This speech has really, really ticked off the Democrats - which means, of course, that it is 100% correct:

We believe in the matchless value of every man, woman, and child. So we insist that the people of Israel have the right to a decent, normal, and peaceful life, just like the citizens of every other nation.

We believe that democracy is the only way to ensure human rights. So we consider it a source of shame that the United Nations routinely passes more human rights resolutions against the freest democracy in the Middle East than any other nation in the world.

We believe that religious liberty is fundamental to a civilized society. So we condemn anti-Semitism in all forms -- whether by those who openly question Israel's right to exist, or by others who quietly excuse them.

We believe that free people should strive and sacrifice for peace. So we applaud the courageous choices Israeli's leaders have made. We also believe that nations have a right to defend themselves and that no nation should ever be forced to negotiate with killers pledged to its destruction.

We believe that targeting innocent lives to achieve political objectives is always and everywhere wrong. So we stand together against terror and extremism, and we will never let down our guard or lose our resolve.

The fight against terror and extremism is the defining challenge of our time. It is more than a clash of arms. It is a clash of visions, a great ideological struggle. On the one side are those who defend the ideals of justice and dignity with the power of reason and truth. On the other side are those who pursue a narrow vision of cruelty and control by committing murder, inciting fear, and spreading lies.

This struggle is waged with the technology of the 21st century, but at its core it is an ancient battle between good and evil. The killers claim the mantle of Islam, but they are not religious men. No one who prays to the God of Abraham could strap a suicide vest to an innocent child, or blow up guiltless guests at a Passover Seder, or fly planes into office buildings filled with unsuspecting workers. In truth, the men who carry out these savage acts serve no higher goal than their own desire for power. They accept no God before themselves. And they reserve a special hatred for the most ardent defenders of liberty, including Americans and Israelis.

And that is why the founding charter of Hamas calls for the "elimination" of Israel. And that is why the followers of Hezbollah chant "Death to Israel, Death to America!" That is why Osama bin Laden teaches that "the killing of Jews and Americans is one of the biggest duties." And that is why the President of Iran dreams of returning the Middle East to the Middle Ages and calls for Israel to be wiped off the map.

There are good and decent people who cannot fathom the darkness in these men and try to explain away their words. It's natural, but it is deadly wrong. As witnesses to evil in the past, we carry a solemn responsibility to take these words seriously. Jews and Americans have seen the consequences of disregarding the words of leaders who espouse hatred. And that is a mistake the world must not repeat in the 21st century.

Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided." We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.

Some people suggest if the United States would just break ties with Israel, all our problems in the Middle East would go away. This is a tired argument that buys into the propaganda of the enemies of peace, and America utterly rejects it. Israel's population may be just over 7 million. But when you confront terror and evil, you are 307 million strong, because the United States of America stands with you.

We know who it is who "quietly excuse them" - the people of the political left, who are always quick to point the finger of blame at the United States and Israel, as if the actions of free people defending themselves are in any way comparable to the actions of tyrants shedding the blood of innocents to further their own power. We also know who offers us "the false comfort of appeasement" - those same leftists, led now by their pied piper, Barack Obama, who sings a song of talk, talk, talk to those who only know how to kill, and who's only delight is in the death of Americans and Israelis. We know all this - and they know all this; and so they are angry at President Bush for once again has gently called them on their cowardice and folly.

It is a terrible thing these people on the left do - far worse than sinning, in my view, is to be an accessory to sin; to encourage sin, to make sin more likely. The brutes we fight against are bad men who we pray will repent of their ways - but such a repentance and such a change is made all the harder because there are those in our midst who encourage the evil doers in their wicked deeds...who see a Kennedy saying the war was hatched in Texas, a Reid saying the war is lost, an Obama promising to surrender in Iraq and say to themselves "our deeds are good, because they are bringing us victory". President Bush has been the rock of American and global resolve in this war, but he will leave office on January 20th, 2009 - it is our duty as patriots and as citizens of the larger world to see to it that his successor is a man with no illusions, and with the plain courage to see this noble fight to an honorable conclusion. With Bush followed by McCain, all will be well, no matter how hard the task proves - with Bush followed by Obama, all the work and sacrifice of the past 7 years will be in vain.

Cross Posted at Blogs for Victory

Some people really do:

The Rev. Dave Casaleggio doesn't apologize for the company he keeps.

The 60-year-old Roman Catholic priest and chairman of the Las Vegas Housing Authority remains steadfastly loyal to his most controversial friends, even when questions about the friendships land him in the newspaper or, in one recent instance, before a federal grand jury.

Casaleggio, known to many as "Father Dave," doesn't seem to care much what others might think of his hanging out with the likes of former Crazy Horse Too owner Rick Rizzolo or former Las Vegas City Councilman Michael McDonald, each of whom has borne his share of negative press over the years.

He uses the example of Jesus to back him up.

"It wasn't the perfect people Jesus went after," Casaleggio said. "It was the prostitutes, tax collectors and public sinners he cared about. I'm not saying they (Rizzolo and McDonald) are public sinners. But church isn't about perfect people. It's about struggling and failing."

No doubt about it, Rizzolo and McDonald are men who need the Gospel brought to them - and it is a priest or pastor's job to preach the Word of God everywhere, not just where convenient and polite. Still, as the article goes on to note, Fr. Dave did loan McDonald 30k, which is odd for a priest to do - but not as odd as a non-Catholic might think: Fr. Dave is a diocesan priest, and thus can hold private property, like the house he inherited from his parents and borrowed against to loan money to McDonald. No matter how you slice it, it took a lot of guts on the part of Fr. Dave to loan that money - to stick by his friend, even though it would certainly raise eyebrows not just amongst outsiders, but even amongst most Catholics, at least initially.

Jesus did not call the sinless to repentance, but the sinners - and he doesn't abandon anyone, no matter what they've done. So, Fr. Dave is living the Christian life, and I hope that no harm comes of it - but this is one of those situations where "judge not" really comes into play - if we don't know all the details (and we can't) then we have to suspend judgement and work on the assumpting that Fr. Dave and his friends are on the level. The hard part, of course, is actually doing this - of actually looking at the McDonalds and Rizzolos of the world and seeing Christ in them, rather than just looking at their surface sins and wanting nothing more to do with them.

Sherman Frederick in the Las Vegas Review-Journal figures it cuts both ways for the Democratics:

Democrats bristle at talking about this in plainer terms. They say Sen. Hillary Clinton has found her base -- the "working class." That's why she won in the Rust Belt primaries. That's her great hope in Kentucky and West Virginia.

But calling Clinton's strategy one of kowtowing to the "working class" doesn't quite say it, does it? Isn't this just old-fashioned racism within the Democratic Party?

When Hillary strategists say they are winning the "working class," they don't mean they are winning working people with a household income of, say, less than $50,000. All the exit polls show quite clearly that lower middle-class people who work split between Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. Clinton. The difference is generally skin color. Hillary wins the lion's share of the "working-class" white Democrats. And, sadly, as Hillary's campaign has become meaner and more to the point, that margin has become bigger.

The Clinton racism strategy first became apparent in Nevada, when her struggling campaign began to publicly talk about her "Hispanic firewall" against Obama among the rank-and-file in the Culinary union. It hit the national consciousness soon thereafter when former President Bill Clinton, after Hillary lost the South Carolina primary, dismissed Obama's big win as a race-inspired victory akin to Jesse Jackson's success in that state years ago.

The record clearly shows that Hillary's campaign was the first to use Obama's race against him. The strategy gained an unexpected boost when Sen. Obama's former pastor, the egomaniacal Rev. Jeremiah Wright, cribbed the Obama spotlight only to show the world that racism could be a black thing, too. The opportunistic Clinton campaign shamelessly took full advantage of the tension. They not only raised questions about what the Wright debacle meant for an Obama presidency, they slyly positioned Hillary, like a latter-day George Wallace (the Alabama governor, not the very funny Las Vegas comedian), as the "working-class" candidate...

