Catholics for President George W. Bush

In the Oval Office

2008-04-16T11:12:00.001-07:00

The Pope and the President

2008-04-16T11:07:00.001-07:00

A Catholic President?

2008-04-14T05:40:00.000-07:00

President Bush's remarks at March for Life

2008-01-27T21:14:00.001-08:00

President Bush spoke to several March for Life rally participants today in the East Room of the White House . Here are his eloquent remarks to those in attendance. It could be a long time before we hear another president speak these kinds of words.

I see people with a deep conviction that even the most vulnerable member of the human family is a child of God. You're here because you know that all life deserves to be protected. And as you begin your march, I'm proud to be standing with you.

Thirty-five years ago today the United States Supreme Court declared and decided that under the law an unborn child is not considered a person. But we know many things about the unborn. Biology confirms that from the start each unborn child is a separate individual with his or her own genetic code. Babies can now survive outside the mother's womb at younger and younger ages. And the fingers and toes and beating hearts that we can see on an unborn child's ultrasound come with something that we cannot see: a soul .

Today we're heartened -- we're heartened by the news that the number of abortions is declining. But the most recent data reports that more than one in five pregnancies end in an abortion. America is better than this, so we will continue to work for a culture of life where a woman with an unplanned pregnancy knows there are caring people who will support her ; where a pregnant teen can carry her child and complete her education; where the dignity of both the mother and child is honored and cherished .

We aspire to build a society where each one of us is welcomed in life and protected in law . We haven't arrived, but we are making progress. Here in Washington we passed good laws that promote adoption and extend legal protection to children who are born despite abortion attempts. We came together to ban the cruel practice of partial birth abortion. And in the past year we have prevented that landmark law from being rolled back.

We've seen the dramatic breakthroughs in stem cell research that it is possible to advance medical science while respecting the sanctity of life. Building a culture of life requires more than law; it requires changing hearts. And as we reach out to others and find common ground, we can see the glimmerings of a new America on a far shore. This America is rooted in our belief that in a civilized society, the strong protect the weak. This America is nurtured by people like you, who speak up for the weak and the innocent. This America is the destiny of a people whose founding document speaks of the right to life that is a gift of our Creator, not a grant of the state .

My friends, the time is short and your march is soon. As you give voice to the voiceless I ask you to take comfort from this: The hearts of the American people are good. Their minds are open to persuasion. And our history shows that a cause rooted in human dignity and appealing to the best instincts of the American people cannot fail. So take heart.

Take heart, be strong, and go forth. May God bless you.

President Bush proclaims National Sanctity of Human Life Day

2008-01-20T19:57:00.001-08:00

On National Sanctity of Human Life Day, we recognize that each life has inherent dignity and matchless value, and we reaffirm our steadfast determination to defend the weakest and most vulnerable members of our society.

America was founded on the belief that all men are created equal and have an inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and our country remains committed to upholding that founding principle.

Since taking office, I have signed legislation to help protect life at all stages, and my Administration will continue to encourage adoption, fund abstinence education and crisis pregnancy programs, and support faith-based groups.

Today, as our society searches for new ways to ease human suffering, we must pursue the possibilities of science in a manner that respects the sacred gift of life and upholds our moral values.

Our Nation has made progress in its efforts to protect human life, and we will strive to change hearts and minds with compassion and decency.

On National Sanctity of Human Life Day and throughout the year, we help strengthen the culture of life in America and work for the day when every child is welcomed in life and protected in law.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim Sunday, January 20, 2008, as National Sanctity of Human Life Day.

I call upon all Americans to recognize this day with appropriate ceremonies and to underscore our commitment to respecting and protecting the life and dignity of every human being.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this eighteenth day of January, in the year of our Lord two thousand eight, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-second.

GEORGE W. BUSH

Bush and Benedict meet at the Vatican

2007-06-09T05:45:00.000-07:00

President Bush and Pope Benedict met at the Vatican on June 9, 2007.

Mr Bush and the Pope shook hands and posed for photographs ahead of talks in Pope Benedict's private library.

In brief exchanges, Mr Bush described the just-concluded G8 summit as a "success".

But when asked by the Pope whether the dialogue with Russian President Vladimir Putin "was also good", Mr Bush said he would answer "in a minute" - before the two men went behind closed doors.

"The worrying situation in Iraq and the critical situation of the Christian community there" were among issues discussed along with "the Middle East, the Israeli-Palestinian question and Lebanon," the Vatican said in a statement.

The two men also discussed "ethical and religious issues" including human rights and freedom of religion, "the defence and promotion of life, marriage and the family, the education of new generations and sustainable development," it said.

There was an exchange of gifts and then Mr Bush spent a few minutes with Cardinal Bertone, the Vatican Secretary of State and number two to the Pope at the Vatican, before leaving for a working lunch with Mr Prodi.

The BBC's David Willey, in Rome, says President Bush told the Pope about his plans for increasing American aid to Africa and particularly for increasing help to Aids sufferers.

Technorati tags: Bush, Catholic, Pope

Catholic? Rudy Watch

2006-08-08T08:49:00.000-07:00

Nate Nelson has fired up a new blog called Catholic? Rudy Watch. His mission? Oppose the candidacy of Rudy Giuliani for president. As many know, Rudy "disagrees" with Church teachings in re: to abortion, protecting marriage, and ESCR. Looks like Nate wants Catholics to get to know the real Rudy. Great idea Nate!

Reminds one of Catholic[?] Kerry Watch which Christopher, Jeff, and Oswald contributed to during the 2004 presidential campaign.

1st Veto...Thanks Mr President

2006-07-24T20:12:00.000-07:00

TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:

I am returning herewith without my approval H.R. 810, the "Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005."

Like all Americans, I believe our Nation must vigorously pursue the tremendous possibilities that science offers to cure disease and improve the lives of millions. Yet, as science brings us ever closer to unlocking the secrets of human biology, it also offers temptations to manipulate human life and violate human dignity. Our conscience and history as a Nation demand that we resist this temptation. With the right scientific techniques and the right policies, we can achieve scientific progress while living up to our ethical responsibilities.

In 2001, I set forth a new policy on stem cell research that struck a balance between the needs of science and the demands of conscience. When I took office, there was no Federal funding for human embryonic stem cell research. Under the policy I announced 5 years ago, my Administration became the first to make Federal funds available for this research, but only on embryonic stem cell lines derived from embryos that had already been destroyed. My Administration has made available more than $90 million for research of these lines. This policy has allowed important research to go forward and has allowed America to continue to lead the world in embryonic stem cell research without encouraging the further destruction of living human embryos.

H.R. 810 would overturn my Administration's balanced policy on embryonic stem cell research. If this bill were to become law, American taxpayers for the first time in our history would be compelled to fund the deliberate destruction of human embryos. Crossing this line would be a grave mistake and would needlessly encourage a conflict between science and ethics that can only do damage to both and harm our Nation as a whole.

Advances in research show that stem cell science can progress in an ethical way. Since I announced my policy in 2001, my Administration has expanded funding of research into stem cells that can be drawn from children, adults, and the blood in umbilical cords with no harm to the donor, and these stem cells are currently being used in medical treatments. Science also offers the hope that we may one day enjoy the potential benefits of embryonic stem cells without destroying human life. Researchers are investigating new techniques that might allow doctors and scientists to produce stem cells just as versatile as those derived from human embryos without harming life. We must continue to explore these hopeful alternatives, so we can advance the cause of scientific research while staying true to the ideals of a decent and humane society.

I hold to the principle that we can harness the promise of technology without becoming slaves to technology and ensure that science serves the cause of humanity. If we are to find the right ways to advance ethical medical research, we must also be willing when necessary to reject the wrong ways. For that reason, I must veto this bill.

GEORGE W. BUSH

THE WHITE HOUSE,

July 19, 2006.

More here.

McCain-Bush Ticket Might Become A Reality

2006-07-11T05:19:00.000-07:00

The Bush family's handle on the executive branch might be extended for another four years, but it's not the president's seat you would see Jeb Bush in.

Bush has frequently said he wouldn't run for president in 2008, but he has never ruled out being on the ticket as someone's running mate.

And he didn't today when asked about teaming up with US Senator John McCain of Arizona as Republicans hope to come up with a ticket to keep the White House.

Bush say he likes McCain, that he's a good guy and that there's all sorts of time to worry about the 2008 election.

Any potential GOP nominee would covet the 27 electoral votes in Florida where Bush enjoys a high job-approval rating among voters as he nears the end of his second term.

The governor could also provide some age balance on a McCain-Bush ticket. Bush is 53. McCain turns 70 next month.

When prodded about the likelihood of a McCain-Bush ticket, Bush hedged just slightly.

BUSH'S FIRST VETO WOULD BE STEM-CELL BILL

2006-07-10T17:05:00.000-07:00

Good.

Catholics for Jeb Bush!

2006-07-05T02:54:00.000-07:00

Check out Christopher's excellent round up on Gov Jeb Bush and the possibility of a future White House run for the president's brother, who BTW is a Catholic convert. Click here.

President Bush Speaks to Pro-Life Advocates at National Right to Life Convention

2006-06-25T14:38:00.000-07:00

Nashville, TN (LifeNews.com) -- President Bush spoke to attendees at the 34th annual National Right to Life convention on Friday and urged them to continue fighting to build a culture that respects human life. "You are united in this common belief - that human life is a gift from the Creator and deserves protection in all stages," the president said in his videotaped message. "Thanks to your efforts, our nation is making progress in meeting this noble goal." The president touted the pro-life legislation he's signed during his administration, including bills to protect babies born alive after botched abortions, a ban on partial-birth abortions, and a bill to protect pregnant women and their unborn children from violence. "These are important steps forward but there is still more work to do," she said. Bush also spoke about bioethics issues and told the audience, "I oppose the destruction of human embryos for stem cell research and have refused to spend money on programs that pay for or promote abortions overseas." The president renewed his call on Congress to approve a comprehensive ban on human cloning. "Human life is sacred and should never be used as research material" Bush added. "I believe America must pursue science in a way that fosters a respect for human life. With the right policies and techniques, we can pursue science that saves human lives while building a culture that respects human life." The president also called on Congress to approve a measure the House has approved that would prohibit taking teenagers to other states for secret abortions. He also discussed new three-dimensional ultrasound images and said they are helping to change public opinion. "With these technological advances, the humanity of the unborn child is becoming more evident." Bush concluded, "I stand with you as you continue to fight for the protection of human life. History tells us that such a cause cannot fail."

New Campaign Shows Progress for Homeless

2006-06-11T06:19:00.000-07:00

Via Catholic Analysis comes word of a NYT article detailing the Bush Administration's efforts to curb homelessness. Thought it would be appropriate to point it out here ar CFB.

Arthur Sena spent years living in a hole that he had dug near the railroad tracks. He would probably still be there, defying offers of help from social workers and using cardboard to ward off the chill, if Denver had not adopted a radical strategy of putting homeless people into apartments of their own, no strings attached.

The "housing first" policy that this city adopted last year is part of an accelerating national movement that has reduced the numbers of the chronically homeless ? the single, troubled men and women who spend years in the streets and shelters ? in more than 20 cities.

In this campaign, promoted by a little-known office of the Bush administration, 219 cities, at last count, have started ambitious 10-year plans to end chronic homelessness.

The cities include New York, which is stepping up efforts to house the estimated nearly 4,000 people huddling on sidewalks or sleeping in parks, and Henderson, N.C., population 17,000, which recently counted 91 homeless people, 14 of them chronic cases.

---

Part of the credit, Mr. Hess and others said, goes to Philip F. Mangano, a Bush appointee who has spent five years visiting every mayor and governor he can, brandishing successful examples, cost-benefit studies and his own messianic fervor along with modest amounts of federal money.

"We're conspiring to undo what we'd been told for so many years, that this was an intractable issue," Mr. Mangano told 150 mayors, state and city officials and private leaders here in May. They were gathered for the first "national leadership summit," sponsored by the once-dormant office that Mr. Mangano leads, the United States Interagency Council on Homelessness.

Wherever he goes, Mr. Mangano, 58, who was director of the Massachusetts Housing and Shelter Alliance, emphasizes that it is cheaper to put the chronically homeless right into apartments, and provide medical and addiction treatments there, than to watch them cycle endlessly through shelters, soup kitchens, emergency rooms, detoxification centers and jails.

President Discusses Marriage Protection Amendment

2006-06-05T17:34:00.000-07:00

Presidential Hall
Eisenhower Executive Office Building

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all. Please be seated. Good afternoon, and welcome to the White House. It is a pleasure to be with so many fine community leaders, scholars, family organizations, religious leaders, Republicans, Democrats, independents. Thank you all for coming.

You come from many backgrounds and faith traditions, yet united in this common belief: Marriage is the most fundamental institution of civilization, and it should not be redefined by activist judges. (Applause.) You are here because you strongly support a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as a union of a man and a woman, and I am proud to stand with you. (Applause.)

This week, the Senate begins debate on the Marriage Protection Amendment, and I call on the Congress to pass this amendment, send it to the states for ratification so we can take this issue out of the hands of over-reaching judges and put it back where it belongs -- in the hands of the American people. (Applause.)

The union of a man and woman in marriage is the most enduring and important human institution. For ages, in every culture, human beings have understood that marriage is critical to the well-being of families. And because families pass along values and shape character, marriage is also critical to the health of society. Our policies should aim to strengthen families, not undermine them. And changing the definition of marriage would undermine the family structure.

America is a free society which limits the role of government in the lives of our citizens. In this country, people are free to choose how they live their lives. In our free society, decisions about a fundamental social institution as marriage should be made by the people. (Applause.)

The American people have spoken clearly on this issue through their elected representatives and at the ballot box. In 1996, Congress approved the Defense of Marriage Act by large bipartisan majorities in both the House and the Senate, and President Clinton signed it into law. And since then, 19 states have held referendums to amend their state constitutions to protect the traditional definition of marriage. In every case, the amendments were approved by decisive majorities with an average of 71 percent. (Applause.)

Today, 45 of the 50 states have either a state constitutional amendment or statute defining marriage as a union of a man and a woman. These amendments and laws express a broad consensus in our country for protecting the institution of marriage. The people have spoken. Unfortunately, this consensus is being undermined by activist judges and local officials who have struck down state laws protecting marriage and made an aggressive attempt to redefine marriage.

Since 2004, state courts in Washington and California and Maryland and New York have ruled against marriage laws. Last year, a federal judge in Nebraska overturned a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, an amendment that was approved by 70 percent of the population. And at this moment, nine states face lawsuits challenging the marriage laws they have on the books.

Some argue that defining marriage should be left to the states. The fact is, state legislatures are trying to address this issue. (Applause.) But across the country, they are being thwarted by activist judges who are overturning the expressed will of their people. And these court decisions can have an impact on our whole nation.

The Defense of Marriage Act declares that no state is required to accept another state's definition of marriage. If that act is overturned by the courts, then marriage recognized in one city or state may have to be recognized as marriages everywhere else. That would mean that every state would have to recognize marriage as redefined by judges in, say, Massachusetts or local officials in San Francisco, no matter what their own state laws or their state constitutions say.

This national question requires a national solution. And on an issue of such profound importance, that solution should come not from the courts, but from the people of the United States. (Applause.) An amendment to the Constitution is necessary because activist courts have left our nation with no other choice. When judges insist on imposing their arbitrary will on the people, the only alternative left to the people is an amendment to the Constitution, the only law a court cannot overturn.

The constitutional amendment that the Senate will consider this week would fully protect marriage from being redefined. It will leave state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage. A constitutional amendment is the most democratic process by which our country can resolve this issue. In their wisdom, our founders set a high bar for amending the Constitution. An amendment must be approved by two-thirds of the House and the Senate, and then ratified by three-fourths of the 50 state legislatures. This process guarantees that every state legislature and every community in our nation will have a voice and a say in deciding this issue. (Applause.)

A constitutional amendment would not take this issue away from the states, as some have argued. It would take the issue away from the courts and put it directly before the American people. (Applause.)

As this debate goes forward, every American deserves to be treated with tolerance and respect and dignity. (Applause.) On an issue of this great significance, opinions are strong and emotions run deep. And all of us have a duty to conduct this discussion with civility and decency toward one another. All people deserve to have their voices heard and a constitutional amendment will ensure that they are heard. (Applause.)

I appreciate you taking an interest in this fundamental issue. It's an important issue for our country to debate and to resolve. And the best way to resolve this issue is through a constitutional amendment, which I strongly support. God bless.

President Bush Pushes Marriage Amendment

2006-06-04T20:53:00.000-07:00

From his weekly radio address:

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. Next week, the United States Senate will begin debate on a constitutional amendment that defines marriage in the United States as the union of a man and woman. On Monday, I will meet with a coalition of community leaders, constitutional scholars, family and civic organizations, and religious leaders. They're Republicans, Democrats, and independents who've come together to support this amendment. Today, I want to explain why I support the Marriage Protection Amendment, and why I'm urging Congress to pass it and send it to the states for ratification.

Marriage is the most enduring and important human institution, honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith. Ages of experience have taught us that the commitment of a husband and a wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society. Marriage cannot be cut off from its cultural, religious, and natural roots without weakening this good influence on society. Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all.

In our free society, people have the right to choose how they live their lives. And in a free society, decisions about such a fundamental social institution as marriage should be made by the people -- not by the courts. The American people have spoken clearly on this issue, both through their representatives and at the ballot box. In 1996, Congress approved the Defense of Marriage Act by overwhelming bipartisan majorities in both the House and Senate, and President Clinton signed it into law. And since then, voters in 19 states have approved amendments to their state constitutions that protect the traditional definition of marriage. And today, 45 of the 50 states have either a state constitutional amendment or statute defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. These amendments and laws express a broad consensus in our country for protecting the institution of marriage.

Unfortunately, activist judges and some local officials have made an aggressive attempt to redefine marriage in recent years. Since 2004, state courts in Washington, California, Maryland, and New York have overturned laws protecting marriage in those states. And in Nebraska, a federal judge overturned a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

These court decisions could have an impact on our whole Nation. The Defense of Marriage Act declares that no state is required to accept another state's definition of marriage. If that act is overturned by activist courts, then marriages recognized in one city or state might have to be recognized as marriages everywhere else. That would mean that every state would have to recognize marriages redefined by judges in Massachusetts or local officials in San Francisco, no matter what their own laws or state constitutions say. This national question requires a national solution, and on an issue of such profound importance, that solution should come from the people, not the courts.

An amendment to the Constitution is necessary because activist courts have left our Nation with no other choice. The constitutional amendment that the Senate will consider next week would fully protect marriage from being redefined, while leaving state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage. A constitutional amendment is the most democratic solution to this issue, because it must be approved by two-thirds of the House and Senate and then ratified by three-fourths of the 50 state legislatures.

As this debate goes forward, we must remember that every American deserves to be treated with tolerance, respect, and dignity. All of us have a duty to conduct this discussion with civility and decency toward one another, and all people deserve to have their voices heard. A constitutional amendment will put a decision that is critical to American families and American society in the hands of the American people, which is exactly where it belongs. Democracy, not court orders, should decide the future of marriage in America.

Thank you for listening.

President Attends National Catholic Prayer Breakfast

2006-04-09T12:43:00.000-07:00

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all very much. Gracias Mi Tejano. Thank you, sir, for your kind words. Thanks for inviting a Methodist. (Laughter.)

When I first came out here and saw how comfortable these chairs looked, I was a little worried you thought I might be giving quite a long speech. (Laughter.)

I'm so thrilled to be here with the cardinals of the church. Cardinal McCarrick I know is here, and Cardinal Bevilacqua -- must make you feel good to see there's not a slice of bacon around. (Laughter and applause.) My spirits are always uplifted when I'm in the presence of Their Excellencies, and it's great to see you both.

I've been looking forward to this breakfast, but I've got to tell you, I was slightly concerned when I saw the draft of the program went like this: "We will mark the conclusion of the President's speech with the hymn, 'Now Thank We All Our God.'" (Laughter.)

Laura sends her love and her best. (Applause.) I want to thank the leadership of the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast for having me, and, more importantly, having this chance for all to worship together.

I appreciate so very much the Chief Justice joining us. I'm proud you're here, Chief Justice. (Applause.) I haven't got to the best part of the family yet. (Laughter.) And Jane. (Applause.)

Secretary Nicholson, I appreciate you being here. Jim Nicholson and Suzanne, as you might recall, he was our Ambassador to the Vatican, and he did a fantastic job. (Applause.)

Other members of the administration, thanks for coming. Don't tarry too long. (Laughter.) Get back to work. (Laughter.)

Looking around, I see members of the United States Senate -- Santorum; members of the House of Representatives. Thank you all for coming. Proud you're here. Thanks for taking time out of your day. (Applause.) Smith, Beauprez, Lungren, I can't -- I don't dare name them all.

We needed a hopeful moment for this world of ours. It's a time when more people have a chance to claim freedom that God intended for us all. It's also a time of great challenge. In some of the most advanced parts of our world, some people no longer believe that the desire for liberty is universal. Some people believe you cannot distinguish between right and wrong. The Catholic Church rejects such a pessimistic view of human nature -- (applause) -- and offers a vision of human freedom and dignity rooted in the same self-evident truths of America's founding.

This morning we ask God to guide us as we work together to live up to these timeless truths. When our founders wrote the Declaration of Independence, they called liberty an unalienable right. An unalienable right means that freedom is a right that no government can take away because freedom is not government's to give. (Applause.)

Freedom is a gift from the Almighty because it is -- and because it is universal, our Creator has written it into all nature. To maintain this freedom, societies need high moral standards. And the Catholic Church and its institutions play a vital role in helping our citizens acquire the character we need to live as free people.

In the last part of the 20th century, we saw the appeal of freedom in the hands of a priest from Poland. When Pope John Paul II ascended to the chair of St. Peter, the Berlin Wall was still standing. His native Poland was occupied by a communist power. And the division of Europe looked like a permanent scar across the continent. Yet Pope John Paul told us, "Be not afraid," because he knew that an empire built on lies was ultimately destined to fail. By reminding us that our freedom and dignity rests on truths about man and his nature, Pope John Paul II set off one of the greatest revolutions for freedom the world has ever known.

Pope John Paul has now been succeeded by one of his closest friends and colleagues, Pope Benedict XVI. Pope Benedict, when he was a Cardinal, and recently -- when he was a Cardinal, Laura and I had a chance to meet him, and recently she went back to Rome to see him again. He was such a gracious host, wonderfully kind man.

Like his predecessor, Pope Benedict understands that the measure of a free society is how it treats the weakest and most vulnerable among us. In his Christmas homily, the Pope noted that the Savior came to earth as a "defenseless child," and said that the splendor of that Christmas shines upon every child, born and unborn. (Applause.) Here in the United States, we work to strengthen a culture of life, through many state and federal initiatives that expand the protections of the unborn. These initiatives reflect the consensus of the American people acting through their elected representatives, and we will continue to work for the day when every child is welcome in life and protected in law. (Applause.)

I appreciate the leading role that the Catholic faith-based organizations play in our nation's armies of compassion. (Applause.) And one of the many ways that Catholic faith-based organizations serve their neighbors is by welcoming newcomers and helping them become good citizens. (Applause.)

This nation of ours is having an important debate about immigration, and it is vitally important that this debate be conducted in a civil tone. I believe that the American Dream is open to all who work hard and play by the rules, and that America does not have to choose between being a compassionate society and a society of law. (Applause.)

An immigration system that forces people into the shadows of our society, or leaves them prey to criminals is a system that needs to be changed. (Applause.) I'm confident that we can change -- change our immigration system in ways that secures our border, respects the rule of law, and, as importantly, upholds the decency of our country. (Applause.) As the Congress continues this debate, its members must remember we are a nation of immigrants. And immigration has helped restore our soul on a regular basis. (Applause.)

