Redstate

but supports civil unions in order to provide legal recognition of gay issues concerning things like employee benefits (the norm in corporate America BTW), inheritance, hospital visitation, etc.

When the sitting Vice President of US, a committed and conservative Republican, has a gay daughter in a committed relationship who recently gave birth, I wonder how long social conservatives will continue to reach for the smelling salts when the issue of Rudy and gay rights comes up?

That being said, Cheney is hardly responsible for the political or sexual orientation of his offspring.
___________________________
Faith is the highest passion in a human being. Many in every generation may not come that far, but none comes further.
- Soren Kierkegaard: Fear and Trembling

is a great leader and he has done much for this country.

Molon Labe!

You might want to check out where he stands on taxes, spending, immigration, and nannystatism before you call him a "conservative candidate."
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

but his record is certainly more conservative than Rudy's.
___________________________
Faith is the highest passion in a human being. Many in every generation may not come that far, but none comes further.
- Soren Kierkegaard: Fear and Trembling

Mike Huckabee is just as liberal on fiscal issues as Rudy is liberal on social issues.

I like them both and would love to see them both in the Senate, from Arkansas and New York, respectively. Either that or Rudy as Director of Homeland Security.

I would be fine with Rudy as Director of Homeland Security, since he wouldn't be making choices that would call his pro-abortion stance into play.
___________________________
Faith is the highest passion in a human being. Many in every generation may not come that far, but none comes further.
- Soren Kierkegaard: Fear and Trembling

"I will keep America on offense in the Terrorists’ War on Us."

What makes Giuliani any different than Fred or Mitt ?

"I will end illegal immigration, secure our borders, and identify every non-citizen in our nation."

Really ? As mayor of NYC Giuliani made the city a santuary for illegal aliens. As a candidate for president, Giuliani originally supported GW Bush's immigration plan.

"I will restore fiscal discipline and cut wasteful Washington spending."

NYC spending went up 25% under Giuliani's leadership.

"I will cut taxes and reform the tax code."

Giuliani supported Mario Cuomo because he claimed Pataki's tax cuts were irresponsible.

"I will lead America towards energy independence."

Everyone says that...nobody delivers.

"I will give Americans more control over, and access to, healthcare with affordable and portable free-market solutions."

Hopefully, you rplan won't force government mandates like Mitt Romney's.

"I will increase adoptions, decrease abortions, and protect the quality of life for our children."

Giuliani will also defend Roe v Wade and allow millions of unborn babies to die.

"I will reform the legal system and appoint strict constructionist judges."

Giuliani once said he like Justice Ginsburg. How can we trust him now ?

If we really want to end the conservative movement forever, lets nominate Rudy Giuliani.

I'm not an agent, I just write books

He's the only one who will save us from Hillary! If we are to defeat the Democrats we must become MORE LIKE THEM!

After, all, if you can't beat em, join em, right? Who needs principles?

___________________________
Faith is the highest passion in a human being. Many in every generation may not come that far, but none comes further.
- Soren Kierkegaard: Fear and Trembling

If anyone believes a "conservative" was elected by the same voters who elect Ted Kennedy and John Kerry (Mitt) and Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer (Rudy), I have some swamp land in Arizona that I'd like to show you.

"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."
Barry Goldwater

California elected Reagan as govenor and then elected DiFi and Boxer over and over not to mention Gov. Jerry Brown. Texas voted for Anne Richards and then George W. Arkansas voted for both Bill Clinton and Huckabee over and over. Oh and both NY and MA voted for Reagan twice.

James

In case it isn't totally obvious, I intended this as a reply to SoCon above.

Maybe we need to get rid of the Reply box at the bottom, force people to click on something before they start a reply. Or, maybe I just need some sleep.

---
(Formerly known as bee) / Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community

and have been here over a year lol! I agree the Rudy bashing is over the top and a mistake, he is still the most likely to win the nod. Let us not give the Dems their talking points.

Don't get me wrong, I also have problems with Rudy. But diminishing his anti-terror credentials and saying he is "not conservative" is not constructive debate. I have problems with Rudy's statist instincts (almost all candidates have it too), and his complete blindness on the innefectiveness of gun gun control. On the other hand, he is a good candidate, we should not slash and burn him. Fred needs to win this election, not have it handed to him.

Molon Labe!

There are plenty of candidates with solid anti-terror credentials who are arguably more conservative than Rudy. This is the question nobody has answered so far: what makes Rudy better than the other candidates?
___________________________
Faith is the highest passion in a human being. Many in every generation may not come that far, but none comes further.
- Soren Kierkegaard: Fear and Trembling

The Mayor on WINS on 10/13/1996:

Two days ago I announced that the City of New York has filed suit against the federal government. We are challenging a provision of the recently enacted federal Welfare and Immigration Law....Our lawsuit contends that the new federal law violates the Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution by invalidating New York City's "Executive Order 124."

For those who may not know, "Executive Order 124" is New York City's policy regarding undocumented immigrants. This order was issued seven years ago by Mayor Ed Koch and then later reissued by Mayor Dinkins and then by me. "Executive Order 124" protects undocumented immigrants in New York City from being reported to the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service while they are using City services that are crucial for their health and safety, and critical for the health and safety of the entire city.

I know "Executive Order 124" offends some people. They ask, "Why should we pay to provide services for illegal immigrants?"

The answer is, "It's not only to protect them, but to protect the rest of society, as well."

New York City is defending "Executive Order 124" in court because there are times when undocumented immigrants must have a degree of protection in order to avail themselves of crucial services. For example, parents fearful of being deported may not send their children to public schools. If they don't, a potential 60,000, 70,000, 80,000 undocumented children could remain hidden in apartments or be turned out in the streets. Not only would these children suffer irreversible damage, they could end up doing damage to the rest of society as well.

Similarly, illegal and undocumented immigrants should be able to seek medical help without the threat of being reported, possibly deported. While these people are sick, they're just as sick and just as contagious as citizens. They could possibly become a danger to public health if they were not able to seek health care services.

