Thursday, June 29, 2006

House GOP Leaders Plan Upcoming Votes on Human Cloning, Abortion Pain

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- House Republicans have unveiled a new legislative plan to tackle social issues. The "American Values Agenda," a list of ten bills House leaders will seek votes on before the end of this year, includes two pro-life pieces of legislation that could receive votes as early as later this summer. One would ban all forms of human cloning and another would tell women considering an abortion of the pain her baby will feel during the procedure. "We commend the House Republican leadership for planning votes on a bill to ensure that women seeking abortions after the fourth month of pregnancy are informed about the unborn child's capacity to experience great pain, and on a bill to ban all human cloning," National Right to Life legislative director Douglas Johnson told LifeNews.com in a statement. The House previously approved the human cloning ban, which prohibits both reproductive and research-based cloning, in 2001 and 2003. The Senate has never acted on the legislation but may do so this summer when it considers legislation that would overturn President Bush's limits on using taxpayer dollars to pay for embryonic stem cell research. Rep. Chris Smith, [Catholic and] a pro-life New Jersey Republican, is the lead sponsor of the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act (H.R. 356). The bill makes sure abortion practitioners tells women considering an abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy that it will likely cause severe pain for the baby. Neither the House nor the Senate have ever debated or voted on the measure. Read the complete story.


Of note is that Rep. Bart Stupak, another Catholic and Michigan Democrat, is a leading sponsor of the Human Cloning Prohibition Act (H.R. 1357) mentioned in the article. Good to see Catholics from bothe parties leading these efforts.

Wednesday, June 28, 2006

Jeb Bush - America's Next Catholic President?

I admit I am intrigued by the prospect of President Bush's brother, Gov. Jeb Bush, running for office someday. It may be too soon for an extension of "the Bush dynasty," and Jeb himself has firmly ruled out the idea of running in 2008.

At the same time, as the International Herald Tribune notes, "Republican party leaders continue to talk seriously about a continuation of the dynasty, a Bush III administration, with Jeb as a candidate in 2012 or 2016, when the memory of the current president's dismal poll ratings will be less of a factor."

And the notion that we might have another Catholic president -- which is to say, a likely more substantially Catholic President than the "pro-choice" Kerry/Kennedy variety -- is heartening.

Some links on the subject:


LifeSiteNews.com recently compiled an extensive list of Gov. Bush's pro-life / pro-family record:
The Florida Governor has been featured in numerous LifeSiteNews.com stories as a defender of human life and family values. Jeb Bush is also a devout Catholic, and has joined the Catholic fraternal organization the Knights of Columbus which is known for its strong pro-life and pro-family stands.

He was a key reason why Terri Schiavo was able to live as long as she did, before the courts eventually ruled against "Terri's Law" - a law initiated by Gov. Bush to prevent the starvation of Terri Schiavo when her estranged husband attempted the manoeuvre in 2003. (http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2004/may/04050601.html)

In 2004, the Governor attempted to have the unborn child of a severely disabled woman be appointed a court guardian. (http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2004/jan/04011202.html)

The Florida Governor was successful in implementing parental notification laws in the state, after nearly two decades of wrangling between the courts, the legislature, voters and governors. The law, which requires physicians to inform parents before their minor daughter is scheduled for an abortion, was signed into law by Bush last May. (http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/may/05052701.html)

The Governor lamented the loss of life of an unborn child when a 13-year-old in his state was given permission by a judge to have an abortion. (http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/may/05050405.html)

Last year, the younger of the Bush brothers unveiled a counselling plan for women considering abortion to help them consider alternatives such as adoption. (http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/mar/05030202.html)

The Governor has been on the cutting edge of pro-life initiatives. When a pro-life film by a Hollywood filmmaker was yet to be released, a copy had already been requested by Jeb Bush. The film, A Distant Thurnder, is a courtroom thriller which exposes the horror of partial-birth abortion. (http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/oct/05101105.html)

On the pro-family front, Jeb Bush has been no less active. The governor applauded the US Supreme Court last year for rejecting an appeal of the state's ban on adoption by homosexuals. Florida is the only state with a complete ban against same-sex adoption. (http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/jan/05011004.html)

Source: US President Endorses Catholic, Pro-Life Brother Jeb for President, by Terry Vanderheyden and John-Henry Westen. LifeSiteNews May 10, 2006.