In this young century, our nation has been called to great duties. I'm confident we'll meet our responsibilities so long as we continue to trust in God's purposes. During our time in the White House, Laura and I have been blessed by the prayers of countless Americans, including many in this room. It's really an amazing country where people walk up to you, say, Mr. President, I pray for you -- expecting to say, Mr. President, I'd like a bridge. (Laughter.) But instead, they say, I pray for you and your family. It uplifts us, and I want to thank you for that from the bottom of our hearts.

I ask for your prayers again, that our nation may always be an inspiration to those who believe that God made every man, woman and child for freedom. It is such an honor to be here. May God bless you all, and may God continue to bless our country. (Applause.)

Bush and Chaput

2006-03-26T09:00:00.000-08:00

A panel of 15 religious, business, political and agricultural leaders urged President George W. Bush to push for comprehensive immigration legislation in a March 23 White House meeting.

Denver Archbishop Charles J. Chaput, who was one of three religious leaders at the session, told Catholic News Service afterward that the president voiced support for policies that reflect the goals of the Catholic bishops' Justice for Immigrants campaign and their concerns about pending legislation.

"If Congress handled things the way that meeting was handled," with its spirit of cooperation and respect for a wide range of immigration-related concerns, "we'd be in good shape," Archbishop Chaput said.

The Senate was scheduled to resume consideration of proposals for immigration changes the last week of March.

Bush has intermittently pushed for comprehensive immigration reform since his first year in office, but the White House has until recently kept some distance from the ongoing debate in Congress. A bill that passed in the House in December deals only with enforcement, including some provisions that the Catholic Church and others strongly oppose, such as criminalizing the act of aiding illegal immigrants.

Earlier in March the Senate Judiciary Committee began discussing a wide range of possible legislation, including bills that mirror the House version. Some Senate bills' enforcement provisions stop short of criminalizing those in the country illegally. They also include provisions that would permit illegal immigrants to apply to regularize their status, allow for the admission of temporary workers and make it easier for families to be reunited.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., was pushing for a bill to come to the Senate floor by the end of March.

Archbishop Chaput said the president is very aware of the complications of trying to pass a law that meets security and employment needs, and that deals fairly with a population of 12 million illegal immigrants, some of whom have been in the United States for 20 years and some who are newly arrived.

While Bush didn't throw his support behind any particular version of legislation, Archbishop Chaput said everyone in the meeting, including the president, "was very enthusiastic about making sure that the debate is not taken over by extremists."

In remarks to the press after the private meeting, Bush said that in addition to enforcing borders, part of the plan should include a guest worker program that encourages immigrants to register with the U.S. government, "so that we know who they are." Such a plan "says to them, 'If you're doing a job an American won't do, you're welcome here for a period of time to do that job,'" Bush said.

Bush urged members of Congress and others who "like to comment on this issue to make sure the rhetoric is in accord with our traditions."

"When we conduct this debate it must be done in a civil way," he said.

One of the leading House proponents of tightening border controls and criminalizing the act of being in the country illegally is Rep. Tom Tancredo, a Colorado Republican. In February, Tancredo issued a press release saying churches, including the Catholic Church, that were voicing opposition to the House bill were misrepresenting the beliefs of "a majority of churchgoers."

Archbishop Chaput said Tancredo's high profile on the subject has underscored how divided people in Colorado are on the topic of immigration and how important the church's Justice for Immigrants campaign is.

"We need to educate, educate, educate," he said.

Once people hear about the complexity of the issue, the archbishop said, specifically about the economic and human issues in addition to concerns about controlling the borders, they are willing to consider broad approaches.

"We're trying our best," he said. "People's minds are changing."

Full details of the U.S. Catholic Church's position on various immigration issues can be found online at: www.justiceforimmigrants.org.

Big News: Supreme Court Takes Nebraska Partial Birth Abortion Case

2006-02-21T18:36:00.000-08:00

Pray, Pray, Pray!

Check out CatholicBlogs.com

2006-02-21T18:25:00.000-08:00

At CatholicBlogs.com you can search over 13,000 articles from over 700 Catholic blogs. About 550 new articles are added per day. Other options include, subscribing to an RSS feed for any search; a "Mobile Edition" optimized for your cellphone or PDA; and a in the near future, a feature-filled directory will be added.

Encouraging words from President Bush on Darfur

2006-02-21T18:12:00.000-08:00

President Bush Slashes Family Planning Funds, Pro-Abortion Groups Mad

2006-02-17T09:56:00.000-08:00

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- President Bush's latest budget he's submitted to Congress slashes federal funding for family planning -- promoting contraception in other nations. The decision has abortion advocates hopping mad. On his first day as president in 2001, Bush signed an executive order prohibiting taxpayer funds from being used to pay for or promote abortions in other nations. He later expanded what is known as the Mexico City Policy to cover all State Department funding. During that time, President Bush froze the level of family planning funding at $425 million annually -- the amount funded in the last year of the Clinton administration. That was done as federal funding of most other budget areas increased. But with Bush's new budget, which contains cuts in programs because of funding needs for combating terrorism and hurricane relief, family planning funds have been slashed 18 percent to $357 million.

Nice picture

2006-02-14T18:48:00.000-08:00

Pope holds audience with Laura Bush

2006-02-09T20:35:00.000-08:00

First Lady Laura Bush had an audience with Pope Benedict XVI this morning, during her stop in the Italian capital on her way to the opening of the Olympic Winter Games in Turin tomorrow, reported ANSA.

Pope Benedict XVI met with Laura Bush in his private library on Thursday and wished the first lady "a peaceful time" at the upcoming Olympics in Turin, where she is heading the U.S. delegation.

During the 20-minute meeting, Mrs. Bush gave Benedict a small silver bowl; the pope in turn gave the first lady and Barbara rosaries and Rooney a Vatican medal.

On the eve of the visit, the first lady told Vatican Radio in an interview broadcast Thursday: "The American people are a religious people, of course all different religions. But we share a lot of the same values with the Catholic Church."

Loving your enemy

2006-02-09T20:23:00.000-08:00

Bush: "Surrendering Our Will to God's Will, We Learn To Serve His Eternal Purposes"

2006-02-06T21:15:00.000-08:00

President Bush's remarks at the National Prayer Breakfast on 2 Feb 2006.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all. Please be seated. (Applause.) Thanks for the warm welcome. Laura and I are delighted to be here. This lovely personality said this morning, keep your remarks short. (Laughter.)

I appreciate this prayer breakfast a lot, and I appreciate the spirit in which it was formed. Ike said he was living in the loneliest house in America -- for what he got to say is, the rent is pretty good. (Laughter.)

It's great to be here with distinguished guests from all around the world. Your Majesty and Prime Ministers and former Prime Ministers, friends with whom I have the honor to work, you're welcome here. I appreciate the fact that people from different walks of life, different faiths have joined us. Yet I believe we share one thing in common: We're united in our dedication to peace and tolerance and humility before the Almighty. (Applause.)

I want to thank Senators Pryor and Coleman for putting on this breakfast. I appreciate Senator Frist, Representative Blunt, Representative Pelosi, other members of the United States Congress who've joined us on the dais and who are here for this breakfast. I thank the members of my Cabinet who are here. Get back to work. (Laughter.)

I find it interesting that the music is from Arkansas. (Laughter.) I'm glad it is, because they know how to sing down there. (Laughter.)

You know, I was trying to figure out what to say about Bono -- (laughter) --

BONO: Careful. (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT: And a story jumped to mind about these really good Texas preachers. And he got going in a sermon and a fellow jumped up in the back and said, "Use me, Lord, use me." And the preacher ignored him, and finished his sermon. Next Sunday he gets up, and cranking on another sermon. And the guy jumps up and says, "Use me, Lord, use me." And after the service, he walked up to him and said, "If you're serious, I'd like for you to paint the pews." Next Sunday, he's preaching, the guy stands up and says, "Use me, Lord, use me, but only in an advisory capacity." (Laughter.)

So I've gotten to know Bono. (Laughter.) He's a doer. The thing about this good citizen of the world is he's used his position to get things done. You're an amazing guy, Bono. God bless you. (Applause.)

It is fitting we have a National Prayer Breakfast, because our nation is a nation of prayer. In America, we do not prescribe any prayer. We welcome all prayer. We're a nation founded by men and women who came to these shores seeking to worship the Almighty freely. From these prayerful beginnings, God has greatly blessed the American people, and through our prayers, we give thanks to the true source of our blessings.

Americans remain a prayerful people today. I know this firsthand. I can't tell you the number of times out there traveling our country, people walk up, total strangers, and say, Mr. President, I'm praying for you and your family. It is one of the great blessings of the presidency, and one of the most wonderful gifts a person can give any of us who have the responsibility to govern justly. So I thank my fellow citizens for their gracious prayers and wonderful gifts.

Every day, millions of Americans pray for the safety of our troops, for the protection of innocent life, and for the peace we all hope for. Americans continue to pray for the recovery of the wounded, and to pray for the Almighty's comfort on those who have lost a loved one. We give thanks daily for the brave and decent men and women who wear our nation's uniform, and we thank their families, as well.

In this country, we recognize prayer is a gift from God to every human being. It is a gift that allows us to come before our Maker with heartfelt requests and our deepest hopes. Prayer reminds us of our place in God's creation. It reminds us that when we bow our heads or fall to our knees, we are all equal and precious in the eyes of the Almighty.

In prayer, we're reminded we're never alone in our personal trials or individual suffering. In prayer, we offer our thanksgiving and praise, recognizing our lives, our talents and all that we own ultimately flow from the Creator. And in these moments of our deepest gratitude, the Almighty reminds us that for those to whom much has been given, much is required.

In prayer, we open ourselves to God's priority, especially His charge to feed the hungry, to reach out to the poor, to bring aid to the widow or the orphan. By surrendering our will to God's will, we learn to serve His eternal purposes. Through prayer, our faith is strengthened, our hearts are humbled and our lives are transformed. Prayer encourages us to go out into the world and serve.

In our country, we recognize our fellow citizens are free to profess any faith they choose, or no faith at all. You are equally American if you're a Hebrew -- a Jew or a Christian or Muslim. You're equally American if you choose not to have faith. It is important America never forgets the great freedom to worship as you so choose. (Applause.)

What I've found in our country, that whatever our faith, millions of Americans answer the universal call to love your neighbor just like you'd like to be loved yourself. Over the past five years, we've been inspired by the ways that millions of Americans have answered that call. In the face of terrorist attacks and devastating natural disasters here and around the world, the American people have shown their faith in action again and again. After Katrina, volunteers from churches and mosques and synagogues and other faith-based and community groups opened up their hearts and their homes to the displaced. We saw an outpouring of compassion after the earthquake in Pakistan and the tsunami that devastated entire communities. We live up to God's calling when we provide help for HIV/AIDS victims on the continent of Africa and around the world.

In millions of acts of kindness, we have seen the good heart of America. Bono, the true strength of this country is not in our military might or in the size of our wallet, it is in the hearts and souls of the American people. (Applause.)

I was struck by the comment of a fellow who was rescued from the Gulf Coast and given shelter. He said, "I didn't think there was so much love in the world." This morning we come together to recognize the source of that great love. We come together before the Almighty in prayer, to reflect on God's will, to seek His aid, and to respond to His grace.

I want to thank you for the fine tradition you continue here today. I pray that our nation will always have the humility to commend our cares to Providence and trust in the goodness of His plans.

May God bless you all. (Applause.)

"Written In Courage": An Analysis of the 2006 State of the Union Address

2006-02-03T15:35:00.000-08:00

The take from Fr. James V. Schall, S.J.:

In general, this State of the Union Address was clear, forceful, and well thought out. The President recognizes that decisions must be made and that it is his constitutional duty to make them. "In this decisive year, you and I will make choices that determine both the future and the character of our country." Clearly, the choices can be bad; otherwise there is not much sense in worrying about them. But one of the fundamental strengths of our constitution is that it recognizes, particularly in dangerous times, the fundamental need of a personal decision-making authority that can act. It is striking that the President would use this very classically sounding word "action" in this context–"the destination of history is determined by human action." This affirmation does not necessarily mean that there is no divine action also in history, including in our history. But divine action, as Benedict XVI said in his recent encyclical, is often itself a prod and a stimulus to human thought and action.

...

The President is quite realistic in the need to keep track of potential terrorists already within our frontiers. We simply have to know about them. They ought not to be free to use our freedoms to destroy us. Furthermore, "if we were to leave these vicious attackers alone, they would not leave us alone. They would simply move the battlefield to our own shores." It does not take a genius to see that this is undoubtedly what would happen. The President thus is a realist who will not be deflected from what is the most serious issue facing us. He is not somehow a stubborn man acting on his own inner needs. He is clear-sighted, observing what is there. He saw what did happen. He knows what can happen.

...

Probably the most dramatic part of the evening was the presence of Judge Alito, who had just been confirmed that day to the Supreme Court (seemingly against the combined efforts of many Catholic senators worried evidently about protecting abortion, among other unpleasant things). From a pro-life point of view, the President’s most forceful passage was this: "Tonight I ask you to pass legislation to prohibit the most egregious abuses of medical research: human cloning in all its forms, creating or implanting embryos for experiments; creating human-animal hybrids; and buying, selling or patenting human embryos. Human life is a gift from our creator, and that gift should never be discarded, devalued or put up for sale." This is not a passage out of a papal encyclical (though it could be), or out of the playbook of said senators, but one uttered by the President of the United States. More is to be done, no doubt, but this passage is forceful.

Often on the basis of proposals in the bio-ethics field, many writers worry about radical changes in human genes, bodily form, life span, eliminating sexual reproduction, and other areas that suggest the whole culture is in decline. Culture wars, they are called. It is the function of a President to speak of what we ought to be, not naively, but still with the awareness that many of the problems that we encounter are self-chosen. We can turn off from wrong paths. "America is a great force for freedom and prosperity. Yet our greatness is not measured in power or luxuries, but by who we are and how we treat one another. So we strive to be compassionate, decent, hopeful society." This is the sentence the New York Times–which had chosen oil for its front-page summary of the address–cited on the 20th page with the text. But it is a powerful sentence, one that again mirrors the notion that a nation is not just about laws and justice and productivity, but of compassion, decency, hope. As the Pope also said in his encyclical, it does matter how we individually, personally, treat one another.

...

The only time that the word "God" appears in this address, in this land where we often sing "God bless America," is the last sentence, "May God bless America." We probably have to realize that God will bless not whatever we do, but what actions and choices are for the good that He has given us in creation, in the good in others–including the good, the real good, of those who have declared themselves our enemies.

You can read more of Fr Schall on his website.

President Bush's State of the Union Address

2006-01-31T22:22:00.000-08:00

Of particular note to Catholics were these remarks:

A hopeful society has institutions of science and medicine that do not cut ethical corners, and that recognize the matchless value of every life. Tonight I ask you to pass legislation to prohibit the most egregious abuses of medical research: human cloning in all its forms, creating or implanting embryos for experiments, creating human-animal hybrids, and buying, selling, or patenting human embryos. Human life is a gift from our Creator -- and that gift should never be discarded, devalued or put up for sale.

Here is the entire address:

...

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all. Mr. Speaker, Vice President Cheney, members of Congress, members of the Supreme Court and diplomatic corps, distinguished guests, and fellow citizens: Today our nation lost a beloved, graceful, courageous woman who called America to its founding ideals and carried on a noble dream. Tonight we are comforted by the hope of a glad reunion with the husband who was taken so long ago, and we are grateful for the good life of Coretta Scott King. (Applause.)

Every time I'm invited to this rostrum, I'm humbled by the privilege, and mindful of the history we've seen together. We have gathered under this Capitol dome in moments of national mourning and national achievement. We have served America through one of the most consequential periods of our history -- and it has been my honor to serve with you.

In a system of two parties, two chambers, and two elected branches, there will always be differences and debate. But even tough debates can be conducted in a civil tone, and our differences cannot be allowed to harden into anger. To confront the great issues before us, we must act in a spirit of goodwill and respect for one another -- and I will do my part. Tonight the state of our Union is strong -- and together we will make it stronger. (Applause.)

In this decisive year, you and I will make choices that determine both the future and the character of our country. We will choose to act confidently in pursuing the enemies of freedom -- or retreat from our duties in the hope of an easier life. We will choose to build our prosperity by leading the world economy -- or shut ourselves off from trade and opportunity. In a complex and challenging time, the road of isolationism and protectionism may seem broad and inviting -- yet it ends in danger and decline. The only way to protect our people, the only way to secure the peace, the only way to control our destiny is by our leadership -- so the United States of America will continue to lead. (Applause.)

Abroad, our nation is committed to an historic, long-term goal -- we seek the end of tyranny in our world. Some dismiss that goal as misguided idealism. In reality, the future security of America depends on it. On September the 11th, 2001, we found that problems originating in a failed and oppressive state 7,000 miles away could bring murder and destruction to our country. Dictatorships shelter terrorists, and feed resentment and radicalism, and seek weapons of mass destruction. Democracies replace resentment with hope, respect the rights of their citizens and their neighbors, and join the fight against terror. Every step toward freedom in the world makes our country safer -- so we will act boldly in freedom's cause. (Applause.)

Far from being a hopeless dream, the advance of freedom is the great story of our time. In 1945, there were about two dozen lonely democracies in the world. Today, there are 122. And we're writing a new chapter in the story of self-government -- with women lining up to vote in Afghanistan, and millions of Iraqis marking their liberty with purple ink, and men and women from Lebanon to Egypt debating the rights of individuals and the necessity of freedom. At the start of 2006, more than half the people of our world live in democratic nations. And we do not forget the other half -- in places like Syria and Burma, Zimbabwe, North Korea, and Iran -- because the demands of justice, and the peace of this world, require their freedom, as well. (Applause.)

No one can deny the success of freedom, but some men rage and fight against it. And one of the main sources of reaction and opposition is radical Islam -- the perversion by a few of a noble faith into an ideology of terror and death. Terrorists like bin Laden are serious about mass murder -- and all of us must take their declared intentions seriously. They seek to impose a heartless system of totalitarian control throughout the Middle East, and arm themselves with weapons of mass murder.

Their aim is to seize power in Iraq, and use it as a safe haven to launch attacks against America and the world. Lacking the military strength to challenge us directly, the terrorists have chosen the weapon of fear. When they murder children at a school in Beslan, or blow up commuters in London, or behead a bound captive, the terrorists hope these horrors will break our will, allowing the violent to inherit the Earth. But they have miscalculated: We love our freedom, and we will fight to keep it. (Applause.)

In a time of testing, we cannot find security by abandoning our commitments and retreating within our borders. If we were to leave these vicious attackers alone, they would not leave us alone. They would simply move the battlefield to our own shores. There is no peace in retreat. And there is no honor in retreat. By allowing radical Islam to work its will -- by leaving an assaulted world to fend for itself -- we would signal to all that we no longer believe in our own ideals, or even in our own courage. But our enemies and our friends can be certain: The United States will not retreat from the world, and we will never surrender to evil. (Applause.)

America rejects the false comfort of isolationism. We are the nation that saved liberty in Europe, and liberated death camps, and helped raise up democracies, and faced down an evil empire. Once again, we accept the call of history to deliver the oppressed and move this world toward peace. We remain on the offensive against terror networks. We have killed or captured many of their leaders -- and for the others, their day will come.

We remain on the offensive in Afghanistan, where a fine President and a National Assembly are fighting terror while building the institutions of a new democracy. We're on the offensive in Iraq, with a clear plan for victory. First, we're helping Iraqis build an inclusive government, so that old resentments will be eased and the insurgency will be marginalized.

Second, we're continuing reconstruction efforts, and helping the Iraqi government to fight corruption and build a modern economy, so all Iraqis can experience the benefits of freedom. And, third, we're striking terrorist targets while we train Iraqi forces that are increasingly capable of defeating the enemy. Iraqis are showing their courage every day, and we are proud to be their allies in the cause of freedom. (Applause.)

Our work in Iraq is difficult because our enemy is brutal. But that brutality has not stopped the dramatic progress of a new democracy. In less than three years, the nation has gone from dictatorship to liberation, to sovereignty, to a constitution, to national elections. At the same time, our coalition has been relentless in shutting off terrorist infiltration, clearing out insurgent strongholds, and turning over territory to Iraqi security forces. I am confident in our plan for victory; I am confident in the will of the Iraqi people; I am confident in the skill and spirit of our military. Fellow citizens, we are in this fight to win, and we are winning. (Applause.)

The road of victory is the road that will take our troops home. As we make progress on the ground, and Iraqi forces increasingly take the lead, we should be able to further decrease our troop levels -- but those decisions will be made by our military commanders, not by politicians in Washington, D.C. (Applause.)

Our coalition has learned from our experience in Iraq. We've adjusted our military tactics and changed our approach to reconstruction. Along the way, we have benefitted from responsible criticism and counsel offered by members of Congress of both parties. In the coming year, I will continue to reach out and seek your good advice. Yet, there is a difference between responsible criticism that aims for success, and defeatism that refuses to acknowledge anything but failure. (Applause.) Hindsight alone is not wisdom, and second-guessing is not a strategy. (Applause.)

With so much in the balance, those of us in public office have a duty to speak with candor. A sudden withdrawal of our forces from Iraq would abandon our Iraqi allies to death and prison, would put men like bin Laden and Zarqawi in charge of a strategic country, and show that a pledge from America means little. Members of Congress, however we feel about the decisions and debates of the past, our nation has only one option: We must keep our word, defeat our enemies, and stand behind the American military in this vital mission. (Applause.)

Our men and women in uniform are making sacrifices -- and showing a sense of duty stronger than all fear. They know what it's like to fight house to house in a maze of streets, to wear heavy gear in the desert heat, to see a comrade killed by a roadside bomb. And those who know the costs also know the stakes. Marine Staff Sergeant Dan Clay was killed last month fighting in Fallujah. He left behind a letter to his family, but his words could just as well be addressed to every American. Here is what Dan wrote: "I know what honor is. ... It has been an honor to protect and serve all of you. I faced death with the secure knowledge that you would not have to.... Never falter! Don't hesitate to honor and support those of us who have the honor of protecting that which is worth protecting."

Staff Sergeant Dan Clay's wife, Lisa, and his mom and dad, Sara Jo and Bud, are with us this evening. Welcome. (Applause.)

Our nation is grateful to the fallen, who live in the memory of our country. We're grateful to all who volunteer to wear our nation's uniform -- and as we honor our brave troops, let us never forget the sacrifices of America's military families. (Applause.)

Our offensive against terror involves more than military action. Ultimately, the only way to defeat the terrorists is to defeat their dark vision of hatred and fear by offering the hopeful alternative of political freedom and peaceful change. So the United States of America supports democratic reform across the broader Middle East. Elections are vital, but they are only the beginning. Raising up a democracy requires the rule of law, and protection of minorities, and strong, accountable institutions that last longer than a single vote.

The great people of Egypt have voted in a multi-party presidential election -- and now their government should open paths of peaceful opposition that will reduce the appeal of radicalism. The Palestinian people have voted in elections. And now the leaders of Hamas must recognize Israel, disarm, reject terrorism, and work for lasting peace. (Applause.) Saudi Arabia has taken the first steps of reform -- now it can offer its people a better future by pressing forward with those efforts. Democracies in the Middle East will not look like our own, because they will reflect the traditions of their own citizens. Yet liberty is the future of every nation in the Middle East, because liberty is the right and hope of all humanity. (Applause.)

The same is true of Iran, a nation now held hostage by a small clerical elite that is isolating and repressing its people. The regime in that country sponsors terrorists in the Palestinian territories and in Lebanon -- and that must come to an end. (Applause.) The Iranian government is defying the world with its nuclear ambitions, and the nations of the world must not permit the Iranian regime to gain nuclear weapons. (Applause.) America will continue to rally the world to confront these threats.

