huckabee: A: Leave planet in better shape. No real answer on whether believes in global warming.

Q: Shortage of organs donated for transplant: A: Not president’s job. No cloning.

Q: Compassionate Conservative like Bush to Hunter: A Yes. Iran has crossed the line. US has license to take necessary actions to stop instruments being moved across line inside Iraq. Don’t wait for enrichment by Iran, move quickly. (Basically he would attack Iran. Way to go Hunter.)

Q: A: Ron Paul. To lower taxes, change policy.

Values segment.

Q: Roe v Wade overturn: A Rudi ok to overturn, but ok not to overturn. Court has to make that decision. States make own decision. Others want it. Tancredo yes. Gilmore is pro choice?

Q: To Romney. Personally pro life, but would protect the law as it was. Cloning is too far. Changed mind, is now pro life.

(The Republicans overall are the A team compared to the Democrats. They come across as presidential. They are all solid executives and solid on policy. Also much stronger. Dems lacked in strong leadership presences in their debate. )

Q: McCain restore unity? A I want to be president to defeat enemies and help allies. Take on radial Islamic extremism, which threatens our values and very life. Most experienced candidate. Don’t want to be proud of nation which thinks best years are behind us.

Q: Duncan Hunter. China dangerous. Iran pursuing nuclear weapons.

Q Unite? Huckabee: Morning in America. Vision for America.

Q Paul A: Military aggressiveness weakens national defense. Getting ready to go to war with 3rd world countries with minor forces.

Huckabee Q: Private employer finds homosexuality, can fire them: A: Leave it up to business. Answer is yes.

Romney: Separation of church and state.

Huckabee. My faith affects my decision process. I am troubled by someone who tells me their faith doesn’t affect their decisions.

Gilmore: Spending too much money in government. What is important to this country is not Karl Rove.

Q: Tom Tancredo: A Karl Rove would not be in the White House if I was. Differ on immigration.

Q: Guiliani. A. Neither party has monopoly on virtue and vice. Ran a city that was 5 to 1 Democratic. Most conservative govt last 50 years, reduced crime.

Q: Thompson: Vetoed 1900 things? Welfare reform. Reduced welfare in Wisconsin by 93 percent. Republicans lost way. Washington changed us instead of us changing Washington.

Q: Brownback. Corruption in Republican party. A: Also Democrats with money in deep freezes.
Q: Tancredo. Ethics violations. A: Failures by individuals. Not just Democrats. Don’t have to be a centrist. Had principles. Believe in your heart in things you say is what matters.

Q: McCain. A: Special interest have kept spectrum. Lost election 2006, lost way. Spending got out of trouble.

Q: Budget. What programs cut. A: Line item veto is best tool. Defense acquisitions.

Q: Huckabee. What letter grade on Iraq war handling. A: No grade until it was over.

Q: Romney. Judges. A: Will appoint pro life judges not just strict constructionists.

Q: Rudi. pro choice? A: Hate abortion. Encouraged adoptions, went up 65 percent, abortion down 16 percent. Support choice.

Q: Thompson. Racism a problem. A: A problem can do things about it.

Q: Tancredo. A: Who else should be nominee? Good men all here. Issues not addressed tonight, immigration reform. No more platitudes. No more not for amnesty but for letting them stay. Who is where on this incredible issue.

Q: Anti illegal immigration position? A McCain is for comprehensive solution for illegal immigration. Temporary worker program. 12 million illegals.

Q: Hunter: Global warming and need to be energy independent. Bring together to remove energy dependence on Middle East and help climate. Take taxes to zero on alternative energy sources. Support US industry not foreign.

Q: Ron Paul. Decisions. A: In medicine have to make decisions. Not go to war in Iraq.

Q: To Gilmore. Mothers nonviolent first time offenders. A: Insist on obedience to the law. Let courts and juries make decisions. When elected prosecutor, had to address them. Have to have the law apply. Was governor during 9-11 attack. Chairman on terrorism commission.

Q: Embryonic stem cell research. A: Romney against. Brownback against. Gilmore no.

Huckabee no. Hunter no. Thompson mixed. Adult. McCain: Fund this. Ron Paul. Shouldn’t be in Washington. Rudi: Support it with limitations. Tancredo: No taxpayer money.

Romney: Health program. Also tax relief middle class on investment income. Eliminate tax on dividends, interest and capital gains for middle class.
Brownback: Flat tax.

