Posted on 04/25/2007 3:41:28 AM PDT by Jim Robinson
This is the start of a series of threads that will be used to expose the truth about Rudy Giuliani in his own words and deeds.
Please post all of the quotes, speeches, interview transcripts, video clips, photos, newspaper/magazine articles, reports, records, statistics, NYC budgets, NYC spending, political appointments, gun grabs, connections to the gun control lobby, lawsuits against gun manufacturers, the truth about crime reduction in NYC, private property grabs, asset forfeitures, abuses of office, individual rights trampling, constitution trampling, violations of public trust, violations of the rule of law, national security risks, failures in security preparedness prior to and after 911, corruption, graft, bribes, favors, union dealings, mob dealings, business dealings leveraged through government contracts and contacts, rainmaking for his business partners, connections to US, Middle East or South American oil and energy companies and law firms that have profited and or will profit from Giuliani's government offices especially if he becomes president, war profiteering, his personal and business finances, his train wreck of a private life and lack of character, lack of qualifications for high office, illegal alien sanctuaries, welfare for illegals, pandering to illegals/illegal alien lobby, support for the abortion and gay rights lobbies, NARAL connections and participation, past and current support for McCain-Feingold, connections and dealings with liberal officeholders or the liberal/socialist caucuses/lobbies, etc, etc, etc, that you can find.
We're primarily interested in the words from his own mouth or primary source records and reports of his deeds/misdeeds. All submissions must contain true facts with documentation and links to source documentation and a link to FR thread on the individual item if available.
We do not need to embellish the record. The ugly truth from his own liberal mouth will impeach his credibility and the reader will be able to disqualify the man from consideration for high office based solely on his own words and deeds.
Here's an example entry:
FOX News | Feb 6, 2007 | Hanity and Colmes
http://www.freerepublic.com/^http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,250497,00.html
HANNITY: Let me move on. And the issue of guns has come up a lot. When people talk about Mayor Giuliani, New York City had some of the toughest gun laws in the entire country. Do you support the right of people to carry handguns?
GIULIANI: I understand the Second Amendment. I support it. People have the right to bear arms. When I was mayor of New York, I took over at a very, very difficult time. We were averaging about 2,000 murders a year, 10,000...
HANNITY: You inherited those laws, the gun laws in New York?
GIULIANI: Yes, and I used them. I used them to help bring down homicide. We reduced homicide, I think, by 65-70 percent. And some of it was by taking guns out of the streets of New York City.
So if you're talking about a city like New York, a densely populated area like New York, I think it's appropriate. You might have different laws other places, and maybe a lot of this gets resolved based on different states, different communities making decisions. After all, we do have a federal system of government in which you have the ability to accomplish that.
HANNITY: So you would support the state's rights to choose on specific gun laws?
GIULIANI: Yes, I mean, a place like New York that is densely populated, or maybe a place that is experiencing a serious crime problem, like a few cities are now, kind of coming back, thank goodness not New York, but some other cities, maybe you have one solution there and in another place, more rural, more suburban, other issues, you have a different set of rules.
HANNITY: But generally speaking, do you think it's acceptable if citizens have the right to carry a handgun?
GIULIANI: It's not only -- I mean, it's part of the Constitution. People have the right to bear arms. Then the restrictions of it have to be reasonable and sensible. You can't just remove that right. You've got to regulate, consistent with the Second Amendment.
HANNITY: How do you feel about the Brady bill and assault ban?
GIULIANI: I was in favor of that as part of the crime bill. I was in favor of it because I thought that it was necessary both to get the crime bill passed and also necessary with the 2,000 murders or so that we were looking at, 1,800, 1,900, to 2,000 murders, that I could use that in a tactical way to reduce crime. And I did.
Free Republic thread:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1780940/posts
Sorry, I don’t have a “belief system,” nor do I have a religion. Religion, in the traditional sense of the word, is the opposite of Christianity.