Tonight, let me speak directly to the citizens of Iran: America respects you, and we respect your country. We respect your right to choose your own future and win your own freedom. And our nation hopes one day to be the closest of friends with a free and democratic Iran. (Applause.)

To overcome dangers in our world, we must also take the offensive by encouraging economic progress, and fighting disease, and spreading hope in hopeless lands. Isolationism would not only tie our hands in fighting enemies, it would keep us from helping our friends in desperate need. We show compassion abroad because Americans believe in the God-given dignity and worth of a villager with HIV/AIDS, or an infant with malaria, or a refugee fleeing genocide, or a young girl sold into slavery. We also show compassion abroad because regions overwhelmed by poverty, corruption, and despair are sources of terrorism, and organized crime, and human trafficking, and the drug trade.

In recent years, you and I have taken unprecedented action to fight AIDS and malaria, expand the education of girls, and reward developing nations that are moving forward with economic and political reform. For people everywhere, the United States is a partner for a better life. Short-changing these efforts would increase the suffering and chaos of our world, undercut our long-term security, and dull the conscience of our country. I urge members of Congress to serve the interests of America by showing the compassion of America.

Our country must also remain on the offensive against terrorism here at home. The enemy has not lost the desire or capability to attack us. Fortunately, this nation has superb professionals in law enforcement, intelligence, the military, and homeland security. These men and women are dedicating their lives, protecting us all, and they deserve our support and our thanks. (Applause.) They also deserve the same tools they already use to fight drug trafficking and organized crime -- so I ask you to reauthorize the Patriot Act. (Applause.)

It is said that prior to the attacks of September the 11th, our government failed to connect the dots of the conspiracy. We now know that two of the hijackers in the United States placed telephone calls to al Qaeda operatives overseas. But we did not know about their plans until it was too late. So to prevent another attack -- based on authority given to me by the Constitution and by statute -- I have authorized a terrorist surveillance program to aggressively pursue the international communications of suspected al Qaeda operatives and affiliates to and from America. Previous Presidents have used the same constitutional authority I have, and federal courts have approved the use of that authority. Appropriate members of Congress have been kept informed. The terrorist surveillance program has helped prevent terrorist attacks. It remains essential to the security of America. If there are people inside our country who are talking with al Qaeda, we want to know about it, because we will not sit back and wait to be hit again. (Applause.)

In all these areas -- from the disruption of terror networks, to victory in Iraq, to the spread of freedom and hope in troubled regions -- we need the support of our friends and allies. To draw that support, we must always be clear in our principles and willing to act. The only alternative to American leadership is a dramatically more dangerous and anxious world. Yet we also choose to lead because it is a privilege to serve the values that gave us birth. American leaders -- from Roosevelt to Truman to Kennedy to Reagan -- rejected isolation and retreat, because they knew that America is always more secure when freedom is on the march.

Our own generation is in a long war against a determined enemy -- a war that will be fought by Presidents of both parties, who will need steady bipartisan support from the Congress. And tonight I ask for yours. Together, let us protect our country, support the men and women who defend us, and lead this world toward freedom. (Applause.)

Here at home, America also has a great opportunity: We will build the prosperity of our country by strengthening our economic leadership in the world.

Our economy is healthy and vigorous, and growing faster than other major industrialized nations. In the last two-and-a-half years, America has created 4.6 million new jobs -- more than Japan and the European Union combined. (Applause.) Even in the face of higher energy prices and natural disasters, the American people have turned in an economic performance that is the envy of the world.

The American economy is preeminent, but we cannot afford to be complacent. In a dynamic world economy, we are seeing new competitors, like China and India, and this creates uncertainty, which makes it easier to feed people's fears. So we're seeing some old temptations return. Protectionists want to escape competition, pretending that we can keep our high standard of living while walling off our economy. Others say that the government needs to take a larger role in directing the economy, centralizing more power in Washington and increasing taxes. We hear claims that immigrants are somehow bad for the economy -- even though this economy could not function without them. (Applause.) All these are forms of economic retreat, and they lead in the same direction -- toward a stagnant and second-rate economy.

Tonight I will set out a better path: an agenda for a nation that competes with confidence; an agenda that will raise standards of living and generate new jobs. Americans should not fear our economic future, because we intend to shape it.

Keeping America competitive begins with keeping our economy growing. And our economy grows when Americans have more of their own money to spend, save, and invest. In the last five years, the tax relief you passed has left $880 billion in the hands of American workers, investors, small businesses, and families -- and they have used it to help produce more than four years of uninterrupted economic growth. (Applause.) Yet the tax relief is set to expire in the next few years. If we do nothing, American families will face a massive tax increase they do not expect and will not welcome. Because America needs more than a temporary expansion, we need more than temporary tax relief. I urge the Congress to act responsibly, and make the tax cuts permanent. (Applause.)

Keeping America competitive requires us to be good stewards of tax dollars. Every year of my presidency, we've reduced the growth of non-security discretionary spending, and last year you passed bills that cut this spending. This year my budget will cut it again, and reduce or eliminate more than 140 programs that are performing poorly or not fulfilling essential priorities. By passing these reforms, we will save the American taxpayer another $14 billion next year, and stay on track to cut the deficit in half by 2009. (Applause.)

I am pleased that members of Congress are working on earmark reform, because the federal budget has too many special interest projects. (Applause.) And we can tackle this problem together, if you pass the line-item veto. (Applause.)

We must also confront the larger challenge of mandatory spending, or entitlements. This year, the first of about 78 million baby boomers turn 60, including two of my Dad's favorite people -- me and President Clinton. (Laughter.) This milestone is more than a personal crisis -- (laughter) -- it is a national challenge. The retirement of the baby boom generation will put unprecedented strains on the federal government. By 2030, spending for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid alone will be almost 60 percent of the entire federal budget. And that will present future Congresses with impossible choices -- staggering tax increases, immense deficits, or deep cuts in every category of spending. Congress did not act last year on my proposal to save Social Security -- (applause) -- yet the rising cost of entitlements is a problem that is not going away. (Applause.) And every year we fail to act, the situation gets worse.

So tonight, I ask you to join me in creating a commission to examine the full impact of baby boom retirements on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. This commission should include members of Congress of both parties, and offer bipartisan solutions. We need to put aside partisan politics and work together and get this problem solved. (Applause.)

Keeping America competitive requires us to open more markets for all that Americans make and grow. One out of every five factory jobs in America is related to global trade, and we want people everywhere to buy American. With open markets and a level playing field, no one can out-produce or out-compete the American worker. (Applause.)

Keeping America competitive requires an immigration system that upholds our laws, reflects our values, and serves the interests of our economy. Our nation needs orderly and secure borders. (Applause.) To meet this goal, we must have stronger immigration enforcement and border protection. (Applause.) And we must have a rational, humane guest worker program that rejects amnesty, allows temporary jobs for people who seek them legally, and reduces smuggling and crime at the border. (Applause.)

Keeping America competitive requires affordable health care. (Applause.) Our government has a responsibility to provide health care for the poor and the elderly, and we are meeting that responsibility. (Applause.) For all Americans -- for all Americans, we must confront the rising cost of care, strengthen the doctor-patient relationship, and help people afford the insurance coverage they need. (Applause.)

We will make wider use of electronic records and other health information technology, to help control costs and reduce dangerous medical errors. We will strengthen health savings accounts -- making sure individuals and small business employees can buy insurance with the same advantages that people working for big businesses now get. (Applause.) We will do more to make this coverage portable, so workers can switch jobs without having to worry about losing their health insurance. (Applause.) And because lawsuits are driving many good doctors out of practice -- leaving women in nearly 1,500 American counties without a single OB/GYN -- I ask the Congress to pass medical liability reform this year. (Applause.)

Keeping America competitive requires affordable energy. And here we have a serious problem: America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world. The best way to break this addiction is through technology. Since 2001, we have spent nearly $10 billion to develop cleaner, cheaper, and more reliable alternative energy sources -- and we are on the threshold of incredible advances.

So tonight, I announce the Advanced Energy Initiative -- a 22-percent increase in clean-energy research -- at the Department of Energy, to push for breakthroughs in two vital areas. To change how we power our homes and offices, we will invest more in zero-emission coal-fired plants, revolutionary solar and wind technologies, and clean, safe nuclear energy. (Applause.)

We must also change how we power our automobiles. We will increase our research in better batteries for hybrid and electric cars, and in pollution-free cars that run on hydrogen. We'll also fund additional research in cutting-edge methods of producing ethanol, not just from corn, but from wood chips and stalks, or switch grass. Our goal is to make this new kind of ethanol practical and competitive within six years. (Applause.)

Breakthroughs on this and other new technologies will help us reach another great goal: to replace more than 75 percent of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025. (Applause.) By applying the talent and technology of America, this country can dramatically improve our environment, move beyond a petroleum-based economy, and make our dependence on Middle Eastern oil a thing of the past. (Applause.)

And to keep America competitive, one commitment is necessary above all: We must continue to lead the world in human talent and creativity. Our greatest advantage in the world has always been our educated, hardworking, ambitious people -- and we're going to keep that edge. Tonight I announce an American Competitiveness Initiative, to encourage innovation throughout our economy, and to give our nation's children a firm grounding in math and science. (Applause.)

First, I propose to double the federal commitment to the most critical basic research programs in the physical sciences over the next 10 years. This funding will support the work of America's most creative minds as they explore promising areas such as nanotechnology, supercomputing, and alternative energy sources.

Second, I propose to make permanent the research and development tax credit -- (applause) -- to encourage bolder private-sector initiatives in technology. With more research in both the public and private sectors, we will improve our quality of life -- and ensure that America will lead the world in opportunity and innovation for decades to come. (Applause.)

Third, we need to encourage children to take more math and science, and to make sure those courses are rigorous enough to compete with other nations. We've made a good start in the early grades with the No Child Left Behind Act, which is raising standards and lifting test scores across our country. Tonight I propose to train 70,000 high school teachers to lead advanced-placement courses in math and science, bring 30,000 math and science professionals to teach in classrooms, and give early help to students who struggle with math, so they have a better chance at good, high-wage jobs. If we ensure that America's children succeed in life, they will ensure that America succeeds in the world. (Applause.)

Preparing our nation to compete in the world is a goal that all of us can share. I urge you to support the American Competitiveness Initiative, and together we will show the world what the American people can achieve.

America is a great force for freedom and prosperity. Yet our greatness is not measured in power or luxuries, but by who we are and how we treat one another. So we strive to be a compassionate, decent, hopeful society.

In recent years, America has become a more hopeful nation. Violent crime rates have fallen to their lowest levels since the 1970s. Welfare cases have dropped by more than half over the past decade. Drug use among youth is down 19 percent since 2001. There are fewer abortions in America than at any point in the last three decades, and the number of children born to teenage mothers has been falling for a dozen years in a row. (Applause.)

These gains are evidence of a quiet transformation -- a revolution of conscience, in which a rising generation is finding that a life of personal responsibility is a life of fulfillment. Government has played a role. Wise policies, such as welfare reform and drug education and support for abstinence and adoption have made a difference in the character of our country. And everyone here tonight, Democrat and Republican, has a right to be proud of this record. (Applause.)

Yet many Americans, especially parents, still have deep concerns about the direction of our culture, and the health of our most basic institutions. They're concerned about unethical conduct by public officials, and discouraged by activist courts that try to redefine marriage. They worry about children in our society who need direction and love, and about fellow citizens still displaced by natural disaster, and about suffering caused by treatable diseases.

As we look at these challenges, we must never give in to the belief that America is in decline, or that our culture is doomed to unravel. The American people know better than that. We have proven the pessimists wrong before -- and we will do it again. (Applause.)

A hopeful society depends on courts that deliver equal justice under the law. The Supreme Court now has two superb new members -- new members on its bench: Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Sam Alito. (Applause.) I thank the Senate for confirming both of them. I will continue to nominate men and women who understand that judges must be servants of the law, and not legislate from the bench. (Applause.)

Today marks the official retirement of a very special American. For 24 years of faithful service to our nation, the United States is grateful to Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. (Applause.)

A hopeful society has institutions of science and medicine that do not cut ethical corners, and that recognize the matchless value of every life. Tonight I ask you to pass legislation to prohibit the most egregious abuses of medical research: human cloning in all its forms, creating or implanting embryos for experiments, creating human-animal hybrids, and buying, selling, or patenting human embryos. Human life is a gift from our Creator -- and that gift should never be discarded, devalued or put up for sale. (Applause.)

A hopeful society expects elected officials to uphold the public trust. (Applause.) Honorable people in both parties are working on reforms to strengthen the ethical standards of Washington -- I support your efforts. Each of us has made a pledge to be worthy of public responsibility -- and that is a pledge we must never forget, never dismiss, and never betray. (Applause.)

As we renew the promise of our institutions, let us also show the character of America in our compassion and care for one another.

A hopeful society gives special attention to children who lack direction and love. Through the Helping America's Youth Initiative, we are encouraging caring adults to get involved in the life of a child -- and this good work is being led by our First Lady, Laura Bush. (Applause.) This year we will add resources to encourage young people to stay in school, so more of America's youth can raise their sights and achieve their dreams.

A hopeful society comes to the aid of fellow citizens in times of suffering and emergency -- and stays at it until they're back on their feet. So far the federal government has committed $85 billion to the people of the Gulf Coast and New Orleans. We're removing debris and repairing highways and rebuilding stronger levees. We're providing business loans and housing assistance. Yet as we meet these immediate needs, we must also address deeper challenges that existed before the storm arrived.

In New Orleans and in other places, many of our fellow citizens have felt excluded from the promise of our country. The answer is not only temporary relief, but schools that teach every child, and job skills that bring upward mobility, and more opportunities to own a home and start a business. As we recover from a disaster, let us also work for the day when all Americans are protected by justice, equal in hope, and rich in opportunity. (Applause.)

A hopeful society acts boldly to fight diseases like HIV/AIDS, which can be prevented, and treated, and defeated. More than a million Americans live with HIV, and half of all AIDS cases occur among African Americans. I ask Congress to reform and reauthorize the Ryan White Act, and provide new funding to states, so we end the waiting lists for AIDS medicines in America. (Applause.) We will also lead a nationwide effort, working closely with African American churches and faith-based groups, to deliver rapid HIV tests to millions, end the stigma of AIDS, and come closer to the day when there are no new infections in America. (Applause.)

Fellow citizens, we've been called to leadership in a period of consequence. We've entered a great ideological conflict we did nothing to invite. We see great changes in science and commerce that will influence all our lives. Sometimes it can seem that history is turning in a wide arc, toward an unknown shore. Yet the destination of history is determined by human action, and every great movement of history comes to a point of choosing.

Lincoln could have accepted peace at the cost of disunity and continued slavery. Martin Luther King could have stopped at Birmingham or at Selma, and achieved only half a victory over segregation. The United States could have accepted the permanent division of Europe, and been complicit in the oppression of others. Today, having come far in our own historical journey, we must decide: Will we turn back, or finish well?

Before history is written down in books, it is written in courage. Like Americans before us, we will show that courage and we will finish well. We will lead freedom's advance. We will compete and excel in the global economy. We will renew the defining moral commitments of this land. And so we move forward -- optimistic about our country, faithful to its cause, and confident of the victories to come.

May God bless America. (Applause.)

As Roe Turns 33, Don't Forget Pro-Life Laws Lower Abortions

2006-01-25T21:52:00.000-08:00

Interesting piece from Rebecca Hagelin on a Heritage Foundation study (a 2004 Heritage Foundation study with similar results can be found here) that shows pro-life laws enacted at the state level having an affect on reduced abortion rates. Parental-notification laws, partial-birth abortion bans and informed-consent laws are making a difference.

Our liberal friends like to point out that much of the reduction occurred during President Clinton's watch and he deserves much credit for the economic expansion which helped poor women in keeping and raising their babies. Likewise we hear that contraception is the key to reducing abortion further. Nothing could be further from the truth. Even the SCOTUS in its Casey decision noted that abortion was used as contraception. This is what we would have seen from a President Kerry and what we are likely to see from pro-abortion state legislatures.

Changing the makeup of the SCOTUS is but one attack on the culture of death. Electing pro-life state legislators who will enact pro-life laws is another. And this front of the war needs our attention.

President Bush's remarks to "March for Life" Participants

2006-01-24T03:16:00.000-08:00

THE PRESIDENT: Nellie, thank you very much. I appreciate the invitation to speak. I'm calling from Manhattan, Kansas. (Applause.) Sounds like you got some good folks from Kansas there. (Applause.) I want to thank everybody there -- if you're from Kansas, or anywhere else in our country, for your devotion to such a noble cause.

You believe, as I do, that every human life has value, that the strong have a duty to protect the weak, and that the self-evident truths of the Declaration of Independence apply to everyone, not just to those considered healthy or wanted or convenient. These principles call us to defend the sick and the dying, persons with disabilities and birth defects, all who are weak and vulnerable, especially unborn children. (Applause.)

We're making good progress in defending these principles, Nellie, and you and I are working together, along with others, to build what I've called a culture of life. One of my first acts as the President was to ban the use of taxpayer money on programs that promote abortion overseas. (Applause.) I want to thank you all for getting that ban on partial-birth abortion to my desk, a bill I was proud to sign -- (applause) -- and a law which we are going to defend -- and are defending -- vigorously in our courts. Because we acted, infants who are born despite an attempted abortion are now protected by law. Thanks to "Laci and Conner's Law," prosecutors can now charge those who harm or kill a pregnant woman with harming or killing her unborn child, as well. (Applause.)

We're vigorously promoting parental notification laws, adoption, teen abstinence, crisis pregnancy programs, and the vital work of our faith-based groups. We're sending a clear message to any woman facing a crisis pregnancy: We love you, we love your child, and we're here to help you.

There's more work to be done. The House has passed a bill to ensure that state parental involvement laws are not circumvented by those who take minors across state lines to have abortions. And the United States Senate needs to pass this bill so I can sign it into law. (Applause.)

We also must respect human life and dignity when advancing medical science, and we're making progress here, as well. Last month, I signed a pro-life bill supporting ethical treatment and research using stem cells from umbilical cord blood. I also renew my call for Congress to ban all forms of human cloning. Because human life is a gift from our Creator and should never be used as a means to an end, we will not sanction the creation of life only to destroy it.

By changing laws we can change our culture. And your persistence and prayers, Nellie, and the folks there with you, are making a real difference. We, of course, seek common ground where possible; we're working to persuade more of our fellow Americans of the rightness of our cause. And this is a cause that appeals to the conscience of our citizens, and is rooted in America's deepest principles -- and history tells us that with such a cause, we will prevail.

Again, Nellie, thank you for letting me come to speak to you. Tell everybody there that I ask for God's blessings on them and their families, and, of course, may God continue to bless our grand country. (Applause.)

Reader Torture comments

2006-01-13T00:13:00.000-08:00

Several readers have commented on the president's consenting to Senator McCain's torture amendment. (See here.) In order to better understand the Catholic Church's stance on opposing torture here are some excerpts from Church documents (courtesy of Kevin Miller, HMS Blog):

From Vatican II's Gaudium et Spes (no. 27; cf. VS 80):

Furthermore, whatever is opposed to life itself ..., whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as ... torments inflicted on body or mind, attempts to coerce the will itself; ... all these things and others of their like are infamies indeed. They poison human society, but they do more harm to those who practice them than those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are supreme dishonor to the Creator.

From the Catechism, no. 2297:

Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity.

Note that the Catechism speaks of "violence," period - it doesn't say it has to be severe. Note also that while the Catechism might seem to leave open the use of violence to do things like extract information about ongoing plots, it has to be read in the context of GS, which rules out "torments" and "attempts to coerce the will," period.

From the new Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church.

404. ... In carrying out investigations, the regulation against the use of torture, even in the case of serious crimes, must be strictly observed: "Christ's disciple refuses every recourse to such methods, which nothing could justify and in which the dignity of man is as much debased in his torturer as in the torturer's victim."830 International judicial instruments concerning human rights correctly indicate a prohibition against torture as a principle which cannot be contravened under any circumstances. Likewise ruled out is "the use of detention for the sole purpose of trying to obtain significant information for the trial."831 ...

830 John Paul II, Address to the International Committee of the Red Cross, Geneva (15 June 1982), 5: L'Osservatore Romano, English edition, 26 July 1982, p. 3.
831 John Paul II, Address to the Italian Association of Judges (31 March 2000), 4: AAS 92 (2000), 633.

Hope this helps folks understand why I applauded the president's acceptance of the McCain amendment.

President Bush Names Pro-Life Woman to Key State Department Post

2006-01-06T05:20:00.000-08:00

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- With Congress out of session and abortion advocates in the Senate no longer able to hold it up, President Bush moved on the nomination of Ellen Sauerbrey to a top State Department position. Sauerbrey was one of a handful of people Bush placed through recess appointments Wednesday. Sauerbrey, a pro-life former Maryland state lawmaker and gubernatorial candidate, was named to be the assistant secretary of state for population. Senate abortion advocates held up the nomination of Sauerbrey, who was a former UN women's representative, because of her position against abortion. The Senate had planned a committee vote on Sauerbrey in October, but pro-abortion California Democrat Barbara Boxer asked the committee to wait and put a hold on her nomination. Jeanne Head of the National Right to Life Committee, and one of the top pro-life lobbyists as the United Nations, told LifeNews.com she applauded the president's appointment of Sauerbrey. "She has effectively and compassionately carried out [Bush's pro-life] policy as Ambassador to the Commission on the Status of Women at the UN," Head explained. "She is well thought of and very much respected in the diplomatic community at the UN and throughout the world." Read the complete story.

Bush reverses course on McCain torture bill

2005-12-15T17:22:00.000-08:00

President Bush consented to Sen. John McCain's call for a law banning cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment of foreign detainees after weeks of stalemate over the issue.

Bush even spoke in favor of the bill during an announcement of the deal at the White House.

He said the law would "make it clear to the world that this government does not torture and that we adhere to the international convention of torture, whether it be here at home or abroad."

"We've sent a message to the world that the United States is not like the terrorists," McCain said earlier as he sat next to Bush in the Oval Office, according to the Associated Press. "We have no grief for them, but what we are is a nation that upholds values and standards of behavior and treatment of all people, no matter how evil or bad they are. And I think this will help us enormously in winning the war for the hearts and minds of people throughout the world in the war on terror."

Cardinal McCarrick Urges Bush to Protect Poor

2005-12-03T20:43:00.000-08:00

WASHINGTON, D.C., DEC. 2, 2005 (Zenit.org).- The archbishop of Washington urged President George Bush to ensure that trade negotiations this month in Hong Kong protect the interests of the world's poor.

Cardinal Theodore McCarrick and Bush met in a private meeting Thursday.

In statements to the press afterward, Cardinal McCarrick said: "The fight against poverty around the world is vital to establishing solidarity among peoples and nations.

"Global trade rules, when framed from the perspective of the 'least among us,' can lead to more equitable prosperity and stability in a world where growing inequality and instability are very often dangerous realities."

Cardinal McCarrick's meeting with the president comes days before the sixth ministerial conference of the World Trade Organization, scheduled for Dec. 13-18 in Hong Kong.

Specifically, Cardinal McCarrick urged the president to work to "substantially reduce, if not eliminate, trade-distorting federal subsidies while protecting small and medium-sized farms in the United States."

The full text of Cardinal McCarrick's remarks to the White House media can be found on the U.S. bishops Web site here.

President Bush's Remarks at Alito Nomination

2005-10-31T07:24:00.000-08:00

I’m pleased to announce my nomination of Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. as associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.

Judge Alito is one of the most accomplished and respected judges in America. And his long career in public service has given him an extraordinary breadth of experience.

As a Justice Department official, federal prosecutor and judge on the United States Court of Appeals, Sam Alito has shown a mastery of the law, a deep commitment of justice, and he is a man of enormous character.

He is scholarly, fair-minded and principled, and these qualities will serve our nation well on the highest court of the land.

