Skip to comments.Giuliani: I'd Have Stopped Occupy Wall Street Protesters on Day One
Posted on 11/17/2011 11:33:49 PM PST by expat1000
The First Amendment does not give Occupy Wall Street protesters the right to take over private property and engage in illegal activities, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani says.
You have no right to pitch a tent in the middle of New York City, Im sorry, Giuliani said on Sean Hannitys radio show this afternoon. That is not the First Amendment.
President Barack Obamas empathy for the 2-month-old movement and New York Mayor Michael Bloombergs lack of action to stop it are an embarrassment to the nation and the city, Giuliani said.
Giulianis comments came on a day when police and the protesters had squared off as they marched through the city in an effort to fulfill their promise to shut down the New York Stock Exchange.
The minute you have any place where you have to put up a place [to] protect a woman against rape, then youve got to come in and get rid of those people, Giuliani told Hannity. You cant tolerate that in a civilized city.
Giuliani said he delivered a speech at a high-level economic conference last week in China, where the first question posed to him involved the protests.
This thing has gone around the globe, and its beginning to characterize us, he said. This is what they think were about.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
I said as much a month ago. Rudy Giuliani was an outstanding mayor of New York. We need someone with his ability in the cabinet of the next administration.
Giuliani was a singular hero in refusing to meet with terrorist leader Yasser Arafat when Arafat came to New York City. Giuliani said he refused to meet with Arafat. Other bigwigs, who had no principles, met with him.
Okay, I have my flame suit on, but riddle me this:
While I DO NOT agree with the OWS, or what it stands for, the question I have is do citizens have the right to take certain actions in the guise of their “petition to redress grievances”?
Is pitching a tent in the center of NYC a first amendment issue? Do a million Tea Partiers marching down Pennsylvania Avenue, each with a rifle slung over the shoulders, have the right to argue that they are practicing freedom of speech?
The question I have is at what point to citizens have the right to tell the government NO! We will no obey this, or that regulation, and will practice disobedience. At what point does the citizenry have the obligation to dismantle the existing structure?
It is becoming very clear that this nation has become either a kleptocracy, or simply fascist. OWS was an unfocused temper tantrum, the Tea Party hasn’t gone far enough. and quite frankly, it looks like elections in 2012 won’t matter a twit.
The real question should be who would you feel safer around, stone cold sober Tea Partiers armed to the teeth with a clear, cogent idea of their grievances, OR a bunch of vile, disease ridden, drug addled clueless idiots reeking of the stench of marijuana smoke?
Is there a fine?
Does it go on their record?
Quit throwing me softballs.
No and yes. No to the first, because the First Amendment confers the right to speak, not to be given a venue in which to speak. Yes to the second because, under the First Amendment they can argue that they are practicing freedom of speech, and that's the extent of it. The First Amendment does not give them the right to march down Pennsylvania Avenue, each with a rifle over his shoulder. Whether they may legally do so depends upon the laws in effect at the time, but it's not a First Amendment issue.
And remember, civil disobedience does not imply that one performing it must be given a pass on whatever lawbreaking he may do in the process of being civilly disobedient. True civil disobedience involves taking full responsibility for whatever breaches of law that one commits.
Totally understand what you are saying. So, the answer is, when the citizenry are willing to go “all the way” then the formation of a new order will happen.
Yes, but I don't think the consequences will be pretty, if things ever get to that juncture. The new order will probably be totalitarian, if history is any guide.
What a bullshit analogy. You are not going to see a million rifle toting Tea Partiers marching. Don’t try to stuff your moral equivalency crap down our throats.
“The real question should be who would you feel safer around, stone cold sober Tea Partiers armed to the teeth with a clear, cogent idea of their grievances, OR a bunch of vile, disease ridden, drug addled clueless idiots reeking of the stench of marijuana smoke?”
I’m not quite sure the First Amendment specifies that only those with certain hygiene habits are entitled exercise their free speech.
However, there are those on every side of the political spectrum who do not necessarily believe that those with opposing views should be protected by the First Amendment.
If you have to ask if pitching a tent in NYC is a First Ammendment issue, it’s no wonder you have to ask if pitching a tent in NYC is a First Ammendment issue.
“What a bullshit analogy. You are not going to see a million rifle toting Tea Partiers marching. Dont try to stuff your moral equivalency crap down our throats.
It wasn’t an analogy. Anyway, you’re entitled to your opinion even if you seem to feel abigkahuna isn’t. But “stuff down our throat”? What’s with that? And what is with the “our”? You don’t speak for us.
Good question, IMO, Abigkahuna.
Unfortunately I agree.
I think you are mis-interpreting my question. I am not equating the OWS with the Tea party. Although I might like to see the reaction if a million rifle toting tea party members march down the street.
My question is overall, at what point do citizens give up their petition to the government for redress of grievances, When the government tells them to go home? Then if that is the case, then the citizens do not have the right to petition for redress. See my point here? It has nothing to do with moral equivalency of tea party and ows. Take your head out of your suitcase and quit thinking red/blue. Both political parties are the problem and neither one of them is the solution.
Do you think if you pull the handle for red party, or blue party, then magically things will be better? Is Gingrich, Cain, Bachman, Perry, Paul, or any of them really going to get rid of government agencies? No.
I’ll bet you a tasty soda drink that come 2014, it will be the same-o, same-o, just a different group of people holding the cocktail parties in Washington.
With that in mind, look at my question again, at what point does the citizenry obey/disobey the government when it tells you to disperse and that your petition will not ever be heard.
Rudy Giuliani: A reason to be against term limits!