...The "superdelegate" whisper campaign goes something like this: Hillary is better built to win in November. Obama is soft and elitist. He's a dangerous unknown quantity. But most importantly, Mr. and Mrs. Democratic Insider Superdelegate, look at the voter numbers in key states. Forget about pledged delegates, wins and losses and overall popular vote. Look deep into the numbers of the key states Democrats must win in November.

Do you see those "working-class" numbers? Those are Hillary people. Those are the people who will win the White House for Democrats this fall. Those are the people who count because, faced with a choice between Obama and Sen. John McCain, "working-class" Democrats will vote for McCain.

It's a disgusting display for which Democrats ought to be alarmed and ashamed. The remedy is this: Stop calling Hillary's base the "working class" and start calling it what it is.

I'm not so sure about this - about the concept that Hillary's appeal to working class white voters is evidence of lingering racism, or Hillary's playing up to it. I believe that Obama would be one of the very worst Presidents we've ever had - he might even redeem Jimmy Carter from the basement of Presidential legacies...but I don't go telling black friends that they are fools for voting Obama. I understand it - its akin to the way Catholics went nuts for JFK in 1960, even though JFK (a) wasn't much of a Catholic and (b) even though he wasn't a very good candidate as far as actual qualifications for office go. But white support for Obama amongst black Americans can be traced in large measure to pride over one of their own doing well, opposition to Obama doesn't necessarily stem from racial animosity, overt or covert. Opposition to Obama stems from, in my view, his elitism and his arrogant condescension to average Americans - Wright was damaging to Obama, but "bitter" was far more so...what Wright said was what Wright said, and thus Obama could distance himself, at least to a degree, form it...but Obama's comment about bitter Americans clinging to God and guns, that was out of his own mouth, and let all of us know what he really thinks about us.

Sherman's view - that Hillary has played an ugly, race-based political calculation - may be true in the narrow sense; for all we know, Hillary did decide to make a covert play to race, but even if Hillary hadn't done so, I think that working class white people - who are a lot smarter than most political elites - especially liberal elites - give them credit for - would have been turned off to Obama by Obama's own words.

Cross Posted at Blogs for Victory

Rather surprising, given the way courts routinely ignore the law these days:

The Michigan General Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that the state’s constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages also blocks Michigan governments and state universities from offering “domestic partnership” benefits for homosexual couples.

The Marriage Protection Amendment was approved by nearly sixty percent of voters in 2004. Considered the broadest of the 11 state marriage amendments barring same-sex marriage, the language of the Michigan amendment says “…the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose.”

The Michigan ACLU, representing the AFL-CIO homosexual activist group National Pride at Work, had challenged the application of the law as based in Attorney General Mike Cox’s interpretation of the amendment.

The Michigan court’s 5-2 decision did not rule on whether government employment benefits can be offered to homosexual partners on some broader basis also available to other employees. Some local governments and universities have attempted to maintain present benefits by amending the eligibility requirements.

“The people of Michigan have constitutionally protected marriage as exclusively the union of one man and one woman, period, and that includes prohibiting the recognition of homosexual relationships as equal or similar to marriage for any purpose, including offering spousal-type benefits to the homosexual partners of government employees,” Gary Glenn, one of the co-authors of the Marriage Protection Amendment and head of the American Family Association of Michigan.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, praised the decision, saying, “The Michigan Supreme Court courageously upheld the will of the people.”

This shows that it can be done - that we can, really, by working through our constitutional system actually get the laws to reflect the will of the people. Now we just need to apply this to the Federal courts...

A strong but very loving statement from the Archbishop to the Governor of Kansas:

On the day of my return (Monday, April 21) from the exhilarating experience of participating in Pope Benedict’s pastoral visit to the United States, I learned that Governor Kathleen Sebelius had vetoed the Comprehensive Abortion Reform Act (HS SB 389), which had been passed by significant majorities in both chambers of the Kansas Legislature. Last week, an attempt to override the governor’s veto failed in the Senate by two votes.

Governor Sebelius in her veto message claimed: “For years, the people of Kansas have asked their elected officials to move beyond legislative debates on issues like abortion.” From her veto message, I received the impression the governor considered it a waste of the Legislature’s time to pass a statute that attempts to protect some women...

...Since becoming archbishop, I have met with Governor Sebelius several times over many months to discuss with her the grave spiritual and moral consequences of her public actions by which she has cooperated in the procurement of abortions performed in Kansas. My concern has been, as a pastor, both for the spiritual well-being of the governor but also for those who have been misled (scandalized) by her very public support for legalized abortion.

It has been my hope that through this dialogue the governor would come to understand her obligation: 1) to take the difficult political step, but necessary moral step, of repudiating her past actions in support of legalized abortion; and 2) in the future would use her exceptional leadership abilities to develop public policies extending the maximum legal protection possible to the unborn children of Kansas.

Having made every effort to inform and to persuade Governor Sebelius and after consultation with Bishop Ron Gilmore (Dodge City), Bishop Paul Coakley (Salina) and Bishop Michael Jackels (Wichita), I wrote the governor last August requesting that she refrain from presenting herself for reception of the Eucharist until she had acknowledged the error of her past positions, made a worthy sacramental confession and taken the necessary steps for amendment of her life which would include a public repudiation of her previous efforts and actions in support of laws and policies sanctioning abortion.

Recently, it came to my attention that the governor had received holy Communion at one of our parishes. I have written to her again, asking her to respect my previous request and not require from me any additional pastoral actions.

The governor has spoken to me on more than one occasion about her obligation to uphold state and federal laws and court decisions. I have asked her to show a similar sense of obligation to honor divine law and the laws, teaching and legitimate authority within the church.

I have not made lightly this request of Governor Sebelius, but only after much prayer and reflection. The spiritually lethal message, communicated by our governor, as well as many other high profile Catholics in public life, has been in effect: “The church’s teaching on abortion is optional!”

I reissue my request of the faithful of the archdiocese to pray for Governor Sebelius. I hope that my request of the governor, not to present herself for holy Communion, will provoke her to reconsider the serious spiritual and moral consequences of her past and present actions. At the same time, I pray this pastoral action on my part will help alert other Catholics to the moral gravity of participating in and/or cooperating with the performance of abortions.

Short of actually going through a process of ex-communication (which I don't know is even done these days), there's nothing the Archbishop can do to make it clearer - Governor Sebelius is not in proper communication with the Church and may not take the Blessed Sacrament until she gets herself right - which will require a public repudiation of her efforts to foster abortion. Once a Catholic, always a Catholic - but my sister Kathleen can't partake of the sacraments of our Church.

These are sad but very necessary actions - for far too long, the Church has let the matter of abortion and birth control slide, and so many Catholics really do think that Church teaching on such matters is optional. Its not - in fact, it is vital that Catholics understand that life is good; God called it so, and thus we must put no impediments to it, nor seek its destruction because it might be perceived as inconvenient in some circumstances. Governor Sebelius isn't the only Catholic politician out there who is violating Church teaching by being in favor of abortion, and it is to be hoped that they, too, will be called to account and that we faithful will be called to pray for our brothers and sisters who have fallen into error on the matter of life.

Richard Kim in the ultra-left Nation wonders how Hillary feels about her "white racist" supporters:

...in the name of another personal quality--honesty--I'd like Hillary Clinton to make the following statement: "Though my opponent has run a terrific campaign, in primary after primary, I have proven that I am the more electable candidate. I am more electable because I am white. Barack Obama--Wow!--he's certainly inspired a lot of hope, but as voters in Indiana and North Carolina make up their minds, as the superdelegates make up their minds, they should remember that Barack Obama is black. They should also remember that a whole lot of white working-class Americans are racists. White racists are an important part of the Democratic Party, and time and time again, they've supported me because I am white. I am ready on day one to govern as your white American president."

If this sounds--excuse the pun--beyond the pale, it's because it is. Or at least, it should be. But the alleged racism of white working-class voters has become, through her campaign's own actions, the last remaining rationale for Clinton's candidacy.