Judge Alito showed great promise from the beginning in studies at Princeton and Yale Law School, as editor of the Yale Law Journal, as a clerk for a federal court of appeals judge.

He served in the Army Reserves and was honorably discharged as a captain.
Early in his career, Sam Alito worked as a federal prosecutor and handled criminal and civil matters for the United States. As assistant to the solicitor general, he argued 12 cases before the Supreme Court, and has argued dozens of others before the federal courts of appeals.

He served in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, providing constitutional advice for the president and the executive branch.

In 1987, President Ronald Reagan named him the United States attorney for the District of New Jersey, the top prosecutor in one of the nation’s largest federal districts. And he was confirmed by unanimous consent by the Senate.

He moved aggressively against white collar and environmental crimes, and drug trafficking and organized crime and violation of civil rights.

In his role, Sam Alito showed a passionate commitment to the rule of law, and he gained a reputation for being both tough and fair.

In 1990, President Bush nominated Sam Alito, at the age of 39, for the United States Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit.

He has a deep understanding of the proper role of judges in our society. He understands that judges are to interpret the laws, not to impose their preferences or priorities on the people.

In the performance of his duties, Judge Alito has gained the respect of his colleagues and attorneys for his brilliance and decency. He’s won admirers across the political spectrum.

I’m confident that the United States Senate will be impressed by Judge Alito’s distinguished record, his measured judicial temperament and his tremendous personal integrity. And I urge the Senate to act promptly on this important nomination so that an up-or-down vote is held before the end of this year.

Today, Judge Alito is joined by his wife, Martha, who was a law librarian when he first met her. Sam and I both know you can’t go wrong marrying a librarian.

Sam and Martha’s two children, Phil and Laura (ph), are also with us.

And I know how proud you are of your dad today.

I’m sure, as well, that Judge Alito is thinking of his mom, Rose, who will be 91 in December. And I know he’s thinking about his late father. Samuel Alito Sr. came to this country as a immigrant from Italy in 1914. And his fine family has realized the great promise of our country.

Judge, thanks for agreeing to serve. And congratulations on your nomination.

UN Chokes on Abstinence

2005-10-17T05:08:00.000-07:00

Stephen Lewis, the United Nations' special envoy to Africa for HIV/AIDS, has little good to say about the Bush administration's efforts there.

That the United States is spending more money than any other nation on stopping the spread of AIDS in Africa counts for little. He is upset with the US emphasis on abstinence, which he accuses of causing a condom shortage in Uganda.

Now Uganda happens to be the only sub-Saharan African country that has achieved a large reduction in its HIV prevalence rate. The adult HIV infection rate has dropped from 18% to 5-7%. No other nation in the world has achieved such success. Most sub-Saharan African nations, following the pro-condoms model, continue to suffer from rising HIV infection rates.

But then, other African nations do not have leaders like Ugandan President Museveni and his wife. This dynamic duo has consistently promoted an abstinence-first model that has successfully changed Ugandan culture. Ugandan surveys show a reduction in premarital sexual activity among Ugandan youth and a reduction in extramarital activity among adults.

The result: less AIDS.

This is, in Lewis's worldview, all wrong. He complains that the Bush administration’s shift of funding from condoms to abstinence promotion under its PEPFAR program has led to a shortage of the prophylactics in Uganda. “There is no doubt in my mind that the condom crisis in Uganda is being driven by PEPFAR,” said Lewis. “To impose a dogma-driven policy that is fundamentally flawed is doing damage to Africa."

This is a bizarre inversion of the truth, and threatens to do grievous harm to the one HIV/AIDS prevention approach that has actually worked.

Uganda’s health minister, Jim Muhwezi, denies that there is any shortage of condoms in his country. “It is not true that there is a condom shortage,” he said. “There seems to be a coordinated smear campaign by those who do not want to use any other alternative simultaneously with condoms against AIDS.” In fact, Uganda officially uses the ABC approach: Abstinence before marriage; Be faithful in marriage; and use Condoms if you don’t do one or two.

But this isn't good enough for UN officials, whose love affair with condoms knows no bounds, and who are also angry with America for funding her own AIDS initiative in Africa instead of giving the money to them.

“Alas, from Stephen Lewis's point of view, the US is deplorably ‘unilateralist’ and spends its billions of AIDS dollars directly in Africa rather than sluicing them through the UN, where now that the Oil-for-Fraud program is no longer ‘needed,’ many bureaucrats are itching to bring their humanitarian expertise and efficiency to bear on another great slab of cash,” wrote Mark Steyn in the Canadian Western Standard, October 3. “Once the usual UN administration fee had been deducted from Bush's pitifully inadequate $15 billion, there could easily have been enough left over to buy, oh, twenty thousand bucks' worth of second-hand condoms from a rubber factory co-owned by a nephew of Kofi Annan and a cousin of Boutros Boutros-Ghali. Instead, the US decided to spend the cash itself.”

Why not? The UN’s approach has failed, and its own statistics show it. HIV rates keep rising, to over 30% in some countries. Two decades of pornographic sex education and massive shipments of condoms have sent millions of young Africans to an early grave.

But who on the Left cares about the facts? The UK Guardian sneers at Ugandan First Lady Janet Museveni’s abstinence campaign, ominously hinting that it is driven by her Christian beliefs. It scorns the poster campaigns that Mrs. Museveni has backed. “In one poster campaign, signed by the office of the first lady, the slogan alongside the picture of a smiling young woman says: ‘She's saving herself for marriage — how about you?’” said the paper.

It is this sort of thing that the UN and left-wing newspapers fear that Bush is going to promote in Africa.

Lewis is no new kid on the block shooting his mouth off. A former Canadian ambassador to the United Nations and former Deputy Executive Director of UNICEF, he is a long-time member of the establishment. His wife, Michele Landsberg, is a pro-abortion feminist activist and former columnist for the Toronto Star.

In August, the Global Fund for Aids, Tuberculosis and Malaria pulled all funding from Uganda’s highly successful AIDS prevention program, alleging financial irregularities.

Apparently, achieving results isn’t good enough for international grandees. It’s death by condom or nothing. But we think the Bush administration will stay the course.

Stephen Lewis, the United Nations' special envoy to Africa for HIV/AIDS, has little good to say about the Bush administration's efforts there.

That the United States is spending more money than any other nation on stopping the spread of AIDS in Africa counts for little. He is upset with the US emphasis on abstinence, which he accuses of causing a condom shortage in Uganda.

Now Uganda happens to be the only sub-Saharan African country that has achieved a large reduction in its HIV prevalence rate. The adult HIV infection rate has dropped from 18% to 5-7%. No other nation in the world has achieved such success. Most sub-Saharan African nations, following the pro-condoms model, continue to suffer from rising HIV infection rates.

But then, other African nations do not have leaders like Ugandan President Museveni and his wife. This dynamic duo has consistently promoted an abstinence-first model that has successfully changed Ugandan culture. Ugandan surveys show a reduction in premarital sexual activity among Ugandan youth and a reduction in extramarital activity among adults.

The result: less AIDS.

This is, in Lewis's worldview, all wrong. He complains that the Bush administration’s shift of funding from condoms to abstinence promotion under its PEPFAR program has led to a shortage of the prophylactics in Uganda. “There is no doubt in my mind that the condom crisis in Uganda is being driven by PEPFAR,” said Lewis. “To impose a dogma-driven policy that is fundamentally flawed is doing damage to Africa."

This is a bizarre inversion of the truth, and threatens to do grievous harm to the one HIV/AIDS prevention approach that has actually worked.

Uganda’s health minister, Jim Muhwezi, denies that there is any shortage of condoms in his country. “It is not true that there is a condom shortage,” he said. “There seems to be a coordinated smear campaign by those who do not want to use any other alternative simultaneously with condoms against AIDS.” In fact, Uganda officially uses the ABC approach: Abstinence before marriage; Be faithful in marriage; and use Condoms if you don’t do one or two.

But this isn't good enough for UN officials, whose love affair with condoms knows no bounds, and who are also angry with America for funding her own AIDS initiative in Africa instead of giving the money to them.

“Alas, from Stephen Lewis's point of view, the US is deplorably ‘unilateralist’ and spends its billions of AIDS dollars directly in Africa rather than sluicing them through the UN, where now that the Oil-for-Fraud program is no longer ‘needed,’ many bureaucrats are itching to bring their humanitarian expertise and efficiency to bear on another great slab of cash,” wrote Mark Steyn in the Canadian Western Standard, October 3. “Once the usual UN administration fee had been deducted from Bush's pitifully inadequate $15 billion, there could easily have been enough left over to buy, oh, twenty thousand bucks' worth of second-hand condoms from a rubber factory co-owned by a nephew of Kofi Annan and a cousin of Boutros Boutros-Ghali. Instead, the US decided to spend the cash itself.”

Why not? The UN’s approach has failed, and its own statistics show it. HIV rates keep rising, to over 30% in some countries. Two decades of pornographic sex education and massive shipments of condoms have sent millions of young Africans to an early grave.

But who on the Left cares about the facts? The UK Guardian sneers at Ugandan First Lady Janet Museveni’s abstinence campaign, ominously hinting that it is driven by her Christian beliefs. It scorns the poster campaigns that Mrs. Museveni has backed. “In one poster campaign, signed by the office of the first lady, the slogan alongside the picture of a smiling young woman says: ‘She's saving herself for marriage — how about you?’” said the paper.

It is this sort of thing that the UN and left-wing newspapers fear that Bush is going to promote in Africa.

Lewis is no new kid on the block shooting his mouth off. A former Canadian ambassador to the United Nations and former Deputy Executive Director of UNICEF, he is a long-time member of the establishment. His wife, Michele Landsberg, is a pro-abortion feminist activist and former columnist for the Toronto Star.

In August, the Global Fund for Aids, Tuberculosis and Malaria pulled all funding from Uganda’s highly successful AIDS prevention program, alleging financial irregularities.

Apparently, achieving results isn’t good enough for international grandees. It’s death by condom or nothing. But we think the Bush administration will stay the course.

Congressman Waxman disputes White House official's statement about sex-ed website

2005-10-14T04:58:00.000-07:00

From The Hill e-news:

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) is taking issue with a White House official's comments regarding congressional concerns about a federal sex-education website. Waxman has been highly critical of the 4parents.gov website, charging that it misrepresents facts about sexually transmitted diseases and condoms and negatively characterizes single mothers and homosexuals. In July, he wrote Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt to register his complaints. During a conference of the International Abstinence Education Leadership Conference in early August, Waxman says Claude Allen, one of President Bush's top domestic policy advisors, assured the group that the administration had defended the website's content to detractors. "We've gone back to them about it [and] made very clear that while they might have a disagreement with that information, it is based on fact, based on science, based on research," Waxman's letter quotes Allen as saying. Not so fast, Waxman writes: "Since sending the [July] letter, I have received no response." He asked Allen to explain the discrepancy by Oct. 28.

UNFPA Chairman Blasts President Bush on Withdrawing $ Over Abortion

2005-10-14T04:47:00.000-07:00

Amsterdam, Netherlands (LifeNews.com) -- The chairman of the UNFPA on Wednesday attacked President Bush during his annual presentation of the status of the population agency. He blasted Bush for withholding $34 million in taxpayer funding of the UN operation because of its involvement in the forced abortion population control program in China. UNFPA chairman Joris Voorhoeve, a former minister of defense for the Netherlands, gave the group's annual report at The Hague. Voorhoeve said the money President Bush has withheld from the agency four times could have been used to prevent unwanted pregnancies by promoting contraception and birth control. He accused Bush of withholding the money out of "domestic political concerns," according to an Expatica News report. "This blockade by Bush is counterproductive. He is against abortion but withholding money from the UNFPA results in more illegal abortions in developing countries," Voorhoeve claimed. However, it is because of the UNFPA's involvement in the forced abortion program in China that Bush has stopped funding the agency for the last four years. The Bush administration sent two teams of investigators from the State Department and found that the UNFPA had been complicit in China's one-child program, which has resulted in numerous human rights abuses from forced abortions and sterilizations to wrongful imprisonment, job pressures and harassment. Read the complete story.

'Civility' called for at Red Mass

2005-10-03T07:20:00.000-07:00

Roberts confirmed. Who's next?

2005-10-01T03:59:00.000-07:00

John Roberts Would Likely Allow Hearings on Partial-Birth Abortion Suit

2005-09-30T04:46:00.000-07:00

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- President Bush has asked the Supreme Court to hear a case concerning an appeal court's decision to overturn the national ban on partial-birth abortions. The Supreme Court typically hears appeals regarding a court decision overturning a Congressional law and John Roberts, should be confirmed this week as the next chief justice, would likely push the court to take the case. The nation's high court is normally asked to hear thousands of cases each year, but only has time to hold hearings on fewer than 200. In the Justice Department's brief to the Supreme Court requesting a hearing, Solicitor General Paul Clement argues that the Supreme Court traditionally allows cases to proceed if they involve an act of Congress, such as the partial-birth abortion ban. "This Court's ordinary practice is to grant certiorari when a court of appeals holds a federal statute unconstitutional," he said. During Roberts' confirmation hearings, pro-abortion Sen. Herb Kohl, a Wisconsin Democrat, asked Roberts which cases "would make the cut" for the Supreme Court agenda. Roberts said he thought the court should "grant review in cases in which a lower court strikes down an act of Congress." "I don't think that's an absolute rule but certainly is a general matter," Roberts explained. "If an act of Congress is going to be declared unconstitutional, I think the Supreme Court ought to be the one determining that as a final matter and generally not leave it to a court of appeals." Should the Supreme Court allow hearings, they would likely be scheduled for next spring. Read the complete story.

Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Headed to Supreme Court After Bush Appeal

2005-09-27T20:58:00.000-07:00

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- The Bush administration on Monday appealed a federal appeals court's decision declaring the national ban on partial-birth abortions unconstitutional. The appellate court said the ban on partial-birth abortions should be struck down because it lacks a "health exception." After President Bush signed the ban in 2003, abortion advocates took it to court in three separate cases. District court judges ruled the ban unconstitutional in all three and 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals cited a prior Supreme Court decision saying the ban needs a health exception. The Bush administration brief argues that Congress' findings should be respected, namely that it heard from numerous doctors that said the three-day long abortion procedure is never necessary to protect a woman's health. "Congress received oral and written testimony from experts who stated that partial-birth abortion was not necessary to preserve the health of the mother in any circumstances," the brief said. Solicitor General Paul Clement said the nation's top court should take the case. "This case involves the constitutionality of a significant act of Congress that has been invalidated and permanently enjoined by the lower courts," Clement said in the brief. If the high court grant's the president's request for a review of the decision, it would be the second time it has looked at partial-birth abortions. Read the complete story.

President's Hurricane Speech: A Catholic Analysis

2005-09-22T15:24:00.000-07:00

A little late in posting, but Oswald had a great "analysis". Check it out.

The White House RSS feed for President George W. Bush

2005-09-21T11:21:00.000-07:00

The White House RSS feed for President George W. Bush delivers headlines and links to White House news releases on www.whitehouse.gov/news, including events, speeches, statements, and press briefings from administration officials. In addition to the RSS feed, audio files of the President's Weekly Radio Address and selected remarks are available via Podcast.

Affirming Affirmative Action

2005-09-20T04:58:00.000-07:00

President Bush’s initiatives for rebuilding New Orleans and restructuring its economic organization are affirmative action writ large. But this is an affirmative action program that doesn’t have any of the drawbacks that have made affirmative action problematic in so many other settings.

UNFPA Denied U.S. Funds for Fourth Year

2005-09-19T20:23:00.000-07:00

The White House has once again denied the controversial United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) financial backing – for the fourth year running, despite assurances from the UNFPA that it is not involved in coercive abortion in China. The UNFPA would normally receive $34 million; instead, $25 million will be redirected to the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).

US law prohibits the country from contributing to any organization that participates in coercive abortion – a practice widely acknowledged in Communist-ruled China. Despite alleging that they have no participation in this practice – as a press release from the UN dated today claims – other groups continue to document evidence that the UNFPA is directly involved in funding and aiding China’s coerced abortion program.

The JFK Question

2005-09-15T18:56:00.000-07:00

I have been meaning to post on this. Instead I point my readers to Manuel Miranda's excellent piece on Opinion Journal today. Some excerpts:

While questioning John Roberts on Tuesday, Judiciary Committee chairman Arlen Specter asked: "Would you say that your views are the same as those expressed by John Kennedy when he was a candidate, and he spoke to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association in September of 1960: 'I do not speak for my church on public matters, and the church does not speak for me.' "

Hours later, Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California made it worse: "In 1960, there was much debate about President John F. Kennedy's faith and what role Catholicism would play in his administration. At that time, he pledged to address the issues of conscience out of a focus on the national interests, not out of adherence to the dictates of one's religion. . . . My question is: Do you?"

How insulting. How offensive. How invidiously ignorant to question someone like Judge Roberts with such apparent presumption and disdain for the religion he practices. The JFK question is not just the camel's nose of religious intolerance; it is the whole smelly camel.

...

The JFK question has no place in a Senate confirmation process. The Constitution says so. As I noted in an earlier column new secularist bigotry has found a home in the Senate Judiciary Committee. I was not the first to say so. In July 2003, the Most Rev. Charles Chaput, Archbishop of Denver, reacted to the growing evidence of a religious test in the Senate: "Many people already believe that a new kind of religious discrimination is very welcome at the Capitol, even among elected officials who claim to be Catholic. Some things change, and some things don't. The bias against 'papism' is alive and well in America. It just has a different address."

A Catholic archbishop's voice in politics is a rare enough thing, but it was not alone. Representing more than 1,000 synagogues, the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations wrote this letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee a few days earlier: "As a community of religious believers committed to full engagement with modern American society, we are deeply troubled by those who have implied that a person of faith cannot serve in a high level government post that may raise issues at odds with his or her personal beliefs."

Now, two years later, the situation is worse. Anti-Semitism marred the confirmation battles of associate justices Abe Fortas, Louis Brandeis, and Benjamin Cardozo, but it was unpronounced and hidden. John Roberts will be only the 11th Catholic (out of 109 justices) to serve on the Supreme Court in its 215-year history. But his confirmation may be a historic first. It marks the introduction, on the record, of a constitutionally prohibited religious test for a Supreme Court nominee. We are going in the wrong direction.

Confirmation hearings for Catholic Roberts set to begin today

2005-09-12T12:15:00.000-07:00

President Bush declares National Day of Prayer for hurricane victims

2005-09-12T06:53:00.000-07:00

The president said yesterday that, “I ask that the people of the United States and places of worship mark this National Day of Prayer and Remembrance with memorial services and other appropriate observances. I also encourage all Americans to remember those who have suffered in the disaster by offering prayers and giving their hearts and homes for those who now, more than ever, need our compassion and our support.”

President's eulogy for Chief Justice Rehnquist

2005-09-08T09:32:00.000-07:00

THE PRESIDENT: Jim and Janet and Nancy; members of the Rehnquist family; colleagues of the Chief Justice. This afternoon the people of the United States mourn the passing of the leader of a branch of the government, the eight Justices of the Court pay final homage to their Chief and friend, and a loving family bids farewell to a kind and gentle soul.

William Hubbs Rehnquist accomplished many things in his good life, and rose to high places. And we remember the integrity and the sense of duty that he brought to every task before him. That character was clear in the young man of 18 who signed up for the Army Air Corps during the second world war. The nation saw that character in his more than three decades of service on our highest Court. And the nation saw it again last January the 20th, when the Chief Justice made his way onto the inaugural platform. Many will never forget the sight of this man, weakened by illness, rise to his full height and say in a strong voice, “Raise your right hand, Mr. President, and repeat after me.”

It was more than a half-century ago that Bill Rehnquist first came to the Supreme Court as a law clerk. As he would later recount the story, he made that trip from Milwaukee, in the middle of the winter in an old blue Studebaker with no heater. He recalled that as he began the journey, he patted that car and thought, don’t let me down, baby.

After a year-and-a-half in the Chambers of Justice Robert Jackson, Bill Rehnquist left D.C. and headed for Phoenix with an even greater love for the law — and with something more: a beautiful fiancée named Natalie Cornell. She would share his walk in life for nearly 40 years. All who knew the Chief know how he cherished Nan and their time together, and how much he missed his wife in the years without her.

In every chapter of his life, William Rehnquist stood apart for his powerful intellect and clear convictions. In a profession that values disciplined thought and persuasive ability, a talent like his gets noticed in a hurry. Still in his 40s, he became the 100th Justice of the Supreme Court, and one of the youngest in modern times.

After he moved to the center chair, William Rehnquist led the Court for nearly two decades, and earned a place among our greatest chief justices. He built consensus through openness and collegiality. He was a distinguished scholar of the Constitution and a superb administrator of the judicial conference. He understood the role of a judge and the place of courts in our constitutional system. He was prudent in exercising judicial power, and firm in defending judicial independence.

On the bench and as a leader of the federal courts, Chief Justice Rehnquist was always a calm and steady presence. In his thinking and in his bearing, he personified the ideal of fairness, and people could sense it. Inside the Court, no man could have been a finer steward of the institution, its customs, and its history.

As long as William Rehnquist was presiding, colleagues and advocates knew that the proceedings would be orderly, on time, businesslike, and occasionally humorous. Once during an oral argument, a lawyer criticized his opponent’s position by saying, “I doubt very much it will fool this Court.” The Chief Justice replied, “Don’t overestimate us.” (Laughter.)

In his time on the Court, William Rehnquist served with 16 other justices, and by all accounts, each one of his colleagues regarded the man with respect and affection. Justice William Brennen once said to a visitor, “I cannot begin to tell you … how fond all of us are of him personally.”

Throughout this city of government, people saw William Rehnquist in that same way. He carried himself with dignity, but without pretense. Like Ronald Reagan, the President who elevated him to Chief Justice, he was kindly and decent, and there was not an ounce of self-importance about him. It is rare that — it is a rare man who can hold a prominent position in Washington, D.C., for more than 30 years and leave behind only good feelings and admiration. That’s what William Rehnquist did.

His law clerks knew him as a demanding boss who pressed them, as one said, to “read carefully, write clearly, and to think hard.” But the clerks also became an extension of the Chief’s family, joining him for walks around the Capitol, or for lunch or dinner, or games of tennis or charades. His clerks remember those times with fondness. And even more, they remember his vast store of knowledge and his daily example of clear thinking and character. To work beside William Rehnquist was to learn how a wise man looks at the law and how a good man looks at life.

The Chief Justice was devoted to his public duties, but not consumed by them. He was a renaissance man, a man who adored his family, a man who always kept things in balance. He read works of history and wrote a few fine ones of his own. He knew how to paint, and he knew how to win at bridge and poker. He had a passion for the classics, for astronomy, and for college basketball. He enjoyed music, and having stood next to him during the National Anthem, I can tell you the man loved to sing. (Laughter.)

William Rehnquist often reminded young lawyers of the ancient insight that time is the most valuable thing a man can spend. He spoke with feeling about the need to choose wisely, doing your job well, and never forgetting the other important things that also take time: love for one another, being a good parent to a child, service to your community. He might have added, the importance of being a loving grandfather, because he was clearly that, too.

The 16th Chief Justice of the United States was given 80 years of life. He filled those years with purpose, a gracious spirit, and faithful service to God and country to the very end. He now goes to his rest beside his beloved Nan. And William H. Rehnquist leaves behind the gratitude of our whole nation. We’re proud of our Chief Justice, and America honors his memory. May God bless him.

REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT NOMINATING JUDGE JOHN ROBERTS TO BE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT

2005-09-05T09:10:00.000-07:00

THE PRESIDENT: Morning. This summer I announced the nomination of Judge John Roberts to be associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. I choose Judge Roberts from among the most distinguished jurists and attorneys in the country because he possesses the intellect, experience and temperament to be an outstanding member of our nation's Highest Court.

