Cardinal McCarrick joins religious leaders in urging U.S. to ban torture

Via the Catholic News Agency:

Twenty-seven religious leaders, including Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, have signed a statement urging the United States to abolish torture immediately, reported the Washington Post.

---

The statement says torture "violates the basic dignity of the human person" and contradicts the U.S.’s most-cherished values. "Nothing less is at stake in the torture abuse crisis than the soul of our nation. What does it signify if torture is condemned in word but allowed in deed?" it asks.

The religious leaders are urging Congress and the president to "remove all ambiguities" by prohibiting secret U.S. prisons around the world, ending the rendition of suspects to countries that use torture, granting the Red Cross access to all detainees, and not exempting any arm of the government from human rights standards.

As many of you know, I include torture as a non-negotiable issue for Catholic voters. See how our Catholic members of Congress voted on this issue at the Catholics in Congress report.

Congress Must Push For Global Religious Freedom

From Rep Phil English on The Hill blog:

Now, while we can, Congress must intrusively and decisively take a stand on behalf of Chinese Catholics and all others who wish to worship God in a manner and through a confession of their own choosing. We must insist that all members of the community of nations respect individual religious freedoms as the condition for mutual respect. Any nation that interferes with individual religious freedoms and the freedom of spiritual communities to order their own affairs, to the degree that the Chinese government has intervened in Catholicism, can aspire to no place of leadership in the modern world.

The release and floor statement can be found at our website here.

And there is a video clip of his speech as well.

UPDATE: A CNA article on House passage of these bill is here.

The Non-Appeasing President

That is why I predict that historians will consider George W. Bush one of our great presidents. The last few days have seen the killing of the Al Qaeda leader in Iraq--the most visible and dangerous Al Qaeda leader because the others are in hiding and are not on the frontline. We saw the Iraqi cabinet finally completed as the national unity government, which includes representatives of all the major ethnic groups (including one Christian cabinet member), agreed on ministers for the crucial posts dealing with security. The new Iraqi prime minister appears to be a man of effective, no-nonsense action who is already implementing a plan to secure his capital from uncontrolled violence. It was all capped off yesterday with the President's surprise visit to Baghdad to deliver two messages: the U.S. commitment is solid, but the future is in the hands of the new permanent, democratically elected Iraqi government.

In addition, there was good political news for the President because his chief political advisor, Karl Rove, was cleared by the federal prosecutor investigating the so-called CIA leak case. (Let me be clear: the CIA leak investigation is a joke, it should never have been initiated, and the current charges against the Vice-President's former chief of staff should be dismissed. But at least Rove is finally off the hook. Justice has been served at least in his case.)

Moreover, the foolhardy Democrats are falling all over themselves. They lost their Katrina issue when their favored candidate, Mitch Landrieu, lost his bid to become mayor of New Orleans and manage the reconstruction of the city. The reelected mayor of New Orleans who defeated Landrieu, contrary to virtually all pundit predictions, promptly and profusely thanked President Bush for his efforts to reconstruct New Orleans. The Democrats lost their hyped-up corruption issue with the spectacle of Louisiana Democratic Congressman William Jefferson refusing to resign even though the FBI has solid evidence of bribery allegations, including finding thousands of dollars in his freezer. To boot, Democratic Congressman Patrick Kennedy of Rhode Island pleaded guilty yesterday to driving under the influence of prescription medicine--we will never know whether alcohol was involved because he got favored VIP treatment from the Capitol police who excused him from a field sobriety test. True to the hoary Kennedy tradition, some are above the laws that apply to the rest of us. But the very rich have tended to have that outlook throughout history.

But back to the main issue: character and leadership. And it has to do with Iraq. Bush does not have the appeasement mentality that is so common in our culture. Another word for the appeasement mentality is that gift from the world of psychology: codependency. Appeasement is the older term and has the benefit of reminding us of the debacle of this mode of relating to others in the years preceding World War II. When you deal with the irrational, you can't adopt the tactic of pleasing or coddling. To the irrational or malicious, the attempt to please is a sign of weakness inviting a boot on the neck. We see it in the combined irrational and malicious terrorists we are currently fighting. That is why the only rational response to Zarqawi was his death in the field of battle. Bush understands that and presses forward. In Catholic terms, it's called the right of self-defense.

In contrast, the Democrats are stuck in the year 1970 or 1971. It is utterly amazing to see the spectacle of John Kerry still stuck in those years. He just can't process reality. If anyone thinks that the nation will trust the vacuous Democrats with fighting the war on Islamist terrorism, then he is betting that the nation as a whole has also become irrational. Let's hope not.

Great leaders like Bush do not appease the unappeasable. Appeasement may be fine for pleasing the harmless, old eccentric relative; but it is self-destructive in the face of the irrational and malicious. Appeasement also points to an equally serious problem in the appeaser. The appeaser never learns from experience. The appeaser keeps assuming that the unappeasable side is rational, lucid, and well-intentioned, in spite of clear accumulated evidence of the opposite reality. That attitude is, to me, the definition of cowardice: the inability to face the reality of evil in the world and to act prudently and rationally in response.

The inability to face the reality of evil points to a lack of faith. Faith can handle evil because faith trusts in the God who guarantees the final victory over evil. It seems to me that those most prone to appeasement are those who want to wish away and deny the reality of evil because they fear the victory of evil. That is why, even in daily life, we find individuals who spend years appeasing terrible associates and even family members, to the detriment of all involved. We find women, especially, going from one demeaning, sexually exploitive relation to another because they don't believe there is anything better. Let me be clear again: the Christian is under no obligation to appease anyone. The Christian obligation is to do good. The best favor that a Christian can do to those on the wrong track is to say no and stop them in their tracks. The tragic vein of appeasement runs right through our human experience from great matters of state to the ordinary relationships of daily life. If we really believe that God is good and guarantees the victory of good, then we challenge the irrational and the malicious, whether they come in the form of a foreign terrorist or in the more banal form of the exploitive and irrational individuals we all come across in daily life. Character comes from saying no to the unappeasable. Character comes from trusting that the good God will take care of the outcome. Remember that one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is fortitude. I have never found appeasement on the list.

Democrats looking for “Catholic Outreach” coordinator

Via the NCR:

A Catholic outreach director will be hired by the Democratic National Committee as early as this month, rounding out an inside-the-beltway religious organizing team at the party’s Capitol Hill headquarters that includes staffers devoted to promoting the party’s message to Muslims, African-American churches, mainline Protestants and Jews.

It’s the latest indication, say some observers, that Democrats have learned a key lesson of John Kerry’s failed 2004 presidential campaign. “I’m very encouraged that the Democratic Party seems more open and amendable to being inclusive and welcoming to pro-life Democrats like me,” said Raymond Flynn, former mayor of Boston and Bill Clinton’s ambassador to the Vatican. “They’ve been far more receptive this year than anytime I can recall.”