And I'm sure everyone can understand the practicality of wanting undocumented immigrants to feel comfortable reporting criminals to the police. Reporting criminals protects all people, citizens and non-citizens alike....

America became the most successful nation in history because of our constant process of reform and revitalization, a process that is driven by immigrants who come here to create a better life for themselves and for their children. That's why anti-immigration movements always die out. As we have in the past, I believe we will return to the recognition that new Americans are good for our country.

Run like Reagan!

Municipal governments are not in the business of deporting citizens. The illegals were a fact of life. Given the facts on the ground, it would be both prudent and compassionate to have illegals get treated for illness, report crimes to the police and get basic services for their kids.

Rudy's not running for mayor. His job as mayor was to run the city government and provide services for the people living there, including those that the federal government's lax enforcement let in illegally.

Rudy's running for President. He gets it about securing the border and re-establishing the rule of law.

The Mayor of New York will start becoming responsible for enforcing the federal immigration laws the same day that New York City gets a border with Mexico.

---
(Formerly known as bee) / Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community

Any illegal immigrants from a country not bordering the United States (say...Afghanistan) should not be bothered, right?
___________________________
Faith is the highest passion in a human being. Many in every generation may not come that far, but none comes further.
- Soren Kierkegaard: Fear and Trembling

in NYC. It wasn't like he had no control over the problem. And if he can't enforce the law when it comes to illegals, why do you think he will "[re-establish] the rule of law"?

___________________________
Faith is the highest passion in a human being. Many in every generation may not come that far, but none comes further.
- Soren Kierkegaard: Fear and Trembling

City governments do not exist to enforce federal law. That darn separation of powers thing, again.

Similarly, I'm sure lots of tax evaders work in NYC (probably higher than the national average IMO), and they would be easier for the city to nab than the feds. But Rudy and most mayors would not try. Thank God.

---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

is that there is a division of power between the federal government, the states and the people, and that the first derives its powers from the second and third.

There is also separation of power within the federal government-legislative, executive, judicial.

Of course, if the GOP puts up a piss-poor candidate (I'm not thinking of FT here, whom I think would be a good candidate), and the liberals gain control of everything, you can say goodbye to all that.

The 'separation of powers' thing is a different matter entirely.
___________________________
Faith is the highest passion in a human being. Many in every generation may not come that far, but none comes further.
- Soren Kierkegaard: Fear and Trembling

And there's no conflict with federalism when local police work with federal law enforcement. It happens every day. If local police find evidence of someone committing a Federal crime, they will work with Federal law enforcement authorities... except when it comes to immigration. You can be sure if NYC uncovered information about someone smuggling drugs or dirty bombs into the country they wouldn't just look the other way because it isn't their bag.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Ah, the three branches of government. Federal, state, and city. Right?
___________________________
Faith is the highest passion in a human being. Many in every generation may not come that far, but none comes further.
- Soren Kierkegaard: Fear and Trembling

And since I know that you're the type that can't tell the difference between not reporting an illegal for reporting a crime, vs. not reporting an illegal for *committing* a crime, I don't even want to start down that road yet again.

---
(Formerly known as bee) / Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community

Run like Reagan!

What, are you denying that we haven't had that exact same argument before?

And, by the way, I'm waiting for the day that you condemn an anti-Rudy type for threadjacking like you seem to do with anyone that remotely criticizes Fred. You're the one that's making it 'personal'.

---
(Formerly known as bee) / Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community

I generally don't read the diaries that talk about how well Giuliani is doing in polls. Call it a selection bias.

But if you're going to start playing the victim card, then sheesh, your guy must be feeling the heat, just like when the Romney people started moaning about the anti-Mitt bias all around.

Run like Reagan!

You're touchy about any criticism of Fred, but you're all gung-ho to rant about Rudy any chance you get. Plus you pull out the 'threadjack' criticism as a club for your own convienence.

I like both Rudy and Fred. I'd be happy if either became President. You on the other hand can't seem to stand seeing anyone saying anything good about Rudy.

---
(Formerly known as bee) / Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community

Considering Moe hasn't come down on me like a ton of bricks for calling out threadjacking, there's nothing that will stop you from doing the same thing in the future, you know.

Run like Reagan!

Illegals have committed a crime by virtue of their being here ILLEGALLY. Not holding them accountable for their crimes is not a good sign for someone who is supposedly tough on crime.
___________________________
Faith is the highest passion in a human being. Many in every generation may not come that far, but none comes further.
- Soren Kierkegaard: Fear and Trembling

you may have your own preferences, which is your right.

___________________________
Faith is the highest passion in a human being. Many in every generation may not come that far, but none comes further.
- Soren Kierkegaard: Fear and Trembling

I'd rather prevent murders than prevent vandalism but that doesn't mean we should ignore the latter in the hopes that additional bodies dedicated to enforcement of the prohibition on the former will somehow prevent it from occurring.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

organized crime and the like. In addition to the legal issues of having municipalities enforcing federal law, it's a question of priorities. I'd say Rudy got his right, and so would the crime victims who never were.

A self proclaimed conservative is taking the side of the federal government over a cities right to self govern?

Shocking!

Despite your effort to portray the former mayor in a poor light you show for us all the failure of "idealism verses realism".

The mayor of New York has no control over the border, "idealism", the mayor is left to deal with that failure, "realism".

Clearly the initiative was intended to provide a way for the illegals to be able to report crime and get medical care without reprisal.

For you, and others, to use that as a condemnation of the former mayor of New York City shows that many of our party have failed to grasp that it takes leadership on issues, a willingness to find solutions, even if imperfect, that work toward the goal of the ideal, as in make progress toward if not the achievement of the "ideal".

Ideals without a practical method of implementation is just so much talk, realism and compromise in order to work toward goals is what makes America great, not uncompromising, unrealistic "idealism".

Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin

Considering the Constitution specifically forbids the states to conduct their own foreign policy, the City of New York as a part of the State of New York is prohibited from declaring itself a haven for foreign nationals.

