Rudy Giuliani interview

GLENN: Now we go to Rudy Giuliani who is with us. Hello, Rudy.

GIULIANI: How are you?



GOP Candidate Rudy Giuliani

GLENN: Very good. Where are you?

GIULIANI: I am in Jacksonville, Florida.

GLENN: Okay. You were talking, right now -- I mean, we're huge in Florida. We're talking to almost every city in Florida is listening to you right now and you have put everything into the Florida strategy. Karl Rove said to me just a few minutes ago, very risky strategy, never been done before. Do you ever kind of wake up in the middle of the night and go, jeez, maybe this was a mistake? Or are you feeling good about it?

GIULIANI: We feel good about it. I mean, this is the strategy that works for us. If you look back on it, it probably is the one that emphasizes our strengths and weaknesses the best, meaning the place where we would have the best chance. And we are campaigning very, very hard here, getting great reception. Tremendous enthusiasm. When you see how the rest of the field is kind of spread out with many different winners here and there, you get the feeling that -- you get the feeling that this strategy might very well be a good one. Even outsiders are getting the feeling. We feel this.

GLENN: I will tell you that when I first heard the strategy, I thought, I don't think that sounds like a good idea. But now that the field is so split up, you know, if they're -- I'm going to be real honest with you. The two people that I would vote for, you and Mitt Romney. And if it is Huckabee or McCain and I wasn't necessarily on your bandwagon, I would look at those two guys and go, I can't do that. So yes, Rudy Giuliani. I think there's a lot of sentiment like that and they're not sure. If it becomes a frontrunner of one of these guys that you absolutely would be in the position of, well, you know what, I know Rudy Giuliani, I know what he's about and I know that he really believes in tax cuts and everything else, I'll go for Rudy Giuliani. You may all of a sudden sweep.

GIULIANI: Well, I think the fact is the tax proposal we made has helped us a lot. It's got a great deal of attention here in Florida. It's the largest tax cut in American history, or would be the largest tax cut in American history. But that isn't even the main point of it. The main point of it is it would also provide a single one-page form that people could file.

GLENN: Hang on just a second.

GIULIANI: For paying their taxes.

GLENN: Hold on just a second. America I just have to -- this is adult material. This is practically pornography that you are talking right now. This is erotic talk come from you, Rudy Giuliani. It really is.

GIULIANI: And it works. When you look at the form, I think people will see that it works. It does preserve the key deductions critical to our economy really like home mortgage. You can't take away the home mortgage deduction right now. And it preserves the child care exemption, state and local taxes and the new exclusion that we're going to create for healthcare to encourage people to buy their own healthcare insurance.

GLENN: This is the only problem that I have with this plan because I love it. Don't get me wrong. I love it. But I wondered why you just didn't go for a flat, why you went for the three separate categories and then you added some stuff because that's where we always get in trouble. Because special interests will always say, well, wait a minute, add mine, too. Why didn't you just go flat?

GIULIANI: Well, we drew a line at, I think it's four, five, and that can all fit on one page. The idea is to have it fit on one page. And we picked the ones that aren't just special interests. In other words, we picked the ones that are core to our economy. For example, Glenn, right now if you took away the home mortgage deduction with what is going on in the housing market, you just couldn't responsibly do it. I mean, it would be a very, very devastating blow to an area of our economy that already has a lot to deal with. The charitable deduction I think would also be a big blow to all of these philanthropic organizations that do a lot of the work that otherwise would fall to government. And state and local taxes, it would totally recreate the whole tax scheme. You know, as I said, if we were starting income tax at the very beginning, I would be in favor of one, just a number, that's it, no deductions. But we have an economy now that's built around this. And second, the practical point, Glenn. This can get done. In other words, the political opposition to it would not overwhelm the support that you have for it. If you tried to take on all those things, I think as a practical matter you just wouldn't get it done.