“The last cycle was a wake-up call,” said Leslie Brown, coordinator of the national committee’s “faith in action” effort. “When you lose [the Catholic vote] with a Catholic candidate then you’ve got to go back” and address the problem, she said.

---

It’s one thing, say Democratic strategists, to reach out to Catholics in the pews, quite another to placate vocal members of the hierarchy and conservative Catholic opinion-shapers who used their pulpits in 2004 to challenge Kerry and other pro-choice Catholic office seekers. Party officials are still spooked by Kerry’s run-ins with high-profile bishops and by attacks from the conservative Catholic League for Civil and Religious Rights against two operatives hired during the campaign.

In early August 2004, the Rev. Brenda Bartella Peterson was forced out of her post as the national committee’s director of religious outreach after the League revealed she had joined 31 other religious leaders in filing a friend of the court brief in support of removing “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance. Previously, the Kerry campaign silenced religious outreach coordinator Mara Vanderslice after the Catholic League issued news releases that labeled her soft on anti-Catholicism because she had engaged in civil disobedience with, among others, the AIDS activist organization, Act-UP.

The tangling continues.

Speaking at the International Congress on Churches in Mexico City in November 2005, San Antonio Archbishop Jose Gomez said, “This debate stopped being an abstraction when in the last presidential election one of the candidates was a Catholic who calls himself devout and who has, however, defended the most radical positions in favor of abortion.” Continued Gomez, “Catholic cannot say that he is Catholic, and at the same time disagree with the doctrine of the church in essential matters. In order to be a Catholic, we need to believe like a Catholic, to act like a Catholic and to speak like a Catholic.”

---

The Democrats’ delicate dance with the hierarchy is evident in the hiring of the national committee’s Catholic outreach coordinator.

“We need someone who will not alienate the institutional church,” said a Democrat familiar with the hiring process. “Someone with credibility who understands how to organize within the church and understands the politics of [the church] and is able to navigate through that while also understanding the complexity of the issues in the Democratic Party.”

Meanwhile, with decidedly Democratic roots but a nonpartisan mission, the newly-formed “Catholic Alliance for the Common Good” hopes to take the message promoted by the American bishops in their 2003 statement on “Faithful Citizenship” to a broader audience. That statement, which reiterated Catholic social justice teaching in light of a range of contemporary issues, was generally welcomed by Democrats. It was, however, supplanted in many dioceses by a pamphlet distributed by the conservative group “Catholic Answers” which emphasized the “nonnegotiable issues,” foremost among them abortion, on which Catholic voters should base their votes.

The Democrats can hire a "Catholic Outreach" coordinator or one for every state for that matter, but until they change their support for abortion on demand and expanded funding for ESCR, start defending traditional marriage, and forcefully oppose human cloning and efforts to expand euthansia it will make little difference.

The Republicans are not perfect. Far from it actually. But for now they are with us on more of these issues than the Democrats. We should try to remember that.

Kennedy to Cardinals: You're All Bigots!

Is this man really Catholic?

Guess Who is Effectively Fighting Homelessness?

It's not John Kerry, Al Gore, or Hillary Clinton and her political spouse. It's the much hated George W. Bush. Don't take my word for it (after all, I am quite suspect: I am a Republican who thinks that George W. Bush will go down in history as a great president). Go to the N.Y. Times and look up this article "New Campaign Shows Progress For Homeless" dated Wednesday, June 7, 2006, at this link. What the article shows is that the Bush administration dared to think outside the box constructed by the "social justice and poverty" professionals in the area of homelessness. That box (or prison of sorts if you happen to be one of the congenitally homeless) consisted of cycling the chronically homeless through all the stops manned and visited by the poverty professionals: shelters, soup kitchens, emergency rooms, detox centers, and jails. The problem was that there was no solution: many remained stubbornly homeless.

And so a little known Bush administration official took a different tack:

Wherever he goes, Mr. [Philip F.] Mangano [who leads the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness] emphasizes that it is cheaper to put the chronically homeless right into apartments, and provide medical and addiction treatments there, than watch them cycle endlessly through shelters, soup kitchens, emergency rooms, detoxification centers, and jails.

N.Y. Times, "New Campaign Shows Progress for Homeless," June 7, 2006, at this link.

It's another disquieting and disorienting experience for the self-anointed peace-and-social-justice-crowd, Catholic and non-Catholic: compassionate, innovative conservatism is better for the poor than the old social welfare models so dear to their hearts. Liberals don't have a monopoly on compassion. In fact, their monopoly in the area of social services has for too long more effectively served the pocketbooks of middle class poverty professionals than the quality of life of the poor themselves.

Washington Post profiles Sen. Sam Brownback

Faith-Based Initiative: Presidential Hopeful Sam Brownback Strives to Be Humble Enough for a Higher Power, by Libby Copeland. Washington Post June 7, 2006.

Via The Anchoress, who blogs her thoughts on a Brownback presidential campaign.

President Bush on the Marriage Amendment

Check out his radio address at Catholics for Bush.

Maryland U.S. Senate Race

I've written before about it: this election year the Republicans are putting forth prominent black candidates in a long-term bid to begin to end Democrat dominance of the black vote. To paraphrase Winston Churchill loosely, this may not be the end of the Democrat lock on the black vote; but it may be the beginning of the end. In both Ohio and Pennsylvania, the Republican candidates for governor are black. This is not tokenism. These are two important and prized electoral states in the national presidential races. Just as in the post of Secretary of State in D.C., which is, of course, held by another African-American, the Republicans are demonstrating that they are serious about serious and important black officeholders.

According to this Robert Novak column at realclearpolitics.com, the race to watch is the Maryland U.S. Senate race in which African-American Lieutenant Governor Steele is the Republican candidate (here is the link). And for Catholics, the good news is that Steele is pro-life. So is Blackwell in Ohio. The history of black party loyalty began with a decades long attachment to the Republican Party of Lincoln in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The Democratic Party of that era was the party of slavery, the Confederacy, and Southern racism. With FDR's New Deal, blacks transferred their political loyalty to the Democratic Party for the first time because of the social programs that meant so much to the poorest of the poor. Today, the Party of Lincoln is making a new bid for black voters to come back home. It's a bid based on supporting school vouchers that will have a revolutionary and favorable impact on black inner city students, on demonstrating the reality of black empowerment and the end of racist attitudes by nominating black candidates to prominent appointed and elected positions, and by appealing to the social conservatism of many religious African-Americans whether on the issue of abortion or "gay marriage." It's a formula that's working because it matches the reality and aspirations of many African-Americans.

