I Have Seen the Future: It Is Giuliani (Red State.com)

Red State.com ^ | 3/5/07 | Eric Erkickson

[meg88]

Today I have seen the future and that future is President Rudy.

It's not that I'm voting for Rudy, but the vacuum to be filled has been filled.

Consider this:

Rudy Giuliani and Tony Snow are the only guys who have had to have fire marshals bar people from entering due to overcapacity in a very big room.

In the green room, Giuliani's speech was the only one to cause everyone to sit down, shut up and watch.

More and more, the conservatives at CPAC are realigning. You have the Brownback folks, the Mitt folks, and the people who are headed quickly to Rudy. And you know what? They are more or less cheerful in doing it.

They've found the guy who knows he needs them to get in the door. They know the calculus Rudy has made -- the conservatives aren't selling out their principles; Rudy is telling them he won't impose his social view on them, but he'll keep them safe.

After all, abortion is not an issue when a terrorist has killed you.

Look for all guns to turn on Rudy now. He's been the frontrunner all along and now the rest of the pack realizes it.

The reception he got at CPAC should worry them.

[Maeve]

You'd let them both die.

No, Mr. Troll, I would not.

[LtdGovt]

It was amusing that you blasted Islamic states for not going far enough in outlawing abortion - saying that they allow 'legalized abortion'.

[LtdGovt]

No, Mr. Troll, I would not.

It seems like you have mastered the art of name-calling. That's nice, but still does not support your case. Do you think that abortion should be allowed if both the mother and the fetus will die if it is not performed?

[Lexinom]

Conversely, why should the 99.99% of abortions that DON'T threaten the life of the mother remain legal for the 0.01% that do? (For the sake of discussion, I accept your premise that, except for ectopic pregnancies, artificial termination and PBA are even necessary to save the mother's life).

[LtdGovt]

That was not the question. The question was whether someone who is against abortion to save the life of the mother could conceivable claim moral authority when it comes to respect for human life. And we were talking about regular abortions, not PBA.

The truth of the matter is that about 4% of abortions are in cases of rape, incest and for the life of the mother. That may not sound much, but it means that 40,000 women are victimized by these circumstances. And as long as you refuse to recognize that, or recognize it but claim that you know better what is good for these women (i.e., forcing them to continue their pregnancy), you will be unable to do anything about the 96% of the abortions that are done for the sake of convenience. Even the people of South Dakota voted against such a draconian measure by 10 percentage points, God bless them.

[Lexinom]

The South Dakota situation was a victory - Garnering 44% of the vote while having ZERO support from NRLC and being outspent 4:1 on a massive misinformation campaign is to be taken as an encouragement.

Now, read the following paragraph, and explain to me how a bifurcation on "personhood" originiating in the circumstances of conception can pass precendential muster:

A. The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, [410 U.S. 113, 157] for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. 51 On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument 52 that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.

What we see here is that the VERY SAME AMENDMENT (the 14th) whose penumbra ostensibly gives one human being the right to (hire a doctor to) dismember another is recognized by Justice Blackmun as providing the basis of protection for the unborn child "[i]f this suggestion of personhood is established." Given what we know now, which was not knowable in 1973, I believe we have arrived at that threshold. The rape exception is a red herring, does not benefit the victim, and renders any attempt to overturn Roe futile in light of the above. Thoughts?

[Lexinom]

I find the reversal of language employed by you and other pro-aborts appalling: dismembering and scrambling the organs of a helpless human being is "compassion", while prohibiting said act in law is "draconian."

The pro-life position is the one that is soft and merciful. Many pro-lifers are naturally giving and helpful people. It is the pro-choice-on-abortion position that is hard and loveless, "draconian".

What is soft and merciful, would you say, about this? How is this merciful to a mother - to lie to her about a "blob of tissue" or even "cancer-like cells" to obtain her consent to perform this act of brutality?

More to the point, how can you rest comfortably in a nation whose laws tolerate this? Have you no conscience?

[Kevmo]

As a Duncan Hunter supporter I am choosing not to engage in debate on this Rudy Giuliani thread on Free Republic. As a freeper I am disappointed that there are fans of a liberal presidential candidate trying to push socially liberal views on this socially conservative forum. In particular, I have noticed that the Rudy G fans do not answer posts questioning the qualitative substance of their candidate, or the posts are met merely with insults.