For the past two months, members of the United States Senate and the American people have learned about the career and character of Judge Roberts. They like what they see. He's a gentleman. He's a man of integrity and fairness. And throughout his life, he has inspired the respect and loyalty of others. John Roberts has built a record of excellence and achievement, and a reputation for goodwill and decency toward others.

In his extraordinary career, Judge Roberts has argued 39 cases before the nation's Highest Court. When I nominated him to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, he was confirmed by unanimous consent. Both those who've worked with him and those who have faced him in the courtroom speak with admiration of his striking ability as a lawyer and his natural gifts as a leader. Judge Roberts has earned the nation's confidence and I'm pleased to announce that I will nominate him to serve as the 17th chief justice of the Supreme Court.

The passing of Chief Justice William Rehnquist leaves the center chair empty just four weeks left before the Supreme Court reconvenes. It is in the interest of the Court and the country to have a chief justice on the bench on the first full day of the fall term. The Senate is well along in the process of considering Judge Roberts' qualifications. They know his record and his fidelity to the law. I'm confident that the Senate can complete hearings and confirm him as chief justice within a month. As a result of my decision to nominate Judge Roberts to be chief justice, I also have the responsibility to submit a new nominee to follow Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. I will do so in a timely manner.

Twenty-five years ago, John Roberts came to Washington as a clerk to Justice William Rehnquist. In his boss, the young law clerk found a role model, a professional mentor, and a friend for life. I'm certain that Chief Justice Rehnquist was hoping to welcome John Roberts as a colleague, and we're all sorry that day didn't come. Yet it's fitting that a great chief justice be followed in office by a person who shared his deep reverence for the Constitution, his profound respect for the Supreme Court, and his complete devotion to the cause of justice.

Congratulations.

JUDGE ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. I am honored and humbled by the confidence that the President has shown in me. And I'm very much aware that if I am confirmed, I would succeed a man I deeply respect and admire, a man who has been very kind to me for 25 years.

Thank you, Mr. President, for that special opportunity.

President's Statement on Death of Chief Justice Rehnquist

2005-09-04T09:35:00.000-07:00

Our nation is saddened today by the news that Chief Justice William Rehnquist passed away last night. Laura and I send our respect and deepest sympathy to this good man’s children, Jim, Janet, and Nancy. We send our respect to all the members of the Rehnquist family.

William H. Rehnquist was born and raised in Wisconsin. He was the grandson of Swedish immigrants. Like so many of his generation, he served in the Army during World War II. He went on to college with the help of the G.I. Bill. He studied law at Stanford University. He graduated first in his class, that included his future colleague, Sandra Day O’Connor. Judge Rehnquist, and his late wife, Nan, raised their family in Phoenix, where he built a career as one of Arizona’s leading attorneys. He went on to even greater distinction in pubic service as an assistant U.S. attorney general, associate justice of the Supreme Court, and for the past 19 years, Chief Justice of the United States.

He was extremely well respected for his powerful intellect. He was respected for his deep commitment to the rule of law and his profound devotion to duty. He provided superb leadership for the federal court system, improving the delivery of justice for the American people, and earning the admiration of his colleagues throughout the judiciary.

Even during a period of illness, Chief Justice Rehnquist stayed on the job to complete the work of his final Supreme Court term. I was honored and I was deeply touched when he came to the Capitol for the swearing-in last January. He was a man of character and dedication. His departure represents a great loss for the Court and for our country.

There are now two vacancies on the Supreme Court, and it will serve the best interests of the nation to fill those vacancies promptly. I will choose in a timely manner a highly qualified nominee to succeed Chief Justice Rehnquist. As we look to the future of the Supreme Court, citizens of this nation can also look with pride and appreciation on the career of our late Chief Justice.

More than half a century has passed since William H. Rehnquist first came to the Supreme Court as a young law clerk. All of his years William Rehnquist revered the Constitution and laws of the United States. He led the judicial branch of government with tremendous wisdom and skill. He honored America with a lifetime of service, and America will honor his memory.

May God bless the Rehnquist family. Thank you all very much.

Pro-life, human rights advocate nominated Assistant Secretary of State for Population issues

2005-08-31T19:00:00.000-07:00

In an announcement due to be made public tomorrow, President George Bush has nominated Ellen R. Sauerbrey, a vocal pro-life and women’s rights advocate, who is U.S. Representative to the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women, as the new Assistant Secretary of State for U:S Population Issues.

'I'm So Sorry'

2005-08-15T18:20:00.000-07:00

A must read about the president's meetings with families of those men and women who have lost their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Healthy Marriage Initiative

2005-08-09T10:03:00.000-07:00

Wade Horn, Assistant Secretary for Children and Families at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services on the president's Healthy Marriage Initiative:

Armed with compelling research that shows that children do best when reared in healthy, stable, two-parent households, three years ago President Bush launched his Healthy Marriage Initiative. The initiative's goal is to help couples who choose marriage for themselves gain greater access, on a voluntary basis, to services where they can develop the skills and knowledge necessary to form and sustain a healthy marriage. The initiative is based on solid research indicating that what separates stable and healthy marriages from unstable and unhealthy ones is not the frequency of conflict, but how couples manage conflict. The good news is that through marriage education, healthy conflict-resolution skills can be taught.

...

Second, rather than an expansion of government, the president's Healthy Marriage Initiative is an exercise in limited government. Here's how: I run the Administration for Children and Families at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. My agency spends $46 billion per year operating 65 different social programs. If one goes down the list of these programs — from child welfare, to child-support enforcement, to anti-poverty assistance to runaway-youth initiatives — the need for each is either created or exacerbated by the breakup of families and marriages. It doesn't take a Ph.D. to understand that controlling the growth of these programs depends on preventing problems from happening in the first place. One way to accomplish that — not the only way, of course, but one way — is to help couples form and sustain healthy marriages.

...

Indeed, government is most intrusive into family life when marriages fail. If you don't believe it, try getting married, having kids and then getting a divorce. If you are a non-custodial parent, government will tell you when you can see your children; whether you can pick them up after school or not, and if so, on what days; whether you can authorize medical care for your children; and how much money you must spend on your kids. By preventing marital breakup in the first place — not by making divorce harder to get, but by increasing the odds of a stable marriage by increasing marital health and happiness — one obviates the need for such intrusive government.

White House Backs New Abortion Curb

2005-08-09T09:39:00.000-07:00

The Bush administration called on the Supreme Court yesterday to uphold new restrictions on abortion, backing a New Hampshire parental-notification law that has no exceptions for pregnant girls whose health is at risk.

...

In filing a friend-of-the-court brief in the case, the administration weighed in for the first time in an abortion rights case before the Supreme Court. In his filing, Solicitor General Paul D. Clement argued that "there is no need for a general health exception to a parental-notification statute."

The 2003 New Hampshire law would require parents to be notified 48 hours before a girl's abortion, unless the procedure were needed to prevent her death. Judges could bypass the notification requirement if they thought the girl was sufficiently mature or if abortion without notification was in her best interest.

Thirty-three states have parental-notification laws. The court has not yet clarified whether O'Connor's "undue burden" standard means such laws must have an explicit exception for cases involving a girl's health. The Supreme Court defined an "undue burden" only as a law that imposes a "substantial obstacle" to abortion seekers "in a large fraction of cases."

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit in Boston struck down the New Hampshire law as unconstitutional last year, citing the 1992 ruling. In appealing the case, Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood, New Hampshire argued that the proper legal standard was not the 1992 case but a 1987 Supreme Court ruling suggesting that opponents of restrictions must demonstrate that a law limits abortion in all cases.

If the Supreme Court reverses the appellate court, other states could be free to pass legislation similar to New Hampshire's.

President Bush's Remarks on Roberts Nomination

2005-07-20T05:40:00.000-07:00

The president's and Judge Roberts' remarks can be found here.

Judge John Roberts

2005-07-19T18:45:00.000-07:00

JUDGE JOHN ROBERTS BACKGROUND

Judge Roberts is Exceptionally Well Qualified.

Judge John Roberts has the keen intellect, impartiality and temperament, sound legal judgment and highest integrity necessary in a Supreme Court justice.

He rules based on the application of existing laws and specific facts of the cases before him, rather than making new laws or creating new policies based on personal opinion.

It's not surprising that The National Journal has said that "John Roberts seems a good bet to be the kind of judge we should all want to have - all of us, that is, who are looking less for congenial ideologues than for professionals committed to the impartial application of the law."

Judge Roberts has Extensive Experience.

Prior to his service on the D.C Circuit (often referred to as "the second highest court in the land" and the bench from which three current Supreme Court Justices came to the Court), Judge Roberts argued a remarkable 39 cases before the Supreme Court. Only a handful of the 180,000 members of the Supreme Court bar come close to that record of accomplishment.

Judge Roberts was graduated Summa Cum Laude from Harvard University in only three years. After graduating from Harvard Law School with high honors and serving as an editor of the Harvard Law Review, Judge Roberts clerked for Judge Henry Friendly on the Second Circuit and later for Justice William Rehnquist at the Supreme Court.

After his clerkships, Judge Roberts served in the Department of Justice and later as Associate Counsel to President Ronald Reagan before going into private practice.

After three years in private practice, Judge Roberts returned to the Department of Justice as Principal Deputy Solicitor General, a position in which he briefed and argued a variety of cases before the Supreme Court.

Judge Roberts Widely Respected for his Fairness.

Upon his nomination to the D.C. Circuit, 152 members of the D.C. Bar wrote to the Senate Judiciary Committee to note that Judge Roberts is "one of the very best and most highly respected appellate lawyers in the nation, with a deserved reputation as a brilliant writer and oral advocate." Signers, ranging from Democratic lawyers like Lloyd Cutler and Seth Waxman to former President George H.W. Bush's White House Counsel C. Boyden Gray, cited his "unquestioned integrity and fair-mindedness."

Anne L. Bryant and Julie Underwood of The National School Boards Association have noted that Judge Roberts "is always willing to take the time to do things right; and he is willing to support others who exhibit similar values. Above all, he personifies the qualities of an outstanding jurist with his even-temper and respectful demeanor."

In the 1995 case of Barry v. Little, Judge Roberts argued-free of charge-before the D.C. Court of Appeals on behalf of a class of the neediest welfare recipients, challenging a termination of benefits under the District's Public Assistance Act of 1982.

Judge Roberts Should be Confirmed Before the Fall Term.

Judge Roberts personifies the qualities President Bush said he would seek in a Supreme Court Justice. The American people have every right to expect the Senate to provide a fair hearing, a floor debate in which all views are heard, and a timely vote so that the Supreme Court can convene for its Fall term on October 3rd with all justices in place.

Judge Roberts was reported favorably out of the Senate Judiciary Committee by a vote of 16-3, and confirmed by the Senate for the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals by unanimous consent.

President Clinton's two nominations took an average of 58 days from nomination to confirmation. Over the past 30 years, the confirmation process has averaged 72 days from nomination to confirmation.

The White House has demonstrated an unprecedented level of consultation with Senators from both parties, consulting with more than 70 Senators, including every member of the Judiciary Committee and more than two-out-of three Democrats.

Personal Background.

Judge John G. Roberts, Jr., was born in Buffalo, New York, on January 27, 1955. Raised in Indiana.

He is one of four children (the only boy, and second oldest).

Judge Roberts lives in Bethesda, Maryland, with his wife Jane Sullivan Roberts and their two children.

---

(via Jill Stanek)

US first lady donates $500,000 to Catholic AIDS program

2005-07-17T18:25:00.000-07:00

DAR ES SALAAM, Tanzania, July 15 (CNA) - The United States first lady, Laura Bush, pledged $500,000 to support a Catholic program in Tanzania that provides support to HIV/AIDS patients and their families.

Tanzania was the second stop in the first lady’s three-nation goodwill tour of eastern and southern Africa, focused on education, HIV/AIDS and the advancement of women.

The program, called Pastoral Activities and for People with AIDS (PASADA), is run by the Archdiocese of Dar es Salaam. Bush took a 30-minute tour of PASADA’s facilities with Tanzanian first lady, Anna Mkapa, and greeted some of its clients who were waiting for treatment.

Bush said she was impressed with the program. "With such an organization, hope triumphs over suffering," she remarked.

The Tanzanian first lady lauded the program, saying: "You give a lease to life to parents so that their children do not have to be orphans … and the nation the workers who, trained at great expense, who would have otherwise died prematurely.”

Yesterday, Bush visited educational centers on the predominantly Muslim and semi-autonomous island of Zanzibar, before heading to Kigali to meet Rwandan first lady Jeanette Kagame and Britain’s first lady, Cherie Blair.

Just days earlier, hundreds of Muslims on Zanzibar protested the alleged desecration of the Koran by U.S. soldiers at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp in Cuba.

Security for Bush’s tour of Tanzania was high as the U.S. embassy in Dar es Salaam was one of two U.S. diplomatic missions in Africa that was bombed by terrorists in 1998.

Sad

2005-07-14T08:10:00.000-07:00

BAGHDAD -- A suicide car bomb exploded next to US troops handing out candy and toys yesterday, killing 27 people, including 18 children and teenagers.

An American soldier was also killed and at least 70 people were injured, including a newborn and three US soldiers.

Parents heard the shattering explosion and raced out to discover children's mangled, bloodied bodies strewn on the street in the Shi'ite Muslim neighborhood. Children's slippers lay piled near the blast crater, near a crumbled child's bicycle as blood pooled in the street.

Twelve of the dead were 13 or younger and six were between 14 and 17, said police Lieutenant Mohammed Jassim Jabr. Among the wounded was 4-day-old Miriam Jabber, cut slightly by flying glass and debris.

Of course, liberals will claim this is Bush's fault.

Forced Abortion in China Thwarted by Hong Kong Officials

2005-07-14T07:49:00.000-07:00

For all those who think funding UNFPA (which promotes such actions as below) is okay read the following:

HONG KONG, July 13, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A Hong Kong woman, visiting her family in June on China’s mainland accompanied by her two children, was surrounded by eight 'family-planning' officers and threatened with a forced abortion for violating China’s one-child policy.

The Hong Kong paper The Apple Daily reports that the officers surrounded the 31 year-old woman at a relative’s home in central Hunan province where she was visiting. They then tried to drag her to a hospital to forcibly abort her 6-month old unborn baby, ignoring the fact that as a citizen of Hong Kong, the woman was not subject to the one-child policy.

'Hong Kong is part of China and also follows China’s policies,' the officials claimed, according to an AFP report. They then stripped her of her travel documents.

She was freed after being allowed to contact Hong Kong immigration officials by phone, who warned the family planning officials that their actions were illegal.

Source: LifeSiteNews.com

President Bush Considering Ethical Embryonic Stem Cell Research

2005-07-06T16:55:00.000-07:00

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- President Bush has drawn a line in the sand and refused to cross it when it comes to using taxpayer funds to pay for any new embryonic stem cell research. Because he opposes the destruction of human life necessary to obtain the stem cells from embryos, Bush has threatened to veto a bill funding the unproven research. However, in recent days, members of Congress have met with the president and pitched him the idea that embryonic stem cells can be obtained without killing the human being. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is considering legislation to fund experimental research presented to Bush's Council on Bioethics suggesting that methods exist to harvest embryonic stem cells ethically. The panel and pro-life groups are skeptical about some of the ideas scientists presented, but others have the potential to collect the embryonic cells in an ethical manner. Rep. David Dreier, a California Republican, was one of three lawmakers to meet with the president about the idea earlier this month. He told the Associated Press, "There was a sense around the table that if we could discover a way to extract the stem cells without destroying the embryo, that that was something that nearly everyone could support." "The president was very enthusiastic about that. He clearly supported it," Drier said. Sen. Rick Santorum, a Pennsylvania senator and leading pro-life advocate, also met with Bush and said he may try to attach an amendment to a spending bill that would authorize funds for the experimental research. Frist said the funding could come in a stand-alone bill. "We'll probably consider a number of bills," Frist said. Read the complete story.

USCCB Head, Bishop Skylstad, Writes President Bush On Supreme Court Vacancy

2005-07-06T16:06:00.000-07:00

Dear Mr. President,

As the nation ponders the legacy of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor on the occasion of her retirement from the bench, we are reminded that the legacy of a Supreme Court Justice is long and the influence of the Court on the life of the country and the development of the Law is considerable. At this time, I want to take the opportunity to draw to your attention the qualities that I hope you would contemplate as you decide on the appointment of her successor.

When a nomination is made, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops does not participate by endorsing or opposing specific nominees. Our concern is for principles and policies rather than for personalities. We will maintain that position with regard to this Supreme Court appointment and to those that will come in the future.

However, because of the Supreme Court’s ability to affect both principles and policies, I urge you to consider for the Court qualified jurists who, pre-eminently, support the protection of human life from conception to natural death, especially of those who are unborn, disabled, or terminally ill. I would ask you to consider jurists who are also cognizant of the rights of minorities, immigrants, and those in need; respect the role of religion and of religious institutions in our society and the protections afforded them by the First Amendment; recognize the value of parental choice in education; and favor restraining and ending the use of the death penalty. There are many specific applications of these and other fundamental matters which the USCCB has addressed or will address in the future through amicus briefs.

Our prayers are with you as you make this decision which is so crucial for our nation.

Sincerely in Christ,

Most Reverend William S. Skylstad
Bishop of Spokane
President

The Roe Effect Again

2005-07-06T14:27:00.000-07:00

"Bush, a Friend of Africa"

2005-07-05T13:55:00.000-07:00

So says Nicholas Kristof, Op-Ed columnist over at the New York Times. Some excerpts:

(1) But the fact is that Mr. Bush has done much more for Africa than Bill Clinton ever did, increasing the money actually spent for aid there by two- thirds so far, and setting in motion an eventual tripling of aid for Africa. Mr. Bush's crowning achievement was ending one war in Sudan, between north and south. And while Mr. Bush has done shamefully little to stop Sudan's other conflict - the genocide in Darfur - that's more than Mr. Clinton's response to genocide in Rwanda (which was to issue a magnificent apology afterward).

(2) ...The liberal approach to helping the poor is sometimes to sponsor a U.N. conference and give ringing speeches calling for changed laws and more international assistance.

In contrast, a standard conservative approach is to sponsor a missionary hospital or school. One magnificent example is the Addis Ababa Fistula Hospital, where missionary doctors repair obstetric injuries that have left Ethiopian women incontinent.

Liberals also often focus on changing laws, but in a poor country, the legal system is often irrelevant outside the capital. Sudan, for example, banned female genital mutilation back in 1957; since then, the practice has expanded steadily. Sure, lobbying for better laws is important, but it's usually much more cost-effective to vaccinate children or educate girls. Nobody gets more bang for the buck than missionary schools and clinics, and Christian aid groups like World Vision and Samaritan's Purse save lives at bargain-basement prices.

Liberals may also put too much faith in aid itself. What Africa needs most desperately are things it can itself provide: good governance, a firmer neighborhood response to genocide in Sudan, and a collective nudging of Robert Mugabe into retirement.

Philosophical Reasoning and "Delayed Personhood"

2005-07-03T07:04:00.000-07:00

Required reading prior to the confirmation battle to come.

Father Pavone on the SCOTUS Vacancy

2005-07-01T17:30:00.000-07:00

Dear Friends:

As you may have heard, Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor has just resigned her position. Justice O'Connor was frequently the deciding vote in 5-4 decisions. Please pray for Mrs. O'Connor and her family in this difficult time.

With her resignation, a Supreme Court vacancy has been created. We have every confidence that President Bush will appoint a nominee who will exercise the restraint necessary to judges to strictly apply the Constitution rather than write new policies into it. Even so, we know that as you are reading this, the White House is being flooded with calls regarding the vacancy. Even if President Bush is predisposed to nominate a judge who recognizes the many levels on which Roe was wrongly decided, it is extremely difficult for politicians to withstand pressure that is heavily against their inclinations.

How important is this nomination? The Supreme Court is currently divided 6-3 in favor of Roe. This is an opportunity to gain an anti-Roe seat on the Supreme Court and replace Ms. O'Connor with a strict constructionist who will apply the Constitution rather than rewrite it.

That is why I am writing to you now. We need as many pro-lifers as possible to contact the White House about the vacancy. Please call the White House Comment Line at (202) 456-1111 and tell President Bush that you strongly agree with his view that Justices on the Court should not write law, but apply it. You may also contact the President via e-mail at president@whitehouse.gov or by fax at 202-456-2461. Because time is of the essence, it is best to use one or more of these methods of communication, as mail will likely be too late to have a serious impact on the decision. Please also forward this to all of your pro-life friends and relatives. Any given call could mean the difference between protecting women and children in three years and not protecting them for decades to come.

Fr. Frank Pavone
National Director,
Priests for Life

Catholics on the Short List

2005-07-01T16:16:00.000-07:00

The following Catholics are on President Bush's short list to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor:

(NOTE: I am in no way suggesting these men should be nominated by the president because they are Catholic. I am merely pointing out that each of them is Catholic.)

Samuel Alito Jr

Age: 55

Education:
Princeton University, B.A, 1972
Yale Law School, J.D., 1975

Federal Judicial Service:
U. S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Nominated by George H.W. Bush on February 20, 1990. Confirmed by the Senate on April 27, 1990, and received commission on April 30, 1990.

Professional Career:
U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey, 1987-1990
Deputy Assistant U.S. Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, 1985-1987
Assistant to the U.S. Solicitor General, U.S. Department of Justice, 1981-1985
Assistant U.S. Attorney, District of New Jersey, 1977-1981
Law Clerk, Hon. Leonard I. Garth, U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, 1976-1977

---

Miguel Estrada

Age: 44

Education:
Columbia College, B.A, 1983
Harvard Law School, J.D., 1986

Federal Judicial Service:
None
**Nominated in 2000 by President George W. Bush to fill a vacancy on the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit. Estrada
withdrew his nomination on September 4, 2003 after seven failed cloture votes.

Professional Career:
Partner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, 2000-present
Assistant to the Solicitor General, U.S. Department of Justice, 1992-1997
Associate, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, 1987-88, 1989-90, 1992
Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney's Office, Sthrn District of New York, 1990-1992
Clerk, Honorable Anthony M. Kennedy, U.S. Supreme Court, 1988-1989
Clerk, Honorable Amalya L. Kearse, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 1986-1987

---

Emilio Garza

Age: 58

Education:
University of Notre Dame, B.A., 1969
University of Notre Dame, M.A., 1970
University of Texas School of Law, J.D., 1976

Federal Judicial Service:
U. S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Nominated by George H.W. Bush on April 11, 1991. Confirmed by the Senate on May 24, 1991, and received commission on May 30, 1991.

U. S. District Court, Western District of Texas
Nominated by Ronald Reagan on February 2, 1988. Confirmed by the Senate on April 19, 1988, and received commission on April 20, 1988.

Professional Career:
Judge, 225th District Court, Bexar County, Texas, 1987-1988
Private practice, San Antonio, Texas, 1976-1987
U.S. Marine Corps Captain, 1970-1973

---

Alberto Gonzales

Age: 49

Education:
United States Air Force Academy, 1975-1977
Rice University, B.A., 1979
Harvard Law School, 1982

Federal Judicial Service:
None.

Professional Career:
Attorney General of the United States, 2005 - present
White House Counsel to President George W. Bush, 2001-2005
Associate Justice, Texas Supreme Court, 1999-2001
Texas Secretary of State, 1997-1999
General Counsel to Governor George W. Bush, 1995-1996
Partner, Vincent & Elkins, Houston, TX 1982-1994
United States Air Force, 1973-1975

---

I also believe Judge Hinojosa is Catholic.

Ricardo H. Hinojosa

Age:55

Education:
University of Texas, Austin, B.A., 1972
Harvard Law School, J.D., 1975

Federal Judicial Service:
U. S. District Court, Southern District of Texas
Nominated by Ronald Reagan on April 12, 1983, to a seat vacated by Woodrow B. Seals; Confirmed by the Senate on May 4, 1983, and received commission on May 5, 1983.