Are white working-class voters really racist? How many and where? If a significant number of them are, should Democrats really court them on the terms of their racism? These are questions worth asking since, apparently, a lot of Democrats think they're valid. But as long as the Clinton campaign continues to code the fact that it is counting on a base of white racist support, we'll never have this conversation.

Sounds to me like some on the left are starting to pre-spin the reason for an Obama defeat (today and/or in November) as because of racist, white Americans. But is this really likely to be the case? I don't believe so - what the left ignores or pretends doesn't matter is that Obama egregiously insulted all Americans who aren't black voters and/or upper class white voters. Obama and Co can spin it until the cows come home, but he really did call average Americans bitter, gun-carrying, fearful, religious bigots - and when coupled with his pastor's obscenly racist and anti-American rhetoric (which rhetoric, of course, is believed 110% by people at the Nation, for instance), it is a natural that the insulted constituency would gravitate towards the only other Democratic alternative - Hillary Clinton; had there been a more moderate black candidate instead of or in addition to Hillary, then these middle and lower class white voters might well have gone for that candidate.

Are there racists in America? Of course. Are they, on the whole, likely to be either GOP or Democratic voters? No. Your basic racist - and I mean the real "I think black people are inferior" sort of KKKer racism - thinks that our government is the Zionist Occupation Government and that the votes are all just a sham anyway. These really are the bitter people who wallow in hatred - and not just of black people, but of Jews, Catholics, hispanics, Asians...everyone who isn't of the Anglo-Saxon extraction and committed to the white supremacy movement. In 2004, these people weren't pondering - in the Democratic race - as to whether or not they should back Kerry or Edwards. Race isn't a factor in this - except on the left, which is desperate for an explanation other than Obama's leftist extremism for Obama's electoral troubles, and possible defeat.

I still think that Obama will be the Democratic nominee - the Democratic powers that be are desperately afraid of what will happen if the first credible black candidate is denied the Democratic nomination; but if Obama loses, it won't be because white racists pushed ultra-liberal Hillary over the top, but because Hillary has proven herself the more dogged campaigner who both took nothing for granted nor despaired when things went wrong. And if Obama does still get the nomination and goes down to a McGovern-like defeat in November, it still won't be racism as the cause but the continued and strong rejection of ultra-leftist ideology by the majority of the American electorate.

Cross Posted at Blogs for Victory

No surprise - and it entirely explains why the social structure of the United States, in spite of many glaring problems, is fundamentally one of the healthiest in all the Judeo-Christian West:

In preparation for the next gathering of the Catholic bishops around the world, the Catholic Biblical Federation has conducted an extensive survey regarding how the Bible is read in 13 different countries. The survey reports that the U.S. is the one of most Bible-believing nations and the one that is most interested in the Scriptures.

The survey was held to obtain a sense of the influence of the Scriptures to assist the bishops in their October 5-26, 2008 synod on “The Word of God in the Life and the Mission of the Church”.

Thus far, 13,000 interviews have been held in the United States, the United Kingdom, Holland, Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Poland, and Russia. According to Vatican analyst Sandro Magister, the results released on April 28 “cover the entirety of the adult population” and the results pertaining solely to Catholics will be published at a later date. Results from Argentina, South Africa, the Philippines, and Australia are still being collated.

In Magister’s view, the results of the survey show that, “the Bible is not present and influential in all countries in the same way. The wave of secularization produces very different effects from region to region. In the United States and in Italy, these effects appear to be more contained than in other countries of Western Europe, among which France emerges as the most de-Christianized nation.”

The Bible is present in many houses in Italy and the U.S., 75% and 93% respectively, but in France less than half of the people have a Bible at home.

However, the only place where the Scriptures have been read in the last year is the United States, which comes in at 75%. Despite high ownership, Italian Bible reading is reported at 27%, and in Spain the number falls to 20%.

All Christians owe a debt of gratitude in this to our Evangelical brothers and sisters who have been intense in their missionary zeal to get the Bible into as many hands as possible, and getting people to actually read it; I think the ready availability not only of the Bible, but of people willing to take the time to teach it explains why the United States is so deep in the scriptures - and our depth of religious knowledge is what keeps us from the worst aspects of the post-Christian Culture of Death. I think, also, that our liberal friends understand this, and understand that the greatest stumbling block to remaking us in the image of the EU is that too many Americans have access to truth, and thus don't fall for the left's siren song.

In the ongoing and intensifying culture war, the best defense for our civilization is a citizenry ever more informed about who we are, where we come from and what is the basis of our civilization. The rock of our way of life is The rock, as it were, and just so long as a majority of us know this, so will we be well-positioned to beat back the efforts of the left to destroy our civilization.

Interesting:

Rev. John Hagee, the controversial pastor of Cornerstone Church in San Antonio, Texas, has lauded Pope Benedict XVI in a Washington Times essay and thanked him for the speeches he made during his U.S. visit. Hagee praised what he called Pope Benedict’s “moral vision for America,” especially the Pope’s affirmation of Christian participation in the public square.

Cross Posted at Blogs for Victory
In his Washington Times essay, Rev. Hagee also repeated his denial of accusations he has made anti-Catholic statements. Hagee insisted he has been “quite zealous” about condemning what he said was the “past anti-Semitism of the Catholic Church.” However, he claimed his view of the Catholic Church had been caricatured.

Hagee praised Pope Benedict’s many public statements about the role that “our Judeo-Christian faith” can play in contemporary life.

“As an evangelical Protestant I happen to disagree with Pope Benedict on many issues of Christian doctrine and ritual,” Hagee wrote. “But when it comes to his moral vision for America and the world I have one thing to say in response to the Pope's visit: Amen.”

Hagee said that evangelical leaders believe faith must not be confined to “churches on Sunday morning.” Rather, Christian values can help build a more just and humane society. Hagee said the Pope “speaks for all of us” when he said “any tendency to treat religion as a private matter must be resisted" and called for Christian participation "in the exchange of ideas in the public square."

My erring brother, Hagee, has made a gracious gesture in keeping with the true Christian spirit - and while I retain many differences of opinion with Hagee, I choose to accept this olive branch and let bygones be bygones. At a time when religion, as a thing, is under full scale assault, those of us who believe must remain as united as possible, and I'm not going to gnaw a bone of resentment just for the sake of keeping angry.

Thank God - and I mean, really: thank Him - that our nation is still able to raise up such men:

Master Sgt. Brendan O’Connor on Wednesday received the Distinguished Service Cross, the Army’s second-highest valor award, for his actions during a 17-hour battle in Afghanistan.

The 47-year-old Special Forces medical sergeant spoke with humor and humility after the medal was pinned on his uniform in a ceremony at Bank Hall on Fort Bragg.

“My word!” O’Connor said, reacting to praise by a three-star Army general and a four-star Navy admiral. “My name is Brendan O’Connor, and I didn’t fully approve that message.”

In his self-effacing remarks, O’Connor apologized to his children for missing birthdays and thanked his wife, Margaret, for what she has done in raising their family in his absence.

Margaret O’Connor writes a Home Front column for The Fayetteville Observer.

Master Sgt. O’Connor, who resigned his commission as an officer and then took the rigorous training to become a Special Forces medical sergeant, said his “momentary courage” pales in comparison to people who cope courageously with difficult situations daily, such as Capt. Ivan Castro, who is blind, and Harry Hubbard, a friend who suffered a stroke in his mid-30s.

HAT TIP: NRO's The Corner

Cross Posted at Blogs for Victory

As I have said before, we are going to miss this man, President Bush, once he leaves office:

Q Mr. President, this is the first head of state, Pope Benedict the XVI, you will ever greet on a tarmac. I was stunned to learn this. Why are you going and greeting him at an airstrip? Usually the heads of states come here.

THE PRESIDENT: Because he is a really important figure in a lot of ways. One, he speaks for millions. Two, he doesn't come as a politician; he comes as a man of faith. And, three, that I so subscribe to his notion that there are -- there's right and wrong in life, that moral relativism has a danger of undermining the capacity to have more hopeful and free societies, that I want to honor his convictions, as well.

Q You read his book on Europe, I'm told.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I read parts of it, yes.