In this regard, the reelection of Mayor Ray Nagin in New Orleans has been a tremendous (but little noticed) setback to the political plans of Howard Dean. The plan was to make Katrina the Democrat version of 9/11, even with New Orleans as a potential site for the 2008 Democrat National Convention, just as New York was the site of the 2004 Republican National Convention. But Mayor Nagin, although a Democrat, spoke loud and clear after his reelection by thanking President Bush for keeping his promises to aid the New Orleans recovery. Howard Dean's man will not be the host for any Democrat National Convention in New Orleans. Howard Dean's man (liberal Louisiana Lieutenant Governor Mitch Landrieu) lost the race even with a gigantic fundraising advantage over Nagin and the backing of the liberal Democrat establishment in Louisiana and beyond. The Democrat Katrina card with black voters lost a lot of its power with Nagin back in office emphatically praising Bush's commitment to recovery.

Like Hispanics, African-Americans voters must be in play for both major parties in order to have any real influence in American politics. More Republican black voters will do that. More Republican black voters will also be a major roadblock to the Culture of Death of abortion and to the analogous Death-of-Opportunity Culture found in dead end inner city public school systems which Democrats irrationally seek to preserve by resisting school vouchers.

President Bush at West Point

Here is the text of President Bush's speech on May 27, 2006, at the West Point commencement. I present the text on Memorial Day as another means of presenting the President's views unfiltered by the hostile liberal media. You can also find the text at www.whitehouse.gov. By the way, for those curious, I fully endorse the President's speech. Here it is, with bold highlighting by me:

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you for the warm welcome. General Lennox, Secretary Harvey, members of the United States Congress, Academy staff and faculty, distinguished guests, proud family, and, most importantly, the Class of 2006. (Applause.)

On the way in, General Lennox showed me what you did to his car. (Laughter.) I told him, "That's a fine looking vehicle -- (laughter) -- but you need to stay away from Marine One." (Laughter.)

I see a lot of Gray Hogs out there -- a few Century Men, too. During your four years at this Academy, I'm told there are about 18,000 opportunities to be late for class, drill, march, or inspection -- and many of you availed yourselves of those opportunities. (Laughter.) Others got written up just for having bad haircuts. No matter what reason you got slugged, help is on the way. (Applause.) In keeping with longstanding tradition, I hereby absolve all cadets who are on restriction for minor conduct offenses. I leave it to General Lennox to define exactly what "minor" means. (Laughter.)

It's a privilege to stand before the future leaders of the United States Army. (Applause.) You have worked hard to get to this moment. You survived the hardest Beast on record -- the "best summer of your lives" in Buckistan -- countless hours in the House of Pane. In four years, you've been transformed from "bean-heads" to "yuks," to "cows," and "Firsties." And today you will become proud officers of the greatest Army in the history of the world. (Applause.) Your teachers are proud of you; your parents are proud of you; and so is your Commander-in-Chief. Congratulations on a fantastic achievement. (Applause.)

This Academy has shaped your minds and bodies for the challenges that lie ahead. You worked hard in the classroom and on the playing field to prepare for the rigors of combat. One cadet described the West Point attitude this way: "First I'll beat Navy and Air Force, and then I'll beat the enemies of freedom on the battlefield."

The field of battle is where your degree and commission will take you. This is the first class to arrive at West Point after the attacks of September the 11th, 2001. Each of you came here in a time of war, knowing all the risks and dangers that come with wearing our nation's uniform. And I want to thank you for your patriotism, your devotion to duty, your courageous decision to serve. America is grateful and proud of the men and women of West Point. (Applause.)

The reality of war has surrounded you since your first moments at this Academy. More than 50 of your fellow cadets here at West Point have already seen combat in Afghanistan and Iraq. And 34 times since your class arrived, you have observed a moment of silence in Washington Hall to honor a former cadet fallen in the war on terror. Each loss is heartbreaking -- and each loss has made you even more determined to pick up their mantle, to carry on their fight, and to achieve victory. We will honor the memory of these brave souls. We will finish the task for which they gave their lives. We will complete the mission. (Applause.)

West Point has adapted to prepare you for the war you're about to enter. Since the attacks of September the 11th, 2001, this Academy has established a new Combating Terrorism Center, a new minor in Terrorism Studies, with new courses in counter-insurgency operations, intelligence, and homeland security, and winning the peace. West Point has expanded Arabic language training, has hired new faculty with expertise in Islamic law and culture, brought in members of the 101st and 82nd Airborne to train you and share their experiences on the front lines in Iraq and Afghanistan. And each of you endured grueling Saturday training events where you practiced identifying IEDs, conducting convoy operations and running checkpoints. By changing to meet the new threats, West Point has given you the skills you will need in Afghanistan and Iraq -- and for the long war with Islamic radicalism that will be the focus of much of your military careers.

This Academy went through a similar period of change six decades ago, at the end of World War II. Some of West Point's greatest graduates -- men like Eisenhower and Bradley, Patton and MacArthur -- had just brought our nation victory in Europe and Japan. Yet, almost immediately, a new threat appeared on the horizon -- the threat of Imperial Communism. And West Point, like America, had to prepare for a long struggle with a new adversary, one that would require the determination of generations of Americans.

In the early years of that struggle, freedom's victory was not obvious or assured. In 1947, communist forces were threatening Greece and Turkey, the reconstruction of Germany was faltering, mass starvation was setting in across Europe. In 1948, Czechoslovakia fell to communism; France and Italy appeared to be headed for the same fate, and Berlin was blockaded on the orders of Josef Stalin. In 1949, the Soviet Union exploded a nuclear weapon, giving our new enemy the ability to bring catastrophic destruction to our homeland. And weeks later, communist forces won their revolution in China, and claimed the world's most populous nation for communism. And in the summer of 1950, seven North Korean divisions poured across the border into South Korea, marking the start of the first direct military clash of the Cold War. All of this took place in just the first five years following World War II.

Fortunately, we had a President named Harry Truman, who recognized the threat, took bold action to confront it, and laid the foundation for freedom's victory in the Cold War.

President Truman set a clear doctrine. In a speech to Congress, he called for military and economic aid to Greece and Turkey, and announced a new doctrine that would guide American policy throughout the Cold War. He told the Congress: "It must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures." With this new doctrine, and with the aid to back it up, Greece and Turkey were saved from communism, and the Soviet expansion into Southern Europe and the Middle East was stopped.