GLENN: Let me ask you this. We've talked about this before and I think I'm a lot further down the road than you are, but I think you're at least on the same path that I am. If you look at CitiBank writing down $18 billion, and I don't think that's the end of it, unemployment coming up, inflation now coming up, I feel that we are about to hit very hard economic times and if you throw on global warming treaties, universal healthcare, higher taxes, socialist policies, I don't see a way, as Medicare, Medicaid and everything else starts to hit us, I don't see a way that we economically survive with the kinds of policies that the Democrats are going to put into place if they win next year. Right or wrong?

GIULIANI: Well, I agree with that. I think it would be devastating to our economy, it would really harm it, it would put a -- I describe it as putting a lid on our economy. You know, putting a halter on it so that it wouldn't be able to grow.

GLENN: I was -- I just had a five-day hospital stay and it was one of the worst experiences of my life and all these liberal blogs came out and said, oh, I wish he would have died in the hospital; now he's going to come out with some epiphany and said we should have universal healthcare and I came out and said the exact opposite. We need people who care, who remember that care is part of healthcare. I felt like I was being pushed out.

GIULIANI: Absolutely right. You need a personal relationship with your doctor. You need a personal relationship with a healthcare provider that you have so that you can make decisions with them.

GLENN: Right. And when somebody asked me last night, they said, who is the guy -- I think it was on CNN. They said who is the guy that you would want for healthcare, I said Rudy Giuliani. Could you please explain your healthcare proposal?

GIULIANI: Sure. My healthcare proposal is a tax exclusion of $15,000 if you buy your own health insurance, if you buy it personally. If you can buy it for $12,000, you get a $3,000 health savings account which you can put aside. It's yours. Nobody can touch it and you can use it for regular and ordinary healthcare expenses. What this will do, I believe, is move millions of people to the private healthcare market. That will have the impact of driving down the cost of private healthcare. If 15 million people are buying private health insurance instead of 17 million people, it's going to cost half the price.

GLENN: What Democrat would you rather face?

GIULIANI: Oh, I don't care, Glenn. Not only don't I care, I don't have anything to say about it. So you sort of have to be open to --

GLENN: There's not one that you go -- wait a minute. Hang on. There's just --

GIULIANI: Either Obama or Clinton, right?

GLENN: Well, no, you could face socialist John. I think he should wear a star on a furry cap. I've never seen anything like it.

GIULIANI: Well, John Edwards doesn't have a chance at this point but the other two, it could be either one of them.

GLENN: Yeah. You about I mean, Dennis Kucinich, --

GIULIANI: It's still more likely Hillary, I think.

GLENN: -- is still in there fighting. All right, Rudy Giuliani, thank you very much.

GIULIANI: Thank you.

GLENN: Best of luck to you, sir. We'll talk to you again.

The FEC is bad. The House of Representatives isn't doing anything to make it better.

When it passed H.R. 1 by a vote of 234-193 on Monday, Congress attempted to address a laundry list of nationwide problems: rampant gerrymandering, voting rights, and the vulnerability of elections to foreign interference, among other concerns. But H.R. 1, billed as the "For the People Act," also takes a shot at reforming the Federal Election Commission (FEC). It fails.

The FEC isn't good at enforcing the nation's campaign finance laws, and, when it is does, it's often an entire election cycle after the given offense. As it is, candidates don't have much difficulty circumventing campaign finance laws, undermining the fairness of elections and opening the door to further corruption.

RELATED: Lawmakers are putting the death penalty on trial

The FEC was created by the Federal Election Campaign Act following the Watergate scandal, as Congress sought a better way to police federal campaign laws and prevent future presidents from interfering with investigations as Nixon had. The FEC has six commissioners, and no more than three can be of the same party. Four votes are required for most actions taken by the agency, and that hasn't been an issue for most of its history. But since 2008, the frequency of 3-3 tie votes has increased dramatically. It's why the FEC is slow to investigate cases and even slower to prosecute offenses. Supporters of H.R. 1 complain, with good reason, that the FEC has become toothless. But H.R. 1's reforms introduce new and potentially volatile problems.