I realize it is a bit confusing (I can explain myself, and have on this thread), but the terms we use are very important, because they carry specific meanings and connotations.
Read it and weep.
Maybe a few more beers would help you explain your definition of religion....here have one!
This is turning into a good discussion:
1. Our first obligation is to God, not to country, family, or anything else. Our trust for our ultimate safety and provision must be to God, not to country, family, or anything else. Whenever we first trust something else -- a political partt or form of government -- to save us, we are being idolatrous.
2. The right to bear arms is steeped in a] the right to life and b] the constitution. All of our constitutional rights have been endowed to us by our Creator. How can we possibly speak to the deeper issues of gun control without a knowledge of what the right to life means, what self-preservation means, and why our constitution is written the way it was? Frankly, we can't. We can stand firmly on the constitution, but only when it is in alignment with God's commands. Ultimately, we stand on God's word for truth.
3. About God's position on AWB or concealed carry: We can know God's positions on a great many things, because he has given us his position in his word. Inasmuch as we can tie the underlying principles on current issues to underlying principles in the Bible, we can, in fact, know God's position on them.
4. One thing we should jealously guard is our hearts for God and his way. Heritage comes and goes, and countries come and go, but God is changeless and eternal. And we do not want to displease God, ever.
This world did exist before liberal policies destroyed it.
The only way to get it back is to educate people and fight for your guaranteed freedoms. Sticking your head in the hole like an ostrich or voting for the lesser of the two evils isn't going to accomplish anything.
Again, this is a matter of terms. But terms are important.
Let me contrast what religions do with what the Gospel of Jesus Christ does:
Most if not all of the world's religions are based on obeying a set of rules, or agreeing to a set of principles or precepts, or following a set of instructions, or performing certain good deeds and avoiding certain bad deeds. In religion, we earn our relationship to God (or peace, or ultimate reality) by doing these things. "If I'm good, God owes me."
The Gospel recognizes that there is nothing we can do to please God, reach God, or earn his love, mercy, forgiveness, or favor. We are too wicked to do that. The Gospel is: Jesus did all of those things on our behalf. He kept all the rules, lived a perfect, moral life, and then gave us credit for it. Then, he took the punishment we deserved on himself. He switched places with us.
Religion divides people into two groups: The moral and the immoral. The moral measure up, the immoral don't.
Anti-religion divides people into two groups: The enlightened, and the backward. The enlightened achieve happiness and meaning, and backwards people (usually religious) are the cause of the world's problems and are dangerous.
The Gospel divides people into two groups: The humble, child-like believer, and the proud, skeptical unbeliever. Those who humble themselves, admit their sin, and believe are saved. The proud, who want to rely on how they do compared to others (those sinners), who reject God's plan of salvation, are rejected.
Remember how Jesus caused a scandal by associating with "sinners"? He ate, lived with, drank, and touched all the wrong people. The immoral woman, the leper, the people society could not touch because they did not "keep the rules" or "measure up."
Does my distinction begin to make more sense now?
Got it. But what does that have to do with whether we wish to vote for a liberal?
It has everything to do with it. The Gospel is the central truth of our existence.
God knows our motives for voting for a particular person. Our motives, our inner life, our intentions, are everything to God.
He wants to be the absolute center of all our motives, thinking, speaking — he wants to absolutely overtake every corner of our lives. We don’t have a God department and a non-God department in our lives. He wants everything. No closed doors. That means whether we are discussing the rent, the weather, the stockmarket, or politics, he wants his ideas, his person, and his plans to be at the center of all of it.
You see, it isn’t merely whether it’s a sin to vote, or a sin to vote for one party or another. God wants our underlying motive to be pure. When we have disdain or hatred, and that affects our vote, he is displeased. When we go to the polls and judge those who vote differently than those, we are displeasing him. We need to vote in humility, search our hearts, and ask God to show us our unpure motives and help make a decision.
This often results in getting much less worked up about politics. When one feels completely safe in God’s care, his relationship to politics changes. It doesn’t go away, but it is utterly transformed, and differences of opinion don’t upset us as much.