Duncan Hunter's campaign website
http://www.gohunter08.com/



Statement of Jim Robinson, Founder of Free Republic:

As a conservative site, Free Republic is pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-Constitution, pro-Bill of Rights, pro-gun, pro-limited government, pro-private property rights, pro-limited taxes, pro-capitalism, pro-national defense, pro-freedom, and-pro America. We oppose all forms of liberalism, socialism, fascism, pacifism, totalitarianism, anarchism, government enforced atheism, abortionism, feminism, homosexualism, racism, wacko environmentalism, judicial activism, etc.



Video of Rudy Giuliani in his own words
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVBtPIrEleM

Transcript of video below.




Will the real Rudy show up at CPAC?

Culture of life:

ABC clip:

George Will: "Do you think Roe v Wade was good constitutional law?"

Rudy Giuliani: "Yes I believe, I believe it is."

Cnn Clip December 2, 1999:

Announcer: "Giuliani was then asked whether he supports a ban on what critics call partial birth abortions, something Bush strongly supports."

Rudy Giuliani : "No, I have not supported that, and I don't see my position on that changing."

Immigration

CNN clip:

Announcer: "Back in 1996, mayor Giuliani went to federal court to challenge new federal laws requiring the city to inform the federal government about illegal immigrants."

Rudy Giuliani: "There isn't a mayor or a public official in this country that's more strongly pro immigrant than I am. Including disagreeing with President Clinton when he signed an anti-immigration legislation about two or three years ago."

Gun control:

CNN clip

Rudy Giuliani: "I'm in favor of gun control"

Meet The Press:

Tim Russert: "How about registration of all handguns?"

Rudy Giuliani: "You know I'm in favor of that. I've been on your show many times."

Gay Rights:

CNN Clip:

Announcer: "As mayor he supported civil unions, and extending health and other benefits to gay couples."

ABC Clip: "I supported domestic partnership legislation and signed it"

Meet The Press:

Tim Russert: "So should gay people be openly allowed to serve?"

Rudy Giuliani: "I think people should be judged on the merits. And there should not be a specific focus on someone's sexual orientation."

First Amendment:

ABC Clip

Cokie Roberts: "Would you vote in the senate in favor of Mccain / Feingold?"

Rudy Giuliani: "Yes, I'm a big supporter of Mccain / Feingold. I have been for a long time."

Party Loyalty:

ABC Clip:

Rudy Giuliani: "Frankly George, I'd like to run on all the lines. I'd like to run on the liberal line, the conservative line, I'd like to run on the democratic line if I could figure out how to do it."

Conservative Values:

Meet The Press:

Tim Russert: "Whether it's gays in the military, gun control, campaign finance, late term abortion - you and Hillary Clinton are in sync on those issues."

Rudy Giuliani: "Well then maybe the other side should stop the 'He's part of the vast right wing conspiracy'."

Welcome To CPAC, Rudy!

End clip.

[Coleus]

Just another pro-abort on the FR claiming to be conservative as Jim Robinson described on one of the Giuliani threads.

 

The truth of the matter is that about 4% of abortions are in cases of rape, incest and for the life of the mother.  >>>

 

there are no facts to back up this statement.  Health of the mother is a vague term used by the satanists in the demonrat party to infuse or cast doubt and confuse the uninformed.  Most women don't die as a result of being pregnant they die during labor.  Medical conditions can be treated while the woman is pregnant, there is no need to murder an innocent human being.   And in the case of rape, how could two wrongs make a right?  It does not.  Why would any "conservative" kill a child of God made in His image because someone was raped.  Kill a baby because a woman was raped, yep, that makes a ton of sense.   How about this, how about we execute a pro-abortion republican for every baby that is murdered as a result of a rape?  Performing an unnecessary surgical procedure on a healthy patient is malpractice.  The mother can experience hemorrhaging, infection, infertility, life-long depression, suicide,  and a possibility of getting breast cancer years later.  And notice nothing was said about the father, so-called conservatives should realize that a father should have some rights to see his child born and not murdered in utero because his wife or mate is unhealthy. 