I support federalism by the word of the Constitution.

Run like Reagan!

It was very specific the issue that was being addressed. Crime and health, specifically a mayors responsibility, ones that he discharged very well.

You omit facts that don't suit your purpose but that doesn't make you any more correct in your assertions.

I'm looking for facts concerning his administrations reporting to the Feds of illegals during his tenure and a few quotes to go with it, but memory says he got nothing from the feds in terms of help. If I find the actual data that totally refutes your contention out of hand I will obviously do so.

But I do have a quote that goes with your comment and the tenth amendment...

"The Tenth Amendment provides that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

One right not granted to the federal government is the right of state and local governments to provide for the health and safety of their local communities. This right is generally described as "the police power." When Ed Koch signed "Executive Order 124" it was a classic example of New York City's police power being used to protect the health and well being of our city.

Most likely, the federal government will reply that controlling immigration is one of their core functions. But this is a disingenuous argument. The federal government will be forced to argue that it has to treat undocumented immigrants unfairly in order to discourage others from coming here. Attempting to control immigration by creating a disincentive for a woman to report to the police that she has been beaten up by her husband is a very weak argument. And it's a horrible position for the federal government to take."

Rudy Giuliani

Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin

Rudy's argument is the disingenuous one.
Why not refuse to report theives or vandals, if doing so may create a disincentive for them to report domestic abuse? Why stop at illegal immigrants?
___________________________
Faith is the highest passion in a human being. Many in every generation may not come that far, but none comes further.
- Soren Kierkegaard: Fear and Trembling

The whole point of broken windows policing was that you couldn't let ANYTHING go uncorrected, or else the establishment of law and order would wobble, and you'd crash back into the chaos of what NYC used to be.

To suggest that our immigration labor laws are less important than littering, to the point where he'd actively SUE the US Government not to have to respect federal law, to me shows a serious problem with Giuliani's reasoning on the issue.

Run like Reagan!

this.

Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin

___________________________
Faith is the highest passion in a human being. Many in every generation may not come that far, but none comes further.
- Soren Kierkegaard: Fear and Trembling

It's not the one I was looking for but it does fit in... it actually looks like more of the same talk.

"I'll give you another example of how, in practicality, this won't be an exercise that will control immigration in any meaningful sense. Right now in New York City prisons there are approximately 2,500 people who are illegal and undocumented. In a given year about 4,000 illegal and undocumented immigrants go through the New York City jail system with the potential of 70,000 people each year whose names come to our attention who have allegedly committed crimes or who have been convicted of committing crimes. None of them are protected by Executive Order 124. Those names should be turned over to the Immigration and Naturalization Service and they have been for at least the last decade. There are literally thousands upon thousands of names the I.N.S. could work on and usefully deport from the United States, which they're not going to do, either with present resources or what they're promising to do with all their reform measures, and actually only three hundred people that were convicted of serious felonies by the federal government were deported."

Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin

Thank you.

It's good to see that he's at least willing to try to deport illegals who get arrested.

But I'm guessing tax evasion, forgery, fraud, and other crimes that go along with being an illegal aren't among those in New York's Prisons, heh.

Run like Reagan!

Do you think people are pegging him as being socially liberal based on no evidence whatsoever?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Rudy_Giuliani

Read that, then tell me he isn't a social liberal.
___________________________
Faith is the highest passion in a human being. Many in every generation may not come that far, but none comes further.
- Soren Kierkegaard: Fear and Trembling

---
(Formerly known as bee) / Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community

When Wiki's sources include unsigned sidebars on the NY Times, the DNC and a slew of footnotes linking to Isebrand, the prudent reader might become...skeptical.

See the isebrand home page:
http://citizenship.typepad.com/

that Rudy has and does support abortion. He has made statements to the effect multiple times. Ditto for the other issues. I don't know what will convince you if media references to statements Rudy has ACTUALLY said won't. Do you want him to tell you in person?
___________________________
Faith is the highest passion in a human being. Many in every generation may not come that far, but none comes further.
- Soren Kierkegaard: Fear and Trembling

His view on abortion on a federal level is pretty much the same as FT's - the states get to decide.

I believe the federalist view is the best practical means of reigning in the abortion-on-demand culture initiated by Rowe. If the states have to decide, then they have to think about what they're doing. Many will opt for choice with limits. That's progress. With Rowe, it's so easy to just sweep everything under the carpet because abortion is a "constitutional right".

And of course, with Hillary et al, Rowe is Holy Writ.

Choose carefully.

n/t

And I see no indication that he would turn over Roe v. Wade.

___________________________
Faith is the highest passion in a human being. Many in every generation may not come that far, but none comes further.
- Soren Kierkegaard: Fear and Trembling

I don't.

First, that's some "but" in wartime, BTW.

Second, Rudy did a goodly number of things not associated with movement liberalism (which is why the movement can't stand him): reduced crime, cleaned up porn-infested Times Square, encouraged free enterprise, cut taxes, opposed Al Sharpton and the other race-baiters, etc.

Now he clearly is not a social conservative by your standards. He is hardly liberal the way I understand liberal.

Is that supposed to make him conservative? Joe Lieberman is one of the most liberal Democrats in the Senate yet all the neocons at NR acted like he was some sort of messiah, even wanting him to run in 08 if I recall correctly.

___________________________
Faith is the highest passion in a human being. Many in every generation may not come that far, but none comes further.
- Soren Kierkegaard: Fear and Trembling

identifiers of party identity in these (depressing) times. Being antiwar is the sine qua non of liberal orthodoxy and success in the national Democratic party.

Being pro-war does not make Rudy a social conservative. But when you add everything else up, he's not a liberal either.

Lieberman has become such an outsider in his party. Sad.

As for National Review, I can't speak for them. Kathryn Jean Lopez sounds like a so-con to me, and she's a Mitt fan.