When we stop trusting in him, daily, with each breath, and begin to trust other things — man-made government, guns, our own wits, etc. — we are sinning against him.
Let’s stick with the near universally excepted vernacular. Better yet, we’ll save this discussion for the religion forum someday.
Sorry, can’t do. The vernacular does not fit the meaning, and what seems universal to many is often universally wrong.
And what better time than today to discuss how God wants us to vote, and why? How we protect our lives and the lives of others?
Today is the day of salvation.
You are a good spinner, but my relationship with God would not lead me into feeling “safe” with Rudy.
I am not looking for safety. I am looking to protect the unborn, the weak and the infirm.
I am looking for every man to be able to protect himself and his family, and to stick up for the marriage between a man and a woman.
We can only protect ourselves in the end. No leader can promise that which they are unsure that they can do.
There just is no valid reason for me to vote for Rudy.
I will vote for a conservative in the primaries.
Yikes. Chill partner. Your faith will survive the rest of us using common language. Ciao.
When Jesus tells you what His position is on the subject let me know. Until then, I’ll stick with the Founders’s positions, not your tapdancing around it. Cheers.
Well, first off, I’m not taking a position on Rudy at this time. His pro-abortion stance will probably disqualify him, but we have a year and a half to go.
If you want to protect the vulnerable, God bless you. That is a great motive for political action. Just remember that there are many things we can and should do outside voting to promote this cause. And remember that only when people’s hearts change will we begin to see abortion dramatically decrease. Government cannot change people’s hearts. Only the Gospel can.
I’m glad you know your heart and know what direction you’re headed in voting.
Thanks for the discussion.
You are welcome. I am glad for the civil conversation.
I have made my mind up what I intend to do. It is a relief not to cower in fear.
I looked over all his posts from the past day, and can’t find anything that would have stirred up trouble from either side, nor can I find an admin moderator responding to him in any way.
Maybe he was discovered to be a retread of a banned user? Sometimes that happens, they catch an ip address and they don’t like people slipping back without their knowledge.
Hey, how could I know something you don’t?
To look at a banned user’s history, go to your own history “in forum” off your own page, then type over your name with the banned name. IT will find the posts.
I couldn’t find anything he said that would cause trouble, so I think it was something else.
GIULIANI: That is not the critical factor. And what's important to me is to have a very intelligent, very honest, very good lawyer on the court. And he (Roberts) fits that category, in the same way Justice Ginsburg fit that category.
I mean, she was — she maybe came at it from a very different political background, very qualified lawyer, very smart person.
COLMES: ... donated money to the guy whose nominated you, if you've given him money, money to his campaign, if you've worked to get him elected, behind the scenes advising the attorney general?
GIULIANI: Sure. That's be exactly the kind of person you'd think that you'd want to appoint, somebody who shares kind of your general outlook, but hasn't indicated and hasn't really predetermined most of the cases that are going to be determined by the court.
Presidents, going back to the beginning of the republic, generally appoint people on the Supreme Court that they believe agree with them. It's sort of an extraordinary thing to ask of President Bush. Nobody asked it of President Clinton.
President Clinton appointed people that basically agreed with his political philosophy, which is left of center. Of course, President Bush is going to appoint people that basically agree with his political philosophy
Rudy will appoint judges that agree with his political philosophy. What has Rootie's political philosophy been all his life? Remember, he started out as a democrat and even endorsed St. Mario the Pious, an extreme liberal democrat over Pataki, the Republican candidate for Governor of New York.
Rootie is a political opportunist. Treat him accordingly.
What, if because of your SILLY GUN FREE zones you got 31 people butchered by a mad man that decided not to obey your SILLY gun control laws. Would you hold yourself responsible? Resign your office? Subject yourself to the jurisdiction of the court as an accessory to murder?
Hey, didn’t Jesus say that if you don’t own a sword, you should sell your cloak and buy one?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.