President Truman acted boldly to confront new adversaries. When Stalin tested America's resolve with a blockade of Berlin, President Truman launched the Berlin Airlift, delivering supplies to the besieged city, forcing the Red Army to back down, and securing the freedom of West Berlin. Later, Truman again responded to communist aggression with resolve, fighting a difficult war in Korea. The Korean War saw many setbacks, and missteps and terrible losses. More than 54,000 Americans gave their lives in Korea. Yet, in the end, communist forces were pushed back to the 38th Parallel -- and the freedom of South Korea was secure.

President Truman acted boldly to help transform old adversaries into democratic allies. In Asia, his administration led the effort to help Japan change from a nation that had launched a surprise attack on America into a thriving democracy and a steadfast ally. In Europe, he launched the Marshall Plan, an unprecedented effort to help Germany and other nations in Europe recover from war and establish strong democracies. The Marshall Plan cost about $100 billion in today's dollars, and it helped to save Western Europe from Soviet tyranny, and led to the emergence of democratic allies that remain indispensable to the cause of peace today.

President Truman transformed our alliances to deal with new dangers. After World War II, he led the effort to form the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the first peacetime alliance in American history. NATO served as a military bulwark against communist aggression, and helped give us a Europe that is now whole, free, and at peace.

President Truman positioned U.S. forces to deal with new threats. Despite enormous pressure to bring our troops home after World War II, he kept American forces in Germany to deter Soviet aggression, and kept U.S. forces in Japan as a counterweight to communist China. Together with the deployment of U.S. forces to Korea, the military footprint Truman established on two continents has remained virtually unchanged to this day, and has served as the foundation for security in Europe and in the Pacific.

President Truman launched a sweeping reorganization of the federal government to prepare it for a new struggle. Working with Congress, he created the Department of Defense, established the Air Force as a separate military service, formed the National Security Council at the White House, and founded the Central Intelligence Agency to ensure America had the best intelligence on Soviet threats.

President Truman made clear that the Cold War was an ideological struggle between tyranny and freedom. At a time when some still wanted to wish away the Soviet threat, he brought Winston Churchill to Missouri, to deliver his famous "Iron Curtain" speech. And he issued a presidential directive called NSC-68, which declared that America faced an enemy "animated by a new fanatic faith" and determined to impose its ideology on the entire world. This directive called on the United States to accept the responsibility of world leadership, and defend the cause of freedom and democracy -- and that's exactly what the United States did.

By the actions he took, the institutions he built, the alliances he forged and the doctrines he set down, President Truman laid the foundations for America's victory in the Cold War. As President Truman put it towards the end of his presidency, "When history says that my term of office saw the beginning of the Cold War, it will also say that in those eight years we set the course that can win it." His leadership paved the way for subsequent Presidents from both political parties -- men like Eisenhower and Kennedy and Reagan -- to confront and eventually defeat the Soviet threat. (Applause.)

Today, at the start of a new century, we are again engaged in a war unlike any our nation has fought before -- and like Americans in Truman's day, we are laying the foundations for victory. (Applause.) The enemies we face today are different in many ways from the enemy we faced in the Cold War. In the Cold War, we deterred Soviet aggression through a policy of mutually assured destruction. Unlike the Soviet Union, the terrorist enemies we face today hide in caves and shadows -- and emerge to attack free nations from within. The terrorists have no borders to protect, or capital to defend. They cannot be deterred -- but they will be defeated. (Applause.) America will fight the terrorists on every battlefront, and we will not rest until this threat to our country has been removed. (Applause.)

While there are real differences between today's war and the Cold War, there are also many important similarities. Like the Cold War, we are fighting the followers of a murderous ideology that despises freedom, crushes all dissent, has territorial ambitions, and pursues totalitarian aims. Like the Cold War, our enemies are dismissive of free peoples, claiming that men and women who live in liberty are weak and lack the resolve to defend our way of life. Like the Cold War, our enemies believe that the innocent can be murdered to serve a political vision. And like the Cold War, they're seeking weapons of mass murder that would allow them to deliver catastrophic destruction to our country. If our enemies succeed in acquiring such weapons, they will not hesitate to use them, which means they would pose a threat to America as great as the Soviet Union.

Against such an enemy, there is only one effective response: We will never back down, we will never give in, and we will never accept anything less than complete victory. (Applause.)

Like previous generations, history has once again called America to great responsibilities, and we're answering history's call with confidence. We're confronting new dangers with new determination, and laying the foundations for victory in the war on terror.

In this new war, we have set a clear doctrine. After the attacks of September the 11th, I told a joint session of Congress: America makes no distinction between the terrorists and the countries that harbor them. If you harbor a terrorist, you are just as guilty as the terrorists and you're an enemy of the United States of America. (Applause.) In the months that followed, I also made clear the principles that will guide us in this new war: America will not wait to be attacked again. We will confront threats before they fully materialize. We will stay on the offense against the terrorists, fighting them abroad so we do not have to face them here at home. (Applause.)

In this new war, we have acted boldly to confront new adversaries. When the Taliban regime in Afghanistan tested America's resolve, refusing our just demands to turn over the terrorists who attacked America, we responded with determination. Coalition forces drove the Taliban from power, liberated Afghanistan, and brought freedom to 25 million people. (Applause.) In Iraq, another tyrant chose to test America's resolve. Saddam Hussein was a dictator who had pursued and used weapons of mass destruction, he sponsored terrorists, invaded his neighbors, abused his people, deceived international inspectors, and refused to comply with more than a dozen United Nations resolutions. (Applause.) When the United Nations Security Council gave him one final chance to disclose and disarm, or face serious consequences, he refused to take that final opportunity. So coalition forces went into Iraq and removed his cruel regime. And today, Iraq's former dictator is on trial for his crimes -- and America and the world are better off because Saddam Hussein is no longer in power. (Applause.)

In this new war, we have helped transform old adversaries into democratic allies. Just as an earlier generation of Americans helped change Germany and Japan from conquered adversaries into democratic allies, today a new generation of Americans is helping Iraq and Afghanistan recover from the ruins of tyranny. In Afghanistan, the terror camps have been shut down, women are working, boys and girls are going to school, and Afghans have chosen a president and a new parliament in free elections. In Iraq, the people defied the terrorists and cast their ballots in three free elections last year. And last week, Iraqis made history when they inaugurated the leaders of a new government of their choosing, under a constitution that they drafted and they approved. When the formation of this unity -- with the formation of this unity government, the world has seen the beginning of something new: a constitutional democracy in the heart of the Middle East. (Applause.) Difficult challenges remain in both Afghanistan and Iraq. But America is safer, and the world is more secure, because these two countries are now democracies -- and they are allies in the cause of freedom and peace. (Applause.)