Q What do you take generally from his appraisal of Europe and the world? And why is this relationship between the United States and the Holy See so important to you?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, first of all, it's important to me because the Holy Father represents and stands for some values that I think are important for the health of the country, and when he comes to America, millions of my fellow citizens will be hanging on his every word. And that's why it's important.

I really don't want to get into -- spend time being critical of Europe. My main objective is to make sure our country is strong and solid and remains in the lead. One of the tenets of my foreign policy is that there is an Almighty, and a gift of that Almighty to every man, woman and child is freedom. And, you know, His Holiness speaks with that kind of clarity.

I'm also, as you know, a believer in the value of human life for the -- whether it's -- you know, the most vulnerable amongst us. And he speaks clearly to that, as well.

Q Yes, I want to talk about that a little bit later, because you -- you know, he has commended, and no doubt will again, for your bold stance on pro-life issues. I want to touch on some of the points he will no doubt raise.

One of them is Africa. I watched with great interest your visit to Africa. You looked like the Pope of Tanzania when you arrived. (Laughter.) I mean, the whole town erupted. People I don't think have given you just desserts or credit for what you've done there. You've quadrupled aid to Africa. Your President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief is now treating 1.4 million people. The malaria treatment is unbelievable -- something like 50 million people now being helped. When you look at that -- I was told by a group of people who came here to meet you at the White House, you said, to whom much is given, much is expected.

Is there a compulsion of faith here, personally --

THE PRESIDENT: Absolutely.

Q -- with this aid?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, it's a combination of faith and practicality. From the practical perspective, hopelessness is the only way for ideologues who murder the innocent to be able to recruit their followers. No one who's got a vision as dark and dim as al Qaeda can possibly say to somebody, follow me, my vision is hopeful or positive. Its like, you're so hopeless, this is your only out. And therefore, dealing with disease and hunger and despair helps defeat this -- these bunch of ideologues.

And then, secondly, I believe it's in our individual and collective interests to use our great blessings to help others, whether it be at home or abroad. And so, "to whom much is given, much is required" is a part of my belief. And I say to people all the time that it's in our national -- it's in our moral interests. It invigorates our soul to know that we have saved a baby that could be dying of a mosquito bite.

And I'm looking forward to talking to His Holy Father, and I will remind him this isn't a George W. Bush deal; this is America. This is America at its best. But, yes, it was amazing to see the great appreciation that the citizens share for -- with us -- or about us.

A man of faith, and a man of courage - and a man who understands that God is in control. President Bush has made some mistakes in his term as President, but the thing which will secure him a large spot in our history is the way he looked for what is the right thing to do, and then went on an did it no matter the criticism, no matter how difficult the task. You can call President Bush wrong, but you can never call him half-hearted.

McCain will, I believe be a good President and a man who will defend the Judeo-Christian morality we thrive on, but we can only hope that McCain will show the sort of moral courage President Bush has shown - that disdain for political risks when there is something which must be done. President Bush could be riding 60% approval ratings if he had just set himself to curry favor...but that is not what he did; he set himself to do what needs to be done. I can't imagine any part of HillBama taking such risks, nor showing such courage in the face of relentless attacks. Bush has done it, McCain may do it - and the whole key has been a humble acceptance that the leader of a nation is the servant of the servants of God, or he is nothing.

A potential powder keg in the immigration debate, and the fall election - from Michelle Malkin:

Law-abiding citizens of all colors are uniting against the targeting of innocent black residents of Los Angeles by illegal alien gangs. The parents of murdered high school student Jamiel Shaw met with L.A. public officials yesterday, urging them to rescind the city’s notorious Special Order 40–one of the nation’s oldest illegal alien sanctuary laws. Enough is enough:

The parents of Jamiel Shaw Jr., a high school football star who was gunned down by a reputed gang member just blocks from his home, urged Los Angeles city leaders today to go after criminals who are in the country illegally.

Pedro Espinoza, 19, allegedly shot and killed the 17-year-old Los Angeles High School student on March 2 in the 2100 block of Fifth Avenue, not far from the Shaw family’s Arlington Heights home. According to police, the shooting occurred one day after Espinoza was released from county jail, where he was serving time for assault with a deadly weapon.

U.S. immigration officials believe Espinoza, a member of the 18th Street gang, may have been in the country illegally.

“We have a problem with the system. My son was murdered by someone that was here illegally. No matter how you look at it, that’s what happened,” Jamiel Shaw Sr. told reporters before entering the Los Angeles City Council chamber.

Authorities do not know why Espinoza was not detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement upon his release from the county jail.

This is just the sort of cut-and-dried, issue which can drive an issue into the fall campaign. All it takes from this point is for people to start asking pointed questions about this to the three candidates - and while McCain has his weaknesses in the immigration debate, he's rock solid compared to Obama and Hillary, who are both deathly afraid of declaring themselves firmly on the issue. Democrats want very much to use immigration as a means of securing Hispanic votes in the fall - but they want to do it on the sly, off the main public radar using scare tactics in the Hispanic community (you know, McCain will send you back to Mexico, so vote Democrat!)...the last thing the Democrats want is to take a position on whether or not local law enforcement should check the immigration status of people detained for crimes.

This could change a huge amount of the election dynamic - so, lets just watch and see what happens.

Cross Posted at Blogs for Victory

Yesterday morning I happened to catch Senator Levin's mendacious and defeatist opening remarks at the Petraeus-Crocker hearings. I was very much saddened by his remarks - saddened that while our best and bravest and Iraq's best and bravest are shedding their blood for victory, a US Senator could say this:

Even the few small political steps that have been taken by the Iraqis are in jeopardy because of the incompetence and excessively sectarian leadership of Mr. Maliki. Last week, this incompetence was dramatized in the military operation in Basra. Far from being the “defining moment” President Bush described, it was a haphazardly planned operation, carried out apparently without meaningful consultation with the U.S. military or even key Iraqi leaders, while Maliki made unrealistic claims, promises and threats.

Outside of being entirely divorced from reality, I additionally fail to see how insulting the Iraqi government and its military is going to help us prevail in Iraq. But that, of course, is the actual point for the Democrats - they don't want us to prevail in Iraq because their entire political narrative for 2008 hangs on Iraq being a failure...if Iraq is other than a failure, then Democrats have no rationale for being elected in November. As has become all too common amongst Democrats, the power of the Democratic party trumps all other considerations, including those of basic decency. Fortunately, in General Petraeus we have a man who will tell us the truth:

Underpinning the advances of the past year has been improvements in Iraq's security institutions.

An increasingly robust Iraqi-run training base enabled the Iraqi security forces to grow by over 133,000 soldiers and police over the past 16 months. And the still-expanding training base is expected to generate an additional 50,000 Iraqi soldiers and 16 army and special operations battalions through the rest of 2008, along with 23,000 police and eight national police battalions.

Additionally, Iraq's security ministries are steadily improving their ability to execute their budgets. As this chart shows, in 2007, as in 2006, Iraq's security ministries spent more on their forces than the United States provided through the Iraqi Security Forces Fund.

We anticipate that Iraq will spend over $8 billion on security this year and $11 billion next year. And this projection enabled us recently to reduce significantly our Iraqi Security Forces Fund request for fiscal year 2009 from $5.1 billion to $2.8 billion.

While improved Iraqi security forces are not yet ready to defend Iraq or maintain security throughout the country on their own, recent operations in Basra highlight improvements in the ability of the Iraqi security forces to deploy substantial numbers of units, supplies and replacements on very short notice. They certainly could not have deployed a division's worth of army and police units on such short notice a year ago. On the other hand, the recent operations also underscored the considerable work still to be done in the area of logistics, force enablers, staff development, and command and control.

No, the Iraqi forces in Basra didn't fight like Green Berets, Marines or Army Rangers - but they fought, and they won. In spite of Levin's slander of the Iraqi army, it was Sadr and his goons who called off the battle, not the Iraqi army. We're moving our troops out, we're spending less of our money on the Iraqi army, and when Basra exploded into battle it was Iraqi soldiers who bore the brunt of the battle as Iraq's political class united behind the Iraqi armed forces - in other words, everything the surge was supposed to accomplish was on bold display in Basra...and yet Democrats continue to denigrate the whole effort, and cast insult upon our Iraqi allies.