Gilmore: Cut alternative minimum.

Huckabee: Fair tax. Flatter, fairer, family, finite.

Hunter: US manufacturing move off shore. Dumb trade deal, our exports taxed twice. Eliminate all taxes on companies hiring American workers and making products in US.

Thompson. Vetoed 1900 items. Cut alternative minimum tax. Flat tax. Pay whichever is least.

McCain: Alt minimum has to be repealed. 3000 tax credit to purchase health insurance. Simpler, flatter, fairer tax.

Dr. Paul: Cut taxes. Also inflation tax.

Rudi: Adjust AMT. Get rid of death tax.

Tancredo: Fair tax. Repeal 16th Amendment. Consumption and income tax we will end up with. Deal with structural problem in mandatory spending.

McCain: Lieberman may appoint to Cabinet. John Chambers hire from industry. (But Chambers already works for the Chinese government?)

Hunter: Secure the border. 2000 miles porous. Hundreds of thousands come across border. Some come across from Iran, Communist China, Korea.

McCain: Yes believes in evolution. A: See hand of God at Grand Canyon. (Actually the number 1 shows God’s presence more than the Grand Canyon does.)

Rudi: Sunni v. Shiite. Sunni believe Caliphate selected, Shiites believe by descent. Slaughter of Shiites in early history. (Very good answer.)

Gilmore: Consistent conservative.

Ron Paul: Trust internet more than MSM. Never interfere with internet. Never voted to regulate internet. Freedom of expression. Pick and choose in MSM. Some friendly, and some not so.

Rudi: Weakness as candidate. Optimist.

Huckabee: CEO’s get bonuses and workers lose pensions in sellouts to overseas is wrong.

Tom Tancredo: Work to protect women’s rights. Abortion. Not right to kill another person.

Thompson. Over 3000 killed, several thousand injured.

Ron Paul: No national id card. Tancredo: no national id. But a verifiable social security card. Thompson no national id.

Pardon Libby: Judicial process should complete. Should not have prosecuted after knew someone else leaked. Brownback: No law violated. Gilmore. Pardon has to make case. Tancredo: Pardon Ramos and Compean first then Libby. Ron Paul: No pardon.

Romney and Rudi: national id only for immigrants, not citizens. (Silly distinction, meaningless.) Gilmore: No national id card.

Clinton back in White House: Romney, awful to have Clinton back in WH. Paul voted to impeach Clinton.

Rudi: Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism. Not mentioned by Democrats.

(Almost every answer possible, the moderator would respond to Tom Tancredo’s answer with a sneer and gibe and put down. Tancredo said, Clinton is measuring drapes, and Chris Matthews put Tancredo down, you really think he is doing that? And this was typical of Matthews treatment of Tancredo. This was not done to other candidates like this. Another one was when Matthews asked Tancredo about Rove, and Tancredo said this is the closest Tancredo had ever been to Air Force One. Matthews then derisively said that isn’t air force one to put him down.)

Mistakes by Bush: Huckabee, taking power from states. Hunter: losing industrial base. China is cheating. Enforce trade laws, Bush doesn’t. Brownback: 3 state solution in Iraq. Push political solution. Tancredo: No child left behind, medical prescription were overreaching. Tancredo on Iraq Matthews cut him off and went to Thompson: Medical diplomacy. Dr. Paul: change foreign policy. Robert Taft foreign policy. Privacy of citizens. Warrantless searches. Not abuse habeas corpus.

Matthews thanked Mrs. Reagen but not any of the candidates, until after this was written.

MSNBC: The 10 most prominent candidates were debating ET at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, Calif., north of Los Angeles. The debate, co-sponsored by MSNBC and the political Web site politico.com, is airing on MSNBC-TV and C-SPAN radio and streaming live on MSNBC.com.Sen. Mel Martinez of Florida, chairman of the Republican National Committee…

For former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, the gathering is a chance to build momentum on recent polls that show him leading the field. A poll released Thursday by Quinnipiac University showed Giuliani leading his closest declared rival, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, by 27 percent to 19 percent. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney trailed in third, with 8 percent.

The other candidates on the stage Thursday night are Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas, former Virginia Gov. Jim Gilmore, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, Rep. Duncan Hunter of California, Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado and Tommy Thompson, a former governor of Wisconsin and Bush’s first secretary of health and human services.

%d bloggers like this: