Skip to comments.The Rudy Giuliani Truth File in his own words and deeds
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
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:
My vote will never go to Rudy - dunno who, but not Rudy.
Thanks, Jim, for doing this.
Rooty’s own words and previously held positions(when he wasn’t trying to appeal to conservatives) make him unqualified to lead the party.
Ohhh this is good stuff Jim.
Hope you got some sleep last night?
Today’s poll is the best I’ve ever seen on this site. Thanks for the great work.
Angry archivists and historians denounced the unprecedented hijacking of public property to private hands. Tom Connors, of the Society of American Archivists, said the transfer seemed part of a movement to "create barriers to the American citizen's right to know what their governments are doing."
The families of the police and fire rescuers who died in the attack balked at Giuliani's plan to take up to a year to dole out the money, with his new organization billing $2.2 million in anticipated administrative expenses (including six-figure salaries for friends he appointed as officers). The families argued that the fire union had far more quickly distributed $111 million with an estimated administrative cost of just $30,000.
Under embarrassing pressure from the victims' families, unions and state Attorney General Elliot Spitzer, Giuliani backed down. He promised to distribute the money within 60 days and fund his overhead from new donations. The families of the deceased rescuers, the real heroes of the September 11 attacks, received a one-time benefit of about $230,000 each from the Giuliani-privatized fund in 2002. That year, the former mayor earned some $8 million in speaking fees alone, more than $650,000 per month.
New York conveniently forgot the 1996 federal ban on sanctuary laws until a gang of five Mexicansfour of them illegalabducted and brutally raped a 42-year-old mother of two near some railroad tracks in Queens. The NYPD had already arrested three of the illegal aliens numerous times for such crimes as assault, attempted robbery, criminal trespass, illegal gun possession, and drug offenses. The department had never notified the INS.
I live in NYC and feel very safe here. The gun issue is hard for me, because I have never owned one. My interest in owning one is increasing, but only after I get rigorous training and discpline. If/when I own a gun, I want it to be above board, legal, and use it in the company of the very best men and women.
My question to you is: If you were Mayor of NYC, what specifically would you change about the gun laws here? Which of our laws would you attempt to get rid of, and which new ones, if any, would you implement? And, if your efforts had negative consequences, what would your response to the City be, both in words and actions, as Mayor?
Read and understand and abide by the second amendment. End of discussion.
Still, I can’t get excited for the McCainiac.
Sorry, Jim, way too simplistic. I can’t let you off that easy, with all due respect.
You’ve been placed in charge of a racially and economically diverse city, of 8 or 9 million. You’re in charge of the police force. People are dying around you. You have to take practical measures with the existing laws to change them and reduce crime.
The world we live in is highly complex. To navigate this reality with competence is the essence of wisdom.
Here’s another “for instance”: In NYC, as Mayor, would you allow anyone without a criminal record to own any kind of gun they desired? Would they have to register it? What restrictions, if any, would you place an ownership and registration (you can say ‘none’ if you like)? Do
Please read the 2nd Ammendment and tell me where it says the government can regulate handguns for ANY reason.
It specifically says it CAN’T.
And I should point out, not just hand guns, but ANY arms.
“...And, if your efforts had negative consequences, what would your response to the City be, both in words and actions, as Mayor?”
The overwhelming historical evidence is that negative consequences are little if any.
You should sign up, if not already for the “Dave Lone Ranger” “Ping” list for many a heart warming story of 2nd Amendment “Positives”.
??????????? Thanks for that.
Hey, the second amendment is the rule of law. You don’t like it, amend it or repeal it. Good luck with that. Even then, the right to self-defense is an unalienable right and a person still has the right to keep and bear arms. If you can’t stand the danger of living in a big city and don’t wish to arm yourself, move out! Any mayor who violates the constitution and violates your unalienable individual right to self-defense by grabbing your guns on the pretense of public safety (or for any other reason whatsoever) is a power abusing liberal. Rudy is a power abusing liberal. Get over it.
Giuliani to NARAL- 65% Of GOP Want To Remove Pro-Life Plank
Rudy is perfect for NY City...but not for the country. at the time he came into office NYC was a cesspool mismanaged by the ‘dink’.
But he is so anti-individual freedom, as to be unelectable in the national Republican primaries.
He should consider Senator from NY. he would be more conservative than either Putzhead or Shrillary...an improvement as it were.
I would not however want him for NY Governor either. He would get rubber stamped by the Republican state senate and it would be all his liberal baggage(gun control, gay marriage, etc.) being approved by both houses. look at it like this... Cuomo couldnt get any anti gun bills past the state senate, but Pataki (that little two faced turd)could and did with the help of Joe Bruno who backed his party’s governor.
I almost forgot - the peak number of annual murders pre Giuliani was about 50,000. Nationally, it dropped to about 12,000. With a 65 - 70% reduction, New York City was actually behind the curve.
Giuliani in 1989: There must be public funding for abortion
Giuliani’s Abortion Views Have Not Changed
Rudy Giuliani tells Dana Bash he stands by his pro-choice beliefs.
Giuliani on Abortion
Former Mayor Rudy Giuliani on Abortion
Rudy Giuliani on partial birth abortion
Hoping to go to bed soon.
Another eight years of the Clintons and a Democrat Congress.
Well, you’re sidestepping the practical questions I’ve asked you. Your right to do so. But the “good luck with thats” and “get over its” don’t play with anyone but the simple minded.
The so-called “danger of living in a big city” is overstated. People get killed everywhere. They also get taken advantage of everywhere. And the people who live in small towns are just as ungodly as those in the cities — but many of them are too self-righteous to know it.
God has a special place in his heart for cities, because the poor and disadvantaged are often safer there. You notice he didn’t command us to “dwindle and move to the sticks.” He told us to multiply. That means cities.
He has even compared himself to a fortified city.
And that thing coming down from the sky at the end times will not be a patch of land or a suburb. It will be a city, built for us by God.
I hope you’re there when it comes down from heaven. I’ll show you how to navigate the subways.
“It specifically says it CANT.”
Cool, walk through town with one, then. You talk the talk, now walk the walk.
How about stepping into the ugly REALITY in which we live instead of some fantasy world that does not exist anymore and hasn’t in almost 100 years. You think “small government” will ever exist in this country again without a complete do-over? Do you honestly think whoever you vote for will roll-back 100 or more years of intrusive legislation? Dream on!
This isn’t even about Rudy. It’s about a group of conservatives who live in la-la land. America does not exist in reality as it does in many Freeper’s minds. A good 2/3 of this country, more probably, do not share your ideas of “the ideal candidate”. Even if miraculously elected, how do you expect anybody to get anything done with that kind of opposition?
People on this site claim conservatives are realists. I see no evidence of that from many here. I certainly hope the more conservative candidate will get the nomination but it ain’t gonna happen. I don’t like that but that is reality. So the purpose of threads like this is what, then?
Obviously, you have no comprehension whatsoever of Liberty and zero ambition to defend yourself or your freedom. May your chains rest lightly. You are no conservative.
So you think the way to reverse all the garbage that has been handed down by the government, for the last 100 years,is to put another liberal in office?
Yes. My conservativism IS idealogical.
But you think it’s just not worth the fight.
I wonder how the Founding Fathers would have felt with that attitude.
There is no way that another liberal like Rudy is going to bring the conservative party back to the grass roots.
I’ve made my statements about it in the last few days, so I’m not going to repeat myself again, other than to say, I will never ‘settle’ for a ‘win’.
If you have no principals to base your choices on, then you will have won nothing.
It doesn't have to be that way, RottiBiz. I'm simply trying to demonstrate the truth and what will happen if the GOP deserts conservatism. As the truth about Rudy becomes obvious, his chances will plummet and a more acceptable conservative will become apparent. If we're to be successful in the long run, we must continue to stand by our longstanding principles and core conservative values.
Keep the faith!
Your problem, Jim (one of them at least), is you are not relying on God to preserve and protect you. You are relying on a man-made construct of liberty, one that you narrowly define in your own limited mind. You are relying on "the right kind of government" to save you. This is called idolatry.
Speaking of chains:
"Remember Jesus Christ, risen from the dead, the offspring of David, as preached in my gospel, for which I am suffering, bound with chains as a criminal. But the word of God is not bound!"
It is a Christian's duty, destiny, and glory to be bound in chains, to suffer, to be humiliated and broken for the sake of the Gospel (which, by the way, is the only antidote to man's problems).
I pray that you will invert your values and let the Bible inform your view of "right" government, and not the other way around.
I read the statements you posted. They are not conservative statements. If you think they are, you are confused.
“It is a Christian’s duty, destiny, and glory to be bound in chains, to suffer, to be humiliated and broken for the sake of the Gospel”
Christ DIED for your sins so that YOU would NOT have to suffer the pain and humiliation he went through.
Your INTERPRETATION is a bit SKEWED!
Nice post - reasoned and real world.
Since when is it a Christian’s goal to live up to someone’s idea of what it means to be conservative?
Why are you so preoccupied with the label of conservative or liberal? Both philosophies are riddled with problems. Neither of them can save the human race, or our country. Only the Gospel can.
Christ’s example is neither conservative nor liberal. He is wiser than that — certainly wiser than any man.
So, labelling me “not a conservative” is a pretty meaningless act. I don’t fall into either category. I place my trust in God. You seem to place it in correct government, right thinking, and ideological purity.
You’re a nice fellow, Jim Robinson, but you’re no thinker. You need to get out a bit, humble yourself, and ask God to show you His way, not your way. There’s still time and hope for you.
No, Christ died for our sins so we would not have to suffer hell. He did, however, often and explicitly, tell us we would suffer for the Gospel.
When American Christians stop trying to avoid suffering and start sacrificing for others, the world will be a different place.
The past several weeks were very frustrating seeing a liberal gaining momentum here at FR.
Glad to see us back on course.
If “puke” is the best pearl you have, I’m really not interested.
Sorry about my lack of ideological purity!
The single most effective method for crime reduction has shown to be an increase in the size of the police force. Couple that with Bratton/Giuliani's philosophy of enforcing petty crime, and that would be my strategy.
Notice that gun control is not necessary to enact either of those two measures.
“He did, however, often and explicitly, tell us we would suffer for the Gospel.”
He told us we would suffer through PERSECUTION for our Christian beliefs.
He didn’t say to ROLL OVER AND PLAY DEAD and give in to evil!
I’m not going to waste my time with you because you obviously just don’t get it.
Because — like just about everyone here — I share many (not all) of its goals.
Hey, you’re either a conservative or your not. I’m not asking you to live up to any ideas whatsoever. You’ve demonstrated liberal ideas (or at least, not conservative ideas) regarding the RKBA. I don’t agree with you, so I guess that’s the end of our discussion. It could’ve ended on the first post as I suggested, because I’m not going to change and obviously you’re not changing either. End.
. . .
COLMES: Now, Roe vs. Wade -- You are pro-choice. How important is it to you as a pro-choice Republican to have a pro-choice on the court as someone...
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 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. Lots of Republicans supported her. I expect, and listening to Senator Nelson, I expect that John Roberts will get support from a lot of Democrats.
COLMES: Now, he is coming under fire from some Democrats for claiming they're claiming he is a partisan, that he had a behind-the-scenes role in advising the Florida attorney general during the 2000 election fight, that he gave money to the Bush-Cheney 2000 campaign...
. . .
COLMES: So it's not an issue if you've donated ... 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. . . .
You’re putting words in my mouth. Nice try, but no cigar.
I suppose you think Jesus would be a conservative, right?
“I share many (not all) of its goals.”
Then you’re on the wrong website and you need to read this..
There is no ‘speculation’ about what FreeRepublic is about.
These are NOT your words?
“It is a Christians duty, destiny, and glory to be bound in chains, to suffer, to be humiliated and broken for the sake of the Gospel”
Please. Your utter MISUNDERSTANDING is telling.
I’m done. Preach it to someone else.
Speak for yourself. I’m changing every day. If you don’t want to change, you’re already dead. Your inability or lack of desire to think and discuss beyond your narrow little view is appalling to say the least, and a terrible example.
I apologize for trying to wrest your brain from its slumber this morning. Go back to bed.
No problem. Good night.
The adults are talking, kid. Go clean your room.