 

The Republican Party is the Pro-Life Party

2004 Republican Party Platform: Supports the Human Life Amendment

[Beckwith]

I don't take drugs of any kind -- even asprin -- and I'm as calm as a lake in May.

[EternalVigilance]

After all, abortion is not an issue when a terrorist has killed you.

It is if the terrorist is a NARAL "doctor" of death.

[LtdGovt]

The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Wrong. The Fourteenth amendment says nothing about abortion, it does not sanction it, nor does it prohibit it. It expressly states that only people born or naturalized fall under its protection, and last time I checked, the unborn were not yet born. People who argue otherwise are as much judicial activists as the Roe court was.

The rape exception is a red herring, does not benefit the victim, and renders any attempt to overturn Roe futile in light of the above.

Rape is not a red herring, because people like yourself will always seek to outlaw abortions in cases of rape. It was definitely not a red herring in my discussion with Maeve, who blasted Islamic states for being too permissive on the issue of abortion, because they allowed abortions to safe the life of the mother.

[LtdGovt]

I find the reversal of language employed by you and other pro-aborts appalling: dismembering and scrambling the organs of a helpless human being is "compassion", while prohibiting said act in law is "draconian."

Strawman. A fertilized egg does not have organs. At a certain point, yes, but certainly not from the moment of conception. As for being merciful, you focus your attention on the unborn, to the detriment of those who are born.

The pro-life position is the one that is soft and merciful. Many pro-lifers are naturally giving and helpful people.

And so are pro-choicers.

More to the point, how can you rest comfortably in a nation whose laws tolerate this? Have you no conscience?

I do. Do you? Any human can see that it is wrong to put a gun to the head of a woman who had been raped, in order to force her to carry a rapist's child. You can't. Do you have a conscience?

[LtdGovt]

there are no facts to back up this statement.

Why not? Because you say so? In fact, I got that statistic from a Freeper who is a Catholic and a leading opponent of abortion on this website. Are you saying that he is a liar?

Health of the mother is a vague term

I did not mention the health of the mother, clueless.

Most women don't die as a result of being pregnant they die during labor.

No, but in certain cases, they do. That is no reason to let them die.

And in the case of rape, how could two wrongs make a right?

Correct. Rape is wrong, and forcing the woman to carry the child of her rapist is wrong. So we should not allow either.

How about this, how about we execute a pro-abortion republican for every baby that is murdered as a result of a rape?

I welcome you to try this on me, but I think it would be a waste of your life. For a pro-lifer, you sure seem to have unexplained fantasies of murdering and mutilating people. Doesn't sound very pro-life to me.

because his wife or mate is unhealthy.

Are you saying that women who have abortions are 'unhealthy'?

[Fishrrman]

No, you're wrong. Take a look at the abortion laws in states where the Sharia is enforced. All of them prohibit abortion except to save the life of the mother.

Fearless prediction:
Once Sharia is imposed in formerly-Christian countries, such laws will NOT apply to dhimmis....

- John

[dljordan]

The pro-Rudy posters remind me of my Grandmother. She used to hold my nose, tilt my head back and force a big spoon-full of Castor oil down my throat. It tasted like crap and gave me the runs, just like Rudy. :)

[Lexinom]

Just what the Pharisees did - letter of the law, rather than its spirit. Just what Chris Dodd is doing now with his shakedown of bankers, too. No intellectually honest person would posit that the founding fathers, being of a people that fled England to practice religion freely, would have sanctioned something repugnant to the Word of the Creator referenced in the Bill of Rights (see Ps. 51; Ex. 20; Prov. 24:11). It would not have fit with the character of that people at that time, and can in no wise be considered part of the original intent. Moreover, because of their character they had no perceived need for abortion. Why would you therefore be surprised that there is no mention of it?

I would like you to demonstrate the exact "poof!" moment, a nanosecond before which the.... entity (can't call it a person now, can we) is a just a blob of tissue, and after which "it" is a human being. Is it three months, thirteen days, five hours, and 47 seconds? Is it when the child can read? OR is it simply at the beginning of the smooth dynamic development process that begins at the completion of the process of conception? Which is more rational, and which smacks of legalism - the imposition of artificial stairsteps for the sake of sanctioning brutality and making us feel good about it?