In this new war, we have forged new alliances, and transformed old ones, for the challenges of a new century. After our nation was attacked, we formed the largest coalition in history to fight the war on terror. More than 90 nations are cooperating in a global campaign to dry up terrorist financing, to hunt down terrorist operatives, and bring terrorist leaders to justice. Nations like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia that once turned a blind eye to terror are now helping lead the fight against it. And since September the 11th, 2001, our coalition has captured or killed al Qaeda managers and operatives in over two dozen countries, and disrupted a number of serious al Qaeda terrorist plots, including plots to attack targets inside the United States. Our nation is more secure because we have rallied the world to confront this threat to civilization. (Applause.)

The greatest threat we face is the danger of terrorists armed with weapons of mass destruction. To confront this danger, we launched the Proliferation Security Initiative, a coalition of more than 70 nations that are working together to stop shipments of weapons of mass destruction on land, at sea, and in the air, and to stop them from falling into terrorist hands. And building on the legacy of Harry Truman, we launched the most dramatic transformation of the NATO Alliance since its founding in 1949. Working with allies, we created a new "NATO Response Force" that will allow NATO to deploy rapid reaction forces on short notice anywhere in the world. And together we transformed NATO from a defensive alliance focused on protecting Europe from Soviet tank invasion into a dynamic alliance that is now operating across the world in the support of democracy and peace.

For five decades, NATO forces never deployed outside of Europe. Today, NATO is leading security operations in Afghanistan, training Iraqi security forces in Baghdad, delivering humanitarian relief to earthquake victims in Pakistan, and training peacekeepers in Sudan. An alliance some said had lost its purpose after the Cold War is now meeting the challenges of the 21st century.

In this new war, we're positioning our forces to meet new threats. For more than half a century, American forces essentially had remained in the same places that President Truman deployed them. So, two years ago, I announced the largest transformation of our global force posture since the start of the Cold War. Over the coming decade, we will move U.S. forces from Cold War garrisons in Europe and Asia, and reposition them so they can surge quickly to trouble spots anywhere. We will deploy advanced military capabilities that will increase U.S. combat power across the world, while bringing home between 60,000 and 70,000 troops now stationed overseas. By taking these steps, we will reduce stress on our military families, raise the pressure on our enemies, and ensure that when you put on the uniform of the United States Army you are ready to meet any threat. (Applause.)

In this new war, we've undertaken the most sweeping reorganization of the federal government since the start of the Cold War. We created a new Department of Homeland Security, merging 22 different government organizations into a single department with a clear mission: to protect America from future attacks. We created the new Director of National Intelligence, which has led a broad restructuring of our nation's intelligence agencies for the threats of the 21st century. We have transformed the FBI into an agency whose primary focus is stopping terrorism, and reorganized the Department of Justice to help us meet this new threat. We passed the Patriot Act, which broke down barriers that prevented law enforcement and intelligence agencies from sharing vital information on terrorist threats.

At the Department of Defense, we created a new Northern Command responsible for homeland defense, a new Strategic Command responsible for defending America against long-range attacks. We transformed the Special Operations Command, more than doubling its budget, adding thousands of new troops, and making it the lead command in the global war on terror. And we're undertaking the largest transformation of the Army in more than a hundred years. Since the turn of the last century, the Army has been organized around the division structure designed by Napoleon. Today, we're replacing that division structure with a 21st century Army built around "modular" brigade combat teams that will be interchangeable and available to work for any division commander. These brigades will make our Army faster and lighter, and more agile and more lethal -- and it will make you more effective in the defense of freedom. (Applause.)

We have made clear that the war on terror is an ideological struggle between tyranny and freedom. When President Truman spoke here for the 150th anniversary of West Point, he told the Class of 1952: "We can't have lasting peace unless we work actively and vigorously to bring about conditions of freedom and justice in the world." That same principle continues to guide us in today's war on terror. Our strategy to protect America is based on a clear premise: The security of our nation depends on the advance of liberty in other nations. On September the 11th, 2001, we saw that problems originating in a failed and oppressive state 7,000 miles away could bring murder and destruction to our country. And we learned an important lesson: Decades of excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe. (Applause.) So long as the Middle East remains a place where freedom does not flourish, it will remain a place where terrorists foment resentment and threaten American security.

So we are pursuing a forward strategy of freedom in the Middle East. I believe the desire for liberty is universal -- and by standing with democratic reformers across a troubled region, we will extend freedom to millions who have not known it -- and lay the foundation of peace for generations to come. (Applause.)

We're still in the early stages of this struggle for freedom and, like those first years of the Cold War, we've seen setbacks, and challenges, and days that have tested America's resolve. Yet we've also seen days of victory and hope. We've seen people in Afghanistan voting for the first democratic parliament in a generation. We have seen jubilant Iraqis dancing in the streets, holding up ink-stained fingers, celebrating their freedom. We've seen people in Lebanon waving cedar flags and securing the liberty and independence of their land. We've seen people in Kyrgyzstan drive a corrupt regime from power and vote for democratic change. In the past four years alone, more than 110 million human beings across the world have joined the ranks of the free -- and this is only the beginning. (Applause.) The message has spread from Damascus to Tehran that the future belongs to freedom -- and we will not rest until the promise of liberty reaches every people and every nation. (Applause.)

Now the Class of 2006 will enter the great struggle -- and the final outcome depends on your leadership. The war began on my watch -- but it's going to end on your watch. (Applause.) Your generation will bring us victory in the war on terror. My call to you is this: Trust in the power of freedom, and be bold in freedom's defense. Show leadership and courage -- and not just on the battlefield. Take risk, try new things, and challenge the established way of doing things. Trust in your convictions, stay true to yourselves -- and one day the world will celebrate your achievements. (Applause.)

I have confidence in the final outcome of this struggle, because I know the character and determination of the men and women gathered before me. We see that character and determination in a cadet named Patrick Dowdell. It was Patrick's dream to attend West Point, and he applied straight out of high school, but did not get in on his first try. After being turned down, he wondered if he was cut out for the Academy. His father, New York Fireman Kevin Dowdell, encouraged Patrick to apply again. Kevin wrote letters to his congressman on behalf of his son. And he spent long hours working with Patrick on his application -- right up to September the 9, 2001. Two days later, Kevin Dowdell raced across the Brooklyn Bridge with his fire rescue unit to the burning World Trade Towers -- and he never returned.

After the attack, Patrick spent months digging at Ground Zero, looking for his dad -- and thinking about the dream that they had shared about his future. He was determined to fulfill that dream. And in the summer of 2002, Patrick arrived here at West Point as a new cadet -- and today he will receive his degree and his commission. (Applause.)

A few weeks ago, Patrick's mom, RoseEllen, attended another graduation ceremony -- at the New York City Fire Academy, where her other son, James, followed his father's footsteps as one of New York's Bravest. And today, RoseEllen -- (applause) -- is with us to see Patrick join the ranks of America's bravest, as an officer in the United States Army. (Applause.)

