So, How Comfortable are You with Rudy Giuliani Now?

April 4, 2007

Can we as Catholics vote for this?


Killing Terrorists Won’t Solve the West’s Problem

February 12, 2007

I keep hearing person after person bow down before Rudy Giuliani because he is serious about the war on terror and that even though they are personally pro-life, they are willing to support Giuliani because terrorism is now issue number one. Also, Giuliani promises to appoint good justices so everything is fine (sure it is). Would you like the red pill or the blue pill with that mantra?

The problem is that killing terrorists will not solve the problem of Islam and the West any more than putting America into eternal debt to China will make the Chinese friends with America.

The problem is two-fold:

  1. The Culture of Death which is primarily rooted in contraception and abortion.
  2. The rise of multiculturalism in America and the rest of the West.

The Culture of Death mentality inevitably leads to population collapse and economic disaster. The shrinking population, which has been noted in many places, would not be as big a problem as it is if problem number two didn’t exist. When immigrants came to America in the past, they came to be part of the American dream. They came to be American. Now, whether you listen to the rhetoric of La Raza or various Islamic groups, they have no intention of becoming American, only in using American toleration to suit their needs while they undermine the country. All you need to do is look at some of the movements in Belgium, Canada and Britain where Islamic groups want to run their own legal system outside of the country’s jurisdiction. As long as we are too afraid of offending immigrants to insist that they become a part of the American cultural fabric, we are going to continue to move towards a country full of various ethnic groups that hate each other and only are concerned about the empowerment of their group instead of the good of America. Such problems have occurred in the past with parts of different ethnic groups but the groups became part of the American culture within a couple of generations. The opposite is currently happening.

The biggest problem is one of numbers. Have you ever played Othello? If not, go read the regular rules and then come back and imagine playing with these rules:

  1. Each side starts with the same number of pieces (the population of Europe and the United States is almost the same as the world’s population of Muslims).
  2. One side is designated “The West” and the other “The East”.
  3. Every turn made by either player, “The West” must turn an extra one of its pieces to the color of “The East”. (This signifies the negative population growth in Europe, combined with the positive population growth in Muslim countries).

Who do you think will win most of the time?

As long as the West is mired in a culture of death, it doesn’t matter how many terrorists are killed. We will eventually be replaced by a population that has very different values and will be quite happy to use our electoral process to vote those values into place while we commit societal suicide in front of our TVs.

So what’s the solution? Should we shut down our borders? Should we ban Islam in Western countries? Should we start a global war against Muslim countries? No. No. And no.

The solution is two-fold.

First, the West needs to reassert that it has (or had) a culturally superior offering that is better than what the rest of the world is offering. The West produced the ideas of representative government (imperfect, but better than most alternatives), the rights and equality of the individual, limited government and freedom of religion. The West can’t be embarrassed to defend and promote these values and needs to expect those that live in its boundaries to hold these values as well.

Second, the West needs to reassert the culture of life. Consider that you are a Muslim looking at Western culture and trying to decide if its values are superior to your own culture’s values. Consider what is pumped out through the Western media. Consider that Europe and Russia are dying off. Consider that most of the West is in the process of legalizing most of the things that your religion and culture find evil. What would convince you to become part of Western culture instead of trying to spread your own culture instead?

The upcoming US election isn’t about the “War on Terror” and who will kill more terrorists. It is about numbers and ideas. A country that is below population replacement levels (like all of Europe and Russia) and a country that thinks killing its own is a “right” will eventually collapse regardless of how many terrorists are killed. A civilization that has become afraid to say that its ideals are better than others and is not only unwilling to defend them but in many places is trying to destroy them, will eventually succumb to a civilization that is more resolute in its ideals.

The West has nothing to offer the East in the culture debate because the West has determined that its offering will be suicide, decadence, nanny states and infanticide. It is an offering without hope. It is an offering of deathly pessimism. It is an offering that I wouldn’t take in a million years. If I was a Muslim I would simply sit back and wait for the West to kill itself off and then move in to the ghost towns that it leaves behind. Terrorism is a side show on the stage of the civilization debate. The West WILL lose unless the West regains the will to live.