Name at least one person who considers themselves liberal yet remains pro-life. Then consider the fact that an anti-Christian atheist demagogue supports the War in Iraq (Christopher Hitchens). I think liberals are defined more on their social positions than anything else, judging from their orthodoxy on issues like abortion and stem cell research.
___________________________
Faith is the highest passion in a human being. Many in every generation may not come that far, but none comes further.
- Soren Kierkegaard: Fear and Trembling

Many pro-life Republicans like myself find Rudy Giuliani's pro-choice stance annoying, and a reason not to support him for the GOP nomination. However, Rudy redeemed himself with the statement "I will reduce the high costs of adoption".

Many pro-abortion activists bash pro-lifers with examples about pregnant high school girls who would be forced into poverty if abortion was banned, forced to raise the child and unable to work, marry, or attend college.

Adoption is the "win-win" choice, both for the mother and baby, but bureaucratic obstacles to adoption are so enormous and time-consuming that many babies are aborted before adoptive parents can receive approval, although there is no shortage of childless married couples and loving families eager to adopt babies. Due to bureaucratic delays, many adoptive parents pay thousands of dollars to end up with a five-year-old child who has been mistreated in an orphanage since birth.

Rudy deserves credit for mentioning adoption, since many Republican candidates (both past and present) have ignored the issue, essentially abandoning pregnant single women (and their children) to the abortionists. If the goal of pro-lifers is to save babies, streamlining adoption rules and reducing costs gives pregnant single women a positive "choice", giving her baby to loving parents. This is the perfect triangulation of the abortion issue--offering "choice", saving many babies, and possibly winning an election.

If Rudy has some concrete details in his plan to reduce the costs of adoption, I'm all ears!

The bad news: Conservatism is hard to sell. The good news is that it works.

Giuliani's real record has been documented here on RS, as well as other sites. Do some research on your own, as I did. Once you do, you will realize that Giuliani is not a conservative in any manner.

Conservtaives don't support Mario Cuomo over a republican candidate. And the reason ? Giuliani claimed {Pataki's tax cuts were irresponsible. Thats the same liberal rhetoric democrats have been saying about tax cuts for decades.

I'm not an agent, I just write books

I thought he was going to do it tonight. I think it is worthwhile to at least look at them.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

I think Giuliani has a problem squaring his state’s rights view with the Constitution on gun rights. But that’s a far cry from doing away with the 2nd amendment. I don’t think Rudy has any plans for repealing the 2nd. Do you?

The Earp's had to ban guns in Tombstone,To regain control of a lawless town but no one accused Wyatt of being anti-gun or having an anti-gun rights position.

I could be wrong.

Founder and contributor to The Minority Report and Senior writer for The Hinzsight Report

He probably only wants to 'broaden' its interpretation until it is no longer an unconditional guarantee of people's rights.
___________________________
Faith is the highest passion in a human being. Many in every generation may not come that far, but none comes further.
- Soren Kierkegaard: Fear and Trembling

...provide a link or links to articles or interviews showing this position? Maybe an official platform from Rudy???

And not what he did as mayor but as policy going forward into the Republican presidential primary.

Not trying to be a smarta** but throwing around accusations like that going on little more than a "feeling" you might have does little to inform, educate, or move the discussion.

Founder and contributor to The Minority Report and Senior writer for The Hinzsight Report

It's obvious that if he thinks the 2nd Amendment only applies to rural or suburban areas, he probably won't want to appoint strict constructivist judges who think otherwise. This is based on his remark that while he thinks restricting 2nd Amendment rights in big cities is okay, he says that "in another place, more rural, more suburban ... you have a different set of rules."
___________________________
Faith is the highest passion in a human being. Many in every generation may not come that far, but none comes further.
- Soren Kierkegaard: Fear and Trembling

... that you, SoCon, get to pick and choose which statements are true and which are false or which to believe and which not too?

he did say he favors an more federalist or states rights approach to gun control as you mentioned but he also stated "blatantly" that if elected he would appoint strict constructivist judges.

You can pick and choose what to believe for yourself but again implying that this is an agenda issue for Rudy is just plain wrong... unless you want to cough up those links, and if true, I’ll be glad to retract my criticism here.

Founder and contributor to The Minority Report and Senior writer for The Hinzsight Report

Steven, I just did a blog with some of Rudy's positions on gun control. If you can explain these stances, I'd like to hear it. With abortion, choosing originalists might be all a president can do. On RKBA, he can influence, sign, or veto bills that can strongly affect guns.

What I’m saying is I don’t see a platform or agenda item that Rudy has put forth (in his run for the Republican nomination) that says he is coming for our guns.

If you think Rudy doesn’t posses the ability to put his personal views on issues aside and do what’s best for the American people or what’s best for the Republican Party then be honest and say so.

As for judges, history has shown having strict constructionist views does not guarantee that's what you’ll get from an appointment

Founder and contributor to The Minority Report and Senior writer for The Hinzsight Report

He isn't stupid enough to come out and brag about it... Hillary isn't going to come out and campaign on it, either. Kerry made himself out to be a big time hunter in 2004. Do you really think there's a piece of gun control legislation out there that he wouldn't be happy to put his signature on? Now, given Rudy's very anti-gun history, do you think there's a piece of gun control legislation he wouldn't be happy to put his signature on? I don't.

We can't rely on judges to protect our 2nd amendment rights. As far as the judiciary is concerned, 2A does not exist. I don't know of a majority SCOTUS opinion that has ever overturned a gun control law citing the 2A. Do you? Thomas mentions it occasionally, but that's about it. He's the only one that seems to believe 2A means anything.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Everything that I have read or seen from Rudy on gun control could have been said by Democrats. Basically no one right now is going to come out strongly anti-gun, except for a couple far-left moonbats. Kerry gave a little lip service to RKBA, as does Hillary. Vague platitudes about hunting or law enforcement are totally meaningless.

So in the absence of any real public stance as a candidate, what else can you look at besides prior actions? I have to admit that I'm not too sure what you are looking to find.

at the top of a Google search on "Giuliani 'gun rights'"

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/23/us/politics/23rudy.html?ex=1181793600&...