We live in freedom because young Americans like Patrick, and all the cadets here today, have stepped forward to serve. You have chosen a difficult and dangerous vocation -- and America is grateful for that choice. Today, you will accept a sacred trust: You will lead America's sons and daughters on the battlefield in a time of war. Our nation is counting on you as we count on no other group of young leaders in our country. The last four years have tested you in ways you never imagined -- and you leave here well prepared for the challenges you will face.

There's a saying at West Point that much of the history you teach here was made by the people you taught here. Now the Class of 2006 will leave for the battlefield -- and you will make history. Never falter, never quit. Bring honor to the uniform, and pride to your country. May God bless you, and the Class of 2006. (Applause.)

Michigan's Pro-Abort Granholm in Political Trouble

Here in Michigan we have been beset with a pro-abortion "Catholic" governor, Jennifer Granholm, for the last four years. Not only is she a terrible scandal because of her enthusiastic support of abortion, she is also a just plain bad governor on all other counts. Here is a link from realclearpolitics.com that shows the extent of her current political troubles. Let's be bold enough to pray for her defeat in this year's election. The choice is clear.

Lawmakers Prepare to Override "Catholic" Governor's Veto of Pro-Life Bill

Sebelius’ media spokesperson, Nicole Corcoran, told the Topeka Capital-Journal, “She’s very clear about her personal beliefs as a Catholic and supports a woman’s right to privacy.”

Sebelius stated, “My Catholic faith teaches me that life is sacred. Personally, I believe abortion is wrong.”

"The coming persecution of churches over gay marriage"

Explaining the New Orleans Election

Late Saturday night, I was ahead of virtually all of the media outlets in New Orleans in calling the election for the incumbent Mayor Ray Nagin, the one of post-Katrina and "chocolate city" notoriety. The behavior of the New Orleans media reminded me of how the TV networks had to pull back from announcing the Gore victory they so yearned for in 2000. It reminded me how on the day of the 2004 presidential election the media was all agog over inaccurate exit polls indicating a Kerry victory. I called the election for Nagin and did so quite happily and thankfully. It's worth explaining to non-Louisianians because the Nagin victory will likely be in most national headlines on Monday. The first reaction of many nationally will be that New Orleanians made a mistake by re-electing a mayor given to outrageous comments that embarrass the city. That first but understandable reaction would be wrong. Give me your patience, and let me explain why.

Nagin was first elected mayor four years ago as a pro-business, reform candidate. Although a Democrat in a heavily Democratic city, Nagin was indeed the reform candidate who promised to get rid of the cronyism, patronage, and corruption that was a decades-old tradition and even source of perverse roguish pride in New Orleans city hall. The cronyism was just the way business was done, Louisiana and New Orleans style. Nagin ended that perverse tradition well before Katrina hit. Not a few of the rogues were shown the exit door at New Orleans city hall before Katrina.

Then Katrina hit, and you know the rest. Nagin was and is a political maverick who doesn't follow anyone's or any party's agenda, although he is a nominal Democrat by necessity. In my view, when Katrina hit, the liberal Democrat establishment--consisting locally of inept Governor Kathleen Blanco and the Landrieu family, and nationally of the Democrat National Committee--could see that the dispersal of so many black voters was a direct political threat to the reelection of Democrats statewide, such as Gov. Blanco and U.S. Senator Mary Landrieu. And so, in my opinion, the push was on to take control, in one way or another, of the city and the reconstruction effort from the hands of maverick, loose cannon Nagin and put it in the hands of a reliable establishment party-line Democrat. Nagin had earned the distrust of the Democrats when he had previously endorsed a Republican for governor in a previous election. That's not something a Democratic African-American mayor usually does.

What better choice then than the brother of Democratic U.S. Senator Mary Landrieu herself: Mitch Landrieu. And so the national and state Democrats coalesced around the Senator's brother. By the way, the Landrieu family is referred to by the media as Louisiana's equivalent of the Kennedys. Senator Mary Landrieu sure makes them similar to the Kennedys in a way that I and many of my readers will find highly distasteful: she is a pro-abortion Catholic (Senator Mary Landrieu has a 43% pro-abortion NARAL rating; see link). In fact, not too long ago, the Archbishop of New Orleans made it a point to boycott the granting of an honorary degree to the Landrieu family as a whole by the local, of course liberal, Jesuit university because of this Kennedyesque resemblance on the abortion issue. Similarly, a prior Archbishop of New Orleans had expressed the view that no Catholic should vote for Mary Landrieu when she first ran for the Senate due to her views on abortion.

With millions raised and, according to one local political analyst, with Democrat National Committee advice, Mitch Landrieu ran a textbook professional campaign that culminated with a grand outdoor reception, New Orleans-style, with a brass band to boot, for the political and economic elites of the city the day before the election (see WWL.com radio interview on May 5, 2006, with Shreveport political analyst Elliot Stonecipher on DNC involvement at this audio link: http://wwl.com/goout.asp?u=ftp://news.entercom.com/new%20orleans/tommy-elliot%20stonecipher.mp3). They came, to borrow a phrase from Nagin, to "kiss the ring." The Landrieu political dynasty was set to take over the second most powerful political office (after the governorship) in Louisiana. The brother would watch out for his sister's political fortunes when she ran again for the U.S. Senate in 2008. He would look out for whoever might be the Democratic candidate for governor in the near future, with the real possibility in mind that he himself might be that gubernatorial candidate. All was set. The plan was well-funded, planned, and rolled-out like the D-Day invasion.

But to the shock, awe, and dismay of the political pundits and powers of Louisiana, unlike D-Day, the plan died on the beaches. Mr. Nagin won with very little money. In fact, one national newspaper had earlier referred to the low-key Nagin campaign as "mysterious" in its conventional invisibility. Another source has noted that Nagin was at a six to one disadvantage in fundraising in the runoff. Whatever the exact proportion, it is clear that Landrieu had an immense money advantage over Nagin.

As one prominent local talk radio station began its election night coverage, its two seasoned political analysts predicted an undoubted Landrieu victory before the first votes were even reported. I recall one of the political "experts" saying that he and others would be "stunned" if Nagin won reelection. There are a lot of stunned important people in New Orleans today. By later that evening, at least one of the radio experts was fumbling for a way to climb out of the hole they had dug themselves into because they were so out of touch with the people of New Orleans.

Why did Nagin win? It appears that he got about 80% of the black vote. Liberal Landrieu appears to have even lost some of the black vote he had gained in the earlier primary campaign. (The final election was technically a "run-off" between the two survivors of the primary election, Nagin and Mitch Landrieu.) Black voters felt it was important to keep a cherished symbol of their political empowerment and not trade it in for a white liberal.