FEC's rampant dysfunction won't be fixed by H.R. 1— the bill doesn't get at what actually went wrong. Since its inception, the FEC has been able to operate without excessive gridlock, and, for the most part, it still does. At the height of FEC turmoil in 2014, the FEC only had a tied vote 14 percent of the time (historically, it has been closer to one to four percent of the time) on substantive matters, although many of these tie votes occur on matters that are particularly contentious. The greater problem afflicting the FEC is touched upon by NBC Washington's findings that the Republican and Democratic commissioners of the FEC almost always vote as blocs. At various times, both Republican and Democratic commissioners have put party interests ahead of their agency's responsibilities.

At various times, both Republican and Democratic commissioners have put party interests ahead of their agency's responsibilities.

H.R. 1's Democratic supporters instead believe the FEC's six-commissioner structure makes it dysfunctional. H.R. 1 introduces a new system of five commissioners —two from each party and one independent, eliminating tie votes. But that independent commissioner's de facto role as a tiebreaker would grant them far too much power. Save for Senate approval, there's nothing preventing a president from appointing an "independent" like Bernie Sanders or Angus King.

The bill's proponents are aware of this problem, creating a Blue Ribbon Advisory Panel that will help inform the president's decisions. But this panel has problems of its own. The Blue Ribbon Advisory Panel's decisions are non-binding and not public, a result of its exemption from the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), which ensures the transparency of advisory committees. There are arguments against FACA's necessity, the panel's deliberate exemption from the law undermines the idea that its goal is to ensure non-partisanship. Instead, H.R. 1 will allow future presidents to tilt the scales of the FEC in their favor, a fate the post-Watergate creators of the FEC were so desperate to avoid they originally had members of Congress picking commissioners before the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional. Apparently, the solution to excessive gridlock is one-party control.

H.R. 1 also seeks to grant unilateral powers to the Chair of the commission in the name of expediency, again giving leverage to the Chair's party, and allows the General Counsel to take actions independent of commission votes. While some of the FEC's problems, such as its notoriously slow pace and the delayed appointment of commissioners under Presidents Obama and Trump, might be solved with legislation, the consolidation of power in the hands of a few at the expense of the FEC's integrity is not a winning strategy.

The FEC is afflicted by the same problem that has afflicted governments for as long as they have existed – governments are made up of people, and people can be bad. The Founders, in their wisdom, sought to limit the harm bad actors could do once in power, and the FEC's current structure adheres to this principle. Currently, the consequences of bad actors in the FEC is dysfunction and frustration. But under H.R. 1's reforms, those consequences could be blatant corruption.

Michael Rieger is a contributor for Young Voices. Follow him on Twitter at @EagerRieger.

On Monday's radio program, Glenn Beck and Stu Burguiere discussed former Starbucks CEO and progressive Howard Schultz, a lifelong Democrat who has not only been disowned by the Democrat Party but he can no longer set foot inside of a Starbucks store because of his success in business.

In this clip, Stu explained how at one time Starbucks only sold coffee in bags until Schultz, an employee at the time, convinced the company to open a Starbucks cafe.

Click here to watch the full episode.

At one point, the owners came close to closing down the cafe, but Schultz eventually managed to purchase the company and transform it into the empire that it is today.

Stu continued, describing how Schultz, a lifelong Democrat, went on to implement liberal corporate policies that earned the company a reputation for being a "beacon" of liberalism across the country.

"And now he (Schultz) can't even get into the Democrat Party," Stu said."That is craziness," Glenn replied.

Citing a "60 Minutes" interview, Glenn highlighted the journey that Schultz traveled, which started in the New York City projects and evolved, later becoming the CEO of a coffee empire.