Did you not understand the assignment? Maybe you didn't follow the whole thread? ;0)

I was asking for and official position or agenda item Rudy has proposed in his run for the nomination and specifically asked not to include what he did as mayor.

Your link fails to address my request but does offer this:

But as a presidential candidate, Mr. Giuliani now talks very differently about guns as he tries to allay the concerns of Republican primary voters. He says he supports the right of individuals to bear arms, and that states — and generally not the federal government — should decide whether to put some limits on that right. He also spoke in favor of a federal appeals court ruling this month that struck down a District of Columbia ordinance barring people from keeping handguns in their homes.

Founder and contributor to The Minority Report and Senior writer for The Hinzsight Report

I didn't study the entire thread. My mistake. I'll try again... :-)

Neil had referenced this earlier:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/02/interview_with_rudy_gi...

Circa February, 2007.

These are his views but he has not set forth gun control or a repeal of the 2nd amendment as an agenda item or in his platform.

From your link:

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.

-Snip-

HANNITY: So you would look for a Scalia, a Roberts, an Alito?

GIULIANI: Scalia is another former colleague of mine and somebody I consider to be a really great judge. I mean, that would be -- you're never going to get somebody exactly the same. You're never -- and I don't think you have a litmus test. But I do think you have sort of a general philosophical approach that you want from a justice, and I think a strict constructionist would be probably the way I'd describe it.

Those seem like honest answers to me! I don't agree with them but I don't think Rudy was lying...

My point in this thread is that until or unless Rudy makes this an agenda item it's all just speculation.

It’s like saying since Romney is Mormon that if elected he’ll support the removal of separation in the constitution and would create a national religion. Ridiculous!

Founder and contributor to The Minority Report and Senior writer for The Hinzsight Report

If the standard is that it only matters what a candidate campaigns on and not what he's actually done in the past, almost anybody would be a fine choice. Records matter. Rudy's records on guns is abysmal. Unlike other rights enumerated within the Bill of Rights, we can't depend on the judiciary to even acknowledge our 2nd amendment rights. That means it is crucial that we elect the right people to the legislature and to the Presidency. Rudy is not the right guy on this issue. There's no way I could support him in the primary on this one issue alone.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

The second amendment does not apply to the states under existing scotus cases.

http://www.myelectionanalysis.com

Most of his policy statements are the same focus group-tested, vague, uncontroversial statements that many candidates use. I don't see what's so amazing about them.

Ooh, he's going to IMPOSE ACCOUNTABILITY ON WASHINGTON! As opposed to all the other candidates who are running on a platform of NOT imposing accountability on Washington?
___________________________
Faith is the highest passion in a human being. Many in every generation may not come that far, but none comes further.
- Soren Kierkegaard: Fear and Trembling

Technically I think what you say here aids his cause, since the Second Amendment should only apply at the federal level, and not against the states.

Even the activsts of the 20th Century haven't seen fit to ramrod the 2nd through the 14th amendment into the laps of the states (Gee, I wonder why though?).

I think what's more troubling is that he claims gun control (or "regulation") is compatible with the 2nd, as he said on Hannity and Colmes on 2/6/2007:

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.

With that attitude, there's nothing to stop him from federal regulations if he claims them to be "reasonable and sensible." Where such a supposed strict constructionist came up with that interpretation of the Second Amendment,t hough, I have no idea.

Run like Reagan!

What makes the 1st Amendment applicable at both the federal and state level but not the 2nd Amendment?
___________________________
Faith is the highest passion in a human being. Many in every generation may not come that far, but none comes further.
- Soren Kierkegaard: Fear and Trembling

Activist judges on the Supreme Court have declared that the parts of the Bill of Rights that they like are incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment.

Run like Reagan!

is he believes gun control reduces crime. He has said it many times. This is a serious flaw, close to a deal breaker. And I am defending him lol. He better get some education on the subject.

Molon Labe!

Even the activsts of the 20th Century haven't seen fit to ramrod the 2nd through the 14th amendment into the laps of the states (Gee, I wonder why though?).

Everything in the BoR has been applied to the states... not just the 1st. The 4th, the 5th, the 8th, you name it. The only reason why 2A does not appear to have been applied to the states is because it does not exist, so far as the judiciary is concerned. I don't think there's any restriction, no matter how onerous, that would get thrown out on 2A grounds. They could pass a law banning the manufacture and import of all guns except for air rifles tomorrow and the judiciary wouldn't blink.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Why should an amendment that starts "Congress shall..." apply to the states?

Run like Reagan!

Very true, but the Second says no such thing.

Run like Reagan!

NT

for you, compared to the issues that "really matter". Seeing no difference between Hillary Clinton and Giuliani only makes sense if when you spoke of "all our principles", our country at war isn't important enough for you to include as one of those prinicples.

Sure, give our soldiers in the middle of a war Hillary as their commander in chief - who cares if her ACLU/UN approved strategy wastes American soldiers' lives, and hands Iraq over to Al Qaeda and/or Ahmadinejad? It's not like anything important, like civil unions for homosexuals, is at stake in the GWOT.

Christopher Hitchens is pro-war. Why not nominate him, if that is the only thing that matters?
___________________________
Faith is the highest passion in a human being. Many in every generation may not come that far, but none comes further.
- Soren Kierkegaard: Fear and Trembling

Where did I supposedly said being pro-war is the only thing that matters? (Hint: nowwhere)

The point I criticized was the idea the assertion that there was no important differnc between electing Giuliani or Hillary Clinton as Commander in Chief.

How about you SoCon, is America winning or losing the war worth your vote if the Republicans nominate someone not "SoCon" enough for your preferences?

His supporters frequently mention his foreign policy stance without mentioning his stance on social issues, which are, as most people can admit, generally left-leaning. So excuse me for assuming that you are one of those types who think that the only part of a candidate's platform that matters is the one relating to foreign policy.

"How about you SoCon, is America winning or losing the war worth your vote if the Republicans nominate someone not "SoCon" enough for your preferences?"