Professional Career:
Law clerk, Texas Supreme Court, 1975-1976
Private practice, McAllen, Texas, 1976-1983
Commissioner, U.S. Sentencing Commission, 2003-present

George W. Bush on Sandra Day O'Connor

2005-07-01T08:56:00.000-07:00

Good morning. A short time ago I had a warm conversation with Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who has decided to retire from the Supreme Court of the United States. America is proud of Justice O'Connor's distinguished service and I'm proud to know her. Today, she has the gratitude of her fellow citizens, and she and John and their family have our respect and good wishes.

Sandra Day O'Connor joined the nation's highest court in 1981 as the first woman ever appointed to that position. Throughout her tenure she has been a discerning and conscientious judge, and a public servant of complete integrity. Justice O'Connor's great intellect, wisdom and personal decency have won her the esteem of her colleagues and our country.

Under the Constitution, I am responsible for nominating a successor to Justice O'Connor. I take this responsibility seriously. I will be deliberate and thorough in this process. I have directed my staff, in cooperation with the Department of Justice, to compile information and recommend for my review potential nominees who meet a high standard of legal ability, judgment and integrity and who will faithfully interpret the Constitution and laws of our country.

As well, I will continue to consult, as will my advisors, with members of the United States Senate. The nation deserves, and I will select, a Supreme Court Justice that Americans can be proud of. The nation also deserves a dignified process of confirmation in the United States Senate, characterized by fair treatment, a fair hearing and a fair vote. I will choose a nominee in a timely manner so that the hearing and the vote can be completed before the new Supreme Court term begins.

Today, however, is a day to honor the contributions of a fine citizen and a great patriot. Many years ago, Sandra Day O'Connor chose the path of public service, and she served with distinction as a legislator and a judge in Arizona before joining the Supreme Court. When President Ronald Reagan appointed Justice O'Connor 24 years ago, Americans had high expectations of her — and she has surpassed those expectations in the performance of her duties.

This great lady, born in El Paso, Texas, rose above the obstacles of an earlier time and became one of the most admired Americans of our time. She leaves an outstanding record of service to the United States and our nation is deeply grateful.

Thank you.

Nathan on the president's speech last night

2005-06-29T10:34:00.001-07:00

Nathan over at Sollicitudo Rei Socialis beats up the president after his speech last night. Below is my response I posted in the comments.

Nathan,

I am not surprised with your response to the president's address. Coming from someone who believes the president is evil, your words were expected. Your mischaractization of the reasons we invaded Iraq are not new and have been answered before. And your description of the war is questionable.

Why do you think the president must follow polling data on American support of the war and retreat? He was re-elected less then a year ago. Yes, the public is concerned. Yes, they want the troops home. So does the president. But we live in a dangerous world and the president told the country prior to the election we would stay the course in Iraq until the job was done and he was re-elected by a majority of Americans. If they feel differently in 2006 or 2008 then they will vote accordingly, but until then the president makes these decisions and he does not make them based on polling data.

You make the following statement:

"But we must state emphatically that President Bush's failed policies in Iraq have contributed to turning Iraq into the terrorist minefield that it is today."

This is wrong. Here is what the president said about why terrorists and insurgents fight in Iraq:

They fight because they know that the survival of their hateful ideology is at stake. They know that as freedom takes root in Iraq, it will inspire millions across the Middle East to claim their liberty as well. And when the Middle East grows in democracy, prosperity, and hope, the terrorists will lose their sponsors, lose their recruits, and lose their hopes for turning that region into a base for attacks on America and our allies around the world.

If this is untrue tell us why.

You state it is "no exaggeration...that President Bush's failed policies in Iraq have made America less safe, leaving us open to an attack equal to or worse than September 11."

Again, I believe you are wrong. Here is what the president pointed out in regards to this concern:

Before our Coalition liberated Iraq, Libya was secretly pursuing nuclear weapons. Today the leader of Libya has given up his chemical and nuclear weapons programs. Across the broader Middle East, people are claiming their freedom. In the last few months, we have witnessed elections in the Palestinian Territories and Lebanon. These elections are inspiring democratic reformers in places like Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Our strategy to defend ourselves and spread freedom is working. The rise of freedom in this vital region will eliminate the conditions that feed radicalism and ideologies of murder - and make our Nation safer.

And I would add that the Patriot Act, the creation of the Homeland Security Department, and the ongoing intelligence reform have also made us safer. Do you not disagree?

You state, "The truth is that Iraq is falling apart...because we have attempted to force democracy on a people not ready for it". Really? Here is the president once again, reacting to, in my opinion, an unfounded concern:

One year ago today, we restored sovereignty to the Iraqi people. In January 2005, more than eight million Iraqi men and women voted in elections that were free and fair - and took place on time.

We continued our efforts to help them rebuild their country. Rebuilding a country after three decades of tyranny is hard - and rebuilding while at war is even harder. Our progress has been uneven - but progress is being made. We are improving roads, and schools, and health clinics ... and working to improve basic services like sanitation, electricity, and water. And together with our allies, we will help the new Iraqi government deliver a better life for its citizens.

---

They are doing that by building the institutions of a free society - a society based on freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, and equal justice under law. The Iraqis have held free elections and established a Transitional National Assembly. The next step is to write a good constitution that enshrines these freedoms in permanent law. The Assembly plans to expand its constitutional drafting committee to include more Sunni Arabs. Many Sunnis who opposed the January elections are now taking part in the democratic process - and that is essential to Iraq's future.

After a constitution is written, the Iraqi people will have a chance to vote on it. If approved, Iraqis will go to the polls again, to elect a new government under their new, permanent constitution. By taking these critical steps and meeting their deadlines, Iraqis will bind their multiethnic society together in a democracy that respects the will of the majority and protects minority rights.

As Iraqis grow confident that the democratic progress they are making is real and permanent, more will join the political process. And as Iraqis see that their military can protect them, more will step forward with vital intelligence to help defeat the enemies of a free Iraq. The combination of political and military reform will lay a solid foundation for a free and stable Iraq.

Your solution to all this seems to be to elect others in 2006 and 2008. What would you have them do though? You point out we cannot leave now that we are committed, so what is it that we should do in Iraq if the course the president has laid out is wrong? You expend a good amount of energy here to remind your readers how much you dislike the president and that we need a change of course, yet you list no other course other then finding a new horse. That is irresponsible. I understand your and others' concerns over why we went to war and how we initially fought it. I do not share them, but respect that disagreement. But beating up on the president, the commander-in-chief, is not a way to go.

I would be interested in what course you think any newly elected (in 2006 and 2008) public officials should take in Iraq. That kind of dialogue is constructive and more worth your effort.

George W. Bush on Iraq

2005-06-29T10:34:00.000-07:00

Thank you and good evening. I am pleased to visit Fort Bragg — “Home of the Airborne and Special Operations Forces.” It is an honor to speak before you tonight. My greatest responsibility as President is to protect the American people, and that is your calling as well. I thank you for your service, your courage and your sacrifice. I thank your families, who support you in your vital work. The soldiers and families of Fort Bragg have contributed mightily to our efforts to secure our country and promote peace. America is grateful — and so is your Commander-in-Chief.

The troops here and across the world are fighting a global war on terror. This war reached our shores on September 11, 2001. The terrorists who attacked us — and the terrorists we face — murder in the name of a totalitarian ideology that hates freedom, rejects tolerance, and despises all dissent. Their aim is to remake the Middle East in their own grim image of tyranny and oppression — by toppling governments, driving us out of the region, and exporting terror.

To achieve these aims, they have continued to kill — in Madrid, Istanbul, Jakarta, Casablanca, Riyadh, Bali, and elsewhere. The terrorists believe that free societies are essentially corrupt and decadent, and with a few hard blows they can force us to retreat. They are mistaken. After September 11, I made a commitment to the American people: This Nation will not wait to be attacked again. We will take the fight to the enemy. We will defend our freedom.

Iraq is the latest battlefield in this war. Many terrorists who kill innocent men, women, and children on the streets of Baghdad are followers of the same murderous ideology that took the lives of our citizens in New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania. There is only one course of action against them: to defeat them abroad before they attack us at home. The commander in charge of Coalition operations in Iraq — who is also senior commander at this base — General John Vines, put it well the other day. He said: “We either deal with terrorism and this extremism abroad, or we deal with it when it comes to us.”

Our mission in Iraq is clear. We are hunting down the terrorists. We are helping Iraqis build a free nation that is an ally in the war on terror. We are advancing freedom in the broader Middle East. We are removing a source of violence and instability — and laying the foundation of peace for our children and our grandchildren.

The work in Iraq is difficult and dangerous. Like most Americans, I see the images of violence and bloodshed. Every picture is horrifying — and the suffering is real. Amid all this violence, I know Americans ask the question: Is the sacrifice worth it? It is worth it, and it is vital to the future security of our country. And tonight I will explain the reasons why.

Some of the violence you see in Iraq is being carried out by ruthless killers who are converging on Iraq to fight the advance of peace and freedom. Our military reports that we have killed or captured hundreds of foreign fighters in Iraq who have come from Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, Egypt, Sudan, Yemen, Libya and other nations. They are making common cause with criminal elements, Iraqi insurgents, and remnants of Saddam Hussein’s regime who want to restore the old order. They fight because they know that the survival of their hateful ideology is at stake. They know that as freedom takes root in Iraq, it will inspire millions across the Middle East to claim their liberty as well. And when the Middle East grows in democracy, prosperity, and hope, the terrorists will lose their sponsors, lose their recruits, and lose their hopes for turning that region into a base for attacks on America and our allies around the world.

Some wonder whether Iraq is a central front in the war on terror. Among the terrorists, there is no debate. Hear the words of Osama Bin Laden: “This Third World War … is raging” in Iraq. “The whole world is watching this war.” He says it will end in “victory and glory or misery and humiliation.”

The terrorists know that the outcome will leave them emboldened, or defeated. So, they are waging a campaign of murder and destruction. And there is no limit to the innocent lives they are willing to take.

We see the nature of the enemy in terrorists who exploded car bombs along a busy shopping street in Baghdad — including one outside a mosque. We see the nature of the enemy in terrorists who sent a suicide bomber to a teaching hospital in Mosul. And we see the nature of the enemy in terrorists who behead civilian hostages and broadcast their atrocities for the world to see.

These are savage acts of violence — but they have not brought the terrorists any closer to achieving their strategic objectives. The terrorists — both foreign and Iraqi — failed to stop the transfer of sovereignty. They failed to break our Coalition and force a mass withdrawal by our allies. They failed to incite an Iraqi civil war. They failed to prevent free elections. They failed to stop the formation of a democratic Iraqi government that represents all of Iraq’s diverse population. And they failed to stop Iraqis from signing up in large numbers with the police forces and the army to defend their new democracy.

The lesson of this experience is clear: The terrorists can kill the innocent — but they cannot stop the advance of freedom. The only way our enemies can succeed is if we forget the lessons of September 11 … if we abandon the Iraqi people to men like Zarqawi … and if we yield the future of the Middle East to men like Bin Laden. For the sake of our Nation’s security, this will not happen on my watch.

A little over a year ago, I spoke to the Nation and described our Coalition’s goal in Iraq. I said that America’s mission in Iraq is to defeat an enemy and give strength to a friend — a free, representative government that is an ally in the war on terror, and a beacon of hope in a part of the world that is desperate for reform. I outlined the steps we would take to achieve this goal: We would hand authority over to a sovereign Iraqi government … we would help Iraqis hold free elections by January 2005 … we would continue helping Iraqis rebuild their nation’s infrastructure and economy … we would encourage more international support for Iraq’s democratic transition … and we would enable Iraqis to take increasing responsibility for their own security and stability.

In the past year, we have made significant progress:

One year ago today, we restored sovereignty to the Iraqi people.

In January 2005, more than eight million Iraqi men and women voted in elections that were free and fair — and took place on time.

We continued our efforts to help them rebuild their country. Rebuilding a country after three decades of tyranny is hard — and rebuilding while at war is even harder. Our progress has been uneven — but progress is being made. We are improving roads, and schools, and health clinics … and working to improve basic services like sanitation, electricity, and water. And together with our allies, we will help the new Iraqi government deliver a better life for its citizens.

In the past year, the international community has stepped forward with vital assistance. Some thirty nations have troops in Iraq, and many others are contributing non-military assistance. The United Nations is in Iraq to help Iraqis write a constitution and conduct their next elections. Thus far, some 40 countries and three international organizations have pledged about 34 billion dollars in assistance for Iraqi reconstruction. More than 80 countries and international organizations recently came together in Brussels to coordinate their efforts to help Iraqis provide for their security and rebuild their country. And next month, donor countries will meet in Jordan to support Iraqi reconstruction. Whatever our differences in the past, the world understands that success in Iraq is critical to the security of all our nations. As German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder said at the White House yesterday, “There can be no question a stable and democratic Iraq is in the vested interest of not just Germany, but also Europe.”

Finally, we have continued our efforts to equip and train Iraqi Security Forces. We have made gains in both the number and quality of those forces. Today Iraq has more than 160,000 security forces trained and equipped for a variety of missions. Iraqi forces have fought bravely — helping to capture terrorists and insurgents in Najaf, Samarra, Fallujah, and Mosul. And in the past month, Iraqi forces have led a major anti-terrorist campaign in Baghdad called Operation Lightning — which has led to the capture of hundreds of suspected insurgents. Like free people everywhere, Iraqis want to be defended by their own countrymen — and we are helping Iraqis assume those duties.

The progress in the past year has been significant — and we have a clear path forward. To complete the mission, we will continue to hunt down the terrorists and insurgents. To complete the mission, we will prevent al-Qaida and other foreign terrorists from turning Iraq into what Afghanistan was under the Taliban — a safe haven from which they could launch attacks on America and our friends. And the best way to complete the mission is to help Iraqis build a free nation that can govern itself, sustain itself, and defend itself.

So our strategy going forward has both a military track and a political track.

The principal task of our military is to find and defeat the terrorists — and that is why we are on the offense. And as we pursue the terrorists, our military is helping to train Iraqi Security Forces so that they can defend their people and fight the enemy on their own. Our strategy can be summed up this way: As the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down.

We have made progress — but we have a lot more work to do. Today Iraqi Security Forces are at different levels of readiness. Some are capable of taking on the terrorists and insurgents by themselves. A larger number can plan and execute anti-terrorist operations with Coalition support. The rest are forming and not yet ready to participate fully in security operations. Our task is to make the Iraqi units fully capable and independent. We are building up Iraqi Security Forces as quickly as possible, so they can assume the lead in defeating the terrorists and insurgents.

Our Coalition is devoting considerable resources and manpower to this critical task. Thousands of Coalition troops are involved in the training and equipping of Iraqi Security Forces. NATO is establishing a military academy near Baghdad to train the next generation of Iraqi military leaders — and 17 nations are contributing troops to the NATO training mission. Iraqi Army and Police are being trained by personnel from Italy, Germany, Ukraine, Turkey, Poland, Romania, Australia, and the United Kingdom. Today dozens of nations are working toward a common objective: an Iraq that can defend itself, defeat its enemies, and secure its freedom.

To further prepare Iraqi forces to fight the enemy on their own, we are taking three new steps:

First, we are partnering Coalition units with Iraqi units. These Coalition-Iraqi teams are conducting operations together in the field. These combined operations are giving Iraqis a chance to experience how the most professional armed forces in the world operate in combat.

Second, we are embedding Coalition “Transition Teams” inside Iraqi units. These teams are made up of Coalition officers and non-commissioned officers who live, work, and fight together with their Iraqi comrades. Under U.S. command, they are providing battlefield advice and assistance to Iraqi forces during combat operations. Between battles, they are assisting the Iraqis with important skills — such as urban combat, and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance techniques.

Third, we are working with the Iraqi Ministries of Interior and Defense to improve their capabilities to coordinate anti-terrorist operations. We are helping them develop command and control structures. We are also providing them with civilian and military leadership training, so Iraq’s new leaders can more effectively manage their forces in the fight against terror.

The new Iraqi Security Forces are proving their courage every day. More than 2,000 members of the Iraqi Security Forces have given their lives in the line of duty. Thousands more have stepped forward, and are now in training to serve their nation. With each engagement, Iraqi soldiers grow more battle-hardened, and their officers grow more experienced. We have learned that Iraqis are courageous and that they need additional skills. That is why a major part of our mission is to train them so they can do the fighting and our troops can come home.

I recognize that Americans want our troops to come home as quickly as possible. So do I. Some contend that we should set a deadline for withdrawing U.S. forces. Let me explain why that would be a serious mistake. Setting an artificial timetable would send the wrong message to the Iraqis — who need to know that America will not leave before the job is done. It would send the wrong message to our troops — who need to know that we are serious about completing the mission they are risking their lives to achieve. And it would send the wrong message to the enemy — who would know that all they have to do is to wait us out. We will stay in Iraq as long as we are needed — and not a day longer.

Some Americans ask me, if completing the mission is so important, why don’t you send more troops? If our commanders on the ground say we need more troops, I will send them. But our commanders tell me they have the number of troops they need to do their job. Sending more Americans would undermine our strategy of encouraging Iraqis to take the lead in this fight. And sending more Americans would suggest that we intend to stay forever — when we are in fact working for the day when Iraq can defend itself and we can leave. As we determine the right force level, our troops can know that I will continue to be guided by the advice that matters — the sober judgment of our military leaders.

The other critical element of our strategy is to help ensure that the hopes Iraqis expressed at the polls in January are translated into a secure democracy. The Iraqi people are emerging from decades of tyranny and oppression. Under the regime of Saddam Hussein, the Shia and Kurds were brutally oppressed — and the vast majority of Sunni Arabs were also denied their basic rights while senior regime officials enjoyed the privileges of unchecked power. The challenge facing Iraqis today is to put this past behind them, and come together to build a new Iraq that includes all its people.

They are doing that by building the institutions of a free society — a society based on freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, and equal justice under law. The Iraqis have held free elections and established a Transitional National Assembly. The next step is to write a good constitution that enshrines these freedoms in permanent law. The Assembly plans to expand its constitutional drafting committee to include more Sunni Arabs. Many Sunnis who opposed the January elections are now taking part in the democratic process — and that is essential to Iraq’s future.

After a constitution is written, the Iraqi people will have a chance to vote on it. If approved, Iraqis will go to the polls again, to elect a new government under their new, permanent constitution. By taking these critical steps and meeting their deadlines, Iraqis will bind their multiethnic society together in a democracy that respects the will of the majority and protects minority rights.

As Iraqis grow confident that the democratic progress they are making is real and permanent, more will join the political process. And as Iraqis see that their military can protect them, more will step forward with vital intelligence to help defeat the enemies of a free Iraq. The combination of political and military reform will lay a solid foundation for a free and stable Iraq.

As Iraqis make progress toward a free society, the effects are being felt beyond Iraq’s borders. Before our Coalition liberated Iraq, Libya was secretly pursuing nuclear weapons. Today the leader of Libya has given up his chemical and nuclear weapons programs. Across the broader Middle East, people are claiming their freedom. In the last few months, we have witnessed elections in the Palestinian Territories and Lebanon. These elections are inspiring democratic reformers in places like Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Our strategy to defend ourselves and spread freedom is working. The rise of freedom in this vital region will eliminate the conditions that feed radicalism and ideologies of murder — and make our Nation safer.

We have more work to do, and there will be tough moments that test America’s resolve. We are fighting against men with blind hatred — and armed with lethal weapons — who are capable of any atrocity. They wear no uniform; they respect no laws of warfare or morality. They take innocent lives to create chaos for the cameras. They are trying to shake our will in Iraq — just as they tried to shake our will on September 11, 2001. They will fail. The terrorists do not understand America. The American people do not falter under threat — and we will not allow our future to be determined by car bombers and assassins.

America and our friends are in a conflict that demands much of us. It demands the courage of our fighting men and women … it demands the steadfastness of our allies … and it demands the perseverance of our citizens. We accept these burdens — because we know what is at stake. We fight today, because Iraq now carries the hope of freedom in a vital region of the world — and the rise of democracy will be the ultimate triumph over radicalism and terror. And we fight today because terrorists want to attack our country and kill our citizens — and Iraq is where they are making their stand. So we will fight them there … we will fight them across the world — and we will stay in the fight until the fight is won.

America has done difficult work before. From our desperate fight for independence, to the darkest days of a Civil War, to the hard-fought battles against tyranny in the 20th Century, there were many chances to lose our heart, our nerve, or our way. But Americans have always held firm, because we have always believed in certain truths. We know that if evil is not confronted, it gains in strength and audacity, and returns to strike us again. We know that when the work is hard, the proper response is not retreat, it is courage. And we know that this great ideal of human freedom is entrusted to us in a special way — and that the ideal of liberty is worth defending.

In this time of testing, our troops can know: The American people are behind you. Next week, our Nation has an opportunity to make sure that support is felt by every soldier, sailor, airman, coast guardsman, and Marine at every outpost across the world. This Fourth of July, I ask you to find a way to thank the men and women defending our freedom — by flying the flag … sending letters to our troops in the field … or helping the military family down the street. The Department of Defense has set up a website — AmericaSupportsYou.mil. You can go there to learn about private efforts in your own community. At this time when we celebrate our freedom, let us stand with the men and women who defend us all.

To the soldiers in this hall, and our servicemen and women across the globe: I thank you for your courage under fire and your service to our Nation. I thank our military families — the burden of war falls especially hard on you. In this war, we have lost good men and women who left our shores to defend freedom — and did not live to make the journey home. I have met with families grieving the loss of loved ones who were taken from us too soon. I have been inspired by their strength in the face of such great loss. We pray for the families. And the best way to honor the lives that have been given in this struggle is to complete the mission.

I thank those of you who have re-enlisted in an hour when your country needs you. And to those watching tonight who are considering a military career, there is no higher calling than service in our Armed Forces. We live in freedom because every generation has produced patriots willing to serve a cause greater than themselves. Those who serve today are taking their rightful place among the greatest generations that have worn our Nation’s uniform. When the history of this period is written, the liberation of Afghanistan and the liberation of Iraq will be remembered as great turning points in the story of freedom.

After September 11, 2001, I told the American people that the road ahead would be difficult — and that we would prevail. Well, it has been difficult. And we are prevailing. Our enemies are brutal — but they are no match for the United States of America — and they are no match for the men and women of the United States military.

Thank you. And may God bless America.

Morally permissible ESCR?

2005-06-23T12:32:00.001-07:00

Production of Pluripotent Stem Cells by Oocyte Assisted Reprogramming

President Bush Brings Pro-Life Message to NRLC Convention

2005-06-20T09:53:00.000-07:00

Minneapolis, MN (LifeNews.com) -- President Bush, today, inspired thousands of pro-life advocates with a videotaped message at the National Right to Life convention. He thanked the audience for their work in fighting to protect the lives of those threatened by abortion and discussed the kinds of measures he's signed into law.

"Because of your hard work and dedication, we're making progress," the president said. "We've reduced the number of abortions in American and introduced new laws that save lives."

President Bush signed some of the first pro-life laws following the Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized unlimited abortion, including a ban on partial-birth abortions, a bill to protect pregnant women who are victims of violent attacks, and a measure requiring proper medical treatment for unborn children who survive botched abortions.

"Your efforts have played a key role in getting these key bills to my desk," Bush told convention-goers.

The president indicated he will continue to stand against using taxpayer money to fund organizations that promote or perform abortions overseas.

In addition to signing a ban on a form of abortion, President Bush said he's worked to help poor pregnant women not see abortion as necessary.

"My administration was the first to make unborn children eligible for health benefits and to provide prenatal care for pregnant mothers," Bush explained.

He said he would continue to support the work of crisis pregnancy centers that help women who find themselves pregnant unexpectedly.