I'm heartsick over this whole thing, and I worry greatly for our nation - a great nation and little minds go ill together, and Democrats are ever more proving that they have the smallest minds possible; and they add to it a weak heart and cowardly desire to kowtow to our enemies, rather than fight them. They could win in November, and undo all that we as a nation have accomplished at immense expenditure of blood and treasure. All that has been fought for will be thrown away if Democrats emerge in control in January - Iraq will be passed on to Iran and the terrorists, Lebanon will revert to a Syrian colony and around the world nations confronting terrorism will seek to make the best deal they can, because they will rest assured that for all of America's talk, we lack the will to stick it out until victory. We've only just now recovered that reliability as an ally we threw away in Vietnam, and Democrats are bent on throwing it away again - and this time for good.

If anyone out there thinks that a President Obama will be respected by our enemies and that our enemies will delightedly negotiate a fair deal with us, then you've got rocks in your head. Anyone who believes that is a purblind idiot - our enemies will rejoice that an ignorant tool of the kook left is in charge of America, and the only thing the varied tyrants out there will fear is that some other tyrant might gain a larger surrender from Obama than they will. Iraq is, indeed, the defining moment of our time - we either win this in Iraq, or suffer a crushing, global defeat. And the only way we can win this, dear friends, is for John McCain to be sworn in on January 20th. Remember that! McCain means victory; Democrats mean defeat - and not just defeat for the GOP, but defeat for America.

Cross Posted at Blogs for Victory

Dr. Martin Luther King:

I say to you today, my friends, so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal."

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.

I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

I have a dream today.

I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification; one day right there in Alabama, little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.

I have a dream today.

I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together.

This is our hope. This is the faith that I go back to the South with. With this faith we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.

God bless you and your memory, Dr. King.

Cross Posted at Blogs for Victory

From EWTN:

Bishop of Erie Donald W. Trautman has canceled his scheduled appearance at Mercyhurst College, a Catholic school, because on Tuesday evening is hosting a campaign rally of Senator Hillary Clinton’s, LifeSiteNews.com reports.

Bishop Trautman said in a written statement that he will boycott Mercyhurst College's graduation in May in protest over Clinton’s visit. The bishop explained that he is disappointed in the Catholic school for not reflecting on the Roman Catholic Church's stance on abortion.

Thomas Gamble, the president of the college, allowed the April 1 Clinton appearance despite the teaching of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, which specifically forbids pro-abortion politicians from such appearances...

...Tim Broderick of the pro-life group People for Life asked pro-lifers to conduct a “pro-life informational demonstration” at Mercyhurst beginning two hours before the event.

He told LifesiteNews.com that Senator Clinton’s appearance would "mislead the general public about Hillary and Bill Clinton's extreme commitment to actively promoting abortion in America and around the world." It would also mislead the public in general and Catholics in particular about the Catholic Church's very cogent recognition that abortion is precisely the murder of an innocent human being, and that establishing legal protection for the unborn is a matter of tremendous urgency.”

"We are hoping the Erie Catholic Diocese will be able to force a cancellation of this event," Broderick said.

I am hoping, too - what on earth would make Catholics wish to provide a sense of respectability to a person who de-facto advocates for abortion in the United States and around the world? All such an appearance does is allow Hillary - and other Culture of Death politicians - to confuse the issue. It allows them to seem like they aren't in the pro-abortion camp - in a Catholic setting, Hillary will get another chance to offer up meaningless "safe, legal and rare" rhetoric on the subject of abortion, all the while keeping in tight with Planned Parenthood, NARAL and other fanatic pro-abortion groups.

Hillary, in her run for President, has plenty of opportunities to present her views to the public - there is no need for Catholics or Catholic institutions to lend a hand to her dishonest and, ultimately, immoral views on abortion.

Senator John Ensign, Chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, wants to actually fight for victory:

The elections of 2006 were a major defeat for the Republican Party and a clear message that we must return to the core conservative principles that the majority of Americans still hold dear. I started Battle Born PAC in 2001 to help elect conservatives throughout the country; candidates who believe in smaller, more effective government, a strong national defense, and conservative values. I have launched the Battle Born website in order to engage with Republicans nationwide and to help gather support for Republican candidates in our quest to recapture Congress and to retain control of the White House in 2008. As the new Chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC), I will lead the fight to regain majority in the United States Senate, and I need your support to help me lead our Senate campaigns to victory.

I know that grassroots Reagan Republicans form the bedrock of our GOP, and we must motivate and mobilize this election cycle. We cannot let Democrats occupy these important offices and have a chance to inflict their liberal agenda on America. Please join with me over the next year and a half to do everything necessary to elect Republicans nationally and in your local area. This website is an initial step in our efforts to regain the majority in Congress, and I hope you will take the time to explore the site and commit to help electing Republicans in 2008.

Shortly after the 2006 debacle, I was on a blogger conference call with a House GOPer who shall remain nameless, but who was proud to tell us, in essence, that the whole GOP plan for 2006 was to limit losses. I was flabbergasted - a mere four years after the GOP bucked the mid-term trend and regained full control of Congress, the GOP had reverted to inside-the-box thinking and was convinced from the get-go that we'd lose in 2006, and wouldn't it be swell to lose by a smaller margin than we might have!

If you are in a fight - of any sort - then you must fight to win, or you shouldn't fight at all. Senator Ensign seems to understand this, and I hope all GOPers who want to win will join in the battle.

Battle Born PAC website.

As expressed by Star Parker:

Dear John McCain,

Every relationship requires effort. I want to do my part. But there needs to be common ground to start with, and you're making it harder and harder for me to find where it is.

I'm an optimist and a woman of faith. I believe we are strong because our nation is meant to be, as President Reagan often reminded us, a "shining city upon a hill."

You spoke in Los Angeles the other day about our country and its place in the world. You talked about political, economic and military strength, and international citizenship.

I strained to hear you mention our moral uniqueness -- our being that "city on a hill." But I heard not a hint.

President Nixon once observed that Americans often make the mistake of thinking that conflict in the world is the result of misunderstanding rather than difference of belief.

Because you seem not to appreciate that our beliefs make us different, you suggest more talk. You propose more international compacts and organizations, as if we don't have enough.

What exactly are the values we would share with others in your concept for a League of Democracies? The European Union countries can't even agree on a common constitution.

A 2000 survey of the United States and 14 Western European democracies checked the percentage of residents who never attend church. France was highest, with 60 percent, followed by Great Britain (55 percent), Belgium (46 percent) and West Germany (30 percent). The European mean was 36, more than twice as high as in the United States, which had 16 percent.

In 2004, the European Union rejected Italy's nominee for justice minister of the EU, Rocco Buttiglione, because he is an open Christian who condemned homosexuality.

We, of course, should strive for peace and seek commerce with all. But let's not forget who we are and seek some pseudo-tranquility by compromising ourselves and becoming more like others. Remember, John, "For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?"

I, like most Americans, share your deep concern about the threat of terrorism and radical Islam. I agree we should engage this aggressively.

But I'm afraid I don't share your sense that this is the "transcendent threat" of our time.

John, half our country today is ready to vote for a presidential candidate, be it a white woman or a black man, who favors promiscuous use of government power to pretend to solve every domestic challenge we have.

Both these candidates want to nationalize health care, raise taxes to deal with our Social Security and Medicare crises, and onerously regulate the mortgage industry. Both condemned the Supreme Court's decision banning partial birth abortion. Both reject the only hope we have for addressing our education problems: school choice.

I appreciate your concern for how we are treating the 600 or so detainees we are holding in Guantanamo.

But have you thought about the 2.3 million of our own citizens -- 1 percent of our adult population -- in prison? Ten percent of black men between 20 and 34 are in prison or jail.