But, most crucially in my opinion, was that Nagin's reelection would have been absolutely impossible without the support of many conservative, Republican white voters. In fact, I participated regularly in a web forum during the campaign in which many aspects of the campaign were debated. I made it a point to explain why Nagin should be reelected. On that web forum, I called the election for Nagin after another forum participant (much more astute than the radio experts) posted the results from some white precincts: Nagin was getting 20% or more of the white vote!

In the primary election that preceded the final runoff between Nagin and Mitch Landrieu, Nagin had received only about 6% of the white vote. Conservative, Republican whites swung to Nagin and handed him the election.

Why? A prominent white Republican candidate, Rob Couhig, who had lost in the primary election (and thus did not make the runoff election) showed great courage and daring by crossing the traditional color line and endorsing Nagin on the airwaves. A group of Republican activists, the Greater New Orleans Republicans, also endorsed and campaigned actively for Nagin. Why? Because Nagin was pro-business and stood out in New Orleans political history for his honesty. And, of course, no conservative wanted to see another liberal Landrieu in power. As one black political analyst put it, Nagin won with a "shotgun marriage" coalition of white conservatives and black voters. That's the nightmare of Howard Dean and the Democrat National Committee. I am sure they are also stunned today.

Personally, I could see how the Mitch Landrieu candidacy would further enhance the political fortunes of a very prominent pro-abortion Catholic Senator. So I did whatever I could, including praying, to enhance Nagin's chances in my own very small way. That's why I argued regularly for Nagin in that New Orleans web forum. There was a great political miracle Saturday night in New Orleans. Some of us prayed for it.

In short, the closest thing to the Republican conservative candidate won the mayor's election in New Orleans. The "dynasty" that is the Louisiana equivalent to the Kennedys was defeated. White conservatives crossed the color line: philosophy overcame any lingering racial prejudices. So I was quite happy to see Mayor Nagin go out of his way to thank President Bush for keeping his promises to aid New Orleans. That public and emphatic thanks must have caused heartburn among the D.C. bigshots of the Democrat National Committee who are planning to use Katrina against President Bush in coming elections. President Bush has an ally in Mayor Nagin who will not follow the playbook of Howard Dean. That's a mighty good thing. Now you know the rest of the story that few in the national media will take the time to tell you.

Update: See today's Drudge Report on the involvement of Howard Dean and the Democrat National Committee in the failed effort to topple Nagin. Here is the link. The DNC denies the report. But see the above audio link from WWL radio with Shreveport political analyst Elliot Stonecipher that corroborates the main lines of the Drudge reporting about the DNC. Judge for yourself. Later Update: The Drudge Report is apparently backing away from its claim about the DNC.

A new Catholic in the Public Square

Randall Terry, of Operation Rescue fame, is now Catholic. Welcome home!

When did you first take an interest in the Catholic Church?
It was during my work in Operation Rescue that I first became interested in the Roman Catholic Church. My training and experience were in evangelical Christianity with an evangelical framework theologically, but the Roman Catholic communion had a much better sociology and better stability, coupled with a phenomenal theology of suffering.

I would look at my evangelical friends, who would come and go from the pro-life movement. They would proclaim undying devotion for pro-life activism and then later disappear. Then I would look at my Roman Catholic friends who would never swerve. That had a tremendous magnetism for me.

I also found myself defending Catholics against ignorance and bigotry, and defending evangelicals against ignorance and bigotry.

What took me so long was that I was a cultural Protestant, trained in Protestant theology. I had to look at the parts of my training that were inaccurate or deficient. For the past six years, I have been in the Charismatic Episcopal Church. My conversion began with my friendships with clergy in this Church. They told me that the farther you go in Reformation theology, the more you end up in Catholicism and liturgy.

GOP Puts Up Major Black Candidates

This election year the GOP is putting its money and muscle behind black candidates for important posts (see USA Today story from May 10th, "Black GOP Candidates Could Signal Shift in Allegiance," at this link). In Pennsylvania and Ohio, the Republican candidates for governor are black. In Maryland, the Republican candidate for an open U.S. Senate seat is black. It appears likely that in all of these major elections the opponent of the black Republican candidate will be a white Democrat. So much for the rainbow coalition of the Democratic Party. I guess the rainbow just can't compete with the dictates and ambitions of white Democratic liberal politicians seeking to move up the political ladder.

In a different context, we see the same sort of thing currently in New Orleans where the Democratic National Committee, according to one credible independent political analyst, is going all out to crown liberal white Democrat Mitch Landrieu as the new mayor to replace, of all things, a black Democratic incumbent (the election is on May 20th). Although incumbent black New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin is a Democrat, he is conservative and pro-business compared to liberal Landrieu who is just a cog in the liberal Democratic political machine run by Howard Dean. The national Democrats have targeted Nagin, who is a maverick with conservative leanings--he dared to endorse a few years ago the Republican candidate for governor in Louisiana and has alienated the political cronies of a prior Democratic mayoral administration engulfed in scandal and federal investigations--because they need reliably liberal Landrieu to rebuild the machine's base of docile, poverty-stricken minority voters in New Orleans. That base is crucial to the political future of Landrieu's sister, U.S. Senator Mary Landrieu, whose own liberal credentials are unquestioned and to her brother's own ambitions to become governor. Liberal Democrats can't win statewide in Louisiana without a big turnout of black voters in the terrible, crime-infested neighborhoods of New Orleans.

In fact, in keeping with the theme of Republicans backing black candidates, New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin was recently endorsed by the strongest Republican candidate who did not make the runoff election. So the Republicans have crossed the color line. The Democrats seem to have put the careers of white liberals first. It looks like we are returning to the Party of Lincoln fast, while the Democrats remain stuck in the same old model of liberal manipulation of poor, fearful voters. With the rejuvenated Party of Lincoln, those voters will get an alternative that is long overdue. That is good news for Catholic and other Christian voters who are pro-life and who favor school vouchers, two ideas that will be of immeasurable benefit to African-Americans who are decimated both by abortion and by terrible public school systems. Abortion and the trap of horrible inner city public school systems are two awful realities that have the fingerprints of liberal Democrats all over them.

The Truth About Stem Cells from Catholic Congressman Chris Smith

Via The Hill Congress Blog:

One might think that advances in adult and cord-blood stem cells would silence or at a minimum refocus those who insist that taxpayer dollars be used to subsidize the killing of human embryos. Strangely, the obsession to use federal taxpayer dollars for what could very well be a decades long process (where failure remains a strong possibility) remains.Despite many important advancements in adult and cord-blood stem cell research, media hype continues to focus on embryonic stem cells with little regard given to the fact that nearly 70 human clinical applications using adult stem cells have been published in peer reviewed journals.


