The Giuliani Christians

Lightning struck the Republican debate in New Hampshire last night, literally, and it had the pleasant effect of silencing Rudy Giuliani's microphone just as he was trying to explain his position on abortion. Clearly God has a sense of humor. Video

Regulars readers will know that the idea of Giuliani becoming president is anathema to me. Moreover, I'm mystified how otherwise conservative, pro-life, pro-family Christians can support him. Via Carl Olson, I found this enlightening article on the subject.

A number of Giuliani’s fans in the Fourth Estate, such as Cal Thomas, Richard Brookhiser, and the editorial writers for the neoconservative New York Post, have revealed some of the reasons for the Religious Right’s attachment. Religious Protestants have come to view the issues that Giuliani has emphasized, “national security” and “fighting terror,” as more crucial than those family issues they stressed in the past. Thomas, who is himself a professing Christian but with a neoconservative, Zionist twist, stated the opinion on March 13 that such prioritizing indicates a definite “maturing” among his coreligionists. This seems to be the general view of the establishment conservative press in the U.S., which remains agog over Giuliani’s candidacy and his stand on terrorism.

The problem is that nothing in Giuliani’s past, except for rhetorical posturing, would suggest that he is especially equipped to deal with international terrorists. Although violent crime in New York City declined under his administration, the same general trend could be observed in other American cities, and that trend might be related to demographic factors and to the building and use of prisons as much as to Giuliani’s vaunted toughness. And there is not necessarily a connection between getting criminals and derelicts off the streets in the Big Apple and apprehending international terrorists. The two would seem to involve different skills...

Since the younger generation of neoconservatives tends to be either on the Left on social issues or totally indifferent to them, and, like Giuliani, makes no secret of welcoming illegal immigrants into the country, Giuliani’s domestic stands pose no problem for them. The Religious Right is going with the conservative media flow by rallying around Giuliani, playing its long-established role as supplier of Republican foot soldiers and movement-conservative groupies.

But it must be stressed that the issue that has come to trump all other evangelical concerns is fighting the war on terror. Cal Thomas has extolled his fellow evangelicals to recognize the big picture: “Character is seen as less important than who can face the multiple challenges facing the nation”—specifically, the struggle against international terror. From the evangelical perspective, this confrontation with terror is so intertwined with other issues that it serves as a kind of shorthand. Israel, Zionism, and the glorification of American democracy as a world model are all at least implicit in the evangelical conception of the struggle against terror—one that Giuliani is imagined to be able to lead better than any other presidential contender.

I am deeply afraid that the Christians who think Rudy will keep them "safe" will turn out to be sheep led to slaughter. I recommend these people read Psalm 146:3. "Do not trust in princes, in mortal man, in whom there is no salvation." As citizens in a democracy we are obliged vote for whoever we think is best qualified. Yet we must not fool ourselves into thinking that any earthly leader will be our savior.

Let's be blunt: why exactly does our nation deserve to be kept safe? Check out the Abortometer on my sidebar. Currently, almost 5.5 million babies have been killed in the United States since the beginning of the Iraq war. These are real deaths. They aren't hypothetical casualties of a war that may or may not reach our shores again.

If God wants to let Islamic terrorists to blow up a few American cities (which I think is entirely possible), neither Rudy Giuliani nor anyone else will be able to stop it. Conversely, if God chooses to spare us from destruction He can easily use whoever we put in the White House to do it.

This being the case, our goal as Christians should be to demonstrate that we as a nation have repented and should be delivered from the fate we really deserve. Is electing as our leader someone who is, like Rudy, morally confused about abortion, homosexual behavior, marital fidelity, torture, crime, and war, likely to convince the Lord to look with favor upon us? I think not.

What the Giuliani Christians are really saying is they put a bigger value on their own hides than they do the lives of millions of innocents. They are making the same mistake that the children of Israel made several times in the Old Testament. Every time, God found ways to get their attention.

He will do so again. Count on it.