Are we talking about the War in Iraq or the War on Terror? Because I think we have already won in Iraq, considering the fact that we have accomplished our main objective (putting Saddam out of power).

Anyways, if it came down to Rudy and Hillary, I would cast my vote for someone with solid conservative credentials (i.e. neither) unless you can convince me that electing Rudy will overturn Roe v. Wade (which I doubt).
___________________________
Faith is the highest passion in a human being. Many in every generation may not come that far, but none comes further.
- Soren Kierkegaard: Fear and Trembling

There are a lot of social conservatives who because of social issues favor one of Giuliani's opponents, like Thompson or Romney. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me, democracy at work.

Then there are a few social conservatives (or at least claim to be), who are so agitated by Giuliani, that just about any blog I look at where Giuliani is discussed is flooded with denunciations from the same guy. In some cases they give themselves away as Democratic mobies, trying to head off a Giuliani nomination because he's the Republican they fear the most. In other cases I'm inclined to believe they are genuine social conservatives, though in a fringe subset too trivial to matter.

I see some recurring patterns among these agitated types, both mobies and the irrelevant fringe subset of social conservatives. One is that they are extremely reluctant to acknowledge that the global war on terror is much more serious than say a bumper sticker.

Are we talking about the War in Iraq or the War on Terror? Because I think we have already won in Iraq, considering the fact that we have accomplished our main objective (putting Saddam out of power).

And if a few of those pesky Al Qaeda types are still running around in Iraq, beheading and torturing, that's no big deal. They won't bother us if we just get out of their way, right?

Anyways, if it came down to Rudy and Hillary, I would cast my vote for someone with solid conservative credentials (i.e. neither) unless you can convince me that electing Rudy will overturn Roe v. Wade (which I doubt).

So if you're not sufficiently assured on Roe v. Wade, you don't mind shafting American soldiers with Clinton as their Commander in Chief in the middle of a war. Even if you think it's safe to retreat from Iraq, there's still a global war going on, including Afghanistan.

So is "SoCon" really a moby? I can't be sure, but there sure are some the symptoms. Somebody signs up for a new account dedicated largely to anti-Giuliani posts. They try to talk like conservatives to the extent they can overcome their "Conservatives in the Mist" caricature, but slip into Democratic talking points when they discuss the war (Iraq in particular, or Islamic terrorism in general).

In the end it really doesn't matter. Even if he's not a moby, Republicans who don't care what happens in the war or to our soldiers, are too few to elect a dog catcher. Serious Republicans including most social conservatives will sort the competing candidates. Meanwhile the Giuliani Derangement Syndromers will remain for us to taunt or ignore depending on what amuses us at the moment.

- they have a candidate they LIKE, like FT or Mitt. SoCon doesn't. He does imply, kind of like holding his nose, that Brownback isn't as bad as the rest. But then he ignores Brownback's immigration vulnerability, while obsessing over Rudy's. Hmmm...

- they have been making their case for many months; SoCon has been here 6 days.

- they accept the primacy of the effort in Iraq and the GWOT and think their guy can do the job as well or better than Giuliani; SoCon thinks Iraq is won and would tolerate (by not voting) Hillary as CIC in the GWOT.

- they plug their guys; they are not obsessed with Giuliani. SoCon does seem obsessed to date.

I'll give SoCon this: in terms of sheer energy, he reminds me of our legendary Demophilus. Or he may just be a very doctrinaire social conservative. Time will tell.

But see, the reason why I haven't constantly stumped for a candidate is because I don't really have a candidate that completely suits me. I can say that out of all the candidates, most of the second tier candidates appeal to me (especially Tancredo, Paul, and Huckabee) and out of the frontrunners, Romney or Thompson would be acceptable.

Also wanted to correct you in that it was not Brownback but Huckabee who I think would be a good candidate. I thought he did very well in the debates.

___________________________
Faith is the highest passion in a human being. Many in every generation may not come that far, but none comes further.
- Soren Kierkegaard: Fear and Trembling

No one is going to get a perfect candidate.

You have confirmed a preference, so that's encouraging.

Your liking for Paul surprises me.

Can we stop this "moby" business?
___________________________
Faith is the highest passion in a human being. Many in every generation may not come that far, but none comes further.
- Soren Kierkegaard: Fear and Trembling

is leading me to conclude that you are not a moby but a very determined social conservative, willing to risk political suicide.

Well, that is your right.

I don't know how long you have read RS before opening your account, but if it was for any length of time, you would be more understanding of the sensitivity to mobies and "the pattern".

I'm more of a Churchillian conservative. He said that if Hitler invaded hell, he would try and find something nice to say about the devil.

Now maybe I would not go THAT far. But if Rudy (or McCain or Fred or Mitt) can lead us effectively in the GWOT and Iraq, that makes up for a multitude of other failings in my view.

I find it insulting that you resort to assassinating my character instead of actually debating me. I also find it insulting that you think I don't care about the troops, based on...what, exactly? Help me out here.

"There are a lot of social conservatives who because of social issues favor one of Giuliani's opponents, like Thompson or Romney. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me, democracy at work."

If Fred or Romney got the nomination, then I would gladly support them against the Dems. I am referring to a situation in which it came down to Hillary vs. Giuliani.

"Then there are a few social conservatives (or at least claim to be), who are so agitated by Giuliani, that just about any blog I look at where Giuliani is discussed is flooded with denunciations from the same guy. In some cases they give themselves away as Democratic mobies, trying to head off a Giuliani nomination because he's the Republican they fear the most. In other cases I'm inclined to believe they are genuine social conservatives, though in a fringe subset too trivial to matter."

If I were a Democrat, I certainly wouldn't fear Rudy. I would be happy if he won the nomination since it would mean that regardless of who wins, a pro-choice, pro-illegal immigration candidate will be in the White House. I would be afraid of a Republican who is principled and will not promise any sort of deals with the Democrats if elected like the recent Amnesty bill.