The president added, "I will continue to support parental involvement laws so a Mom and Dad can counsel their daughter at the very moment she needs them most."

Because he wants to "foster a respect for human life at all its stages," President Bush said he would continue to oppose using tax money to pay for embryonic stem cell research. He also called again on Congress to pass comprehensive ban on human cloning for both reproductive and research purposes.

"We must always remember that human life is not a raw material to be exploited, but a sacred gift."

President Bush encouraged those attending the NRLC conference to remember, "We must continue to change more than laws -- we must change hearts and minds [and] persuading fellow citizens of the rightness of our cause."

Bush on the Dems

2005-06-15T05:31:00.000-07:00

"If leaders of the other party have innovative ideas, let's hear them. But if they have no ideas or policies except obstruction, they should step aside and let others lead." -- George W. Bush

McCain-Bush in 2008?

2005-06-14T12:23:00.000-07:00

Maybe.

Jeb Bush has said he will not run in 2008. But that does not rule him out as a vice presidential candidate. If McCain won, Jeb would be the No. 2 to a president who will turn 72 on Aug. 29, 2008, and might well serve only a single term. If McCain lost, Jeb would have enhanced national recognition for a run in 2012. If picking Jeb is the price of winning over George W., McCain will pay it.

President Bush on Pryor Confirmation

2005-06-10T04:52:00.000-07:00

I am pleased that the Senate voted today to confirm three distinguished and highly qualified judges to the United States Court of Appeals: Judge Bill Pryor, Judge Richard Griffin, and Judge David McKeague.

More than a year ago, I recess appointed Judge Pryor to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit to fill a vacancy that had been designated a judicial emergency by the Judicial Conference of the United States. Judge Pryor's recent service on the Eleventh Circuit has built on an impressive career of public service in which he has applied the law fairly and impartially to all people. I commend the Senate for fulfilling its constitutional responsibility to vote on Judge Pryor and for confirming him so that he will continue his service on this court.

Both Judge Griffin and Judge McKeague have served on the Michigan courts for more than a decade, during which time each has demonstrated a strong commitment to the rule of law. Both are well qualified to serve on the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and will fill vacancies that have been designated judicial emergencies by the Judicial Conference of the United States.

These three nominees have waited a combined total of over eight years for their votes. I applaud the Senate for today giving these fine nominees the up-or-down votes they deserve.

Pryor Confirmed!

2005-06-09T14:04:00.000-07:00

Faith at Abu Ghraib

2005-06-01T09:15:00.000-07:00

From an National Review Online interview with Stephen Mansfeld, author of The Faith of the American Soldiers, comes this snippet. I include it here to point out that the abuse at Abu Ghraib did result in changes by the Bush administration, though some would disagree with that fact. The change below speaks volumes and is hopefully indicative of other changes.

NRO: Is Abu Ghraib a symptom of a non-faith-based warrior code?

Mansfield: The Abu Ghraib scandal has a faith backstory. The chaplain who was at Abu Ghraib during the scandals was told not to be in the way but to let the soldiers come to her. There was no moral presence and little spiritual influence during the time of the scandals. Chapel attendance was low and many soldiers later said they did not even know who the chaplain was. When that unit was replaced, the chaplains of the new unit were told to be present at prisoner interrogations, at shift changes and in the daily lives of the soldiers. The entire atmosphere changed. Chapel attendance reached into the hundreds and the prison became a model operation. This makes the case for continuous moral influence upon soldiers at war and for a faith based warrior code as a hedge against future abuses.

America’s military leaders make great sacrifices for their troops

2005-06-01T09:07:00.000-07:00

Not really about Bush or Catholics, but for those who know little about our military leaders, this is a good read.

One Catholic's Perspective on the Bush Doctrine

2005-06-01T08:52:00.000-07:00

Rehnquist in Four?

2005-06-01T08:24:00.000-07:00

Southern Appeal is reporting:

Rehnquist will step down in the next four weeks: I don't think this news will come as a surprise to anyone, but I just received a phone call from an extremely reliable source who tells me that it's a done deal.

My prediction: President Bush will tap of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Judge Michael W. McConnell 10th Circuit to fill the Rehnquist vacancy and to be the next Chief.

President Bush Looking Into Possible Supreme Court Picks

2005-05-31T18:55:00.000-07:00

A survey of the most often discussed possibilities for Supreme Court appointments indicates many are either pro-life or have issued decisions on legislation favorable to the pro-life community.

Samuel A. Alito, Jr.

As a judge on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Alito upheld a Pennsylvania pro-life law that the Supreme Court overturned in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. He wrote an opinion in that case arguing for a standard that would permit virtually any restriction on abortion. From New Jersey, Alito is known in legal circles as "Scalia lite" in reference to pro-life Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

Janice Rogers Brown

Judge Janice Rogers Brown is the first black woman to serve on California's Supreme Court. Her nomination to a federal appeals court has been blocked by Senate Democrats.

In 1997, she issued a well-researched dissent in a case where the California Supreme Court overturned a pro-life law requiring abortion facilities to obtain parental consent before performing an abortion on a teenage girl.

Brown accused the court's plurality of abrogating the constitutional rights of parents, described the court's thinking as circular, and called the case "an excellent example of the folly of courts in the role of philosopher kings."

"When fundamentally moral and philosophical issues are involved and the questions are fairly debatable," Brown wrote, "the judgment call belongs to the Legislature. They represent the will of the people."

She also dissented in a decision requiring Catholic Charities to pay for contraception coverage in employee health insurance plans. The decision concerns pro-life groups because it could lead to a requirement that abortion be covered as well.

Brown has also garnered the support of the California voters. In 1998, 76% of voters decided to keep Brown on the bench in their state, the highest percentage of supporting votes in that election.

Emilio Garza

Emilio Garza is a federal appeals court judge on the New Orleans-based 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. Judge Garza's opposition to abortion is beyond question. He wrote two separate opinions explicitly criticizing Roe v. Wade and suggesting it be overturned.

Edith Jones

Judge Edith Jones of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals is frequently mentioned as a contender for the high court. She was considered for the Supreme Court seat that eventually went to Clarence Thomas.

If pro-life advocates are looking for a justice who strongly opposes Roe v. Wade, Jones should be a favorite.

When the 5th Circuit denied a request in October by Norma McCorvey to approve her motion to overturn the Roe v. Wade ruling, Judge Jones issued an opinion blasting the Supreme Court's opinion in Roe and saying it needs to be re-examined.

She called Roe an "exercise of raw judicial power," and cited evidence McCorvey presented showing abortions hurt women.

Jones, a Reagan nominee, wrote that the "[Supreme] Court's rulings have rendered basic abortion policy beyond the power of our legislative bodies."

"The perverse result of the Court's having determined through constitutional adjudication this fundamental social policy, which affects over a million women and unborn babies each year, is that the facts no longer matter," Jones added.

Jones chided the nation's high court for being "so committed to 'life' that it struggles with the particular facts of dozens of death penalty cases each year," but failing to grasp the fact that abortions destroys the lives of unborn children.

"One may fervently hope that the court will someday acknowledge such developments and re-evaluate Roe and Casey accordingly," Jones said of the 5000 pages of evidence with affidavits from over 1000 woman who have been harmed by abortion.

Michael Luttig

Judge Michael Luttig is a member of the Richmond-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Luttig was a clerk for pro-life Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia when Scalia was an appeals-court judge.

Later, Luttig worked for the first Bush administration and helped the former president win the appointment of Clarence Thomas to the nation's high court.

Luttig is widely considered one of Bush's top judicial prospects, especially given his young age, 50, and his ability to shape the direction of the court for years to come. He is considered the most conservative judge on one of the most conservative appeals courts in the nation.

He is regarded as a threat by abortion advocacy groups because he opposes abortion.

In 1998, Luttig issued an emergency stay of a lower-court order that blocked a new Virginia law banning partial-birth abortions. Eventually, Luttig and the 4th Circuit allowed the pro-life law to remain in place, but were overruled by the U.S. Supreme Court and the state's law was struck down.

However, should Luttig be selected for the Supreme Court, he would side with the four judges who comprised the minority in a 2000 case striking a Nebraska partial-birth abortion ban. The legal battle over the federal ban on partial-birth abortions is headed to federal appeals courts and will likely reach the Supreme Court.

John Roberts

Judge John Roberts, a former clerk of pro-life Chief Justice William Rehnquist, recently won confirmation to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, a traditional steppingstone to the Supreme Court. He is a former legal counsel to President Reagan.

As Principal Deputy Solicitor General during the first Bush administration, Roberts played an active role in efforts to limit abortion. Roberts argued in a brief before the U.S. Supreme Court that “[w]e continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled. [T]he Court's conclusion in Roe that there is a fundamental right to an abortion ... finds no support in the text, structure, or history of the Constitution."

In Rust v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court considered whether the Department of Health and Human Services could counsel women to have abortions. Roberts said regulations prohibiting that were constitutional.

Larry Thompson

Larry Thompson was deputy attorney general and the Bush administration's highest-ranking black law-enforcement official until he quit in 2003 to join a think tank, the Brookings Institution. A longtime friend of Justice Clarence Thomas, Thompson now serves as the general counsel for PepsiCo.

Harvie Wilkinson

Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III, also a member of the Richmond, Virginia-based federal appeals court, is considered a top prospect for the first Supreme Court seat that opens up. Wilkinson opposes abortion and is considered someone who may be palatable to Democrats in the Senate because of his more moderate views on other political issues, such as environmental policy.

He voted to uphold a state law allowing parents to know when their teenage daughters were considering an abortion.

White House Statements on Stem Cell Bills

2005-05-24T13:43:00.000-07:00

Here is the statement in support of H.R. 2520 – Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act of 2005.

Here is the statement opposing H.R. 810 – Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005.

TWENTIETH ANNUAL BALL FOR LIFE

2005-05-24T04:19:00.000-07:00

Benefiting Good Counsel Homes which serves women and their children in crisis pregnancy situations. Looks like a good time!

Archbishop Chaput's Keynote Address at the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast

2005-05-22T14:12:00.000-07:00

HOPE AND ITS DAUGHTERS

+Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap.

I grew up in Concordia, Kansas. It’s a typical small farming community of less than 7,000 people. But in those days Concordia was also the hometown of Senator Frank Carlson, who was a major player in Congress. So it wasn’t unusual for people in Concordia to think they had something important to say about government affairs and life in Washington, DC.

That’s the way it should be. That’s what the Founders of our country intended. All of us, no matter how little we are, have a voice in our nation’s public life and a major part to play.

Additionally, Catholics see politics as part of the history of salvation. For us, no one is a minor actor in that drama. Each person is important. And one of the most important duties we have is to use our gifts in every way possible for the glory of God and for the common good. That’s why Catholics and other Christians have always taken an active role in public life. What we believe about God shapes how we think about men and women. It also shapes what we do about promoting human dignity.

Today’s national discussion about religion and politics is sometimes so very strange. If God is the center of our lives, then of course that fact will influence our behavior, including our political decisions. That’s natural and healthy. What’s unnatural and unhealthy is the kind of public square where religious faith is seen as unwelcome and dangerous. But that seems to be exactly what some people want: a public square stripped of God and stripped of religious faith.

Our duty, if we’re serious about being Catholics, is to not let that happen. But our work as citizens doesn’t end there. Our bigger task is to help renew American public life by committing ourselves ever more deeply to our Catholic faith -- and acting like we really mean it.

Catholics spent the first 200 years of our nation’s life trying to fit in and be accepted. Well, congratulations, we did it. We made it. We’ve arrived. But we should remember St. Paul’s words: "Let him who boasts, boast of the Lord" (2 Cor 10:17).

Have we really examined the cost of our fitting in? Since the 1960s, many American Catholics have been acting like we’re lucky just to be tolerated in the public square. In other words, we’d better not be too Catholic or somebody will be offended. That’s a mistake. It’s a recipe for losing our faith and throwing away any hope for a national political discourse based on conviction. It’s also important to notice that most of today’s anti-Catholic prejudice in the public square is different from the past. It doesn’t come from other religious believers. It comes from people who don’t want any religious influence in public debates.

That’s not pluralism. It’s not democracy. Democracy and pluralism depend on people of conviction fighting for what they believe through public debate – peacefully, legally, charitably and justly; but also vigorously and without excuses. Divorcing our personal convictions from our public choices and actions is not "good manners." On the contrary, it can be a very serious kind of theft from the moral treasury of the nation, because the most precious thing anyone can bring to any political conversation is an honest witness to what he or she really believes.

This applies to elected officials. It applies to voters. It applies to you and me. Belief in God has profoundly shaped what Americans believe about human dignity; the law; the common good; and justice. To cut God out of the public square is to cut the head and heart from our public life.

What we really believe, we conform our lives to. And if we don't conform our lives to what we claim to believe, then we're living a lie. When public officials claim to be “Catholic” but then say they can't offer their beliefs about the sanctity of the human person as the basis of law, it always means one of two things. They’re either very confused, or they’re very evasive. All law is the imposition of somebody’s beliefs on somebody else. That’s exactly the reason we have debates, and elections, and Congress – to turn the struggle of ideas and moral convictions into laws that guide our common life.

Last Sunday we celebrated Pentecost, which is the birthday of the Church. In Catholic churches around the world, lectors read the following passage from St. Paul’s First Letter to the Corinthians: "No one can say ‘Jesus is Lord,’ except by the Holy Spirit."

Now, that may sound like the right way to read it, but it’s wrong. That passage should really be read this way: "No one can say ‘Jesus is Lord!’ except by the Holy Spirit." It’s the fire of the Holy Spirit in our hearts that enables us to make this profession of faith; that gives us the kind of energy and zeal to live our lives based on our faith in Jesus Christ.

We need to understand that in the early Church, those words – "Jesus is Lord" – were a political statement. The emperor claimed to be Lord both in the private and public lives of the citizens of the empire. When Christians proclaimed Jesus as Lord, they were proclaiming the centrality of Jesus not only in their personal lives, but in their public lives and their decision-making as well. That took real courage. And it had huge consequences for their lives. Jesus was hung upon the cross because of his claim of Lordship. Christianity was illegal for the first 250 years of the Church’s life because Christians proclaimed, “Jesus is Lord.”

Americans re-elected President Bush because most voters saw him, and see him, as a man of dedication and a leader deserving of our respect -- but he is not "Lord." Our political parties – whether Democratic or Republican -- are not "Lord." Congress is not "Lord." The Supreme Court is not "Lord." And neither are we "Lord"; nor our spouse or friends or possessions or talents. None of these people or things is Lord. Only God is God, and only Jesus Christ is Lord. And Christ’s relationship with each of us as individuals, and all of us as the believing Catholic community, should be the driving force of our personal lives and for all of our public witness – including our political witness.

"God" need not be on our lips every minute of every day. But He should be in our hearts from the moment we wake, to the moment we sleep. Only Jesus is Lord. The Church belongs to Him; not to us, but to Him. And there’s no way -- no way -- that we should ever allow ourselves to be driven from the public square by those who want someone else, or something else, to be Lord.

St Augustine, who had such a deep influence on the mind of our new Holy Father, once wrote that, "Hope has two beautiful daughters. Their names are anger and courage; anger at the way things are, and courage to see that they do not remain the way they are." Are we angry enough about what’s wrong with the world -- the killing of millions of unborn children through abortion; the neglect of the poor and the elderly; the mistreatment of immigrants in our midst; the abuse of science in embryonic stem cell research? Do we really have the courage of our convictions to change those things?

The opposite of hope is cynicism, and cynicism also has two daughters. Their names are indifference and cowardice. In renewing ourselves in our faith, what Catholics need to change most urgently is the habit and rhetoric of cowardice we find in our own personal lives, in our national political life, and sometimes even within the Church herself.

Last Sunday we celebrated Pentecost. This coming Sunday we celebrate the feast of the Holy Trinity. Every year during this week between Pentecost and Trinity Sunday, I reflect on what the Church means when she talks about the season of "ordinary time." There’s a spot just west of Denver as you descend out of the Rocky Mountains where the mountains suddenly stop, and the horizon opens up, and you gaze out on the beginning of the Great Plains – a thousand miles of flatland between Denver and the Mississippi River.

It reminds me of where we spend most of our lives. Not in the mountains, but on the plains – raising families, doing our jobs, making the daily choices that shape the world around us. Ordinary time is the space God gives to each of us to make a difference -- between the past and the future, between Pentecost and Jesus’ Second Coming.

What we do with that ordinary time – in our personal choices and in our public actions -- matters eternally. Solzhenitsyn once said that "the line separating good and evil runs not through states, nor between classes, nor even between political parties, but right through the center of each human heart, and every human heart."

Renewing our hearts -- that’s where we begin. Renewing the world – that’s our goal. Reclaiming the fire and courage of Pentecost – that’s how we’ll get there. Say it, and mean it, and live it: Only God is God, and only Jesus is Lord. When our actions finally follow our words, then so will our nation, and so will the world.

Most Reverend Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap., is the archbishop of Denver.

2005-05-22T14:02:00.000-07:00

Archbishop Charles J. Chaput and President George W. Bush at the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast.

Catholics flexing muscles in D.C.

2005-05-22T13:56:00.000-07:00

John A. Farrell, the Denver Post Washington Bureau Chief on Bush at the NCPB.

CATHOLICS CHEER BUSH

2005-05-22T13:52:00.000-07:00

J. Grant Swank, Jr. on Bush at the NCPB.

President Bush vows to veto legislation allowing more stem-cell research

2005-05-22T13:14:00.000-07:00

House Vote on ESCR on Tuesday

2005-05-22T04:09:00.000-07:00

Next Tuesday the House of Representatives will vote on HR 810. What is HR 810? HR 810 is a bill sponsored by Catholic Rep Mike Castle (R-DE). This bill would require federal funding of research that depends on the killing of human embryos in order to harvest their stem cells. The embryos would be those "donated from in vitro fertilization clinics, [and that] were created for the purposes of fertility treatment," after authorization by the parents. The bill is intended to loosen President Bush's restrictions on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.

The bill has 202 sponsors. Sixty-three of them are Catholic representatives. You can see which Catholic representatives are sponsoring HR 810 here. They are only sixteen votes short of an absolute majority. It is unfortunate that the GOP leadership in the House is allowing this bill to be brought to the floor. The reality is that it is. But there is still a chance that it can be defeated and the president thankfully has promised to veto the bill. We can urge members to oppose HR 810 and encourage the president to maintain his promise to veto. Here are suggested key points of support as provided by the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC):

* Each human being begins as a human embryo. Tell your representatives that you agree with President Bush that the government should not fund research that requires the killing of human embryos.

* Stem cells can be obtained without killing human embryos, from umbilical cord blood and from various types of adult tissue. Already, humans with at least 58 different disease conditions have received therapeutic benefit from treatment with such "adult stem cells." In contrast, embryonic stem cells have not been tested in humans at all because of the dangers, including frequent formation of tumors. Tell your representatives that you favor "ethical adult stem cell research, not research that requires killing human embryos."

* Those who favor federal funding of research that kills human embryos sometimes claim that these embryos "will be discarded anyway," but this need not be so. Many human embryos have been adopted while still embryos, or simply donated by their biological parents to other infertile couples, and are happy children today. Tell your representatives that you favor "human embryo adoption, not dissection."

*I would add the Catholic teachings on life as put forth by Paul VI in Humanae Vitae.

For additional information on ethical and unethical forms of stem cell research, see www.stemcellresearch.org and the NRLC Human Embryos webpage.

To communicate quickly and effectively with your congressional representatives, click on the latest Action Alert that deals with HR 810 at the NRLC Legislative Action Center. This resource will help you easily send messages to your representative in the House in opposition to federal funding of embryo-killing research. You will see a link that allows you to easily check to see whether your representative or senators have cosponsored HR 810. You will also see suggested e-mail messages (which are easy to modify) to send to lawmakers, with different messages for sponsors and nonsponsors of the bill.

You can also call the U. S. Capitol switchboard at 202-224-3121, or call your Representative's local office. The message is simple. Ask your representative to "Please vote 'no' on H.R. 810. Destroying human embryos for research purposes is immoral and unnecessary. Please support adult stem cell research."

To contact the president email him at president@whitehouse.gov or send a fax to 202-456-2461 or call the White House comment line at 202-456-1111.

Judge Pryor and Hope v. Pelzer

2005-05-22T03:48:00.000-07:00

Several weeks ago Nathan at Sollicitudo Rei Socialis laid out his reasoning why Judge William Pryor should be denied a seat on the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals and why Catholics should not support him. President Bush nominated then Alabama Attorney General Pryor to the bench in 2003. He was filibustered by Senate Democrats, but the president recess appointed him to the 11th Circuit where he has served for the last year. In addition, following re-election the president re-nominated now Judge Pryor. Nathan published his concerns following Judge Pryor's renomination and added to them following the death of Terry Schiavo. It was the 11th Circuit Court which denied Terry's parents a motion to reconsider and Nathan believed then that Judge Pryor voted with the majority of the Court to deny the petition. I showed that was not necessarily true, which Nathan accepted. He feels that there is some "circumstantial" evidence to suggest Judge Pryor voted with the majority, but that we cannot know for sure. Now with the Senate heating up over the president's filibustered nominees Nathan is once again airing his concerns about Judge Pryor, as well as Judge Priscilla Owen and Judge Janice Rogers Brown.

One point Nathan brought up about Judge Pryor which I never was able to address was the charge that he defended torture. Here is what Nathan wrote concerning an Alabama case which went all the way to the Supreme Court.

In Hope v. Pelzer, Bill Pryor defended Alabama's practice of handcuffing prison inmates to hitching posts in the hot sun if they refused to work on chain gangs or otherwise disrupted them. The Supreme Court, thankfully, rejected Pryor's insidious argument. The practice of both the hitching post and the chain gang constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in the United States Constitution, and it is certainly inconsistent with Catholic social teaching.

At the time I knew nothing about the case, so I did not comment on it. Nathan called me on it twice:

Is his defense of "the hitching post" and "chain gangs" in Hope v. Pelzer consistent with Catholic social teaching? (I would particularly like to hear your opinion on this; I consider this by far his most serious offense and the point which absolutely cannot be reconciled with Catholic social teaching).

I would still like to hear your opinion on Hope v. Pelzer, which you have conveniently avoided twice now. Perhaps you've avoided it because Pryor's position on that is indefensible.