[Lexinom]

The point is, whether it's 1.3% (the figure I'd heard), 2%, or 4%, it's still a small number compared to the total. And we've already spent a hugely disporportionate amount of time discussion it. You have yet to demonstrate a real empathy for rape victims, and have yet to show how the loss of their unborn child will somehow avenge the heinous crime committed against their person. Rape is a red herring.

Now, let's get caught up on the other 96% of abortions that occur for purely elective reasons. What are your thoughts on these? Abortion for any reason, without apology? What of the wounded consciouses manifest in organiztions like Silent No More - personified (even though she never aborted her offspring) in the person of Norma McCorvey? What empathy do you have for these very real women, and the thousands (probably millions) of others like them?

[LtdGovt]

Just what the Pharisees did - letter of the law, rather than its spirit. Just what Chris Dodd is doing now with his shakedown of bankers, too. No intellectually honest person would posit that the founding fathers, being of a people that fled England to practice religion freely, would have sanctioned something repugnant to the Word of the Creator referenced in the Bill of Rights (see Ps. 51; Ex. 20; Prov. 24:11). It would not have fit with the character of that people at that time, and can in no wise be considered part of the original intent. Moreover, because of their character they had no perceived need for abortion. Why would you therefore be surprised that there is no mention of it?

Paying attention to the spirit of the law is what got you Roe v. Wade. Still want to do that? You're as much of a judicial activist as the Justicies who voted for Roe. They mandated abortion-on-demand by judicial decree, and you want to outlaw abortion by judicial decree. Both want to write their own thoughts and feelings in the Constitution. (For example, there is no reference to the "Word of the Creator" in the Bill of Rights.)

I would like you to demonstrate the exact "poof!" moment, a nanosecond before which the.... entity (can't call it a person now, can we) is a just a blob of tissue, and after which "it" is a human being. Is it three months, thirteen days, five hours, and 47 seconds?

I did not say that it was a 'poof' moment, and if I did, it was a misstatement. You are the one who is arguing for such a thing, for you, the 'poof' moment is conception. That's not very credible. I don't think of 'life' when I see a fertilized egg.

It's interesting to see that extremes meet once again when it comes to the issue of abortion. According to 'extreme' (can't think of a better word right now) pro-choicers, life beings at birth. According to 'extreme' (again) pro-lifers, life beings at conception. Doesn't sound so rational to me.

Is it when the child can read? OR is it simply at the beginning of the smooth dynamic development process that begins at the completion of the process of conception? Which is more rational, and which smacks of legalism - the imposition of artificial stairsteps for the sake of sanctioning brutality and making us feel good about it?

Removing a fertilized egg is not 'brutality'. Late-term abortions are brutal. And by positing that life beings at conception, you've done exactly what you say I'm doing - imposing artificial stairsteps.

[LtdGovt]

The point is, whether it's 1.3% (the figure I'd heard), 2%, or 4%, it's still a small number compared to the total.

40,000 women each year. 1.2 million since Roe. You may try to minimize it by saying that it a small number of the total, but this is really happening to real people. You wish you could ignore them, but you can't.

And we've already spent a hugely disporportionate amount of time discussion it. You have yet to demonstrate a real empathy for rape victims,

According to you, 'empathy' is putting a gun to her head and forcing her to bear the rapist's child and threatening her with prison sentences if she does get an abortion. Let me make it very clear to you: you're not the one who decides what's good for women who have been raped. You wish you were, but you aren't. And the American people will make sure that it stays that way.

and have yet to show how the loss of their unborn child will somehow avenge the heinous crime committed against their person.

It's not vengence, it is refusing to bear the result of the violation of her person. And that's not what I need to show, because you are the one who is arguing that it should be outlawed, while I leave the decision up to the woman. Don't try these tricks on me, friend.

Now, let's get caught up on the other 96% of abortions that occur for purely elective reasons. What are your thoughts on these?

I'll answer once you have answered my question about whether you think that abortion in cases of (1) rape, incest (2) to save the life of the mother should be outlawed.

What empathy do you have for these very real women, and the thousands (probably millions) of others like them?

Tough luck. Choice comes with responsibility. If I choose to smoke, I have to face the consequences, it's as simple as that.