If millions of low-income Americans would hear a genuine and aggressive message from our leadership about how conservative and traditional values address their problems, they'd be less susceptible to destructive illusions peddled by those like the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

While you spoke in Los Angeles, Social Security and Medicare trustees issued a report. These systems are bankrupt and in the red by more than $50 trillion -- several times our gross domestic product. This is more than a cash flow problem; this is a misuse of government crisis. Is this not a "transcendent threat?"

Our incidence of out-of-wedlock births -- almost 40 percent -- is 10 times greater than 50 years ago. Do you see breakdown of the American family as a "transcendent threat?"

How can we light the path to freedom for others when we are so clearly losing the way ourselves? I think the "transcendent threat" is the dimming of that light from the city on the hill.

I hope you can still listen, John.

Your fellow conservative,

Star

I've written about this for a comment on Blogs for Victory, but I did want to broadcast Ms. Parker's excellent letter as far as possible, so up on this little blog it goes.

In exposition of the core issues of our time, I've never seen it better expressed than in Ms. Parker's letter - her Christianity shines through and, I believe, the safety of our nation largely depends on how well we conservatives can re-implant Judeo-Christian morality as the guiding force in our nation.

It would be a wonderful thing if this were actually shocking:

Judge William Voy's first defendant of the day is a baby-faced girl who has just turned 13.

She also just violated probation on prostitution charges, having run away again from a Las Vegas group home and gotten arrested in Los Angeles -- for prostitution.

"The police officer just picked me up for no reason," she says.

The girl smiles sweetly at Voy and comes across as perfectly comfortable, thank you, in her detention center-issued purple sweatshirt and handcuffs.

"I don't know if I believe you at this point," Voy tells her.

Welcome to teen prostitution court, Voy's standing once-a-week appointment with various young girls caught up in something very grown-up and ugly.

Grown up and ugly? Well, I can see the ugly part - but what is so grown up about teen sex? Isn't it - or, at least, shouldn't it be - that adults are responsible members of society who choose the right thing, at least a majority of the time? What sort of adult is it who pays a 13 year old for sex? Do adults wish to be catagorised in a group with a person who has sex with kids? Hardly - and yet, we are. By choice - by positive, we-really-want-to-be-like-this choice.

Now, kudos to Judge Voy - he's trying to find a way to help these poor girls; working out plans to have a place built for them, working on getting land for a site...doing, in short, those corporeal works of mercy we are supposed to do when confronted with the suffering. But, in the end and in the larger sense, Judge Voy - and those really wonderful people who are helping him in this effort - are spinning their wheels. To be sure, they will save some of these girls - years hence, there will be strong, responsible women who will be contributing mightily to our society and they (and we, as a society) will owe a debt of gratitude to Voy and others who took those first steps. But the problem isn't girls having sex for money - the problem isn't even, actually, a lack of mercy on the part of people who can help such girls...the problem is societal. We want this sort of thing to happen, and so it does.

Want it? How so, goes the question? Because people always get what they ask for - "ask and it shall be given" doesn't just apply to good things; it is a universal about human society. This doesn't mean, of course, that we get it exactly as we expect - but we will, without fail, always get what we ask for. And what we have been asking for - for decadas! - is to have child prostitutes roaming our streets.

To be sure, there wasn't someone back in 1968 saying, "hey, it'd be cool to have teenaged whores", but there were people over the years asking for the followinig:

1. Young girls to be dressed in clothes suited to a whore.

2. Young girls to be taught by mass media that their sexual desirability is the measure of their worth.

3. Young people being taught that pre-marital sex is liberating.

4. Young people being taught that sex is ok as long as you use "protection".

5. Men being taught that their strongest sexual urges are the measure of their worth, and must be satisfied in order to be healthy.

6. The whole of society allowing pornography to just flood into popular culture, including and most especially those parts of popular culture targeted by children 12-19 years old.

7. The whole of society going on a divorce binge, often for the most trivial of reasons, thus breaking down that strong family unit which is the only sure means of civilizing the young, and protecting them from the predators who would exploit them.

8. Relentless propaganda that pre-marital sexual purity is not only impossible, but foolish and counter-productive.

9. The mainstreaming of prostitution where we call the poor victims "sex workers" and tell ourselves that people choose to be whores, and so its ok.

We've asked for all of this, and we've got just what we asked for. Teenaged prostitution is just one of the many things we've asked for. We've also asked for massive illegitimacy; widespread sexually transmitted disease; vastly increased teen suicide; vastly increased teen criminality...and just so long as we keep asking for it, we're going to keep getting these and a dozen other gut-wrenching social pathologies. The solution, dear people, is to stop asking for it - stop, as it were, asking to be punched in the gut repeatedly.

In the grand sweep of history, this is the degenerate end of all those liberal/left hopes and dreams which emerged in the so-called "enlightenment" of the 18th century. It was the belief of those people that by pure reason we could work out to a nicety exactly what needed to be done - and first and foremost in this effort was the jettisoning of all those social and moral restraints supported by Christianity in general, and the Catholic Church in particular. The stunning ignorance - of history and human nature - of the elightenment philosphers ensured that their efforts would ultimate result in disaster. Sophomoric egoists, they presumed that if they hadn't thought of it, it must be contemptible and unworthy of support and while they never imagined a world of teen prostitutes, it was their errosion of morality which eventuated, 350 years later, in a judge trying to figure out what to do with child whores.

C.S. Lewis once opined that if you've made a wrong turning, the only way to "progress" is to turn 'round and go back to where you messed up, and change your decision from that point. If we really wish to be "progressive" - if, that is, we really wish to make things better generation after generation - then we're going to have to go back; we're going to have to jettison a great deal of nosense we've picked up in modern times, and humbly place ourselves at the feet of ancient wisdom, and learn our lessons properly.

Before dimwitted lefties start in on it - no, I don't want women barefoot and pregnant. No one ever did. No, I don't want to bring back slavery - the last great, purely Christian effort in our society was the end of slavery. No, I don't want people to be taught the world is flat - no one believed it back then, so why should anyone want to believe it now? As you can see, a lot of the objections to a return to sanity are based upon a completely false conception of what the past was like - those who don't wish to correct our errors construct a fairy tale alleging that but for the rise of liberalism, we'd all be miserable. A neat scare story, and useful in progandising the ignorant into thinking that the best solution to teen pregnancy is to teach them how to use condoms, but not the sort of thing that capable men and women need concern themselves with.

We need to go back in order to have a future - if we want to have a society other than depraved (and thus other than utterly doomed to complete destruction), we have to recover our sanity, and then start to relay the foundations of our society on objective truth, not on the bizarre mental droppings of people who lack the knowledge and wit to sit in judgement on Judeo-Christian civilization. Go back and recover our lost inheritence, or die; that, in the end, is the choice we face.

Fr. Neuhaus on Obama's speech:

...In applauding the outrageous statements of the Reverend Wright and his like, McWhorter writes, “they weren’t listening to them as logic, but as atmosphere.” He concludes: “I, for one, am still ready for a black president. I wonder if the rest of America is.” I’m afraid that a very large part of America is all too ready to accept Obama’s stereotype of blacks, and is therefore not ready for this black as president.

Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times takes a similar line. Yes, you may think it’s crazy to say that the AIDS virus is a government plot to kill black people. “That may be an absurd view in white circles,” writes Kristof, “but a 1990 survey found that 30 percent of African Americans believed this was at least plausible.” Absurdity and plausibility, we are given to understand, are racially determined. On the AIDS conspiracy, he quotes a black social scientist at Princeton who says: “That’s a real standard belief. One of the things fascinating to me watching these responses to Jeremiah Wright is that white Americans find his beliefs so fringe or so extreme.”

Kristof writes: “Much of the time, blacks have a pretty good sense of what whites think, but whites are oblivious to common black perspectives. . . . All of this demonstrates that a national dialogue on race is painful, awkward, and essential.” Those oblivious whites are, however lamentably bigoted and dimwitted, teachable. Although it will be painful and awkward, they, too, can be helped to understand that the idea that the government unleashed the AIDS epidemic in order to kill black people is not so absurd after all.