The Catholic Court Appeal

Article from Touchstone Magazine on why there are now so many Catholic Justices on the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court has been dominated since the founding of our country by mainline Protestants, but with Samuel Alito joining Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and John Roberts, five of the nine justices are now Catholics. All five have been appointed in the last 20 years. In the previous 200 years, only seven Catholics have served on the Court.

There may be political explanations for the attractiveness of Catholic justices, but I think three Catholic doctrines—natural law, subsidiarity, and religious freedom—help to explain why a majority of the justices are now Catholic. My argument is not that citizens who support, presidents who appoint, and senators who confirm these justices consciously do so because they want Catholic religious beliefs on the Court, but that these doctrines yield habits of thinking that make Catholics attractive candidates to the broad range of the American people.


HT to MOJ blog.

Tuesday, June 27, 2006

Noting Senator Kerry's reception of communion at Archbishop Wuerl's installation, American Papist wonders whether Pro-abortion catholic democrats throwing down the gauntlet already?

Senators Kennedy and Kerry send Archbishop Wuerl a message

From the Washington Times:

Two Catholic politicians fired a shot across the bow June 22 at the installation of Archbishop Donald Wuerl at the Basilica of the Shrine of the Immaculate Conception.

---

But now there’s a new guy in charge. On the very day of Archbishop Wuerl’s installation, two of Massachusetts’ most pro-choice [read pro-abortion] Catholics — Kerry and the state’s senior U.S. senator, Ted Kennedy — showed up and sat in the VIP section. Archbishop Wuerl shook their hands as he moved toward the altar. I didn’t see whether Kennedy took Communion, but I know Kerry did because I talked with him immediately afterward. He was there, he said, as a longtime friend of the archbishop’s.

Isn’t it odd that two of the Senate’s most liberal Catholics made time in their schedules to be at the installation Mass while their conservative Republican colleague from Pennsylvania, Sen. Rick Santorum, did not?

Santorum, I heard, had to stay close to his office for a vote. All the same, here were two Democratic senators giving the new archbishop notice that they intend to ignore any move to disenfranchise them from the Eucharist. No one could miss the message.


UPDATE: AmericanPapist has more.

Monday, June 26, 2006

Bishop Brown's Policy of Sniveling Sychophantism


Via Gerald Augustinus of Closed Cafeteria.

Context:


Of course, we have Cardinal McCarrick to thank:
The nation's Catholic bishops ended a long debate about whether pro-abortion politicians who attend a Catholic church should be allowed to receive communion. Referring back to a policy statement it adopted in 2004, the bishops said local bishops will make the decisions in their own diocese about how to handle each case.

The decision concludes the work of a special task force Washington Cardinal Theodore McCarrick whose panel met with Catholics in both political parties privately last year.


Catholic Bishops End Abortion-Communion Debate Saying Local Leaders Decide, by Steven Ertelt. LifeSiteNews.com June 16, 2006.

For expanded commentary, see: Cardinal McCarrick Accuses his Brother Bishops of "Partisan" Politics, by Hilary White. LifeSiteNews .com June 19, 2006.

Saturday, June 24, 2006

Catholicism 'unacceptable'?

That is what Pat Buchanan is asking. I had heard about this story, but did not know the details or that the fired official is a Roman Catholic.

One of the panelists on "21 This Week" had volunteered that Mary Cheney, the vice president's daughter who has come out of the closet, would not want the federal government interfering in her life. Smith interrupted: "That's fine, that's fine. But that doesn't mean that the government should proffer a special place of entitlement within the laws of the United States for persons of sexual deviancy."