"This guy is so American, so everything in business that we want to be, he has taken his beliefs and made it into who he is which is very liberal," Glenn explained.

Catch more of the conversation in the video below.


This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

This weekend, March 17, Rep. Rashida Tlaib will be speaking at (Council on American Islamic Relations) CAIR-Michigan's 19th annual "Faith-Led, Justice Driven" banquet.

Who knows what to expect. But here are some excerpts from a speech she gave last month, at CAIR-Chicago's 15th annual banquet.

RELATED: CLOSER LOOK: Who is Rep. Ilhan Omar?

You know the speech is going to be good when it begins like this:


CAIR-Chicago 15th Annual Banquet: Rashida Tlaib youtu.be


It's important to remember CAIR's ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. Think of CAIR as a spinoff of HAMAS, who its two founders originally worked for via a Hamas offshoot organization (the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP)).

A 2009 article in Politico says feds "designated CAIR a co-conspirator with the Holy Land Foundation, a group that was eventually convicted for financing terrorism."

The United Arab Emirates has designated CAIR a terrorist organization.

In 1993, CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper told a reporter for the Minneapolis Star Tribune:

I wouldn't want to create the impression that I wouldn't like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future.

In 1998, CAIR co-founder Omar Ahmad said:

Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran … should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth.

Notice the slight underhanded jab at Israel. It's just one of many in her speech, and is indicative of the growing anti-Semitism among Democrats, especially Tlaib and Omar.

Most of the speech, as you might expect, is a long rant about the evil Donald Trump.

I wonder if she realizes that the Birth of Jesus pre-dates her religion, and her "country." The earliest founding of Palestine is 1988, so maybe she's a little confused.

Then there's this heartwarming story about advice she received from Congressman John Dingell:

When I was a state legislator, I came in to serve on a panel with him on immigration rights, and Congressman Dingell was sitting there and he had his cane, if you knew him, he always had this cane and he held it in front of him. And I was so tired, I had driven an hour and a half to the panel discussion at the University of Michigan Ann Arbor campus. And I sit down, my hair is all messed up, and I said, 'Oh, my God, I'm so tired of this. I don't know how you've been doing it so long Congressman. They all lie.' And he looks at me and he goes. (She nods yes.) I said, 'You know who I'm talking about, these lobbyists, these special interest [groups], they're all lying to me.' … And he looks at me, and he goes, 'Young lady, there's a saying in India that if you stand still enough on a riverbank, you will watch your enemies float by dead.'

What the hell does that mean? That she wants to see her enemies dead? Who are her enemies? And how does that relate to her opening statement? How does it relate to the "oppression" her family faced at the hand of Israel?

Glenn Beck on Wednesday called out Reps. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) and Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) for their blatantly anti-Semitic rhetoric, which has largely been excused by Democratic leadership. He noted the sharp contrast between the progressive principles the freshmen congresswomen claim to uphold and the anti-LGBTQ, anti-feminist, anti-Israel groups they align themselves with.

Later this month, both congresswomen are scheduled to speak at fundraisers for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a pro-Palestinian organization with ties to Islamic terror groups including Hamas, Hezbollah, al-Qaeda, and the Islamic State.

Rep. Tlaib will be speaking at CAIR-Michigan's 19th Annual Banquet on March 17 in Livonia, Michigan, alongside keynote speaker Omar Suleiman, a self-described student of Malcolm X with links to the Muslim Brotherhood. Suleiman has regularly espoused notably "un-progressive" ideas, such as "honor killings" for allegedly promiscuous women, mandatory Hijabs for women, death as a punishment for homosexuality, and men having the right to "sex slaves," Glenn explained.

Rep. Omar is the keynote speaker at a CAIR event on March 23 in Los Angeles and will be joined by Hassan Shibly, who claims Hezbollah and Hamas are not terrorist organizations, and Hussam Ayloush, who is known for referring to U.S. armed forces as radical terrorists.

Watch the clip below for more:


This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.