As I said, the Philadelphia speech was in many ways an admirably thoughtful and candid reflection on race in America. Yet the no doubt unintended message, reinforced by the senator’s pundit supporters, is that white people need to be more accepting of the strange ways of black folk.

This is not the first time I've heard the speech so catagorised - as an admirable attempt to talk about race in America. I have immense respect for the intellectual achievements of Fr. Neuhaus, and in matters theological I simply would not contradict him - but I am rather tired of all this talk of Obama's speech being something other than the dishonest, anti-human horror that it was.

I admit that I am some times caugh flat-footed by the opinions of black friends...such as when, the other day, a black lady I know (and very much respect for her intellectual and professional abilities) opined that, to her, President Bush is a Satanic figure. This whole issue has also brought to mind a conversation I had during the 2000 campaign with another black lady I know - she was, naturally, going to vote for Gore and she just couldn't fathom why I was voting for Bush...to her, Republicans are racist. When I asked if she thought I was racist, she said, "no". When further pressed that since I'm a Republican, and not racist, doesn't this cast doubt upon her basic view of the GOP, she had no answer. There is an element of the undiscovered country between black Americans and white Americans - but it goes both ways; that friend in 2000 wasn't the first black friend to be stunned to discover that I, a non-racist, am a Republican. If white America have a hard time peering into black America then so, too, does black America have difficulty understanding white America.

At the root of all human divisions is a lie - it was, of course, the original lie which divided us from God, and from that day to this, lies are always at the bottom of our alienation from one another. Once upon a time, white Americans deliberately lied to themselves about black people - viewing them as inherently inferior - and this lie separated black from white, and made a very difficult to bridge gap. These days, that lie is consigned to only a very tiny minority of very fringe Americans, but it has sadly been replaced, in black America, by a series of lies just as absurd as the lies white America used to believe about black America.

I don't know if Wright is sincere, or is just a con artist keeping a captive audience - but what he peddles, apparantly every Sunday, is a series of lies. Obama's problem isn't so much that he attends Wright's church, but that Obama at least implicitly agrees with the lies of Wright - and this, in turn, means that Obama is alienated from the center of American political life and, indeed, will continually do the wrong thing if he obtains office because he believes a series of lies.

Race in America is a very thorny issue. Secretary Rice recently noted that the difficulties of race in America stem from our national "original sin" - that we held to slavery our fellow Americans who happened to be black. This is a very true statement - but the cure for this inherited ill is to tell the truth about it, and about where we are today. Obama, by perpetuating the lies which divide, has done a great disservice to our nation, and to our national debate on race.

It is to be hoped that we will, one day, have a frank, national discussion on racial issues - but that day will be postponed indefintely if our national leaders lack the courage to challenge the lies which destroy, and even more so delayed if any of our national leaders actually embrace the lies, as Obama has done vis a vis Wright.

Robert Riley, once Reagan's point man with Catholics, points out that McCain will need Catholic votes to win:

Washington DC, Mar 27, 2008 (CNA).- Supporters of all major party candidates for the United States presidency are angling to discover how to best appeal to Catholic voters, who could be a key swing vote in the November presidential election. According to Robert Riley, a successful McCain campaign must win over Catholics to win the White House.

Robert R. Reilly, who was President Ronald Reagan’s liaison to Catholics between 1983 and 1985, wrote in an article published on Wednesday that Senator John McCain could not win the presidential election without the Catholic vote, which makes up about 25 percent of the electorate. “The worst thing he could assume is that [the Catholic vote] is going to fall into his lap because Catholics will have nowhere else to go,” he said.

Reilly argued that McCain could emulate Ronald Reagan’s successful appeal to the Catholic vote during his 1984 presidential campaign. Reagan’s campaign ran advertisements in Catholic newspapers featuring a photo of Reagan and Pope John Paul II smiling together. The photo, Reilly claimed, was effective because Reagan shared positions “completely congruent with those of the Catholic Church” on issues like the family, the sanctity of human life, pornography, and school prayer.

Riley went on to note that it won't be sufficient for McCain to just say he's with us - he'll have to to some concrete acts to ensure that he's not only part of the Culture of Life, but that he's willing to go to the mat for it. Anyone can say they want to limit abortion - Bill Clinton did, after all - but words won't save a single unborn life; actions are required.

We have McCain's pledge to appoint Justices in the mold of Scalia and Roberts, and that is a great thing - the most important, single thing McCain can do to advance the Culture of Life; but there is also the more day-to-day acts of government which can have far-reaching effects on whether abortion becomes more, or less, prevalent over time. Will McCain appoint people to regulatory posts who are friendly, or hostile, to religious groups who are involved both in the abortion debate and the efforts to provide alternatives? Will our mission to the UN aggresively push a pro-life agenda, or passively allow the Culture of Death to expand its reach in the Third World?

Beyond the life issues debate, there is also the broader cultural debate. McCain has placed himself in the forefront of efforts (thus far unsuccessful) to curb the influence of money on politics - will he also seek to curb the influence of money on popular culture? Much of the depravity in our popular culture is the result of unfettered greed in the entertainment industry...will there be any efforts to force Hollywood, as it were, to cease their slavish devotion to the almighty dollar and show some concern for the people they affect with their graphic violence and gratuitous sex?

These are the things we need to know about, and it is up to McCain to provide assurances.

Very strongly stated:

Clark County School District students tested in January on their grasp of first semester material in high school algebra and geometry didn't just fall short of the mark. The preliminary report on end of semester exams shows they missed it in a spectacular way.

Across the valley, 90.5 percent of 17,586 students who took the new end of semester exams for Algebra 1 failed, scoring at 59 percent or lower.

In Geometry, 87.8 percent of 18,792 students earned the equivalent of an F.

The 10,032 students in Algebra 2 also made a dismal showing, with 86.6 percent unable to achieve a passing grade.

The preliminary numbers jolted Superintendent Walt Rulffes, who said Wednesday that district staff are analyzing the test, its implementation and the scores to identify why students made such a poor showing.

"Maybe this is the shock we need to get the system fixed," Rulffes said.

I doubt it - if a continual failure pretty much across the board and around the country for the past couple decades hasn't shocked us into fixing the system, this dismal failure won't, either. Of course, since the problem is the system, there is no actual incentive on the part of those in the system to fix it - fixing it, you see, might require effort and acceptance of painful change on the part of those who make their living off the edcuational status quo.

The R-J conveniently provides some of the test questions at the bottom of the linked article - I haven't been in math class since 1981, and I was just about the lousiest math student one could imagine (much to the dismay of my mathematician father and physicist mother); but I aced the five sample questions just working them out in my head. As I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer nor a person with more than a cursory familiarity with algebra, etc, the only excuse for the massive failure rate in the schools is that the kids have not been taught the math.

The teachers aren't teaching, the kids aren't learning and the parents aren't insisting upon results - in broad terms, this is why the public school systems fail. Certainly, there are teachers who teach; there are kids who learn; there are parents who care...but it is abundantly clear that the majority of the people in the system don't fall into any of the three catagories (teacher, learner, caring parent). This, in turn, demonstrates the fundamental flaw of our education system - it is "free and compulsory"; as if anything is actually free (actually, our school system is fabulously expensive), and as if one could compel another to learn. As I've been saying for a very long time, time to scrap the whole miserable failure and start over again from scratch.

The people being educated - certainly beyond 5th grade - should only be people who want to be there, who are brought there by parents who will insist upon results, and are greeted at the schools only by educators positively on fire with the prospect of imparting knowledge to young minds. The only way to approximate this state of affairs is to:

(A) Abolish the "compulsory" part of education

(B) Provide vouchers and tax credits to parents so they can purchase whatever education they wish for their children.

Implementing (A) would turn education from a taken-for-granted right into a better-do-it-right priviledge. Implementing (B) would allow education systems to arise which are tailored to the desires of the parents and the needs and abilities of the students. No more keeping disruptive kids in school because budgets are determined by "butts in seats", no more "one size fits all" educational curricula as if all children were duplicates of each other.