Rudy Giuliani – All Hype, No Thought

February 7, 2007

Over the last couple of days I have heard talk radio hosts and their listeners discussing an interview by Sean Hannity with Rudy Giuliani and the question about abortion. (transcript) The section of note was the following:

HANNITY: Where does Rudy Giuliani stand on abortion? And do you think Roe v. Wade is a good law, a bad law?

GIULIANI: Where I stand on abortion is, I oppose it. I don’t like it. I hate it. I think abortion is something that, as a personal matter, I would advise somebody against.

However, I believe in a woman’s right to choose. I think you have to ultimately not put a woman in jail for that, and I think ultimately you have to leave that to a disagreement of conscience and you have to respect the choice that somebody makes.

So what I do say to conservatives, because then, you know, you want to look at, well, OK, what can we look to that is similar to the way we think? I think the appointment of judges that I would make would be very similar to, if not exactly the same as, the last two judges that were appointed.

Chief Justice Roberts is somebody I work with, somebody I admire, Justice Alito someone I knew when he was U.S. attorney, also admire. If I had been president over the last four years, I can’t think of any, you know, that I’d do anything different with that.

And I guess the key to it is — and I appointed over 100 judges when I was the mayor — so it’s something I take very, very seriously — I would appoint judges that interpreted the Constitution rather than invented it, understood the difference between being a judge and being a legislator. And having argued a case before the Supreme Court, having argued in many, many courts is something I would take very, very seriously.

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.

HANNITY: Is “Roe” a bad law?

GIULIANI: I think that’s up to the court to decide. I think that it’s been precedent for a very, very long time. There are questions about the way it was decided and some of the bases for it. At this point, it’s precedent. It’s going to be very interesting to see what Chief Justice Roberts and what Justices Scalia and Alito do with it.

I think probably they’re going to limit it rather than overturn it. In other words, they’ll accept some of the limitations that different states have placed on it or the federal government has placed on it.

The big to-do is over his “I’m personally opposed but…” followed by a statement that he would appoint justices like Scalia, Alito and Roberts.

Dennis Prager called his response “masterful” and caller after caller kept saying that they believe Giuliani on this. The problem is that his position, if he really holds it, is logically divergent and sounds simply like an attempt to have both positions. Consider the following:

  1. He says he hates abortion.
  2. He says that abortion is up to the individual’s conscience.
  3. He says that he would appoint justices that are constitutionalists.

Now, if he means constitutionalists like pro-lifers have meant constitutionalists, that means he would appoint judges who would overturn Roe and outlaw abortion. And yet, he also says that he believes that women should have the right to an abortion. You can’t have it both ways. Either you believe abortion is a right or that it should be overturned. When push comes to shove, you can’t trust that someone who can’t be mentally coherent will make the right choice about justices.

Further, when he was asked if Roe was bad law, he said that that is up to the courts to decide and that it has a very long precedent. Now, I don’t know about you but I don’t need a court to tell me when a law such as Roe is bad law. Do you think if he had been asked about the “final solution” that was made law by the Nazis he would have punted it to the courts?

The second argument made in his defense was that the only effect a president can have on abortion is through the appointment of justices, therefore, it doesn’t matter if he eats babies for breakfast as long as he appoints justices who will overturn Roe. If this were actually true I guess it would be a decent argument but it isn’t true. The president is responsible for appointments including the head of Health and Human Services, Secretary of Education, UN representatives and the FDA. These departments decide what drugs (over the counter abortifacients) are going to be approved, what is going to be taught about chastity in schools, what will be fought and proposed at the UN and many other abortion related issues. Do you really think that someone who believes that abortion is a right would appoint people who have opposing views to such positions?

The final argument which was repeatedly made was that Giuliani would appoint justices who would overturn Roe giving the decision on abortion to the states where it belongs. This is the argument that Dennis Prager made on his show yesterday. Okay, let’s assume that Rudy is true to his mental incoherency and appoints justices who will overturn a decision that Rudy believes is a right. Now, abortion goes back to the states for a vote. Is this really what we are fighting for? Do we really just want abortion to be left up to the states or do we want the killing of the innocent completely outlawed?

Let me ask the question another way. If you were living in Germany in the late 1930’s would you have argued that exterminating the Jews should be left up to the individual provinces in Germany and as long as the people voted on it, whatever they decided was okay? Or how about slavery? Are you against the 13th Amendment because it took the decision about the legality of slavery out of the states’ hands? Evil is evil regardless of votes.