"I see some recurring patterns among these agitated types, both mobies and the irrelevant fringe subset of social conservatives. One is that they are extremely reluctant to acknowledge that the global war on terror is much more serious than say a bumper sticker."
"Bumper sticker"? Do you really think abortion and illegal immigration are as important as a bumper sticker? Do you really think that I don't have an interest in defeating Al-Qaida? Hint: I do.

"And if a few of those pesky Al Qaeda types are still running around in Iraq, beheading and torturing, that's no big deal. They won't bother us if we just get out of their way, right?"
A typical strawman argument. I never said anything about Iraq other than that I feel we have definitively acheived our main objective there.

"So if you're not sufficiently assured on Roe v. Wade, you don't mind shafting American soldiers with Clinton as their Commander in Chief in the middle of a war. Even if you think it's safe to retreat from Iraq, there's still a global war going on, including Afghanistan."

If I supported Hillary, I would have stated that I would vote for her. I stated that I would vote for a candidate that is acceptable to me, one with (as I mentioned) solid conservative credentials. Does this mean Hillary might end up getting elected? Maybe. But it seems there are enough Rudy supporters to give her a run for her money. And see how I said "unless you can convince me"? That was a hint that I'm open to possibly voting for Rudy, given evidence that his election would help prevent the deaths of unborn children.

"So is "SoCon" really a moby? I can't be sure, but there sure are some the symptoms. Somebody signs up for a new account dedicated largely to anti-Giuliani posts. They try to talk like conservatives to the extent they can overcome their "Conservatives in the Mist" caricature, but slip into Democratic talking points when they discuss the war (Iraq in particular, or Islamic terrorism in general)."

Here you go from responding to me directly to insinuating that I am not actually a conservative, that I am some sort of...what? Liberal troll? I don't get it. I haven't accused you of not supporting the positions you have stated to have. I would appreciate it if you would do the same.

"In the end it really doesn't matter. Even if he's not a moby, Republicans who don't care what happens in the war or to our soldiers, are too few to elect a dog catcher. Serious Republicans including most social conservatives will sort the competing candidates. Meanwhile the Giuliani Derangement Syndromers will remain for us to taunt or ignore depending on what amuses us at the moment."

Now I'm being accused of not caring what happens in the war or to American soldiers. Again: I never said that, nor have I implied it.

Again, I have sorted the competing candidates, and I have determined that out of the 4 frontrunners, Fred Thompson or Mitt Romney would be my choice. I would prefer Tom Tancredo or Ron Paul, but I can see that they will probably not win the nomination.

I think you owe me an apology.

___________________________
Faith is the highest passion in a human being. Many in every generation may not come that far, but none comes further.
- Soren Kierkegaard: Fear and Trembling

... or no, that would take too long. Just some of your greatest hits should plenty (in context, as anyone can verify by scrolling up).

I find it insulting that you resort to assassinating my character instead of actually debating me. I also find it insulting that you think I don't care about the troops, based on...what, exactly? Help me out here.
...
Do you really think that I don't have an interest in defeating Al-Qaida? Hint: I do.
...
Now I'm being accused of not caring what happens in the war or to American soldiers. Again: I never said that, nor have I implied it.

Well, lets see, when I asked whether you cared enough about winning the war to save our soldiers from having Hillary Clinton as their commander in chief, even if the alternative was a Republican "not 'SoCon' enough for your preferences," you said you wouldn't try to prevent that outcome:

if it came down to Rudy and Hillary, I would cast my vote for someone with solid conservative credentials (i.e. neither) unless you can convince me that electing Rudy will overturn Roe v. Wade (which I doubt).

So, under the condition I asked about, a Republican nominee "not 'SoCon' enough for your preferences," you don't mind if our soldiers get stuck with Clinton as their Commander in Chief.

If I supported Hillary, I would have stated that I would vote for her. I stated that I would vote for a candidate that is acceptable to me, one with (as I mentioned) solid conservative credentials. Does this mean Hillary might end up getting elected? Maybe. But it seems there are enough Rudy supporters to give her a run for her money. And see how I said "unless you can convince me"? That was a hint that I'm open to possibly voting for Rudy, given evidence that his election would help prevent the deaths of unborn children.

The new Commander in Chief in January 2009 will be either the Democratic or Republican nominee. If you care to dispute that please do.

The only vote you can cast that could help save our soldiers from Clinton is a vote for the Republican nominee. You say right here that the war and our soldiers aren't enough reason for you to cast a vote that would help defeat Clinton. If the Republican is the same or not sufficiently better than Clinton on domestic issues, what's right for the war and our soldiers aren't worth casting a vote for.

A typical strawman argument. I never said anything about Iraq other than that I feel we have definitively acheived our main objective there.

You left me to make inferences from the fact that you shrugged off the issue of retreat from Iraq as not worth your vote. If you really believe that Clinton's policy of retreating from Iraq is a good idea and you think she would be a good Commander in Chief for our soldiers, then come out and say it. That's the difference between a moby and an honest liberal (in national security terms) who comes here to debate us.

If on the other hand you believe that Commander in Chief Clinton retreating from Iraq would be bad for our national security, that confirms that you don't think the war and our soldiers matter enough to vote for.

At least on the basis of what you've said so far, I don't know if your a moby, but that interpretation would be the charitable one. Actually having the dismissive attitude you express toward what happens with the war and our soldiers is even more appalling.

"Actually having the dismissive attitude you express toward what happens with the war and our soldiers is even more appalling."

Again: what attitude? I have no idea what you are talking about. Please provide concrete evidence that I, in fact, do hate the American troops and all that they stand for, because I can tell you that I don't.
___________________________
Faith is the highest passion in a human being. Many in every generation may not come that far, but none comes further.
- Soren Kierkegaard: Fear and Trembling

Please provide concrete evidence that I, in fact, do hate the American troops

I never said you hated the troops. I said you don't care enough about our soldiers to cast a vote that would help save them from having Hillary Clinton as their Commander in Chief.

If instead you believe that Hillary would be a good Commander in Chief, then come out and say it. That would be a different story (however delusional).

"If instead you believe that Hillary would be a good Commander in Chief, then come out and say it. That would be a different story (however delusional)."

