As expected, Rudy spent some time on the war on terror, specifically the war in Iraq.  I felt one thing he said was especially powerful.  He was reacting to the surrender funding bill just passed by the House and Senate.

When in any conflict has a country agreed to retreat, set a date for that retreat, printed up a schedule for it, and delivered it to the enemy? (paraphrased)

He buffered that criticism of Congress by confirming that he doesn't question or downplay the patriotism of Democrats.  As he said it, we don't need to argue patriotism - nothing good will come from that argument - and there are good and bad people in both parties.  What he did question was the judgment of the leadership on Capitol Hill.  Retreating by setting a timetable is just very poor judgment.

The next topic was education.  He believes this issue can be a winning issue for Republicans, calling it the civil rights issue of our day.  During his time as mayor of New York City, a private agency offered 2500 scholarships to students to attend an alternative school.  The school board there would not let the applications for this program be displayed in the public schools in the city.  Nevertheless, the parents of 168,000 kids applied for those 2500 scholarships.  The message delivered by the liberal public school board there was clear, he said.  "We know better about your kids and their education than you do."

As we expand alternative forms of education, competition becomes a part of the public education system, and competition will improve existing public schools.  They will be transformed from a job protection institution to one that is about the kids.  Emphatically he declared that Democrats don't care more about poor kids than Republicans do.

Continuing on the economic front, Giuliani discussed health care and underlined a basic difference in the views of fiscal conservatives and fiscal liberals.  He said that difference boils down to the goal of a private economy vs. a collectivist economy.  The Democrats in Congress, he said, are rushing headlong toward socialized medicine.  That's exactly the opposite direction he thinks we should be heading.  Instead, he put forth the notion that consumers, not the government or corporations, should buy their own health insurance, much the way auto insurance is purchased, and the premiums should be paid for with pre-tax dollars.  The choice would then be ours how much coverage, how high a deductible.  For those who cannot afford it, vouchers would be provided to assist them.

By taking the bureaucrat out of the equation, competition would enable health care services to improve while holding down cost increases.  As an example, Giuliani highlighted the transition seen in the plasma TV market.  Over the last decade or so, these TVs have seen a dramatic decrease in price while becoming better and more technologically advanced.  Health care, when freed from the inflation-producing control of government and corporate institutionalism, will experience much the same phenomenon, he said.

Giuliani closed his remarks by returning to the subject of the War on Terror, a war, he said, that is not all about Iraq.  A small but significant portion of Islam, the Islamo-fascists, are a loosely-affiliated, global enemy wanting to come to our soil and kill us.  Therefore, we must remain on offense.  These terrorists, he declared, respect strength and take advantage of weakness, so we must use everything within our power to counter them, including but not limited to aggressive military action in Iraq and electronic surveillance.  He concluded by affirming that we are not responsible for the war now confronting us.  The terrorists are.

After the speech, the Mayor opened up the floor for questions.  One questioner asked him if he thought social conservatives would be able to put aside their dislike of his social positions and vote for him based on the "larger picture" of national security.  I personally have strong misgivings about Giuliani as a presidential candidate due to his pro-choice and pro-civil-unions stances.  One thing I must say I admired about him, though, was his willingness to own up to those positions even to this conservative audience.  Rather than try to put a conservative spin on his social views, he affirmed them.  For that I respect him.  While very short on merit in my book when it comes to social issues, I have to hand it to him for having the courage of his convictions.  I do believe he would bring strong and principled leadership to the White House, but I am still deeply troubled at the prospect of voting for him.

Update:  A couple of readers have emailed to take issue with this week's poll, especially with regard to the characterization of HR 1592.  They say it only addresses harmful or violent actions and does not address speech of any kind other than speech which leads directly to harmful or violent action.  I admit that I have not read the bill, though one reader was kind enough to send the text of it to me.  Until I get a chance to read it, please take the AFA quote above with a grain of salt.  The poll, however, is still a legitimate question.  One whose result I am keenly interested in.

Today

I know for a fact that Election Projection has tolerated opposing views much more than most sites on both sides of the political aisle.  Even when editing comments was required for profanity or personal attacks, I have made it a policy to allow thoughtful and intelligent posts to remain - even when they effectively refute the assertions and arguments I've posted on this blog.  It is a real shame for just a couple individuals to hijack my website and thwart the efforts many others have put into making it better.

In the aftermath of the terrible events in Somalia in the 1990's, Osama bin Laden pegged America as a "paper tiger" unable to stomach the death of our own on the battlefield.  This perception contributed to his boldness in plotting and carrying out the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11.  He did not expect, I believe, the decisiveness, the severity, nor the effectiveness of America's response.  As a result, his organization, Al Qaeda, has been greatly weakened.  It is not, however, no longer dangerous.  We are still fighting against it in Iraq today.  And we must continue that fight without the cloud of a withdrawal date.

Al Qaeda members, along with others insurgents from Iran, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere are making the task of establishing a stable and peaceful government in Iraq extremely difficult.  I believe the coverage of the situation there over the last 4 years by the mainstream media has contributed to that difficulty by encouraging and emboldening the agents striving against peace and good.  Setting a definite date for our exit will greatly exacerbate this effect.