Parsing that statement, what was Smith saying? That the feds should not intrude into private lives, but neither should the feds grant special privileges to homosexuals. Smith was also saying that, in his view, homosexuals are "persons of sexual deviancy." In short, Smith was saying what most Americans have always thought.

But at the next meeting of the Metro board, he was confronted by D.C. member James Graham, a homosexual activist, who demanded that Smith recant and apologize, or be fired by the governor.

Smith held his ground. "Homosexual behavior, in my view, is deviant," Smith said. "I'm a Roman Catholic."

He added, "The comments I make outside of my (Metro board job) I'm entitled to make." Moreover, said Smith, these were personal beliefs that have "nothing to do with running trains and buses, and have not affected my actions or decisions on the board."

Five hours later, Gov. Ehrlich, in a tight re-election race, fired Smith. The episode is instructive for what it says about the correlation of forces in America's religious war.


UPDATE: Fr Rob has a great homily related to this. Check it out here.

Thursday, June 22, 2006

American Catholics and Latin America

From James K. Fitzpatrick:


Is “crunch time” the right term for what I have in mind? I am not sure. Perhaps “moment of truth” fits better. Whichever term you prefer, my point is that Catholics on the Right are going to have to take a position on the rise of Latin American leaders determined to use their national resources in a manner that conflicts with the interests of American-based corporations doing business within their borders.

And we might have to side with Pax Christi and the people who protest outside the School of the Americas this time.

---

Conservative Catholics who supported American policies against Castro, Allende and the Sandinistas made a sound case. They based their arguments on the likelihood that these leaders would provide a base for Soviet expansion in the western hemisphere. But what government hostile to the United States is Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales going to invite to construct military bases on their soil? It is true that the Chinese Communists are building ports and drilling for oil in the Caribbean, but I haven’t heard anyone in our government make the case that these Latin American leaders are offering them sites for their nuclear missiles, not when we are busy trading with the Chinese Communists and offering them contracts to run our ports.

---

But even if you are convinced that Butler’s view of the world would have tied our hands while Fidel Castro and Daniel Ortega opened their countries to the Soviets, that does not mean that Butler-like cynicism is out of place if anyone starts beating the drums to “get tough” with Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales because they are “interfering with the free market.” Doing that may be dumb, but it is no casus belli.

Wednesday, June 14, 2006

Here are some Democrats doing some good

Democrats lead passage of pro-life bill in Louisiana

The effort to prohibit abortion in Louisiana was a Democrat-led effort. Democrats For Life of America commended Senators Broome, Mount, Nevers and other pro-life Democratic senators and representatives who led the effort.

Sixteen Democrat senators were joined by 14 Republicans to pass the bill by a vote of 30-7. The House passed the bill by a vote of 85-17, with a majority of 45 Democrat legislators ensuring its passage.


I would imagine that many of these Dems are Catholic.

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.

Friday, June 09, 2006

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.

Wednesday, June 07, 2006

Tuesday, May 30, 2006

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.

Monday, May 29, 2006

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.)

President George W. Bush delivers the commencement speech Saturday, May 27, 2006, to the 2006 graduating class of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, in West Point, N.Y. "The field of battle is where your degree and commission will take you, " the President told the graduates. "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."  White House photo by Shealah Craighead 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.)

President George W. Bush presents a diploma to class valedictorian Jessamyn Jade Liu during 2006 graduation ceremonies Saturday, May 27, 2006, at the U.S. Military Academy in West Point, N.Y.  White House photo by Shealah Craighead 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.

Graduates of the U.S. Military Academy take part in the traditional hat toss Saturday, May 27, 2006, after commencement ceremonies in West Point, N.Y. President George W. Bush delivered the commencement speech to the 861 Cadets.  White House photo by Shealah Craighead 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.)