No, you still don't understand my point. I don't see a meaningful difference between Rudy and Hillary (i.e. I intensely dislike both of them). You may value continuing the Iraq War more than saving the lives of unborn children, but I am not going to accuse you, barring actual proof, of not caring about unborn children. So kindly refrain from character assassinations. And stop saying that I don't care about our soldiers. I work at the VA for crying out loud.
___________________________
Faith is the highest passion in a human being. Many in every generation may not come that far, but none comes further.
- Soren Kierkegaard: Fear and Trembling

is that the choice between a war which has killed several thousand and has an uncertain capability for killing more lives and a war against a practice which consistently kills a million children a year can be a hard choice. The GWOT is an important issue to me, but those who think that it must always trump abortion don't understand that some see a massacare of million people every year. Tell me why you think the GWOT on terror is definetly more important than the death of a million of our children.

The issue is not a pro-victory, pro-choice candidate vs. a pro-withdrawal, pro-life candidate. The hypothetical issue being debated is a pro-victory, pro-choice candidate (Giuliani) vs a pro-withdrawal and even more pro-choice candidate (Clinton).

In that situation, it would be a morally repugnant childish snit for someone who is pro-life and pro-victory to not cast a vote that matters against Clinton.

So if Rudy is anymore than half as pro-choice as Hillary he is the candidate that, pragmatically speaking, will lead to more pro-choice resaults. Let's say Rudy is 10% less pro-choice than Hillary( the only difference I see is the PBA ban, and since you can still get abortions another way I am not sure this counts for much) Then Rudy is, practically speaking, 180% pro-choice compared to Hillary's 100%. Even if you factor in that Hillary doesn't mean a 100% chance that a pro-life person will be elected in four years, I would say we at least have about a 50% chance, in which the above example would have Rudy being the more pro-choice candidate by 35%. Therefore the choice between Rudy and Hillary would be the choice between a pro-victory, pro-choice candidate (Giuliani) vs a pro-withdrawal and condsiderably less pro-choice candidate (Clinton).
I don't know how many more lives would be lost because of the more years of a pro-choice president, and you don't know how many lives would be lost due to Clinton's mismanagement of the GWOT. It is not hard for me to imagine more lives lost due to a pro-choice policy considering we are talking about a million lives a year and a policy which reduced it by 10% would mean 100,000 lives saved, and it is not hard to imagine that 4 extra years of a pro-choice candidate prevent such a thing.

Finally I can tell you that you are not going to convince to many people like me to vote for Rudy by calling us "morally repugnant childish snit(s)" Try to show me why Rudy is more than 10% less pro-life than Hillary or why a pro-withdrawal policy means more deaths than a more pro-choice policy. I am not totally closed to Rudy in the general, but you are goin to have to present more convincing arguements than what you have

... I'll concede it's not logically incoherent, but it's morally bankrupt by my view of what I owe my country. It's based on your hope, that your tactic of electing Hillary Clinton as Commander in Chief, will shaft America and our soldiers badly enough that she won't get reelected.

Sorry, I will never use my vote for the the purpose of screwing my country and our soldiers so badly, that supposedly it will slap some sense into those stupid Americans so four years down the road we might elect somebody better.

whether Hillary majorly screws up or not there seems to be a good chance that the next president will be a one termer, as this happens about half the time in America. If Hillary serves one term we most likely will get a pro-lifer to replace her. However, if Rudy serves one term there will be a pro-choicer to replace him. So my point is not to screw the country by getting Hillary, the point is that Rudy may screw the country more than Hillary. My guess is that you don't consider abortion to be one million murders a year, or you would see the possibility of abortion out-weighing the GWOT a little more clearly. In the mind of someone that sees this, we are given the choice of fighting a massacare within our own country, and Jihad agaisnt us in other countries. This is not an easy choice, which is why a third party starts looking very appealing.

Labelling someone a "moby" is an effective way to marginalize someone's opinion. No matter what, there is no definitive way to prove that my opinions are what I display on this site. I mean, one could point to the fact that I debated "Hopeless" on the topic of abortion (unrelated to Giuliani) or that I have contributed to the discussion on topics other than Giuliani, but you could just claim that I'm a very determined troll. So I don't really know how to convince you. However, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, one should take the stated opinions of people as accurately reflecting their own opinions. You have no such proof. So please, refrain from labelling me a "moby".
___________________________
Faith is the highest passion in a human being. Many in every generation may not come that far, but none comes further.
- Soren Kierkegaard: Fear and Trembling

"Precedent" is not the Constitution, nor is it law. I would oppose any judicial nominee who thought they were the equivalent. The only value of precedent should be to give a judge insight into the part of the Constitution (or the statute) upon which it was originally based. It could indeed provide the key to deciding a case. If not, or if the judge disagrees with it as a valid interpretation of the Constitution or statute, a judge should not be the least bit hesitant to ignore it. Sorry, but I am opposed to much of the legal community on this issue.

That said, if I recall correctly, I think there was something about states in the fourteenth amendment that led to the application of the Bill of Rights to states. I'd need to do a little research.

?

However the issue was not with RG ... it was with Congress who refused to mandate the issue ... as the 9/11 Commission stated

That's a strange theory.
Did Giuliani need congress approval to make interdepartment radios compatible? I highly doubt it.

I'm sure I would think he would make a commitment to those principles too...if I knew little to nothing about his actual policies while Mayor of NYC. Like making it, as others have mentioned before (in this very post), a sanctuary city for illegal immigrants. And the comment about abortion is utter nonsense. Hillary Clinton wants to "reduce the number of abortions", too. Rudy is just trying to throw conservatives a bone by mentioning abortion in his statements. He obviously has no intention of governing as a pro-life president, but he does want to "reduce abortions"...somehow. Without outlawing abortion. Wonder how he's going to do that?
___________________________
Faith is the highest passion in a human being. Many in every generation may not come that far, but none comes further.
- Soren Kierkegaard: Fear and Trembling