Red Carpet For Terrorists

In the recent case of the man with drug-resistant tuberculosis, most of the news coverage revolved around his extreme narcissism. There is certainly plenty to say on the subject. Yes, both local and federal officials failed to react quickly enough, but in time they let him know he was a threat to other people and needed to be isolated. He still chose to get on an airplane and expose not only hundreds of strangers but his own wife to his potentially fatal condition. "Selfish" is definitely an appropriate description for his behavior. There is another angle to this story, though, and it has to do with border security.

Having flown back from Europe to Montreal rather than straight to the U.S., reportedly because he knew he was on the no-fly list, this gentleman entered the U.S. via rental car at Champlain, New York. By this point the wheels of government had turned enough to flag his passport in the immigration computers.

The screen the agent looked at, when this person attempted to enter the U.S. from Canada, said he had a contagious disease and should be detained and isolated. So what happened? Thinking to himself the man did not look sick, the agent welcomed the TB carrier home and wished him a nice day.

Keep in mind, this person was not trying to hide his identity. He wasn't sneaking across the border in darkness. The staff at the border checkpoint, whose job is to keep dangerous people out of the United States, knew exactly who he was and how they were supposed to react if he appeared. They just didn't do it.

If this is indicative of the motivation and training of the people who guard our borders, it doesn't really matter how much money we spend on fences or how many background checks we run on immigrants. We might as well roll out a red carpet for terrorists - especially terrorists who are carrying deadly viruses.

The U.S. managed to fight and win World War II in less than four years. It's been almost six years since 9/11 made clear that there are people who want to kill mass numbers of Americans. Why are our borders still not secured? If our government can't even stop a lawyer with TB when they know he is coming, it is only a matter of time before terrorists enter the country with a far more deadly disease.

Oh, I remember now. We're fighting them in Iraq so we don't have to fight them here. The Bush Administration is working hard to keep out foreigners who might threaten places like, say, Fort Dix or JFK Airport. Got it. I feel safer already.

UPDATE: Congress mad too.

Random Border Thoughts

I've been thinking a lot about the whole immigration quandary. I think I've come to the conclusion that, for me at least, it's almost completely about national security. If we have no practical control over who crosses our borders - and we even admit as much - then the United States is not a functioning nation.

I don't particularly mind if people from other countries come here to work. If I lived in a Central American slum and watched my family suffer day and night, I would go wherever I could to make enough money to better provide for them. I can't blame anyone for doing whatever they can to build a better life.

The problem is that some percentage of those who enter the U.S. illegally are not coming to seek honest work. Maybe they are criminals. Maybe they are lazy and think they can live better on welfare here than they can by working for pennies an hour at home. Maybe they are terrorists who want to hurt Americans. We need to stop such people from entering our country, while at the same time welcoming those who truly want to be contributing members of our society.

Some argue that immigrants take jobs away from law-abiding Americans. Maybe in a few specific occupations that is true, but in the aggregate our economy is now operating at nearly full employment. Businesses need labor of all kinds. The wages they offer are the magnet that attracts people to cross the border. Are immigrants willing to work for less than Americans? Maybe. What counts is they are willing to work. There's nothing wrong with an employer hiring the least-expensive workers he can find, as long as they aren't be exploited or enslaved.

This brings up the next point. The illegal immigrant population has certain benefits for Americans. Their presence allows us, for example, to have inexpensive lawn care, construction, restaurant service, nanny service, and a variety of other things. We all like having these things. If by some miracle we were able to expel all the illegals, what would happen to our economy? To the extent we need the services they provide, we would all suddenly have to pay a lot more and we would have to reduce our spending elsewhere. The result would be recession.

Suppose, by another miracle, we are able to not only expel all the illegals but also secure the southern border so that no more are able to cross. What would happen on the other side? The U.S. acts as a kind of relief valve for the dysfunctional Mexican economy. The money illegals send back to their families would be sorely missed. There would soon be serious social unrest in Mexico, and violence would probably follow. Having such a burning cauldron right next door would be problematic for the U.S., to say the least.

So what we need is a filter: a wall with doors in it, doors that are closely guarded and through which are allowed only the people we determine are non-threatening. What about those who are already here illegally? They need to go through the same process. Give them a reasonable time to register, check them out thoroughly, and let them stay. After a deadline, anyone who fails to register should go to prison. Call the "amnesty" if you want, but I don't see any practical way around it.

