8mm
Posted on 01/05/2008 4:54:08 PM PST by wagglebee
Contact: Joseph Landry, 406-860-9738; Randall Terry, 904-461-0834
MEDIA ADVISORY, Jan. 5 /Christian Newswire/ -- Pro-life activist Joseph Landry confronted Presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani for Giuliani's support of child-killing by abortion in New Hampshire:
Associated Press reports: The Nashua town hall was interrupted by an anti-abortion protester who shouted that "a vote for Rudy is a vote for a child killer." "The blood is on your hands," shouted the man, who identified himself as Joseph Landry, 26, from Florida.
Many other media outlets carried the exchange between Mr. Landry and Mr. Giuliani.
"Joseph Landry's actions are part of an ongoing effort to expose Rudy for who he is -- a supporter of child-killing -- a Democrat in GOP clothing. When the base of the GOP learns who Giuliani is, they will reject him. Our goal is to make sure that happens.
"We will dog Rudy throughout the remaining days in New Hampshire, then begin dogging him in Florida, working to expose his campaign in the Sunshine State, and burying it for good on Super Tuesday." -- Randall Terry, Founder, Operation Rescue.
To interview Joseph Landry in New Hampshire, call 406-860-9738.
To discuss the plans of the next three weeks with Randall Terry, call 904-461-0834.
“Rudy, who will at least hold no litmus test on Federal judges.”
I do not trust Rudy the RINO in what he says about not using a litmus test for judges.
Rudy supports gun control
the homosexual agenda
amnesty for illegals
big govt.
abortion
state paid for abortion(which means he wants me to pay for murder of innocent children).
I will not vote for RINO Rudy.
You can thank him all you want but our President has never made this Democrat-like statement that he would not overturn Roe. He has criticized the ruling and said that every child welcomed into life and protected by law but he has always stated that he would make Roe a litmus test for determining Supreme Court nominees.
http://www.issues2000.org/George_W__Bush.htm
Great! They need to be LOUD to make people hear it over and over. Then those so-called prolifers will have to answer to God for promoting this evil man.
Abortion is such an insignificant issue. Issues that matter are National Security, Economic policy, Taxes and (Illegal) Immigration. Get those right and America rolls.
Abortion is a personal matter. Don’t like ‘em? Don’t have one. Someone else wants to have one? Who cares? Mind your own business and stop trying to save democrat babies from democrat moms who don’t want ‘em.
Cold as ice, I know. It’s the times we live in.
Ah. When in doubt, invoke Godwin’s Law.
Really? More Americans died in abortuaries YESTERDAY than died on 9/11/01. More Americans have died in abortuaries THIS YEAR (2008) than have died in the war on terror. More Americans have died in abortuaries in the past twelve months than have died in all the wars America has fought in COMBINED.
Now let's look at taxes and illegal immigration. The baby boomer generation selfishly decided to kill an entire generation of 50 MILLION future WORKERS and TAXPAYERS. The economic consequences of this means that as the baby boomers begin to retire, there will not be enough workers to work or taxpayers to fund the government.
Fred says...States have the right to choose if the baby lives or dies.
What is the difference? Same outcome, just who condones it.
Freds statement on Meet the Press.."States have the right to make those decisions even if I, Fred Thompson disagree with them"
Rudys (hypothetical) statement.."Women have the right to make those decisions even if I, Rudy Guilini disagree with them".
I agree. Your last comment says it all!
The reason the Huckabee started zooming,,,,is because social conservatives are 'grasping' for anyone,,,,and I mean ANYONE--who agrees with at least SOME (and the operative word is SOME) of the traditional, bedrock, social values and principles of the Party.
The same reason explains some of the support for McCain and Romney--as they at least agree with SOME,,,,or are trying to agree,,,or are at least pretending to agree--with some of what is imporant to social conservatives.
The fact remains that social conservatives (who are not the majority, but still a significat part of the Party, and the most loyal part of the Party) find Rudy an absolutely disgusting candidate for so many reasons.
I hate abortion. Frankly, however, it doesn’t affect my life. If we take it off the table as a political issue you fracture the democrat party. Then, it’s then possible to focus on the issues that matter; National Security, Taxes, Economic Policy, etc. Things that affect the lives of all Americans.
Today in 2008 we face the biggest threat to our "way of life" that we ever have. IslamicFascists want to take over. They are doing it in Europe, and we will be next. We can not be PC about this issue.
On the day that abortion becomes illegal I want to be able to Thank God, and not praise alah.
Letting the dems in the White House will bring that day closer, so in this election I do have other priorities, and I know in my heart that Rudy, or any of the GOP candidates will be better on all of the issues you list, but to me our National Security must be #1, because if we fail at that, everything else will cease to be an issue.
And as I stated, killing over one million future taxpayers each year has serious long-term consequences on the economy and taxes.
Yeah. And after we get a Dem president, they can go down to D.C. and protest the PRO CHOICE nominee to replace Stevens. They can go back again when Ginsberg resigns. And, who knows? In eight years, even Kennedy might go...that would give them an easy majority for the rest of our lives!
On the other hand, we only need ONE appointment to tilt the court for the rest of our lifetimes. Either Ginsberg or Stevens WILL leave in the next 4 or 8 years---likely both. I believe Rudy would keep his promise to appoint strict constructionists. Even if they're more moderate than some conservatives would like, Rudy's appointee would be far favorable to either Ginsberg or Stevens.
Don’t taze me, bro!
“After all it’s a choice.”
Sure, it’s a choice, as we conservatives are all about our freedoms. It is the choice of some punk addict to kill you in your bed while burglarizing your home for drug money, too. The issue here is the notion that one’s rights end where another’s begins. Ask the baby in the womb what their choice is? Oh, that’s right, they can’t speak for themselves as to where they want to be burned alive with chemicals or dismembered by a surgical instrument. So, the function of government is to protect that choice until such a one has a voice. We don’t allow parents to choose to kill their borne babies. The State intervenes there. Do you support that? Are do you give parents the right to kill their children? The issue is whether a fetus = a person. It does under several murder statutes where murdering pregnant women results in two counts. How can we view abortion differently?
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.