In fact, I recently read about new developments in the adult stem cell field. In April, doctors at Wake Forest constructed new bladders for seven patients with bladder disease using the patients’ own stem cells. In March, British doctors reported treating five patients with liver failure with the patients own adult stem cells. Four of the five patients showed improvement and two regained near normal liver function. Late last year, Swedish researchers successfully used adult stem cells to generate functioning human brain cells, a procedure that may lead to treatments for spinal-cord injuries and neurological damage and diseases. International researchers also developed embryonic-like stem cells from umbilical-cord blood, a remarkable development that should end the practice of killing perfectly healthy human embryos to derive stem cells.

The misconception that the United States is falling behind or losing scientists because of the current embryonic stem cell policy is simply unsubstantiated. There is no statistical evidence that scientists are leaving the country due to the current policy.

In comparison to the progress achieved by researchers in adult and cord-blood stem cells, developments in the field of embryonic stem cells are disappointing. Despite years of research in animal embryonic stem cells and nearly eight years in the human-embryonic variety, research in embryonic stem cells have often resulted in failure and has a troubling tendency for these cells to form tumors. As experimental failures mount, predictions of eventual success have quietly changed from years to decades.

These failures of embryonic stem cell research are magnified by the fact that the process itself destroys human lives at their most vulnerable beginning stage. The notion that leftover human embryos, a grossly misleading and dehumanizing term, are just going to be destroyed anyway and poured down the drain is simply mythical in nature.

Last year, President Bush welcomed “snowflake families” to the White House. These families adopted embryos stored in frozen orphanages left from other couples attempts to conceive through in vitro fertilization. They have since seen their adopted embryos grow into happy, healthy children. These children are living examples of why not one taxpayer dollar should be used for the destruction of human embryos. Once the government not only permits but funds the destruction of human life in the name of science, all life is devalued and the culture of death becomes even more pervasive.

Technorati tags: Chris Smith, Congress, Catholic, Stem Cells

Marriage Amendment

Russell Shaw tells us why it is important:

Hardly anybody supposes that the Senate will pass a constitutional amendment barring same-sex marriage when it takes up the question early next month. But the exercise is crucially important just the same, in more ways than one. In particular, a Senate vote on an issue many senators would prefer to avoid — along with House action expected in late July — will tell voters where their elected representatives stand just five months before the November elections.

---

The best guess is that the Protection of Marriage Amendment will pick up four more Senate votes this time than it did in 2004, when 48 senators supported ending a filibuster and 50 voted against. (John Kerry and John Edwards were out campaigning at the time, but they would have backed the filibuster if they had voted.) If the constitutional amendment really does get 52 votes this year, that will allow supporters — who include President Bush, the Catholic bishops, and many religious and pro-family groups — to claim progress.

---

For certain members of the Senate the amendment represents a special test. That group notably includes Sen. John McCain (R-AZ). McCain, eager to position himself for a run at the Republican presidential nomination in 2008, has been mending fences with conservatives of late. But up to now he's opposed the federal marriage amendment while supporting a similar addition to the Arizona constitution.

---

Meanwhile same-sex marriage proponents are pressing cases in at least seven states. One of these — a case in California appears the best bet — could reach the Supreme Court in two years. Opponents of same-sex marriage hope another Bush nominee on the model of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito will have joined the Supreme Court by then.

---

That underscores a further element of political relevance in next month's events — the impact they may have on several contested Senate races, such as the touch-and-go re-election campaign of conservative stalwart Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA).

Tags: Santorum, McCain, Marriage Amendment, Supreme Court, Bishops, Catholic

Catholic Senator Backs Funding for Embryonic Stem Cell Research Alternatives

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- Leading pro-life Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) has signed on to legislation that would provide funding for a process that some hope will lead to obtaining embryonic stem cells for research without the destruction of human life. Santorum, who opposes the unproven research, joined with Sen. Arlen Specter, who supports it, at a news conference to discuss the bill. The measure is meant to be a compromise to a bill that would overturn President Bush's limits on using taxpayer funds for the destructive research. It would require the National Institutes of Health to find and fund new methods for obtaining human embryonic stem cells without destroying human life. Santorum said the new methods would not be "controversial" according to the Philadelphia Inquirer, though pro-life groups are skeptical. "There are some who believe that ... there is controversy around these new entities -- these collections of cells -- as to whether it is an embryo or not," Santorum said during a news conference at the University of Pennsylvania. "I feel comfortable, given all of the conversations I have had with a number of bioethicists, that these are appropriate steps to take."

For more on this news see Catholics for Santorum.

Tags: Santorum, Catholic, Senate, Stem Cells

Immigration Opportunity for Conservatives

Political conservatives have a once-in-a-lifetime chance to capture the Hispanic vote for decades in the future. What is needed is a rational guest worker program combined with tough border enforcement. In this regard, see political analyst Dick Morris' column at this link ("Time for Latino Logrolling," 5/3/06, at thehill.com). Personally, I don't think the wall mentioned by Morris will work--it will merely become a laughingstock in a few years as the wall becomes porous and irrelevant. The best way to regain control of the border is to create a channel for legal and orderly immigration that can meet the unmet economic demand for labor.

Some rightly raise the point that the reason Americans don't want to do the work that Mexicans are more than willing to do is because the pay is not high enough. Although this point seems persuasive on the surface, a recent column by John Tierney in the New York Times makes the case that the point may be overstated and that some estimates show little or no effect on American workers ("Sense and Sandwiches," 5/2/06; unfortunately, limited to subscribers). My own view is that profit-oriented employers just can't pay the higher wages for certain tasks that some American workers demand. As a result, the jobs are never created. Mexicans are willing to work for less--so the jobs are created, not lost. In my opinion, it is not a matter of "losing jobs" to Mexicans; but rather a matter of jobs being created that otherwise would never exist because the wages demanded by Americans are too high for business. Yet, the same wages looked at askance by Americans are viewed as highly attractive to people coming from lands that have no jobs at all.

My bottom-line: political conservatives need to craft a compromise that includes both a guest worker program and tougher enforcement to garner Hispanic votes in the coming decades. Otherwise, we will have a replay of the tragedy of the Democratic lock on the African-American vote that has harmed both African-Americans and the rest of the nation for far too long. In addition, we need more common sense economic analysis that looks at the dynamics of job creation as a win-win game for everyone, instead of as a zero-sum game in which one group loses jobs to another group. A non-existent job can't be lost to anyone. We need a more supply-side perspective: the character of labor supply can actually create labor demand that did not exist beforehand! That is what I suspect the Mexican labor supply is doing.