Incidentally, the concern many on the right have about "law-breaking" immigrants would be a lot more convincing if they would stop making excuses for the Bush Administration's own railroading of the Constitution and defiance of laws it doesn't like. A lot of these people are all for enforcing the law on people they don't like, while exempting themselves and their friends.

Now some of you will say that immigrants consume an extraordinary amount of tax money for various government services. This may well be true. Is it relevant? The fact is most of these "services" should not exist in the first place, for anybody - American or otherwise. Get rid of them, use the money on border security and we can kill two birds with one stone.

Another argument is cultural: immigrants don't assimilate and become real Americans. For some this is probably true, but I'm not sure the current wave of Mexicans we are seeing is all that different from past mass migrations of people from other cultures to the U.S. Once in the melting pot they eventually lose their prior identity and become Americans. The problem is that it takes 2-3 generations for this process to work. Children of immigrants want to speak English and become part of the larger culture. This process would be helped along if we would eliminate bilingual education from our public schools, but that's another subject.

So my problem with the current immigration proposal boils down to this: it's not serious. The laughable background checks that would be done before granting Z visas would do nothing to stop undesirables from being here, and may even attract more. I don't trust the Bush Administration to really do anything about border security. I'd like to be proven wrong. If they will actually build the fences and hire the Border Patrol agents that Congress has already authorized, it would be a good start. I'm not holding my breath. If, as the president says, the U.S faces threats to its very existence, there is no excuse for leaving the border virtually open.

Awake After 19 Years

A man in Poland is awake after 19 years in a coma.

Railway worker Jan Grzebski, 65, fell into a coma after he was hit by a train in 1988.

"Now I see people on the streets with mobile phones and there are so many goods in the shops it makes my head spin," he told Polish television.

He credits his survival to his wife, Gertruda, who cared for him.

Doctors gave him only two or three years to live after the accident.

Mr. Grzebski's wife, Gertruda, cared for him all those years, moving him every hour to prevent bed sores. That's devotion. She obviously took her "til death do us part" vow seriously.

Contrast Mrs. Grzebski with Michael Schiavo, who also had an unconscious spouse with (allegedly) no hope of recovery. Within three years he was trying to withhold treatment for a potentially fatal urinary tract infection; clearly he did not wish to be troubled by caring for Terri. Eventually he succeeded in starving her to death. Nonetheless, her fight goes on.

Life can be just as mysterious as death. Why do some people go into these comatose or vegetative states, only to wake up years later, while others linger a painfully long time and then die naturally? We do not know.

Maybe we cannot know, because He who gives life for reasons of his own also takes life for reasons of His own. We aren't capable of understanding it, any more than a mouse can understand trigonometry. It is beyond our comprehension. What we do know is that we are expected to preserve life as much as we can, within our limited abilities. Mrs. Grzebski did so, and now she has her reward.

UPDATE: Here is a more detailed story from AP via AOL.

UPDATE 2: I see here that now there are conflicting stories about whether Mr. Grzebski was actually in a coma for 19 years or not. That is what BBC and AP say, and I can't find any record they have issued corrections. On the other hand, The Guardian apparently says he was injured and in a coma for only four years and has since been conscious. I don't know who is right, but to be fair I'm giving you the other version of the story.

Victory or Death - Lots of It

This story raises an interesting point. If you are against the Iraq war, and especially if you are a member of Congress, what can you do about it? Republicans from the president on down insist they aren't "questioning the patriotism" of war opponents, and they claim to recognize that Congress has at least some role in the decisions. Follow the arguments through, however, and it's clear there is not as much flexibility as they claim.

Last month, for example, the president vetoed a war-funding bill because it contained benchmarks that could have begun the process of withdrawal from Iraq. He later signed another version without the timetables. The White House position seems to be that, having authorized military force, Congress is now obligated to provide unlimited funding for an unlimited length of time until the president concludes that the war is over.

Strategically, of course, it is not a good idea to announce your intention to withdraw from combat on some particular date in the future. On the other hand, sometimes retreat is the best strategy. On such occasions it has to be executed somehow. In the current situation, I'm sure the generals can figure out a way to make it happen with at least as much order and security as are involved in not retreating.