Let me illustrate.  When I went back to college at the age of 30, I still had over 100 credit hours left to complete my degree.  The time period from the day I decided to go back until my planned graduation day was almost exactly 1000 days.  During the next 2 years and 8 months or so, I counted down the days.  Whenever things got tough, I just kept counting down, knowing eventually the end day would come.  Finally it did.  I had a lot of people supporting me and praying for me during the process, but having that end date in my mind was a constant encouragement to keep on going.

If we set a timetable in Iraq, we will be providing the insurgents and terrorists in Iraq with the same kind of aid.  Right now, they have no finish line and can only hope their ability to wage terror will outlast our will to fight it.  A timetable will give them a definite end.  All they would need to do to win would be to hold out until the calendar crosses that finish line.

But the pitfalls of a timetable extend beyond the morale and perseverance of the enemy.  Many of the successes we have seen in our struggle over there have resulted from human intel on the ground.  In many of these cases, Iraqi informants have been willing to risk their lives to provide information that enabled our forces to conduct effective military actions against the terrorists.

If the men and women of Iraq who are inclined to help our troops understand that we will only fighting with them for a set period of time, they will become less and less willing to step forward with vital information, especially as the deadline approaches.  As Iraqi intel and cooperation dry up, so will Iraq's chances at a peaceful and stable society.

The recent rash of bombings in Baghdad serve to reinforce in some Americans the conviction that we must leave Iraq.  To me, they confirm the need for us to continue our presence there, to continue fighting.  Does anyone believe these types of attacks will end or even diminish if we leave?  On the contrary, the civil war the media likes to claim is underway now will explode.  Nothing we have seen in terms of violence to this point will compare to the true civil war that awaits the people of Iraq if we leave too soon - and especially if we set a date for our withdrawal.

I suppose if you are among the "blame America for everything" crowd, you might believe peace in Iraq will begin the day after the last American troop steps on the last transport out of Baghdad, but that's just nonsense.  If we leave prematurely, peace and stability in Iraq will only occur once the proponents of freedom there have been vanquished and those that support and carry out terror have absolute control.

Of course, that's exactly what they are after.  If we succumb to the calls for a timetable, we will pave the way to defeat.  And we will show ourselves to verily be Osama bin Ladin's paper tiger.  Even without a timetable, we and the Iraqi people may not be victorious.  Only God Almighty knows if a society largely void of the constant ravages of terror can be attained in Iraq.  It may take a year; it may take a decade; it may never happen.  Setting a timetable will go a long way in making that third outcome the reality.

It is scary to me that 4 of the 9 justices actually decided such a ban was unconstitutional.  I am thankful to God that George W. Bush was president when the last two Supreme Court justices stepped down.  Otherwise, this ban would have been struck down and the constitutionally non-existent "right to an abortion" would have expanded to just about every conceivable circumstance.

An interesting note about the story linked to here.  Both in the subtitle and in the text of the article, the idea is conveyed that the Supreme Court itself banned the practice.

It was the first time the court banned a specific procedure in a case over how — not whether — to perform an abortion.

Of course, the Court only upheld a ban enacted by Congress.  This is a subtle yet important distinction that reveals a growing misunderstanding, I believe, in Americans' view of the roles of the branches of government.  For some time now, conservatives have been campaigning against justices legislating from the bench.  Roe v. Wade is very much an example of enacting public policy via a Supreme Court decision, rather than through legislation.  I believe the wording in this article shows a mindset in which legislation from the bench is now both accepted and expected by some in our society.

Giuliani is indeed a popular figure among conservatives currently due to his role in the aftermath of 9/11.  I believe that popularity has remained strong into the pre-primary season of 2007 largely due to a dearth of other bona-fide choices.  Once we move into the heart of the primaries, I fully expect someone else to rise to the top of the GOP pile.  The more his GOP opponents are able to expose his true liberalism, the less weight his past service will carry.

At this point, if I had to pick a likely GOP nominee next year, I would have to look beyond the two frontrunners, Giuliani and John McCain.

He said it Himself.  "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life, no one comes to the Father except through me," John 14:6.  Every day I marvel at the miracle of God's amazing grace and love which He demonstrated by sending His Son to pay the price for our sins, yours and mine.  On this Easter Sunday, I hope you too have come to know this wonderful Redeemer in a personal, life-changing way.  For those who don't yet know the Savior, He is calling today; He is waiting to come into your life.

I know this may seem out of place on a political website, but I feel today, Resurrection Sunday, is a most appropriate time to offer you who don't know Christ an invitation.  We'll get back to politics in due time.  For now, though, I invite you to come to Jesus.  If you have questions about how to do that, please send me an email.  I'd love the opportunity to share with you.

In light of the Newsweek poll, I thought I'd find out where this audience stands on the issue of evolution.  What do you believe?  Did God create humans in our current form?  Or did He employ the process of evolution to create us?  Maybe you believe no god played any role at all in our coming into being.  Let me know what you think.  The poll is located in the right sidebar.  Cast your vote and then discuss it here.