With the fight in the Senate for these nominees and the appropriate use of the filibuster ongoing I have been reading up on the president's nominees. With Hope v. Pelzer and Judge Pryor's supposed position of defending torture still weighing on me, I came across the Committee for Justice's backgrounder (below) on Judge Pryor and his actions in regard to Hope v. Pelzer: Once again, Nathan does not have the facts straight. It is likely Nathan is merely repeating the misinformation that liberal interest groups are putting out there rather than purposefully misleading his readers. As the backgrounder below points out, Judge Pryor was not defending the use of the restraining bar, which borders on torture, rather he was defending, as he was obligated to do as AG, state employees who were being sued for using it and supposedly knew that its use was unconstitutional. Given that the use of the restraining bar was declared constitutional in at least six previous federal cases, it is hard to see that these guards should have known that the Supreme Court would sometime in the future declare it (by only a 5-4 vote) unconstitutional. The whole of the backgrounder follows:

The Restraining Bar Case. Pursuant to his obligations to defend Alabama against lawsuits, General Pryor raised another immunity-related defense - the defense of qualified immunity - in the U.S. Supreme Court case of Hope v. Pelzer.75 According to the Supreme Court, qualified immunity protects government officials sued in their individual capacities as long as their conduct does not violate "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known."76 The Eleventh Circuit has made it clear that the purpose of this immunity is to allow government officials to carry out their discretionary duties without the fear of personal liability or harassing litigation,77 by ensuring that only the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law are subjected to liability.78

For a time in Alabama, prisoners who would not work or who fought with other prisoners on work detail were handcuffed to a restraining bar by Alabama Department of Corrections prison guards until they decided to work with the other prisoners or the work day ended.79 Under the regulation ordering use of the restraining bar, officers were required to provide prisoners with food, water, bathroom breaks, and medical attention.80

The plaintiff in the case, a prisoner convicted of rape, filed suit against three prison guards who allegedly placed him on the restraining bar. The prisoner never alleged that the three guards he was suing in any way failed to provide him with food, water, bathroom breaks, or everything else required by the regulation. Instead, the convicted rapist was seeking money damages for the allegedly unconstitutional actions of the guards.81 This is despite the fact that, by the time the prisoner's case was litigated in court, the Alabama Department of Corrections had ceased using the restraining bar.82

General Pryor's argument was simply that the three defendant guards should not be sued for money damages, because the relevant case law at the time did not come close to establishing a clear rule that the restraining bar was unconstitutional. Under established Supreme Court precedent, state officials are entitled to qualified immunity unless their conduct violates "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known."83 One year before the conduct at issue in Hope took place, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama rejected the Eighth Amendment claim of an Alabama prisoner who was attached to a restraining bar for five hours after he refused to work and scuffled with guards.84 In fact, federal district courts in five other Alabama cases decided before the conduct at issue in Hope took place also rejected claims that handcuffing a prisoner to a restraining bar or other stationary object violated the Eighth Amendment.85 Because of the lack of clear guidance from federal courts, General Pryor believed the guards had no idea that their actions, which were ordered by then-Governor Fob James and the former prisons commissioner, were in any way illegal. The Eleventh Circuit agreed with General Pryor in 2001, dismissing the prisoner's suit on qualified immunity grounds.86

Because the convicted rapist appealed to the Supreme Court, General Pryor had no choice but to ask the Court to uphold the Eleventh Circuit's decision. Although a bitterly divided Supreme Court held 5-4 that the three prison guards were not entitled to qualified immunity,87 General Pryor's colleagues once again rallied to his side. Fifteen state Attorneys General filed an amicus brief in support of General Pryor's position in the case, including ten Democrats.88 The Attorneys General fully agreed with General Pryor's mainstream argument, noting: "It would not be appropriate to expect lay state officers to anticipate what was not grasped by several contemporary federal courts - and to hold those officers personally liable for this lack of prescience."89

75 536 U.S. 730, 733 (2002).
76 Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982).
77 See Vinyard v. Wilson, 311 F.3d 1340, 1346 (11th Cir. 2002).
78 See Chesser v. Sparks, 248 F.3d 1117, 1123 (11th Cir. 2001).
79 See Hope, 536 U.S. at 733.
80 See Respondents' Brief, 2002 WL 481135 at *21-22.
81 See Petitioner's Brief, 2002 WL 313546.
82 See Petitioner's Brief, 2002 WL 313546 at *1 n.2.
83 Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982).
84 See Lane v. Findley, No. CV-93-C-1741-S (Aug. 4, 1994).
85 See, e.g., Ashby v. Dees, No. CV-94-U-0605-NE (N.D. Ala., Dec. 27, 1994); Vinson v. Thompson, No.CV-94-A-268-N (M.D. Ala., Dec. 9, 1994); Hollis v. Folsom, No. CV-94-T-0052-N (M.D. Ala., Nov. 4, 1994); Williamson v. Anderson, No. CV-92-H-675-N (M.D. Ala., Aug. 18, 1993); Dale v. Murphy, No. CV-85-1091-H (S.D. Ala., Feb. 4, 1986).
86 See Hope v. Pelzer, 240 F.3d 975, 981 (11th Cir. 2001).
87 See Hope, 536 U.S. at 741-42.
88 See Brief of the States of Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, et. al., 2000 WL 471808.
89 Id. at *28 (citation omitted).

This was not about the constitutionality or appropriateness of the restraining bar, rather it was about money and whether or not these guards were entitled to immunity given that the use of the restraining bar in Alabama had been previously declared constitutional. It was not Judge Pryor's place as AG to argue whether or not this practice was constitutional. He was only defending the state employees, again which he is obligated to, who were following what they believed, given the previous federal rulings, was a constitutionally appropriate rule.

Once again there have been false statements about Judge Pryor's position on a issue important to Catholics and all people for that matter. What is his position on torture? I do not know. I am sure Nathan will assume that it he holds a pro-torture position, but the fact of the matter is that we do not know and that it is unfair and false to say that he does. Judge Pryor's actions in regard to Hope v. Pelzer do not warrant opposition to him from Catholics and do not disqualify him from being nominated by the president to the 11th Circuit.

President Attends National Catholic Prayer Breakfast

2005-05-20T10:48:00.000-07:00

Washington Hilton Hotel
Washington, D.C.
20 May 2005

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you for that warm reception -- especially for a Methodist. (Laughter and applause.) It's an honor to be here at the 2nd Annual National Catholic Prayer Breakfast. This is a new tradition, yet, its promises are timeless for Catholic Americans: to thank the Lord for the blessing of freedom, to renew our shared dedication to this great republic, and to pray that America uses the gift of freedom to build a culture of life. (Applause.)

I am sorry that Laura is not here. You probably think she's preparing a couple of new one-liners. (Laughter.) But, in fact, she's winging her way to Jordan and Egypt and Israel to spread the freedom agenda. (Applause.) But I know if she were here, she would join me in thanking you and millions of others whom we'll never get to say thanks to in person for the countless prayers. It's an amazing experience to be the President of a nation where strangers from all religions pray for me and Laura. And I will tell you, it gives me such peace of mind, and enables me to do my job much better when I'm lifted up in prayer. Thank you for your prayers. (Applause.)

I want to thank Leonard Leo for his kind introduction. I want to thank Joe Cella, the President of the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast. I want to thank His Eminence Cardinal Theodore McCarrick. What a fine man. What a beacon of hope. (Applause.) His Eminence shines brightly in the nation's capital. Applause.) I appreciate Archbishop Chaput of Denver, thank you for being here, sir. I apologize to him for not being able to listen to his address. He said, we're paying you a lot of money. Get back to work. (Laughter.) Fortunately, he didn't say, we're paying you too much money, get back to work. (Laughter.)

I appreciate Archbishop Gomez from the great state of Texas. (Applause.) Sister, thank you, very much. Admiral, thank you, very much, sir. Carl Anderson, the Supreme Knights of Columbus, is with us today. Carl, thank you for your friendship. (Applause.)

The Catholic contribution to American freedom goes back to the founding of our country. In 1790, a newly inaugurated George Washington -- the first George W. -- (laughter and applause) -- addressed a letter to all Catholics in America. He assured them that "your fellow citizens will not forget the patriotic part which you took in the accomplishment of their revolution." I'm honored to stand before you to offer my gratitude for the work American Catholic sons and daughters are doing for our nation. This work includes the incredible acts of compassion through our faith-based institutions that help Americans in need, especially the Catholic schools that educate millions of our fellow citizens and deliver hope to inner-city children of all faiths. (Applause.)

This morning we first thank God for the shared blessings of American liberty. Catholics have always known that a society built on respect for the religious beliefs of others would be a land where they could achieve and prosper.

When the French writer, de Tocqueville, visited these shores back in the 1830s, he noted that the most democratic country in the world was also the one where the Catholic religion was making the most progress. He called Catholics the most faithful believers in our land, yet also the most independent of citizens. (Laughter.) As I've learned from dealing with Senator Santorum. (Laughter and applause.)

This morning we also reaffirm that freedom rests on the self-evident truths about human dignity. Pope Benedict XVI recently warned that when we forget these truths, we risk sliding into a dictatorship of relativism where we can no longer defend our values. Catholics and non-Catholics alike can take heart in the man who sits on the chair of St. Peter, because he speaks with affection about the American model of liberty rooted in moral conviction.

This morning we pray for the many Catholics who serve America in the cause of freedom. One of them is an Army Chaplain named Tim Vakoc. He's a beloved priest who was seriously wounded in Iraq last May. We pray for his recovery, we're inspired by his sacrifice. In the finest tradition of American chaplains, he once told his sister, "The safest place for me to be is in the center of God's will, and if that is in the line of fire, that's where I'll be." Father Tim's sister, Anita Brand, and her family, are with us today, and a grateful nation expresses our gratitude to a brave Reverend. (Applause.)

Catholics have made sacrifices throughout American history because they understand that freedom is a divine gift that carries with it serious responsibilities. Among the greatest of these responsibilities is protecting the most vulnerable members of our society. That was the message that Pope John Paul II proclaimed so tirelessly throughout his own life, and it explains the remarkable outpouring of love for His Holiness at the funeral mass that Laura and I were privileged to attend in Rome. It explains why when the men were carrying his wooden casket up the stairs, and they turned to show the casket to the millions that were there, that just as the casket crests, the sun shown for all to see. (Applause.)

The best way to honor this great champion of human freedom is to continue to build a culture of life where the strong protect the weak. (Applause.) So, today, I ask the prayers of all Catholics for America's continued trust in God's purpose, for the wisdom to do what's right, and for the strength and the conviction that so long as America remains faithful to its founding truths, America will always be free.

Thank you for allowing me to come. May God bless you all, and may God continue to bless America. (Applause.)

President's Council Reports On Alternatives to Embryo Destructive Research

2005-05-19T10:31:00.000-07:00

The President's Council on Bioethics recently released a report that called for the exploration of alternatives to destroying human embryos for stem cells. The report outlines four possible means for obtaining embryonic-like stem cells that the authors say have the potential to be "morally uncontroversial." The report coincides with the release of a US Conference of Catholic Bishops poll that reveals that by a margin of 4 percentage points most Americans prefer that tax-dollars be spent on adult stem cells and other alternatives to embryo destructive research.

The Council's report suggests four ways for obtaining pluripotent cells, cells which are similar to embryonic stem cells, which do not require the willful destruction of human embryos. The report then examines each method to see if it is ethical, scientifically feasible and realistic to adopt from the perspective public policy and scientific research.

The first proposal calls on stem cells to be "derived from early IVF embryos . . . that have spontaneously died . . ." The report stresses that such an approach would require that "only those once-frozen embryos that are thawed and that die spontaneously during efforts to produce a child will be eligible for post mortem cell extraction." The report says that such a method would be acceptable for the same reasons that it acceptable for a fully developed human to donate his or her organs after death. The greatest ethical challenge to this proposal, according to the report, would be finding a way to make sure the embryo is really dead.

The second proposal says pluripotent stem cells could be obtained from a 6 to 8 cell embryo through a biopsy that would not harm the embryo. Both the feasibility and ethics of this method are highly questionable. It is unknown if the procedure can be undertaken without really harming the embryo and the long-term effect the procedure could have on humans that are born from such embryos is unknown. In a personal statement contained in the report's appendix by Council member and Culture of Life Foundation board member Robert George, this proposal is called the least promising of all four. "I do not hold out hope of obtaining pluripotent stem cells harmlessly via blastomere extraction from living human embryos," George says.

The third method is based on Dr. William Hurlbut's proposal in which stem cells would be obtained from a "biological artifact" that would be similar to an embryo but would not be human. This approach has been widely discussed but many are still unsure if the "biological artifact" would not in fact simply be a deformed human embryo.

The final method proposes reprogramming adult cells in such a way that restores to them the properties of a stem cell. There are no ethical objections to this proposal but it faces difficult technical obstacles that would require "new scientific advances and new technological innovation."

While the proposals are encouraging because they demonstrate that scientific advances may be used to develop morally acceptable approaches to stem cell research, George cautions against unrealistic expectation in the entire field of stem cell treatment. "[T]he effort in which I am happy to join to find morally legitimate means of obtaining embryonic or embryonic-type stem cells should not be interpreted as indicating any acceptance of the hyping of the therapeutic promise of embryonic stem cell research that has marred the debate over the past four years. This promotion of exaggerated expectations dishonors science and shames those responsible for it by cruelly elevating the hopes of suffering people and members of their families. It should be condemned."

Copyright 2005---Culture of Life Foundation.

Bush Doctrine at Work

2005-05-18T10:14:00.000-07:00

DAMASCUS, Syria, May 17 -- Beset by U.S. attempts to isolate his country and facing popular expectations of change, Syrian President Bashar Assad will move to begin legalizing political parties, purge the ruling Baath Party, sponsor free municipal elections in 2007 and formally endorse a market economy, according to officials, diplomats and analysts. Assad's five-year-old government is heralding the reforms as a turning point in a long-promised campaign of liberalizing a state that, while far less dictatorial than Iraq under Saddam Hussein, remains one of the region's most repressive. His officials see the moves, however tentative and drawn out, as the start of a transitional period that will lead to a more liberal, democratic Syria. Emboldened opposition leaders, many of whom openly support pressure by the United States even if they mistrust its intentions, said the measures were the last gasp of a government staggering after its hasty and embarrassing troop withdrawal last month from neighboring Lebanon.

New Poll: Most Americans Oppose Federal Funding of Stem Cell Research Using Human Embryos

2005-05-16T15:18:00.000-07:00

FMA Now!

2005-05-14T21:46:00.000-07:00

For those who think the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) is just a political move intended only to please religious conservatives so they will keep voting Republican, check out Stanley Kurtz's piece on why, in light of the federal judicial ruling striking down Nebraska's same-sex marriage ban, the FMA is needed.

Thursday’s decision by a federal court to overturn Nebraska’s state constitutional marriage amendment is a landmark moment in the battle over same-sex marriage. For the first time, a federal court has taken this matter out of the hands of a state. A constitutional amendment passed with a 70 percent majority of Nebraska’s voters has been voided. There could be no clearer demonstration of the arrogance of activist judges. This should remind Republican senators of the urgent need to confirm the president’s nominees to the bench. And of course this decision clearly shows that, without a federal marriage amendment, same-sex marriage is destined to be imposed on the country by the courts.

UPDATE: National Catholic Prayer Breakfast

2005-05-14T15:50:00.000-07:00

President Bush will address the 2nd Annual National Catholic Prayer Breakfast next Friday, May 20th at the Washington Hilton in Washington D.C.

"We are honored and delighted that the President of the United States is joining with our Catholic community as we bring action to our faith and commit ourselves to prayer for our nation and the world," said Joseph Cella, president of the prayer breakfast.

The Changing Catholic Vote

2005-05-14T15:22:00.000-07:00

In 1960, 71 percent of Catholics were Democrats and now Democrats have only a slight edge among Catholics (44 – 41 percent) and Catholics voted for President Bush (52 – 47 percent) in 2004.

Judge Pryor Update

2005-05-12T13:36:00.000-07:00

Bill Pryor was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee today on party-line vote.

Pro-Life Democrats Offer Mixed Bag of Proposals Designed to Reduce Abortions

2005-05-12T04:11:00.000-07:00

95-10 is getting some attention from other sources. "Contraception Equality" is still a sticking point.

________________
CULTURE & COSMOS
May 10, 2005
Volume 2, Number 40

Pro-Life Democrats Offer Mixed Bag of Proposals Designed to Reduce
Abortions

A series of legislative proposals aimed at reducing abortions by 95
percent in the next 10 years was recently announced by pro-life Democrats
at the Democratic National Committee headquarters. It is a move that may
indicate the party is taking seriously recent polling data indicating the
party's unwavering support for abortion to be politically damaging. But
the proposal contains a provision that would require insurance companies
to provide coverage for contraceptives. Such a provision could make it
difficult for the proposal to gain the support of stalwart pro-life
Republicans that it would need to gain passage.

Called the 95-10 Initiative, it is made up of 17 individual proposals
aimed at reducing the number of abortions. The proposals are expected to
be introduced as a single piece of legislation by Ohio Rep. Tim Ryan, one
of about 29 pro-life Democratic members of Congress. Jennifer Moore, a
legislative assistant to Ryan, told Culture & Cosmos that the proposal was
largely crafted by Kristen Day, executive director of Democrats for Life
of America. The goal of ending 95 percent of abortions was arrived at
because it is thought to be the percentage of abortions obtained for
reasons other than rape, incest or the health of the mother.

The plan would attempt to encourage adoption through several
measures. It calls on tax credits for adoptive parents that are temporally
in place to be made permanent. The proposal would also require states to
create advertising campaigns that provide a toll free number "to
organizations that provide support services for pregnant women who want to
carry their children to term" or "direct women to adoption centers." The
plan stipulates that such organizations must "not provide abortion
referral services."

Other elements of the initiative include a requirement that insurance
companies remove pregnancy from their lists of pre-existing conditions.
The plan also calls for "grants to nonprofit, tax-exempt organizations for
the purchase of ultrasound equipment to provide free examinations to
pregnant women needing such services." Staffers at pregnancy crisis
centers report that many pregnant women decide against having an abortion
after seeing their unborn child or hearing his or her heartbeat.

The plan calls for "grants to school districts that are in need of
funds to administer effective, age-appropriate pregnancy prevention
education" which could be interpreted to mean funding for sex-ed programs.
The proposal does not state whether such programs would have to be
"abstinence only" in order to receive the funds. More disturbing to
pro-lifers is the proposal's call for "Contraception Equity" which would
"[r]equire insurance coverage of contraception approved by the Food and
Drug Administration." The text of the 95-10 Initiative states that the
idea is based on "Missouri legislation that was supported by both pro-life
and pro-choice groups." But it is unclear how such a proposal could gain
pro-life support given that "the pill" can act as an abortifacient. More
broadly, some pro-life experts have noted that the widespread use of
contraception is always accompanied by an increase in abortions.

Moore said it was a positive sign that Howard Dean, president of the
Democratic National Committee, gave permission for the 95-10 Initiative to
be announced at the DNC headquarters. Since the November election some
Democrats have indicated that the party's unqualified support for abortion
on demand should be tempered. Most notably, New York Senator Hillary
Rodham Clinton, who is held in high reverence by radical feminists,
recently delivered a speech in which she called abortion a "tragic
choice." Research by the liberal Democracy Corps revealed that Democrats
are losing white Catholics to the Republican Party because of the abortion
issue.

Copyright 2005---Culture of Life Foundation.
Permission granted for unlimited use. Credit required.

President Bush is more Catholic than John Paul II was?

2005-05-11T07:57:00.000-07:00

No, but Mr Oderberg's argument is interesting. Though I disagree with his overall premise, his insights are thought provoking.

UPDATE: Good reading over at Mystery Achievement on this piece. This was the kind of discussion I was hoping for. Instead, we have some disturbed folks who feel I am more partisan than I am Catholic. They have posted their comments (and I have responded) below.

Teaching Tradition
When it comes to traditional morality, President Bush — not John Paul II — has it right.

By David S. Oderberg

In the wave of well-deserved adulation and admiration that has swept the world since the death of John Paul II, one observation has continually been made as a characterization of his pontificate. Love him or hate him, agree with or oppose him, one thing is universally accepted as true: John Paul II stood up for “traditional morality.” In a world obsessed with the “culture of death,” John Paul stood resolutely for traditional ethics and for the “culture of life” that made him such a sign of opposition to the prevailing drift of people and governments.

But just how traditional was his morality? He opposed contraception — that, to be sure, is traditional. Until the 20th century, no one endorsed contraceptive use; and even then, among people of all classes — except a handful in the intelligentsia — no one believed in it until the 1960s. Not only did every religion condemn it, but even the Anglicans didn’t approve it until 1931. So on that score, John Paul II taught traditional morality.

The same, of course, goes for abortion. Pagan aberrations aside (though we must sometimes remember to distinguish between what people do and what they believe), the previous paragraph applies to this practice as well. When it comes to euthanasia, ancient history can be discordant, but it’s pretty safe to say that opposition to it is also a part of traditional morality. No problem on that score for John Paul II.

But once we get past contraception, abortion, and euthanasia, things start to get sticky. For belief in the permissibility of the death penalty is a part of traditional morality, as is belief in the justifiability of war. And yet whilst the president of the United States, for one, steadfastly supports both capital punishment and the concept of just war, John Paul II seemed resolute in his virtual opposition to both. I say “virtual” because, though he never condemned either explicitly, everything he said and did made clear that he regarded them as all but unreasonable and inapplicable in the modern age. Here it looks like George W. Bush’s morality is far more traditional — and I would argue more defensible — than John Paul’s.

Defenders of the latter, however, will respond than the late pontiff never taught that war or capital punishment were wrong per se. Indeed, to take war first, some have said that John Paul II never even explicitly opposed the 2003 Iraq war. This is contentious, however, since in an interview with the Catholic news agency Zenit on May 2, 2003, then Cardinal Ratzinger made it quite plain that John Paul opposed the invasion: “The Pope expressed his thought with great clarity [that] there were not sufficient reasons to unleash a war against Iraq.” The more important matter of principle, however, is that John Paul did allow that sufficient reasons to go to war might exist.

How traditional is this position? Official teaching such as the Catechism of 1992/1997 allows the possibility of war justified by the right of self-defence or perhaps the defence of another country. But the traditional view has always been broader than this: Actual physical aggression or the threat thereof is one potential jus ad bellum (ground for war), but so, according to the standard moral theology manuals of the 1950s, are freedom from tyranny and liberation from religious oppression whereby a nation is prevented from worshipping God. Even a grave dishonor to a country can be a good reason for going to war. And the standard pre-1960s theology books also teach that it might be an act of charity for a nation to go to war to bring orderly government to a country in chaos.

These textbooks are merely echoing the centuries-old teaching of the Catholic Church as embodied in its greatest minds, such as St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas. To be sure, the textbooks agree that war is a horrendous thing, only to be justified in serious circumstances. But they are at some remove from John Paul, who never seems to have met a war he didn’t abhor.

The same goes for capital punishment, where, even more egregiously, John Paul denounced what the Church has taught for centuries. Lest there be any doubt, the 1992 version of the new Catechism, at para. 2266, includes the death penalty as legitimate punishment “in cases of extreme gravity.” In the 1997 revised version, however, this has been replaced in para. 2267 by the statement that capital punishment may be inflicted as “the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.” But then it goes on to say that any such case, in contemporary society, would be “very rare, if not practically non-existent,” repeating what John Paul said in his 1995 encyclical Evangelium Vitae.

Again, traditional teaching, which is quite some way from this highly restrictive position, is summed up by Aquinas: He says, “if any man is dangerous to the community and is subverting it by some sin, the treatment to be commended is his execution in order to preserve the common good, for a little leaven sours the whole lump.” Far less restrictive, one can see, unless “some sin” is distorted to mean “the worst possible sin in the world” or some such.

Indeed it is somewhat amazing that John Paul seems to have remained so unmoved by the unrelenting violence, sexual decadence, and drug-fuelled vice of modern materialist society (the very society he chastised over and over for its naked greed) as never once to have advocated executing some of the criminals who make contemporary life such a misery for so many people.

The plain fact is that John Paul II’s moral teaching (at least on life-and-death issues) is far less traditional than George Bush’s. For traditional ethics relies on the fundamental distinction between guilt and innocence: It is at the heart of the traditional support for just war and capital punishment and opposition to abortion and euthanasia. The president clearly recognizes this; all he is doing is reflecting a moral position that only a few decades ago, and for millennia before that, people used to drink in with their mothers’ milk.

Without the distinction between guilt and innocence there can be no conceptual basis for distinguishing punishment from protection. And without that, morality collapses into incoherence.

Opposition to abortion and euthanasia on the one hand, and support for just war and the death penalty on the other, are not conceptual enemies. They aren’t even uneasy bedfellows. They belong together, and in a way each side justifies the other. Together they provide the traditional ethics at the heart of all mainstream moral thinking until the 1960s cultural revolution. It is clear that George W. Bush has made that thinking his own. It is the late pontiff, on the other hand, who struck off in a novel direction. When it comes to applying tradition to life-and-death moral issues, Bush 43 wins hands down over John Paul II.

— David S. Oderberg is professor of philosophy at the University of Reading, England, and the author of books and articles on moral philosophy, such as Moral Theory (Blackwell, 2000) and Applied Ethics (Blackwell, 2000).