Republican critics taunt the Democrats for being unwilling to use their "power of the purse" to end the war. Does anyone really believe that if the Democrats actually tried to cut off the war funding, the Republicans would just throw up their hands and say "Fair enough, you can do that?" Nonsense.

Consider the last time something similar happened. In the 1980s Reagan wanted to support insurgents in Nicaragua. Congress would not appropriate funds for this purpose. What happened? They found money elsewhere - by selling weapons to Iran and then directing the profits to the Nicaraguan Contras. The resulting "Iran-Contra" scandal made Oliver North famous. Conservative pundits back then were uniformly in favor of this end-run around Congress. Want to bet they won't try it again?

So here is the bottom line of current White House/GOP logic:

• First, the president can invade other countries whenever he wishes. Hopefully Congress will agree, but the president doesn't need their permission.
• Second, Congress is obliged to provide funding for any and all war purposes the president defines. This obligation is unlimited and permanent. If they refuse, they are unpatriotic and don't care about the troops.
• Third, any war we begin must be prosecuted to the bitter end. Nothing less than complete victory is acceptable. This is true even if the majority of the American people want the war to end. We will spend as much money and lose as many lives as it takes to win.

Is this really the kind of power we want presidents to have? Keep in mind that you are giving it not only to Bush but to all future presidents. Hillary Clinton, for example, will get the same privileges if she moves back into the White House. Ditto Barack Obama, John Edwards, and anyone else you are to have nightmares about.

Of course, the fact of the matter is that "victory" is sometimes impossible to achieve. Such is the case in Iraq right now, in my opinion. The U.S. simply does not have the forces necessary to secure a lasting peace in that country. Bush has deluded himself into thinking that we are winning no matter what happens. He's reportedly said he is arranging affairs so his successor will have no choice but to continue the war and achieve "our country's destiny."

At some point, even the most hawkish Republicans will have had enough. We are going to withdraw from Iraq; the only question is when. We can keep on losing young soldiers and Marines by the dozens - or we can make the best of a bad situation and end it now.

A Movement Torn Apart

Peggy Noonan, now a columnist for the Wall Street Journal, was a top speech writer for Ronald Reagan. For the past few years she's been in a kind of slow burn over the way Bush has squandered opportunities and betrayed conservative principles. She has, I think, been trying to nudge him back, gently and eloquently.

With today's column Ms. Noonan appears to have gone over the edge. Her last straw is the attack campaign the administration has unleashed on conservative who oppose the latest immigration reform plan.

For almost three years, arguably longer, conservative Bush supporters have felt like sufferers of battered wife syndrome. You don't like endless gushing spending, the kind that assumes a high and unstoppable affluence will always exist, and the tax receipts will always flow in? Too bad! You don't like expanding governmental authority and power? Too bad. You think the war was wrong or is wrong? Too bad.

But on immigration it has changed from "Too bad" to "You're bad."

The president has taken to suggesting that opponents of his immigration bill are unpatriotic--they "don't want to do what's right for America." His ally Sen. Lindsey Graham has said, "We're gonna tell the bigots to shut up." On Fox last weekend he vowed to "push back." Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff suggested opponents would prefer illegal immigrants be killed; Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez said those who oppose the bill want "mass deportation." Former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson said those who oppose the bill are "anti-immigrant" and suggested they suffer from "rage" and "national chauvinism." MORE

I distinctly remember Ms. Noonan's column reacting to the utopian rhetoric of Bush's second inaugural address in 2005. Read it now and you'll detect the seeds of her current disappointment. At the time I thought she was being too hard on him. Now I see what she meant. Bush has almost single-handedly destroyed the conservative movement that took decades to build.

Peggy Noonan is so respected and so widely read that I have to think her column is sending shock waves through the GOP establishment. It won't matter, of course. As she says, the White House no longer cares what anyone thinks. Bush is playing to the history books now.

If nothing else, Ms. Noonan gave bloggers a lot of material today. As of this evening Newsgator detects 61 links to her column. A quick perusal found one story defending Bush but most are in total agreement with Ms. Noonan. Check out the reaction from Stephen Bainbridge, Rod Dreher, Daniel Larison, Mark Shea, and even Texas Fred.