We have entirely lost our way on education - we expect State and Federal governments to work it out for us; we expect that everyone will do well at it; we are bamboozled into paying a higher and higher tax price for a worse and worse product...time to stop this insanity and apply a bit of common sense to education.

A bit from McCain's foreign policy speech:

I detest war. It might not be the worst thing to befall human beings, but it is wretched beyond all description. When nations seek to resolve their differences by force of arms, a million tragedies ensue. The lives of a nation's finest patriots are sacrificed. Innocent people suffer and die. Commerce is disrupted; economies are damaged; strategic interests shielded by years of patient statecraft are endangered as the exigencies of war and diplomacy conflict. Not the valor with which it is fought nor the nobility of the cause it serves, can glorify war. Whatever gains are secured, it is loss the veteran remembers most keenly. Only a fool or a fraud sentimentalizes the merciless reality of war. However heady the appeal of a call to arms, however just the cause, we should still shed a tear for all that is lost when war claims its wages from us.

It is difficult, to say the least, to gainsay a man who has suffered as much from war as Senator McCain, but I dispute the notion - from whatever source - that war has been shorn forever of its glory. Churchill once opined that "war, which had been cruel and glorious, is now cruel and sordid". And so it had become - but mostly because barbarians had entered the fray and the civilized had followed them right down into the barbaric gutter. The civilized have now recovered from that, and now we stand clearly differentiated from our barbaric enemies, and no matter what their outrages, we remember that we are civilized - and thus, glory has returned to war.

Of sadness and death war has no lack - but the young man who volunteered to battle for what is right and who loses his life in defense of all that is decent has not fallen into something sordid, but has risen to a height most of us will never experience in this world. Far from the sacrifices of such men (and women) being incapable of bringing glory to war, it is their very sacrifice which sanctifies the war, and raises it to the highest and noblest of events. Perhaps it is the Christian in me - mindful of how Christ wasn't complete without His glorious Cross - but I just don't wish to live in a world where sacrifice is considered a sad thing. I don't want these young men and women to die; I feel terrible guilt that so many of them have died while I'm safe and dry here at home; but the key to a rational life is to keep joy as the lynchpin of one's worldview, including rejoicing at our calamaties, as they give us the opportunity to rise above narrow self-interest. Many long years ago, a woman penned what is our Battle Hymn of the Republic - I bring up the opening lyrics:

Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord;
He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored;
He hath loosed the fateful lightning of His terrible swift sword;
His truth is marching on.
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! His truth is marching on.

I have seen Him in the watch fires of a hundred circling camps
They have builded Him an altar in the evening dews and damps;
I can read His righteous sentence by the dim and flaring lamps;
His day is marching on.
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! His day is marching on.

I have read a fiery Gospel writ in burnished rows of steel;
“As ye deal with My contemners, so with you My grace shall deal”;
Let the Hero, born of woman, crush the serpent with His heel,
Since God is marching on.
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!

Written by a woman, there is a masculinity - and a joy - in these stanzas very much lacking in our discourse on war these days. Forthrightly, let us go into battle - the serpent still must be crushed, and we must abide the terrible, swift sword. Are we to forever go into battle haltingly? As if we fear it? If so, then I tell you, my fellow Americans, that our wars will be more frequent - and more bloody - than if we had stood to it with courage, and made the proper place for those men and women who do cover themselves in glory, even if they die in the attempt.

War is a terrible thing - but far more terrible is to cease being human; to become a sad, frightened charicature of men and women...people who seem like men and women, but who bear no relation to those genuine men and women of the past who swallowed their fears and went into battle transformed by knowledge of glory and steeled by the joyful knowledge that if they fell, it was for a noble cause, which would not be forsaken, or forgotten.

Fascinating:

Tehran, 19 March (AKI) - In its first session since last week's general elections, the new Iranian parliament is expected to discuss a law that will condemn to death anyone who decides to leave the Muslim faith and convert to other religions.

The parliament, also known as the Majlis, will debate the new law which has been presented by the government of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Under the proposed law, anyone who is born to Muslim parents and decides to convert to another faith, will face the death penalty.

Currently converts, particularly those who have decided to leave the Muslim faith for Evangelical churches, are arrested and then released after some years of detention.

The new legislation, which has caused concern in Iran and abroad, was proposed mainly because of fears of proselytising activities by Evangelical churches particularly through the use of satellite channels.

There has also been concern over fact that many young people in Iran have abandoned Islam because they're tired of the many restrictions imposed by the faith.

According to unofficial sources, in the past five years, one million Iranians, particularly young people and women, have abandoned Islam and joined Evangelical churches.

This phenomenon has surprised even the missionaries who carry out their activities in secret in Iran.

An Evangelical priest and former Muslim in Iran told Adnkronos International (AKI) that the conversions were "interesting, enthusiastic but very dangerous".

Kudos to my Evangelical brothers and sisters for the yeoman's work they are doing in Iran - and I pray that Catholic missionaries will soon join the fight, if they haven't already.

Its not that we necessarily have to convert all of Islam - though, of course, one day every knee shall bend and every tongue confess - but until Islam allows Christians, and other religions, to flourish, Islam will fall short of being fully civilized and integrated with the larger world. The fact that a death penalty is proposed shows that the mullahs understand the attraction of Christ - the freedom, real freedom, of Christians is something the mullahs don't want, because people so inclined will not long tolerate an aging, corrupt oligarchy running the show.

Now, we need to pray for our Christian brothers and sisters in Iran - looks like they may be in for a rough time.

Just flabbergasting:

Mikhail Gorbachev, the last Communist leader of the Soviet Union, has acknowledged his Christian faith for the first time, paying a surprise visit to pray at the tomb of St Francis of Assisi.

Accompanied by his daughter Irina, Mr Gorbachev spent half an hour on his knees in silent prayer at the tomb.

His arrival in Assisi was described as "spiritual perestroika" by La Stampa, the Italian newspaper.

"St Francis is, for me, the alter Christus, the other Christ," said Mr Gorbachev. "His story fascinates me and has played a fundamental role in my life," he added.

Mr Gorbachev's surprise visit confirmed decades of rumours that, although he was forced to publicly pronounce himself an atheist, he was in fact a Christian, and casts a meeting with Pope John Paul II in 1989 in a new light.

Mr Gorbachev, 77, was baptised into the Russian Orthodox Church and his parents were Christians.

In addition, the parents of his wife Raisa were deeply religious and were killed during the Second World War for having religious icons in their home.

Ronald Reagan, the former United States president, allegedly told his close aides on a number of occasions that he felt his opponent during the Cold War was a "closet believer".

It does explain why Gorbachev refused to suppress the growing revolt in the Soviet Empire - to me, this is just the amazing power of God, which brings light into even the darkest corners of our world...that a man raised to be a communist and taught atheism from childhood could still be reached by God (and by our good St. Francis, it would seem) shows that no matter what evil we see in this world, God is always working for our benefit. If we'll only trust in Him, all will be made well.

Interesting - from Real Clear Politics:

The host committee for the 2008 Democratic National Convention in Denver has missed a key fundraising goal, the Rocky Mountain News reports today. The committee, which was supposed to come up with $28 million by yesterday, stands about $5 million short, according to a spokesman.

It is the second time Denver has missed a deadline, making some nervous the party might not reach the $40.6 million goal by mid-June. Even that figure, the spokesman said, is probably short of the $45 to $50 million convention organizers will need to operate the four-day event without going into debt. Those watching convention fundraising suggest the shortfall is caused by the lack of a Democratic nominee.

The report does go on to note that the Convention fundraising is still outpacing 2004's effort - and so is the GOP's Convention fundraising effort. But one is left thinking - are Hillary and Obama just sucking up all the Democratic money? Will there be enough left for the Convention and the fall campaign? And not just the Presidential contests, but all those down-ballot contests for House, Senate, State legislature and governorship?

Time will tell...

Cross posted at Blogs for Victory

Details over at Blogs for Victory